{"book":{"title":"PoliRural+ — Bridging Rural and Urban Europe","subtitle":"The interactive knowledge base of a Horizon Europe project: nine pilot regions, Regional Action Plans, GeoAI and open data","url":"https://polirural-pbook.vercel.app/","license":"CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"},"generated":"2026-10-19","chapters":[{"id":"ch01-introduction","title":"Introduction","subtitle":"What PoliRural+ is, what it commits to, and why it plans for rural-urban flows","number":1},{"id":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Rural-Urban Linkages","subtitle":"From fragmentation to foresight to Regional Action Plans","number":2},{"id":"ch03-pilots","title":"The Nine Pilots","subtitle":"Where PoliRural+ meets the ground: nine regions, nine Regional Action Plans, and how far each idea has got","number":3},{"id":"ch04-geoai","title":"GeoAI & JackDaw","subtitle":"Language models grounded in place: the JackDaw Beta and a local knowledge base for Klatovsko","number":4},{"id":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Digital Tools: What They Do and How to Use Them","subtitle":"The PoliRural+ Beta platform component by component, with its real status and a step-by-step guide for each tool","number":5},{"id":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Food and Agriculture","subtitle":"Short food supply chains in four pilots, and what the open calls built for them","number":6},{"id":"ch07-policy","title":"Policy and Governance","subtitle":"EU policy frames, the 2040 rural vision, defining rural territory, and how a region turns a policy gap into measurable action","number":7},{"id":"ch08-innovation","title":"Innovation and Heritage","subtitle":"Rural innovation hubs, heritage platforms and the people-place bond","number":8},{"id":"ch09-community","title":"Community, stakeholders and open calls","subtitle":"Who delivers PoliRural+, how the pilots engage stakeholders, and how €850,968 of cascade funding reached 26 outside projects","number":9},{"id":"ch10-research","title":"Research & Publications","subtitle":"What the platform and pilots try to prove, and the outputs you can open","number":10},{"id":"ch11-results","title":"Results & Legacy","subtitle":"What the project produced, how well it worked, and what is meant to continue after December 2026.","number":11},{"id":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"AI Ethics & Trust","subtitle":"How PoliRural+ keeps people in charge of AI in rural-urban planning: principles, the AI Act, safeguards and known limits","number":12}],"blocks":[{"id":"ch1-why-rural-urban","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Rural-urban linkages: the flows that tie town and countryside together","teaser":"Food, commuters, waste, tourists and data cross the line between town and countryside every day. PoliRural+ plans for those flows, not for the line.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are rural-urban linkages, and why does PoliRural+ plan around functional areas rather than administrative units?","recallA":"They are flows of goods, people, information, finance, waste and social relations that link rural and urban areas. Because people live and work across administrative borders, PoliRural+ follows EU cohesion policy and plans for the functional area they actually share.","highlights":["Linkages are flows: goods, people, information, finance, waste, social relations","The Grant Agreement names ten key linkages, from food supply to digital connectivity","Rural areas cover 83% of EU land; in 2021 about a quarter of EU residents lived in rural areas","PoliRural+ adopts the functional-area approach of EU cohesion policy"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, §1.5 Rural-Urban Linkages, §4 Impact of COVID-19, Annex D Rural-Urban Linkages — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, Table 8 — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"}],"text":"Rural-urban linkages are, in the basic definition PoliRural+ uses, flows across space that link rural and urban areas: flows of goods, people, information, finance, waste and social relations. A second, less descriptive definition sees them as the functional links between sectors (agriculture, industry, services), which drive structural change on both sides (D2.2, §1.5). Two-way traffic D2.2 describes the exchange as mutual. Rural areas send food, raw materials and workers to towns and cities; urban areas return goods, services and jobs. Rural areas offer cultural and natural attractions to urban visitors and space to test new technologies. Urban areas generate pollution and waste that reach the countryside, while rural areas provide the ecosystem services cities depend on. The scale is uneven. Rural areas covered more than 341 million ha, 83% of the EU's area , in 2018. In 2021, 38.9% of EU residents lived in cities, 35.9% in towns and suburbs and 25.2% in rural areas (Eurostat figures quoted in D2.2, Annex D). How such shares are measured is the subject of the EU's territorial typologies and of the depth block in this chapter. Ten linkages that matter everywhere The Grant Agreement names ten linkages that play a significant role across the EU (D2.2, Annex D, Table 1): Linkage Linkage --- --- --- --- 1 Food production and supply 6 Infrastructure and transportation 2 Employment and labour markets 7 Environmental protection and management 3 Tourism 8 Social and cultural exchange 4 Education, training, healthcare, social services 9 Governance and policy-making 5 Research and innovation 10 Digital connectivity and technologies Each pilot works on a few of them. Apulia builds short food supply chains between rural farms and cities; Mallusjoki links rural events with Lahti and Helsinki; the Czech-Bavarian pilot builds cross-border ties to Bavarian urban hubs (D2.3, Table 8; see the pilot network). Functional areas, not administrative maps Administrative divisions were designed for top-down control and revenue collection, in an era of limited mobility. Citizens now identify with functional living and working areas (D2.2, §1.4). EU cohesion policy promotes functional-area approaches under its policy objective \"Europe closer to citizens\": policies for a shared territory cannot be designed separately on each side of a border. D2.2 states that this is also the approach PoliRural+ adopts (§1.5). COVID-19 made the interdependence visible: urban-to-rural moves, strained rural services and a stronger focus on local food (D2.2, §4). Where the flows break down is the subject of rural-urban fragmentation. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, §1.5 Rural-Urban Linkages, §4 Impact of COVID-19, Annex D Rural-Urban Linkages — PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, Table 8 — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01-spine-why-rural-urban.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages"},{"id":"ch1-linkages-tldr","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Rural-urban linkages in 120 words","teaser":"The one-minute version: what flows between town and country, and why PoliRural+ plans for the flows.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Name three kinds of flow that make up rural-urban linkages.","recallA":"Any three of: goods, people, information, finance, waste and social relations moving between rural and urban areas.","text":"Rural-urban linkages are the flows of goods, people, information, finance, waste and social relations between countryside and town (D2.2, §1.5). - Rural areas supply food, raw materials, workers and ecosystem services. - Urban areas supply goods, services, jobs and, often, better infrastructure. - Waste and pollution travel outwards; visitors travel in. People live, work and shop across municipal borders, so PoliRural+ follows EU cohesion policy and plans for the functional area they share rather than for each administrative unit separately. The Grant Agreement lists ten key linkages, from food supply to digital connectivity. Each pilot region picks the ones that matter locally and builds a Regional Action Plan around them. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4–1.5, Annex D — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01b-tldr-rural-urban-linkages.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#ch1-linkages-tldr"},{"id":"ch1-eu-typologies","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Where does rural end? Three EU ways to draw the line","teaser":"A region, a municipality and a 1 km² grid cell can each be called rural by a different rule. Here are the rules, and why PoliRural+ lets the region decide.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"By the OECD regional typology quoted in D2.2, when is a region predominantly rural, intermediate or predominantly urban?","recallA":"Predominantly rural if more than 50% of the population lives in rural communes (density below 150 inhabitants/km²) and less than 25% in an urban centre; intermediate if that share is 15–50% with less than 25% in an urban centre; predominantly urban if it is below 15%.","text":"There is no universal definition of urban. Each country decides for itself, and definitions range from a cluster of five households to an administrative boundary defined by population density and built-up area (D2.2, §1.3). D2.2 sets out three EU-relevant rules for drawing the line. 1. Region types (NUTS 3) Eurostat's urban-rural typology sorts NUTS 3 regions into predominantly rural, intermediate and predominantly urban by the share of the population living in rural areas. D2.2 quotes the OECD thresholds: Region type Share of population in rural communes (< 150 inhabitants/km²) Extra condition --- --- --- Predominantly rural more than 50% less than 25% live in an urban centre Intermediate 15% to 50% less than 25% live in an urban centre Predominantly urban below 15% none For scale: NUTS 2021 has 92 NUTS 1, 242 NUTS 2 and 1,166 NUTS 3 regions. NUTS 2 is the level that decides cohesion-policy eligibility (D2.2, Annex C). 2. Degree of urbanisation (local units) The degree of urbanisation classifies local administrative units as cities (densely populated), towns and suburbs (intermediate density) or rural areas (thinly populated). It uses population thresholds and contiguity on 1 km² population grid cells . The classification was introduced in 1991. Since 2012 it has used an improved methodology developed jointly by the OECD, the JRC and several Commission directorates-general. Eurostat calls an area rural when more than 50% of its population lives in rural grid cells. In 2020, almost 40% of Europeans lived in cities, a third in towns and suburbs and 28% in rural areas. The range is wide: close to 90% of Maltese lived in cities, and only 0.2% in rural areas (Eurofound, quoted in D2.2, Annex C). 3. Functional rural areas A JRC paper (Dijkstra and Jacobs-Crisioni, 2023) defines functional rural areas for all territory outside functional urban areas. It works in three steps. First, rural centres are the largest town or village within a 10-minute drive. Second, each grid cell joins the catchment of the centre with the greatest pull. Third, catchments merge until each has at least 25,000 inhabitants or lies more than an hour's drive from its neighbours (D2.2, Annex E). Of the three rules, this one comes closest to the linkage logic, because it follows where people actually travel for services. Why PoliRural+ does not pick one The Commission's Thematic Working Group on rural areas, set up in 2009 to review the 2007–2013 programmes, found that only a minority of rural development programmes used the OECD definition. It proposed building blocks instead: physical handicap, environmental sensitivity and socio-economic disadvantage, to be weighted per region. D2.2 draws the conclusion for the project: PoliRural+ is user-driven, so it adopts the local stakeholders' own definition of which areas are rural or urban (D2.2, §1.3 and Annex C). The statistics serve as evidence; they do not replace the local definition. Legal definitions used in EU policy are covered in defining rural. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.3 Definition of Urban and Rural Areas, Annex C Definition of Urban and Rural Areas, Annex E Definition of functional rural areas in the EU — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01c-depth-eu-typologies.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#ch1-eu-typologies"},{"id":"rural-or-urban-game","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Rural, Intermediate or Urban?","teaser":"Eight regions, one OECD rule: sort them by the share of people living in rural communes.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01d-game-rural-or-urban.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#rural-or-urban-game"},{"id":"ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Watch: a day of rural-urban flows","teaser":"Six flows cross the border between countryside and town all day long. Watch them start one by one, then see the outline PoliRural+ plans for.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"animation","recallQ":"Name three flows that run from the countryside to the town and three that run back, and say what the final outline in the animation stands for.","recallA":"Food and raw materials, workers and commuters, and ecosystem services such as water and clean air go to the town; goods, services and jobs, visitors to nature and heritage, and waste and pollution go to the countryside. The outline is the functional area: the territory people actually share, which PoliRural+ plans for instead of each side of the administrative border.","text":"The animation draws the exchange that D2.2 describes in words. The countryside sends food and raw materials , workers and the ecosystem services cities depend on; the town returns goods, services and jobs , sends visitors to natural and cultural attractions, and sends its waste and pollution out to the countryside. The flows keep moving because they never stop: they are the everyday traffic of one territory. Watch the dashed administrative border in the middle. None of the flows respects it. That is why the last thing to appear is the functional area , the shared territory that EU cohesion policy plans for and that PoliRural+ adopts as its frame (D2.2, §1.4–1.5). The full list of ten linkages is in rural-urban linkages. If your device is set to reduce motion, you see the finished picture without movement. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, §1.5 Rural-Urban Linkages, Annex D Rural-Urban Linkages — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01e-anim-rural-urban-flows.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows"},{"id":"ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows-cs","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Podívejte se: den toků mezi venkovem a městem","teaser":"Šest toků překračuje hranici mezi venkovem a městem celý den. Sledujte, jak se rozběhnou, a pak uvidíte obrys, pro který PoliRural+ plánuje.","lang":"cs","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"animation","recallQ":"Jmenujte tři toky z venkova do města a tři opačným směrem a řekněte, co znamená obrys na konci animace.","recallA":"Do města jdou potraviny a suroviny, pracující a dojíždějící a ekosystémové služby jako voda a čistý vzduch; na venkov jde zboží, služby a práce, návštěvníci přírody a památek a odpad a znečištění. Obrys je funkční území: území, které lidé skutečně sdílejí a pro které PoliRural+ plánuje místo každé strany administrativní hranice zvlášť.","text":"Animace kreslí výměnu, kterou D2.2 popisuje slovy. Venkov posílá potraviny a suroviny , pracovní sílu a ekosystémové služby , na kterých města závisejí. Město vrací zboží, služby a práci , posílá návštěvníky za přírodou a památkami a vyváží na venkov svůj odpad a znečištění . Toky se pohybují pořád, protože se nikdy nezastaví: jsou to všední cesty jednoho území. Všimněte si přerušované administrativní hranice uprostřed. Žádný tok ji nerespektuje. Proto se jako poslední objeví funkční území : sdílené území, pro které plánuje kohezní politika EU a které PoliRural+ přebírá jako svůj rámec (D2.2, §1.4–1.5). Celý seznam deseti vazeb je v bloku vazby mezi venkovem a městem. Pokud máte v zařízení nastavené omezení pohybu, uvidíte hotový obrázek bez animace. Zdroje: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, §1.5 Rural-Urban Linkages, Annex D Rural-Urban Linkages — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/01f-cs-anim-toky.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#ch1-anim-rural-urban-flows-cs"},{"id":"ch1-question","concept":"rural-urban-linkages","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban linkages","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Which Definition of Rural Goes Into the Plan?","teaser":"A county team starts its Regional Action Plan and must decide which parts of its territory count as rural. Which rule should it use?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"A county development team is starting its Regional Action Plan on local food and services. Before the first workshop it has to decide which parts of the county count as \"rural\" and which as \"urban\". Which rule should the plan use? A) \"The Eurostat urban-rural typology\" Use the NUTS 3 label: the county is \"intermediate\", so treat the whole county as intermediate. B) \"The degree of urbanisation\" Classify every municipality as city, town and suburb, or rural area, using the 1 km² grid method. C) \"Let the stakeholders define it, with the statistics as evidence\" Ask the people who live and work in the area where they see rural and urban, and test their view against Eurostat data. D) \"Municipal boundaries\" Treat each municipality as rural or urban based on its own legal status, since that is where budgets and planning powers sit. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch01-introduction/05-question-intro.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-linkages#ch1-question"},{"id":"ch1-polirural-plus","concept":"polirural-plus-project","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ project","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"PoliRural+ in one page: 36 months, 20 partners, 9 pilots","teaser":"A Horizon Europe Innovation Action led by CTU Prague that takes the rural foresight of PoliRural and extends it to whole rural-urban regions.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is PoliRural+, and how does it extend its predecessor PoliRural?","recallA":"A Horizon Europe Innovation Action (GA 101136910, 2024–2026, coordinated by CTU Prague, 20 partners in 13 countries). It takes PoliRural's foresight process and ICT toolbox, validated by 12 rural action plans, and applies it to regions that include urban and rural areas, through 9 pilots.","highlights":["Grant Agreement 101136910, Horizon Europe Cluster 6, Innovation Action, 1 Jan 2024 – 31 Dec 2026","20 beneficiaries from 13 countries, coordinated by Czech Technical University in Prague","Predecessor PoliRural (H2020, June 2019 – Sept 2022) validated its toolbox with 12 Regional Action Plans","9 pilot regions, 8 of them continuing from PoliRural"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): programme, dates, consortium, budget, pilots, governance bodies","url":null},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, Project description and Background of PoliRuralPlus — poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"PoliRural+ (PoliRuralPlus in the Grant Agreement) is a Horizon Europe Innovation Action under grant agreement No 101136910 . It is funded from Cluster 6, call HORIZON-CL6-2023-COMMUNITIES-01, and managed by the European Research Executive Agency (REA). It runs for 36 months, from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2026 . In October 2026 it is in month 34, and its final conference is set for 20 November 2026 at CTU Prague (hybrid). The facts --- --- Coordinator Czech Technical University in Prague (CVUT) Consortium 20 beneficiaries from 13 countries: CZ, IE, SK, EL, IT, FI, DE, NO, PL, ES, BE, LV, MT Partner types universities and research bodies, public bodies, non-profits, companies Total eligible cost / EU contribution EUR 6,201,312.50 / EUR 5,498,673.50 Support to third parties EUR 900,000 for open calls, at most EUR 60,000 per recipient Pilots 9 regions, from County Monaghan (IE) to Malta and Gozo The project is steered by a Project Management Office, a Project Executive Board of work-package leaders and an Advisory Board. Who does what is covered in the consortium. What it is for The project website states its core mission: to tackle administrative fragmentation, inequality and inefficiencies in public service coordination between rural and urban areas. It uses a set of digital tools (AI, GIS, Internet of Things, data analytics) and 9 pilot projects that test an EU-wide integrated approach to territorial planning and action foresight. Each pilot writes a Regional Action Plan with its stakeholders. The goals are broken down in the seven objectives. The \"plus\" PoliRural (Horizon 2020, 1 June 2019 – 30 September 2022) developed an action-oriented Foresight Process and ICT Tool Box , validated by 12 Regional Action Plans focused on rural areas and people. Its recommendations included new governance models, stronger local and regional capacity for integrated strategies, and a firmer evidence base on rural-urban development. PoliRural+ follows that agenda and widens the scope \"to regions that include both urban and rural areas, and anything in between\" (website, Objectives). Eight of the nine pilots continue from PoliRural. Chapter 3 covers the pilot network. The project's tools, from the JackDaw geospatial agent to the MAATool, are covered in chapters 4 and 5. Sources: - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): programme, dates, consortium, budget, pilots, governance bodies - PoliRural+ website, Project description and Background of PoliRuralPlus — poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch01-introduction/02-spine-polirural-plus.md","kb":"/kb/polirural-plus-project"},{"id":"ch1-seven-objectives","concept":"seven-objectives","conceptTitle":"The seven objectives","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"Seven objectives, from foresight framework to New European Bauhaus","teaser":"What the Grant Agreement commits PoliRural+ to deliver, which work packages carry each objective, and which targets are measurable.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the seven specific objectives of PoliRural+ and which two carry numeric targets?","recallA":"O1 foresight framework for interregional cooperation; O2 strategies and action plans for rural business and innovation; O3 mutual access to services and social connectivity; O4 contribution to Green Deal, CAP, LTVRA and Territorial Agenda 2030; O5 use of research infrastructures and data sources; O6 mission-oriented experimentation (target: over 100 recognised best practices); O7 synergies with the New European Bauhaus (targets: 20 projects, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops).","highlights":["O1 is the backbone: a foresight-based framework for interregional cooperation (WP1–WP5)","O5 names the data: EOSC, EU Data Spaces, INSPIRE, Copernicus, DIAS, Eurostat, FAO","O6 target: more than 100 recognised best practices","O7 targets: 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objectives O1–O7, work-package mapping, KPIs","url":null},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, Objectives — poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"}],"text":"The Grant Agreement sets out one overall aim: to take the PoliRural approach from rural regions to regions that include both urban and rural areas. It then breaks that aim into seven specific objectives . Each objective is assigned to work packages, and two of them carry numeric targets. Objective (Grant Agreement, shortened) Work packages --- --- --- O1 A foresight-based framework for interregional cooperation and coordination that overcomes policy barriers and improves governance for integrated, smart rural-urban strategies WP1–WP5 O2 Integrated strategies and action plans that improve business and innovation opportunities in rural areas: a more proximate, circular and green economy, better connectivity, better use of cultural and natural heritage, stronger innovation ecosystems WP4, WP5 O3 Mutual access to services and social connectivity between rural and urban areas; resilience and capacity for innovation through regional action plans and pilots WP2, WP3, WP5, WP6 O4 Contribution to the European Green Deal (farm-to-fork, biodiversity, organic action plan), the CAP, the long-term vision for rural areas, the \"Research and innovation for rural communities\" flagship and the Territorial Agenda 2030 WP3–WP6 O5 Cross-disciplinary use of research infrastructures and data : EOSC, EU Data Spaces, INSPIRE, Copernicus, DIAS, Eurostat, FAO WP2, WP4, WP5, WP6 O6 Mission-oriented experimentation : data-driven decision-making, collaborative analysis, system dynamics, for a well-being economy. Target: more than 100 recognised best practices WP3–WP6 O7 Synergies with the New European Bauhaus and other EU projects, carrying ideas from urban to rural settings and back. Targets: 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops WP6, WP7 How to read the list O1 is the method. The foresight framework is what every pilot applies, which is why five work packages share it. O2 and O3 are the outcomes in the pilot regions. O2 covers jobs and enterprise, O3 covers services and social ties. Both are delivered through Regional Action Plans. O4 and O7 tie the pilots to EU frameworks. D3.1 turns these two objectives into a rule for every action plan: it must contribute to the long-term vision for rural areas and to the New European Bauhaus (see the EU policy context). O5 and O6 are about evidence. O5 lists the open data the tools draw on, including Copernicus. O6 asks for experiments whose results can be recognised as best practice. The project's practice collection is described in the Atlas of practices. The website wording of O6 spells out what \"well-being economy\" covers: proximity, circularity, green economy and society, services, culture, landscape and heritage, and mobility. Sources: - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objectives O1–O7, work-package mapping, KPIs - PoliRural+ website, Objectives — poliruralplus.eu - D3.1 RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/03-spine-seven-objectives.md","kb":"/kb/seven-objectives"},{"id":"ch1-eu-context","concept":"eu-rural-policy-context","conceptTitle":"The EU policy context of PoliRural+","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch01-introduction","title":"The EU frameworks every PoliRural+ action plan must serve","teaser":"Territorial cohesion, the Rural Pact, the 2040 rural vision and the New European Bauhaus: what each asks of a Regional Action Plan.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which EU frameworks must every PoliRural+ Regional Action Plan contribute to, according to D3.1?","recallA":"Every RAP must align with EU, national and regional policy, contribute to the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas (strong, connected, resilient, prosperous by 2040) and to the New European Bauhaus, and address an issue that needs urban-rural policy cooperation.","highlights":["Territorial cohesion became the third dimension of EU cohesion with the Treaty of Lisbon","The Rural Pact, launched by the Commission in 2021, links stakeholders at EU, national and local level","LTVRA 2040: rural areas that are strong, connected, resilient and prosperous","D3.1: each RAP must serve the LTVRA and the New European Bauhaus"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex D §2 Rural-Urban Linkages and Opportunities in the EU — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 (submitted), §2.1.1 RAP Diagnostic, §2.1.4 Synergies with the New European Bauhaus — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4.3 — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"}],"text":"PoliRural+ builds its plans inside an existing stack of EU commitments. D2.2 and D3.1 name the layers that matter most. Territorial cohesion. The Treaty of Lisbon made territorial cohesion the third dimension of European cohesion, with the aim of geographically balanced development. The first Territorial Agenda (2007) called for polycentric development and equal access to infrastructure and knowledge. It was updated in 2011, and the Territorial Agenda 2030 was adopted in 2020, stating that inequalities between people and places had reached a critical level. Cohesion policy is delivered through funds that include the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the EAFRD (D2.2, Annex D). The Rural Pact. Launched by the Commission in 2021, it is a framework for cooperation among stakeholders at European, national and local level, aimed at amplifying the voices of rural communities (D2.2, Annex D). The Slovak pilot promotes its national Vision 2040 on the Rural Pact platform (D2.3, §4.3). The Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas (LTVRA). Its 2040 goal is rural regions that are strong, connected, resilient and prosperous (D3.1). The RAP diagnostic form asks each pilot how its plan serves each of the four words (D7.4, §2.1.1). The New European Bauhaus (NEB). NEB stands for sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion. Objective O7 commits the project to synergies with NEB projects, and D7.4 maps NEB features in each pilot's plan. The Green Deal and its targets. D3.1 lists the EU targets that local plans must eventually translate into local measures: net zero by 2050, and \"Fit for 55\" (a 55% cut in CO2 emissions by 2030). The CAP and its next reform are on the same list. What this means for a RAP D3.1 turns all of this into three hard constraints. Every Regional Action Plan must align with EU, national and regional policy, and it must: - contribute to implementing the LTVRA; - contribute to implementing the New European Bauhaus; - address an issue that requires urban-rural policy cooperation . The full EU rural policy landscape is in chapter 7. How plans meet these constraints is in Regional Action Plans. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex D §2 Rural-Urban Linkages and Opportunities in the EU — PDF - D3.1 RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work — PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 (submitted), §2.1.1 RAP Diagnostic, §2.1.4 Synergies with the New European Bauhaus — PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4.3 — PDF","path":"content/ch01-introduction/04-spine-eu-context.md","kb":"/kb/eu-rural-policy-context"},{"id":"ch2-challenge","concept":"rural-urban-fragmentation","conceptTitle":"Rural-urban fragmentation","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Fragmentation: why neighbouring places fail to plan together","teaser":"Borders drawn for tax collection, policy silos and project-by-project funding keep a shared territory from acting as one. Here is the evidence PoliRural+ starts from.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does rural-urban fragmentation mean in PoliRural+, and which barriers did the pilots report most often?","recallA":"Administrative divisions designed for top-down control no longer match the functional areas where people live and work, which causes inequality, poor coordination and complex public services. Across the nine RAPs, the recurring barriers were fragmented governance, fragmented and short-term funding, and stakeholder fatigue.","highlights":["Administrative divisions were built for control and revenue; people now live in functional areas","Eurofound: the rural-urban income gap grew by about 19% in a decade; rural service gaps are increasing","Rural residents report lower trust in government and more often feel ignored","Pilot barriers (D2.3): fragmented governance, short-term funding, stakeholder fatigue"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ website, Main aim — poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, Annex D §3 Bridging the Rural-Urban Divide (Eurofound 2023 findings) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, §4.2 Review of the Updated RAPs — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): pilot RP2","url":null}],"text":"The PoliRural+ website names the problem directly: administrative fragmentation, inequality and inefficiencies in public service coordination across rural-urban divides. Borders from another era D2.2 explains where fragmentation comes from. Administrative divisions were designed for top-down governance, control and revenue collection , at a time of limited individual freedom and mobility. Today they cause fragmentation, inequality, poor coordination and complex public services. Citizens identify instead with functional living and working areas . Planning at that scale can use resources better and cut costs. But it needs voluntary cooperation among administrations whose interests, finances, natural resources and capacity to innovate differ (D2.2, §1.4). That last condition is the hard part. No one runs the functional area, so cooperation depends on goodwill, and goodwill is uneven. The Czech-Bavarian pilot reports administrative asymmetry between the two sides and complex funding coordination across jurisdictions. The Slovak pilot aims to turn a national rural vision into a cross-sector governance platform that overcomes policy silos , and recommends a cross-ministry coordination body (D2.3, §4.2; fact sheet, RP2). The gaps it leaves A 2023 Eurofound study, analysed in D2.2, measures what fragmentation leaves behind: Dimension Finding --- --- Income Urban incomes are higher on average; the rural-urban gap grew by about 19% over the past decade, though it fell in some Member States such as Germany and the Netherlands Jobs and youth Employment rises faster in urban areas; more young people are not in education, employment or training in rural areas Digital Rural residents are less likely to have digital skills or a computer, and have slower connections Services Gaps in public service provision between rural and urban areas are increasing Trust Rural residents have lower trust in government and in the EU, and more often feel ignored or disrespected Housing An advantage for rural areas: 6% of rural households are overburdened by housing costs, against 9% of urban households The trust row matters most for planning. Eurofound links unequal opportunity and lack of recognition to discontent, and recommends good-quality public services everywhere as the way to rebuild trust (D2.2, Annex D §3). What the pilots ran into When the nine pilots revised their Regional Action Plans in November 2025, the cross-pilot analysis found the same common barriers everywhere: fragmented governance, fragmented and short-term funding, and stakeholder fatigue . The pilots' answers were blended EU-plus-local financing, foresight-based planning and digital participatory governance (D2.3, §4). Fragmentation is not fixed by a single policy. PoliRural+ responds with a foresight framework that brings both sides of a border into one plan, and with the linkages that plan has to restore. Sources: - PoliRural+ website, Main aim — poliruralplus.eu - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §1.4 Territorial Cohesion, Annex D §3 Bridging the Rural-Urban Divide (Eurofound 2023 findings) — PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, §4.2 Review of the Updated RAPs — PDF - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): pilot RP2","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/01-spine-the-challenge.md","kb":"/kb/rural-urban-fragmentation"},{"id":"ch2-framework","concept":"foresight-framework","conceptTitle":"The foresight framework","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Foresight as a working method, not a forecast","teaser":"PoliRural+ plans with foresight: read the drivers of change, agree where the region wants to land, then get the people who hold the budgets to commit.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does the PoliRural+ foresight framework (D3.1) turn a discussion about the future into an action plan?","recallA":"It runs a bottom-up process with beneficiaries and a top-down process with implementing actors in parallel. It moves from divergent exploration of drivers of change (STEEPV, ranked to 2–5 priority trends) to a convergent agreement on a vision, an action plan and a financed roadmap.","highlights":["Foresight is a structured way of thinking about the future; the target is financed action, not a report","Two parallel tracks: bottom-up with beneficiaries, top-down with implementing actors","Drivers of change are listed under STEEPV and narrowed to 2–5 priority trends","D3.1 warns against 'toolheads': the method is a social process learnt by doing"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, Executive Summary, Overview of the RAP Methodology, Toolheads Beware, Phase II: Drivers' Analysis — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"},{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objective O1","url":null}],"text":"Objective O1 commits PoliRural+ to a foresight-based framework for interregional cooperation. D3.1 defines foresight as a structured approach to thinking about the future : understanding how the world is changing and what steps a region needs to thrive despite the threats and to build on the opportunities. The test it sets is blunt. The intended result of a plan is \"not a 'report,' but adequately financed action being implemented at local level.\" Two tracks in parallel Foresight work in PoliRural+ is highly participative and runs two processes at once (D3.1, Overview): - a bottom-up process with the beneficiaries , the people who will benefit from the measures; - a top-down process with the actors , the institutions that must implement them. Emphasis shifts from beneficiaries at the start to actors at the end. Who those people are, and how they are brought together, is the multi-actor approach and the quintuple helix of chapter 9. Diverge, then converge The work opens with a divergent phase: judgement is suspended and participants learn how change is happening. The main tool is a drivers' analysis that lists trends, drivers, enablers and barriers under six STEEPV headings: Heading Examples D3.1 gives --- --- Social age pyramid, gender, family organisation Technological road, rail, rural broadband Economic cost of living, housing, wage stagnation, energy costs Environmental climate, soil, water, biodiversity, plant and animal disease Political new EU legislation, CAP reform, Green Transition Values concern for the planet, food movements, cooperatives, privacy PoliRural left an inventory of 64 drivers across these six categories as a starting point. Global megatrends get localised : climate change becomes coastal flooding, landslides or crop loss in this region. Unfamiliar topics get a deep-dive workshop. Then the group ranks factors, by simple lists, a two-axis grid or multi-criteria software, down to 2 to 5 priority trends , \"certainly not 15 or 21\". The convergent phase turns that understanding into a shared vision and then a plan (see Regional Action Plans). Not a recipe D3.1 warns against \"toolheads\" , people who follow a checklist without thinking. It uses John Seddon's term and the quality-management tradition of Deming and Ohno. Creating a plan is a social process, learnt by doing, so the document advises teams to find a mentor and to use phone calls and meetings rather than long emails. Its newest element is Work Awareness Journaling : teams record how they work, so that low-code/no-code AI and automation tools from WP2 and WP4 can be co-designed to take on the heavy drafting, ranking and evidence-gathering. The updated methodology, D3.2, is due in month 36. Sources: - D3.1 RAP Methodology, Executive Summary, Overview of the RAP Methodology, Toolheads Beware, Phase II: Drivers' Analysis — PDF - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objective O1","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/02-spine-framework.md","kb":"/kb/foresight-framework"},{"id":"ch2-raps","concept":"regional-action-plan","conceptTitle":"Regional Action Plans (RAPs)","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Regional Action Plans: the D3.1 method in three phases","teaser":"Preparation, foresight, follow-up: how a PoliRural+ region gets from a list of complaints to a vision, an action plan and a roadmap that someone has agreed to finance.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the three phases of the D3.1 RAP methodology, and what three elements must the finished plan contain?","recallA":"Phase I preparation (theme, stakeholders, local-government partners, policy gap analysis, finance sources), Phase II foresight (drivers, vision, plan), Phase III follow-up and implementation (endorsement, roadmap adoption, monitoring). The plan contains a vision, an action plan of measures with their intervention logic, and a roadmap of timing, financing and responsible institutions.","highlights":["Phase I: choose a theme that needs urban-rural cooperation; find partners, policies and money","Phase II: drivers' analysis, shared vision, action plan, roadmap","Phase III: public endorsement, adoption of the roadmap by the actors, a monitoring committee","Without an adopted roadmap, D3.1 says, 'the RAP will remain a report'"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, Executive Summary, Overview of the RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work, Phase II: Foresight and the Regional Action Plan, Phase III: Follow-Up and Implementation — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, Table 8 — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, Work packages — poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (submitted) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): pilots RP1, TP1","url":null}],"text":"A Regional Action Plan (RAP) is the plan each PoliRural+ pilot co-creates with its stakeholders. D3.1 describes the method as driven by local communities and adapted to local needs, and it sets the goal: a RAP should end in financed measures being carried out, not in a report. WP3 writes the methodology and WP5 applies it in the nine pilots. The thinking behind it is the foresight framework. Phase I: Preparation This phase is done before any group work. The team: - picks a theme , often through needs gathering and issues analysis. The theme must contribute to the LTVRA and the New European Bauhaus and must address an issue that needs urban-rural policy cooperation (D3.1 lists climate, food, energy, waste, transport, housing, education, tourism); - identifies the local-government institutions to work with, the policies to align with, and possible sources of finance ; - runs a Policy Gap Analysis , an inventory of existing policies, strategies and plans, so that measures build on what exists and avoid overlaps. It also runs a Review of Institutional Arrangements and a Stakeholder Analysis. Phase II: Foresight and the RAP Phase II is highly participative and cannot start until the theme is clear. The team works through a drivers' analysis , a shared vision for a chosen \"landing place\" in time (5, 10 or even 50 years ahead) and a SWOT analysis prepared in advance, not brainstormed from a blank sheet. The output is one public document with three parts: Part Content --- --- Vision what the region looks like once the measures have worked Action plan the list of measures, each with its intervention logic Roadmap the order of the measures, how each will be financed , and which institutions will secure funds, legislation and programmes Phase III: Follow-up and implementation The work turns convergent and ends in consensus on an executable plan. Three things make it stick: 1. Endorsement. Key beneficiaries endorse the plan in public, for example at a final consultation, ideally with the implementing actors present. 2. Adoption of the roadmap. The institutions that must act formally accept the timeline and their duties. D3.1 says the question of who does what, and with what money, must be raised early. Without adoption, \"the RAP will remain a report.\" 3. A monitoring committee. People with local political standing follow up when floods, elections or staff changes derail delivery. Where the pilots stand All nine pilots revised their RAPs in November 2025. D2.3 reports statuses from \"early implementation\" (Spain) to \"advanced\" (Vidzeme), with blended EU and local finance as the common answer to short-term funding. Sources: - D3.1 RAP Methodology, Executive Summary, Overview of the RAP Methodology, Phase I: Preparatory Work, Phase II: Foresight and the Regional Action Plan, Phase III: Follow-Up and Implementation — PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Regional Action Plans, Table 8 — PDF - PoliRural+ website, Work packages — poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/03-spine-regional-action-plans.md","kb":"/kb/regional-action-plan"},{"id":"ch2-monaghan-rap-worked","concept":"regional-action-plan","conceptTitle":"Regional Action Plans (RAPs)","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Worked example: the County Monaghan RAP, element by element","teaser":"One Irish border county, one circular-economy theme: how the vision, action plan and roadmap of a real RAP line up with D3.1, and where the roadmap is still thin.","lang":"en","lens":"ireland","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"In the Monaghan RAP, what does the roadmap still need according to D2.3, and which D3.1 step does that correspond to?","recallA":"Funding beyond EU grants (EIB, private finance, LEADER+) and mainstreaming the Circular Economy Hub outputs into the county development strategy. That corresponds to D3.1's adoption of the roadmap by the institutions that must finance and implement it.","text":"The County Monaghan pilot is led by Monaghan Integrated Development, with technical support from MAC. Its RAP shows how a real plan maps onto the D3.1 method. All facts below come from the fact sheet and from D2.3 (submitted), which summarises the RAPs as revised in November 2025. Phase I: the theme The pilot's challenge is the circular economy : low awareness, weak collaboration and little finance for circular or green enterprise, with waste-to-resource and community energy as openings (fact sheet, RP1). This meets D3.1's theme test. Waste and energy are on its list of areas that need urban-rural policy coordination, and D2.3 records the rural-urban linkage as rural areas tied to nearby towns for jobs, services and education . The pilot also started gathering needs through a funded third party. GREEN , a EUR 5,000 Outreach project, scoped green and circular business opportunities in the county. It is completed, with its outputs approved by the panel (D6.3). Phase II: vision, action plan, roadmap RAP element (D3.1) Monaghan RAP (D2.3, Table 8) --- --- Vision Build a regional circular bioeconomy hub promoting green entrepreneurship Action plan Circular-economy business incubator, SME training, local supply-chain mapping Expected outcomes Stronger local circular-economy clusters, green jobs Roadmap: financing LEADER, ERDF, Horizon Europe The method has a technical layer too. Technical pilot TP1, led by MAC, defines and implements the RAP using action-foresight, system dynamics modelling and MapWhiteboard GIS (fact sheet). Phase III: follow-up D3.1 asks for monitoring, and the Period 2 priorities supply measurable targets (D2.3, §4.3): - establish the Circular Economy Hub and train SMEs in the green transition; - integrate foresight results into county policy; - KPIs: at least 50 SMEs trained, at least 3 new circular business models, a 10% waste reduction , and alignment with the regional climate plan. D2.3 reports the plan's status as \"active implementation\" . Where the roadmap is still thin D2.3's review (§4.2, Table 10) lists the weak points: limited access to national co-financing, a risk of over-reliance on EU grants , and gaps in linking the circular bioeconomy with youth employment. Its recommendations are to diversify funding (EIB, private finance, LEADER+), create a youth green-entrepreneurship scheme, and mainstream the hub's outputs into the county development strategy . That last recommendation is D3.1's Phase III in practice. A plan is only safe once the institutions that hold the budget have adopted its roadmap. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted), §4 Table 8, §4.2 Table 10, §4.3 — PDF - D3.1 RAP Methodology, Phase I, Phase III — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (submitted) — PDF - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): pilots RP1, TP1","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/03b-worked-monaghan-rap.md","kb":"/kb/regional-action-plan#ch2-monaghan-rap-worked"},{"id":"rap-steps-game","concept":"regional-action-plan","conceptTitle":"Regional Action Plans (RAPs)","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Build a Regional Action Plan","teaser":"Eight steps from needs gathering to a monitoring committee: put them in the order D3.1 prescribes.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/03c-game-rap-steps.md","kb":"/kb/regional-action-plan#rap-steps-game"},{"id":"ch2-question","concept":"regional-action-plan","conceptTitle":"Regional Action Plans (RAPs)","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"The Plan Is Endorsed. Why Has Nothing Moved?","teaser":"A RAP with a fine vision and a public launch, and six months later no measure has started. Where did the method break?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"A pilot region has published its Regional Action Plan: a vision for 2035, a list of measures, and a launch event where local businesses and community groups endorsed it. The plan was drafted by the pilot team with citizens and beneficiaries; the county council and funding bodies were invited to the launch. Six months later, no measure has started. What most likely went wrong? A) \"Too few citizens took part\" The bottom-up track was too thin, so the plan lacks legitimacy. B) \"The roadmap was never adopted by the actors\" The institutions that must legislate, budget and implement were not part of the process and never committed to the timeline and financing. C) \"The drivers' analysis was too narrow\" The team kept only 4 priority trends; it should have carried 15 into the plan. D) \"The SWOT analysis was too shallow\" A more detailed SWOT would have produced measures that stakeholders want to carry out. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/05-question-linkages.md","kb":"/kb/regional-action-plan#ch2-question"},{"id":"ch2-work-packages","concept":"work-packages","conceptTitle":"Work packages","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch02-rural-urban","title":"Eight work packages and how they feed each other","teaser":"Analysis, methods, experiments and pilots run in a loop; management, third-party funding, communication and ethics serve all of them.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which PoliRural+ work packages form the improvement loop, and which provide infrastructure services to the whole project?","recallA":"The loop is WP2 (analysis), WP3 (RAP methodologies), WP4 (experimentation) and WP5 (implementation and validation of RAPs), with WP7 feedback. WP1 (management) and WP6 (financial support to third parties) provide infrastructure services; WP8 (ethics) covers all work packages.","highlights":["WP2 → WP3 → WP4 → WP5, with results fed back to refine methods and tools","WP6 is Financial Support to Third Parties (the open calls), not communication","WP7 is Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation, and also hosts the NEB synergies task (T7.3)","WP8 Ethics works with an external, independent ethics advisor"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ website, Work packages — poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objectives-to-WP mapping, governance bodies","url":null},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 (submitted), §2.1.2 Funded Sub-Projects, §2.1.4 Synergies with the New European Bauhaus — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"The project website describes eight work packages: four that pass results along a loop, and four that serve all the others. WP Title Role --- --- --- WP1 Project Management and Coordination Infrastructure service: keeps every WP aligned with the objectives and the timeline WP2 Analysis of Rural-Urban Linkages and Opportunities The foundation: forms the multi-actor community and researches strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the linkages (D2.1 stakeholders, D2.2 linkages, D2.3 data analysis) WP3 Development of Methodologies for Regional Action Plans Turns WP2 findings into the RAP methodology (D3.1) and keeps an ongoing interface with WP4 WP4 Experimentation and Innovation in Selected Domains Puts the digital tools into practice in experiments using system dynamics and AI; results refine methods, tools and RAPs WP5 Implementation and Validation of Regional Action Plans European regions use the outcomes and tools; results feed back into the improvement cycle WP6 Financial Support to Third Parties Infrastructure service: the open calls that fund sub-projects supporting the pilots' RAPs WP7 Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation Shares results with stakeholders; their feedback steers adjustments. Task T7.3 handles New European Bauhaus synergies WP8 Ethics Covers all WPs, with an external and independent ethics advisor for the whole project duration (GDPR, AI transparency and explainability, third-party projects) How the loop runs WP2 sets the direction for WPs 3, 4 and 5. WP3 writes the method, WP4 tests tools on it, WP5 applies both in the nine pilots, and what WP5 learns goes back into the methods and tools. The objectives map onto the same structure: O1 spans WP1–WP5, while O7 (NEB synergies) sits with WP6 and WP7 (see the seven objectives). The work-package leaders sit together in the Project Executive Board. The partners behind each package are described in the consortium. Sources: - PoliRural+ website, Work packages — poliruralplus.eu - Project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, facts as published on CORDIS): objectives-to-WP mapping, governance bodies - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 (submitted), §2.1.2 Funded Sub-Projects, §2.1.4 Synergies with the New European Bauhaus — PDF","path":"content/ch02-rural-urban/04-spine-work-packages.md","kb":"/kb/work-packages"},{"id":"ch3-overview","concept":"pilot-network","conceptTitle":"The network of nine pilots","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Nine pilots, nine Regional Action Plans","teaser":"From a border county in Ulster to the islands of Malta and Gozo: where PoliRural+ tests its methods on real rural-urban problems.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does each PoliRural+ pilot produce, and why does the project run nine different pilots instead of one?","recallA":"Each pilot co-designs a Regional Action Plan with local stakeholders, summarised in a policy brief, and tests PoliRural+ tools and open-call projects on its own rural-urban challenge. Nine territories with different themes show which approaches recur and can transfer, and which stay local.","highlights":["Nine pilots in ten countries: the Czech-Bavarian pilot crosses a border; eight pilots continue from the H2020 project PoliRural","Every pilot drafted a Regional Action Plan and published a policy brief (D7.3, annexes 1–9, 11 June 2025)","Seven of the nine policy briefs recommend a new hub; five recommend strengthening the farm advisory system (AKIS)","Open calls brought outside teams into the pilots in four steps: Outreach, Mobilise, Develop, Enhance"],"parents":["regional-action-plan"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, as on CORDIS): pilots, partners and open-call caps. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2 \"PoliRuralPlus Pilots' Themes\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 1–9. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 \"Pilots' Results\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"PoliRural+ tests its methods in nine rural pilot regions , each led by a local partner. Eight of the nine continue from the H2020 project PoliRural. The network covers ten countries because one pilot straddles the Czech-German border. Pilot Country Territory Theme Lead (other partners) --- --- --- --- --- County Monaghan Ireland Rural border county in Ulster Circular economy, community energy MID (MAC) Slovakia Slovakia The whole country Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas 2040, cross-sector governance SUA (SRY) Central Greece Greece Region of Central Greece Smart farming, digital skills in AKIS, agritourism AUA (GAIA, NP) Apulia Italy Apulia (Puglia) Short food supply chains TIN Mallusjoki Finland Village in Orimattila, Päijät-Häme Rural event industry ecosystem MYA (SML) Czech-Bavarian border Czechia, Germany Klatovy district, Šumava and Bavarian Forest Cross-border rural innovation, Technology Campus model P4A (DIT) Sierra y Mancha Conquense Spain ADESIMAN territory around Segóbriga, Cuenca Cultural heritage as a development driver SINNO (P4A) Vidzeme Latvia Vidzeme Planning Region Monitoring regional development VPR Malta and Gozo Malta Both main islands Digital and entrepreneurial skills in agriculture AL One cycle, nine contents Every pilot runs the same cycle. Local stakeholders first chose themes: D5.1 records, for example, that Monaghan weighed green-economy entrepreneurship, sustainable tourism and dairy innovation before choosing the green economy. Each pilot then drafted a Regional Action Plan (RAP), and on 11 June 2025 all nine published a policy brief as annexes to Policy Brief No. 1. Technical pilots, such as the Story Pathways editor in Mallusjoki, test specific tools alongside. Open calls brought outside teams in: Outreach studies (up to €5,000 per project), Mobilise hackathons and ideathons (up to €10,000), Develop projects building place-based digital applications (up to €100,000) and Enhance projects improving PoliRural+ tools (up to €25,000). Several of them, such as DIPS and LocalLinks.AI in the Czech-Bavarian region, worked with the project's JackDaw tool on local data. Why nine, not one The spread lets the project tell general patterns from local ones. Scale runs from one village (Mallusjoki) to a whole country (Slovakia), themes from waste-to-resource systems to regional indicators. Yet some answers recur: seven of the nine briefs recommend a new hub (Monaghan, Slovakia, Central Greece, Apulia, Mallusjoki, Klatovy, Sierra y Mancha Conquense), and five recommend strengthening the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). D7.4 maps each pilot's expected exploitable results across five spheres, from societal to policy making. The nine pilot blocks below share one frame, so they can be read side by side. Sources: - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910, as on CORDIS): pilots, partners and open-call caps. poliruralplus.eu - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2 \"PoliRuralPlus Pilots' Themes\". PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 1–9. PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 \"Pilots' Results\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment. PDF","path":"content/ch03-pilots/01-spine-pilot-overview.md","kb":"/kb/pilot-network"},{"id":"which-pilot-game","concept":"pilot-network","conceptTitle":"The network of nine pilots","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Which Pilot Is It?","teaser":"Nine challenges and plans, nine regions: match each one to its pilot.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch03-pilots/10a-game-which-pilot.md","kb":"/kb/pilot-network#which-pilot-game"},{"id":"ch3-question","concept":"pilot-network","conceptTitle":"The network of nine pilots","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Which pilot would you learn from first?","teaser":"A planning region cannot tell whether its development programme works. Which pilot's route do you borrow?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"You advise a regional development agency outside the PoliRural+ network. It has a seven-year development programme, but municipalities report different indicators, statistics stop at the regional level, and no one can say whether the programme's actions move the region forward. You have budget for one first step borrowed from a pilot. A) Build the platform: an AI-driven, geospatial monitoring dashboard Commission the kind of system Vidzeme proposes as VPR PATHWATCH, and let the data follow. B) Requirements first: a needs study, then an indicator hackathon with municipalities Follow Vidzeme's sequence: define what monitoring must do, agree a shared indicator set, then standardise data-sharing. C) Open an innovation hub, modelled on the Klatovy proposal Bring municipalities, firms and researchers under one roof to coordinate development. D) Run a national-style visioning process, like Slovakia's Vision 2040 Rebuild consensus on long-term goals through participatory consultations. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch03-pilots/11-question-pilots.md","kb":"/kb/pilot-network#ch3-question"},{"id":"ch3-ireland","concept":"monaghan-pilot","conceptTitle":"The County Monaghan pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"County Monaghan, Ireland: a circular-economy plan for a border county","teaser":"How a rural Ulster county turned low awareness of the circular economy into a 2026–2030 action plan with two hubs.","lang":"en","lens":"ireland","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What three interventions does the County Monaghan Regional Action Plan set out, and how far has each got?","recallA":"A Regional Circular Economy Hub, circular waste-to-resource systems, and a community energy transition. The circular-economy hub is proposed; the Community Energy Engagement Hub has moved furthest, into follow-on projects such as a community hydro initiative in Inniskeen.","highlights":["Theme chosen with stakeholders: from green-economy jobs (2024) to a circular-economy RAP for 2026–2030","Barriers: low awareness, fragmented finance (LEADER, SEAI, ERDF in silos), too little anaerobic digestion and composting capacity","Policy brief: a national network of Circular Economy Innovation Hubs, starting with a flagship in Monaghan","The pilot's Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Model is listed on the EU Innovation Radar"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 1 \"Advancing the Circular Economy in Ireland\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.1 \"County Monaghan, Ireland\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §4 \"Ireland / Monaghan County\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Ireland – County Monaghan\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"EU Innovation Radar, Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Model. innovation-radar.ec.europa.eu/innovator/898902493","url":"https://innovation-radar.ec.europa.eu/innovator/898902493"}],"text":"County Monaghan is a predominantly rural border county in Ulster, with dispersed settlements, a strong agri-food sector and close ties to Northern Ireland. The 2016 census counted 61,386 residents, only 37 % of them living in urban areas. Drumlin farmland in County Monaghan. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP1), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory County Monaghan (Border Region, Ulster) Partners Monaghan Integrated Development, MID (lead); MAC, National Microelectronics Applications Centre (technical support) Theme Circular economy and community energy RAP \"Circular Economy in Co. Monaghan\", roadmap 2026–2030 Open call Outreach: circular-economy scoping study (MCA Consulting) From green economy to circular economy In 2024 stakeholders weighed three themes (green-economy entrepreneurship, sustainable tourism, dairy innovation) and chose the green economy (D5.1). The work then narrowed to the circular economy . The barriers the pilot names are low awareness, weak collaboration between businesses, communities and public bodies, fragmented finance (LEADER, SEAI and ERDF funding run in silos), skills gaps, youth outmigration, and too little anaerobic-digestion and composting capacity for the agri-food sector's organic residues. What the plan sets out The RAP has three interventions: 1. a Regional Circular Economy Hub , a focal point for SMEs, farmers, community groups, public bodies and education partners, offering training, mentoring, access to funding, and repair and reuse activities; 2. circular waste-to-resource systems ; 3. a community energy transition , carried by a Community Energy Engagement Hub developed with the county's Sustainable Energy Community network. The policy brief (June 2025) scales this up nationally: a network of Circular Economy Innovation Hubs starting with a flagship in Monaghan, a refundable 20 % R&D tax credit for certified circular products, capital grants for on-farm anaerobic digestion and biochar, a national waste-mapping portal, and more LEADER funding for circular pilots. The brief states that the RAP's findings point to at least 30 % waste reduction and about 250 green jobs from this policy mix. Where things stand The scoping study, funded through the Outreach open call, is complete. Its ideas workshop, run with Monaghan County Council, fed directly into the RAP. The Circular Economy Hub is proposed , with MID, the County Council and LEO Monaghan as the basis for keeping it going after the project. The energy hub has moved furthest: follow-on work includes \"Harnessing Hydro Power for Our Community\" with Inniskeen Enterprise Development Group. The pilot's Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Model is listed on the EU Innovation Radar. D7.4 suggests overlaying local datasets (CSO statistics, county development plans) in JackDaw; that is a suggestion, not a reported result. Monaghan shows the pattern most pilots share: build the evidence, then propose a hub to hold the coalition together. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 1 \"Advancing the Circular Economy in Ireland\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.1 \"County Monaghan, Ireland\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §4 \"Ireland / Monaghan County\". PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Ireland – County Monaghan\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu - EU Innovation Radar, Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Model. innovation-radar.ec.europa.eu/innovator/898902493","path":"content/ch03-pilots/02-spine-ireland-monaghan.md","kb":"/kb/monaghan-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-slovakia","concept":"slovakia-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Slovak pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Slovakia: turning a rural vision into national governance","teaser":"The only national-scale pilot: how a 2040 vision for rural Slovakia found its way into ministries' working groups.","lang":"en","lens":"slovakia","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is the Slovak pilot trying to put into practice, and through which governance proposals?","recallA":"The Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas in Slovakia 2040. Its RAP, 'From Dialogue to Action', proposes a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, a national Digital Innovation Hub, a formal AKIS platform and a Smart Village roll-out, to break the silos between ministries.","highlights":["The only pilot working at national scale: 2,890 municipalities, 60 % of the territory highlands","The Vision 2040 came out of PoliRural's foresight process; the problem now is institutional silos","Brief recommends a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, a national DIH and Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030","Reported uptake: EU Rural Pact Good Practice, National Tourism Strategy 2035, post-2027 rural policy working group"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 \"Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.2 \"Slovakia\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Slovakia – national pilot\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Slovakia is the only pilot that works at national scale . The country has 5.4 million inhabitants and 2,890 municipalities, 138 of them towns. Highlands and mountains cover 60 % of its territory, and the policy brief notes that 40 % of the population lives in its predominantly rural territory. A rural craft workshop in Slovakia. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP2), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Slovakia (national) Partners Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, SUA (lead); Rural Youth Parliament in Slovakia, SRY Theme Cross-sector governance for rural areas RAP \"From Dialogue to Action: Strengthening Rural–Urban Linkages through Cross-Sector and Multi-Actor Cooperation and Innovation\" Open call Outreach: DigiStake (CEDA), online stakeholder collaboration space A vision that needs an institution The Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas in Slovakia 2040 was written in a mission-oriented foresight process in the predecessor project PoliRural, in parallel with the EU's long-term vision for rural areas. The challenge now is institutional. Ministries, funding streams and advisory bodies work in silos. D5.1 records the most ambitious aim: anchoring the Vision in constitutional law so that it survives changes of government. What the plan sets out The RAP pursues three objectives: stakeholder engagement and a shared vision aligned with the EU Rural Pact; digital and smart transformation through a Smart Villages framework linked to Smart Cities; and cross-sector cooperation through a modernised AKIS. The policy brief (RAP 3.0, June 2025) recommends: - a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council and a national Digital Innovation Hub to steer the Smart Village roll-out; - a formal AKIS platform linking research institutes, advisers and farmers; - Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030; - a refundable 25 % tax credit for certified agri-tech, bio-economy and circular-economy investments; - scaling up the portal atraktivnyvidiek.sk into an open-data platform for consultation and co-creation. Where things stand By 2026 the RAP had gone through five versions, each revised after stakeholder consultations. The pilot reports concrete uptake: the Vision is recognised as a Good Practice under the EU Rural Pact and was built into the preparation of the National Tourism Strategy 2035. The pilot sits in the national working group preparing the National Rural Policy Plan (post-2027), the Governmental Council for NGOs adopted a resolution, and work with the Ministry of Interior has made progress towards a legal definition of rural areas (see defining rural). More than 30 participatory events reached nearly 1,000 stakeholders; the DigiStake project improved atraktivnyvidiek.sk. The Council and the Digital Innovation Hub are still recommendations, and constitutional anchoring is not among the results the pilot reports. Slovakia shows what a pilot can achieve through policy channels rather than new infrastructure. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 \"Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.2 \"Slovakia\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10. PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Slovakia – national pilot\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/03-spine-slovakia.md","kb":"/kb/slovakia-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-greece","concept":"greece-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Central Greece pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Central Greece: digital skills for farming and agritourism","teaser":"Ageing farmers, broadband in two of three households and an advisory system short of digital skills: what the Central Greece plan does about it.","lang":"en","lens":"greece","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which territory does the Greek pilot cover, and what does its Regional Action Plan prioritise?","recallA":"The Region of Central Greece. Its RAP prioritises smart farming, agritourism, digital upskilling and a stronger AKIS, and its brief recommends five regional knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy. Kythera enters only through the DASK open-call project.","highlights":["The pilot covers the Region of Central Greece; Kythera and Antikythera are the territory of one open-call project, DASK","Broadband reaches only 67 % of households, and large parts of the advisory system (AKIS) lack digital literacy","RAP aims at near-universal rural broadband and much wider smart-farming adoption by 2028","Brief: five regional AKIS knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.3 \"Central Greece\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §3 \"Greece – Central Greece Region\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (RURBAN Challenge, DASK). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Greece – Central Greece\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The Greek pilot covers the Region of Central Greece : mountains, plains, coastal zones and farmland around cities such as Lamia and Chalkida, with agriculture (cotton, olive oil, fruit) and tourism as mainstays (D7.4). Vineyards in Central Greece. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP3), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Region of Central Greece Partners Agricultural University of Athens, AUA (lead); GAIA Epicheirein; Neuropublic, NP Theme Smart agri-food, digital skills in AKIS, agritourism RAP Central Greece RAP, targets to 2028 Open calls Mobilise: RURBAN Challenge (Open Farm). Develop: DASK (DASKALOS APPS) The challenge The pilot names an ageing population and youth migration, a lack of digital skills among people working in farming, low uptake of smart-farming technology, and an advisory and training system (AKIS, the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System) that cannot close the gap. Broadband reaches only 67 % of households (policy brief). D5.1 set four themes: a greener economy, digitalisation of AKIS actors, agritourism, and entrepreneurship that joins agritech with tourism. What the plan sets out The RAP aims to raise smart-farming adoption substantially, grow agritourism's economic contribution and reach near-universal rural broadband by 2028. The brief, prepared with the Region of Central Greece and the Ministry of Rural Development & Food, recommends: - collaborative hubs that combine digital technologies, stakeholder engagement and links between sectors; - five regional AKIS knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy ; - access to financial instruments for smart agriculture, renewable energy and the circular economy; - grants for digital services in rural tourism and local infrastructure; - digital tools and best-practice repositories for evidence-based policy; - nature-based adaptation (floodplain restoration, fire-resilient landscapes, drought-resistant crops) in all county plans. Tools, open calls and status The RURBAN Challenge by Open Farm, a two-day hackathon funded through the Mobilise call, brought together more than 60 people from farming, business, education, technology and public bodies, and put PoliRural+ digital tools to local use. The Develop project DASK is building a single farmer-friendly gateway for the island communities of Kythera and Antikythera (see DASK). In D7.4, stakeholders asked for AI and smart-governance tools such as the PoliRural+ Advisor and the MAA Tool, but warned that rural connectivity has to improve first. D7.4 also suggests piloting JackDaw in an area with emerging tourism. The hubs, the academy and the grants are recommendations addressed to regional and national authorities. So far, the visible delivery is the hackathon and the DASK platform, which is still in development. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.3 \"Central Greece\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §3 \"Greece – Central Greece Region\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (RURBAN Challenge, DASK). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Greece – Central Greece\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/04-spine-greece-kythera.md","kb":"/kb/greece-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-dask-platform","concept":"dask-platform","conceptTitle":"DASK island farming platform","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"DASK: one digital gateway for island farmers on Kythera","teaser":"Marketplace, agritourism, training and a knowledge base in one place, for farmers who found the existing tools too scattered to use.","lang":"en","lens":"greece","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What problem does DASK address on Kythera and Antikythera, and what does it combine?","recallA":"Existing tools for e-commerce, training, advice and knowledge are fragmented, hard to use and not adapted to remote island farming. DASK combines a marketplace, agritourism experiences, training and a knowledge base in one farmer-friendly platform.","highlights":["DASK = Digital Agricultural Skills and Knowledge, a Develop open-call project in the Greek pilot","Built by DASKALOS APPS with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development and an environmental consultant","One platform instead of four: marketplace, agritourism experiences, training, knowledge base"],"parents":["greece-pilot"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Greece – Central Greece\", section Open calls (2026 text). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Develop call: DASK). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"DASK (Digital Agricultural Skills and Knowledge) is one of the six projects funded through the PoliRural+ Develop open call, which supports place-based digital applications. It belongs to the Central Greece pilot, but its territory is specific: the farming communities of the islands of Kythera and Antikythera . The problem it starts from The project names a practical barrier. Tools for e-commerce, training, advisory services and knowledge support already exist, but on the islands they are fragmented, hard to use and not adapted to remote island farming or to the local actors of the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS). A farmer who has to learn four separate systems usually uses none of them. What it combines DASK brings four functions into one platform: - a marketplace for local products; - agritourism experiences that visitors can find and book; - training opportunities in digital and agricultural skills; - a knowledge base for farmers and advisers. The stated design goals are a platform that is farmer-friendly, accessible and locally grounded. Who builds it The consortium is led by DASKALOS APPS, with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development (KIPA) as the local anchor and an environmental consultancy (ENVCON). Develop projects ran a mid-term stage in spring 2026 and were due to submit final reports in July 2026. The sources available here do not yet describe final results. DASK tests, at island scale, two things the Greek policy brief asks for: AKIS services that reach farmers digitally, and stronger links between agriculture and agritourism. Sources: - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Greece – Central Greece\", section Open calls (2026 text). poliruralplus.eu - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Develop call: DASK). PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\". PDF","path":"content/ch03-pilots/04a-spine-dask-platform.md","kb":"/kb/dask-platform"},{"id":"ch3-italy","concept":"apulia-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Apulia pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Apulia, Italy: short food supply chains between farm and city","teaser":"Producers know about direct selling; supply, logistics and cooperation hold them back. Apulia's plan targets 30 % more food sold through short chains by 2028.","lang":"en","lens":"italy","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which instrument does the Apulia RAP put at the centre, and what does it aim to achieve by 2028?","recallA":"Short food supply chains (SFSCs). By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % more agri-food volume sold through SFSCs, 20 % lower logistics-related emissions and 15 % more jobs in SFSC-related fields, backed by a proposed Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub and an upgraded AKIS.","highlights":["Focus groups found strong producer awareness of short chains, but fragmented supply, weak cooperation and high logistics costs","RAP targets for 2028: +30 % SFSC volume, −20 % logistics emissions, +15 % SFSC-related jobs","Brief: an Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub as a one-stop advisory centre, and a regional law on sustainable food systems","Three open-call steps: DEMO focus groups, INCO network, Field2Fork AI Hub shopping assistant"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 \"Enhancing Short Food Supply Chains in Puglia (Apulia), Italy\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.4 \"Apulia, Italy\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10 and Annex A §5 \"Italy – Apulia Region\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (DEMO, INCO, Field2Fork AI Hub). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Italy – Apulia\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Apulia (Puglia) forms the heel of Italy: hill villages, old farmland and hundreds of kilometres of Mediterranean coast, with cities such as Bari and Lecce. Agritourism, educational masserie (farmsteads) and social farms are part of regional life, and short supply chains helped producers through economic crises. Visitors at a farm stall in Apulia. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP4), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Apulia region Partner TINADA, TIN (lead; the only partner) Theme Short food supply chains and connected rural services RAP Apulia SFSC RAP, targets to 2028 Open calls Outreach: DEMO (Cluster Srl). Mobilise: INCO. Develop: Field2Fork AI Hub (EXO with the Regional Agri-Food District) The challenge The pilot wants to strengthen farming by linking it to services that make rural life viable: short supply chains, social and educational farms, educational forests, agritourism. It must engage young people, improve digitisation and skills, and tie research to practice. The DEMO focus groups found strong producer awareness of short chains, but also fragmented supply, weak cooperation, logistics and communication costs, little training and low awareness of regional policies. What the plan sets out By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % more agri-food volume through SFSCs , 20 % lower logistics-related greenhouse-gas emissions and 15 % more jobs in ICT, advisory services, food production and marketing linked to SFSCs. The brief recommends: - an Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub , a one-stop advisory centre; - AKIS funding for advisers and certification in digital and sustainable agriculture; - higher annual SFSC spending, co-financed by EAFRD, the national Recovery and Resilience Plan and private capital; - SFSC measures in the Smart Specialisation Strategy; - capacity building for 500 young farmers and women entrepreneurs; - a single digital permitting window, and a regional law on sustainable food systems. Tools, open calls and status The open calls built up in steps. INCO (Mobilise) formed a network of experts, producers and consumers to explore SFSC business models, including AI-based solutions. Field2Fork AI Hub (Develop) is building a \"Personal Farmer\" chatbot that reads natural-language dietary and ethical preferences and proposes several personalised shopping carts from small and medium producers across Puglia. The pilot reports that it mapped policies and funding for short chains, flagged gaps in advisory services and regional strategy, and discussed results with regional authorities. It also tested JackDaw for access to territorial information. The hub and the regional law remain proposals; D7.4 lists a \"Made in Apulia\" food brand among the expected results. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 \"Enhancing Short Food Supply Chains in Puglia (Apulia), Italy\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.4 \"Apulia, Italy\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10 and Annex A §5 \"Italy – Apulia Region\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (DEMO, INCO, Field2Fork AI Hub). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Italy – Apulia\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/05-spine-italy-apulia.md","kb":"/kb/apulia-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-finland","concept":"mallusjoki-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Mallusjoki pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Mallusjoki, Finland: a village building a rural event industry","teaser":"A youth association in a southern Finnish village plans to turn cultural events into a development engine that draws visitors from Lahti and Helsinki.","lang":"en","lens":"finland","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is the Mallusjoki pilot building, and what does its Regional Action Plan aim for by 2028?","recallA":"A Rural Event Industry Ecosystem: culture-led events that attract urban visitors and create local work. By 2028 the RAP aims for twelve annual festivals with 10,000 visitors, 30 % more rural SMEs linked to creative tourism, and a carbon-neutral main venue, tied to renovating the Green Cultural Centre.","highlights":["The smallest territory in the network: one village in Orimattila, led by the local youth association (MYA)","More than 1,000 people involved and a 23-member stakeholder panel","RAP targets for 2028: twelve festivals a year, 10,000 visitors, a carbon-neutral main venue","Brief: a Rural Event Innovation Hub and a partnership with Orimattila, Lahti and Helsinki"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 5 \"Developing a Rural Event Economy in Mallusjoki, Finland\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.5 \"Mallusjoki, Finland\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §2 \"Finland – Päijät-Häme Region\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Go Mallusjoki!, Avoin-Map). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Finland – Mallusjoki\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Mallusjoki is a village in the municipality of Orimattila, in the Päijät-Häme region of southern Finland, with Lahti as the nearest city. It is seen as typical of Finnish villages: farmland, community traditions and long-running cultural events. A model that works here could be repeated elsewhere. A village concert: the rural event industry of Mallusjoki. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP5), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Mallusjoki village, Orimattila, Päijät-Häme Partners Mallusjoki Youth Association, MYA (lead); Smart & Lean Hub, SML Theme Rural Event Industry Ecosystem: tourism from cities to the countryside RAP Mallusjoki RAP, with the Rural Event Industry Strategy 2040 Open calls Mobilise: Go Mallusjoki! (Avoin Ry). Develop: Avoin-Map (Avoin Map Oy) The challenge The pilot wants to turn cultural events into a long-term development engine that builds jobs, skills and self-confidence and brings in urban visitors. It has grown into an ecosystem of more than 1,000 people, with a 23-member stakeholder panel. The brief names the obstacles: an ageing population and volunteer fatigue, a 100-year-old clubhouse that needs renovation, visitors concentrated in summer, scarce last-mile transport and accommodation, low use of digital marketing and ticketing, and slow permits and finance. What the plan sets out The main deliverable is the Rural Event Industry Strategy 2040 for the youth association, with a vision, a roadmap and an action plan. By 2028 the RAP aims for twelve annual festivals attracting 10,000 visitors , a 30 % rise in rural SMEs linked to creative tourism, and carbon-neutral operation of the main venue . The brief recommends: - a Mallusjoki Rural Event Innovation Hub with a digital marketplace, AI-driven ticketing and one-stop advice; - three regional AKIS knowledge hubs and twenty certified advisers in event logistics, digital marketing and sustainable tourism by 2027; - a €40 million Rural Creative Infrastructure Fund (LEADER, Interreg, private capital) to renovate the Green Cultural Centre , add renewable micro-grids and expand accommodation; - zero-waste certification of events by 2030; - a partnership agreement with Orimattila, Lahti and Helsinki on marketing, transport and cultural exchange. Tools, open calls and status The Go Mallusjoki! ideathon (Mobilise) produced 51 event and service concepts. Participants showed high acceptance of AI in regional development, and the ideas fed into the RAP. The Develop project Avoin-Map is building open-source energy, zoning and activity maps and helped co-design the Green Cultural Centre. Technical pilots add a Story Pathways editor (local stories as mapped routes) and a ServQual app for service gaps at events. The strategy and the RAP are published pilot results. The hub, the fund and the city partnership are still recommendations. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 5 \"Developing a Rural Event Economy in Mallusjoki, Finland\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.5 \"Mallusjoki, Finland\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §2 \"Finland – Päijät-Häme Region\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Go Mallusjoki!, Avoin-Map). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Finland – Mallusjoki\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/06-spine-finland-mallusjoki.md","kb":"/kb/mallusjoki-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-avoin-map","concept":"avoin-map","conceptTitle":"Avoin-Map spatial tools","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Avoin-Map: open-source maps for a village's energy, zoning and events","teaser":"Three map services built for one Finnish village, and how far each had got at mid-term.","lang":"en","lens":"finland","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which three services does Avoin-Map build for Mallusjoki, and how far had each got at mid-term?","recallA":"An Energy Map (backend and interface design completed), a Zoning Map (a private online test version) and an Activity Map and Calendar (a first landing-page mockup). The project also fed spatial planning into the co-design of the Green Cultural Centre.","highlights":["A Develop open-call project: Avoin Map Oy with Feydec Oy and Saatsi Arkkitehdit Oy","Three services at different stages: Energy Map, Zoning Map, Activity Map and Calendar","Laser scanning, drone imaging and baseline design work for the Green Cultural Centre"],"parents":["mallusjoki-pilot"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Finland – Mallusjoki\", section Open calls (2026 text). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Develop call: Avoin-Map). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"Avoin-Map (\"Open-Source Spatial Tools for Smart Rural-Urban Development in Mallusjoki\") is a Develop open-call project in the Mallusjoki pilot. Three Finnish firms build it: Avoin Map Oy (lead), Feydec Oy and the architecture practice Saatsi Arkkitehdit Oy . Three services, three stages At mid-term the services had reached different milestones: Service Mid-term state --- --- Energy Map Backend and interface design completed Zoning Map Advanced to a private online test version Activity Map and Calendar First landing-page mockup delivered Reading the table honestly matters: at mid-term none of the three was a finished public service. Planning the venue The project also helped co-design the Green Cultural Centre , the venue at the heart of the village's rural event strategy. Here spatial planning meets community-building, in a design oriented to the New European Bauhaus. Early practical support included laser scanning, drone imaging and baseline design work . Why it matters beyond Mallusjoki The team reports strong stakeholder interest and good potential for reuse beyond the pilot area. The tools are open source, so another village can reuse and adapt the code. Develop projects were due to submit final reports in July 2026; the sources used here describe the mid-term state only. For a comparable approach at regional scale, built on open geodata, see the local GeoAI knowledge base in chapter 4. Sources: - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Finland – Mallusjoki\", section Open calls (2026 text). poliruralplus.eu - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (Develop call: Avoin-Map). PDF","path":"content/ch03-pilots/06a-spine-avoin-map.md","kb":"/kb/avoin-map"},{"id":"ch3-czech-bavarian","concept":"czech-bavarian-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Czech-Bavarian pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Czech-Bavarian border: a proposed innovation hub for Klatovy","teaser":"Bavaria takes applied research out to rural districts through Technology Campuses; the Czech side of the Šumava has nothing comparable. The pilot plans to change that.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is the Czech-Bavarian pilot trying to transfer across the border, and what is the status of the Klatovy hub?","recallA":"Elements of the Bavarian Technology Campus model, which takes applied research beyond the university into rural districts. The Innovation Hub in Klatovy is proposed in the RAP; a Memorandum of Understanding and a cross-border Steering Committee are planned to institutionalise it.","highlights":["Territory: Klatovy district (Plzeň Region) in the Šumava – Bavarian Forest landscape, linked to Deggendorf","Brief: a cross-border innovation hub in Klatovy, inspired by Bavaria's Technology Campuses","The hub is proposed; a Memorandum of Understanding and a Steering Committee are planned","Open-call projects used the project's JackDaw tool; the pilot uses JackDaw, it does not develop it"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 6 \"Unlocking Cross-Border Rural Innovation in Central Europe\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.6 \"Czech-Bavarian border region, Czechia - Germany\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §1 \"Czech Bavarian Border / Plzeň Region\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (FarmTourist, DIPS, LocalLinks.AI). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Czechia-Germany – Czech-Bavarian border region\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The Czech-Bavarian border region is rural, mountainous and sparsely populated, shaped by the Šumava and Bayerischer Wald (Bohemian and Bavarian Forest). The pilot focuses on the Klatovy district in the Plzeň Region and nearby rural areas. Across the border are the Bavarian research and innovation networks around Deggendorf. The main square of Klatovy. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP6), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Klatovy district and Šumava (CZ); Bavarian Forest (DE) Partners Plan4All, P4A (lead); Deggendorf Institute of Technology, DIT; CCSS co-authored the policy brief Theme Cross-border rural innovation; transfer of the Technology Campus model RAP Czech-Bavarian RAP: roadmap for the Klatovy hub, post-2026 Open calls Outreach: FarmTourist. Mobilise: DIPS. Develop: LocalLinks.AI The challenge Businesses, farmers and municipalities here are far from research institutions, business support and advanced digital services. Urban incubator and campus models fit sparsely populated areas poorly. Climate pressure on farming and forestry, youth outmigration, labour shortages, different administrative systems and the language barrier all make it harder. The brief puts the gap plainly: Bavaria has a decentralised network of Technology Campuses , but the Czech side, especially Klatovy and the Šumava, has no comparable support structure. What the plan sets out The brief recommends a cross-border innovation hub in Klatovy , inspired by the Technology Campus model, offering training, demonstration and networking for farmers, SMEs and rural innovators. Its other recommendations are training in precision agriculture, water management and regenerative practices; short supply chains and on-farm processing; equipping Local Action Groups to help with funding; and broadband and AI capacity in remote villages. The pilot describes its logic as Connect → Experiment → Institutionalise → Continue . Tools, open calls and status - FarmTourist (Outreach) ran the \"From Farm to Tourist\" workshop in Klatovy in January 2025, with more than 40 farmers, tourism operators, policymakers and researchers. - DIPS (Mobilise) held a two-day ideathon in Klatovy using JackDaw, MapWhiteboard and territorial attractiveness data. It produced four prototype concepts: Farmappka, AgriFarm, ViaPoint and a Regional Portal. - LocalLinks.AI (Develop) maps short food supply chains in the Plzeň Region and uses JackDaw as a GeoAI chatbot. JackDaw is a PoliRural+ platform tool that these projects used ; the pilot does not develop it. The Klatovy Innovation Hub is proposed , and the planned MoU and cross-border Steering Committee are meant to keep it going after 2026. The 2026 pilot text describes the hub less as a building and more as a support model combining networks, digital tools, advice and cross-border cooperation. Chapter 4 seeds a local GeoAI knowledge base for the same Klatovsko territory. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 6 \"Unlocking Cross-Border Rural Innovation in Central Europe\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.6 \"Czech-Bavarian border region, Czechia - Germany\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex A §1 \"Czech Bavarian Border / Plzeň Region\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (FarmTourist, DIPS, LocalLinks.AI). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Czechia-Germany – Czech-Bavarian border region\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/07-spine-czech-bavarian.md","kb":"/kb/czech-bavarian-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-spain","concept":"cuenca-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Sierra y Mancha Conquense pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Sierra y Mancha Conquense (Cuenca), Spain: Segóbriga heritage as a development engine","teaser":"A Roman archaeological park, a historic pilgrim route and 56 municipalities: can heritage hold a depopulating territory together?","lang":"en","lens":"spain","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does the Spanish pilot use cultural heritage, and what does its Regional Action Plan target by 2028?","recallA":"It uses the Segóbriga Archaeological Park and the Camino de la Orden de Santiago as anchors for tourism, entrepreneurship and cooperation across the ADESIMAN territory. By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % growth in heritage-tourism receipts, population decline slowed to under 0.5 % a year, three smart-territory digital solutions, at least ten energy-community projects and sixteen community composters.","highlights":["Territory: the ADESIMAN area in Cuenca (Castilla-La Mancha), anchored on the Segóbriga Archaeological Park","ADESIMAN, formed in 1997 from two local development groups, covers 56 municipalities","RAP targets for 2028 include +30 % heritage-tourism receipts and population decline under 0.5 % a year","Open calls: AI4RURAL ideathon in Tarancón; ARISE, a public platform linking heritage routes and local businesses"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 7 \"Revitalising Rural–Urban Synergies and Cultural Heritage in Sierra y Mancha Conquense, Spain\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.7 \"Spain\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (AI4RURAL, ARISE). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Spain – Sierra and Mancha Conquense / Segobriga\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The Spanish pilot covers the territory of ADESIMAN , the Federation for the Development of Sierra and Mancha Conquense, in the province of Cuenca (Castilla-La Mancha). ADESIMAN was formed on 7 January 1997 by merging two local development groups, ADIMMAC and SEDECUCE. It covers 56 municipalities and has run development programmes such as PRODER 1 and 2. Its cultural anchor is the Segóbriga Archaeological Park , and the historic Camino de la Orden de Santiago route crosses the area. The Roman theatre of Segóbriga. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP7), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory ADESIMAN area, Sierra y Mancha Conquense, Cuenca Partners Fundación SocialInnoLabs, SINNO (lead); Plan4All, P4A (support); ADESIMAN co-authored the brief Theme Rural-urban synergies and cultural heritage RAP Sierra y Mancha Conquense territorial strategy, targets to 2028 Open calls Mobilise: AI4RURAL Ideathon (ITECAM). Develop: ARISE The challenge The pilot wants to treat heritage, entrepreneurship, the digital transition and local capacity building as one agenda, not four. The brief lists depopulation, ageing and a male-dominated population; sparse broadband; heritage sites such as Segóbriga and Valeria without coordinated branding, digital integration or year-round visitor services; dependence on primary sectors; water scarcity and weak waste infrastructure; and fragmented governance and finance. What the plan sets out By 2028 the RAP targets 30 % growth in heritage-tourism receipts , population decline slowed to under 0.5 % a year , three smart-territory digital solutions , at least ten municipal energy-community projects and sixteen community composters . The brief recommends: - a Rural-Urban Synergy & Cultural-Heritage Innovation Hub with a digital marketplace, immersive tourism apps and shared workspaces; - an ADESIMAN Smart Territory programme linking four digitised archaeological and cultural sites by 2027; - an €80 million Cultural Bio-Circular Fund (CAP-LEADER, ERDF, private capital) and a refundable 25 % tax credit for low-carbon agritourism and digital platforms; - a network of rural service hubs (co-working, tele-medicine, e-mobility) in every town above 500 inhabitants by 2028; - five certified courses for at least 100 participants. Tools, open calls and status The AI4RURAL Ideathon (Mobilise), run by ITECAM in Tarancón, brought together about thirty professionals, start-ups and local actors to develop AI-based ideas for smart tourism, heritage, environmental management and local services. ARISE (Archaeological Routes for Inclusive Synergy & Entrepreneurship; Develop), led by the Obsidian Innovation Institute with Xilbi Sistemas de Información, produced a public digital platform that links archaeological heritage, cultural routes and local tourism services. It includes a business directory and an AI guide. ARISE is the pilot's working output. The hub, the fund and the service network are proposals. D7.4 adds an \"EDIL\" governance platform and AI-based tourism and energy modelling to the expected results. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 7 \"Revitalising Rural–Urban Synergies and Cultural Heritage in Sierra y Mancha Conquense, Spain\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.7 \"Spain\". PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §3 Table 10. PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (AI4RURAL, ARISE). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Spain – Sierra and Mancha Conquense / Segobriga\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/08-spine-spain-adesiman.md","kb":"/kb/cuenca-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-latvia","concept":"vidzeme-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Vidzeme pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Vidzeme, Latvia: building a monitoring system for regional development","teaser":"A planning region with a development programme and no reliable way to tell whether it works. Vidzeme's pilot starts with the indicators.","lang":"en","lens":"latvia","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What gap does the Vidzeme pilot address, and what does its Regional Action Plan propose to close it?","recallA":"The Vidzeme Planning Region has no systematic way to track whether its Development Programme moves the region forward. RAP 1.0 proposes harmonised indicators and data-sharing, data skills in municipalities, and VPR PATHWATCH, an AI-driven geospatial monitoring platform, by 2028.","highlights":["Latvia's largest region (30.6 % of the territory) and its least densely populated","The gap: no framework to measure what the VPR Development Programme 2022–2027 achieves","Requirements before platform: an Outreach study, then a two-phase indicator hackathon with almost 50 experts","RAP 1.0 proposes VPR PATHWATCH, an AI-driven geospatial monitoring system, by 2028"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 8 \"Accelerating Data-Driven Monitoring of the Regional Development in Vidzeme, Latvia\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.8 \"Vidzeme, Latvia\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (EDQMS VR, D2D). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Latvia – Vidzeme\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Vidzeme, in northern Latvia, is the country's largest region, covering 30.6 % of its territory, and the least densely populated: 16.27 people per km² against a national average of 30 (2024 pilot text). Its economy includes dairy, forestry, wood processing, metalworking, chemicals, ICT, tourism and creative industries. A farmstead in the Vidzeme countryside. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP8), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Vidzeme Planning Region Partner Vidzeme Planning Region, VPR (lead; the only partner) Theme Inclusive governance through territorial monitoring RAP Vidzeme RAP 1.0, targets to 2028 Open calls Outreach: EDQMS VR (InnoMatrix). Mobilise: \"Data to Develop\" hackathon (NovoFutura) The challenge VPR is a public regional development institution guided by its Development Programme 2022–2027 . It has no systematic way to monitor progress across the territory, and no framework to judge how much the programme's actions contribute to the region's development. The brief traces this to data problems: data spread across state and municipal institutions; a regional indicators module (RAIM) that integrates data only partly; scarce parish- and county-level statistics; inconsistent indicators and methods; a shadow economy that distorts official figures. Low trust in institutions and little feedback to residents keep citizens out. D5.1 frames the theme as inclusive governance : residents should be involved in planning, implementation and monitoring. What the plan sets out By 2028 RAP 1.0 targets three things: multi-level data governance with aligned indicators across VPR, municipalities and national institutions; an AI-driven, geospatial monitoring platform that moves from looking back to predicting; and data-analytics capacity in municipal staff. The brief recommends unified data protocols and data-sharing agreements, VPR PATHWATCH as a central monitoring system with mobile access, permanent data-specialist posts, a citizen-engagement app, and a Baltic network for monitoring regional development. Open calls and status The pilot defined requirements before building anything. The Outreach study by InnoMatrix used desk research and interviews with municipalities, businesses and communities to set requirements for a monitoring system; it explicitly did not build the platform. The \"Dati attīstībai\" (Data to Develop) hackathon by NovoFutura ran online and then in person with almost 50 experts and municipal representatives. It produced a first set of indicators. The winning Housing and Living Environment team showed how existing data can track housing availability. PATHWATCH is a recommendation; VPR continues to coordinate work on a unified regional data system. For the general pattern, see from data to decisions. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 8 \"Accelerating Data-Driven Monitoring of the Regional Development in Vidzeme, Latvia\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.8 \"Vidzeme, Latvia\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (EDQMS VR, D2D). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Latvia – Vidzeme\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/09-spine-latvia-vidzeme.md","kb":"/kb/vidzeme-pilot"},{"id":"ch3-malta","concept":"malta-pilot","conceptTitle":"The Malta and Gozo pilot","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch03-pilots","title":"Malta and Gozo: digital and business skills for a shrinking farm workforce","teaser":"Farms usually under one hectare, a workforce mostly over 45, young people leaving: why Malta's plan picks small enabling steps over big reforms.","lang":"en","lens":"malta","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why does the Malta RAP choose small enabling actions over structural reform, and what are those actions?","recallA":"The barriers are skills, confidence, small scale and fragmented support among smallholders, so the RAP starts where farmers are. It proposes hands-on digital demonstrations, low-barrier skills training, guidance to existing funds, peer learning through local champions, and youth innovation events such as the MaYA ideathon.","highlights":["Agricultural labour force fell 26.7 % between 2010 and 2020; only 23.7 % of farm workers are under 45","Average farms are under one hectare, and Malta relies heavily on imported fresh food","The RAP deliberately chooses enabling actions (training, demonstrations, informal dialogue) over structural reform","Open calls: AgriFusion stakeholder research, the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon, the MALTESE Develop project"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 9 \"Transforming Malta's Agri-Food System through Digital Innovation and Circularity\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.9 \"Malta\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (AgriFusion, M-ATI, MALTESE). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Malta – Malta and Gozo\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Malta is the smallest EU country, 313 km², and with Gozo it forms a very compact rural-urban system. Agriculture competes there with scarce land, scarce natural resources and development pressure, yet it still shapes the islands' landscape and food culture. Terraced fields on Gozo. Photo: PoliRuralPlus pilot materials (RP9), poliruralplus.eu --- --- Territory Malta and Gozo Partner AcrossLimits, AL (lead; the only partner) Theme Digital transformation and entrepreneurship in agriculture, with a focus on young people RAP Malta RAP, version 1 (2025) Open calls Outreach: AgriFusion (The Veg Box). Mobilise: MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon. Develop: MALTESE The challenge The numbers explain the urgency. The agricultural labour force fell by 26.7 % between 2010 and 2020 . In 2022 there were only 1,200 registered young farmers under 40, and only 23.7 % of agricultural workers are under 45. Average farms are under one hectare , insecure tenure discourages investment, and the islands depend heavily on imported fresh food. Young people see farming as outdated and economically unviable and leave for towns or other EU countries. Smallholders know little about digital tools such as IoT, CRM or e-commerce and have little access to training. What the plan sets out The RAP chooses enabling actions rather than large structural reforms . By 2028 it aims to help make locally produced food more visible and easier to sell, build digital and business skills among rural actors, and involve young people in agri-food value chains. The brief recommends: - informal, hands-on demonstrations of digital tools (IoT, traceability, e-commerce) in Malta and Gozo; - low-barrier training in digital literacy and online marketing for farmers, young people and rural SMEs; - guidance to existing schemes such as Digitalise Your SME, CAP eco-schemes and Business Enhance; - peer-led learning on hydroponics, composting and smart water use; - youth innovation events, building on the MaYA ideathon ; - roundtables, local champions, and simple summaries of EU tools such as the MAA Tool (see the multi-actor approach). Open calls and status AgriFusion (Outreach) researched stakeholder views on sustainable agriculture and food security, and the RAP draws on it. The Malta Youth in Agriculture Foundation ran the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon (Mobilise). The Develop project MALTESE (Malta Agro-Leadership & Tech Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Empowerment), led by an Austrian organisation with Maltese and Hungarian partners, plans agro-leadership training, a localised AI assistant and an e-marketplace. The pilot web page lists no results yet. By its own description the RAP is modest in scale, a deliberate fit for an island of smallholders. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 9 \"Transforming Malta's Agri-Food System through Digital Innovation and Circularity\". PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §2.9 \"Malta\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (AgriFusion, M-ATI, MALTESE). PDF - PoliRural+ website, pilot page \"Malta – Malta and Gozo\" (2024 and 2026 texts). poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch03-pilots/10-spine-malta.md","kb":"/kb/malta-pilot"},{"id":"ch4-what-is-geoai","concept":"geoai","conceptTitle":"GeoAI: grounding language models in place","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"What is GeoAI? A language model that looks up the place first","teaser":"A chatbot guesses about little-known places. GeoAI makes it fetch data for the exact area on the map before it answers.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does GeoAI add to a general-purpose language model, as PoliRural+ designs it?","recallA":"It ties each question to an area on a map and enriches it with retrieved spatial data, metadata and tool results before the model answers. The model interprets and explains, while specialised services do the data access and calculations, so the answer holds for that place, scale and time.","highlights":["D4.1: general LLMs struggle with lesser-known places that have little information online","GeoAI enriches the question with spatial data before the model writes a word","D4.2: the model orchestrates and explains; calculations stay in specialised services","D7.2: tool calls fixed weather, crop-suitability and water-body answers that a pure LLM got vague or wrong"],"parents":["polirural-plus-project"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.3 Jackdaw: A Spatial Enabled Chat Agent; §2.1.1 Data sources — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §9.7 Cross-project Data Cube, GeoRAG and semantic knowledge cooperation — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs – Intelligent agents for enhanced decision-making — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/356/D7.2__Practice__Abstracts_-_batch_1_LxksN3q.pdf"}],"text":"In PoliRural+, GeoAI means a language model that does not answer a question about a place until it has looked the place up. The platform design (D4.1) states the problem it solves: large language models struggle to answer accurately about lesser-known locations or areas with limited information on the internet . For a small rural municipality, that information may be very thin. Enrich the question, then answer D4.1's remedy is to enrich the user's query with spatial data before it reaches the model . The user asks a question in plain language and marks an area on a map. The system identifies the topics and the spatial and temporal resolution the question needs, searches catalogues for suitable data sources, services and models, calls them, and adds the results to the model's context. Only then does the model write its answer, alongside tables, charts or maps of the retrieved data. The Beta platform report (D4.2) describes the division of labour: the language model works as a controlled orchestrator of verifiable spatial analysis rather than an isolated text generator. It interprets, coordinates and explains; authoritative calculations and data access stay in specialised services . Because only the relevant datasets and tools are selected, the model is also spared the context overload of reading everything at once. What changes in the answer D7.2's practice abstract GeoAI meets LLMs compares pure LLM output with JackDaw's tool-calling approach on three questions: Question Pure LLM GeoAI agent (JackDaw) --- --- --- What is the weather here? A generic explanation or a pointer to other sources Calls a weather API for the area on the map Is this plot suitable for potatoes? Broad advice on potato farming Combines land cover, elevation and weather for that plot Which water bodies are here? May cite the wrong river or a distant city Inspects land-cover layers in the area The gain does not come from a cleverer model. It comes from a different source of facts : the answer is checked against data for a specific place, scale and time period, which D4.2 names as the condition a territorial answer must meet. The raw material D4.1 lists the data GeoAI draws on: Copernicus Earth observation, INSPIRE, Eurostat and GISCO, SoilGrids, Natura 2000, Open-Meteo, FADN and OpenStreetMap, plus the project's own Open Land Use database and local maps and IoT data. How satellite imagery actually enters is the subject of Copernicus in JackDaw. GeoAI is the idea. JackDaw is how PoliRural+ builds it, released as a Beta in D4.2 within the project's wider aims (PoliRural+). Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.3 Jackdaw: A Spatial Enabled Chat Agent; §2.1.1 Data sources — PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §9.7 Cross-project Data Cube, GeoRAG and semantic knowledge cooperation — PDF - D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs – Intelligent agents for enhanced decision-making — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/01-spine-what-is-geoai.md","kb":"/kb/geoai"},{"id":"ch4-jackdaw-architecture","concept":"jackdaw","conceptTitle":"JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"JackDaw: inside the Beta GeoAI chat agent","teaser":"Draw an area, ask a question: a router picks a handful of eighteen tools, and every tool receives your map area.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard..technical","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does JackDaw choose the data for a question, and what limits its answers in the Beta release?","recallA":"A routing call classifies the user's intent and selects up to five of its eighteen core tools (plus any connected MCP tools); every tool receives the drawn map area as WKT, and a GeoRAG subgraph finds datasets in the Raven catalogue. D4.2 places the limits in metadata completeness, service reliability and keeping evidence trails transparent across many tool calls.","highlights":["Area-first: the area you draw travels with every message as WKT (EPSG:4326)","A router picks up to five of 18 core tools per turn; the agent loops until no more tool calls are needed","Raven fills the catalogue; MCP lets administrators and users plug in their own tool servers","Beta status: the limits sit in metadata, connected services and evidence trails, not in the chat shell"],"parents":["geoai"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent (3.3.1 backend, 3.3.2 user interface, 3.3.3 Raven) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.3 Jackdaw: A Spatial Enabled Chat Agent — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, recommendations \"Provide Onboarding and In-Tool Help\" and \"Strengthen Data and Service Integration\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ education videos (JackDaw webinar series). poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/…","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/education-videos/"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus website, News: PoliRuralPlus JackDaw Code Camp 2026 — poliruralplus.eu/news/…","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/news/poliruralplus-jackdaw-code-camp-2026/"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: Strategic recommendations 1 and 4 — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"JackDaw is the spatially enabled chat agent of the PoliRural+ platform. D4.2, the Beta platform report, describes what is built today; D4.1 described the design it grew from. Area first The screen has two halves: an OpenLayers map and a chat panel . The user first defines an area, by drawing a rectangle or by searching a place name (GeoNames), then asks about it. The rectangle is encoded as WKT in EPSG:4326 and attached to every message, so each analysis is tied to a territory that can range from one farm plot to an administrative region. A small locally run model (Ollama) also lets users steer the map in words, such as \"zoom in three steps\" or \"draw a 5 km square here\". One turn of the agent The backend is a Python FastAPI service with an agent built on LangGraph : 1. A single routing call classifies the intent and selects up to five tools for the turn. 2. A language model, configurable to any OpenAI-compatible endpoint including models hosted by partner PSNC, reasons over those tools and the conversation and calls them. 3. Tool results flow back into the loop until the model needs no further calls. 4. For dataset questions, a GeoRAG subgraph finds relevant datasets in the Raven catalogue by semantic matching and then queries them spatially. Answers stream to the browser (server-sent events). Tables, indicators and time series appear as interactive tables and charts under the text. Tools flagged as sensitive or resource-heavy pause on an approval card until the user confirms or rejects them. Eighteen core tools Area What the tools reach --- --- Catalogue Any dataset registered in Raven Climate ERA5-Land, WorldClim, IPCC RCP 4.5 projections for the 2050s, Open-Meteo forecasts; 16 agroclimatic indicators Land cover, terrain OLU EU classification statistics; elevation from a digital elevation model Short food supply chains Four tools: farm scale, agricultural block size, LPIS-based crop suitability for direct sales, local demand Demography, business Eurostat NUTS3 statistics; 2021 census population grid Attractiveness Smart POI category counts Policy knowledge RAG over PoliRuralPlus policy documents Built to be extended JackDaw speaks the Model Context Protocol (MCP) . Administrators register MCP servers at startup, and users can connect their own at runtime. Skills , playbooks written in YAML and Markdown, inject preferred tools, steps and anti-patterns into the agent when a task matches. Raven covers the supply side: providers upload datasets, describe every column, and publish them to the catalogue that JackDaw searches. What Beta means D4.2 places today's limits in the maturity of connected sources and tools rather than the chat interface: answers are sensitive to metadata completeness and service reliability, and evidence trails are hard to keep transparent across several tool calls. Planned next steps are better evidence grounding, clearer source provenance, generic tool instantiation through Raven, and mature GeoRAG. How one answer is traced is shown in From data to decisions. How-to: Asking JackDaw about a place, step by step. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent (3.3.1 backend, 3.3.2 user interface, 3.3.3 Raven) — PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.3 Jackdaw: A Spatial Enabled Chat Agent — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/02-spine-jackdaw-architecture.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw"},{"id":"ch4-guide-jackdaw","concept":"jackdaw","conceptTitle":"JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"How to ask JackDaw about a place: draw, ask, approve, check","teaser":"Draw a rectangle, ask in plain words, confirm the heavy steps, then read the tables: a first session with JackDaw, step by step.","lang":"en","lens":"finland","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What does a user do first in JackDaw, and why does that step shape every answer?","recallA":"The user first defines an area on the map, by drawing a rectangle or searching a place name. That area is attached to every message as WKT, so the router's chosen tools (up to five per turn) and the GeoRAG search over the Raven catalogue all work on that territory; the user then confirms flagged steps and checks the referenced data.","text":"When to use it: you have a question about a specific territory, from one farm plot to a region, that needs data about land, climate, people or businesses, not just text. What you need - A browser: jackdaw.avinet.no (D4.1 §6.3). The application is secured through the platform's shared OAuth sign-in. - An area in mind and one concrete question. Steps 1. Define the area. Draw a rectangle on the OpenLayers map or search a place name (GeoNames). You can also type into the navigation bar: \"find Bratislava\", \"zoom in three steps\", \"draw a 5 km square here\" (D4.2 §3.3.2). 2. Ask in plain language. Start from a shipped sample query: characterise the area by land use, industry and climate, or assess its suitability for a crop. 3. Watch the progress. A routing call picks up to five of the eighteen core tools; each one receives your area as WKT (D4.2 §3.3.1). 4. Answer the approval card. For a significant data retrieval or a choice between analysis strategies, JackDaw pauses and lists the parameters; confirm or reject. 5. Read the result. The text streams in; statistics, indicator tables and time series appear as interactive tables and charts below it. 6. Check the evidence. Note which documents or datasets the answer refers to before you reuse a number. 7. Refine. Ask a follow-up in the same thread, or restart from an earlier message with a different area or angle. 8. Optional: opt in to the research survey (your role plus anonymous logs, revocable), or, as an advanced user, register your own MCP server in the configuration modal. What you get Source-grounded answers, references to documents or datasets, tool results as tables and charts, and sometimes geospatially informed follow-up suggestions (D4.2 §3.3). Pilot use In Mallusjoki , JackDaw ran together with Raven metadata services, the Advisor and the MAA tool. D4.2 reports municipal-level spatial analysis that combined open geospatial datasets with local planning needs for the rural events ecosystem (Table 7). Watch out - First-time users felt lost ; D2.3 recommends a short tutorial and a \"Help Me Get Started\" route. Begin with the sample queries. - Users expected more data-backed answers than the service's scope could give (D2.3). - Answers depend on metadata completeness and service reliability , and evidence trails are harder to follow across several tool calls (D4.2 §3.3). - If your local data is missing, publish it first: see Raven and Magpie. Recordings of the JackDaw webinar series (November–December 2025) are at poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/…. How an answer is traced: From data to decisions. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent (3.3.1 backend, 3.3.2 user interface); §6.2 Table 7. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.3 Jackdaw: A Spatial Enabled Chat Agent. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, recommendations \"Provide Onboarding and In-Tool Help\" and \"Strengthen Data and Service Integration\". PDF - PoliRural+ education videos (JackDaw webinar series). poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/…","path":"content/ch04-geoai/02g-guide-jackdaw.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw#ch4-guide-jackdaw"},{"id":"tool-steps-game","concept":"jackdaw","conceptTitle":"JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"One Question Through JackDaw","teaser":"Seven steps from an empty map to a refined answer: put a JackDaw session in the right order.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"","path":"content/ch04-geoai/02h-game-tool-steps.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw#tool-steps-game"},{"id":"ch4-code-camps","concept":"jackdaw","conceptTitle":"JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Building on JackDaw: webinars, Code Camp and extension points","teaser":"JackDaw is meant to be extended by others. Here is where developers learn how, and which doors D4.2 leaves open.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Where can developers learn to build on JackDaw, and which extension points does D4.2 document?","recallA":"Through the JackDaw webinar recordings (November–December 2025) and the JackDaw Code Camp 2026 announced on the project website. D4.2 documents MCP tool servers, YAML/Markdown skill playbooks and dataset publication through Raven as the ways to extend it.","text":"JackDaw is designed so that people outside the core team can add data and tools without changing the core application. Two public formats teach how. The JackDaw webinar series ran from November to December 2025. Its recordings are published on the project's Education videos page. The PoliRuralPlus JackDaw Code Camp 2026 was announced on the project website, with registration open until 6 January 2026. The announcement gives the details; this book does not repeat dates or venues that the public pages do not confirm. Three ways in, as D4.2 documents them - MCP tool servers. Administrators register Model Context Protocol servers at startup; users can connect their own at runtime. Tools are namespaced by server and automatically receive the user's map area, so a regional service can join a geospatial workflow. - Skills. Playbooks written in YAML and Markdown give the agent preferred tools, recommended steps and anti-patterns for a recognised task. Expert procedure is written down instead of hard-coded. - Raven datasets. A data provider uploads a vector dataset, describes its title, tags, temporal coverage and every column, and publishes it. From then on JackDaw's catalogue tool and GeoRAG search can find it. The Enhance open call funded seven projects to improve PoliRural+ tools or add complementary ones (listed in D6.3). For outside developers, this was the funded route into the same ecosystem. Sources: - PoliRuralPlus website, News: PoliRuralPlus JackDaw Code Camp 2026 — poliruralplus.eu/news/… - PoliRuralPlus website, Knowledge transfer → Education videos (JackDaw webinar series) — poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/… - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §3.3.1 Extensibility via Model Context Protocol; Routing and Skill System; §3.3.3 Raven — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/03a-sidebar-code-camps.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw#ch4-code-camps"},{"id":"ch4-sovereignty","concept":"jackdaw","conceptTitle":"JackDaw, the PoliRural+ GeoAI agent","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Not tied to one AI provider: JackDaw's mixed model strategy","teaser":"Commercial APIs today, self-hosted and European research infrastructure prepared in parallel: why D4.2 hedges, and where data spaces still fall short.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"technical","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why does the PoliRural+ Beta platform prepare self-hosted and European LLM options alongside commercial cloud APIs?","recallA":"Because the future cost of commercial AI services is uncertain and some cases need local deployment, lower cost, stronger data control or a choice of model. The Beta therefore uses OpenAI GPT services for stability, opens self-hosted models through Ollama and Llama CPP on CCSS infrastructure, and experiments with PSNC and CESNET LLM infrastructure.","text":"Whose model answers a farmer's question, and on whose servers, is an architectural choice. D4.2 makes it deliberately, and without slogans. Three model routes, in parallel Commercial cloud, for now. The Beta relies in part on mainstream cloud APIs, most notably OpenAI's GPT services, because they offer a practical and stable path to user-facing functions. For a Beta tested by pilots, D4.2 counts that stability as decisive. Self-hosted, prepared. The platform also opens for self-hosted models through Ollama and Llama CPP , running on infrastructure of the partner CCSS. D4.2 lists the cases this serves: local deployment, lower operating cost, stronger data control , and experimental choice of models. The map's natural-language navigation bar already runs on a local Ollama model. European research infrastructure, experimental. Integrations with the LLM infrastructures of PSNC and CESNET are being pursued, and the agent can already be pointed at OpenAI-compatible endpoints, including models hosted at PSNC. Why hedge D4.2 gives two reasons. First, the future cost of commercial AI services is uncertain : many operate under pricing conditions that may shift. Second, smaller local models are improving quickly and already perform well on consumer hardware for many tasks, so edge and distributed processing are treated as credible future options rather than distant ideas. Preparing cloud, self-hosted and distributed routes in parallel keeps the AI layer adaptable and avoids complete reliance on one provider. Data spaces: aligned, with eyes open On data, D4.2 aligns the platform with European Data Spaces and EOSC principles: resources should be discoverable, interoperable, reusable and reachable through machine-readable interfaces, so that API workflows and AI agents can use them, not only map viewers. Interfaces are defined towards the Green Deal and Agricultural Data Spaces , and the project uses AIM as a data model for agricultural data exchange. D4.2 also says what many reports leave out: there is a gap between policy ambition and operational availability . Much effort has gone into frameworks and governance while broad, usable data access remains hard, which can resemble \"an effort made before the data itself has reached sufficient critical mass\". The platform positions itself to benefit as that ecosystem matures, without claiming maturity it does not have. The human layer The pilots' policy brief (D7.3, Annex 10) adds that independence is not only about servers. It asks the Commission to fund the human layer of AI (a \"data curation line\" in AI project budgets) and to fund multilingual AI sandboxes for under-resourced languages such as Maltese and Latvian. A model you host yourself still answers badly in a language it was never tuned for. The engineering consequence for JackDaw: keep the model swappable and the data well described, because both markets are still moving. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.3 AI integration layer and associated tech; §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §3.3.1 Agent Architecture; §3.3.2 Map Component — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: Strategic recommendations 1 and 4 — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/05-depth-thinker-european-sovereignty.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw#ch4-sovereignty"},{"id":"ch4-data-to-decisions","concept":"data-to-decisions","conceptTitle":"From data to decisions, with provenance","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"From data to decisions: one question and its evidence trail","teaser":"Follow a potato-suitability question through JackDaw, and see what the answer must carry before a planner can use it.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What must a GeoAI answer carry before a planner can use it in a Regional Action Plan?","recallA":"Visible references to the datasets behind it, with their source, update status, quality status and known limitations, so the reader can tell official statistics from pilot data, external web information, expert interpretation or experimental analysis (D4.2 §4.4).","highlights":["A question travels: area → routing → tools → approval → answer with tables","D4.2 distinguishes four provenance levels: source, ingestion, processing, usage","Six quality statuses, from validated to superseded, should steer which data the agent prefers","Better exposure of provenance in answers is a stated next step, not finished work"],"parents":["jackdaw"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §4.5 Data Cubes, GeoRAG and RAG-Knowledge Graph integration; §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/356/D7.2__Practice__Abstracts_-_batch_1_LxksN3q.pdf"},{"text":"Data providers named in the comic: LPIS, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (eAGRI); AOPK ČR (Natura 2000 sites in Czechia)","url":null}],"text":"The weak point in GeoAI is rarely the generated text. It is whether a reader can tell where each number came from . The test case below is D7.2's: a user asks whether a particular plot is suitable for potatoes. One question, step by step 1. Area. The user draws a rectangle around the plot; JackDaw attaches it to the message as WKT. 2. Routing. One model call classifies the request and picks relevant tools, for example land-cover statistics (OLU EU), elevation from a digital elevation model, and agroclimatic indicators such as frost occurrence and growing degree units from ERA5-Land. 3. Approval. If a step is flagged as significant, an approval card shows its parameters and waits for the user to confirm. 4. Tools run. Each tool computes its result inside its own service, for the drawn area only. 5. Answer. The model explains the combined result in text; the underlying figures appear as tables and charts below it. What makes the answer usable D4.2 is explicit that a Regional Action Plan cannot rest on fluent text alone. Users need to know whether an output rests on official statistics, partner-provided pilot data, external web information, expert interpretation or experimental analysis . For the platform, D4.2 defines four levels of provenance : Level Records --- --- Source Original creator, provider, ownership Ingestion When and how the resource entered the platform Processing Changes after upload: reprojection, cleaning, enrichment Usage How services and pilot applications used it, where appropriate Every dataset should also carry a quality status : validated, partially validated, experimental, external source, historical or superseded. D4.2 asks the system to prefer resources that are relevant, current, sufficiently described and valid for the requested territory and period; an experimental or outdated dataset should change how an answer is presented. Metadata should distinguish \"unknown\", \"not applicable\" and \"not provided\". Access is not reuse : a user may open a dataset whose licence still forbids redistribution, and derived maps inherit the conditions of their inputs. Today and next The Raven ingestion workflow already captures the basic provenance package (title, description, tags, temporal coverage, column descriptions, attached methodology). D4.2 also names the gap: keeping evidence trails transparent across several tool calls is hard, and better exposure of source provenance is a next step. GeoRAG and knowledge-graph work is expected to add source-to-answer traces toward the final platform. Until then, treat a JackDaw answer as screening evidence : keep its tables, name its datasets, and validate with people who know the plot before it enters a Regional Action Plan. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §4.5 Data Cubes, GeoRAG and RAG-Knowledge Graph integration; §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent — PDF - D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/03-spine-data-to-decisions.md","kb":"/kb/data-to-decisions"},{"id":"ch4-comic-where-from","concept":"data-to-decisions","conceptTitle":"From data to decisions, with provenance","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Where is that number from? (a comic)","teaser":"A council asks about farmland next to a Natura 2000 site. One answer is confident. The other one shows its layers, and knows what it cannot prove.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"intro","genre":"comic","recallQ":"In the comic, what makes JackDaw's answer usable for the council where the chatbot's is not, and what does the answer still not prove?","recallA":"It names the layers behind it (LPIS land parcels from eAGRI, the Natura 2000 boundary from AOPK ČR) with their date, coordinate system and method, so the council can check it. It shows a spatial relationship, not harm or a breach of rules; people who know the plot still have to look.","text":"The scene is invented; the rules it follows are not. A Klatovsko council asks the question used as the worked example in open geodata for Klatovsko: how much farmland lies next to a Natura 2000 site? - Panel 2 is the failure D4.2 warns about: fluent text with no way to tell whether it rests on official statistics, pilot data, web information or a guess. - Panel 3 is what an answer with provenance looks like: each layer named with its provider (LPIS from the Ministry of Agriculture's eAGRI, the Natura 2000 boundary from AOPK ČR), and the date, coordinate system and overlay method written down. - Panel 4 is the limit. An overlay shows a spatial relationship . It does not prove harm to nature or a breach of rules. Until provenance is fully exposed in answers, a step D4.2 still lists as next, this book treats a JackDaw answer as screening evidence, to be checked with people who know the plot. JackDaw is drawn as a jackdaw because the PoliRural+ tools carry corvid names (JackDaw, Raven, Vulture, Magpie). The map in panel 3 is a sketch, not real parcel data. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent — PDF - Data providers named in the comic: LPIS, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (eAGRI); AOPK ČR (Natura 2000 sites in Czechia)","path":"content/ch04-geoai/03c-comic-where-from.md","kb":"/kb/data-to-decisions#ch4-comic-where-from"},{"id":"ch4-comic-where-from-cs","concept":"data-to-decisions","conceptTitle":"From data to decisions, with provenance","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Odkud je to číslo? (komiks)","teaser":"Zastupitelstvo se ptá na zemědělskou půdu u lokality Natura 2000. Jedna odpověď je sebevědomá. Druhá ukáže své vrstvy a ví, co dokázat nemůže.","lang":"cs","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"intro","genre":"comic","recallQ":"Proč je v komiksu odpověď JackDaw pro zastupitelstvo použitelná a odpověď chatbota ne, a co ani ta první nedokazuje?","recallA":"Uvádí vrstvy, ze kterých vychází (půdní bloky LPIS z eAGRI, hranici lokality Natura 2000 podle AOPK ČR), s datem, souřadnicovým systémem a metodou, takže ji jde ověřit. Ukazuje prostorový vztah, ne škodu ani porušení pravidel; lidé, kteří pozemek znají, se na něj ještě musí podívat.","text":"Scéna je vymyšlená, pravidla, podle kterých se odvíjí, ne. Zastupitelstvo na Klatovsku se ptá na totéž, co modelový příklad v bloku Co o Klatovsku řeknou otevřená data: kolik zemědělské půdy leží u lokality Natura 2000? - Okénko 2 ukazuje chybu, před kterou varuje D4.2: plynulý text, u kterého nejde poznat, jestli stojí na oficiální statistice, datech pilotu, informacích z webu, nebo na odhadu. - Okénko 3 ukazuje odpověď s původem dat: každá vrstva má poskytovatele (LPIS z eAGRI Ministerstva zemědělství, hranice lokality Natura 2000 podle AOPK ČR) a zapsané datum, souřadnicový systém a metodu průniku. - Okénko 4 ukazuje hranici. Překryv vrstev ukazuje prostorový vztah . Neprokazuje škodu na přírodě ani porušení předpisů. Dokud odpovědi nebudou původ dat ukazovat úplně (D4.2 to uvádí jako další krok), bere tato kniha odpověď JackDaw jako orientační podklad, který je třeba ověřit s lidmi, kteří pozemek znají. JackDaw je nakreslený jako kavka, protože nástroje PoliRural+ nesou jména krkavcovitých ptáků (JackDaw, Raven, Vulture, Magpie). Mapa v okénku 3 je náčrt, ne skutečná data o pozemcích. Zdroje: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §3.3 Jackdaw GeoAI chat agent — PDF - Poskytovatelé dat z komiksu: LPIS, Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR (eAGRI); AOPK ČR (lokality Natura 2000 v Česku)","path":"content/ch04-geoai/03d-cs-komiks-odkud-cislo.md","kb":"/kb/data-to-decisions#ch4-comic-where-from-cs"},{"id":"grounded-or-not-game","concept":"data-to-decisions","conceptTitle":"From data to decisions, with provenance","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Grounded or Not?","teaser":"An imagined GeoAI answer about a field near Klatovy: spot the sentences that no dataset could back.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"","path":"content/ch04-geoai/03b-game-grounded-or-not.md","kb":"/kb/data-to-decisions#grounded-or-not-game"},{"id":"ch4-question","concept":"data-to-decisions","conceptTitle":"From data to decisions, with provenance","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"A JackDaw answer for the Action Plan","teaser":"JackDaw says the plots look suitable for potatoes. The Action Plan draft is due on Friday. What do you do with the answer?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"A regional planner drafting the agri-food part of a Regional Action Plan draws a rectangle around a group of plots in JackDaw and asks whether they are suitable for potatoes. The answer says \"largely suitable\" and shows tables of land-cover shares, elevation and frost and growing-degree indicators. The draft goes to stakeholders on Friday. A) Paste the answer into the draft. It comes from the project's own GeoAI tool and reads well. B) Keep the tables and the datasets behind them, mark the result as screening evidence, and check it with an adviser and local data before the meeting. C) Ask a general-purpose chatbot instead. It is faster and needs no map. D) Leave AI out and commission a GIS specialist analysis. Bring it into the plan once it is ready. More than one answer can be defended. Choose one, then read where it works and where it breaks.","path":"content/ch04-geoai/07-question-geoai.md","kb":"/kb/data-to-decisions#ch4-question"},{"id":"ch4-farmer-support","concept":"jackdaw-in-practice","conceptTitle":"JackDaw in the pilots","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"JackDaw for farmers and advisers: what it answers today","teaser":"Crop suitability, frost and growing-degree indicators, farm and market structure for direct sales: the questions the Beta was built for, and the ones it does not answer.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which farm and adviser questions does JackDaw Beta support, and what did the pilots find limits its use?","recallA":"Area-based questions: characterising land use, industry and climate, crop suitability, agroclimatic indicators, and the short-food-supply-chain checks (farm scale, block size, LPIS-based suitability for direct sales, local demand). The pilots found the limit in the months of manual work needed to curate local, multilingual data, and in uneven digital skills; it does not decide subsidy eligibility.","highlights":["Shipped sample prompts: characterise an area; check a crop's suitability","Four short-food-supply-chain tools, including LPIS-based crop suitability for direct sales","Used in the Greek, Finnish, Czech–Bavarian and Spanish pilots (D4.2 Table 7)","D7.3: data curation took months of manual work; JackDaw needed tuning for each language"],"parents":["jackdaw"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §3.3.1 Tool Ecosystem; §3.3.2 Conversational AI Panel; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases and early feedback (Table 7) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/356/D7.2__Practice__Abstracts_-_batch_1_LxksN3q.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: AI-Enabled AKIS, FAIR Data and Carbon-Smart Food Systems — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"JackDaw ships with sample queries that show what it was built for, and D4.2 uses them as benchmark prompts in evaluation: characterise this area in terms of land use, industry and climate , and is this area suitable for a given crop? Both start with the farmer or adviser drawing the area on the map. Questions the Beta can work on - Climate for the field. Sixteen agroclimatic indicators, among them growing degree units, frost occurrence and precipitation patterns, from ERA5-Land history, WorldClim climatology, IPCC RCP 4.5 projections for the 2050s and Open-Meteo short-term forecasts. - Crop suitability. D7.2 shows JackDaw combining land cover, elevation and weather to judge whether a particular plot suits potatoes, where a pure language model gave generic potato advice. - Selling locally. Four short-food-supply-chain tools assess farm scale distribution, agricultural block size, LPIS-based crop suitability for direct sales , and local market demand potential. This links to the food-chain work in short food supply chains. - Policy context. RAG over the PoliRuralPlus policy documents answers with passages from them, not from the model's memory. What it does not do None of the eighteen tools in D4.2 checks CAP payment eligibility , reads a farm's own records, or issues agronomic prescriptions. A JackDaw answer describes conditions in an area; decisions about payments and treatments stay with paying agencies, advisers and the farmer. Where the pilots used it D4.2's pilot table lists JackDaw in four core pilots: Central Greece (with MAATool, strengthening regional advisory capacity and AKIS cooperation), Mallusjoki (with Raven, for municipal spatial analysis), the Czech–Bavarian border (1 × 1 km attractiveness grids comparing south-western Bohemia and eastern Bavaria), and Spain (mapping the Roman sites of Segobriga, Valeria and Ercavica as one heritage corridor). What the pilots learned The policy brief drawn from the nine pilots (D7.3, Annex 10) names the bottleneck: preparing rural, multilingual, domain-specific data for JackDaw and the PoliRuralPlus GPT Advisor took months of manual annotation, formatting and validation . JackDaw needed custom linguistic tuning for diverse EU languages and dialects, and many rural actors lacked the digital skills to contribute. The brief's answer is institutional, not technical: fund data curation, train digital stewards inside rural institutions, and connect AI tools to AKIS and certified advisers. For a farmer, the practical rule follows from the evidence trail: use JackDaw to screen an area quickly, then take its tables to an adviser. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §3.3.1 Tool Ecosystem; §3.3.2 Conversational AI Panel; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases and early feedback (Table 7) — PDF - D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1, §2.3 Video: GeoAI meets LLMs — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: AI-Enabled AKIS, FAIR Data and Carbon-Smart Food Systems — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/04-spine-farmer-support.md","kb":"/kb/jackdaw-in-practice"},{"id":"ch4-copernicus","concept":"copernicus-data","conceptTitle":"Copernicus Earth observation in PoliRural+","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Copernicus in JackDaw: from satellite pixels to usable layers","teaser":"Sentinel imagery reaches a JackDaw user mostly through derived layers. Direct access to imagery and time series is still being prepared.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does Copernicus data reach JackDaw users in the Beta, and what is still being prepared?","recallA":"Mostly through derived layers: none of the Beta tool areas queries Sentinel imagery directly, and land cover comes from OLU_EU statistics. D4.1 describes a cloud-removal and NDVI model on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 and a planned classification suite; D4.2 is preparing STAC/OGC discovery of EO assets and Data Cube access to time series.","highlights":["In the Beta, satellite information arrives through derived layers such as OLU_EU land cover","D4.1: Sentinel-1 radar plus Sentinel-2 optical, UnCRtainTS network, cloud-free images, then NDVI","Planned: crop detection, land-cover detection and change mapping from EO imagery","Prepared in D4.2: STAC/OGC discovery and Data Cubes for time series"],"parents":["geoai"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Data sources (Land Use and Land Cover Change Detection); §2.1.2 Models (Cloud removal and index calculations); §5.2.3 EO image interpretation — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §3.3.1 Tool Ecosystem; §9.7 Cross-project Data Cube, GeoRAG and semantic knowledge cooperation — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"}],"text":"The platform design (D4.1) names Copernicus as the authoritative source of satellite imagery and Earth observation (EO) data. A JackDaw user, however, rarely touches a Sentinel image. None of the eighteen Beta tool areas in D4.2 queries imagery directly; land cover, for example, comes as classification statistics from OLU EU , part of the project's Open Land Use database. Models that turn imagery into indicators D4.1 describes a cloud-removal and index model for crop monitoring. Clouds block optical imagery, so the model combines Sentinel-2 optical data with Sentinel-1 radar, which sees through clouds, and reconstructs cloud-free images with the UnCRtainTS neural network. It then computes vegetation indices such as NDVI . It was trained and validated on cloud-free frames from 2022 and 2023 agricultural data, measured by MAE and MSE; combining both satellites was more accurate than optical data alone. D4.1 also plans an EO classification suite (crop detection, land-cover detection and change-detection mapping) to feed JackDaw. D4.1 also lists a change dataset, built with OLU, that tracks growth and loss of Corine and HILUCS land classes for 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010. What is being prepared D4.2 is preparing the platform for STAC and OGC-based discovery of EO assets , with machine-actionable metadata that GeoRAG can use, and for Data Cubes that serve satellite time series, climate variables and derived indicators. These are the formats for questions about change over time, drought or vegetation condition. Cooperation with the FOCAL project adds cloud-gap mitigation and super-resolution methods. D4.2's warning applies here most of all: retrieval is only as useful as the metadata behind it. An image without a clear acquisition date, resolution and processing history cannot support a traceable answer. Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Data sources (Land Use and Land Cover Change Detection); §2.1.2 Models (Cloud removal and index calculations); §5.2.3 EO image interpretation — PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §3.3.1 Tool Ecosystem; §9.7 Cross-project Data Cube, GeoRAG and semantic knowledge cooperation — PDF","path":"content/ch04-geoai/06-spine-copernicus-data.md","kb":"/kb/copernicus-data"},{"id":"ch4-local-kb-poc","concept":"local-geoai-kb","conceptTitle":"A local GeoAI knowledge base","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"A local GeoAI knowledge base: the Klatovsko proof of concept","teaser":"One district, open geodata and community knowledge, readable by people in a book and by AI agents through open files and an MCP endpoint.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What makes the Klatovsko knowledge base grounded, and how can people and AI agents reach it?","recallA":"Every factual claim is traceable to a named source or data layer, with date, coverage, method and limits stated. People read and co-write it as an interactive book; AI agents read static pages under /kb/, llms.txt, raw markdown and open data files, or query its MCP endpoint at /api/mcp.","highlights":["The unit is a book block tied to a place and to the layers that back it","People: the interactive book, its author studio and the consortium gallery with editorial lift","Agents: /kb/ pages, llms.txt, raw markdown, open data files, and an MCP endpoint at /api/mcp","Success is a small, maintained, checkable base, not a regional oracle"],"parents":["geoai","data-to-decisions"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §3.3.1 Extensibility via Model Context Protocol — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: Execution Challenges Observed Across Pilots — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"This book's machine brief and map: /AGENTS.md , /llms.txt","url":null}],"text":"This chapter's last part tests a small idea at full scale: a local GeoAI knowledge base for Klatovsko , the Klatovy district in the Plzeň Region of Czechia, which is the Czech side of the Czech–Bavarian pilot. It does not produce another regional profile. It tests whether a book can be the maintained interface between places, evidence and the people deciding about them, and whether AI agents can read the same interface. The unit: a block tied to a place Each block answers one local question about an identifiable geography (municipality, catchment, land block, route or habitat) and names the open layers that back it: Copernicus imagery, LPIS, the cadastre, statistics, OpenStreetMap. Blocks state which boundary they use, because datasets often use different ones. The layers themselves are described in what open data says about Klatovsko. What grounded means Every factual claim is traceable to a source or layer: publisher, dataset, date, coverage, access link and any transformation. This follows the provenance profile in D4.2, whose priority fields are source, provider, temporal coverage, update status, licence, access level, known limitations and quality status. A mapped overlap is not a cause; satellite greenness is not a diagnosis; local testimony is labelled as testimony. Where evidence is missing, the block says so. Two front doors For people , the knowledge base is this interactive book : blocks with a recall question, facets to read by region, depth or language (blocks 08–10 also have Czech tellings), and games. Every block has a ✍️ button that opens the author studio . A draft shared with the group code polirural appears in the consortium gallery ( / trida-polirural ), where it collects comments and votes. Editors then lift the best drafts into the served book, and the author's name travels with the block. For AI agents , the same content is exposed without a browser: - static pages under /kb/ , readable without JavaScript; - /llms.txt , a short map of the book for language models; - the raw markdown of every block, frontmatter included; - open data files (pilots, practices); - an MCP endpoint at /api/mcp , with tools to search the book and list pilots and practices. MCP is the protocol JackDaw and Raven already use (D4.2), and JackDaw lets users connect their own MCP servers at runtime. In principle, the book can therefore become one more tool in a JackDaw conversation. Why bother The pilots' policy brief (D7.3, Annex 10) calls the human effort of curating local data the \"hidden infrastructure\" of rural AI: months of manual work that is rarely funded. A book makes that work visible, attributed and reusable. D4.2 sets the matching goal for the platform: resources usable by API workflows and AI agents, not only by graphical interfaces. Success means a reader, human or machine, can move from a practical question to a place-specific explanation, inspect the evidence, suggest a correction, and reuse the pattern in another region. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §3.3.1 Extensibility via Model Context Protocol — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: Execution Challenges Observed Across Pilots — PDF - This book's machine brief and map: /AGENTS.md , /llms.txt","path":"content/ch04-geoai/08-spine-local-kb-poc.md","kb":"/kb/local-geoai-kb"},{"id":"ch4-local-kb-poc-cs","concept":"local-geoai-kb","conceptTitle":"A local GeoAI knowledge base","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Místní znalostní báze nad otevřenými geodaty: pokus na Klatovsku","teaser":"Jeden okres, otevřená geodata a místní znalost. Lidé ji čtou jako knihu, AI agenti přes otevřené soubory a MCP.","lang":"cs","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Čím se místní znalostní báze o Klatovsku liší od pouhého popisu regionu a jak se k ní dostanou lidé a AI agenti?","recallA":"Každé faktické tvrzení v ní jde dohledat ke konkrétnímu zdroji nebo datové vrstvě, s datem, územním rozsahem, metodou a omezeními. Lidé ji čtou a spoluvytvářejí jako interaktivní knihu; AI agenti čtou statické stránky v /kb/, llms.txt, surový markdown a otevřené datové soubory, nebo se ptají přes MCP endpoint /api/mcp.","text":"Klatovsko, tedy okres Klatovy v Plzeňském kraji, je česká strana česko-bavorského pilotu projektu PoliRural+. Na něm si ověřujeme jednoduchou věc: dá se z knihy udělat udržovaná místní znalostní báze , ve které se místa, data a lidé, kteří o území rozhodují, potkávají na jednom místě? A dokážou ji číst i AI agenti? Blok patří k místu Každý blok odpovídá na jednu místní otázku o konkrétním území (obci, povodí, půdním bloku, trase, biotopu) a jmenuje otevřené vrstvy , o které se opírá: snímky Copernicus, LPIS, katastr, statistiku, OpenStreetMap. Uvádí také, s jakou hranicí pracuje, protože různé datové sady mívají různé hranice. Co znamená „podložené“ Ke každému tvrzení se dá dohledat zdroj: kdo data vydal, o jakou sadu jde, k jakému datu platí, jaké území pokrývá a jak byla upravena. Vycházíme z profilu původu dat v D4.2. Ten za nejdůležitější považuje zdroj, poskytovatele, časové pokrytí, aktuálnost, licenci, úroveň přístupu, známá omezení a stav kvality. Překryv dvou vrstev ještě není příčina a zelenost ze satelitu není diagnóza. Výpověď místních označíme jako výpověď. Kde důkazy chybějí, blok to řekne. Dvoje vstupní dveře Lidé používají tuto interaktivní knihu . Najdou v ní kontrolní otázky, fasety (region, hloubka, jazyk) a hry. Tlačítko ✍️ u každého bloku otevře autorské studio . Koncept sdílený s kódem skupiny polirural se objeví v galerii konsorcia ( / trida-polirural ), kde ho kolegové komentují a hodnotí. Nejlepší koncepty redakce převezme do knihy a jméno autora zůstane u bloku. AI agenti dostanou stejný obsah bez prohlížeče: - statické stránky v /kb/ , čitelné i bez JavaScriptu, - /llms.txt , stručnou mapu knihy pro jazykové modely, - surový markdown každého bloku včetně frontmatteru, - otevřené datové soubory (piloty, praxe), - MCP endpoint /api/mcp s nástroji pro hledání v knize a výpis pilotů a praxí. MCP je protokol, který už používají JackDaw i Raven (D4.2). JackDaw navíc umožňuje připojit vlastní MCP server za běhu, takže kniha se v principu může stát dalším nástrojem v rozhovoru s JackDaw. Proč to dělat Policy brief z pilotů (D7.3, příloha 10) nazývá lidskou práci s přípravou místních dat „skrytou infrastrukturou“ venkovské AI: jsou to měsíce ruční práce, kterou málokdo financuje. Kniha ji zviditelní, podepíše jménem autora a umožní ji použít znovu. Zdroje: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.4 Data Spaces, EOSC and external infrastructure alignment; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions; §3.3.1 Extensibility via Model Context Protocol — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10: Execution Challenges Observed Across Pilots — PDF - Strojový průvodce a mapa této knihy: /AGENTS.md , /llms.txt","path":"content/ch04-geoai/08b-cs-mistni-znalostni-baze.md","kb":"/kb/local-geoai-kb#ch4-local-kb-poc-cs"},{"id":"ch4-klatovsko-data","concept":"klatovsko-open-data","conceptTitle":"Open geodata for Klatovsko","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"What open data says about Klatovsko, and what it cannot say","teaser":"Seven local questions, seven open layers, each with its scale, date and licence to check before an answer counts.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"Why does a local knowledge base combine several open layers instead of relying on one map, and what must it check when it does?","recallA":"Each layer answers a different question at its own date and scale: imagery shows vegetation, LPIS shows registered farmland, the cadastre shows parcels and ownership, statistics describe statistical areas. Combining them requires checking boundaries, dates, definitions, licences and uncertainty.","highlights":["LPIS shows registered agricultural use; the cadastre shows parcels and ownership. They are different layers","D4.2's Beta already uses Czech LPIS, cadastre, RÚIAN and forestry data","A spatial overlap shows a relationship, not harm or non-compliance","Publicly viewable is not the same as openly licensed"],"parents":["local-geoai-kb"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases (Table 7) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.2 Rural Attractiveness and Innovation Potential Data — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"Dataset providers: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service; LPIS, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (eAGRI); ČÚZK (cadastre, RÚIAN, orthophotos); ČHMÚ; ČSÚ; Eurostat/GISCO; OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL); AOPK ČR and EEA (Natura 2000)","url":null}],"text":"Klatovsko is not a blank map for the project. In D4.2's pilot table, the Czech–Bavarian pilot uses JackDaw for 1 × 1 km attractiveness grids comparing south-western Bohemia with eastern Bavaria. The Beta workflows already include Czech forestry data, LPIS, the cadastre and RÚIAN , which bring operational detail that European sources lack. Start with questions, then find layers Local question Layer and provider How to read it --- --- --- How does vegetation change through the season? Copernicus Sentinel imagery and Land Monitoring Service products Repeated observations; clouds and acquisition dates limit comparisons Which land is registered as farmland, and in what use? LPIS, Ministry of Agriculture (eAGRI) Agricultural land blocks and their use; not ownership Where are the parcels and who owns them? Cadastre of real estate, ČÚZK The formal reference for parcel boundaries and ownership Which addresses and buildings belong to a municipality? RÚIAN, ČÚZK Official territorial units, addresses and buildings What do weather and water stations record? ČHMÚ (Czech Hydrometeorological Institute) Measurements at stations, not at every field; JackDaw adds ERA5 and WorldClim grids Which roads, paths and services are mapped? OpenStreetMap Community-maintained and current where mappers are active; completeness varies How are population and the local economy changing? ČSÚ (Czech Statistical Office); Eurostat and GISCO for NUTS and LAU Averages over statistical units, published with a delay D4.1 makes the last two rows a pair on purpose: statistics give a standard framework but average out local differences and age quickly, while OSM gives spatial detail and timeliness with uneven quality. An answer that can be checked Take a question about farmland next to a Natura 2000 site (site boundaries from AOPK ČR and the EEA). A draft block overlays LPIS land blocks with the site boundary, adds ČÚZK orthophotos for interpretation, and records each dataset's date, coordinate reference system and the intersection method. That shows a spatial relationship . It does not establish ecological harm, legal non-compliance or a required management action; those need further evidence and a competent interpretation. Local questions already on the table Funded third parties in this pilot (D6.3) point to the questions that matter locally: FarmTourist linked farms, local products and tourism; the DIPS ideathon covered agriculture, smart tourism, local food and planning; LocalLinks.AI is mapping local farms and short food supply chains with AI assistance (mid-term accepted conditionally in March 2026). Open is not unrestricted Check licences dataset by dataset. A public viewer does not grant bulk download or redistribution. OpenStreetMap carries ODbL obligations, Copernicus products have their own notices, and Czech services need their specific terms read. Resolution matters as much: a pixel is not a survey, a station is not a field sensor, and municipal statistics say nothing about a household. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases (Table 7) — PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.2 Rural Attractiveness and Innovation Potential Data — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — PDF - Dataset providers: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service; LPIS, Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (eAGRI); ČÚZK (cadastre, RÚIAN, orthophotos); ČHMÚ; ČSÚ; Eurostat/GISCO; OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL); AOPK ČR and EEA (Natura 2000)","path":"content/ch04-geoai/09-spine-klatovsko-data.md","kb":"/kb/klatovsko-open-data"},{"id":"ch4-klatovsko-data-cs","concept":"klatovsko-open-data","conceptTitle":"Open geodata for Klatovsko","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Co o Klatovsku řeknou otevřená data a co ne","teaser":"Sedm místních otázek a sedm otevřených vrstev. U každé je potřeba zkontrolovat měřítko, datum a licenci.","lang":"cs","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"Proč místní znalostní báze kombinuje více otevřených vrstev místo jedné mapy a co při tom musí hlídat?","recallA":"Každá vrstva odpovídá na jinou otázku, k jinému datu a v jiném měřítku: snímky ukazují vegetaci, LPIS evidované zemědělské využití, katastr parcely a vlastnictví, statistika průměry za statistické jednotky. Při kombinaci je třeba hlídat hranice, data, definice, licence a nejistotu.","text":"Pro projekt není Klatovsko prázdná mapa. Podle tabulky pilotů v D4.2 využívá česko-bavorský pilot JackDaw pro mřížky atraktivity 1 × 1 km , které srovnávají jihozápadní Čechy s východním Bavorskem. Pracovní postupy Beta verze už zahrnují česká lesnická data, LPIS, katastr a RÚIAN . Ta přinášejí podrobnost, kterou evropské zdroje nemají. Nejdřív otázka, pak vrstva Místní otázka Vrstva a poskytovatel Jak ji číst --- --- --- Jak se mění vegetace během sezóny? Snímky Sentinel a produkty Copernicus Land Monitoring Service Opakovaná pozorování; srovnání omezují mraky a data snímkování Která půda je evidována jako zemědělská a jak se užívá? LPIS, Ministerstvo zemědělství (eAGRI) Půdní bloky a jejich kultura; ne vlastnictví Kde vedou hranice parcel a kdo je vlastní? Katastr nemovitostí, ČÚZK Závazný podklad pro hranice parcel a vlastnictví Které adresy a budovy patří k obci? RÚIAN, ČÚZK Úřední územní prvky, adresy a budovy Co měří meteorologické a hydrologické stanice? ČHMÚ Hodnoty ve stanicích, ne na každém poli; JackDaw přidává mřížky ERA5 a WorldClim Které cesty, stezky a služby jsou zmapované? OpenStreetMap Udržuje komunita; aktuální tam, kde mapují, úplnost kolísá Jak se mění počet obyvatel a místní ekonomika? ČSÚ; Eurostat a GISCO pro NUTS a LAU Průměry za statistické jednotky, zveřejňované se zpožděním Poslední dva řádky tvoří dvojici záměrně (D4.1): statistika dává standardní rámec, ale stírá místní rozdíly a rychle stárne. OSM přináší prostorový detail a aktuálnost, kvalita ale kolísá. Odpověď, kterou jde ověřit Řekněme, že nás zajímá zemědělská půda u lokality Natura 2000 (hranice podle AOPK ČR a EEA). Koncept bloku překryje půdní bloky LPIS s hranicí lokality, pro výklad přidá ortofoto ČÚZK a zapíše datum každé sady, souřadnicový systém i metodu průniku. Tím ukáže prostorový vztah . Neprokáže ale škodu na přírodě, porušení předpisů ani povinné opatření. K tomu jsou potřeba další důkazy a odborný výklad. Místní otázky už existují Podpořené projekty třetích stran v tomto pilotu (D6.3) ukazují, co místní řeší: FarmTourist propojoval farmy, místní produkty a cestovní ruch. Ideathon DIPS se věnoval zemědělství, chytrému cestovnímu ruchu, místnímu jídlu a plánování. LocalLinks.AI s pomocí AI mapuje místní farmy a krátké dodavatelské řetězce (průběžná zpráva přijata s podmínkami v březnu 2026). Otevřené neznamená bez podmínek Licenci je potřeba ověřit u každé sady zvlášť. Veřejný prohlížeč ještě neopravňuje k hromadnému stažení ani k dalšímu šíření. OpenStreetMap má podmínky licence ODbL, produkty Copernicus vlastní ujednání a u českých služeb je třeba přečíst jejich podmínky. Zdroje: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases (Table 7) — PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.2 Rural Attractiveness and Innovation Potential Data — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — PDF - Poskytovatelé dat: Copernicus Land Monitoring Service; LPIS, Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR (eAGRI); ČÚZK (katastr, RÚIAN, ortofoto); ČHMÚ; ČSÚ; Eurostat/GISCO; přispěvatelé OpenStreetMap (ODbL); AOPK ČR a EEA (Natura 2000)","path":"content/ch04-geoai/09b-cs-data-klatovsko.md","kb":"/kb/klatovsko-open-data#ch4-klatovsko-data-cs"},{"id":"which-data-layer-game","concept":"klatovsko-open-data","conceptTitle":"Open geodata for Klatovsko","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Which Data Layer Answers It?","teaser":"Ten questions from a farmer and a mayor. Send each to imagery, LPIS, the cadastre or statistics.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"","path":"content/ch04-geoai/09a-game-which-data-layer.md","kb":"/kb/klatovsko-open-data#which-data-layer-game"},{"id":"ch4-replicate-region","concept":"replicate-local-kb","conceptTitle":"Replicating the local knowledge base","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Replicate Klatovsko in your region","teaser":"Ten local questions, the layers that answer them, and a draft shared with the consortium: a knowledge base people can check and maintain.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What is the workflow for replicating the Klatovsko knowledge base in another pilot region?","recallA":"Pick ten questions locals actually ask, define places and dates, map each to European and national layers with their provenance fields, draft evidence-linked blocks in the author studio, share them with group code polirural, and let editorial review lift the best into the book; then assign maintenance.","highlights":["Start from questions people ask, not from a data catalogue","European layers exist for every pilot; national layers add the operational detail","Record the D4.2 priority fields: source, provider, dates, update status, licence, access, limits, quality","Humans decide what is published; agents draft and check"],"parents":["local-geoai-kb","klatovsko-open-data"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10, Strategic recommendation 5: Digital Steward Training Programme — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"This book's contribution brief: /AGENTS.md","url":null}],"text":"The Klatovsko pattern needs a defined territory, a small editorial team and questions that matter locally. Identical datasets are not required. - [ ] Pick ten questions locals actually ask. \"Which settlements have a mapped walking route to services?\" beats \"Describe regional sustainability.\" - [ ] Define places and dates. Record the boundary, administrative identifiers and the period each question concerns. - [ ] Map each question to layers. Every pilot has the European layers D4.2 integrates: OpenStreetMap, Eurostat and GISCO units and statistics, WorldClim and ERA5 climate, Open Land Use. National layers add the operational detail: LPIS, cadastre, address registers, the national statistics office. - [ ] Record provenance. For each layer, note the D4.2 priority fields: source, provider, temporal coverage, update status, licence, access level, known limitations and quality status. Write \"unknown\" or \"not provided\" instead of leaving a gap. - [ ] Draft blocks in the author studio (✍️ on any block): one question, a short explanation, linked evidence, scope, limits and a named human steward. - [ ] Share with group code polirural . Colleagues test the explanation and add tellings in the gallery. Agents can submit drafts through POST /api/drafts . - [ ] Ask for editorial review. Sharing is not acceptance; editors lift the best drafts into the book. - [ ] Plan maintenance. Name who corrects what, and flag blocks whose evidence has aged. Humans decide, agents help. Agents can find candidate sources, suggest metadata, structure a draft and flag unsupported claims. A generated citation must be opened and checked, and a spatial calculation needs an inspectable method. The pilots' policy brief puts this role into an institution, the digital steward who mediates between developers and local users. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10, Strategic recommendation 5: Digital Steward Training Programme — PDF - This book's contribution brief: /AGENTS.md","path":"content/ch04-geoai/10-spine-replicate-region.md","kb":"/kb/replicate-local-kb"},{"id":"ch4-replicate-region-cs","concept":"replicate-local-kb","conceptTitle":"Replicating the local knowledge base","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch04-geoai","title":"Zopakujte Klatovsko u sebe","teaser":"Deset otázek, které lidé v regionu opravdu kladou, vrstvy, které na ně odpovídají, a koncept sdílený s konsorciem.","lang":"cs","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"Jak postupovat, když chcete znalostní bázi podle Klatovska založit v jiném regionu?","recallA":"Vybrat deset otázek, které místní skutečně kladou, vymezit území a období, ke každé otázce najít evropské a národní vrstvy a zapsat jejich původ, napsat bloky s doloženými zdroji v autorském studiu, sdílet je s kódem skupiny polirural a nechat redakci vybrat ty nejlepší; nakonec určit, kdo bude bázi udržovat.","text":"Postup z Klatovska nevyžaduje stejná data všude. Stačí vymezené území, malý redakční tým a otázky, na kterých místním záleží. - [ ] Sepište deset otázek, které lidé opravdu kladou. „Odkud se dá do obchodu nebo k lékaři dojít po zmapované cestě?“ je lepší než „Popište udržitelnost regionu.“ - [ ] Vymezte místo a čas. Zapište hranici území, úřední identifikátory a období, kterého se otázka týká. - [ ] Ke každé otázce najděte vrstvy. Evropské vrstvy, se kterými pracuje D4.2, má každý pilot: OpenStreetMap, územní jednotky a statistiky Eurostatu a GISCO, klimatická data WorldClim a ERA5, Open Land Use. Národní vrstvy přidají potřebnou podrobnost. Na Klatovsku to jsou LPIS, katastr a RÚIAN a data ČSÚ. - [ ] Zapište původ dat. U každé vrstvy uveďte prioritní pole z D4.2: zdroj, poskytovatele, časové pokrytí, aktuálnost, licenci, úroveň přístupu, známá omezení a stav kvality. Když něco nevíte, napište „neznámé“ nebo „neuvedeno“, nenechávejte pole prázdné. - [ ] Napište bloky v autorském studiu (✍️ u každého bloku): jedna otázka, krátké vysvětlení, odkazy na data, rozsah, omezení a jméno člověka, který za blok odpovídá. - [ ] Sdílejte s kódem skupiny polirural . Kolegové v galerii vysvětlení vyzkouší a přidají vlastní pohled. Agenti mohou koncepty posílat přes POST /api/drafts . - [ ] Požádejte o redakční posouzení. Sdílení ještě neznamená přijetí; nejlepší koncepty převezme do knihy redakce. - [ ] Domluvte údržbu. Určete, kdo co opravuje, a označte bloky, jejichž podklady zastaraly. Rozhodují lidé, agenti pomáhají. Agent najde kandidátní zdroje, navrhne metadata, připraví kostru bloku a upozorní na nepodložená tvrzení. Vygenerovanou citaci je ale nutné otevřít a ověřit a prostorový výpočet musí mít dohledatelnou metodu. Policy brief z pilotů pro tuto roli navrhuje novou profesi, digitálního správce (digital steward), který stojí mezi vývojáři a místními uživateli. Zdroje: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §4.1 Integrated data sources and pilot data flows; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10, Strategic recommendation 5: Digital Steward Training Programme — PDF - Průvodce přispíváním do této knihy: /AGENTS.md","path":"content/ch04-geoai/10b-cs-zopakujte-u-sebe.md","kb":"/kb/replicate-local-kb#ch4-replicate-region-cs"},{"id":"ch5-which-tool-when","concept":"which-tool-when","conceptTitle":"Which tool when","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Which tool when: matching PoliRural+ tools to the steps of a RAP","teaser":"Collecting data, analysing it, writing a brief, engaging people, deciding, monitoring: which PoliRural+ tool helps at each step, and where its how-to guide is.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which PoliRural+ tools support which steps of preparing a Regional Action Plan, and how does a pilot choose among them?","recallA":"D4.1 maps six RAP steps to tools: data collection (Vulture, Magpie), integration and analysis (JackDaw, Magpie, rural attractiveness tools), policy briefs (the Advisor), stakeholder engagement (MAA tool, MapWhiteboard, JackDaw), decision-making (Advisor, JackDaw, MapWhiteboard) and monitoring (attractiveness tools, JackDaw). Each pilot names its planning challenge first and then selects only the Beta services it needs.","highlights":["D4.1 links six RAP steps to named tools","Pick by the object of the question: a place, a document corpus, or people and targets","Onboarding starts with the planning challenge, then the selection of services","Pilots combine different bundles; no pilot uses everything"],"parents":["regional-action-plan"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, Explanation of RAP Steps and Technologies. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.4 Magpie; §3.5 Vulture; §3.9 MAA tool; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.2 Table 7. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, phases I–III. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"}],"text":"A Regional Action Plan moves through D3.1's three phases: preparation, foresight and the plan itself, then follow-up. D4.1 splits the same work into six steps and names the tools for each. The table puts both together, with what is actually usable in the Beta (D4.2) and a link to each how-to guide. RAP step (D4.1) Mainly in D3.1 phase Tools named in D4.1 What to open in the Beta How-to --- --- --- --- --- 1. Data collection I Preparation Vulture, Magpie, personal information stream processing Vulture for your own e-mails and pages; Magpie search now runs inside Raven; the Hub library Vulture, Raven and Magpie, Hub 2. Data integration and analysis I–II JackDaw, Magpie, Rural Attractiveness Explorer, a data extraction and analysis tool JackDaw for any drawn area; the 1 km innovation potential grid on the Czech-Bavarian border JackDaw, Attractiveness 3. Policy brief preparation II PoliRural+ Advisor, LLMs, Vulture The Advisor over the project corpus Advisor 4. Stakeholder engagement I–III MAA tool, MapWhiteboard, JackDaw MAA tool (300+ users in the Beta); simplified MapWhiteboard MAA tool, MapWhiteboard 5. Decision-making and strategy II Advisor, JackDaw, MapWhiteboard, Vulture Advisor, plus the Agent Builder for repeated assessments; MapWhiteboard for spatial choices Advisor, MapWhiteboard 6. Monitoring and evaluation III Follow-up Rural Attractiveness Explorer, JackDaw, a data extraction and analysis tool Objectives, indicators and inputs in the MAA tool; dashboards for indicators MAA tool Before step 5, look at what other regions have already tried: the Atlas guide. A quick rule for choosing Ask what the question is about: - A place (land, climate, people, businesses in a territory): JackDaw; MapWhiteboard when a group has to discuss it. - A body of documents (policies, deliverables, pilot reports): the Advisor; Vulture only for your private stream. - People and commitments (who takes part, which targets, how far): the MAA tool. How pilots actually choose D4.2's onboarding has five steps. The pilot names its regional planning challenge first and only then selects the Beta services . After that come workspaces and roles, data and metadata, and testing in real meetings and workshops (§6.1). The bundles differ. Monaghan worked with dashboards, the MAA tool and the Hub. The Czech-Bavarian pilot used JackDaw and the attractiveness grids. Mallusjoki combined the MAA tool, the Advisor, JackDaw and Raven (Table 7). The D4.1 column comes from the design stage. Some tools it names have changed role since then: Magpie's function moved into Raven, and Vulture became less central (D4.2 §3.4–3.5). The guides that follow describe the Beta as it is. Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, Explanation of RAP Steps and Technologies. PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.4 Magpie; §3.5 Vulture; §3.9 MAA tool; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.2 Table 7. PDF - D3.1 RAP Methodology, phases I–III. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/00-spine-which-tool-when.md","kb":"/kb/which-tool-when"},{"id":"ch5-ecosystem","concept":"tool-ecosystem","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"The PoliRural+ platform: a modular Beta, not one app","teaser":"Eleven components, each with its own maturity: what the PoliRural+ Beta platform contains, and what holds it together.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why is the PoliRural+ platform built as separate components rather than one application, and what connects them?","recallA":"Because authorities, advisors and developers usually need selected functions, not a full stack. The components connect through APIs, standardised metadata profiles and MCP-based integration, and metadata managed by Raven is what holds them together.","highlights":["D4.2 describes eleven components, and each has its own Beta status","Raven's metadata decides which data and tools JackDaw can use","Each pilot picks the services it needs in five onboarding steps","Before the final release the priority is consolidation and a documented TRL per tool, not new features"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, Executive Summary; §3 Platform components; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §11.1 Remaining development priorities; §12 Conclusions. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §3.1 Wagtail CMS; §3.2 Map management; §3.3 External tools. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/139/Attachment_0_53.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ Hub: hub.polirural.eu/home","url":"https://hub.polirural.eu/home"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.5 Magpie: AI-driven OGC Metadata Catalog Search. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O5. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"Deliverable D4.2 ( PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta ) describes the platform as a set of interoperable components that can be combined for different users, pilots and themes, not as one monolithic application. The reason it gives is practical: public authorities, advisors and external developers usually need a few selected functions, not a full deployment. What the Beta contains Component What it does Status in D4.2 --- --- --- Hub4Everybody The front door: documents, publications, service links. Its library feeds JackDaw's retrieval layer In operational use; growth is mainly in content Raven Ingests data and metadata, selects datasets and sets up tools on top of them Central module; to be consolidated JackDaw GeoAI layer that turns plain-language questions into spatial queries (details) Tested in pilots; a consolidation priority Magpie Natural-language search over metadata catalogues Largely stable; its function now runs inside Raven Vulture Sandbox for AI productivity experiments Less central than expected; selective maintenance Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder Visual builder for multi-step agents inside JackDaw New module in the Beta Advisor and RAG services Answers grounded in the project's own corpus Runs as a private RAG; a Knowledge Graph link is planned MapWhiteboard Shared map with live cursors and features Simplified instance developed and deployed Multi-Actor Approach tool Stakeholders, objectives and inputs per pilot Configured; 300+ users, 40 work entities Innovation potential tool Attractiveness on a 1×1 km grid, Czech-Bavarian border Segment analyses still being populated Atlas of Best Practices Repository of transferable practices Content has grown a lot; links to e-market tools still to be defined How the parts connect The components communicate through APIs, standardised metadata profiles and MCP-based integration , so external tools and agents can attach without hard-wired dependencies. Metadata does the connecting: D4.2 concludes that metadata quality directly affects how reliable JackDaw, the dashboards and the analytical tools are. Each pilot puts its own bundle together. Onboarding has five steps: name the regional planning challenge, select the Beta services, configure workspaces and user roles, prepare or ingest data and metadata, then test in meetings, workshops and real planning tasks (D4.2 §6.1). What the Beta does not yet do D4.2 is open about the gaps. The components still feel like separate applications. Interfaces are inconsistent. Multilingual and place-name handling needs work. Outputs must show their sources, data validity and limits more clearly. The roadmap to the final release (D4.3, due at the end of the project) is about consolidation : tighter integration, continuous testing, training material, demos for model builders, and progress towards higher Technology Readiness Levels, with a clearly documented status for each major tool. The MAA tool comes next, because it shows in numbers what \"in pilot use\" means. How-to: Which tool when · Using Hub4Everybody · Finding and publishing data with Magpie and Raven. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, Executive Summary; §3 Platform components; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §11.1 Remaining development priorities; §12 Conclusions. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/01-spine-tool-ecosystem.md","kb":"/kb/tool-ecosystem"},{"id":"ch5-guide-hub","concept":"tool-ecosystem","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to use Hub4Everybody: find, publish, contribute","teaser":"The front door of the platform: one sign-in, a library that feeds JackDaw, and a route from your QGIS layer to a shared map.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What can a regional user do in Hub4Everybody, and why does adding a document to its library matter for the AI tools?","recallA":"Hub4Everybody is the entry point: you find documents, outputs and service links, sign in once through its OAuth2 provider, publish map layers (for example from QGIS with the Layman plugin) and submit content that editors approve. Documents added to the PoliRuralPlus library feed the retrieval layer behind JackDaw, so the Hub is part of the evidence infrastructure.","text":"When to use it: you need project documents or service links, or you want to publish your region's material and map layers where the other tools can reach them. What you need - A browser: hub.polirural.eu/home - For publishing, a project account. Components share one security model: the OAuth2 provider in the Hub environment issues tokens, and the other services trust them (D4.2 §5.4). - For your own map layers: QGIS with the Layman plugin ; for field work, QField on an Android device (D1.1 §3.3). Steps 1. Browse. The Hub combines page navigation with repository-style access to project documents, outputs, library resources and service links (D4.2 §3.1). 2. Sign in once. The token you receive is sent with requests to the other services, which check its issuer, expiry, scopes and roles before answering (D4.2 §5.4). 3. Find geodata. The Micka catalogue searches metadata, lets you create and edit INSPIRE-compliant records, and harvests from portals that share data through CSW or WMS (D1.1 §3.2). 4. Compose a map. HSLayers NG combines WMS, WFS and vector data in one interactive map (D1.1 §3.2). 5. Publish your layer. In QGIS, the Layman plugin publishes vector or raster layers to the Hub's Layman server, pushes later edits, sets who may view or edit, and stores metadata. Layman serves the result through WMS and WFS (D1.1 §3.2–3.3). 6. Contribute content. News, articles, blogs and events go through a Wagtail workflow: submission, editor review, approval. New contributors stay invisible until an editor approves them; approved authors publish with a \"non-approved\" label until review (D1.1 §3.1). 7. Add documents to the library. They are passed through an integration into the retrieval layer behind JackDaw (D4.2 §3.1). What you get Curated, searchable access to project material; layers that other GIS software can read through OGC services; pages with embedded interactive maps (the Wagtail map widget); and documents that the AI tools can cite. Pilot use D4.2 lists Hub4Everybody among the core services in eight of the nine pilots, from Monaghan to Malta, as the common place for communication, visibility and access to platform resources (§6.2–6.3). Watch out - As content grows, its value depends on consistent classification, metadata and curation ; without them a larger repository is harder to navigate. D4.2 plans harmonised metadata and taxonomy (§3.1). - A badly described document or layer is also badly found by the AI tools that read from the Hub. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.1 Hub4Everybody evolution; §5.4 Shared authentication; §6.2 Pilot-specific use cases; §6.3 Usability observations. PDF - D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §3.1 Wagtail CMS; §3.2 Map management; §3.3 External tools. PDF - PoliRural+ Hub: hub.polirural.eu/home","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/01g-guide-hub4everybody.md","kb":"/kb/tool-ecosystem#ch5-guide-hub"},{"id":"ch5-guide-raven-magpie","concept":"tool-ecosystem","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to find a dataset with Magpie and publish yours with Raven","teaser":"If your region's data is not in the catalogue, JackDaw cannot use it. Here is how data gets found, and how it gets in.","lang":"en","lens":"finland","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What must a data provider fill in when publishing a dataset in Raven, and why does it decide what JackDaw can do with the data?","recallA":"After a resumable upload, the provider gives a title, a description (ideally in several languages), tags, temporal coverage or an explicit 'unknown', and a description of every column, then publishes from draft. JackDaw finds datasets by semantic matching on this metadata, so weak descriptions mean the data is found and used poorly.","text":"When to use it: you are looking for geodata for a question, or you hold a local dataset that other tools should be able to use. What you need - To search: the Magpie demonstrator at jackdaw.avinet.no/magpie (D4.1 §6.5), or simply a dataset question in JackDaw. - To publish: access to Raven. The pack gives no public address; Raven sits behind the platform's shared identity provider, so access comes through your pilot's technical partner. - A geospatial vector dataset and what you know about it: source, period, meaning of each column. Steps 1. Search in plain language. Magpie turns your query into an embedding and compares it with embedded ISO 19115/19119 metadata. Results are records with layer names, descriptions, keywords and WMS/WFS endpoints, and it can build a map from them (D4.1 §6.5). In the Beta this function runs inside Raven and usually appears through JackDaw (D4.2 §3.4). 2. Upload what is missing. Raven sends large files in chunks, up to three in parallel; an interrupted upload resumes where it stopped (D4.2 §3.3.3). 3. Describe it. Give a title, a description, classification tags, temporal coverage (a date range, or marked explicitly as unknown) and a semantic description of every column . The interface encourages descriptions in more than one language to improve search recall. 4. Publish. The dataset stays a draft until you publish it to the catalogue. 5. Maintain it. Edit metadata later, attach methodology documents or data dictionaries, grant or revoke access for named users, or replace the geometry layer without a full re-ingest where the state allows it. 6. Test it in JackDaw. Ask about your area; JackDaw's GeoRAG step finds datasets in the Raven catalogue by semantic matching and then queries them spatially. What you get A dataset in PostGIS that can be queried by SQL and by natural-language semantic search, and that platform tools can use without code changes (D4.2 §3.3.3, §6.3). Pilot use In Mallusjoki, Raven metadata services ran alongside JackDaw, the Advisor and the MAA tool. D4.2 reports municipal-level spatial analysis that combined open geospatial datasets with local planning needs for the rural events ecosystem (Table 7). Watch out - Search cannot fix metadata. Incomplete records, weak keywords and inconsistent classification limit what Magpie or Raven can find (D4.2 §3.4). - Uneven source quality still causes uneven behaviour across datasets (§3.2). - Magpie will not grow as a stand-alone product; development continues through Raven. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2 Data and metadata services; §3.3 Jackdaw (3.3.3 Raven); §3.4 Magpie; §6.2 Table 7; §6.3 Usability observations. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.5 Magpie: AI-driven OGC Metadata Catalog Search. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/01h-guide-raven-magpie.md","kb":"/kb/tool-ecosystem#ch5-guide-raven-magpie"},{"id":"ch5-external","concept":"tool-ecosystem","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Desktop, field and data: what plugs into the platform","teaser":"PoliRural+ connects to QGIS, QField, sister-project components and European data instead of rebuilding them.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which external tools and data sources does the PoliRural+ platform plug into rather than rebuild?","recallA":"Desktop QGIS (through the Layman plugin) and mobile QField for GIS work, components from Data4Food2030, THEROS and ALIANCE, and the European data sources named in objective O5, such as INSPIRE, Copernicus, Eurostat and EOSC.","text":"The platform does not try to replace established GIS software or data sources. Two of D4.1's design principles are integration over base development and making use of existing data , such as INSPIRE-compliant geospatial data, PSI Directive resources and Earth observation repositories (D4.1 §3.4). Desktop and field tools - QGIS handles detailed editing and spatial analysis. The QGIS Layman plugin publishes vector and raster layers to the Layman server in Hub4Everybody, keeps them in sync, and manages access rights and metadata (D1.1 §3.3). - QField takes QGIS projects to Android devices for field data collection. It works offline and syncs with Hub4Everybody once a connection is back (D1.1 §3.3). Components from sister projects D4.1 lists components brought in from Data4Food2030, THEROS and ALIANCE (§2.1.1): - an E-Market for Local Food built on PrestaShop, for direct sales of regional food, with IoT monitoring of transport conditions and blockchain traceability; - cloud-cover detection and \"mosaicking\" for Sentinel-2 imagery, a validated method for estimating missing data for vegetation analysis and yield prediction; - localised weather forecasts that combine Sentinel-2, GFS, HadISD and ERA5-Land. Data named in the objectives Objective O5 commits the project to using European Research Infrastructures, EOSC, EU Data Spaces, INSPIRE, Copernicus, DIAS, Eurostat, FAO and other data sources (Grant Agreement). Copernicus data explains how satellite layers become local evidence. Partner projects add in-situ sensor data through SensLog and climate products from FOCAL; see the research pillars (D4.2 §9.1–9.2). Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State; §3.4 Platform Design Principles. PDF - D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §3.3 External tools. PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §9.1 FOCAL; §9.2 BioClima. PDF - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O5. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/06-sidebar-external-services.md","kb":"/kb/tool-ecosystem#ch5-external"},{"id":"which-tool-game","concept":"tool-ecosystem","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ tool ecosystem","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Which Tool Serves This Need?","teaser":"Nine real pilot needs, nine PoliRural+ components. Match each need to the tool that serves it.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/06a-game-which-tool.md","kb":"/kb/tool-ecosystem#which-tool-game"},{"id":"ch5-maatool","concept":"maa-tool","conceptTitle":"The Multi-Actor Approach tool","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"The MAA tool: multi-actor engagement as a traceable workflow","teaser":"300+ users, 40 work entities, about 150 stakeholders: the PoliRural+ workspace where pilots record who takes part and what they want to achieve.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does the MAA tool add to the multi-actor approach, and how far is it in use?","recallA":"It turns the method into a traceable workflow: stakeholders, roles, objectives, inputs and communication are recorded per pilot. In the Beta, the PoliRural+ workspace holds more than 300 users, 40 work entities, about 150 stakeholder profiles and 49 objectives.","highlights":["First developed by Social InnoLabs in Cities2030, now redesigned for PoliRural+ pilots","The workspace mirrors the work packages, including WP5 and nine pilot work entities","The Ramon AI assistant drafts stakeholders and objectives from pilot documents; users confirm them","Still open: shared attribute vocabulary across pilots, empty social spaces, full WP5 validation in D4.3"],"parents":[],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.9 Multi-Actor Approach tool; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §9.3 INTERESH. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §5.2 Insights Gained. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"}],"text":"The multi-actor approach asks farmers, advisors, authorities, researchers and citizens to shape a pilot together. The Multi-Actor Approach (MAA) tool is where PoliRural+ pilots record that work, so it can be checked and reused later. Where it comes from Social InnoLabs first developed the tool in the Cities2030 project. In PoliRural+ it is being redesigned for many different labs and pilots, with new programmes, work entities, charts and communication engines. D5.1 describes the new architecture (D4.1 §2.1.1). What a pilot team does in it - registers and classifies stakeholders, and assigns roles and permissions; - links stakeholders and members to programmes or work entities; - defines objectives and sub-objectives, and records indicators and inputs; - adds configurable attributes, such as sector, organisation size or urban/rural profile, and charts how stakeholders are distributed across them. These records feed WP5 stakeholder mapping, RAP preparation, pilot validation and feedback to WP3 and WP4 (D4.2 §3.9). Status in the Beta: in pilot use The PoliRural+ workspace follows the project's work-package structure, including WP5 and nine pilot work entities. In the Beta it holds more than 300 registered users, 40 work entities, about 150 classified stakeholder profiles, 49 objectives and 40 input progress records . D4.2 takes these figures as evidence that the tool is already used to coordinate pilot and work-package activities, not only shown in demos (§3.9, §6.1). The built-in Ramon AI assistant searches for work entities, users, stakeholders and objectives and proposes new ones. In pilot testing it extracted stakeholders and objectives from pilot documents for users to validate, which cut administrative effort (§6.3). Nothing is created until a user confirms it. Technically, the tool is a web application with an Angular front end and a NestJS API back end. Limits named in the sources D4.2 names three gaps. Social spaces appear in the navigation but have no content yet. Stakeholder assignments still need to be completed in the same way across all nine pilots. The pilots also need a common attribute vocabulary. Fuller WP5 validation evidence will be reported in D4.3. The pilots' revised RAPs agree that tools like the MAATool add value, but they also report barriers from limited digital literacy and interface complexity, and they call for simplification and targeted training (D2.3 §5.2). Beyond the pilots D4.2 describes the MAA tool supporting coordination in INTERESH's soil-health Living Labs. There it structures stakeholder profiles, objectives, roles and progress records among farmers, advisors, researchers and authorities (§9.3). How-to: Using the MAA tool step by step. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.9 Multi-Actor Approach tool; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §9.3 INTERESH. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §5.2 Insights Gained. PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/02-spine-maatool.md","kb":"/kb/maa-tool"},{"id":"ch5-guide-maa","concept":"maa-tool","conceptTitle":"The Multi-Actor Approach tool","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to use the MAA tool: from a stakeholder list to tracked objectives","teaser":"Register who takes part, say what you want to achieve, and feed the progress in: the MAA tool workflow in seven steps.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"In the MAA tool, how does an objective get a measurable value that the pilot can track?","recallA":"The objective is created in the programme, assigned to a work entity and linked to an indicator that defines its data type, direction (increasing or decreasing) and whether the value is static or variable. Inputs, each with a date and an optional comment, then update the value, so stakeholder work becomes a traceable record.","text":"When to use it: your pilot needs one shared record of who takes part, what they committed to, and how far it has got. What you need - An invitation. The pack gives no public address. Users are tied to an e-mail address; someone can create you as a \"representative\" user and invite you by e-mail, and you stay \"pending\" until you confirm it (D5.1 §4.2). Ask your pilot lead or the WP5 team. - Your pilot's stakeholder list (pilots' T2.1 stakeholders were imported at set-up, D5.1 §4.3), its objectives and pilot documents. Steps 1. Confirm your account and open the PoliRuralPlus programme. Its work entities mirror the work packages; WP5 uses the depth \"work packages → pilots → activities\" instead of \"action plans → actions → tasks\" (D5.1 §4.2). 2. Register stakeholders in your pilot's work entity: classify them and assign roles and permissions (D4.2 §3.9). A public stakeholder can be found and invited by other programmes; a private one cannot (D5.1 §4.2). 3. Fill in the extra attributes the programme defines, such as sector, organisation size or urban/rural profile. They drive the distribution charts. 4. Define objectives (KPIs, goals or milestones) and assign them to work entities. 5. Link an indicator to each non-aggregated objective: integer or decimal, increasing or decreasing, static or variable value (D5.1 §4.2). 6. Record inputs : each new value with a date and an optional comment. These updates move the objective forward. 7. Let Ramon draft, then decide. The built-in AI assistant extracts candidate stakeholders and objectives from pilot documents; you validate them before anything is created (D4.2 §3.9, §6.3). What you get Searchable stakeholder and member registers, pilot and work-package views, objective progress tables, attribute-based charts and a communication history. D4.2 names them as evidence for RAP documentation, engagement summaries and testing reports (§3.9). In the Beta workspace this already covers more than 300 users, 40 work entities and 49 objectives. Watch out - Social spaces appear in the menu but are still empty at programme and WP5 level. - Stakeholder assignments are not yet complete in the same way across all nine pilots, and there is no common attribute vocabulary yet, so compare charts between pilots with care. - Fuller WP5 validation evidence and export functions are planned for D4.3 (D4.2 §3.9). A recorded online workshop (22 July 2024) walked pilots through the application; ask WP5 for it (D5.1 §4.4.1). The method behind the tool: the multi-actor approach. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.9 Multi-Actor Approach tool; §6.1 Testing methodology and pilot onboarding; §6.3 Usability observations. PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §4.1–4.4 The Multi-Actor Approach Tool. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/02g-guide-maa-tool.md","kb":"/kb/maa-tool#ch5-guide-maa"},{"id":"ch5-adviser-magpie","concept":"polirural-advisor","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ Advisor and RAG services","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"The Advisor and Magpie: answers from the project's own evidence","teaser":"A custom GPT over the PoliRural+ knowledge base, and a natural-language search over map catalogues: what they retrieve, and what testers found.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What makes the PoliRural+ Advisor different from asking a general chatbot, and where did testers see its limits?","recallA":"It retrieves from a controlled project corpus (a private RAG; GeoRAG adds spatial data) and aims to cite its sources. In February 2025 testers found it easy to open and useful, but they hit daily usage limits and at least one wrong reference, so human judgement stays in charge.","highlights":["The Advisor is a custom GPT built on retrieval-augmented generation over the project's Knowledge Space","Textual RAG reads documents; GeoRAG adds metadata, map layers and indicators","8 structured walkthroughs (February 2025): access difficulty 1.0, dialogue rated useful (2.9 of 4)","Magpie searches geospatial metadata catalogues, not funding databases; in the Beta it lives inside Raven"],"parents":["tool-ecosystem"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.4 Magpie AI-enabled metadata/catalogue search; §3.7 PoliRuralPlus Advisor and RAG services. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.2 PoliRuralPlus Advisor, Custom GPT; §6.5 Magpie. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services; §3 Rural-Urban Linkages – Literature Review. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex O Example of a Pilot using the PoliRuralPlus GPT. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex B PoliRuralPlus Advisor \"Caddy\" service. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"The PoliRural+ Advisor answers from the project's own documents rather than the open web. Magpie does a similar job for geospatial metadata catalogues. The Advisor The Advisor is a custom GPT built with ChatGPT's retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technology. It gives pilot stakeholders access to the project's Knowledge Space and References database, and it supports RAP preparation, policy briefs and reviews of pilot evidence (D4.1 §6.2; D4.2 §3.7). Anyone with the link can use it. Its contents stay in the project's Team workspace and are not used by ChatGPT to train its wider models (D4.1 §6.2). D4.2 distinguishes two modes: - textual RAG over reports, policy documents and pilot material; - GeoRAG , which adds metadata records, map layers, indicators and analytical services, because many regional questions depend on place and not on prose alone. The goal is an answer whose citations, excerpts and reference trails the user can check, not just text that sounds right. A planned next step links the RAG pipelines to a Knowledge Graph, for entity linking and clearer evidence trails (D4.2 §3.7). What testers found In February 2025, partners and pilot users completed 8 structured cognitive walkthroughs (D2.3 Annex B). Opening the Advisor caused no problems (average difficulty 1.0). The dialogue was rated useful (2.9 overall on a 1–4 scale). One tester got good advice on funding instruments for Community-Led Local Development. Another got a wrong reference to the Horizon 2020 programme; it was corrected in later answers. Free-account daily limits cut some sessions short. One pilot warned that advice about the RAP's future \"can be tricky. We need to think for ourselves.\" D2.3 itself shows the Advisor in use. Its literature review on rural-urban linkages was written with the Advisor and the 700+ sources in the project's References Database (D2.3 §3). Magpie Magpie embeds ISO 19115/19119 metadata, the standards behind INSPIRE and OGC catalogues, in a Qdrant vector database. It answers plain-language queries with records listing layer names and WMS/WFS endpoints, and can build a map from them (D4.1 §6.5). In the Beta, Raven's data-selection workflow has taken over Magpie's core function, and its results appear mostly through JackDaw (D4.2 §3.4). Its limit is the metadata: no search makes up for incomplete records. Next: why one broad question rarely gets a good RAG answer. How-to: Using the Advisor for RAP work · Finding data with Magpie and Raven. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.4 Magpie AI-enabled metadata/catalogue search; §3.7 PoliRuralPlus Advisor and RAG services. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.2 PoliRuralPlus Advisor, Custom GPT; §6.5 Magpie. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services; §3 Rural-Urban Linkages – Literature Review. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/03-spine-adviser-magpie.md","kb":"/kb/polirural-advisor"},{"id":"ch5-guide-advisor","concept":"polirural-advisor","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ Advisor and RAG services","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to use the PoliRural+ Advisor for RAP work","teaser":"Scope the question, ask for sources, check them, push back: how the consortium used its custom GPT for SWOTs, gap analyses and a glossary.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"How should a RAP team phrase and handle questions to the PoliRural+ Advisor to get usable, checkable answers?","recallA":"Name the region, the task and the measure, ask for sources, and check the citations, because the private RAG behind it retrieves only a small set of top-ranked chunks from the project corpus. Then keep the dialogue going and edit or question the output; D7.4 asks users to engage critically rather than accept answers.","text":"When to use it: you are drafting or reviewing a RAP, a policy brief or a pilot evidence summary and want answers from the project's own documents rather than the open web. What you need - The Advisor link. It is a custom GPT in ChatGPT, \"publicly available to any user with the link\" (D4.1 §6.2); D7.4 describes access \"through a dedicated link\". The pack does not give the address, so get it from your pilot or the project. - No upload is needed: its contents stay in the project's Team workspace and are not used by ChatGPT to train its wider models (D4.1 §6.2). Steps 1. State the task and the place. Name your region, the RAP theme and the kind of output you want (SWOT, measure list, funding options). 2. Keep the question narrow. A RAG engine returns a small top-ranked set of chunks, often 10 to 20; a broad question pulls up general statements (D4.2 §3.6). 3. Ask for the sources. The service is designed to return citations, excerpts and reference trails (D4.2 §3.7). Open them. 4. Continue the dialogue. Clarify, challenge and follow up; one question and one answer does not use the tool well (D4.2 §3.6). 5. Edit and question the draft. D7.4 advises users to edit responses and question outputs rather than accept them. 6. Move repeatable work to an agent. If the same assessment runs for every measure, the Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder in JackDaw takes steps and quality checks. What you get Answer drafts grounded in the project corpus, with citations you can check and reuse (D4.2 §3.7). In Annex O of D2.2, a pilot stakeholder asked \"How can I develop an excellent RAP for my region?\" and got an eight-part structure, from regional context to monitoring, with pointers to D2.1, D5.1 and D2.2. How the consortium used it - May 2025: a summary of every pilot's RAP, its gap and a possible radical innovation, plus a SWOT per pilot. For County Monaghan it named the gap as rural mobility and remote-work infrastructure (D2.3 Annex A). - August 2025: the Advisor analysed project outputs with the AI Act and EU guidelines on generative AI to draft the Participatory AI Principles; the first is that AI responses must be understood and questioned, not blindly accepted (D2.3 Annex C). - November 2025: an EU glossary for RAP and grant alignment, built by scanning all public project outputs (D2.3 Annex C). Watch out - The private RAG is only as good as the completeness and preparation of the corpus ; GeoRAG still needs better links between texts, metadata and spatial services (D4.2 §3.7). - A Knowledge Graph link for clearer evidence trails is planned , not built. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.6 Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder; §3.7 Advisor and RAG services. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.2 PoliRuralPlus Advisor, Custom GPT. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex A Examples of using Advisor to improve RAPs; Annex C Examples of using Advisor for project and policy support. PDF - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex O Example of a Pilot using the PoliRuralPlus GPT. PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, Annex B PoliRuralPlus Advisor \"Caddy\" service. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/03g-guide-advisor.md","kb":"/kb/polirural-advisor#ch5-guide-advisor"},{"id":"ch5-agent-builder","concept":"polirural-advisor","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ Advisor and RAG services","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Boxes & Arrows: build an agent instead of asking one question","teaser":"A RAG chat reads 10–20 chunks, not the whole library. The Agent Builder in JackDaw turns a broad task into steps with checks.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why does a single broad question to a RAG chat give weak answers, and what does the Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder change?","recallA":"RAG matches the question against indexed chunks and returns only a small top-ranked set, often 10–20, so a broad question pulls up general statements. The Agent Builder lets users draw multi-step agents whose steps have their own instructions, knowledge and outputs, with branching, loops and quality checks.","text":"In the Beta, many users treated the JackDaw chat like a search box: one question, one final answer (D4.2 §3.6). Used that way, a conversational agent gives far less than it can. Why one broad question falls short A RAG engine compares the question, or an expanded version of it, with indexed document chunks and returns a small top-ranked set, often 10 to 20 chunks . That is a relevance match against a small subset of the documents, not an analysis of the whole corpus . A specific, well-scoped question can be answered well. A broad question without clear limits tends to pull up general statements with little substance. So the quality of the answer depends heavily on how the question is scoped. Some tasks, such as research or assessment work with known steps, prior knowledge and quality criteria, need a structured conversation rather than a single prompt. What the builder does The Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder , a module of JackDaw, lets users draw an agent as a graph: - each box is a step with its own instructions, background data or knowledge resources, and a defined output; - arrows can branch, loop and merge; - quality checks can sit between steps. This lets complex research and assessment tasks be structured and partly automated. It is designed so that non-technical users can configure their own agents, which opens agentic AI to a wider group of users. Status The builder is a new module in the Beta. D4.2 does not report pilot results for it. More support for model builders is one of D4.2's priorities before the final release: demos, workflow templates and configuration examples. The candidate demos include rural attractiveness analysis, stakeholder mapping and RAP support (D4.2 §11.1). Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.6 Boxes & Arrows Agent Builder; §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/03a-sidebar-agent-builder.md","kb":"/kb/polirural-advisor#ch5-agent-builder"},{"id":"ch5-question","concept":"polirural-advisor","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ Advisor and RAG services","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"A broad question, a generic answer","teaser":"The Advisor gave your pilot a fluent but generic answer about youth outmigration. What do you do next?","lang":"en","lens":"latvia","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"Your pilot team in Vidzeme, where youth retention is a priority for the rest of the project, asks the PoliRural+ Advisor: \"What should our Regional Action Plan do about youth outmigration?\" The answer reads well but is generic. It names no specific measures, funds or evidence for your region. What do you do next? A) Rephrase the same question until a better answer comes back B) Narrow it down: name the territory, the group and the measure, ask for sources, check them and keep the dialogue going C) Build a Boxes & Arrows agent with steps for context, options, funding and a quality check D) Stop using AI; the RAP team reads the documents and decides Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/07-question-tools.md","kb":"/kb/polirural-advisor#ch5-question"},{"id":"ch5-vulture","concept":"vulture-mapwhiteboard","conceptTitle":"Vulture and MapWhiteboard","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Vulture and MapWhiteboard: a private sandbox and a shared map","teaser":"One tool works on your own inbox, the other on a map that a whole workshop edits at once. What each really does, and how mature it is.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How do Vulture and MapWhiteboard differ in purpose and maturity?","recallA":"Vulture is a personal AI sandbox: forwarded e-mails and crawled web pages go into a private collection you can question (Vidzeme uses it for policy monitoring); in the Beta it has become less central. MapWhiteboard is a shared map with live cursors and features; a simplified instance is deployed and it supports pilot discussions about boundaries, corridors and land use.","highlights":["Vulture: forward-to-ingest, private Qdrant collection, GPT-4o answers, URL crawling","The Vidzeme Planning Region uses Vulture to track policy developments","MapWhiteboard: OpenLayers and HSLayers-NG with a WebSocket API; rated TRL 7 in D4.1","Monaghan's technical pilot TP1 pairs MapWhiteboard with action-foresight and system dynamics"],"parents":["tool-ecosystem"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.5 Vulture productivity sandbox; §3.8 MapWhiteboard collaborative mapping; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.4 Vulture; §6.9 MapWhiteboard Evolution. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), technical pilot TP1. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, How to Use VULTURE. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"These two tools have opposite jobs. Vulture is a personal sandbox for AI experiments on your own material. MapWhiteboard is a shared map where a group works on the same view at the same time. Vulture: a sandbox, not a core service Vulture was built for user needs identified in the WP3 buddy exercises (D4.1 §6.4). Users forward e-mails to a dedicated address, with PDFs, web clippings or WhatsApp messages attached. Forwarding is a deliberate act, which D4.1 links to GDPR compliance. Each item lands in a private collection that only that user can see . It is split into chunks and embedded in a Qdrant vector database, and the user can then ask questions in plain language; GPT-4o writes the answer from the retrieved context. Users can also register URLs for Vulture to crawl for topics they care about. Pilot use: in the Latvian pilot, the Vidzeme Planning Region uses Vulture to monitor and analyse policy developments (D4.1 §6.4). Status: an alpha in D4.1. In the Beta it has \"remained largely stable and has become less central than originally expected\", partly because tools such as OpenClaw and more integrated AI workflows elsewhere took over some of its role. Its outputs are provisional and lack the reproducibility and provenance guarantees of the core services. D4.2 therefore plans selective maintenance: functions that prove useful move into structured platform services (D4.2 §3.5). MapWhiteboard: working together on one map D4.1 compares MapWhiteboard to Miro and Figma, applied to maps. It lists pre-defined maps with editable layers, GeoJSON upload and download, WMS layers, shared cursors, simultaneous editing, user-created layers and publishing of features through web services. The tool is built on OpenLayers and HSLayers-NG with a WebSocket API, and D4.1 rates it TRL 7 (D4.1 §6.9). Status: for the Beta, a new simplified instance has been developed and deployed. It exchanges cursors between OpenLayers maps and features between vector layers. That covers basic shared navigation and shared objects, but it is not yet a full participatory planning suite with moderation and saved annotations (D4.2 §3.8). Pilot use: MapWhiteboard supported collaborative spatial interpretation wherever pilots had to discuss boundaries, corridors, land use, infrastructure or local assets (D4.2 §6.3). In County Monaghan, technical pilot TP1 combines it with action-foresight and system dynamics to define and implement the rural-urban RAP (project fact sheet). D4.2 wants MapWhiteboard and the MAA tool built into RAP and foresight workflows instead of running as separate applications (§11.1). How-to: Using Vulture · Running a MapWhiteboard session. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.5 Vulture productivity sandbox; §3.8 MapWhiteboard collaborative mapping; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.4 Vulture; §6.9 MapWhiteboard Evolution. PDF - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), technical pilot TP1. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/04-spine-vulture-mapwhiteboard.md","kb":"/kb/vulture-mapwhiteboard"},{"id":"ch5-guide-vulture","concept":"vulture-mapwhiteboard","conceptTitle":"Vulture and MapWhiteboard","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to use Vulture: forward, ask, crawl","teaser":"Forward an e-mail, ask a question about everything you have forwarded, let it watch a web page: Vulture as Vidzeme uses it for policy monitoring.","lang":"en","lens":"latvia","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"How does content get into Vulture, who can see it, and what is Vulture not suitable for?","recallA":"You forward e-mails (with PDFs, web clippings or messages attached) to a dedicated address, or register URLs to crawl; each item goes into a private collection that only you can query. It is an experimental sandbox with provisional outputs, so it is not suitable for functions that need auditability and repeatability.","text":"When to use it: you receive a steady stream of calls, newsletters and policy updates and want to ask questions across all of it, or to keep watch on a few web pages. What you need - The alpha at jackdaw.avinet.no/vulture (D4.1 §6.4). - One or more e-mail accounts you forward from. A user profile is created automatically at first use, and several addresses can belong to one profile. Steps 1. Forward content to Vulture's dedicated address, by hand or with an automatic rule: e-mails with attachments, PDFs, web clippings or WhatsApp messages from any device or e-mail client. 2. Decide each time what goes in. Forwarding is deliberate by design; D4.1 ties this to GDPR compliance and data security. 3. Let it index. Each item is validated, analysed for context, chunked and embedded into your private collection in a Qdrant vector database. Only you can access it. 4. Ask in plain language. Vulture retrieves the most similar chunks, and GPT-4o writes the answer from them. D4.1's examples: tracking events and deadlines, identifying reports, finding funding opportunities and policy updates. 5. Register URLs to crawl and define the questions or topics you care about; Vulture extracts the relevant information from the linked pages. 6. Refine your prompts. D7.4's guidance: the more you use and refine your prompts, the more precise the results become. What you get A self-expanding personal RAG over your own material: answers, summaries and extracted information. D4.2 calls such outputs provisional and exploratory , not formal platform evidence (§3.5). Pilot use In the Latvian pilot, the Vidzeme Planning Region uses Vulture's URL crawling and targeted extraction to monitor and analyse policy developments (D4.1 §6.4). Watch out - It is a sandbox : lighter integration, weaker guarantees on reproducibility, provenance and long-term maintenance (D4.2 §3.5). - In the Beta it has become less central than planned; tools such as OpenClaw and more integrated workflows took over parts of its role. Expect selective maintenance, not new features. - Before an answer goes into a RAP or a brief, find the original e-mail or page and cite that. A shared, auditable evidence base is the job of the Advisor, not Vulture. Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.4 Vulture: Sandbox for AI-driven Productivity Tool Experiments. PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.5 Vulture productivity sandbox. PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, How to Use VULTURE. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/04g-guide-vulture.md","kb":"/kb/vulture-mapwhiteboard#ch5-guide-vulture"},{"id":"ch5-guide-mapwhiteboard","concept":"vulture-mapwhiteboard","conceptTitle":"Vulture and MapWhiteboard","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to run a MapWhiteboard session with stakeholders","teaser":"Everyone on one map, every cursor visible, every drawn line shared: how to run a workshop on boundaries or corridors, and what the Beta does not keep.","lang":"en","lens":"italy|slovakia","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"What does the Beta MapWhiteboard share between participants, and what should a facilitator do because of its limits?","recallA":"The Beta instance exchanges cursors between connected maps and features drawn on shared vector layers, so a group can navigate and draw together. It is not a full planning suite with moderation or saved annotations, so the facilitator should export or record the results of the session.","text":"When to use it: a meeting has to agree on something that lives on a map, such as a boundary, a corridor, a land-use conflict or local assets (D4.2 §6.3). What you need - A session set up for you. The pack gives no public address; MapWhiteboard runs in the web-mapping environment of the platform, and restricted sessions use its shared authentication (D4.2 §3.8). Ask your pilot's technical partner. - A base map and the layers you want to discuss; GeoJSON data if you bring your own. - One facilitator who keeps notes. Steps 1. Open the shared map. Pre-defined maps combine base layers with editable layers (D4.1 §6.9). 2. Bring everyone in. Each connected session shows the others' cursors live (D4.2 §3.8). 3. Navigate together to the place in question and let people point rather than describe. 4. Draw on the shared layer. Features drawn on a vector layer are exchanged between sessions, so each person sees the others' lines and areas (D4.2 §3.8). 5. Add context, where your instance supports it. D4.1 lists WMS layers, GeoJSON upload, user-created editable layers and simultaneous editing of attributes (§6.9). 6. Secure the result. Download the drawn features as GeoJSON or publish them through web services if available (D4.1 §6.9); otherwise capture them before the session ends. What you get A shared visual workspace: synchronised cursors, exchanged features and a common map the group has inspected together (D4.2 §3.8). Pilot use - Apulia (Italy): collaborative map work and vector drawing supported municipal dialogue on local territorial development and community engagement (D4.2 Table 7). - Slovakia: MapWhiteboard was part of the set-up for participatory foresight and defining the rural-urban boundary (D4.2 Table 7). Watch out - The Beta is a new simplified instance . It covers shared navigation and shared objects, not a participatory planning suite with workflow, moderation or persistent annotations (D4.2 §3.8). - The feature list in D4.1 (TRL 7) describes the earlier, fuller tool. Check what your instance offers before the workshop. - D4.2 wants MapWhiteboard linked to the MAA tool, the Hub and the advisory services; until then, record who said what in the MAA tool or your minutes. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.8 MapWhiteboard collaborative mapping; §6.2 Table 7; §6.3 Usability observations. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.9 MapWhiteboard Evolution. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/04h-guide-mapwhiteboard.md","kb":"/kb/vulture-mapwhiteboard#ch5-guide-mapwhiteboard"},{"id":"ch5-rae-poe","concept":"rural-attractiveness","conceptTitle":"Rural attractiveness mapping","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"Rural attractiveness: from a regional index to a 1 km grid","teaser":"PoliRural+ maps attractiveness instead of only debating it. On the Czech-Bavarian border it now does so one square kilometre at a time.