Understanding how people interact with natural environments is essential for evidence-based environmental planning and development. Recent advances in sensor-based technologies and computer vision have enabled new ways to monitor human behaviors in natural settings; however, a systematic synthesis of how these approaches have been applied, what behavioral dimensions they capture, and how they inform management decisions remains limited. This scoping review synthesizes 246 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2024, following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, that employed sensor-based, vision-based, or hybrid technologies to empirically monitor human behaviors in outdoor natural environments, including urban green spaces and protected areas. We show that different monitoring technologies systematically shape which dimensions of human behavior become observable. Across the reviewed literature, human–nature interactions can be consistently understood through three primary behavioral dimensions: presence, movement, and activity and interaction. Sensor-based approaches predominantly capture presence and movement patterns, providing broad spatial and temporal coverage, whereas vision-based approaches enable detailed identification of activities and contextual interactions. Hybrid approaches increasingly integrate these complementary strengths. Rather than functioning as a separate behavioral category, spatial distribution of activities emerges as a cross-cutting analytical perspective, present in the majority of studies and frequently co-occurring with all three behavioral dimensions. By reframing the literature around behavioral dimensions rather than technological categories, this review highlights how methodological choices shape the visibility and interpretation of human behavior. The findings provide practical guidance for researchers, planners, and environmental managers in selecting appropriate monitoring approaches to support evidence-based decision-making and adaptive management of natural environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: