From Digital Nature Hybrids to Digital Naturalists: Reviving Nature Connections Through Arts, Technology and Outdoor Activities

Digital placemaking, health & wellbeing and nature-based solutions: A systematic review and practice model

“…The review of 117 studies adds to the debate from Basaraba (2021), Courage et al (2021), and van Houwelingen-Snippe et al ( 2021) by focusing on the mental health and wellbeing social impact of digital placemaking when connecting with nature through NBS. The data synthesis conducted for this review indicated a lack of agreement on the concept and characteristics of digital placemaking (Basaraba, 2021;Chen et al, 2022;Courage, 2021;Karge, 2018;Keegan, 2021;, especially when considering mental health and wellbeing effects (Najafi et al, 2021;Shankardass et al, 2019;Wright, 2021), combined with green and blue space (Edwards et al, 2020;MacIntyre et al, 2019). The findings reveal a lack of studies involving digital placemaking and blue spaces as well as a lack of application for NBS.…”

“…The ecological framework of placemaking they propose is advanced by the informed results in our review to understand the key elements of digital placemaking to be assessed during the development of a project. Moreover, these characteristics are also informed by Edwards et al (2020) guidelines for technology and people, where the design should be rooted in the context where it is developed, integrating social dimensions and encouraging intimate experiences.…”

“…Furthermore, some authors mention these terms in their work without defining them (Alvarez et al, 2017;Besek, 2021; Table 2 Study selection chart. Bicquelet-Lock, 2021;Breek et al, 2018Breek et al, , 2021Busse, 2021;Chaudhry et al, 2019;Cilliers et al, 2015;Clowater, 2021;Edwards et al, 2020;Globa et al, 2019;Gobbo and Benedetti, 2021;Harner et al, 2017;Houghton et al, 2015;Hunter et al, 2022;MacIntyre et al, 2019;Marshall, 2021;Mcarthur and Xu, 2021;Ozduzen et al, 2021;Rzeszewski and Naji, 2022;Soedarsono et al, 2021;Truong et al, 2022;Wright, 2021;Zhang and Gong, 2021). The absence of an explicit clarification of these concepts presented from the results of the analysis, as well as the different terms employed, emphasizes the confusion and lack of consensus on digital placemaking.…”

“…Nature is mostly described as the context where a project happens or partially happens, but there are no specific mentions of specifications or technological representations of nature. Only Edwards et al (2020) and van Houwelingen-Snippe et al (2021) referred to the use of technology as a potential benefit for future research, whereas Grace et al (2020) 'smart-natural' city interface briefly mentions placemaking as one of the spaces in this interface without understanding on how to implement it or the effect of this specific characteristic in the community. Moss et al (2021) present how nature has been absent in most smart cities' strategies, therefore being essential to understand how it is addressed in the urban digitalisation, what part nature plays in this context and what goal is targeted.…”

“…Four results combine mental health/wellbeing and green space with 'digital' placemaking -presenting placemaking but mentioning the implementation of technology in some ways (Edwards et al, 2020;Grace et al, 2020;Gulsrud et al, 2018;Najafi et al, 2021). Gulsrud et al (2018) expand green placemaking as a type that integrates socio-cultural and scientific knowledge to promote urban biodiversity, combining technological strategies with climate adaptation solutions in the case study analysed.…”