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why does the Czech-Bavarian innovation potential tool use a 1×1 km grid, and what does it combine?","recallA":"A regular grid shows where potential actually lies, without the bias that comes from aggregating data into municipalities or districts. The tool combines statistical indicators, the locations of universities and research institutes, transport networks and socio-economic data into an Attractiveness Index, with thematic maps and sector reports.","highlights":["PoliRural's Rural Attractiveness Explorer built a composite Rural Attractiveness Index","Each pilot defines attractiveness differently, from innovation potential to tourism","The Beta tool for the Czech-Bavarian border works on a 1×1 km grid, led by Plan4all and Deggendorf Institute of Technology","Segment analyses and cross-border indicator harmonisation are still in progress"],"parents":["tool-ecosystem"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.10 Rural Attractiveness / area-potential analysis; §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State; §6.10 Rural Attractiveness Analysis Application. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"}],"text":"PoliRural+ measures rural attractiveness on a map, and its tools have gone through three stages. 1. The Rural Attractiveness Explorer (inherited from PoliRural) The Rural Attractiveness Explorer (RAE) produces a Rural Attractiveness Index (RAI) . The index combines indicators such as social capital, economic opportunities and environmental assets, and the tool supports comparisons between regions. It was integrated into the PoliRural Digital Innovation Hub (D4.1 §2.1.1). The existing application offers data visualisation, filtering of input data, map viewer functions and work with user scenarios (D4.1 §6.10). 2. One app, many meanings of \"attractive\" D4.1 notes that each pilot understands attractiveness differently, from innovation potential to tourism. The application is therefore adapted through dialogue with each pilot rather than with a single fixed formula (§6.10). 3. Innovation potential on a 1×1 km grid (Beta) In the Czech-Bavarian border pilot, Plan4all and the Deggendorf Institute of Technology lead the Data-driven Innovation Potential Assessment tool. It maps south-western Bohemia and eastern Bavaria (D4.2 §3.10). Its main design choices: - A regular 1×1 km grid replaces municipalities or districts, which avoids the bias built into aggregated administrative units. - Inputs: statistical indicators, the locations of universities and research institutes, transport networks and socio-economic metadata. - Outputs: a consolidated Attractiveness Index, high-resolution thematic maps, municipal summaries and sector reports, for example on the agri-food economy. - Scales: from the local grid up to Central Europe, with segment analyses such as agrotourism or identifying high-tech hubs. The tool is meant to pinpoint locations for food innovation and rural entrepreneurship, to assess digital skills and AI competence, and to support AI-powered help with grant applications. It also gives Czech and Bavarian actors a shared evidence base for coordinating investment. Status: the tool is implemented as the analytical engine. The segment analyses are still being populated, the cross-border statistical indicators still need to be harmonised, and the AI advisory services for subsidies are to be expanded. Scaling the method to other Central European regions is a stated future direction (D4.2 §3.10). D4.2 also lists rural attractiveness analysis among the reproducible demos to prepare with model builders (§11.1). The tool shows where potential lies today; it does not simulate futures. PoliRural+ handles scenario thinking through foresight and system dynamics. How-to: Reading the innovation potential grid. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.10 Rural Attractiveness / area-potential analysis; §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State; §6.10 Rural Attractiveness Analysis Application. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/05-spine-rae-poe.md","kb":"/kb/rural-attractiveness"},{"id":"ch5-guide-attractiveness","concept":"rural-attractiveness","conceptTitle":"Rural attractiveness mapping","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch05-digital-tools","title":"How to read the innovation potential grid on the Czech-Bavarian border","teaser":"Start from a question, pick a scale and a segment, then read the 1 km cells instead of the district average: a worked route through the attractiveness tool.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"How should a regional user work with the Czech-Bavarian innovation potential tool, and what should they not expect from it yet?","recallA":"Start from a concrete question, choose the scale and segment (for example agrotourism), read the Attractiveness Index cell by cell on the 1×1 km grid, then use the municipal summaries and sector reports in plans and impact assessments. Segment analyses are still being populated and cross-border indicators are not fully harmonised, and the tool shows present potential, not futures.","text":"When to use it: you have to decide where on the Czech-Bavarian border to put a food-innovation, rural-entrepreneurship or digital-skills effort, and you want evidence finer than a district. What you need - Access through the pilot. The pack gives no public address. The Data-driven Innovation Potential Assessment tool is led by Plan4all and the Deggendorf Institute of Technology within the Czech-Bavarian pilot (D4.2 §3.10); ask them. - A concrete question: which kind of potential, for whom, and at which scale. Steps 1. Name the question. D4.2 lists three uses: pinpointing locations for food innovation and rural entrepreneurship, evaluating digital skills and AI competence, and supporting AI-powered grant assistance. 2. Pick the scale. The visualisation modules go from the detailed local grid up to the cross-border context of Central Europe. 3. Pick a segment , such as agrotourism or identifying high-tech hubs, where it is available. 4. Read the grid. Each 1×1 km cell carries the Attractiveness Index. Compare cells, not municipal averages: the grid exists to avoid the bias of aggregated administrative units. 5. Check the layers behind a hotspot : statistical indicators, locations of universities and research institutes, transport networks and socio-economic data. 6. Pull the summaries. Use the municipal-level potential summaries and the sector reports, for example on the agri-food economy. 7. Use the evidence in strategic investment plans, territorial impact assessments or regional development roadmaps, and as a shared base when Czech and Bavarian actors coordinate investments. What you get A consolidated Attractiveness Index, high-resolution thematic maps, municipal summaries and sector reports (D4.2 §3.10). D4.2 reports that these grids supported comparison and coordination across south-western Bohemia and eastern Bavaria (Table 7). Outside this region The older Rural Attractiveness Explorer offers data visualisation, filtering of input data, map viewer functions (zoom, print, layers) and user scenarios, and it is adapted through dialogue with each pilot because each defines attractiveness differently (D4.1 §6.10). For any drawn area, JackDaw also counts Smart POI categories for attractiveness and innovation potential scores (D4.2 §3.3.1). Watch out - Segment analyses are still being populated , and data layers are still being refined. - Cross-border statistical indicators still need harmonising; a cell's score across the border is less comparable than within one country. - The AI subsidy advice is to be expanded, not finished. - The tool shows where potential lies today; it does not simulate futures (D4.2 §3.10). Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.3.1 Jackdaw tool ecosystem; §3.10 Rural Attractiveness / area-potential analysis; §6.2 Table 7. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.10 Rural Attractiveness Analysis Application. PDF","path":"content/ch05-digital-tools/05g-guide-attractiveness.md","kb":"/kb/rural-attractiveness#ch5-guide-attractiveness"},{"id":"ch6-food-challenge","concept":"short-food-supply-chains","conceptTitle":"Short food supply chains","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Short food supply chains: willing producers, missing organisation","teaser":"In Apulia, three out of four small farm businesses surveyed already sell through short chains. The barrier is the organisation around them, not willingness.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"According to the Apulia evidence, what holds short food supply chains back: producer willingness, or something else?","recallA":"Not willingness: 76% of the small Apulian farm businesses DEMO surveyed already had experience with short-chain channels. The bottlenecks are organisational and infrastructural: fragmented supply, logistics and last-mile costs, high communication costs, missing skills and advice, and slow permitting and scarce finance.","highlights":["76% of the small Apulian farm businesses surveyed by DEMO already had experience with short-chain channels","The barriers are organisational: fragmented supply, last-mile logistics, communication costs, missing skills","Apulia's RAP targets for 2028: +30% volume sold through short chains, -20% logistics emissions, +15% jobs","Short chains feature in four pilots: Apulia, the Czech-Bavarian border, Malta and Central Greece"],"parents":["rural-urban-linkages"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 \"Enhancing Short Food Supply Chains in Puglia (Apulia), Italy\"; Annex 6; Annex 9. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach call: DEMO; Mobilise call: RURBAN Challenge). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps extending to 2030 and beyond (Italy). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"A short food supply chain (SFSC) shortens the path between a farm and the people who eat its food. The PoliRural+ pilots work with farm-gate and on-farm sales, farmers' markets, home delivery, producer e-commerce, local pickup points and direct supply to restaurants or public canteens. The Apulia Regional Action Plan calls SFSCs \"a core instrument for strengthening rural–urban linkages, improving farm income, and advancing the objectives of the European Green Deal\" (rural-urban linkages). Willingness is not the problem The Outreach-call project DEMO (Cluster Srl) surveyed small Apulian agricultural businesses and found that 76% of those interviewed already had experience with SFSC channels . Its five focus groups then named the real bottlenecks: perishability of fresh products, logistics coordination, cooperation between entrepreneurs, food-safety certification, and high communication costs, supply fragmentation and a lack of specialised staff . The Apulia policy brief lists the same pattern at regional scale: - Fragmented infrastructure : physical hubs, cold-chain capacity and collective branding are under-developed. - Digital divide : incomplete rural broadband slows e-commerce and traceability tools. - Skills gap : SMEs lack advice on precision farming, the circular bio-economy and digital marketing. - Logistics and transaction costs : dispersed production and weak last-mile delivery inflate costs. - Environmental stress (water scarcity, soil degradation) and bureaucracy (long permitting, little risk finance). What the Apulia RAP aims for By 2028 the RAP targets +30% agri-food volume sold through SFSCs, -20% logistics-related greenhouse-gas emissions and +15% jobs in ICT, advisory, food production and marketing. Among its proposed instruments are an Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub (a one-stop advisory centre), a single digital window for permits, an annual \"SFSC Regulatory Roadmap\" and capacity building for 500 young farmers and women entrepreneurs. These are targets and recommendations, not results. Short chains across the pilots Pilot Role of short chains Source --- --- --- Apulia Core RAP instrument; 2040 goal: short chains \"become the standard\" D7.3 Annex 4; D7.4 §4.2 Czech-Bavarian border \"One enabler\" of farmer resilience; less reliance on long-distance markets D7.3 Annex 6 Malta Visibility and market access for local food on import-dependent islands D7.3 Annex 9 Central Greece Primary production linked with agritourism (RURBAN Challenge) D6.3 §3.2 The next blocks show what open-call teams actually built for these chains: a chat assistant in Foggia, a supplier map in the Pilsen Region, a digital gateway on Kythera and a skills-and-market push in Malta. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 \"Enhancing Short Food Supply Chains in Puglia (Apulia), Italy\"; Annex 6; Annex 9. PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach call: DEMO; Mobilise call: RURBAN Challenge). PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps extending to 2030 and beyond (Italy). PDF","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/01-spine-food-challenge.md","kb":"/kb/short-food-supply-chains"},{"id":"short-or-long-chain-game","concept":"short-food-supply-chains","conceptTitle":"Short food supply chains","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Short Chain or Long Chain?","teaser":"Thirteen real arrangements from the pilots: sort them into short chains, long chains and the support that makes short chains work.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"worked-example","text":"","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/01a-game-short-or-long-chain.md","kb":"/kb/short-food-supply-chains#short-or-long-chain-game"},{"id":"ch6-question","concept":"short-food-supply-chains","conceptTitle":"Short food supply chains","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Where Would You Start a Short Chain?","teaser":"A Local Action Group has a small budget to help farmers sell to the nearby town. Which first move would you fund?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"A Local Action Group in a rural district wants more local food to reach the nearby town. A producer survey shows that most farms already sell some products directly, but each one does it alone. The LAG can fund one first move this year. Which would you pick? A) An AI shopping assistant Commission a chatbot marketplace where townspeople describe what they want and get baskets from local farms. B) Map the existing network first Build a database of who already supplies whom (producers, shops, restaurants, canteens), validated with the farmers. C) Shared logistics Set up cooperative pooling of refrigerated or electric vehicles, coordinated by the LAG. D) A regional quality label Launch a local food competition and label to raise visibility and consumer trust. More than one answer can be defended. Choose one, then read where it works and where it breaks.","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/07-question-food.md","kb":"/kb/short-food-supply-chains#ch6-question"},{"id":"ch6-field2fork","concept":"field2fork-ai-hub","conceptTitle":"Field2Fork AI Hub (Apulia)","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Field2Fork AI Hub: a 'Personal Farmer' for Foggia","teaser":"Apulia went from focus groups to a hackathon to a working marketplace with an AI chat assistant. Here is what each step produced.","lang":"en","lens":"italy","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"What did Field2Fork AI Hub build for Foggia, and what kind of evidence does D6.3 report for it?","recallA":"A dual-track marketplace (a catalogue store plus the 'Personal Farmer' AI chat assistant) with a zero-kilometre logistics engine that assigns local farm pickup hubs. The evidence is user-acceptance testing with 170 consumers and 23 producers (e.g. usability 4.44/5, 90.3% positive consumer evaluations), not sales or income data.","highlights":["Built by EXO Soc. Cons. a r.l. with Distretto Agroalimentare Regionale (Italy) under the Develop call","The 'Personal Farmer' turns natural-language dietary and ethical preferences into shopping-cart scenarios","Pickups at local farm hubs replace home delivery: a zero-kilometre logistics model","Tested with 170 consumers and 23 producers; D6.3 reports acceptance scores, not sales"],"parents":["short-food-supply-chains"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: DEMO; Mobilise: INCO; Develop: Field2Fork AI Hub). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Italy – Apulia, \"Open calls\" (Field2ForkAI Hub). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 (2028 targets). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"Field2Fork AI Hub came out of the third rung of the PoliRural+ open calls in the province of Foggia, Apulia. Two earlier projects prepared the ground. Before the build: listen, then co-create - DEMO (Outreach call, Cluster Srl) mapped needs: a producer survey, an online consultation on 26 February 2025 and five focus groups. It proposed cooperative electric or refrigerated vehicle pooling through Local Action Groups to tackle logistics and the low level of cooperation between entrepreneurs. - INCO (Mobilise call, Virgolettere di Rocco Devito) ran a multi-actor hackathon that produced four prototypes. The winner, RuralTech Innovators' Short Supply Chain Anti-Waste System , matches consumer pre-orders with producers' seasonal margins and sends surplus or off-grade produce to local markets at a discount. The teams also tested PoliRural+ components such as UseAdvisor and JackDaw. What Field2Fork built EXO Soc. Cons. a r.l., with Distretto Agroalimentare Regionale S.C.R.L., won a Develop-call grant to link small producers with urban buyers. The team collected product information from local producers into a first digital catalogue and built a dual-track marketplace : - a conventional, search-optimised catalogue store ; - the \"Personal Farmer\" , a conversational assistant. The pilot website says it \"interprets natural-language dietary and ethical preferences to generate multiple, personalized shopping-cart scenarios\"; - a zero-kilometre logistics engine that matches the buyer's location with local farm pickup hubs, so orders are collected nearby instead of shipped. The team promoted the platform through regional media (Foglie, L'Attacco), workshops and a webinar. What came out Two user-acceptance surveys reached 170 consumers and 23 agri-food producers . Consumers rated usability 4.44/5 and the Personal Farmer's information clarity 4.64/5 , and 90.3% gave positive evaluations. Producers rated the platform's value 4.25/5 . These numbers measure acceptance, not market impact. The D6.3 summary reports no sales volumes or changes in farm income. Whether the platform moves Apulia towards its target of +30% short-chain volume by 2028 still has to be measured. The Apulia sequence of listening (DEMO), co-creating (INCO) and then building (Field2Fork) is the open-call ladder in miniature. Results across all calls are compared in open-call results. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: DEMO; Mobilise: INCO; Develop: Field2Fork AI Hub). PDF - PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Italy – Apulia, \"Open calls\" (Field2ForkAI Hub). poliruralplus.eu - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 4 (2028 targets). PDF","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/02-spine-field2fork.md","kb":"/kb/field2fork-ai-hub"},{"id":"ch6-rag-technology","concept":"field2fork-ai-hub","conceptTitle":"Field2Fork AI Hub (Apulia)","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Inside the Personal Farmer: prompts, intents and pickup hubs","teaser":"How a chat about dinner becomes a checkout and a pickup point, and why another PoliRural+ chatbot uses retrieval instead.","lang":"en","lens":"italy","depth":"technical","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does Field2Fork's 'Personal Farmer' turn a chat into an order, and which PoliRural+ open-call project documents retrieval-augmented generation instead?","recallA":"A conversational middleware uses structured system prompting and intent routing over a PrestaShop catalogue, shows products as HTML cards, uses named-entity recognition to assign a local pickup hub, and hands over to checkout through a tokenised URL. Retrieval-augmented generation is documented for DASK's Kythera chatbot, not for Field2Fork.","text":"D6.3 describes the Field2Fork AI Hub as a containerised, hybrid e-commerce microservices architecture : a PrestaShop back end with a separate conversational front end. The split matters more than any single model. Four moves from chat to order 1. Structured system prompting. The assistant works under a structured system prompt that frames the conversation around the producers' catalogue. 2. Intent routing. Each message is routed by what the user intends to do, so that a question about a product, a basket request or a pickup request reaches the right handler. 3. Dynamic HTML cards. Product suggestions appear as cards rendered from catalogue records, so the user sees catalogue items with their shop data rather than free-text descriptions. 4. Named-entity recognition (NER) for logistics, then a tokenised checkout. NER extracts the place a user mentions, and the zero-kilometre engine matches it to the nearest farm pickup hub. A tokenised checkout URL then hands the basket to the ordinary shop checkout. In other words, the shop remains the system of record : products, prices, orders and payment stay in PrestaShop. The AI layer translates between how people talk (\"something vegetarian for six, no nuts\") and what the catalogue holds. The same catalogue also serves a conventional, search-optimised store, which is the second track for users who prefer not to chat. Retrieval is another option The old version of this block described Field2Fork as a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. D6.3 does not say that. Within the Develop call, RAG is documented for DASK on Kythera: its localised JackDaw chatbot uses RAG over a knowledge base, with voice input for Greek-language farming advice. LocalLinks.AI uses AI differently again, for semi-automated data extraction with confidence scoring when it builds its producer database. Project AI job What stays authoritative --- --- --- Field2Fork Conversation to shopping basket Shop catalogue and orders DASK Answering farming questions Curated knowledge base (retrieved) LocalLinks.AI Extracting and validating supplier data Human-validated records The hidden cost In all three cases someone has to curate the data. The cross-pilot policy brief for the Commission (D7.3, Annex 10) found that feeding rural, multilingual data into PoliRural+ AI systems \"required months of manual work: annotation, formatting, and validation\". It recommends a \"Data Curation Line\" in EU AI project budgets . A Personal Farmer is only as good as the catalogue the producers keep up to date. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: Field2Fork AI Hub, DASK, LocalLinks.AI). PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10 \"AI-Enabled AKIS, FAIR Data and Carbon-Smart Food Systems\", Execution challenges and Recommendation 1. PDF","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/02a-depth-thinker-rag-technology.md","kb":"/kb/field2fork-ai-hub#ch6-rag-technology"},{"id":"ch6-locallinks","concept":"locallinks-ai","conceptTitle":"LocalLinks.AI (Czech-Bavarian border)","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"LocalLinks.AI: mapping who sells to whom in the Pilsen Region","teaser":"175 producers, 220 sales outlets, 460 verified links: a short-chain network made visible, built on earlier open-call work in Klatovy.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"What problem does LocalLinks.AI address, and what did it deliver?","recallA":"The Pilsen Region had no structured information on which local producers supply which buyers. LocalLinks.AI built the LocalFarmsAI editor and database with AI-assisted data extraction, validated records for 175 producers, 220 sales outlets and 460 supplier–customer relationships, synced them to the Atlas map and made them queryable through JackDaw.","highlights":["Led by Šumavaprodukt s.r.o. with Úhlava, o. p. s. and a self-employed partner (Develop call)","LocalFarmsAI: AI-assisted extraction, validation and confidence scoring of supplier–customer data","Validated records: 175 producers, 220 outlets, 460 relationships; open exports in Excel, CSV, JSON","Built on FarmTourist (Outreach) and the DIPS ideathon (Mobilise) in Klatovy"],"parents":["short-food-supply-chains"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: FarmTourist; Mobilise: DIPS; Develop: LocalLinks.AI). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Czech-Bavarian border region, \"Open calls\". poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-002, prp-006, prp-053, prp-072, prp-076. atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"Short chains already existed in Pošumaví, but nobody could see them as a network. D6.3 names the gap as a regional \"lack of structured information regarding supplier-customer connections\" . LocalLinks.AI, a Develop-call project led by Šumavaprodukt s.r.o. with Úhlava, o. p. s. and a self-employed partner, set out to close it. Groundwork in Klatovy - FarmTourist (Outreach call, Úhlava) contacted more than 80 regional stakeholders. On 21 January 2025 it held the workshop \"From Farm to Tourist\" in the former Dominican monastery in Klatovy, with 46 attendees and 26 completed long-term commitment questionnaires. Participants showed 85% interest in distribution and vending solutions and 78% in online-marketing training. The project also introduced ideas such as farm vending machines and caravan stopovers on family farms (Atlas of best practices, prp-002). - DIPS (Mobilise call, Úhlava) ran a two-day ideathon in Klatovy on 25–26 September 2025. One of its prototypes, FarMAppka , maps crop rotations from LPIS data and connects local food producers with regional gastronomy (Atlas, prp-006). What LocalLinks.AI built - An extended relational data model for supplier–customer food networks. - LocalFarmsAI (localfarms.ai), a beta editor with AI-driven semi-automated data extraction, validation and confidence scoring . - Automated sync to the PoliRural+ Atlas of Regional Speciality for map views, and JackDaw integration for natural-language spatial questions over the food data. - A user manual and open exports (Excel, CSV, JSON) . The team tested the platform in workshops in Klatovy and Sušice with farmers, sellers and Local Action Groups. What came out The database holds validated records for 175 producers, 220 sales outlets and 460 supplier–customer relationships , more than the original proposal targeted. The beneficiaries report a technology readiness of TRL 7–8 . Six regional cases went into the Atlas. One is Farma Krasíkov, a family farm that delivers meat, fruit, vegetables and other products with its own transport to a bistro and local shops (prp-072). Another is Farma Zelený near Sušice, which sells Šumava beef and dairy directly and through a farmers' shop (prp-076). The schema and API were designed to be transferable, but D6.3 presents adaptation to other pilot territories only as a potential. Because it is open spatial data about real producers, the network is also one layer of the Klatovsko local GeoAI knowledge base. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: FarmTourist; Mobilise: DIPS; Develop: LocalLinks.AI). PDF - PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Czech-Bavarian border region, \"Open calls\". poliruralplus.eu - Atlas of best practices, prp-002, prp-006, prp-053, prp-072, prp-076. atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/03-spine-locallinks-ai.md","kb":"/kb/locallinks-ai"},{"id":"ch6-kythera","concept":"dask-kythera","conceptTitle":"DASK on Kythera","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"DASK: one digital gateway for Kythera's farmers","teaser":"An island e-market, agritourism bookings and a Greek-speaking farming chatbot named after Eleonora's falcon, all behind one front door.","lang":"en","lens":"greece","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"What does the DASK project combine on Kythera, and how does it tackle the digital-skills gap?","recallA":"DASK combines a bilingual e-market for local products, an agritourism booking engine, a training centre and a knowledge base with a localised JackDaw chatbot that uses retrieval-augmented generation and Greek voice input. It tackles the skills gap through co-design workshops, hands-on training such as product photography in Chora, and a peer network of local 'Digital Champions'.","highlights":["Develop-call project led by DASKALOS APPS with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development and an environmental consultant","One bilingual gateway: e-market, agritourism bookings, training centre and knowledge base","The JackDaw chatbot is localised as 'Ο Μαυροπετρίτης των Κυθήρων' (Eleonora's Falcon), with RAG and Greek voice input","Skills come through people: co-design workshops, photography training and local Digital Champions"],"parents":["short-food-supply-chains"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: DASK). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\", Key policy challenges. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-104 \"DASK Workshop in Kythera: Turning Local Products into Online Listings\". atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"DASK (Digital Agricultural Skills and Knowledge) worked on Kythera and Antikythera in the Greek pilot (Greece pilot). It was funded under the Develop open call. The lead was DASKALOS APPS , working with the Kytherian Foundation for Culture & Development and a self-employed environmental consultant. Its goal in D6.3 is to close digital-skill gaps and connect traditional farming with modern agritech. The problem in the pilot's words The Greek pilot's focus includes AKIS digital skills: the advisory and knowledge system that should carry new practice to farmers. The pilot's policy brief, written for Central Greece, names the gap: \"large segments of AKIS lack digital literacy\" , and household broadband coverage is only 67% . One gateway instead of four tools DASK followed what D6.3 calls the \"digital terroir\" philosophy : a single digital gateway that puts the island's products, experiences and know-how together (see the next block). During a nine-month, three-phase work plan the team built a bilingual (Greek/English) web platform with four parts: - an E-Market for direct sales of local products; - an Agritourism Experience booking engine; - a Training Centre ; - a Knowledge Base . On top sits a localised JackDaw chatbot named \"Ο Μαυροπετρίτης των Κυθήρων\" (Eleonora's Falcon) . It uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and AWS Transcribe voice input , so farmers can ask questions in spoken Greek and get advice grounded in the knowledge base. The team described the retrieval-grounded architecture in a preprint on arXiv. Skills through people, not only software The platform alone would not close a skills gap, so DASK worked with local producers, AKIS actors and the olive-oil and honey cooperatives through co-design workshops and a remote evaluation session. In Chora it ran a hands-on workshop on product photography and online listings for island products such as thyme honey, wine, craft beer and pasteli (Atlas of best practices, prp-104). It also set up a local \"Digital Champions\" peer network that gives farmers one-to-one onboarding. The D6.3 excerpt used for this book covers DASK's objectives and activities; its quantitative results are in D6.3 and the project's final report. The design choice is the transferable part: a voice-capable chatbot in the local language, backed by local peers, lowers the entry barrier that the Commission brief (D7.3, Annex 10) calls uneven data literacy. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: DASK). PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 3 \"Advancing Smart Agri-Food and Agritourism in Central Greece\", Key policy challenges. PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-104 \"DASK Workshop in Kythera: Turning Local Products into Online Listings\". atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/04-spine-kythera-farming.md","kb":"/kb/dask-kythera"},{"id":"ch6-digital-terroir","concept":"dask-kythera","conceptTitle":"DASK on Kythera","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Digital terroir: putting a place's food online as a whole","teaser":"On Kythera, 'digital terroir' meant products, experiences and know-how behind one front door. The same idea appears in Greece, Czechia and Apulia.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does 'digital terroir' mean in the DASK project, and where else does the same pattern appear?","recallA":"In DASK it means one digital gateway that combines direct sales of local products, agritourism bookings and AI-supported farming knowledge under the island's identity. Similar patterns appear in the Central Greece agrifood portal with its 'Products from the Heart of Greece' label, the MoKa honey tour, and LocalLinks.AI's link to the Atlas of Regional Speciality.","text":"Terroir is the idea that a food carries the character of the place it comes from. D6.3 says the DASK project on Kythera was \"grounded in the 'digital terroir' philosophy\". In practice that meant one digital gateway combining three things that usually live apart: Layer On Kythera (DASK) --- --- What the place grows E-Market for direct sales of island products What visitors can experience Agritourism Experience booking engine What farmers know Training Centre, Knowledge Base, Greek-speaking JackDaw chatbot The earlier version of this sidebar described digital terroir as IoT sensors and satellite profiles of each grove. The PoliRural+ sources do not support that. In this project the idea is about making a place's food legible to buyers and visitors , not about measuring it. The same pattern elsewhere - Central Greece : the Agrifood Partnership portal shows producers, products, points of sale and agrifood units that can be visited. Its quality label \"Products from the Heart of Greece\" marks certified local products (Atlas of best practices, prp-097). - Itea, Central Greece : the MoKa Honey Stories Tour combines an apiary visit, tasting and direct sales, so the honey reaches buyers together with its story (prp-105). - Czechia : the national \"Regional Food\" label goes to winners of 13 regional competitions, run by the Ministry of Agriculture since 2010 (prp-068). In the Pilsen Region, LocalLinks.AI feeds its producer network into the PoliRural+ Atlas of Regional Speciality . - Apulia : D6.3 credits Field2Fork's results partly to \"local agrifood storytelling\". All four put the place itself up front: a label, a story or a map. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: DASK, LocalLinks.AI, Field2Fork AI Hub). PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-068, prp-097, prp-105. atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/06-sidebar-digital-terroir.md","kb":"/kb/dask-kythera#ch6-digital-terroir"},{"id":"ch6-malta","concept":"malta-agri-food","conceptTitle":"Malta's agri-food open-call path","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch06-food-agriculture","title":"Malta: small farms, scarce water, a digital route to local buyers","teaser":"Farms under one hectare, an ageing workforce and imported fresh food. Three open-call projects tried to put Maltese producers back in front of local buyers.","lang":"en","lens":"malta","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"How did the Maltese pilot's three open-call projects build on each other, and what was the winning idea of the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon?","recallA":"AgriFusion (Outreach) researched farmer and consumer needs, the MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon (Mobilise) co-created solutions with young people, and MALTESE (Develop) trained 25 people and ran a no-account JackDaw chatbot and an e-market with 61 recorded sales. The ideathon was won by Go(v) Local First, a forecasting and matching platform that gives local producers preference in public food procurement for schools, hospitals and canteens.","highlights":["Only 23.7% of Maltese agricultural workers are under 45; average farms are under one hectare","The Malta RAP chooses enabling actions (skills, awareness, informal collaboration) over structural reform","Ideathon winner Go(v) Local First gives local producers preference in public food procurement","MALTESE: 25 trainees, nine producer stores, 61 recorded e-market sales, soil-moisture sensors linked to JackDaw"],"parents":["short-food-supply-chains"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 9 \"Transforming Malta's Agri-Food System through Digital Innovation and Circularity\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: AgriFusion; Mobilise: M-ATI; Develop: MALTESE). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Malta – Malta and Gozo (original 2024 text, \"Anticipated result\"). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-108, prp-112. atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"The Maltese policy brief describes a sector under pressure. Only 23.7% of agricultural workers are under 45 , average farms are under one hectare , arable land is lost to urban encroachment, and reliance on imported fresh produce leaves food security exposed to outside shocks. Water scarcity adds to the strain on production. The Malta RAP does not propose large structural reforms. It focuses on enabling actions : digital-skills training, awareness raising and informal collaboration (Malta pilot). Three open calls, one path 1. Listen: AgriFusion (Outreach call, The Veg Box Ltd). The team combined surveys, interviews with farmers, officials and technology providers, and focus groups, and used AI-assisted workflows to analyse the qualitative data. It confirmed that consumers are willing to support local farm-to-table channels and drafted a roadmap towards a national coalition that links producers directly to urban value chains. 2. Co-create: MaYA Agri-Tech Ideathon (Mobilise call, Malta Youth in Agriculture Foundation). Two webinars in September 2025 prepared the event. The ideathon took place on 3 October 2025 at the DiHubMT innovation facility, with more than 40 participants in five teams. They worked with the PoliRural+ Rural Attractiveness Explorer and JackDaw on land access, market visibility and water resilience. The winner, Go(v) Local First , is a forecasting and matching platform that structures public food procurement (schools, hospitals, canteens) so that local Maltese producers get automatic preference . Follow-up consultations with national cooperatives were under way when D6.3 was written. 3. Build: MALTESE (Develop call, Projektberatung und Management Expert Assoziation with SEMABLU and Selfhood). The team delivered: - a no-account JackDaw chatbot , so farmers can ask questions without registering; - a Map Whiteboard with Maltese field and soil layers; - a PrestaShop rural-urban e-market with nine producer stores and 61 recorded transactions ; - an architecture that links IoT soil-moisture sensors to the JackDaw advisory interface. A four-day course in Dingli (5–8 May 2026) trained 25 people over 73 participant-days in digital tools, circular practices, smart irrigation and business-model pitching. Three participant-owned circular agri-business concepts came out of it and were presented at the final event at the Malta Digital Innovation Authority on 25 June 2026. D6.3 states that the tools will stay publicly accessible until at least July 2029. Where water fits In the Maltese work, water is part of the skills and business picture rather than a separate infrastructure project. The RAP recommends peer-led sharing of small-scale practices such as hydroponics, composting and smart water use. The ideathon treated climate and water resilience as one theme among several, and MALTESE taught smart irrigation next to e-commerce. The binding constraint is still people: in 2022 Malta had only 1,200 registered young farmers under 40 (pilot website). The public-procurement idea from the ideathon may matter as much as any sensor. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 9 \"Transforming Malta's Agri-Food System through Digital Innovation and Circularity\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Outreach: AgriFusion; Mobilise: M-ATI; Develop: MALTESE). PDF - PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Malta – Malta and Gozo (original 2024 text, \"Anticipated result\"). poliruralplus.eu - Atlas of best practices, prp-108, prp-112. atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch06-food-agriculture/05-spine-malta-water.md","kb":"/kb/malta-agri-food"},{"id":"ch7-policy-landscape","concept":"eu-rural-policy","conceptTitle":"The EU rural policy landscape","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"The EU policy landscape for rural and urban areas","teaser":"Cohesion Policy, the CAP, the Urban Agenda and the 2040 rural vision all reach the same village. PoliRural+ mapped 1,500 references to see how they fit.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which main EU policy frames shape a rural-urban region, and what does the OECD say makes rural policy work?","recallA":"Cohesion Policy (EUR 377.5 billion, five priorities, 2021–2027), the CAP (EUR 387 billion, 2021–2027), the Urban Agenda for the EU and the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas with its Rural Action Plan and Rural Pact. The OECD Principles on Rural Policy group 11 principles under scale, strategy and stakeholders, including whole-of-government coordination and monitoring.","highlights":["Cohesion Policy: EUR 377.5 billion for 2021–2027, five priorities from 'smarter' to 'closer to citizens'","CAP 2023–2027: EUR 387 billion for 2021–2027, ten objectives including vibrant rural areas","Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas: stronger, connected, resilient, prosperous rural areas by 2040","OECD: 11 rural policy principles under scale, strategy and stakeholders"],"parents":["rural-urban-linkages"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2 EU Policy Landscape, §2.1, §2.6; Annex H §1–3; Annex F OECD Principles on Rural Policy. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, \"Policy Gap Analysis\" and \"Creating an Inventory of Financing Options\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 (Slovakia) and Annex 8 (Vidzeme), Strategic Alignment. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"A rural-urban region in the EU sits under several policy frames at once. PoliRural+ deliverable D2.2 recorded 1,500 references on these policies in the project's domain knowledge database and summarised the main frames as follows. Frame What it does Scale (as given in D2.2) --- --- --- Cohesion Policy Reduces disparities between regions; five priorities: smarter, greener, more connected, more social Europe, and a Europe closer to citizens EUR 377.5 billion, 2021–2027, focused on less developed regions Urban Agenda for the EU Pact of Amsterdam (2016): 12 priority areas for partnerships, from housing to digital transition At least 6 % of the ERDF reserved for sustainable urban development Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Farming and rural development through the EAGF and the EAFRD EUR 387 billion, 2021–2027 Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas Stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040, delivered through a Rural Action Plan and a Rural Pact Draws on all EU funds, CAP and Cohesion Policy first European Green Deal Climate neutrality by 2050, with a stated role for rural areas Cross-cutting D2.2 adds further layers that pilots meet in practice: the Recovery and Resilience Facility (EUR 672.5 billion), the Digital Agenda, the Single Market Programme's support for social enterprises, Gender Action Plan III and the New European Bauhaus. Why the layers do not add up by themselves Each frame has its own funds, rules and timetable. Cohesion Policy, for example, is tied to the European Semester, and the Commission may suspend regional funding to a Member State that breaks the EU's economic rules. Among its recommendations for pilots, D2.2 tells each one to map the policies that affect it at local, regional and national level , look for conflicts and synergies, and set up a policy working group to push for coherence between urban and rural policy. What the OECD adds Annex F of D2.2 uses the OECD Principles on Rural Policy : 11 principles in three groups. - Scale : unlock the potential of different rural areas, act at the right geographic scale, cooperate across the rural-urban divide. - Strategy : a forward-looking vision, harnessing globalisation and digitalisation, entrepreneurship, public services matched to rural needs, resilience. - Stakeholders : a whole-of-government approach that breaks departmental silos, inclusive engagement, and monitoring, evaluation and accountability. These principles explain how the project works. Its pilots build regional action plans with stakeholders, plan for rural-urban linkages rather than for rural areas alone, and back their measures with indicators. The next blocks look at the CAP up close, then at the 2040 rural vision, which is now the common reference point for all of these frames. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2 EU Policy Landscape, §2.1, §2.6; Annex H §1–3; Annex F OECD Principles on Rural Policy. PDF","path":"content/ch07-policy/01-spine-policy-landscape.md","kb":"/kb/eu-rural-policy"},{"id":"ch7-cap","concept":"eu-rural-policy","conceptTitle":"The EU rural policy landscape","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"The CAP 2023–2027: the largest rural budget line, and LEADER's 7 %","teaser":"EUR 387 billion goes to the CAP for 2021–2027. LEADER, the instrument most local actors know, got about 7 % of rural development funding in the previous period.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How is CAP funding for 2021–2027 split, and why does D3.1 warn regions not to plan around LEADER alone?","recallA":"Of EUR 387 billion, EUR 291 billion comes from the EAGF and EUR 96 billion from the EAFRD. LEADER got only about 7 % of planned rural development funding in 2014–2020, so a regional action plan has to tap the other 93 % and combine several funds.","text":"At the end of 2021 the EU reached a political agreement on a new Common Agricultural Policy for 2023–2027 . It is built around ten objectives : a fair income for farmers, competitiveness, the farmer's position in the food chain, climate action, environmental care, landscapes and biodiversity, generational renewal, vibrant rural areas, food and health quality, and knowledge and innovation. The money. The CAP has EUR 387 billion for 2021–2027, from two funds: EUR 291 billion from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and EUR 96 billion from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). A transitional regulation kept most of the 2014–2020 rules in place for 2021 and 2022 and added stronger green ambitions. The EAFRD has six priority areas, from knowledge transfer to social inclusion and economic development in rural areas. What the pilots draw on. Two PoliRural+ policy briefs name the same three CAP channels. In Slovakia the CAP \"channels eco-schemes, LEADER, and AKIS\" into regenerative and organic farming and advisory services. Latvia's CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027 sends LEADER, AKIS and eco-scheme support to Vidzeme's smart specialisation sectors. The LEADER trap. D3.1 warns that many people in local government know LEADER and stop there. A European Court of Auditors report found that planned LEADER funding in 2014–2020 was about 7 % of all rural development funding. \"Nothing of any lasting significance is possible without talking about the other 93 %,\" D3.1 concludes. LEADER funds pilots, but scaling up what works needs multi-funding : CAP, ERDF, RRF, the Cohesion Fund and others, plus national match funding and loans from the EIB. LEADER still matters as a delivery channel. At a meeting on the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture, the European LEADER Association for Rural Development (ELARD) said that LEADER local development strategies are generally the only tool CAP strategic plans use to address the many needs of rural areas, and that the EU needs a rural strategy for rural areas as a whole, not only for agriculture. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex H §3 Rural development policy in the EU, §3.5.1 ELARD statement. PDF - D3.1 RAP Methodology, \"Policy Gap Analysis\" and \"Creating an Inventory of Financing Options\". PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 (Slovakia) and Annex 8 (Vidzeme), Strategic Alignment. PDF","path":"content/ch07-policy/05-sidebar-cap-alignment.md","kb":"/kb/eu-rural-policy#ch7-cap"},{"id":"ch7-which-policy-game","concept":"eu-rural-policy","conceptTitle":"The EU rural policy landscape","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"Which EU Frame Does It Serve?","teaser":"Seven actions from real pilot plans. Match each to the EU policy frame its brief ties it to.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","text":"","path":"content/ch07-policy/09-game-which-policy.md","kb":"/kb/eu-rural-policy#ch7-which-policy-game"},{"id":"ch7-ltvra","concept":"long-term-rural-vision","conceptTitle":"The EU Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"The Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas: four aims for 2040","teaser":"Rural areas cover 83 % of the EU and are home to 30 % of its people. In 2021 the Commission set them four aims for 2040, carried by two pillars.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the four aims of the EU Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas, and what two pillars carry it?","recallA":"Stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040. The vision rests on the Rural Action Plan (Commission actions and flagships, rural proofing, a rural observatory) and the Rural Pact (a cooperation framework for actors at every level).","highlights":["Presented in 2021, built on foresight and wide consultation","Four aims: stronger, connected, resilient, prosperous, by 2040","Two pillars: the Rural Action Plan and the Rural Pact","Rural proofing reviews EU policies through a rural lens"],"parents":["eu-rural-policy"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2 EU Policy Landscape; Annex H §3.1 Long Term Vision, §3.2 EU Rural Action Plan, §3.2.1 Review, §3.4–3.5 Rural Pact and LEADER. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia, Strategic Alignment. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ objectives (O4) and pilot list, project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"EU rural areas cover 83 % of EU territory and are home to 30 % of the EU population. In 2021 the European Commission presented its Long-Term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas . It names the problems rural areas face (an older and slowly shrinking population, weak connectivity, underdeveloped infrastructure, few kinds of jobs, limited access to services) and the opportunities that the green and digital transitions open beyond farming and forestry. The vision is based on foresight and wide consultation with citizens and rural actors. Four aims, one horizon Aim Focus in the Rural Action Plan --- --- Stronger Empowering rural communities, access to services, social innovation Connected Transport and digital connectivity Resilient Preserving natural resources, greener farming, training and diverse quality jobs Prosperous Diversifying economic activity, adding value in farming, agri-food and agri-tourism The target date is 2040 . Two pillars The Rural Action Plan sets out Commission actions and flagship initiatives. The CAP and Cohesion Policy are described as \"fundamental\" to delivering it. The plan also brings two working tools. Rural proofing reviews EU policy initiatives for their effect on rural jobs, growth and sustainable development. A rural observatory collects data and analysis on rural areas. A Commission staff working document published in March 2024 took stock of 2021–2023 and listed the remaining challenges: depopulation, access to services, socioeconomic gaps, the digital divide and vulnerability to climate change. The Rural Pact is a framework for cooperation between public authorities and stakeholders at EU, national, regional and local level. It invites them to act on the vision's shared goals. At the LEADER Congress of December 2023, the Rural Pact Support Office and DG AGRI described LEADER and the Pact as mutually reinforcing: Local Action Groups can bring the Pact down to the local level, and the Pact can make LEADER more visible. They cited two national and regional versions, a Catalan Rural Pact and a French Rural Agenda. Where PoliRural+ connects Contributing to the vision is part of project objective O4. D2.2 asks the pilots to build rural communities that are \"well-integrated with urban areas\" in line with the vision, and to work on functional regions rather than administrative boundaries. The clearest national case is the Slovak pilot. Its technical pilot implements the Action Plan and Road Map of a national rural vision \"as contribution to the EU Rural Pact\". Its policy brief links Smart Village investments directly to the 2040 vision. The next block follows that Slovak vision from dialogue to action. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2 EU Policy Landscape; Annex H §3.1 Long Term Vision, §3.2 EU Rural Action Plan, §3.2.1 Review, §3.4–3.5 Rural Pact and LEADER. PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia, Strategic Alignment. PDF - PoliRural+ objectives (O4) and pilot list, project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch07-policy/07-spine-long-term-rural-vision.md","kb":"/kb/long-term-rural-vision"},{"id":"ch7-slovakia-vision","concept":"slovak-rural-vision","conceptTitle":"Slovakia's national rural vision","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"Slovakia's Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas 2040: from dialogue to action","teaser":"A national pilot plans for the whole country: three objectives, seven proposed measures, and an alignment table that ties each one to an EU policy frame.","lang":"en","lens":"slovakia","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does the Slovak pilot set out to do with its national rural vision, and how does its policy brief tie the plan to EU frames?","recallA":"It aims to turn the Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas 2040 into a cross-sector governance platform that overcomes policy silos. The RAP 3.0 brief proposes a policy mix (a Cross-Sector Rural Development Council, an AKIS platform, Smart Village grants, a tax credit, capacity building) and maps it to the Green Deal, the 2040 rural vision, Cohesion Policy, the CAP, the Digital Decade, Horizon Europe and LIFE, and the Rural Pact.","highlights":["National pilot led by the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) with the Rural Youth Parliament (SRY)","RAP 3.0 theme: 'From Dialogue to Action' through multi-sector, multi-actor cooperation","Proposed: Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030; a refundable 25 % tax credit for agri-tech and circular investments","Each measure is mapped to an EU frame in a strategic alignment table"],"parents":["long-term-rural-vision","slovakia-pilot"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia (Executive Summary, Key Policy Challenges, Policy Recommendations, Strategic Alignment). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ pilot list (RP2, TP4), project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The Slovak pilot is the only PoliRural+ pilot that works at national scale . It is led by the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) with the Rural Youth Parliament in Slovakia (SRY). Its stated challenge is to turn the Vision for More Attractive Rural Areas 2040 into a cross-sector governance platform and to overcome policy silos. A linked technical pilot implements the vision's Action Plan and Road Map as a contribution to the EU Rural Pact. The plan: RAP 3.0 The Slovak policy brief (D7.3, Annex 2, 11 June 2025) summarises Regional Action Plan 3.0 , which covers the whole country. The brief describes Slovakia's territory as predominantly rural, home to 40 % of the population. The plan came out of multi-actor consultations and foresight analysis, and its theme is \"From Dialogue to Action: Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages through Multi-Sector and Multi Actor Cooperation and Innovation\" . It has three objectives: 1. Stakeholder engagement and a shared vision : participatory governance and alignment with the EU Rural Pact. 2. Digital and smart transformation : a nationwide Smart Villages framework connected to Smart Cities, with a flagship Digital Innovation Hub. 3. Cross-sectoral cooperation : a modernised Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) for green and digital SMEs. The barriers it names are specific. Broadband coverage is above 98 %, but rural use of IoT-enabled services and reliable public transport remains low. Ministries, funding streams and advisory bodies work in silos. Early-stage rural ventures face high collateral requirements. Floods and droughts threaten food production. The proposed policy mix - A Cross-Sector Rural Development Council and a national Digital Innovation Hub to steer the roll-out of Smart Villages - A formal national AKIS platform linking research institutes, advisory services and farmers - Smart Village grants in 75 % of municipalities by 2030 - A refundable 25 % tax credit for certified agri-tech, bio-economy and circular-economy investments - Continuous capacity building for administrations, using participatory foresight toolkits - Scaling up the stakeholder portal atraktivnyvidiek.sk as an open-data platform for consultation and co-creation - Climate-adaptation measures (floodplain restoration, drought-resistant crops, nature-based solutions) in every regional strategy The brief presents these measures as recommendations. It does not report that any of them has been adopted. The habit worth copying The brief ends with a strategic alignment table that pairs each EU frame with what the plan does under it. Smart Village investments serve the 2040 rural vision. Eco-schemes, LEADER and AKIS serve the CAP. ERDF, ESF+ and Cohesion Fund resources serve integrated rural-urban projects. The Rural Pact supplies the framework for multi-level cooperation. A table like this shows a funder in one page where the plan fits. The Slovak pilot block in chapter 3 covers the stakeholder network behind it. