Sense of Place: The Phenomenology of Virtual Heritage Place

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

“…Besides the term digital placemaking, our analysis of findings has produced two additional groups. One group links hybrid realities to placemaking such as virtual placemaking (Devine, 2017;Qabshoqa, 2018;Relph, 2007), radical placemaking (Gonsalves et al, 2021), hybrid placemaking (Bilandzic and Johnson, 2013), and smart placemaking (Najafi et al, 2021;Sepe, 2015), focusing on the creation of hybrid realities that could create a sense of immersion. The second group investigates social media use through mobile media in placemaking (Breek et al, 2018;Latorre, 2011;Polson, 2015;Waite, 2020).…”

“…N/A Newbold, 2019;Breek et al, 2018;Harner et al, 2017;Relph, 2007;Soedarsono et al, 2021). Most authors referred to Tuan's theory (Basaraba, 2021;Devine, 2017;Gulsrud et al, 2018;Harner et al, 2017;Rutha and Abbas, 2021;Rzeszewski and Naji, 2022;Toomey et al, 2021), which studies the human emotions and relationships to a specific place (Tuan, 1977), also presented as one of the foundations of placemaking (Clark and Lupton, 2021;Devine, 2017). Sense of place layers the physical space with meaning and cultural symbols (Foth et al, 2021), bringing a variety of benefits to communities, such as enabling community building (Breek et al, 2018), creating sense of ownership and entitlement (Kale, 2019), and development of community and individual identity (Chen et al, 2022;el Khafif et al, 2021;Harner et al, 2017;Kale, 2019).…”

MMOG players' sense of place in virtual worlds

“…This perspective is suited to these researchers' aim of virtually recreating physical spaces, such as heritage and tourism sites. Such research is generally preoccupied with realistic graphic renderings and interactions (e.g., Benyon et al, 2006;Devine, 2017;Falconer et al, 2020;Ghani et al, 2019), and it has suggested that place experiences in these virtual environments might be inferior to those in the physical locations they depict, due to a failure to meet participants' expectations of visual fidelity, atmosphere, available activities, and social interaction consistent with what they know from the actual places. Tjøstheim and Waterworth (2020) have even posited that using such environments is simply a form of Relph's (1976) vicarious insideness and thus does not facilitate the deep, authentic connection to virtual spaces that comes from physically being in place.…”