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 2 Strengthening Rural-Urban Linkages in Slovakia (Executive Summary, Key Policy Challenges, Policy Recommendations, Strategic Alignment). PDF - PoliRural+ pilot list (RP2, TP4), project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch07-policy/02-spine-slovakia-vision-2040.md","kb":"/kb/slovak-rural-vision"},{"id":"ch7-legal-definitions","concept":"defining-rural","conceptTitle":"Defining rural territory","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"Defining 'rural': municipalities, regions and functional rural areas","teaser":"The unit you count in changes the story you tell. The JRC's functional rural areas build rural territory around real rural centres and real drive times.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How are functional rural areas built, and why are they a better unit for rural policy than municipalities or NUTS-3 regions?","recallA":"Every territory outside functional urban areas is assigned to the rural centre with the strongest pull (the largest town or village within a 10-minute drive). Small catchments are merged until each has at least 25,000 inhabitants or is more than an hour from its neighbours. The result is more even in size, gives less volatile statistics than municipalities and more detail than NUTS-3 regions.","highlights":["Comparable rural statistics need one harmonised way to delineate cities, towns and suburbs, and rural areas","Functional rural areas cover all territory outside functional urban areas, built around rural centres","Thresholds: 10-minute drive to a centre, at least 25,000 inhabitants or over an hour apart, centres under 30 minutes apart merged","OECD: rural-urban partnerships work best on functional regions, not administrative borders"],"parents":["eu-rural-policy"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex E Definition of functional rural areas in the EU; Annex H (introduction, §3.1); Annex F §2 OECD Rural-Urban Partnerships; §2.1 Takeaways. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"}],"text":"Rural policy needs a map of where \"rural\" is. D2.2 (Annex H) puts the requirement plainly: reliable, timely and comparable datasets can only come from a coherent and harmonised methodology that delineates cities, urban and rural areas in a consistent manner . On that basis Eurostat compiles subnational statistics for rural areas, towns and suburbs, and cities across the EU. With this kind of delineation the EU can state that rural areas cover 83 % of its territory and hold 30 % of its population. The unit problem Policy data usually comes in administrative units: municipalities (local administrative units, LAU) or NUTS-3 regions. Both cause trouble for rural analysis. Municipalities vary greatly in size, so indicators such as population change jump from one to the next. NUTS-3 regions are large enough to average away the differences that matter. Functional rural areas A 2023 Joint Research Centre paper (Dijkstra and Jacobs-Crisioni, JRC135599), summarised in Annex E of D2.2, proposes functional rural areas (FRAs) . They cover all territory outside functional urban areas and are built in three steps: 1. Rural centres : the largest town or village within a 10-minute drive. 2. Catchments : each population grid cell goes to the nearby centre with the greatest gravitational pull. 3. Merging : small, nearby catchments are combined until each has at least 25,000 inhabitants or lies more than an hour's drive from its neighbours. Catchments whose centres are less than 30 minutes apart are combined even when both are larger. Unit Strength Limit for rural policy --- --- --- Municipality (LAU) Matches local government Statistics are volatile, units uneven in size NUTS-3 region Standard for EU statistics Too coarse, hides local differences Functional rural area Even in size, follows daily travel Not an administrative unit The paper finds that FRAs give less volatile figures for population change and distance to the nearest school than LAUs, and more detail than NUTS-3. They can inform policy on access to services, demographic change, transport investment and public transport. The method works anywhere with a population grid, a road network and functional urban area boundaries . The OECD is producing FRAs for some of its members. D2.2 reports that an update on the 2021 population grid and the census 2021 LAU boundaries was expected in 2024. Why it matters for PoliRural+ The OECD's work on rural-urban partnerships reaches the same conclusion from the governance side: partnerships work best on functional regions connected by flows of people and resources, not inside administrative borders. D2.2 asks every pilot to plan that way. The inputs FRAs need are open geodata, the same kind of layers behind the local GeoAI knowledge base. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex E Definition of functional rural areas in the EU; Annex H (introduction, §3.1); Annex F §2 OECD Rural-Urban Partnerships; §2.1 Takeaways. PDF","path":"content/ch07-policy/03-spine-legal-definitions.md","kb":"/kb/defining-rural"},{"id":"ch7-green-deal","concept":"green-deal-rural","conceptTitle":"Rural regions in the European Green Deal","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"The European Green Deal, read from a rural region","teaser":"The Green Deal aims for a climate-neutral EU by 2050. D2.2 turns it into concrete rural themes: local energy, local food, circular bio-economy, transport.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which concrete themes does D2.2 derive from the Green Deal for PoliRural+ pilots, and which EU initiatives help deliver them?","recallA":"Local energy systems and rural energy communities, local food systems and shorter supply chains (Farm to Fork), waste management and circular bio-economy, and sustainable transport and logistics. Nature-based solutions and the New European Bauhaus help deliver them.","highlights":["Green Deal: a climate-neutral EU by 2050 that leaves no one behind; rural areas have a named role","D2.2 rural themes: local energy, local food, circular bio-economy, sustainable transport","The New European Bauhaus makes the Green Deal tangible: sustainability, aesthetics, inclusion","Pilot briefs link it to circular economy (Monaghan, Slovakia) and climate-smart forestry (Vidzeme)"],"parents":["eu-rural-policy"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2.1 (The European Green Deal), §2.1.1 Implications, §2.3 Nature-Based Solutions, §2.4 Climate Change Adaptation, §2.5 New European Bauhaus. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, §4 Conclusion; Annex 1 (Monaghan) Executive Summary; Annex 2 (Slovakia) and Annex 8 (Vidzeme) Strategic Alignment. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ objectives (O4), project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The European Green Deal aims to make the EU climate neutral by 2050. As D2.2 summarises it, the Green Deal gives rural areas a role in reaching that goal: investment in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture and resource efficiency, with the promise to leave no one behind. Contributing to it, \"farm-to-fork, biodiversity, organic action plan\", is written into PoliRural+ objective O4. From strategy to rural themes D2.2 does not stop at the headline. It names the themes a pilot's regional action plan can carry: Theme EU hook named in D2.2 --- --- Local energy systems, rural energy communities Renewable energy push and support for energy communities; recommendations on energy poverty Local food systems, shorter supply chains The Farm to Fork strategy and the CAP's emphasis on sustainable food Waste management, circular bio-economy The circular economy package Sustainable transport and local logistics EU sustainable transport policy Decarbonising agriculture The evolving Green Deal Two EU initiatives help put these themes on the ground. Nature-based solutions are aligned with the Green Deal, the biodiversity strategy and the climate adaptation strategy. The New European Bauhaus \"seeks to make the goals of the European Green Deal tangible and desirable\" through three values: sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion. For rural pilots, D2.2 suggests circular principles, local materials, community participation from the start, and care for cultural heritage, such as revitalising traditional buildings and preserving cultural landscapes. What the pilots wrote The first policy briefs (D7.3, June 2025) show how pilots link their plans to the Green Deal: - County Monaghan (Ireland) : the brief states that RAP findings confirm a policy mix of fiscal incentives, Circular-Economy Innovation Hubs and multi-stakeholder governance \"can achieve at least 30 % waste-reduction and generate approximately 250 green jobs\". These figures are an expected effect, not a measured result. - Slovakia : the alignment table says the RAP \"advances circular economy, renewable energy, and biodiversity objectives\". - Vidzeme (Latvia) : the Green Deal is served through climate-smart forestry and renewable energy. Across the nine pilots, the D7.3 conclusion names carbon-smart short food supply chains as one of four common levers. Short food supply chains are the most direct rural-urban link to Farm to Fork, and chapter 6 covers them in detail. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §2.1 (The European Green Deal), §2.1.1 Implications, §2.3 Nature-Based Solutions, §2.4 Climate Change Adaptation, §2.5 New European Bauhaus. PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, §4 Conclusion; Annex 1 (Monaghan) Executive Summary; Annex 2 (Slovakia) and Annex 8 (Vidzeme) Strategic Alignment. PDF - PoliRural+ objectives (O4), project fact sheet. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch07-policy/04-spine-green-deal.md","kb":"/kb/green-deal-rural"},{"id":"ch7-intervention-logic","concept":"from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic","conceptTitle":"From policy gap to intervention logic","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"From policy gap analysis to intervention logic and SMART KPIs","teaser":"Most measures in most policy papers never happen. D3.1 sets out how a region builds a measure list that is complete, financed and measurable.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does a region move from a policy gap analysis to measures it can monitor, according to D3.1?","recallA":"Inventory the existing policies and look for gaps in finance, legislation and training. Turn each of 2 to 5 challenges into 2 to 10 measures, together with the actors who will implement them. Justify each measure with an intervention logic (measures, outputs, outcomes, impacts) and track impacts with SMART KPIs, overseen by a monitoring committee.","highlights":["Start with an inventory of existing policies: build on what exists, avoid overlaps","A complete plan also closes gaps in finance, legislation and training","Intervention logic: measures, then outputs, then outcomes, then impacts","SMART KPIs on impacts, a monitoring committee and a budget for mid-course correction"],"parents":["regional-action-plan","eu-rural-policy"],"sources":[{"text":"D3.1 RAP Methodology, \"Policy Gap Analysis\", \"Exploring Policy Options\", \"Creating an Inventory of Policy Options\", \"Creating an Inventory of Financing Options\", \"Clarifying the Intervention Logic\", \"Choosing SMART Indicators and KPIs\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/161/D3.1__RAP_Methodology_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 8 Accelerating Data-Driven Monitoring of the Regional Development in Vidzeme, Latvia (Executive Summary, Key Policy Challenges, Policy Recommendations, Strategic Alignment, Acknowledgements). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (EDQMS VR, D2D). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"D3.1, the PoliRural+ RAP Methodology, asks that the measures in a regional action plan be complete , avoid overlaps with ongoing initiatives and build on what exists . Getting there takes four steps. 1. Inventory what already exists Start by listing the policies, strategies and plans on the theme: those in force, in preparation, or expected soon. D3.1 gives a 2014 example from Bosnia and Herzegovina: more than 40 current policies referred to skill needs, and many of the measures they proposed had never been carried out. Reading such documents shows who the stakeholders are, which agencies are involved and where money might come from. D3.1 also recommends talking to local officials, which it calls \"Management by Talking Around\". 2. Look for the missing measures Action plans are often incomplete. D3.1 names three gaps to check: - Finance : no single EU fund pays 100 %, so plans combine CAP, ERDF, RRF, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and others, plus EIB loans or green bonds. Technical assistance such as the EIB's ELENA programme can help. - Legislation : money is in place, but a law blocks the measure, or no law enables it. Energy communities are a known case. - Training : officials need to understand concepts such as the circular economy or the bio-economy before they can support them. 3. From challenges to measures The vision work yields 2 to 5 challenges . Each becomes 2 to 10 measures . Over time the work moves from beneficiaries to the actors who will implement the measures, because \"only the 'actors' are able to make those measures happen\". 4. Intervention logic and KPIs The intervention logic is a narrative that links a measure to the rest of the mix and to the challenge it addresses. It can be written as a logframe. D3.1 illustrates it with training: Level Example (training against unemployment) --- --- Measures Training courses: method, topic, length, trainer Outputs People successfully trained Outcomes Newly qualified people ready for work Impacts People newly employed on those qualifications Indicators should be SMART : specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. D3.1 advises putting most effort into impact KPIs, because attention tends to stop at outputs once contracts are checked. Impacts often take 3 to 10 years to appear. A good plan also sets up a monitoring committee , led by organisations able to hold local government to account, and a budget for interim evaluations and mid-course corrections. The next block applies these four steps to Vidzeme. Sources: - D3.1 RAP Methodology, \"Policy Gap Analysis\", \"Exploring Policy Options\", \"Creating an Inventory of Policy Options\", \"Creating an Inventory of Financing Options\", \"Clarifying the Intervention Logic\", \"Choosing SMART Indicators and KPIs\". PDF","path":"content/ch07-policy/08-spine-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic.md","kb":"/kb/from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic"},{"id":"ch7-vidzeme-monitoring","concept":"from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic","conceptTitle":"From policy gap to intervention logic","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"Worked example: Vidzeme turns a monitoring gap into a measure plan","teaser":"Vidzeme had no systematic way to monitor its own development programme. Its policy brief maps that gap onto finance, legislation and training, then sets targets for 2028.","lang":"en","lens":"latvia","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"In the Vidzeme case, which gap is the plan built on, and which measures close the legislation and training parts of it?","recallA":"Vidzeme had no systematic territorial monitoring of the VPR Development Programme: data was fragmented and indicators inconsistent. Formal data-sharing agreements and mandatory annual reporting address the legislation and governance side; permanent specialist posts and data-literacy training for municipal staff address the training side.","text":"The Vidzeme Planning Region (VPR) in Latvia leads PoliRural+ pilot 8. Its starting point is a plain gap: no systematic territorial monitoring of the VPR Development Programme . Below, the region's policy brief (D7.3, Annex 8, 11 June 2025) is read through the four steps of the gap-to-intervention-logic method. Step 1: what already exists The brief's strategic alignment table works as the policy inventory. It lists Latvia's Regional Policy Guidelines 2021–2027, the VPR Sustainable Development Strategy 2030, the VPR Development Programme 2022–2027 , the regional Smart Specialisation Strategy (seven high-value clusters), Latvia's CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027, the Green Deal, the Digital Decade 2030, Cohesion Policy, Horizon Europe and Digital Europe. The plan builds on the existing programme. It does not create a new one. Step 2: the gaps, by type D3.1 gap type What the Vidzeme brief reports --- --- Data and method Data fragmented across institutions; RAIM (the Regional Development Indicators Module) integrates data incompletely; inconsistent indicators; little parish- and county-level statistics Legislation and governance Frequent legislative changes; insufficient data sharing; fragmented strategic documents Finance Limited municipal capacity to finance digital infrastructure Training Shortage of qualified data analysts; low municipal capacity with digital tools Engagement Low trust in institutions; little feedback to residents Step 3: measures - Standardise monitoring: unified data-collection protocols, mandatory annual reporting cycles , formal data-sharing agreements - Launch VPR PATHWATCH , a centralised, AI-driven monitoring system with geospatial and mobile access - Create permanent specialist posts and train municipal staff in data literacy and AI - Bring citizens in through a mobile app, for accountability - Position VPR as a national model and build a Baltic monitoring network PATHWATCH is a recommendation in the brief, not a running system. Step 4: targets The brief sets three targets for 2028 : integrated multi-level data governance, an AI-driven geospatial monitoring platform that moves \"from retrospective reporting to predictive analysis\", and regional analytics capacity. These are time-bound, so they meet the T in SMART. To make them fully SMART, each still needs a measurable indicator and a baseline. An illustrative chain (constructed here, not taken from the brief): training sessions (measure) → municipal staff trained (output) → municipalities reporting on the unified protocol each year (outcome) → regional programme decisions made on current data (impact). The evidence came partly from PoliRural+ open calls. InnoMatrix carried out the EDQMS VR outreach study on economic development quality monitoring, and NovoFutura ran D2D , a two-phase hackathon on regional development data. Chapter 4 calls this path data to decisions. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 8 Accelerating Data-Driven Monitoring of the Regional Development in Vidzeme, Latvia (Executive Summary, Key Policy Challenges, Policy Recommendations, Strategic Alignment, Acknowledgements). PDF - D3.1 RAP Methodology, \"Policy Gap Analysis\", \"Choosing SMART Indicators and KPIs\". PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment (EDQMS VR, D2D). PDF","path":"content/ch07-policy/08b-worked-vidzeme-monitoring.md","kb":"/kb/from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic#ch7-vidzeme-monitoring"},{"id":"ch7-question","concept":"from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic","conceptTitle":"From policy gap to intervention logic","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch07-policy","title":"Your Region's First Flagship Measure","teaser":"Fragmented data, a new development programme, and a board that wants a flagship. What goes into the action plan first?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"You lead a regional development agency. Your gap analysis shows that development data is scattered across municipalities and ministries, indicators do not match, and nobody can say whether the regional development programme is working. The board wants one flagship in the new action plan. What do you put first? A) \"Build the platform\" Commission an AI-driven geospatial monitoring dashboard now. A visible tool will pull the data together. B) \"Count what we do\" List the activities (training sessions, data workshops, platform launch) and report how many were delivered each year. C) \"A complete, measurable mix\" Build on the existing programme. Add data-sharing agreements, annual reporting and staff training next to the platform, with a financing mix for each. Draft them with the agencies that will run them, write an intervention logic for each, and track SMART impact KPIs through a monitoring committee. D) \"Use the fund we know\" Apply to the local LEADER group for the whole programme, because the team has used it before. More than one option has a defensible core. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch07-policy/06-question-policy.md","kb":"/kb/from-policy-gap-to-intervention-logic#ch7-question"},{"id":"ch8-hubs","concept":"rural-innovation-hubs","conceptTitle":"Rural innovation hubs","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"Rural innovation hubs: what the pilots propose, and what exists","teaser":"Four pilots name a hub as their answer. Most are still proposals; the working model they borrow from sits on the Bavarian side of the border.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Why does PoliRural+ treat rural innovation hubs differently from urban incubators, and what is the status of the hubs the pilots propose?","recallA":"Rural innovation grows from necessity and small firms and depends on absorbing and adapting outside know-how, so hubs must deliver advice, training, demonstration and networking close to farmers and SMEs rather than R&D for start-ups. The pilots' hubs (Apulia SFSC hub, Central Greece knowledge hubs, Klatovy cross-border hub, Monaghan circular-economy hub) are recommendations or RAP actions, not running services.","highlights":["D2.2: rural innovation comes mainly from necessity and resourcefulness, and depends on absorbing outside know-how","D2.2 set the task: research hub models, online and physical, that fit sparsely populated areas","Proposed hubs: Apulia SFSC hub, five Central Greece knowledge hubs, Klatovy cross-border hub, Monaghan circular-economy hub","The Commission brief: anchor AI services in living labs, LEADER groups and demonstration sites"],"parents":["rural-urban-linkages"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §5 \"Innovation in Rural Areas\" and Annex K §3 \"PoliRuralPlus Rural Innovation Actions\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 3, 4, 6 and 10. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.3 Key Exploitable Results (Table 13). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-046 \"Regional Circular Economy Hub\". atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"PoliRural+ starts from the OECD's analysis, summarised in D2.2: rural innovation is different from urban innovation . Formal, science-based R&D sits mostly in cities with universities and large firms. In rural regions \"most rural innovation emerges through necessity and resourcefulness\". It is carried by SMEs and depends on the capacity to absorb and adapt external innovations . It also covers social innovation, new business models and new ways of governing, not only technology. That changes what a hub is for. An urban incubator helps start-ups commercialise research. A rural hub has to bring advice, training, demonstration and networks close to farmers, foresters and small firms. D2.2 gave the project a concrete task: \"Rural Innovation Hubs: research models (online, physical) that fit sparsely populated areas.\" What the pilots propose Hub Pilot Status in the sources --- --- --- Apulia SFSC Innovation Hub, a one-stop advisory centre for short food supply chains Apulia Policy-brief recommendation (D7.3, Annex 4) Five regional knowledge hubs and an annual Smart-Farming & Agritourism Academy Central Greece Policy-brief recommendation (D7.3, Annex 3) Cross-border innovation hub in Klatovy, based on the Bavarian Technology Campus model Czech-Bavarian border Proposed; anchored in the RAP (D7.3, Annex 6; pilot website) Regional Circular Economy Hub County Monaghan Part of the RAP 2026–2030 (Atlas of best practices, prp-046) D7.4 also lists \"Cross-Border Innovation Hubs\" among the pilot-level exploitable results. It sketches them as physical and digital co-working and knowledge-sharing spaces that could become a franchise model , with regions running their own hubs on shared technology and networks. That is a business-potential assessment, not a plan that has been adopted (key exploitable results). Hubs as homes for digital tools The consortium's brief to the European Commission (D7.3, Annex 10) gives hubs a second job. Across the nine pilots, curating local data for AI tools such as JackDaw \"required months of manual work\", often on top of existing duties in hubs, advisory services and associations. Its Recommendation 8 is to anchor AI in local innovation infrastructures : co-locate digital services with living labs, LEADER groups or rural demonstration sites, so that local people own and maintain them. The most developed hub design is the Czech-Bavarian one. The next block follows it from the Bavarian campuses to Klatovy. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, §5 \"Innovation in Rural Areas\" and Annex K §3 \"PoliRuralPlus Rural Innovation Actions\". PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 3, 4, 6 and 10. PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.3 Key Exploitable Results (Table 13). PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-046 \"Regional Circular Economy Hub\". atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch08-innovation/01-spine-innovation-hubs.md","kb":"/kb/rural-innovation-hubs"},{"id":"ch8-question","concept":"rural-innovation-hubs","conceptTitle":"Rural innovation hubs","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"How Would You Start a Rural Innovation Hub?","teaser":"A rural district wants its own version of a university technology campus. Which first step would you back?","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"A rural border district has no university, but a technical university across the border runs campuses in rural towns and is willing to help. The district council has funding for one first step. Which would you back? A) Build the hub Renovate a building in the district town as an innovation centre with co-working space and labs. B) Network first, building later Map stakeholders, hold consultations with farmers and SMEs, test digital tools through small projects, then sign a memorandum and set up a cross-border steering committee. C) A small cross-border grant fund Offer modest grants for joint projects between communities on both sides of the border. D) A \"reverse\" incubator Invite urban start-ups to come and pitch solutions to the district's unmet needs. More than one answer can be defended. Choose one, then read where it works and where it breaks.","path":"content/ch08-innovation/06-question-innovation.md","kb":"/kb/rural-innovation-hubs#ch8-question"},{"id":"ch8-klatovy","concept":"klatovy-innovation-hub","conceptTitle":"The proposed Klatovy innovation hub","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"From campus to Klatovy: the proposed Czech-Bavarian innovation hub","teaser":"Bavaria runs a decentralised network of Technology Campuses; the Czech side has nothing comparable. The pilot's answer is a hub model for Klatovy, still at the proposal stage.","lang":"en","lens":"czech-bavaria","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"What is the Klatovy innovation hub, what model is it adapted from, and what is its status?","recallA":"It is a proposed cross-border rural innovation hub in Klatovy, inspired by the decentralised Technology Campus model of Deggendorf Institute of Technology. It would support farmers, SMEs and rural innovators through training, demonstration, advisory services and networking. Its status is proposed: it is anchored in the Czech-Bavarian RAP, with a Memorandum of Understanding and a cross-border Steering Committee planned to continue it after 2026.","highlights":["Bavaria has a decentralised network of Technology Campuses; Klatovy and Šumava lack comparable structures","The hub would focus on applied digital tools, sustainable agriculture and market access for farmers","The pilot plans a support model (networks, advisory, digital tools) rather than a single building","Status: proposed. RAP, hub model, planned MoU and Steering Committee are meant to carry it past 2026"],"parents":["rural-innovation-hubs","czech-bavarian-pilot"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 6 \"Unlocking Cross-Border Rural Innovation in Central Europe\". PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Czech-Bavarian border region (\"Anticipated result\", \"Results\"; German-language \"Anticipated result\"). poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps (Bavaria-Czechia). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex K §3.1 (Pilot 6). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-051, prp-052, prp-056. atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"The Czech-Bavarian policy brief describes the starting point: \"While Bavaria has a decentralised network of Technology Campuses, the Czech side, especially in Klatovy and the Šumava region, lacks comparable support structures.\" Without innovation hubs and services tailored to rural sectors, farmers find it harder to innovate and adapt. (The pilot itself is described in the Czech-Bavarian pilot.) The model being transferred A Technology Campus of Deggendorf Institute of Technology (DIT, a project partner) is a specialised campus outside the main university. Through application-oriented research with the local economy it develops practical solutions in rural districts. One example from the Atlas: at Freyung, the start-up hub GREG was placed right next to the Technology Campus to encourage research-based start-ups (Atlas of best practices, prp-056). What the hub would do The brief's first recommendation is to establish a cross-border innovation hub in Klatovy , \"inspired by the Bavarian Technology Campus model\". It would support local farmers, SMEs and rural innovators through training, demonstration and networking , with a focus on applied digital tools, sustainable agriculture and market access . The pilot's 2026 website text makes the design more modest and concrete. It describes \"rather than a single physical hub\" a rural innovation support model that combines local stakeholder networks, digital tools, advisory capacity and cross-border collaboration. In March 2026 a consultation in Klatovy with a small farmers' association co-designed a Czech-Bavarian Agricultural Innovation Hub . Farmers named specific needs: AI help with subsidies, shared technologies and data-driven advice , with JackDaw as the AI component (prp-051). Status: proposed, with a path to continuity The pilot summarises its logic as Connect → Experiment → Institutionalise → Continue : - Connect : Czech and Bavarian stakeholders joined a common ecosystem. - Experiment : open-call projects (FarmTourist, DIPS, LocalLinks.AI) turned regional needs into activities and tools. - Institutionalise : the Regional Action Plan, the hub model, a Steering Committee and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). - Continue : the hub and a post-2026 roadmap for joint projects, funding and knowledge exchange. The website calls it \"the proposed Innovation Hub in Klatovy\" , and the MoU and cross-border Steering Committee are planned . The D7.4 roadmap sets the long-term goal for 2040: \"a cross-border innovation hub enhancing connectivity, social capital, and territorial identity\". A pilot video, \"From border to bridge\", presents the hub vision to the region (prp-052). D2.2 suggested cheap first steps: a \"reverse\" incubator that brings urban start-ups to pitch for rural needs, a small border-area grant fund, and rural–urban job-shadowing swaps. Sources: - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 6 \"Unlocking Cross-Border Rural Innovation in Central Europe\". PDF - PoliRuralPlus website, pilot page Czech-Bavarian border region (\"Anticipated result\", \"Results\"; German-language \"Anticipated result\"). poliruralplus.eu - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps (Bavaria-Czechia). PDF - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex K §3.1 (Pilot 6). PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-051, prp-052, prp-056. atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch08-innovation/02-spine-klatovy-hub.md","kb":"/kb/klatovy-innovation-hub"},{"id":"ch8-arise","concept":"arise-heritage-platform","conceptTitle":"ARISE heritage platform (Cuenca)","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"ARISE: Roman heritage, rural businesses and one visitor journey","teaser":"In Sierra y Mancha Conquense, an open-call team joined archaeological sites, 63 local businesses and 148 itineraries in one open-source platform.","lang":"en","lens":"spain","depth":"standard","genre":"story","recallQ":"What problem did ARISE solve in Sierra y Mancha Conquense, and what did it leave behind for other regions?","recallA":"Visitor information was fragmented across Roman archaeological sites, rural businesses, routes and services. ARISE joined them in one mobile-first platform with a JackDaw chat guide and a MAAT workspace for local stakeholders (63 businesses, 148 itineraries, 48 registered stakeholders). It left a data-free, Apache-2.0 open-source code base on GitHub for replication.","highlights":["Develop-call project: Obsidian Innovation Institute (Portugal) with Xilbi Sistemas de Informacion (Spain)","Two layers: a public visitor app with a JackDaw chat guide, and a restricted MAAT workspace for stakeholders","63 rural businesses, 148 planned itineraries, 199 verified records, 48 MAAT stakeholders in 17 sessions","Replication basis: data-free source code on GitHub under Apache-2.0"],"parents":["rural-innovation-hubs","cuenca-pilot"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: ARISE). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps (Spain). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"The Spanish pilot wants to use cultural heritage for rural economic development. Its 2040 goal in D7.4 is for Segobriga Archaeological Park to become a centre of cultural tourism that boosts the local economy (Cuenca pilot). The obstacle ARISE tackled was more ordinary: visitor information was fragmented . Roman archaeological sites, rural businesses, multi-stop routes and local services were not connected into one visitor journey. Who built it ARISE (Archaeological Routes for Inclusive Synergy & Entrepreneurship) was funded under the Develop open call. The lead was Obsidian Innovation Institute – Associação (Portugal), with Xilbi Sistemas de Informacion SL (Spain). It ran a nine-month plan in five work packages, from co-design to public deployment, consolidation and preparation for replication. What it built A dual-layer web platform : - a public, mobile-first visitor service with an OpenStreetMap map, route planning, business and news listings, and a chat guide powered by JackDaw . Server-side integrations add live AEMET weather data and an indicative renewable-energy forecast; - a restricted operational layer : a content-management system and an authenticated workspace in the multi-actor approach tool (MAAT). There local actors track initiatives and tasks, co-design routes and monitor KPIs, including New European Bauhaus indicators. The content is rights-cleared and verified , with image-provenance records and translations into Spanish, English and Portuguese. The data is published as five machine-readable dataset packages (199 verified records) with documented OpenAPI interfaces. The team ran 94 automated feature and integration tests (1,007 assertions). What came out D6.3 reports that ARISE met or exceeded all nine of its key performance indicators: - 63 rural businesses onboarded and 148 planned itineraries hosted; - 48 registered stakeholders working in the MAAT workspace across 17 collaborative sessions ; - a data-free, general-purpose code base on GitHub under the Apache-2.0 licence , with architecture guides, administrator manuals and database migrations. The last point matters most for other regions. The platform has no Cuenca content built into its code, so another heritage territory could deploy it with its own sites, businesses and routes. D6.3 calls the architecture \"ready for replication\". No second deployment is reported yet. ARISE shows a hub-like function delivered as a digital service: it gives local businesses visibility and gives local actors a shared place to coordinate, without a new building. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 Project results and achievements (Develop call: ARISE). PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1, §4.2 Roadmaps (Spain). PDF","path":"content/ch08-innovation/03-spine-arise-platform.md","kb":"/kb/arise-heritage-platform"},{"id":"ch8-people-place","concept":"people-place-bond","conceptTitle":"The people–place bond","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"The people–place bond as a development asset","teaser":"A village museum with 400 masks, a sheep farm teaching wool craft, castle trails in Pošumaví: the Atlas tags them all 'people–place bond'. Here is why that counts as innovation.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What do PoliRural+ practices tagged 'people–place bond' have in common, and how is the bond being tested in Mallusjoki?","recallA":"They turn local heritage, crafts, food and stories into reasons for residents to stay and visitors to come, which counts as social and resource-based rural innovation. In Mallusjoki a technical pilot tests gamification, GIS and AR/VR storytelling to strengthen the person–place bond and pro-environmental behaviour, and the Story Pathways editor turns local audio and video stories into mapped routes.","highlights":["D2.2: rural innovation includes social, organisational and resource-based forms, not only technology","Atlas examples: Lišov Múzeum (SK), Farma Roziak (SK), Olej Hont (SK), Peregrinus and Castles of Pošumaví (CZ)","Mallusjoki technical pilot: gamification, GIS and AR/VR storytelling for the person–place bond","Story Pathways editor: local stories become mapped thematic routes with summaries and QR codes"],"parents":["rural-innovation-hubs"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex K §2 \"Implications for PoliRuralPlus\" (1. Champion a holistic view of innovation). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/140/Attachment_0_57.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-063, prp-065, prp-082, prp-084, prp-086. atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"},{"text":"PoliRuralPlus public fact sheet, technical pilots TP7 \"Place attachment via gamification, GIS and AR/VR\" and TP9 \"Story Pathways editor\". poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","url":null}],"text":"D2.2 asks the pilots to \"champion a holistic view of innovation\" : social, organisational and resource-based innovation as well as technology. It also asks them to value the \"hidden\" innovation that does not look high-tech. One form the Atlas of best practices keeps recording is a stronger bond between people and their place : reasons for residents to stay, for visitors to come and for both to care about the landscape. What it looks like on the ground Practices tagged \"people–place bond\" in the Atlas: - Lišov Múzeum (Hont, Slovakia). A community organisation runs a restored traditional house from 1916, a Celtic dwelling and a gallery of more than 400 masks. It uses crafts, informal education and international volunteering to create local pride and attract visitors (prp-082). - Farma Roziak (Môťová, Slovakia). A family farm combines sheep and cattle breeding with cheese, meat and wool products, plus wool-processing courses that keep rural skills alive (prp-084). - Olej Hont (Súdovce, Slovakia). Cold-pressed oils from regional raw materials, sold directly under a regional identity (prp-086). - Peregrinus Silva Bohemica and Castles of Pošumaví (Czech-Bavarian border). The first attracts visitors and temporary residents; the second links historic sites, events and local food through storytelling (prp-063, prp-065). In each case the place's identity is the product, and food, crafts or heritage carry it. That makes these cases close relatives of short food supply chains. Testing the bond with digital tools The Finnish pilot in Mallusjoki (Mallusjoki pilot) treats the bond as something to strengthen on purpose. Its technical pilot run by Smart & Lean Hub tests gamification, GIS and AR/VR storytelling to strengthen the person–place bond and pro-environmental behaviour . A second tool, the Story Pathways editor , turns local audio and video stories into mapped thematic routes with summaries, QR codes and map paths. For a policy maker the point is practical. A museum, a sheep farm or a castle trail can do the work of attraction and retention that rural strategies usually expect from infrastructure. The Atlas records most of these practices as replicable in other regions. Sources: - D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19, Annex K §2 \"Implications for PoliRuralPlus\" (1. Champion a holistic view of innovation). PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-063, prp-065, prp-082, prp-084, prp-086. atlasbestpractices.com - PoliRuralPlus public fact sheet, technical pilots TP7 \"Place attachment via gamification, GIS and AR/VR\" and TP9 \"Story Pathways editor\". poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","path":"content/ch08-innovation/04-spine-people-place-bond.md","kb":"/kb/people-place-bond"},{"id":"ch8-neb","concept":"new-european-bauhaus","conceptTitle":"New European Bauhaus synergies","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch08-innovation","title":"The New European Bauhaus in PoliRural+: a project objective with numbers","teaser":"Sustainability, aesthetics, inclusion: PoliRural+ has a whole objective on the New European Bauhaus, with countable targets. Here is where it shows up.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How is the New European Bauhaus built into PoliRural+, and where does it show up in pilot work?","recallA":"Objective O7 commits the project to synergies with the New European Bauhaus, with KPIs of 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, participation in 3 NEB events and 3 joint workshops. In the pilots, NEB values of sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion appear in the policy briefs' alignment tables (Central Greece, Czech-Bavarian border, Malta), in ARISE's NEB monitoring in the MAAT workspace, and in an NEB-aligned exploitation pathway in the Atlas.","highlights":["Objective O7 targets: 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations, 3 NEB events, 3 joint workshops","Policy briefs link NEB to landscape-based tourism (Central Greece), food hubs and agri-tourism venues (Malta), and the border region as an NEB pilot area (CZ-BY)","ARISE monitors NEB indicators inside its MAAT stakeholder workspace"],"parents":["rural-innovation-hubs"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRuralPlus public fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910 facts as on CORDIS), objective O7. poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","url":null},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 3, 6 and 9, \"Strategic Alignment\" tables. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 (Develop call: ARISE). PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices, prp-007, prp-110. atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"}],"text":"The New European Bauhaus (NEB) joins sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion , the three values the PoliRural+ policy briefs name whenever they refer to it. In PoliRural+ it is more than a reference. It is a project objective with targets. Objective O7 of the grant agreement: \"Create synergies with the New European Bauhaus and other EU projects\". Its KPIs are 20 projects identified, 10 cooperations established, participation in 3 NEB events and 3 joint workshops . These are commitments. The sources used here do not report how far they have been met. Where NEB shows up in the pilots Where How NEB is applied Source --- --- --- Central Greece RAP \"aesthetics, sustainability, and inclusion in landscape-based tourism assets\" D7.3, Annex 3 Malta RAP sustainability, aesthetics and inclusion \"in food hubs and agri-tourism venues\" D7.3, Annex 9 Czech-Bavarian border the region proposed \"as a pilot area for ... New European Bauhaus initiatives\" D7.3, Annex 6 ARISE, Cuenca KPI and NEB monitoring inside the stakeholders' MAAT workspace D6.3 §3.2 All pilots an NEB-aligned exploitation pathway: inclusive regional design guidelines, cultural identity and landscape integration, green infrastructure, circular design hubs Atlas, prp-110 The project's domain reference database also files sources under an NEB theme, so pilots drafting their action plans can find them (Atlas, prp-007). The practical test NEB adds to a rural project is short: is the result sustainable, does it respect the look and character of the place, and is it open to everyone? The Czech-Bavarian border, home of the Klatovy hub, and ARISE are the two places in chapter 8 where it is applied most directly. Sources: - PoliRuralPlus public fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910 facts as on CORDIS), objective O7. poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annexes 3, 6 and 9, \"Strategic Alignment\" tables. PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §3.2 (Develop call: ARISE). PDF - Atlas of best practices, prp-007, prp-110. atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch08-innovation/05-spine-new-european-bauhaus.md","kb":"/kb/new-european-bauhaus"},{"id":"ch9-consortium","concept":"consortium","conceptTitle":"The PoliRural+ consortium","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"Twenty beneficiaries, thirteen countries: who delivers PoliRural+","teaser":"Nine regional pilot leads, their technical partners, and five partners with no pilot of their own: how the consortium is put together.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How is the PoliRural+ consortium put together, and how does it connect to the nine pilots?","recallA":"The consortium has 20 beneficiaries in 13 countries, coordinated by CVUT (Czech Technical University in Prague). Each of the nine pilots has a lead partner from its own region, usually paired with a technical or business partner. Five partners (CVUT, CCSS, Asplan Viak, PSNC, CKA) hold no pilot role.","highlights":["20 beneficiaries from 13 countries; no affiliated entities, no associated partners","Every pilot has a regional lead partner; Plan4All leads the Czech-Bavarian pilot and also supports the Spanish one","Type mix in the Grant Agreement: 8 BUS, 5 NFP, 4 RIA, 3 PUB","Five partners each lead one audience group of the communication plan (D7.1)"],"parents":["polirural-plus-project"],"sources":[{"text":"Public project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910 facts as on CORDIS): partners, types, pilots, funding rates, governance bodies. Website: poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D7.1 Comprehensive handbook, guidelines and materials for communication and dissemination, §4.1 Multi-actor and human-centric Approach (Table 7) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/354/D7.1_Comprehensive_handbook__guidelines_v2.0.pdf"}],"text":"PoliRural+ (Grant Agreement 101136910, a Horizon Europe Innovation Action running from 2024 to 2026) is delivered by 20 beneficiaries from 13 countries . The Grant Agreement lists no affiliated entities and no associated partners, so every organisation in the table is a full beneficiary. The coordinator is CVUT, the Czech Technical University in Prague . Built around the pilots The consortium is organised around the nine pilot regions. Each pilot has a lead partner based in the region . Most leads are paired with a partner that adds technical or business capacity: MID with MAC in Monaghan, SUA with the Rural Youth Parliament (SRY) in Slovakia, AUA with GAIA and Neuropublic in Greece, MYA with Smart & Lean Hub in Mallusjoki, and Plan4All with TH Deggendorf on the Czech-Bavarian border. Plan4All also supports the Spanish pilot led by SocialInnoLabs. Apulia, Vidzeme and Malta each have a single partner. Five partners have no pilot role : CVUT, CCSS, Asplan Viak, PSNC and CKA. No. Partner Legal name (as in the GA) Country Type Pilot role --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 CVUT Ceske Vysoke Uceni Technicke v Praze CZ RIA Coordinator 2 MID Monaghan Integrated Development CLG IE NFP Lead, RP1 Monaghan 3 MAC The National Microelectronics Applications Centre Ltd IE BUS Technical support, RP1 4 SUA Slovenska Polnohospodarska Univerzita v Nitre SK PUB Lead, RP2 Slovakia 5 SRY Vidiecky Parlament Mladych na Slovensku SK NFP RP2 6 AUA Geoponiko Panepistimion Athinon EL PUB Lead, RP3 Greece 7 GAIA Gaia Epicheirein AE Psifiakon Ypiresion EL BUS RP3 8 NP Neuropublic AE Pliroforikis & Epikoinonion EL BUS RP3 (cooperation) 9 TIN Tinada Srl IT BUS Lead, RP4 Apulia 10 MYA Mallusjoen Nuorisoseura ry FI NFP Lead, RP5 Mallusjoki 11 SML Smart & Lean Hub Oy FI BUS RP5 12 CCSS Ceske Centrum pro Vedu a Spolecnost CZ RIA none 13 P4A Plan4All zs CZ NFP Lead, RP6 Czech-Bavarian border; support, RP7 14 DIT Technische Hochschule Deggendorf DE RIA RP6 15 AV Asplan Viak AS NO BUS none 16 PSNC Instytut Chemii Bioorganicznej Polskiej Akademii Nauk PL RIA none 17 SINNO Fundacion SocialInnoLabs ES NFP Lead, RP7 Cuenca / Segobriga 18 CKA Crehan, Kusano & Associates BE BUS none 19 VPR Vidzemes Planosanas Regions LV PUB Lead, RP8 Vidzeme 20 AL AcrossLimits Ltd MT BUS Lead, RP9 Malta and Gozo Type mix and governance The Grant Agreement assigns each partner a type code. The consortium counts 8 BUS, 5 NFP, 4 RIA and 3 PUB partners. The public bodies are two agricultural universities (Nitra, Athens) and a regional planning authority (Vidzeme). Funding rates depend on the type: 100 % for non-profit beneficiaries and 70 % for profit-making ones, plus a 25 % flat rate for indirect costs. Three bodies steer the work: a Project Management Office, a Project Executive Board of work-package leaders, and an Advisory Board. Partners as audience leads The communication handbook (D7.1) gives five partners responsibility for one audience each: civil society (MID), policymakers (SUA), business (MAC), science (AUA) and the general public (CCSS) . It also sets targets, such as 20+ policymakers and 300+ bodies and agents engaged overall. The multi-actor approach describes how the pilots find and rank these audiences. Eight of the nine pilots carry on from the H2020 predecessor project PoliRural. The consortium itself stays at 20 members; the open calls bring in organisations from outside it. Sources: - Public project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910 facts as on CORDIS): partners, types, pilots, funding rates, governance bodies. Website: poliruralplus.eu - D7.1 Comprehensive handbook, guidelines and materials for communication and dissemination, §4.1 Multi-actor and human-centric Approach (Table 7) — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/01-spine-consortium.md","kb":"/kb/consortium"},{"id":"ch9-open-calls","concept":"open-calls","conceptTitle":"The open-call ladder","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"Open calls: a four-step ladder from local ideas to tested tools","teaser":"€900,000 set aside for outside organisations, split into four calls that each fund the next step, and how the delivered scheme differed from the plan.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does each of the four PoliRural+ open calls fund, and how did the delivered scheme differ from the plan?","recallA":"Outreach (€5,000 lump sums) mapped local needs and stakeholders, Mobilise (€10,000) ran hackathons and ideathons, Develop (€30,000–100,000) built working digital applications, and Enhance (up to €25,000) tested JackDaw in real use. Of the €900,000 planned, D6.3 reports €850,968 paid to 26 projects. Develop took about 68 % of it, against half of the planned envelope.","highlights":["Four calls, four steps: map needs, mobilise, develop, test","Planned €900,000 (16 % of the requested EU contribution, including evaluation costs); reported €850,968 for 26 projects","339 applications, 30 approved, 26 funded","Each criterion scored at least 3/5 and at least 11/15 in total; one project per pilot preferred"],"parents":["consortium"],"sources":[{"text":"Public project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910): FSTP budget, per-recipient cap, planned call budgets. Website: poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D6.1 Open Calls Detailed Strategy and Timeline, Executive Summary; §2.2 Expected Results; §2.6 Selection Process — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/146/Attachment_0_58.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §1.2 Overview of the Open Calls; §2.1 Open Calls design; §2.2 Distribution of funding; §2.3.1 Evaluation methodology — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"Financial Support to Third Parties (FSTP) lets a Horizon Europe project pass part of its grant to organisations outside the consortium. PoliRural+ set aside €900,000 for this in the coordinator's budget, with a cap of €60,000 per recipient. D6.1 puts the amount at 16 % of the requested EU contribution, including the cost of evaluating proposals. The money was not spent through one big call. It was split into four calls, each funding the next step of a ladder . The design Call (window) What it funds Who may apply Per project Plan Delivered (D6.3) --- --- --- --- --- --- Outreach (Jun–Aug 2024) Regional workshops; collecting grassroots ideas; mapping local stakeholders and needs A single legal entity in a pilot region €5,000 lump sum 9 projects, €45,000 6 projects, €30,000 Mobilise (Jan–Mar 2025) A hackathon, datathon or ideathon on at least two regional themes, with mentoring on PoliRural+ tools (JackDaw, Map Whiteboard, Policy Advisor) A single entity in an EU Member State or Associated Country; at most one per pilot €10,000 lump sum 9, €90,000 7, €69,870 Develop (May–Jul 2025) Building and deploying a working place-based digital application (AI, IoT, GIS) that sends its data back to the project A single entity or a consortium of up to three €30,000–100,000 5–15, €450,000 6, €577,203 Enhance (Sep–Dec 2025) Testing JackDaw on real use cases: structured user feedback, a 10–15 page validation report, training A single entity only up to €25,000 7–15, €315,000 7, €173,895 Planned budgets come from the project fact sheet; planned project numbers come from D6.1. Each step builds on the one before. The two cheap early calls build up the local stakeholder base and the list of needs. The expensive call builds tools that answer those needs. The last call has outside organisations, who did not build JackDaw, test it. Develop was first planned on real costs and was then run on lump sums, like the other three calls. Selection and payment Applicants submitted proposals through the PoliRural+ Knowledge Hub. Evaluators scored Objectives, Impacts and Implementation from 0 to 5 in half-point steps. A proposal had to score at least 3 on each criterion and at least 11 of 15 overall. Projects from different pilot regions were preferred, one per region. Develop and Enhance received many proposals, so an AI tool did a first screening for clustering, completeness and baseline relevance. Two human experts then evaluated every proposal, and a consensus panel set the final ranking. Winners signed a sub-grant agreement with CVUT and were paid per milestone, once their reports, media outputs or data packages were approved. Plan versus delivery The four calls drew 339 applications : 46 for Develop and 160 for Enhance. Thirty were approved and 26 went ahead. Two changes stand out. Outreach and Mobilise funded fewer projects than the planned nine (6 and 7). Money also moved up the ladder: Develop received 67.8 % of the €850,968 reported, while the plan gave it half. Enhance used about 55 % of its planned €315,000. D6.3 notes that €850,968 is the final eligible value of the 26 projects and should not be read as the Grant Agreement envelope. Open-call results covers what the 26 projects built, region by region. Sources: - Public project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910): FSTP budget, per-recipient cap, planned call budgets. Website: poliruralplus.eu - D6.1 Open Calls Detailed Strategy and Timeline, Executive Summary; §2.2 Expected Results; §2.6 Selection Process — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §1.2 Overview of the Open Calls; §2.1 Open Calls design; §2.2 Distribution of funding; §2.3.1 Evaluation methodology — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/02-spine-open-calls.md","kb":"/kb/open-calls"},{"id":"open-call-ladder-game","concept":"open-calls","conceptTitle":"The open-call ladder","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"Climb the Open-Call Ladder","teaser":"Four calls, four rungs: put Outreach, Mobilise, Develop and Enhance in order and see what each one paid for.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch09-community/02a-game-open-call-ladder.md","kb":"/kb/open-calls#open-call-ladder-game"},{"id":"ch9-stakeholders","concept":"multi-actor-approach","conceptTitle":"The multi-actor approach","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"The multi-actor approach: who sits at the table, and how close","teaser":"By September 2025 the nine pilots had recorded 351 stakeholders. They then sorted them into three tiers that decide who co-creates, who is consulted and who is kept informed.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does the multi-actor approach ask of a PoliRural+ pilot, and how does the tiered stakeholder framework put it into practice?","recallA":"Under D5.1 a pilot identifies and maps its stakeholders, builds partnerships, plans and decides together with them, sets up coordination, resolves conflicts, and monitors and adapts. D2.1 then ranks each stakeholder as Primary (co-designs the Regional Action Plan), Secondary (consulted through surveys and roundtables) or Peripheral (informed through newsletters, dashboards and open calls).","highlights":["Six components (D5.1): identify and map, partner, plan and decide together, coordinate, resolve conflict, monitor and adapt","Target of 300 stakeholders; 351 recorded by September 2025 (117 %), up from 83 in May 2024","Tier shares in September 2025: Primary 15 %, Secondary 56 %, Peripheral 29 %","A stakeholder's tier depends on its role in that pilot, not on its type"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §1.1 Complex change; §1.1.2 Multi-Actor approach; §1.1.3 Lippitt-Knoster model — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), §3 Database of Regional Stakeholders; §3.3–3.6; Annex C Tiered Stakeholder Engagement Examples — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/353/D2.1_Stakeholders_Identification_v2.0.pdf"}],"text":"The multi-actor approach is the working method of the PoliRural+ pilots. D5.1 explains why it is needed: rural-urban problems are economic, social, environmental and political at once, so no single organisation can solve them. Government bodies, communities, businesses, NGOs and academia therefore take part in planning, deciding and implementing. D5.1 lists six components: 1. Identification and mapping : who has a stake, and their roles, interests and influence. 2. Partnerships and alliances : formal and informal networks, for example between rural and urban municipalities. 3. Participatory planning and decision-making : workshops, focus groups, community meetings. 4. Coordination and governance : clear roles, decision procedures, transparent communication. 5. Conflict resolution and consensus building : mediation where rural and urban interests compete. 6. Monitoring, evaluation and adaptation : tracking effects on both rural and urban communities and adjusting. D5.1 combines the approach with foresight and with the Lippitt-Knoster change model (vision, skills, incentives, resources, action plans). Everything feeds into each pilot's Regional Action Plan. Component 1 in numbers D2.1 built a shared stakeholder database modelled on the panels of the earlier PoliRural project. It uses 12 stakeholder types from the Description of the Action, from local communities, governments and farmers to digital technology companies, financial institutions and tourism representatives. Personal data in the shared copy are anonymised for GDPR. The overall target of 300 stakeholders was divided among the pilots by population, with at least 20 per region: Slovakia 67, Apulia 55, Monaghan 22. The pilots had recorded 83 stakeholders by May 2024 and 351 by September 2025 , 117 % of the target. Apulia was still at 64 % of its share. Men made up 58 % of recorded stakeholders and women 42 %; the goal for period 2 is 50/50. Making component 3 work: three tiers A list of everyone is not an engagement plan. Version 2 of D2.1 therefore ranks each stakeholder on four criteria: relevance to the pilot's objectives, decision-making capacity, mobilisation potential, and the innovation or knowledge it contributes. Tier Definition and D2.1 examples Engagement pathway Share, Sep 2025 --- --- --- --- Primary High influence, directly relevant: local authorities, funding bodies, leading farmer associations Co-design workshops, foresight exercises, drafting the Regional Action Plan 15 % Secondary Moderate influence; collaborators rather than decision-makers: SMEs, NGOs, community groups Periodic consultations, surveys, thematic roundtables 56 % Peripheral Wider ecosystem with long-term value: tourism networks, pan-European umbrella bodies Newsletters, online dashboards, open calls for input 29 % In Mallusjoki, municipal planners and regional development agencies co-create, SMEs in the rural event industry are consulted, and tourism associations are kept informed. Many women-led SMEs were present but rarely spoke up in formal consultation. A dedicated workshop for them brought their needs for digitalisation support and micro-finance into the Regional Action Plan. The tier depends on the stakeholder's role in that pilot, not on its type. Leading farmer associations are D2.1's own example of a Primary stakeholder, yet farmers' associations are Secondary in Apulia and Slovakia. The groups the database still lacks are covered in lessons on uptake. Sources: - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §1.1 Complex change; §1.1.2 Multi-Actor approach; §1.1.3 Lippitt-Knoster model — PDF - D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), §3 Database of Regional Stakeholders; §3.3–3.6; Annex C Tiered Stakeholder Engagement Examples — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/03-spine-stakeholder-engagement.md","kb":"/kb/multi-actor-approach"},{"id":"stakeholder-tier-game","concept":"multi-actor-approach","conceptTitle":"The multi-actor approach","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"Co-create, Consult or Inform?","teaser":"Eleven real stakeholders from four pilots: put each in the tier its pilot gave it, and see why the same type can land in different tiers.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch09-community/03a-game-stakeholder-tiers.md","kb":"/kb/multi-actor-approach#stakeholder-tier-game"},{"id":"ch9-comic-in-the-room","concept":"multi-actor-approach","conceptTitle":"The multi-actor approach","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"In the room, but not heard (a comic)","teaser":"Mallusjoki invited everyone. The women who ran rural event firms came, and said almost nothing. A workshop of their own changed the plan.","lang":"en","lens":"finland","depth":"intro","genre":"comic","recallQ":"In the Mallusjoki case, why was inviting every stakeholder not enough, and what fixed it?","recallA":"Women-led SMEs attended the formal consultations but were underrepresented in them, so their needs did not surface. A dedicated workshop for female entrepreneurs brought their needs (digitalisation support and access to micro-finance) into the Regional Action Plan.","text":"Read the four panels first. They retell a lesson that D2.1 reports from the Mallusjoki pilot in Finland. What D2.1 documents. Many women-led SMEs from the rural event industry were present at the pilot's consultations but underrepresented in them. The pilot organised a dedicated workshop for female entrepreneurs, and their needs, digitalisation support and access to micro-finance , went into the Regional Action Plan. What the drawing adds. The faces, the lectern and the dot count (seven in the room, one who spoke) are illustration. D2.1 gives no attendance figures for this case. Why it matters. Component 3 of the multi-actor approach, participatory planning and decision-making, is about formats as much as invitations. The tier list says who should shape the plan; the format decides whose voice actually reaches it. Sources: - D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), the Mallusjoki prioritisation example and Annex C Tiered Stakeholder Engagement Examples — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/03b-comic-in-the-room.md","kb":"/kb/multi-actor-approach#ch9-comic-in-the-room"},{"id":"ch9-comic-in-the-room-cs","concept":"multi-actor-approach","conceptTitle":"The multi-actor approach","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"V sále, ale bez hlasu (komiks)","teaser":"Mallusjoki pozvalo všechny. Podnikatelky z venkovských eventových firem přišly a skoro nepromluvily. Změnu přinesl až workshop jen pro ně.","lang":"cs","lens":"finland","depth":"intro","genre":"comic","recallQ":"Proč v případě Mallusjoki nestačilo pozvat všechny aktéry a co pomohlo?","recallA":"Firmy vedené ženami na formálních projednáních byly, ale jejich hlas tam zazníval málo, takže jejich potřeby nevyšly najevo. Samostatný workshop pro podnikatelky dostal jejich potřeby, podporu digitalizace a přístup k mikroúvěrům, do Regionálního akčního plánu.","text":"Nejdřív si přečtěte čtyři okénka. Převyprávějí poučení, které D2.1 popisuje z pilotu Mallusjoki ve Finsku. Co dokládá D2.1. Na konzultacích pilotu bylo hodně firem vedených ženami z oboru venkovských akcí a festivalů, jejich hlas ale ve formálním projednání zazníval málo. Pilot proto uspořádal samostatný workshop pro podnikatelky a jejich potřeby, podpora digitalizace a přístup k mikroúvěrům , se dostaly do Regionálního akčního plánu. Co přidává kresba. Tváře, řečnický pult i počet teček (sedm v sále, jedna promluvila) jsou ilustrace. D2.1 pro tento případ počty účastníků neuvádí. Proč na tom záleží. Třetí složka přístupu s více aktéry, společné plánování a rozhodování, je stejně tak o formátu jako o pozvánkách. Seznam podle úrovní říká, kdo má plán spoluvytvářet. Formát rozhoduje, čí hlas se do něj skutečně dostane. Zdroje: - D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), příklad prioritizace v Mallusjoki a Annex C Tiered Stakeholder Engagement Examples — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/03c-cs-komiks-v-sale.md","kb":"/kb/multi-actor-approach#ch9-comic-in-the-room-cs"},{"id":"ch9-adoption","concept":"adoption-lessons","conceptTitle":"Lessons on uptake","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"What slowed uptake: lessons from 21 sub-grantees and nine stakeholder panels","teaser":"Almost half the funded projects struggled to recruit rural participants. Here is what else slowed them down, what helped, and which survey figures to read with care.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which barriers to engagement and uptake did the PoliRural+ open-call projects report, and what does D6.3 recommend for future calls?","recallA":"The most common barrier was recruiting local partners and rural participants (47.6 %), followed by project windows of 3–9 months that were too short (42.9 %) and the administrative burden (23.8 %). D6.3 recommends consortium-backed stakeholder matchmaking, 9–12 month windows for Develop and Enhance, standard reporting templates from day one, and faster feedback channels to the core developers.","highlights":["Barrier one: finding rural participants (10 of 21 respondents); trusted intermediaries such as LAGs and cooperatives help","3–9 month windows are too short for seasonal field tests; D6.3 recommends 9–12 months","100 % 'replicable' and 81 % 'will continue' are self-assessments, not proof","The stakeholder database is thin on infrastructure, digital-technology and finance actors"],"parents":["open-calls","multi-actor-approach"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.1 Feedback from beneficiaries; §4.2.1 Ability to attract relevant applicants; §4.2.5 Lessons learned; §4.3 Recommendations for future Open Calls; §5.2 Key outputs, outcomes and emerging impacts — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), §3.3 Status of the PoliRuralPlus Stakeholders Database — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/353/D2.1_Stakeholders_Identification_v2.0.pdf"},{"text":"D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §1.1.3 Lippitt-Knoster model; §4.1 What is the Multi-Actor Approach Tool — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/150/D5.1_Prepared_pilot_by_Stakeholder_Multi-Actor_Approach_v1.0.pdf"}],"text":"Paying for a tool does not mean people will use it. Two kinds of PoliRural+ evidence show where engagement and uptake ran into friction. The first is the beneficiary survey in D6.3 §4, answered by 21 of the 26 funded projects (80.8 %). The second is the stakeholder monitoring in D2.1 and D5.1. All survey figures are self-reported. Four barriers named by the sub-grantees Barrier Respondents What D6.3 recommends --- --- --- Finding local partners and rural participants 47.6 % (10/21) Allow lead time, work through trusted intermediaries (LAGs, farmer cooperatives), use offline formats; provide consortium-backed matchmaking and introductions to pilot partners Windows of 3–9 months , too short for seasonal field tests and adoption 42.9 % (9/21) Extend Develop and Enhance from 6–9 to 9–12 months Reporting and administration 23.8 % (5/21) Standard templates from day one, fewer intermediate deliverables, verification at milestones Slow feedback loop with the JackDaw developers (Enhance call) named, not counted Liaison channels with the core developers: Code Camps, shared repositories, rapid issue-tracking sprints Technical applicants also asked to be told, at application stage, how mature (at what technology readiness level) the core tools such as JackDaw were. Some wanted calls open beyond the nine pilot regions. D6.3 suggests keeping the pilot challenges but letting applicants from other regions with the same bottlenecks into the development calls. What helped Co-design reached across the digital divide. Conversational interfaces and voice input, combined with hands-on training such as product-photography and prompt workshops, reached older and non-technical producers. Every respondent formed new partnerships; 12 of 21 worked with more than five new organisations. Beneficiaries also asked for peer exchange between winners of different calls. D6.3 answers this with cross-call demo days and peer-learning webinars. Reading the good news carefully D6.3 marks the limits of its own numbers. All 21 respondents called their results replicable, but that is a self-assessment, not documented replication . 81 % (17 projects) intend to keep using their tools, which is a statement of intent, not evidence of lasting sustainability. D6.3 can show outputs and immediate outcomes; longer-term impact is left to D6.4. The stakeholder side D2.1 found a reasonable spread across stakeholder types, with three exceptions: infrastructure providers, digital technology companies and financial institutions . These are the groups that connect, build and finance tools, and the pilots are targeting them in the project's second period. D5.1 adds a lesson from the Lippitt-Knoster change model: if incentives are missing, change meets resistance. Its Multi-Actor Approach Tool (MAATool) tracks KPIs and estimates how representative each pilot's stakeholders are, so gaps like these show up. For a future cascade-funding scheme, the first two fixes cost little: introduce sub-grantees to the Primary stakeholders of their pilot, and give field projects at least one full season. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.1 Feedback from beneficiaries; §4.2.1 Ability to attract relevant applicants; §4.2.5 Lessons learned; §4.3 Recommendations for future Open Calls; §5.2 Key outputs, outcomes and emerging impacts — PDF - D2.1 Stakeholders identification (v2.0), §3.3 Status of the PoliRuralPlus Stakeholders Database — PDF - D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach, §1.1.3 Lippitt-Knoster model; §4.1 What is the Multi-Actor Approach Tool — PDF","path":"content/ch09-community/04-spine-adoption-lessons.md","kb":"/kb/adoption-lessons"},{"id":"ch9-question","concept":"adoption-lessons","conceptTitle":"Lessons on uptake","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch09-community","title":"Your region has €200,000 to pass on: how do you spend it?","teaser":"A regional authority wants to fund outside organisations to get digital tools used. Which design gives the money the best chance of real uptake?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"A regional development agency outside the consortium has €200,000 of cascade funding. The goal is digital tools that local farmers, SMEs and municipalities actually use. It has one year and no existing tool of its own. Which design do you recommend? A) \"One big build\" Give the whole sum to two or three development projects, so each team has enough money to deliver working software. B) \"A short ladder with support\" Start with small outreach grants to map stakeholders and needs, then fund ideathons, then development grants. Introduce winners to the region's key stakeholders and give field projects at least a full season. C) \"Open it to all of Europe\" Publish one open theme with no regional challenge, to attract the most and best applicants. D) \"Test first\" Fund several teams to validate and give feedback on a promising AI tool from elsewhere. Each option has a defensible case. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch09-community/05-question-community.md","kb":"/kb/adoption-lessons#ch9-question"},{"id":"ch10-overview","concept":"research-pillars","conceptTitle":"Research pillars of PoliRural+","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Four research questions behind the PoliRural+ platform","teaser":"Grounded GeoAI, metadata, participation, territorial systems: what PoliRural+ tries to prove, how it tests it, and where its tools are reused.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the four research pillars of PoliRural+, and how does the project show that its tools work beyond the pilots?","recallA":"Grounded GeoAI, metadata and FAIR data, participation and foresight, and systems and territorial analysis. Reuse in FOCAL, BioClima, INTERESH, FAIR2Adapt and KijaniSpace shows the components working in climate, biodiversity, soil-health, FAIR-data and international settings.","highlights":["Four pillars, each tied to a platform component and a public deliverable","Usability is tested with cognitive walkthroughs, the System Usability Scale and pilot-by-pilot validation","Five partner projects reuse PoliRural+ assets such as JackDaw, Hub4Everybody, SensLog and the MAA tool","Sustainability means a stable open core kept separate from project-specific configurations"],"parents":["polirural-plus-project"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2, §3.7, §3.9, §3.10; §6.1 Testing methodology; §9.1–9.6 cross-project cooperation; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §3 Literature Review; §5 Key Learnings; Annex B Structured Evaluation. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O6, technical pilots. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State; §2.1.2 Gaps and Opportunities. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §2 From PoliRural Hub to Hub4Everybody. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/139/Attachment_0_53.pdf"}],"text":"PoliRural+ is a Horizon Europe Innovation Action (January 2024 to December 2026) coordinated by the Czech Technical University in Prague (project fact sheet). Its research follows from what the platform and the pilots have to prove. Pillar Research question Where the evidence is --- --- --- Grounded GeoAI Can plain-language AI answer territorial questions from traceable data? JackDaw, the Advisor, GeoRAG (D4.2 §3.7, §12) Metadata and FAIR data Can metadata, rather than code, decide which data and tools apply? Raven, Magpie, the FAIR2Adapt cooperation (D4.2 §3.2, §9.4) Participation and foresight Can multi-actor engagement and foresight become traceable workflows? The MAA tool, revised RAPs (D4.2 §3.9; D2.3 §5) Systems and territory Where and how do rural-urban linkages work? System dynamics (objective O6, pilot TP1), a 1 km innovation-potential grid (D4.2 §3.10), a literature review (D2.3 §3) How the project tests its tools The tools are evaluated with established usability methods. The Advisor went through a cognitive walkthrough , the System Usability Scale (on which 68 is the average score) and a feedback form that includes a Net Promoter question (D2.3 Annex B). The Beta platform is tested pilot by pilot. The criteria are functional correctness, ease of onboarding, data readiness, interoperability, language, responsiveness on real networks, relevance to planning tasks, and whether users understand where results come from (D4.2 §6.1). So far this validation has been case-by-case and qualitative. For the final release (D4.3), it moves to systematic consultation with WP5 (D4.2 §11.1). Research that travels: five partner projects Project Focus What is reused or exchanged --- --- --- FOCAL Local climate services, Earth observation processing JackDaw querying climate data through STAC and OGC API – Records catalogues BioClima Biodiversity and climate monitoring Hub4Everybody, SensLog sensor data, JackDaw as an analytical orchestrator INTERESH Soil-health Living Labs The MAA tool, Hub4Everybody, SensLog, JackDaw-based retrieval FAIR2Adapt FAIR data for climate adaptation Provenance, RO-Crate and I-ADOPT patterns brought into PoliRural+ KijaniSpace Climate-smart farming, Lake Victoria Basin Hybrid Hub4Everybody deployment, sensor integration, a multilingual JackDaw (D4.2 §9.1–9.5) D4.2 draws one lesson from these cooperations. Reuse needs a stable open core of generic assets kept separate from project-specific configurations, such as local datasets, vocabularies and licences. It also needs documentation, training and maintenance (§9.6). The tool ecosystem is built around that split. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2, §3.7, §3.9, §3.10; §6.1 Testing methodology; §9.1–9.6 cross-project cooperation; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §3 Literature Review; §5 Key Learnings; Annex B Structured Evaluation. PDF - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O6, technical pilots. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch10-research/01-spine-research-overview.md","kb":"/kb/research-pillars"},{"id":"ch10-polirural-legacy","concept":"research-pillars","conceptTitle":"Research pillars of PoliRural+","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"The PoliRural legacy: what PoliRural+ inherited","teaser":"Eight of nine pilots, a Digital Innovation Hub, an attractiveness index and a shared map: what the H2020 predecessor handed over, and what is new.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What did PoliRural+ inherit from PoliRural (H2020), and what did it add?","recallA":"It inherited eight of its nine pilots, the PoliRural Digital Innovation Hub (now part of Hub4Everybody), the Rural Attractiveness Explorer, the Atlas of Best Practices and Map Whiteboard. New are the GeoAI layer JackDaw, natural-language interfaces and broader data integration. The MAA tool came from Cities2030, not from PoliRural.","text":"PoliRural+ continues the H2020 project PoliRural: 8 of its 9 pilots carry on from it (project fact sheet). The technical inheritance is listed in D4.1 §2.1.1. What was inherited - The PoliRural Digital Innovation Hub. A place to share knowledge, tools and best practices, with social-space features (forums, blogs, wikis, science shops) on OpenStack cloud infrastructure. D4.1 notes that some components \"require modernization\" to keep up with AI and GeoAI. - The Rural Attractiveness Explorer , which produces a composite Rural Attractiveness Index (today's version). - The Atlas of Best Practices , refined under PoliRural, with region-specific practices from projects such as Enabling, Dalia and Data4Food2030. - Map Whiteboard , which lets several parties edit spatial data on one map and store the results. - Pilot-specific action plans and methods from each region. D1.1 adds the Hub's history. The user portal moved from Liferay to Wagtail CMS to make content easier to edit, and it offered a geoportal, social communication, storyboards, data management and legislative support. The PoliRural Hub then became part of the more generic Hub4Everybody framework (D1.1 §2). What is new in PoliRural+ D4.1 names three gaps that advances in large language models and GeoAI made it possible to close: JackDaw as a GeoAI layer combining LLMs with geospatial analytics, simpler interfaces through natural-language interaction, and broader data integration, including IoT and European Data Spaces (§2.1.2). Components from Data4Food2030, THEROS and ALIANCE joined the stack. One common confusion: the MAA tool is the Multi-Actor Approach tool. Social InnoLabs first developed it in the Cities2030 project, and PoliRural+ is redesigning it (the tool). Sources: - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §2.1.1 Key Components and Their Current State; §2.1.2 Gaps and Opportunities. PDF - D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §2 From PoliRural Hub to Hub4Everybody. PDF - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), predecessor. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch10-research/02a-sidebar-polirural-legacy.md","kb":"/kb/research-pillars#ch10-polirural-legacy"},{"id":"ch10-system-dynamics","concept":"system-dynamics","conceptTitle":"System dynamics in rural policy","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"System dynamics: modelling feedback in rural-urban plans","teaser":"Some policy effects arrive late and in another sector. System dynamics is how PoliRural+ commits to modelling them, starting in County Monaghan.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Where does system dynamics appear in PoliRural+, and what is it meant to add to Regional Action Plans?","recallA":"Objective O6 names it as an instrument of mission-oriented experimentation, and the Monaghan technical pilot TP1 uses it with action-foresight and MapWhiteboard to define and implement the RAP. It adds feedback and delayed trade-offs that static indicators miss.","highlights":["Objective O6: data-driven decisions, collaborative analysis and system dynamics for a well-being economy","Technical pilot TP1 (Monaghan) combines action-foresight, system dynamics and MapWhiteboard","D2.3 flags the kind of trade-off feedback models are built for: short-term gains, long-term ecosystem costs","The public deliverables reviewed here do not yet document a released model"],"parents":["foresight-framework"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O6; technical pilot TP1. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §3 Rural-Urban Linkages – Literature Review (Table 6); §5.1 Cross-Pilot Learning. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.2.1 Technical Description. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"}],"text":"System dynamics models a territory as stocks, such as people, jobs or farmland, that change through flows. Feedback loops between them can amplify or dampen what a policy does. The method suits problems where effects arrive late and in a different sector from the one where the policy acts. Where it sits in PoliRural+ - Objective O6 lists system dynamics, together with data-driven decision-making and collaborative analysis, among the means of mission-oriented experimentation for a well-being economy (Grant Agreement). - In County Monaghan, technical pilot TP1 , led by the National Microelectronics Applications Centre (MAC), defines and implements the rural-urban RAP using action-foresight, system dynamics modelling and MapWhiteboard (project fact sheet; see the Monaghan pilot). - D4.1 lists support for foresight methods and dynamic modelling among the Advisor's intended features (§6.2.1). Why feedback matters for RAPs D2.3's literature review warns that uncoordinated urban expansion can bring short-term economic gains and long-term ecosystem trade-offs. It recommends that scenario analysis include urban-expansion trade-offs and synergy indices (D2.3 §3, Table 6). These effects are delayed and cut across sectors, which is the kind of behaviour a feedback model is built to make visible and a single indicator is not. The revised RAPs treat foresight as a cycle (anticipate, design, implement, review) that has become the standard process for developing and adjusting a RAP. Pilots also report that monitoring is \"moving from static to dynamic\" (D2.3 §5.1). What the public sources do not yet show None of the public deliverables used for this book documents a released PoliRural+ system dynamics tool or model results. The Monaghan RAP is the place to watch. Validation evidence for the final platform is due in D4.3 at the end of the project (D4.2 §11.1). Sources: - PoliRural+ public fact sheet (Grant Agreement facts), objective O6; technical pilot TP1. poliruralplus.eu - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §3 Rural-Urban Linkages – Literature Review (Table 6); §5.1 Cross-Pilot Learning. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.2.1 Technical Description. PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §11.1 Remaining development priorities. PDF","path":"content/ch10-research/02-spine-system-dynamics.md","kb":"/kb/system-dynamics"},{"id":"ch10-ai-rural","concept":"grounded-ai-planning","conceptTitle":"Grounded AI for rural planning","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"AI in rural planning: grounded, cited and checked","teaser":"The Beta showed that maps plus plain language help non-GIS users. It also showed what an AI answer needs before a planner can rely on it.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Under what conditions does D4.2 consider AI answers usable for planning decisions?","recallA":"When they are grounded in reliable data and structured metadata, with clear provenance, appropriate tool selection and openly stated limits. Outputs must show sources, data validity and limitations, and people validate what the AI extracts or proposes.","highlights":["Main positive pilot finding: map interaction combined with plain-language dialogue","Four rules: a controlled corpus, visible sources and limits, human validation, sensitive data kept in-house","Open problems: uneven local data and metadata, local languages and place names, technical noise in answers"],"parents":["geoai"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.7; §3.9; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §9.4 FAIR2Adapt; §9.6 Lessons for sustainability; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet, publications with a public URL: Reasoning-grounded explanations, cahlik.net/… ; SHIELD, github.com/flpspacek/SHIELD","url":"https://cahlik.net/reasoning-grounded-explanations-paper/"}],"text":"How JackDaw works is explained under JackDaw. This block covers what the Beta taught about using AI in planning at all. What worked The main positive usability finding from the pilots is the combination of map-based interaction with plain-language dialogue . It helps users who need territorial evidence but do not work with advanced GIS, and it links spatial evidence to planning questions and stakeholder discussions (D4.2 §6.3). In the MAA tool, the Ramon assistant extracted stakeholders and objectives from pilot documents, and users then validated them, which reduced administrative effort (§6.3). Conditions for trust D4.2 concludes that natural-language interfaces help people reach complex spatial resources when they are connected to structured metadata, validated datasets and controlled analytical services . AI interaction \"must remain grounded in reliable data, clear provenance, appropriate tool selection and transparent communication of limitations\" (§12). In practice this means four rules: 1. Retrieve from a controlled corpus. The Advisor runs as a private RAG over project-related collections, not the open web (§3.7). 2. Show sources, data validity and limits in every output meant for users, as a corrective action before wider deployment (§6.4). 3. Keep people validating. Ramon's proposals are created only after a user confirms them. Following FAIR2Adapt, claims extracted from documents need provenance and expert review before anyone treats them as reliable (§3.9, §9.4). 4. Keep sensitive data at home. MCP-based integration, local deployment and metadata-driven tool selection allow setups where data stays inside an institution, as public administrations and paying agencies require (§9.6). What still fails The pilots name heterogeneous local data, uneven metadata completeness, different levels of technical skill, and the need for outputs that non-technical stakeholders can understand (§6.3). The roadmap adds linguistic robustness, the handling of local place names, the reliability of spatial queries, and removing unnecessary technical detail from answers (§11.1). Advisor testers also met a wrong programme reference that was corrected later in the dialogue (D2.3 Annex B). Where it is heading The planned next steps are a Knowledge Graph behind the RAG, for entity linking and transparent evidence trails (§3.7), and continuous testing that includes the quality of AI responses (§11.1). The open problems are set out in the depth block that follows. The public outputs include SHIELD, which filters unsafe or irrelevant queries before the AI responds. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.7; §3.9; §6.3 Usability, performance and functional observations; §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §9.4 FAIR2Adapt; §9.6 Lessons for sustainability; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services. PDF","path":"content/ch10-research/03-spine-ai-rural-planning.md","kb":"/kb/grounded-ai-planning"},{"id":"ch10-geoai-research","concept":"grounded-ai-planning","conceptTitle":"Grounded AI for rural planning","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Open research problems the GeoAI Beta exposed","teaser":"Retrieval that is not analysis, metadata that limits the AI, place names in nine languages: D4.2's limitations read as a research agenda.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"research","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Name three open research problems for GeoAI in rural planning that the PoliRural+ Beta exposed.","recallA":"For example: RAG retrieves only a few top-ranked chunks, so it does not analyse the whole corpus; AI quality is limited by how complete the metadata is; and local languages and place names need robust handling. Others are GeoRAG integration, provenance and explanation, and performance under rural connectivity.","text":"D4.2 treats its limitations as inputs for the final development phase, not as failures. Read as a research agenda, they fall into eight problems. 1. Retrieval is not analysis A RAG engine returns a small top-ranked set of chunks, often 10 to 20. That is a relevance match against a subset of documents, not an analysis of the whole corpus, and broad questions return general statements (D4.2 §3.6). Open question: how can multi-step conversations, such as Boxes & Arrows agent graphs, make the coverage and depth of an answer checkable? 2. Metadata sets the ceiling Generic tools are only as good as the descriptions they run on. Heterogeneous source quality makes the same tool behave unevenly across datasets (§3.2). Natural-language search \"cannot fully compensate for incomplete records, weak keywords or inconsistent classification\" (§3.4). Open question: how can metadata gaps be detected and repaired before they reach a user's answer? 3. Languages and place names Pilots work in national and regional languages, and D4.2 asks for stronger multilingual and place-name handling (§6.4, §11.1). In KijaniSpace, adapting JackDaw to languages such as Swahili \"requires more than translation\". The assistant must respect local crops, farming practices, institutional constraints and literacy levels (§9.5). 4. Text plus space GeoRAG needs text retrieval, metadata discovery and access to geospatial services to work together, and D4.2 says this needs stronger harmonisation (§3.7). Many regional questions cannot be answered from prose alone. 5. Provenance and explanation The planned Knowledge Graph would link answers to entities, documents and datasets (§3.7). FAIR2Adapt contributes RO-Crate packages with JSON-LD metadata to document evidence chains, and the I-ADOPT framework to describe variables. Without such descriptions, terms like soil moisture, land surface temperature or flood exposure may mean different things in different projects (§9.4). On the side of model explanations, a CVUT paper on reasoning-grounded explanations (predict-and-explain with compressed reasoning) was presented at the XAI World Conference (project fact sheet). 6. Safety before the answer SHIELD , released by CVUT on GitHub, is a safety framework that filters unsafe or irrelevant queries before the AI responds (project fact sheet). 7. Rural infrastructure Map interaction must cope with large spatial layers and limited rural connectivity (§6.4). In the Lake Victoria Basin, the same components face limited internet, uneven data and users who need offline, mobile-first and multilingual access, which D4.2 calls a useful stress test (§9.5). 8. Evaluation itself Validation so far has been case-by-case and qualitative. For D4.3 it moves to systematic consultation with WP5 (§11.1), with continuous testing that includes the quality of AI responses. How to measure whether an AI answer was useful for a planning decision is still an open question. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2; §3.4; §3.6; §3.7; §6.4; §9.4 FAIR2Adapt; §9.5 KijaniSpace; §11.1. PDF - PoliRural+ public fact sheet, publications with a public URL: Reasoning-grounded explanations, cahlik.net/… ; SHIELD, github.com/flpspacek/SHIELD","path":"content/ch10-research/03a-depth-thinker-geoai-research.md","kb":"/kb/grounded-ai-planning#ch10-geoai-research"},{"id":"ch10-spatial","concept":"spatial-data-infrastructure","conceptTitle":"Metadata-driven spatial data infrastructure","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Metadata as infrastructure: from hard-coded functions to Raven","teaser":"The first GeoAI demos needed one Python function per dataset. The Beta lets metadata decide which data and tools to use, so metadata quality now matters a great deal.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard..technical","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What changed between the PoliRural+ proof of concept and the Beta in how data reaches the AI tools?","recallA":"The proof of concept hard-coded Python functions for fixed datasets, with metadata hidden in code comments. The Beta relies on explicit metadata and service descriptions, so Raven can select datasets and set up generic tools over them, which makes metadata quality decisive.","highlights":["Proof of concept: hard-coded functions; Beta: generic tools set up over described data","Raven resolves data references and tool contexts for JackDaw","Standards stack: ISO 19115/19119, Micka, Layman, STAC, OGC API – Records, RO-Crate, I-ADOPT","Pilots must describe coverage, validity, licences and known limitations"],"parents":["jackdaw"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2 Data and metadata services; §6.3; §6.4; §9.1 FOCAL; §9.4 FAIR2Adapt; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.5 Magpie. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/162/D4.1_PoliRuralPlus_platform_design_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §3.2 Map management. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/139/Attachment_0_53.pdf"}],"text":"The early proof-of-concept demonstrations ran chat flows on hard-coded Python functions , with metadata often tucked into code comments. That was enough to prove the interaction logic, but not to reuse or scale. The second release puts the weight on explicit, higher-quality metadata . This lets the platform move from fixed tool-and-data pairs to generic tools that can run over many datasets (D4.2 §3.2). Raven Raven selects the relevant data resources and sets up tools on top of them as needed. Its inputs are catalogue metadata, service descriptions, dataset identifiers, access URLs, spatial descriptors and repository information. Its outputs are discoverable records, publishable services, resolved data references and tool contexts that JackDaw can use (§3.2). In the pilots, Raven let teams register local datasets, state their spatial and temporal validity, and make them available to other tools without manual code changes (§6.3). For the final release, Raven's metadata should also drive tool selection, access control, provenance tracking and checks of whether a dataset suits a task (§11.1). The standards stack Layer Standard or tool Source --- --- --- Geographic metadata ISO 19115 (data), ISO 19119 (services) D4.1 §6.5 Catalogue and harvesting Micka: INSPIRE metadata, harvesting via CSW and WMS D1.1 §3.2 Layer publishing Layman: WMS and WFS, access control D1.1 §3.2 Spatio-temporal discovery STAC, OGC API – Records (from FOCAL) D4.2 §9.1 Packaging and semantics RO-Crate with JSON-LD; I-ADOPT variables (from FAIR2Adapt) D4.2 §9.4 What pilots have to provide D4.2's first corrective action is better guidance for preparing pilot data. It covers metadata completeness, spatial coverage, temporal coverage, licences and known limitations (§6.4). Without these, the same tool behaves unevenly from one dataset to the next. Why this is a research result D4.2 concludes that metadata \"has become a core operational element of the platform\". It supports interpretation, tool selection, access management, provenance and AI-assisted workflows, not only catalogue search. Its quality \"directly affects the reliability of downstream services\", JackDaw included (§12). The open data layers this applies to, such as Copernicus, are covered in chapter 4. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.2 Data and metadata services; §6.3; §6.4; §9.1 FOCAL; §9.4 FAIR2Adapt; §11.1; §12 Conclusions. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.5 Magpie. PDF - D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §3.2 Map management. PDF","path":"content/ch10-research/04-spine-spatial-data.md","kb":"/kb/spatial-data-infrastructure"},{"id":"ch10-hub4everybody","concept":"spatial-data-infrastructure","conceptTitle":"Metadata-driven spatial data infrastructure","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Hub4Everybody: from project website to evidence infrastructure","teaser":"Planned as a universal data repository, in the Beta it is the platform's front door, and its library feeds what JackDaw retrieves.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What role does Hub4Everybody play in the PoliRural+ Beta, beyond publishing web pages?","recallA":"It is the main entry point for documents, outputs and service links, with map management through Micka, HSLayers NG and Layman. Documents added to its library feed the retrieval layer behind JackDaw, so it is also part of the evidence infrastructure.","text":"Hub4Everybody grew out of the PoliRural Hub, whose user portal moved from Liferay to Wagtail CMS to make content easier to manage. D1.1 describes it as a generic framework that is \"now the base for many new solutions ranging from Web pages to commercial platforms\" (D1.1 §2). Map management built in D1.1 names three components (§3.2): - Micka , a metadata catalogue and search engine that handles INSPIRE metadata and harvests from CSW and WMS sources; - HSLayers NG , a framework for interactive web maps that combine WMS, WFS and vector data; - Layman , which publishes layers from desktop GIS or the web, with access control and support for OGC standards. Plan and reality D4.1 planned the Hub as a universal data repository that would feed JackDaw, use Magpie for data discovery, analyse texts for named entities and policy changes, and add AI to e-learning (§6.1). In the D4.2 Beta, the Hub is the main entry point : a place for communication, publications, documents and service links. It has changed \"more in content scope than in platform logic\". One part of the plan is now running: documents added to the PoliRural+ library feed the retrieval layer behind JackDaw, so the Hub is \"not only a publication surface, but also part of the evidence infrastructure\" (D4.2 §3.1). The limit is editorial. As the library grows, its value depends on consistent classification, metadata quality and curation. Without them, a bigger repository gets harder to navigate (§3.1). Reuse elsewhere BioClima uses the Hub to publish data, methods and training materials. INTERESH can reuse it for soil-health Living Labs. KijaniSpace relies on hybrid deployments, with local instances or adapted portals where cloud access is unreliable (D4.2 §9.2, §9.3, §9.5). Sources: - D1.1 Project Web Pages Update, §2 From PoliRural Hub to Hub4Everybody; §3.2 Map management. PDF - D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design, §6.1 Hub4Everybody Evolution. PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.1 PoliRuralPlus Hub / Hub4Everybody evolution; §9.2; §9.3; §9.5. PDF","path":"content/ch10-research/04a-sidebar-hub4everybody.md","kb":"/kb/spatial-data-infrastructure#ch10-hub4everybody"},{"id":"ch10-question","concept":"spatial-data-infrastructure","conceptTitle":"Metadata-driven spatial data infrastructure","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Plugging a local dataset into GeoAI","teaser":"Your pilot has a regional indicator dataset and wants JackDaw to answer questions on it. What is the first step?","lang":"en","lens":"latvia","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"The Vidzeme Planning Region is building a regional monitoring framework for its Development Programme. The pilot has a spreadsheet of territorial indicators and wants JackDaw to answer questions on it, such as \"Which municipalities are falling behind on indicator X since 2022?\" What do you do first? A) Ask a developer to write a dedicated function for this dataset B) Register the dataset through Raven with complete metadata: spatial and temporal coverage, licence, known limitations C) Upload the spreadsheet to the Hub4Everybody library so the RAG can read it D) Search for it with Magpie first Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch10-research/06-question-research.md","kb":"/kb/spatial-data-infrastructure#ch10-question"},{"id":"ch10-publications","concept":"research-outputs","conceptTitle":"Public research outputs","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch10-research","title":"Research outputs you can open today","teaser":"One paper, one open-source tool, recorded webinars and the public deliverables: every PoliRural+ research output here has a link.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which two PoliRural+ research outputs with a public link deal with trustworthy AI, and what does each do?","recallA":"The paper on reasoning-grounded explanations (predict-and-explain with compressed reasoning, presented at the XAI World Conference) and SHIELD, open-source software that filters unsafe or irrelevant queries before the AI answers.","highlights":["Only outputs with a public URL in the project fact sheet are listed","CVUT: the reasoning-grounded explanations paper and SHIELD on GitHub","JackDaw webinar recordings (November–December 2025) are on the project website","D2.2, D2.3, D4.1 and D4.2 carry most of the research content"],"parents":["research-pillars"],"sources":[{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet: publications with a public URL; public deliverables and their PDFs; public events. poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"This block lists only outputs that have a public link in the project's public fact sheet (as of October 2026). A paper that is not here has no registered public link yet. If you are an author, add one with the ✍️ button and its URL. Papers and software Output Type Partner Link --- --- --- --- Reasoning-grounded explanations : predict-and-explain with compressed reasoning, presented at the XAI World Conference (conference date not verified) Conference paper CVUT cahlik.net/… SHIELD : a safety framework that filters unsafe or irrelevant queries before the AI responds Open-source software CVUT github.com/flpspacek/SHIELD Both deal with the trust problem described in grounded AI for planning: explaining why a model answered as it did, and stopping bad queries before they produce answers. Training and events Output Type Partners Link --- --- --- --- JackDaw webinar series, November–December 2025 Video recordings AV; CCSS poliruralplus.eu/knowledge-transfer/… PoliRuralPlus JackDaw Code Camp 2026 (registration deadline 6 January 2026) News CVUT; CCSS poliruralplus.eu/news/… PechaKucha \"Agents in the Field\", Synergy Days 2026, Kilkenny, 20–21 October 2026 Event polirural-pechakucha.vercel.app The final conference takes place on 20 November 2026 at CTU Prague, in hybrid form. Public deliverables with research content Deliverable Research content Link --- --- --- D2.2 Rural-urban linkages and opportunities post COVID-19 (approved) Foresight literature annex PDF D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis (submitted) Literature review, Advisor evaluation, cross-pilot learnings PDF D3.1 RAP Methodology (approved) Method for Regional Action Plans PDF D4.1 PoliRuralPlus platform design (approved) Architecture, design principles PDF D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta (submitted) Components, pilot testing, cross-project reuse PDF D5.1 Prepared pilot by Stakeholder Multi-Actor Approach (approved) MAA tool architecture PDF \"Submitted\" deliverables have not yet been approved by the funding agency. Sources: - PoliRural+ public fact sheet: publications with a public URL; public deliverables and their PDFs; public events. poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch10-research/05-spine-publications.md","kb":"/kb/research-outputs"},{"id":"ch11-open-call-results","concept":"open-call-results","conceptTitle":"Open-call results","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"What 26 funded third parties built","teaser":"339 applications, 26 funded projects in 14 countries: from farm-to-tourist workshops to a forestry GeoAI that cut analysis time from 296 to 11 minutes.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What did the PoliRural+ open calls produce, and how strong is the evidence that the instrument worked?","recallA":"26 projects (6 Outreach, 7 Mobilise, 6 Develop, 7 Enhance) in 14 countries shared about EUR 851,000 and delivered needs studies, ideathons, operational apps and real-world JackDaw validations. D6.3 rates the instrument favourably on demand, outputs and beneficiary feedback, but the evidence is mostly outputs and short-term outcomes, partly self-reported, with no counterfactual.","highlights":["339 applications, 30 approved, 26 funded: 7.67 % of applicants ended up with a project","Each call produced a different kind of result: needs maps, ideathons, operational apps, JackDaw validations","LocalLinks.AI mapped 460 supplier-customer links of 175 producers around Klatovy","D6.3 shows outputs and early outcomes; long-term impact is left to D6.4"],"parents":["open-calls"],"sources":[{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — Executive summary; §2.3.3 Number of applications received & success rate; §3.2 Project results and achievements; §5 Conclusions — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"Website: poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"}],"text":"The Financial Support to Third Parties programme distributed EUR 850,968 across 26 projects in 14 European countries . The open-call design climbed a ladder (Outreach → Mobilise → Develop → Enhance), and each rung produced a different kind of result. Call Applications Approved Funded Typical output --- --- --- --- --- Outreach 16 9 6 local needs and opportunity maps Mobilise 24 8 7 ideathons and hackathons, 250+ participants in total Develop 102 6 6 operational apps (self-reported TRL 7–8) Enhance 197 (37 excluded) 7 7 JackDaw validated under real conditions Total 339 30 26 Four approved applicants withdrew before contracting, so the funded rate is 26/339 ( 7.67 % ). Four results, one per rung - FarmTourist , Úhlava o.p.s. (Czechia, Outreach). It contacted over 80 stakeholders and held the \"From Farm to Tourist\" workshop in Klatovy on 21 January 2025 (46 attendees, 26 long-term commitment questionnaires). - LocalLinks.AI , Šumavaprodukt s.r.o. (Czechia, Develop). The LocalFarmsAI editor holds validated records of 175 producers, 220 sales outlets and 460 supplier-customer relationships . It feeds the Atlas and can be queried through JackDaw. - Field2Fork AI Hub , EXO Soc. Cons. a r.l. (Italy, Develop). A store for Foggia producers with a \"Personal Farmer\" AI assistant and zero-kilometre pickup hubs, tested with 170 consumers (90.3 % positive) and 23 producers. - SYLVAN-AI , Sylvanity B.V. (Netherlands, Enhance). It connected JackDaw to a 265 GB PostGIS database of 442.3 million cadastral parcels. In five forest use cases, time-to-insight fell from 296 to 11 minutes and usability scored SUS 87.5. The Enhance projects also found JackDaw's limits. GeoEDUHealth Access – Bacău (Romania) found that answers to complex derived spatial questions were not always reproducible. AURA (Greece) delivered 27 prioritised recommendations, and one of them led to an interface update during the project. Did the instrument work? D6.3 gives a favourable but bounded verdict. Demand was high, the portfolio was diverse, and beneficiaries reported a mean satisfaction of 4.67/5. All surveyed beneficiaries called their outputs transferable, and 81 % said they continue their work after the grant. These figures are self-reported , the TRLs are self-assessed, and no counterfactual was evaluated. D6.3 therefore evidences outputs and immediate outcomes. Long-term socio-economic impact is left to D6.4 . The main lesson concerns the pathway: going from regional challenge to experiment, validation and replication strengthens Regional Action Plans. It needs time, trusted local intermediaries and a way to feed results back into planning. For future calls, D6.3 recommends projects of 9–12 months and lighter reporting. Sources: - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — Executive summary; §2.3.3 Number of applications received & success rate; §3.2 Project results and achievements; §5 Conclusions — PDF - Website: poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch11-results/01-spine-open-call-results.md","kb":"/kb/open-call-results"},{"id":"ch11-atlas-of-practices","concept":"atlas-of-practices","conceptTitle":"Atlas of best practices","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"The Atlas of best practices: 126 things that worked somewhere","teaser":"A public, searchable atlas of practices from the pilots and open calls, each with a place, activity tags and the results it produced.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is the PoliRural+ Atlas of best practices, and how can a region outside the project use it?","recallA":"A public online atlas (atlasbestpractices.com, edited by CCSS) of 126 practices from the pilots, open-call projects and project-wide services. Each entry gives a location, activity tags, a description and results. A region filters by tag or region, picks a practice whose context matches its own, and can document its own practices in the same format.","highlights":["126 practices, edited by CCSS, public at atlasbestpractices.com","Every entry has a prp-id, a location, activity tags, a description and results","Open-call teams feed it too: LocalLinks.AI documented six farm cases","Use it to find a practice tested in a context like yours, then follow its results"],"parents":["pilot-network"],"sources":[{"text":"Atlas of best practices (edited by CCSS) — entries prp-002, prp-008, prp-046, prp-052, prp-072, prp-079, prp-100, prp-109, prp-114–prp-128 — atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — §3.2 Project results and achievements (LocalLinks.AI) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"PoliRural+ Grant Agreement objectives (O6), as published on CORDIS — poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","url":null},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.11 Atlas of Best Practices and e-market linkages. PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"}],"text":"The Atlas of best practices (https://atlasbestpractices.com) is the public catalogue of what PoliRural+ found worth copying. CCSS edits it, and it holds 126 practices . Objective O6 of the seven objectives set a KPI of more than 100 recognised best practices. What an entry looks like Every practice has a stable identifier ( prp-… ), a location, one or more activity tags , a description and a results field. The entries come from three directions: - the nine pilots, e.g. the Klatovy innovation hub story (prp-052) or the Slovak foresight-to-implementation method (prp-079); - the open-call projects : most have an entry (prp-114 GREEN to prp-128 eMooJI, among others), and some have several. LocalLinks.AI documented six farm cases, e.g. Farma Krasíkov (prp-072); - project-wide services and methods , e.g. the Knowledge Space and Advisor service (prp-008) or the business model canvases for key exploitable results (prp-109). The tags used in the Atlas are: innovation, regional economic development, digital public service, stakeholder engagement, capacity building, short food supply chains, governance, rural tourism, inclusive and sustainable territorial development, food production, knowledge management, foresight and RAP, agrotourism, rural-urban stakeholders, data and indicators, rural events and food systems, people-place bond, circular economy and cross-border cooperation. Three practices worth opening prp-id Practice Where What it shows --- --- --- --- prp-002 FarmTourist by Úhlava, o.p.s. Klatovy, Czech-Bavarian border The \"From Farm to Tourist\" workshop (January 2025) brought together farmers, tourism operators, policymakers and researchers, with 46 active partners. Its ideas included vending machines and caravan \"stellplatz\" stops on farms. prp-046 Regional Circular Economy Hub County Monaghan, Ireland A multi-actor hub under the 2026–2030 Regional Action Plan, recognised by the RU Innovation Radar, supporting circular pilots and SMEs. prp-100 Unified indicator for economic activity Vidzeme Planning Region, Latvia Municipal specialists used Theory of Change to agree standard \"indicator passports\" (data, frequency, responsibility) that make figures comparable across municipalities. How a region uses it, and adds to it 1. Filter by tag and region. A practice tested in a context like yours, such as a border region or a short-chain food economy, transfers more easily than an abstract recommendation. 2. Read the results field first. It says what the practice changed. 3. Follow the trail. Open-call entries have public final reports, listed in D6.3, that hold the details. 4. Document your own. Write a title, location, tags, description and results, the same fields the pilots and open-call teams used. The Atlas editors (CCSS) publish the entries. The Atlas shows where a practice worked. The key exploitable results are the tools and models that are meant to continue after 2026. How-to: Using the Atlas step by step. Sources: - Atlas of best practices (edited by CCSS) — entries prp-002, prp-008, prp-046, prp-052, prp-072, prp-079, prp-100, prp-109, prp-114–prp-128 — atlasbestpractices.com - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — §3.2 Project results and achievements (LocalLinks.AI) — PDF - PoliRural+ Grant Agreement objectives (O6), as published on CORDIS — poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","path":"content/ch11-results/02-spine-atlas-of-practices.md","kb":"/kb/atlas-of-practices"},{"id":"ch11-guide-atlas","concept":"atlas-of-practices","conceptTitle":"Atlas of best practices","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"How to use the Atlas of best practices: search, compare, contribute","teaser":"Before designing a measure, check whether a region has already tried it. Six steps through the Atlas, and how your own practice gets in.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","recallQ":"How does a regional team use the Atlas of best practices before designing a measure, and how does its own practice get added?","recallA":"It filters entries by theme and region, opens practices whose context resembles its own, reads what they changed and reuses them in pilot work, reports or advice. To add its own practice, it prepares a case description with location, thematic tags and results and passes it to the Atlas editors (CCSS), whose editorial flow publishes it.","text":"When to use it: you are about to propose a measure for a RAP or a project and want to know whether something similar has been tried, where, and with what result. What you need - A browser: atlasbestpractices.com . D4.2 describes the Atlas as a front-facing resource, not only a back-office repository (§3.11). - A clear description of your own context: the type of region, the theme and the actors involved. Steps 1. Open the Atlas and search or browse. Entries are searchable and browsable, with a thematic presentation (D4.2 §3.11). 2. Filter by theme and region. Use the activity tags, for example short food supply chains, stakeholder engagement or cross-border cooperation, and then the location. 3. Open the candidates. Each entry carries a location, activity tags, a description and a results field. Read the results first: they say what the practice changed. 4. Compare contexts. D4.2 stresses comparison and future adaptation; a practice from a region like yours (a border area, a short-chain food economy) transfers more easily than an abstract recommendation. 5. Reuse it. D4.2 names three uses: pilot experimentation, reporting and advisory contexts, for example as a cited example in a RAP measure or a policy brief. 6. Document your own practice. Prepare a case description, location, thematic tags and results. The Atlas editors, CCSS, run the editorial flow that prepares and publishes entries. What you get A short list of tested practices with their place and results, and a way to make your own work visible to other regions in the same format. Three entries worth opening first are in the Atlas anchor. Watch out - An atlas is only as useful as the breadth and comparability of its content ; D4.2 notes that without enough material the structure is \"technically sound but operationally weak\". Check how far an entry's context matches yours. - The data model was recently adjusted and is still being stabilised, so fields can differ between older and newer entries. - E-market linkages , meaning links from practices to local-food or regional-market tools, still need an operational definition. Do not count on them yet (D4.2 §3.11). Practices show what worked in one place. The key exploitable results are the tools and models meant to continue after 2026. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus Platform Beta, §3.11 Atlas of Best Practices and e-market linkages. PDF - Atlas of best practices (edited by CCSS). atlasbestpractices.com","path":"content/ch11-results/02g-guide-atlas.md","kb":"/kb/atlas-of-practices#ch11-guide-atlas"},{"id":"ch11-key-exploitable-results","concept":"key-exploitable-results","conceptTitle":"Key exploitable results (KERs)","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"Key exploitable results: what is meant to outlive the project","teaser":"Six project-level results with business potential, five pilot-level ones, and the scoring rule that decides which survive into the final exploitation plan.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which key exploitable results does D7.4 name, and how will the final selection be made?","recallA":"At project level: the Advisor knowledge space, the Multi-Actor Approach Tool, JackDaw, rural circular-economy funding business models, Vulture and the AI advisory Dashboard. At pilot level there are five, such as smart-village hubs and cross-border innovation hubs. The final selection comes in D7.8, scored by a KER index that multiplies innovation, exploitability and impact ratings, with each result assigned to one of five exploitation spheres.","highlights":["Six project-level KERs with business potential, from the Advisor to JackDaw and Vulture","Five spheres of exploitation; most KERs outside the business sphere stay free and open source","KER index = innovation × exploitability × impact, each rated Low, Medium or High","D7.4 is edition 1; the final KER list and owners come in D7.8"],"parents":["tool-ecosystem"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 — Executive Summary; §4.3 Key Exploitable Results with Business Potential; §4.4 KER Index; §7 Conclusions and Recommendations; Annex C Results Database; Annex D KERs Revenue Models — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"}],"text":"A key exploitable result (KER) is a project result that someone is expected to keep using after the grant ends, by its owner or by others through licensing or transfer. D7.4 (edition 1) sorts the KERs into five spheres of exploitation : Societal & Social, Research & Innovation, Capacity Building & Education & Training, Business & Innovation & Financial, and Policy Making. Project-level KERs with business potential KER (D7.4, Table 12) What it is Exploitation route D7.4 names --- --- --- Enhanced Rural-Urban Knowledge Space (PoliRuralPlus Advisor) knowledge platform: policy insights, stakeholder mapping, data visualisation subscription service Multi-Actor Approach Tool (MAAT) stakeholder engagement and participatory governance platform SaaS for regional governments and agencies Spatial Enhanced Attractiveness Mapping Toolbox (JackDaw) GIS-enabled tool for rural attractiveness and investment analysis consultancy, analytics subscriptions, licensing to authorities Rural Circular Economy Funding Business Models business models for waste-to-resource, short food chains and similar advisory and financing via incubators and financial institutions AI-Based Foresight & transform work (Vulture) co-design environment for AI-assisted planning and policy work premium research service AI-Powered Advisory Tools (Dashboard) AI advisory and business intelligence for rural SMEs B2B subscription At pilot level, D7.4 lists five results with local business potential: a Smart Villages Digital Hub, Renewable Energy Entrepreneurship Programs, Digital Participatory Governance Models, a Business Accelerator for Rural Tourism and Agribusiness, and Cross-Border Innovation Hubs. The Results Database (Annex C, state of 2 May 2025) adds readiness levels: Hub4Everybody is a product at TRL 9, while the Advisor and the MAA-tool are at TRL 7. Free for most, paid only in one sphere The routes in the table are potential routes. D7.4 states that, except for the business sphere, most KERs will be free and open source , and that the platform itself will be a free, open-source cloud service. An open Dashboard of services will let third parties add services. The recommendations name Apache 2 licensing, with dual licensing reserved for premium commercial versions. How the final list is chosen The owner of a result, or a jury of stakeholders, rates it High (3), Medium (2) or Low (1) on innovation, exploitability and impact . The KER index is the product of the three ratings ; weights may shift by sphere. The final choice of KERs, and who exploits each, is due in the final edition, D7.8 , at the end of the project. D7.4 adds its own caution: most of these tools target municipalities, so they succeed only once they are part of government workflows and have lasting funding. That is the subject of what remains. Sources: - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 — Executive Summary; §4.3 Key Exploitable Results with Business Potential; §4.4 KER Index; §7 Conclusions and Recommendations; Annex C Results Database; Annex D KERs Revenue Models — PDF","path":"content/ch11-results/03-spine-key-exploitable-results.md","kb":"/kb/key-exploitable-results"},{"id":"ch11-ker-type-sort-game","concept":"key-exploitable-results","conceptTitle":"Key exploitable results (KERs)","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"Project-level or pilot-level?","teaser":"Sort eleven key exploitable results the way D7.4 does: tools for every region, or local business opportunities in a pilot.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","text":"","path":"content/ch11-results/08a-game-ker-type-sort.md","kb":"/kb/key-exploitable-results#ch11-ker-type-sort-game"},{"id":"ch11-practice-abstracts","concept":"practice-abstracts","conceptTitle":"Practice abstracts","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"Practice abstracts: results in the EIP-AGRI format","teaser":"Three short videos from 2025 show, side by side, what a plain chatbot answers and what JackDaw answers once it can query real data.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the PoliRural+ practice abstracts, and what does batch 1 (D7.2) cover?","recallA":"Short, practitioner-oriented summaries in line with EIP-AGRI guidelines. Batch 1 is three videos: innovation mapping from OpenStreetMap data, GeoAI for rural-urban linkage analysis with JackDaw, and a comparison of plain LLM answers with JackDaw's agentic tool calling. Batch 2 (D7.5) is due in month 34.","highlights":["EIP-AGRI-style abstracts: short, practical, publicly circulated","Batch 1 = three videos on OSM innovation mapping, GeoAI linkages and JackDaw vs plain LLMs","Written for policymakers, practitioners and open-call applicants"],"parents":["key-exploitable-results"],"sources":[{"text":"D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1 — Executive Summary; §1 Introduction; §2 Description of Practice Abstracts; §3 Purpose and Impact — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/356/D7.2__Practice__Abstracts_-_batch_1_LxksN3q.pdf"}],"text":"Practice abstracts are short, practitioner-oriented summaries of methods and results, written to the EIP-AGRI guidelines (European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability). Their purpose is to let a farm advisor, planner or local authority see in a few minutes whether a result is relevant to them. PoliRural+ plans two batches: D7.2 (batch 1, month 14, approved) and D7.5 (batch 2, due in month 34). Batch 1: three videos 1. Assessing regional innovation potential with OpenStreetMap data. Kernel density estimation over OSM features maps innovation-related assets, such as research institutions, technology hubs and digital infrastructure, across the nine pilot regions. Local hotspots and gaps become visible where aggregate statistics hide them. (https://youtu.be/Jybshpa6W4A) 2. GeoAI for rural development decisions. JackDaw assesses a place's weekend tourism potential from nearby urban population, amenities and driving distances, retrieving current geodata before it answers. (https://youtu.be/H7ubA7s4AYs) 3. GeoAI meets LLMs. Three questions are put both to a plain LLM and to JackDaw's agentic tool calling: the local weather, whether a plot suits potatoes, and which water bodies lie in an area. The plain model gives generic or wrong answers. JackDaw calls weather, land-cover and elevation tools for the selected map area. (https://youtu.be/Xu6lkjlGx5g) Why the format matters for legacy The abstracts are aimed at policymakers, practitioners and technical experts, including participants of the Mobilise, Develop and Enhance open calls. D7.2 plans to submit them to the EIP-AGRI platform, where planners and local authorities outside the project can find them. They take lessons from PoliRural: some advanced tools were not adopted locally because of limited know-how and low awareness of their benefits. Short demonstrations address both problems. Sources: - D7.2 Practice Abstracts – batch 1 — Executive Summary; §1 Introduction; §2 Description of Practice Abstracts; §3 Purpose and Impact — PDF","path":"content/ch11-results/04-spine-practice-abstracts.md","kb":"/kb/practice-abstracts"},{"id":"ch11-what-remains","concept":"project-legacy","conceptTitle":"What remains after the project","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"What remains after December 2026","teaser":"Some results are operational, some are Beta, some are plans: a status-honest inventory of what is meant to continue after the project ends.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What is meant to continue after PoliRural+ ends in December 2026, and on what terms?","recallA":"The open-source platform components (Hub, JackDaw, Magpie, Vulture, MapWhiteboard), which D4.2 describes as a functional, reusable Beta still to be consolidated; the free Advisor and Dashboard services; the public Atlas; the pilots' roadmaps to 2030–2040; and the open-call tools, 81 % of whose teams report continuing. D7.4 relies on a hybrid of public funding, private investment and subscription services, and fixes the final list of KERs in D7.8.","highlights":["D4.2 calls the platform a functional and reusable Beta that still needs consolidation","D7.4: free and open source by default, a hybrid funding model, final KER list in D7.8","Pilot roadmaps run to 2030 and 2040; 81 % of open-call teams report continuing","The Atlas and this knowledge base keep the evidence public"],"parents":["key-exploitable-results","atlas-of-practices"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta — §12 Conclusions; Annex 1 Component status matrix — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 — §4.2 Roadmaps extending to 2030 and beyond; §4.4 KER Index; §7 Conclusions and Recommendations; Annex C Results Database; Annex D KERs Revenue Models — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/342/D7.4_Exploitation_plans__business_models_edition_1_v1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — §5.3 Assessment of Open Call effectiveness; §5.5 Final recommendations — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"},{"text":"Atlas of best practices — atlasbestpractices.com","url":"https://atlasbestpractices.com"},{"text":"Website: poliruralplus.eu","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/"},{"text":"PoliRural+ public fact sheet — Events (public) — poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables","url":null}],"text":"PoliRural+ ends on 31 December 2026 . The table below lists what the deliverables expect to continue, with each item's status as the sources word it. What Status in the sources Terms for continuing --- --- --- Platform: Hub/H4E, JackDaw, Magpie, Vulture, MapWhiteboard Beta . D4.2: \"a functional and reusable basis\", with integration, training and TRL progression still to be done free, open-source cloud platform; Apache 2 recommended (D7.4) Advisor and Dashboard of services Advisor at TRL 7 in the Results Database (May 2025); D7.4: \"the project is developing an Open Dashboard of services\" for third-party services free by default; D7.4 also recommends a subscription SaaS for governments and a freemium tier for business-intelligence tools Atlas of best practices public, 126 practices, edited by CCSS open access Open-call tools (e.g. LocalFarmsAI, Field2Fork AI Hub, SYLVAN-AI) operational, with self-reported TRL 7–8 for Develop projects 81 % of surveyed beneficiaries report continuing (D6.3, self-reported) Pilot roadmaps RAP visions to 2030 and 2040, for the pilots to finalise in D7.8 regional and EU funds, partnerships The terms behind the table D7.4 builds sustainability on a hybrid model : public funding (EU and national grants, regional development funds), private investment, and subscription services for AI-powered advisory tools. Its conclusions name the risks plainly: slow bureaucracy, resistance to adoption, weak digital skills, funding gaps for early commercialisation and regulatory differences between regions. The final list of KERs, with their owners, is due in D7.8 . D4.2 asks the final release to focus on consolidation rather than new features: integration, simpler user pathways, a training and demonstration package, and continuous testing. Feedback from the pilots and open calls should become backlog items and test cases. Cooperation with FOCAL, BioClima, INTERESH, FAIR2Adapt and KijaniSpace shows that the same assets can serve other projects. D6.3 adds three conditions for open-call outputs to last: open-source licensing, standard Model Context Protocol integrations, and continuous data feeds into shared European rural data spaces. This knowledge base This book belongs to the legacy too. It keeps the consortium's knowledge readable for people and AI answer engines, and every claim in it points to a public deliverable. Chapter 4 seeds a local GeoAI knowledge base for Klatovsko that other regions can replicate. The open question for 2027 is ownership more than technology: which partner keeps each service running, and in whose workflow. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta — §12 Conclusions; Annex 1 Component status matrix — PDF - D7.4 Exploitation plans and business models, edition 1 — §4.2 Roadmaps extending to 2030 and beyond; §4.4 KER Index; §7 Conclusions and Recommendations; Annex C Results Database; Annex D KERs Revenue Models — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment — §5.3 Assessment of Open Call effectiveness; §5.5 Final recommendations — PDF - Atlas of best practices — atlasbestpractices.com - Website: poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch11-results/05-spine-what-remains.md","kb":"/kb/project-legacy"},{"id":"ch11-meet-the-project","concept":"project-legacy","conceptTitle":"What remains after the project","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"Meet the results in person: Kilkenny and Prague, autumn 2026","teaser":"Two public moments in the last quarter of the project: Synergy Days in Kilkenny and the final conference at CTU Prague.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro","genre":"explainer","text":"The results described in this chapter will be presented in public twice before the project closes. Synergy Days 2026, Kilkenny (Ireland), 20–21 October 2026. The programme includes a PechaKucha session called \"Agents in the Field\" , with its own page at polirural-pechakucha.vercel.app. For background, the field validations of the JackDaw GeoAI agent are summarised under open-call results. PoliRuralPlus final conference, CTU Prague, 20 November 2026. The closing conference of the project, held in hybrid format. CTU (CVUT) is the project coordinator. For programme details, see the project website. These are the occasions to ask pilot teams and open-call beneficiaries the question this chapter leaves open: who keeps each result running after December 2026. Sources: - PoliRural+ public fact sheet — Events (public) — poliruralplus.eu → Deliverables - Website: poliruralplus.eu","path":"content/ch11-results/06-sidebar-meet-the-project.md","kb":"/kb/project-legacy#ch11-meet-the-project"},{"id":"ch11-q-adopt-first","concept":"project-legacy","conceptTitle":"What remains after the project","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch11-results","title":"Which result would your region adopt first?","teaser":"A planning region outside the consortium, two staff, one year. What do you take from PoliRural+ first?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"You coordinate development in a rural planning region that was not in PoliRural+. You have two staff and one year, and your council wants \"something from that EU project\" in use. Which do you pick first? A) Copy a practice from the Atlas Find a practice in the Atlas of best practices from a region like yours and adapt it with local partners. B) Roll out JackDaw to all planning staff now Give every planner the GeoAI chat and let them use it for daily work. C) Run a small validation of JackDaw on your own data Load a handful of local datasets, test a fixed set of questions against GIS ground truth, then decide. D) Procure the Advisor as a subscription service Budget for a commercial licence of the PoliRuralPlus Advisor and the Dashboard. More than one answer can be defended. Choose one, then read why it works or where it breaks.","path":"content/ch11-results/07-question-results.md","kb":"/kb/project-legacy#ch11-q-adopt-first"},{"id":"ch12-participatory-ai-principles","concept":"participatory-ai-principles","conceptTitle":"Participatory AI Principles","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"Eight Participatory AI Principles for rural-urban planning","teaser":"PoliRural+ wrote down how its AI tools may be used in planning. The short version: AI amplifies local knowledge, and people decide.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What are the PoliRural+ Participatory AI Principles, and which premise ties them together?","recallA":"D2.3 lists eight principles: transparency and explainability, stakeholder co-creation, multi-actor involvement, iterative feedback, ethical and responsible use, capacity building, inclusive policy design, and gender equality and social justice. They rest on the premise that AI amplifies local intelligence and does not replace it, so people question the outputs and make the decisions.","highlights":["D2.3 (August 2025) sets out eight principles, each tied to a concrete tool or practice","The premise: AI amplifies local intelligence, it does not replace it","AI responses must be understandable and questioned, not blindly accepted","Policy Brief No. 1: AI quality rests on months of human data curation that is rarely funded"],"parents":["polirural-plus-project"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2 PoliRuralPlus AI Action Plan (Aug 25); §2.1 PoliRuralPlus Participatory AI Principles and Framework (Table 62); §3.2 Plan to strategically position PoliRuralPlus using its Participatory AI Principles — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10 AI-Enabled AKIS, FAIR Data and Carbon-Smart Food Systems for Resilient Rural–Urban Europe — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"}],"text":"The July 2025 WP2 progress meeting decided that the project should position itself as a leader in ethical, EU-aligned AI use in rural-urban planning . The team then used the PoliRural+ Advisor itself to analyse the project's outputs up to August 2025 together with the EU AI Act and EU guidelines on generative AI. The result, published in D2.3 as part of the PoliRuralPlus AI Action Plan , is a set of Participatory AI Principles. The eight principles Principle What it asks (D2.3) Where it shows --- --- --- --- 1 Transparency & Explainability AI responses must be understandable and questioned, not blindly accepted Advisor guidance prompts; JackDaw source referencing 2 Stakeholder Co-Creation Services are tailored with regional input to local needs and goals Advisor-based RAP drafting, stakeholder inputs 3 Multi-Actor Involvement Civil society, business, academia and government all take part MAAT, stakeholder panels 4 Iterative Feedback Systems improve through continuous input and critique from users VULTURE feedback loop 5 Ethical & Responsible Use AI is used cautiously, recognising limits such as bias or hallucination Bias and hallucination risks flagged in Advisor and JackDaw 6 Capacity Building Digital literacy and training for rural actors MAAT workshops, Advisor usage sessions 7 Inclusive Policy Design AI supports inclusive co-creation of policies and foresight RAP services, Advisor-enabled co-drafting 8 Gender Equality & Social Justice Participation data disaggregated by gender and other diversity indicators Workshop and sub-project reporting The press texts in D2.3 still speak of \"7 principles\"; the eighth appears in the principle table, the dashboard and the story forms. Count eight. One premise behind them D2.3 states it plainly: the project is built on the premise that AI amplifies local intelligence, not replaces it . The principles turn that premise into checks. A planner must be able to see why the Advisor suggested something (1) and push back (4). The people who will live with a plan shape the questions (2, 3, 7), and someone has to teach them how (6). Who took part is counted, not assumed (8). The multi-actor approach is the method behind 2 and 3. Why planning needs this Policy Brief No. 1 (June 2025), built on findings from all nine pilots, shows why good intentions are not enough. AI systems remain highly dependent on the quality and structure of the data they ingest , and feeding rural, multilingual data into the project's AI took months of manual annotation, formatting and validation . Repeated engagement requests through dashboards and co-creation tools caused consultation fatigue in several areas. A tool that hides its sources or asks the same villagers for input again and again would deepen the fragmentation the project set out to reduce. The principles are the yardstick for the rest of this chapter. The next block holds them against the EU AI Act. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2 PoliRuralPlus AI Action Plan (Aug 25); §2.1 PoliRuralPlus Participatory AI Principles and Framework (Table 62); §3.2 Plan to strategically position PoliRuralPlus using its Participatory AI Principles — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10 AI-Enabled AKIS, FAIR Data and Carbon-Smart Food Systems for Resilient Rural–Urban Europe — PDF","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/01-spine-participatory-ai-principles.md","kb":"/kb/participatory-ai-principles"},{"id":"ch12-eu-ai-act-alignment","concept":"eu-ai-act-alignment","conceptTitle":"Alignment with the EU AI Act","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"Holding the principles against the EU AI Act","teaser":"D2.3 maps each PoliRural+ AI principle to an AI Act provision and to the tool that delivers it. Read it as a self-check, not a legal verdict.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How does PoliRural+ relate its AI principles to the EU AI Act, and what kind of document is that mapping?","recallA":"D2.3's alignment map pairs each principle with AI Act provisions it reads as matching (for example transparency with Article 13, ethical use with human oversight and accuracy in Articles 14 and 15) and names the project mechanism behind it. It is the project's own self-assessment against a risk-based Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, not a legal conformity assessment.","highlights":["Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases","Risk-based: prohibited practices, high-risk systems, transparency obligations, minimal risk, plus rules for general-purpose AI models","D2.3 maps principles to Articles 9, 13, 14 and 15 and to concrete tools","The map is a self-assessment; article numbers here follow the adopted Regulation"],"parents":["participatory-ai-principles"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.4 PoliRuralPlus AI Principles vs. EU AI Act mapping (Table 64, Notes on Compliance Level); §3.2 Plan to strategically position PoliRuralPlus; §2.5–2.6 press release drafts — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), official text on EUR-Lex — EUR-Lex","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"text":"The EU AI Act , Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, entered into force on 1 August 2024 and its obligations apply in phases. It follows a risk-based approach : some practices are prohibited; high-risk systems must meet specific requirements; other systems carry transparency obligations , such as telling people that they are interacting with an AI system (Art. 50); minimal-risk uses carry no specific obligations. Separate rules cover general-purpose AI models . Which dates apply to which obligation is set in the Regulation and can change through later acts, so check the official text on EUR-Lex rather than a summary. The alignment map (D2.3, Table 64) Principle AI Act provision as cited in D2.3 PoliRural+ mechanism --- --- --- 1 Transparency & Explainability Art. 13: users can interpret outputs and decide in an informed way Advisor outputs are explainable; JackDaw references its sources 2 Stakeholder Co-Creation Art. 9: risk management and human oversight that involve stakeholder perspectives RAPs co-designed through the Advisor; stakeholder foresight interviews 3 Multi-Actor Involvement a recital on involving civil society and public actors (as cited in D2.3) MAAT supports quadruple-helix participation 4 Iterative Feedback Art. 9: risk management as a continuous, iterative process VULTURE feedback loops and work-awareness journaling 5 Ethical & Responsible Use Arts. 14 and 15: human oversight, robustness, accuracy Bias and hallucination risks flagged in Advisor and JackDaw 6 Capacity Building training users (D2.3 cites Art. 29 of the 2021 proposal; in the adopted text: AI literacy, Art. 4, and deployers' duties, Art. 26) Workshops on MAAT, JackDaw and the Advisor 7 Inclusive Policy Design Art. 5(1)(c): the ban on social scoring that leads to unjustified detrimental treatment Inclusive foresight and RAP drafting 8 Gender Equality & Social Justice none mapped Workshop and sub-project reporting How to read it - It is a self-assessment. D2.3's \"Notes on Compliance Level\" states that the Advisor and MAAT align with most requirements on risk management (Art. 9), data governance (Art. 10), transparency (Art. 13), human oversight (Art. 14) and accuracy and robustness (Art. 15). That is the project's reading. Whether a particular deployment counts as high-risk depends on its use case as the Regulation defines it. - Article numbers checked against the adopted Regulation. Articles 5(1)(c), 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 50 match the adopted text. Where D2.3 follows the numbering of the 2021 proposal (its Art. 29 on users), the table gives the adopted articles. Recital numbers cited in D2.3 were not re-checked and are left out. - The eighth principle has no AI Act counterpart. It comes from the project's Just Transition agenda, not from the Regulation. - Planned steps are still plans. D2.3 lists as actions a public endorsement of the voluntary General-Purpose AI Code of Practice and a white paper for discussion with DG AGRI, DG CONNECT and the AI Office. It also contains a draft press release with the date left blank. This book does not confirm that these steps took place. The useful part for a region is the right-hand column: every provision is matched to something a pilot can show, ask about, or fix. The AI ethics dashboard turns that column into a form. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.4 PoliRuralPlus AI Principles vs. EU AI Act mapping (Table 64, Notes on Compliance Level); §3.2 Plan to strategically position PoliRuralPlus; §2.5–2.6 press release drafts — PDF - Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), official text on EUR-Lex — EUR-Lex","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/02-spine-eu-ai-act-alignment.md","kb":"/kb/eu-ai-act-alignment"},{"id":"ch12-question","concept":"eu-ai-act-alignment","conceptTitle":"Alignment with the EU AI Act","anchor":false,"type":"question","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"An AI assistant to pre-screen local funding applications","teaser":"A municipality wants AI to sort this year's grant applications before the committee meets. What must be in place first?","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","text":"A rural municipality runs a small grant scheme for local associations. Last year 120 applications arrived and two staff members spent weeks on eligibility checks. The mayor proposes an AI assistant to pre-screen this year's applications before the funding committee meets. A) Let the assistant reject clearly ineligible applications automatically, so the committee sees only the rest. B) Let it only flag issues, each with its reason and source; keep every decision with staff and the committee, tell applicants that AI supports the screening, protect their data and train the staff first. C) Buy a commercial tool whose vendor guarantees AI Act compliance, and rely on that guarantee. D) Use no AI until every AI Act obligation is fully in force. More than one answer can be defended. Choose one, then read where it works and where it breaks.","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/07-question-ai-ethics.md","kb":"/kb/eu-ai-act-alignment#ch12-question"},{"id":"ch12-ai-ethics-dashboard","concept":"ai-ethics-dashboard","conceptTitle":"The AI ethics dashboard for pilots","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"The AI ethics dashboard: each pilot rates itself, principle by principle","teaser":"Eight questions, three ratings, one form per pilot. The template that turns AI principles into something a region can check.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What does the PoliRural+ AI ethics dashboard ask a pilot to do?","recallA":"For each of the eight principles the pilot answers a guiding question about its current practice (for example how it handles bias, limitations or hallucination) and rates itself as fully integrated, needs improvement or not implemented. One form per pilot; a companion form collects one local story of up to 250 words per principle.","highlights":["Official title: PoliRuralPlus AI Ethics & Participatory AI Maturity Tracker (WP2)","Eight guiding questions, three ratings: fully integrated, needs improvement, not implemented","A story form asks for one local story per principle, up to 250 words","The filled rows in D2.3 are labelled fictionalised illustrations, not results"],"parents":["participatory-ai-principles"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.3 AI Ethics Dashboard Template for Pilots (Table 63); §2.7 Potential pilot stories and dashboard entries (Tables 65–69, marked as fictionalised); Template 1 Local Story Collection; Template 2 Pilot Input Form for Ethics Dashboard (Table 70); §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories; §3.2 Integrate Participatory AI into KPI & Impact Reporting — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.2.3 Added value for pilot regions (GREEN) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"D2.3 proposes a self-assessment for every pilot region, the PoliRuralPlus AI Ethics & Participatory AI Maturity Tracker . Its stated objective is to standardise how each pilot reports its alignment with the Participatory AI Principles. What the form asks One form per pilot. For each principle the pilot describes its current practice in answer to one guiding question, then picks a rating: Fully Integrated, Needs Improvement or Not Implemented . Principle Guiding question (D2.3, Table 70) --- --- Transparency & Explainability How do you explain AI decisions to users? Stakeholder Co-Creation How were stakeholders engaged in tool or policy design? Multi-Actor Involvement Who is involved across the quadruple helix? Iterative Feedback How is stakeholder or user input fed back into tools or policies? Ethical & Responsible Use How do you address issues like bias, limitations or hallucination? Capacity Building What training or support did you offer to stakeholders? Inclusive Policy Design How was AI used to shape foresight or RAPs inclusively? Gender Equality & Social Justice Gender and other diversity indicators for social justice (a field description, not a question) The overview table then gives each pilot an overall status. The template uses In Progress, Mature and Developing . A companion form, \"AI in Action for My Region\" , collects evidence: the pilot region, the principle featured, a title, a local story of at most 250 words , an optional stakeholder quote and an optional image. The aim is one story per principle per pilot. Illustrations versus results D2.3 fills the template with sample rows: a Monaghan row marked \"needs flagging bias issues\", a Slovak row with \"feedback not looped yet\". D2.3 itself labels these fictionalised summaries that show how pilots might submit content. They are not assessments. The real material is in D2.3 §2.8. Pilots submitted six \"AI in Action\" stories through an online form, from Päijät-Häme (Finland), Vidzeme (Latvia), Slovakia (two stories), the Czech-Bavarian border and Monaghan (Ireland). D2.3 reports that the stories cover seven of the principles and three services: the Advisor, MAAT and custom GPT-based indicator tools. Why a form helps D2.3 also proposes linking the principles to project KPIs: capacity-building KPIs to principle 6, policy co-creation outcomes to principles 2 and 7, and stakeholder feedback mechanisms to principle 4. A rating means something only with the practice behind it, which is why every row asks \"how\". To start in your own region, fill the rows where you have a story first, then take the weakest remaining row as your next task. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.3 AI Ethics Dashboard Template for Pilots (Table 63); §2.7 Potential pilot stories and dashboard entries (Tables 65–69, marked as fictionalised); Template 1 Local Story Collection; Template 2 Pilot Input Form for Ethics Dashboard (Table 70); §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories; §3.2 Integrate Participatory AI into KPI & Impact Reporting — PDF","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/03-spine-ai-ethics-dashboard.md","kb":"/kb/ai-ethics-dashboard"},{"id":"ch12-dashboard-monaghan","concept":"ai-ethics-dashboard","conceptTitle":"The AI ethics dashboard for pilots","anchor":false,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"Filling the ethics tracker for County Monaghan","teaser":"Monaghan's own AI story, row by row through the ethics tracker: what the public record shows, and what the pilot still has to answer.","lang":"en","lens":"ireland","depth":"standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"The Monaghan pilot submitted one \"AI in Action for My Region\" story, filed under the Stakeholder Co-Creation principle. Here it is put through the ethics tracker row by row. The ratings are left blank on purpose: only the pilot can give them. The story in brief (D2.3 §2.8, Story 6) The team began with a desk study of the circular economy in Monaghan , using the Advisor to map local challenges, relevant policies and stakeholders. It shared a roadmap at a co-creation workshop with over 20 regional stakeholders from business, education and local government. The Advisor then helped analyse the feedback, identify funding opportunities and develop three EU project proposals , and it helped define the interventions and actions of Monaghan's Regional Action Plan for the circular economy. In parallel, the Outreach project GREEN scoped circular business opportunities and mobilised 23 key stakeholders, 21 of them SMEs (D6.3). Row by row Principle Evidence on the public record Still for the pilot to answer --- --- --- Stakeholder Co-Creation Workshop with 20+ stakeholders; RAP actions built on their input How the Advisor's drafts were changed after the workshop Multi-Actor Involvement Business, education, local government; GREEN reached 21 SMEs Where civil society sat at the table Transparency & Explainability Not described in the story How participants saw which sources the Advisor used Iterative Feedback Advisor used to analyse workshop feedback Whether stakeholders saw and corrected the result Ethical & Responsible Use Not described How errors and bias in AI drafts were caught Capacity Building Not described Whether stakeholders were trained to use or question the tool Inclusive Policy Design Community priorities captured in the RAP Which groups were missing Gender Equality & Social Justice No disaggregated figures in the story Participation by gender and other indicators What the exercise shows One honest story fills two or three rows well and leaves the rest open. That is the point of the template: the empty cells are the pilot's to-do list. D2.3's own sample Monaghan row, a fictionalised illustration, marks ethical use as \"needs flagging bias issues\". The real story gives no evidence either way, so the row stays open until the pilot describes its checks. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories (Story 6, Monaghan); Template 2 Pilot Input Form for Ethics Dashboard (Table 70); §2.7 Potential pilot stories (fictionalised) — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.2.3 Added value for pilot regions (GREEN) — PDF","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/03b-telling-dashboard-monaghan.md","kb":"/kb/ai-ethics-dashboard#ch12-dashboard-monaghan"},{"id":"ch12-data-protection","concept":"data-protection-ai","conceptTitle":"Data protection and responsible AI on the platform","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"Data protection, access control and AI independence on the Beta platform","teaser":"Who may open a dataset, what it must declare about itself, and what happens when an AI provider changes its service.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"Which safeguards does the PoliRural+ Beta platform use to protect data and keep AI outputs accountable?","recallA":"Time-limited OAuth tokens validated server-side over secure HTTP; dataset-level permissions in Raven, with an access level, licence and sensitive-data flag on every resource and reuse governed separately from access; and responsible-AI safeguards in D4.2 §10.2: transparency on model limits, human oversight, a clear line between evidence and interpretation, and fallback through a hybrid strategy that includes self-hosted open-weight models.","highlights":["OAuth flow with time-limited tokens, checked by server-side APIs over secure HTTP","Every resource declares an access level and a sensitive-data flag; access is not reuse","Hybrid AI strategy: commercial APIs plus self-hosted open-weight models as fallback","Open-call beneficiaries must respect personal-data protection and obtain ethics approvals first"],"parents":["data-to-decisions"],"sources":[{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.5 Security, authentication and access control; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions (Table 5); §10 Risk Management, Ethics, Security and Sustainability (Table 15); §10.2 Data protection, responsible AI and security considerations; §10.3 Sustainability — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D6.2 Open Call Package, §8 Ethical rules — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/355/D6.2_Open_Call_Package.pdf"}],"text":"The Beta platform report (D4.2) treats data protection and responsible AI as one risk area. It combines AI services, geospatial data, stakeholder information, external tools and open-call extensions, so a weak point in any of them affects trust in all. Who may see what Users sign in through an OAuth-based flow and receive a time-limited access token . Server-side APIs validate the token on each relevant request, and key exchange, issue and renewal run over secure HTTP . Authorisation sits at service level, so a backend can check both that a request is authenticated and that the role allows it. The modules share one authentication endpoint, which gives users an SSO-like experience across JackDaw and the Multi-Actor tool. D4.2 is explicit that this is not full single sign-on and not enterprise-grade federation, but a deliberate compromise for the Beta stage. What each dataset must declare In the Raven catalogue, permissions are set per dataset and can be granted or revoked for named users. Every resource should carry an access level (open, project-internal, restricted, private or approval-based), a licence and a sensitive-data flag for personal, confidential or commercially sensitive content. Automatic processing by AI tools must not bypass legal or organisational constraints . The provenance levels and the rule that access is not reuse are explained in from data to decisions. Responsible-AI safeguards D4.2 §10.2 names four: transparency on model limitations , appropriate human oversight , a clear distinction between evidence and interpretation , and fallback mechanisms when a proprietary or unstable AI service becomes unavailable or unsuitable. The risk matrix scores likelihood times impact (each 1–3): Risk (D4.2, Table 15) Score Mitigation --- --- --- Inconsistent metadata quality 9 Strict metadata guidance; validation at Raven ingestion Provenance gaps: sources and limits of outputs cannot be traced 6 Log provenance at four levels; show evidence trails next to outputs Over-reliance on proprietary or unstable AI models 6 Hybrid strategy: commercial cloud APIs and self-hosted open-weight models (e.g. Ollama); fallbacks Poor adoption by non-technical stakeholders 6 Reference workflows, role-specific training The hybrid strategy is the platform's answer to dependence on a single provider: if an external API changes or fails, critical functions should still run. Rules for funded partners The Open Call Package (D6.2 §8) binds every funded third party to EU fundamental values, including the protection of minorities and the right to protection of personal data . Activities raising ethical issues need all approvals from the relevant ethics committees and authorities before they start , and beneficiaries keep a file on the research they carry out. Whether an output is fit for a planning decision is a separate question, covered in grounded AI for rural planning. Sources: - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §2.5 Security, authentication and access control; §4.4 Provenance, data quality and reuse conditions (Table 5); §10 Risk Management, Ethics, Security and Sustainability (Table 15); §10.2 Data protection, responsible AI and security considerations; §10.3 Sustainability — PDF - D6.2 Open Call Package, §8 Ethical rules — PDF","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/04-spine-data-protection-and-sovereignty.md","kb":"/kb/data-protection-ai"},{"id":"ch12-known-limits","concept":"ai-known-limits","conceptTitle":"Known limits of AI tools, and the safeguards","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"What testers and pilots found AI getting wrong","teaser":"A wrong programme name, a daily usage cap, advice that ignored allergens: the project's own record of AI limits, and the fixes it names.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"What problems did PoliRural+ testers and pilots find with the project's AI tools, and which safeguards do the sources name?","recallA":"Advisor testers met wrong or outdated facts (a Horizon 2020 reference), daily usage caps and generic advice; first-time JackDaw users felt lost and wanted more data-backed answers; pilots reported weak multilingual and place-name handling and heavy manual data curation. The named safeguards are human judgement on anything forward-looking, visible sources and limits, onboarding and in-tool help, and feedback channels.","highlights":["February 2025: 8 structured walkthroughs of the Advisor found useful structure but wrong and outdated facts","Testers' own conclusion: for the future of a RAP, we need to think for ourselves","JackDaw first-timers felt lost; D2.3 recommends a 60-second tutorial and in-tool help","D4.2: user-facing outputs must carry sources, validity information and limits"],"parents":["polirural-advisor","jackdaw"],"sources":[{"text":"D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services (§2 Advisor feedback, Tables 50–51); §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories (Stories 1–2); JackDaw recommendations §3–5 (Onboarding and In-Tool Help; Data and Service Integration; Pilot and Iterate) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf"},{"text":"D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §10.2 — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/421/D4.2_PoliRuralPlus_Platform_Beta.pdf"},{"text":"D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10 (Execution challenges; Strategic recommendations 1 and 5) — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/349/D7.3_Policy_Brief_No.1.pdf"},{"text":"D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.1.1 Application process; §4.1.3 Grant management and reporting — PDF","url":"https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf"}],"text":"The project tested its own AI tools and wrote down what went wrong. In February 2025, partners and pilot users ran 8 structured cognitive walkthroughs of the PoliRural+ Advisor (D2.3 Annex B). The Beta platform report (D4.2), the policy brief and the open-call report (D6.3) add more. The findings What went wrong Where it was found Safeguard the source names --- --- --- The Advisor gave wrong information, naming the EU Horizon 2020 programme; a later answer was corrected Advisor walkthroughs, D2.3 Annex B Check facts; building context over the conversation improved accuracy Answers were \"a snapshot in the past\", which makes forward-looking RAP advice \"tricky\" Same Human intervention for future planning A daily usage limit on the free version cut sessions short Same Expanded access for key users, batch queries AI suggestions were too generic, ignoring local needs and allergen limits Päijät-Häme story, D2.3 §2.8 A deliberate multi-step feedback process Standard tools were not flexible enough for hands-on indicator work Vidzeme story, D2.3 §2.8 Custom GPT-based tools with region-specific instructions in the local language First-time JackDaw users felt lost; they expected more data-backed answers D2.3 evaluation of JackDaw 60-second tutorial, tooltips, a \"Help Me Get Started\" button; links to live RAP datasets Multilingual and place-name handling, and map performance on rural connections Pilot testing, D4.2 §6.4 Strengthen both; show sources, data validity and limits in every output Feeding rural, multilingual data to AI took months of manual work Policy Brief No. 1 Fund the \"human layer\": a data curation line, digital stewards Applicants lacked clear maturity (TRL) expectations for JackDaw; feedback needed faster bug fixes D6.3 §4.1 Clearer upfront definitions; agile bug-resolution channels What the testers concluded The Advisor scored 1.0 for difficulty of access on a 1–4 scale (no problems) and 2.9 for clarity and usefulness of the dialogue, rated \"useful\". Testers valued its structure and its hints on funding instruments, including ones that fit Community-Led Local Development. One wrote the line that sums up the chapter: the Advisor gives ideas, but advice on the future of the RAP \"can be tricky. We need to think for ourselves .\" Another noted that it \"lacks detailed information that needs to be acquired during the project instead of asking a chatbot.\" Three safeguards that recur 1. Human review of anything that becomes a plan, a funding decision or a claim about the future (D2.3 Annex B; D4.2 §10.2). 2. Visible sources and limits : D4.2 §6.4 asks that user-facing outputs carry clear source references, data validity information and limitations relevant to planning decisions. 3. Onboarding and feedback : in-tool help for first-time users, and a widget asking \"How helpful was this answer?\" on a 1–5 scale with an optional comment (D2.3). D4.2 frames such issues as evidence for the final development roadmap, not as failures of the Beta. For the evidence trail that makes errors visible, see from data to decisions. Sources: - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, Annex B Structured Evaluation of the PoliRuralPlus Services (§2 Advisor feedback, Tables 50–51); §2.8 Actual Pilot Stories (Stories 1–2); JackDaw recommendations §3–5 (Onboarding and In-Tool Help; Data and Service Integration; Pilot and Iterate) — PDF - D4.2 PoliRuralPlus platform Beta, §6.4 Issues, limitations and corrective actions; §10.2 — PDF - D7.3 Policy Brief No. 1, Annex 10 (Execution challenges; Strategic recommendations 1 and 5) — PDF - D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §4.1.1 Application process; §4.1.3 Grant management and reporting — PDF","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/05-spine-known-limits.md","kb":"/kb/ai-known-limits"},{"id":"ch12-ai-red-flags-game","concept":"ai-known-limits","conceptTitle":"Known limits of AI tools, and the safeguards","anchor":false,"type":"game","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"AI Red Flags","teaser":"An imagined municipal plan to launch an AI assistant: spot the lines that break a principle or a safeguard.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"worked-example","text":"","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/05a-game-ai-red-flags.md","kb":"/kb/ai-known-limits#ch12-ai-red-flags-game"},{"id":"ch12-ai-in-this-book","concept":"ai-in-this-book","conceptTitle":"How this book uses AI","anchor":true,"type":"spine","chapter":"ch12-ai-ethics","title":"How this book uses AI","teaser":"This knowledge base was drafted by AI agents. Here is what they could use, how their claims were checked, and what they cannot change.","lang":"en","lens":"generic","depth":"intro..standard","genre":"explainer","recallQ":"How was this knowledge base produced with AI, and what keeps its verified core trustworthy?","recallA":"AI agents drafted the text only from public project deliverables; a sample of 40 random claims was checked against the sources (37 supported, 3 corrected); every block lists its sources and consortium members decide what is published. Reader remixes and generated tellings are labelled and never overwrite the verified core; the MCP server is read-only and no personal data is processed.","highlights":["Drafted by AI agents from public deliverables only; every block ends with its sources","Sampled fact-check: 40 random claims, 37 supported, 3 corrected","Consortium members decide what is published; AI remixes are labelled and never overwrite the core","The MCP server /api/mcp is read-only; no personal data is processed"],"parents":["participatory-ai-principles"],"sources":[{"text":"Fact-check by sampling. 40 claims were picked at random and checked against the sources: 37 were supported, 3 had to be corrected . That is a sample, not a proof: 3 of 40 (7.5 %) sampled claims were wrong before correction, so other errors are likely, and the sources are there for you to check.","url":null},{"text":"People decide. Members of the PoliRural+ consortium decide what is published. Consortium members can also draft or improve a block, and editors choose what enters the served book.","url":null},{"text":"Remixes are labelled. When you ask the book for a different telling (shorter, another region's example, another style), or an AI generates one, it is always labelled as generated and never overwrites the verified core .","url":null},{"text":"Bots read, they do not write. AI answer engines can query the book through its MCP server at /api/mcp , which is read-only .","url":null},{"text":"No personal data. The book processes no personal data.","url":null}],"text":"You are reading a knowledge base written with AI. A chapter on AI ethics should say how, so this block applies the project's Participatory AI Principles to the book itself. How the text was made - Drafting. AI agents drafted the text working only from public project deliverables , the reports the project has submitted or had approved for public release. - Sources on every block. Each block ends with a Sources list: deliverable, section and public PDF link. You can open the passage and check the sentence. - Fact-check by sampling. 40 claims were picked at random and checked against the sources: 37 were supported, 3 had to be corrected . That is a sample, not a proof: 3 of 40 (7.5 %) sampled claims were wrong before correction, so other errors are likely, and the sources are there for you to check. - People decide. Members of the PoliRural+ consortium decide what is published. Consortium members can also draft or improve a block, and editors choose what enters the served book. What AI may do here, and what it may not - Remixes are labelled. When you ask the book for a different telling (shorter, another region's example, another style), or an AI generates one, it is always labelled as generated and never overwrites the verified core . - Bots read, they do not write. AI answer engines can query the book through its MCP server at /api/mcp , which is read-only . - No personal data. The book processes no personal data. Practice mapped to the principles This book's practice Principle it serves --- --- Sources on every block 1 Transparency & Explainability Consortium members draft, review and decide 2 Stakeholder Co-Creation; 3 Multi-Actor Involvement Corrections from fact-checks and contributors flow back into the text 4 Iterative Feedback Sampled fact-check; uncertain numbers replaced by the name of their source 5 Ethical & Responsible Use Recall questions and games that train readers to question AI output 6 Capacity Building Generated tellings labelled, verified core protected 1 and 5; in the spirit of the AI Act's duty to tell people they are dealing with AI Read-only bot access, no personal data Data protection Two principles the production process cannot show on its own: inclusive policy design and gender equality and social justice depend on who takes part in the pilots, and they are reported there, through the AI ethics dashboard. If you find a sentence its source does not support, treat it as one of the errors the sample predicts, and report it so it can be corrected. Sources: - This book's own production record (statement by the editors of this knowledge base) - D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.1 PoliRuralPlus Participatory AI Principles and Framework (Table 62) — PDF - Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), official text on EUR-Lex — EUR-Lex","path":"content/ch12-ai-ethics/06-spine-how-this-book-uses-ai.md","kb":"/kb/ai-in-this-book"}]}