Digital Nomads as a Viable Market Segment: A Systematic Literature Review
الملخص
Digital nomadism, characterised by location-independent professionals who leverage digital technologies to work remotely, is transforming patterns of global mobility, tourism, and labour. Initially a niche lifestyle, it has evolved into a mainstream phenomenon influencing destination development, national visa policies, and urban infrastructure planning. The growing interest in digital nomads reflects broader shifts in the work culture, post-pandemic flexibility, and the search for work-life balance in lifestyle-oriented destinations. These travellers differ from traditional tourists in duration of stay, spending behaviour, and their engagement with local communities. This systematic literature review explores the state of academic research on digital nomads, focusing on their motivations, impacts on host destinations, infrastructural needs, and the strategic responses by countries seeking to attract them. Guided by the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework and PRISMA guidelines, 11 peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2024 were analysed. Findings show that while destinations in the Global North, Southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America have adopted targeted policies—such as digital nomad visas, tax incentives, and coworking hubs—Sub-Saharan Africa remains notably absent in both research and practice. Notable findings reveal that digital nomads are primarily motivated by cost-effectiveness, lifestyle freedom, internet accessibility, and cultural experiences. Host communities benefit from the economic diversification and the global visibility, but face risks of displacement, income increase and digital gentrification. Despite its rich biodiversity, affordability, and improving digital infrastructure, Uganda has not yet positioned itself to attract this emerging market segment. This review highlights a significant geographic research gap and proposes an agenda to explore digital nomads as a viable market segment in Uganda. The findings have implications for tourism policymakers and for the investors seeking to diversify their post-COVID recovery strategies. Limitations include the language bias, the exclusion of grey literature, and the narrow regional representation in the reviewed studies.
التنزيلات
المراجع
Arksey, H., & O’malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Bahri, M. T., & Widhyharto, D. S. (2021). Social Network Analysis (SNA) on # Kristengray Hashtag: Understanding Gentrification Side Effects Behind the Digital Nomad Phenomenon. 10.
Bozzi, A. (2024). Digital nomadism from the perspective of places and mobilities: a literature review. European Transport Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-024-00663-z
Christiansen, R. A., Ihalauw, J. J. O. I., N, A. K. N. A., & Se, Y. P. (2023). Developing Digital Nomads as a New Market Segment and Their Role in the Local Digital Ecosystem. 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2023.0201
Cook, D. (2023). What is a digital nomad? Definition and taxonomy in the era of mainstream remote work. World Leisure Journal, 65(2), 256– 275. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2023.2190608
Digital Nomad Statistics, 2024. (n.d.).
Hannonen, O. (2021). In search of a digital nomad: defining the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z
KC, H., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2025). Digital Nomadism and the Emergence of Digital Nomad Visas: What Policy Objectives Do States Aim to Achieve? International Migration Review, 01979183241306367.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Mai, C., Jiwasiddi, A., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-kecmanovic, D., Cahalane, M., Leong, C., & Ractham, P. (2024). Digital nomadism as a new part of the visitor economy: The case of the “ digital nomad capital.” July 2022, 1493–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12496
Mancinelli, F. (2020). Digital nomads: freedom, responsibility and the neoliberal order. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(3), 417–437.
MBO Partners. (2023). State of Independence in America 2023.
McGowan, L. J., Powell, R., & French, D. P. (2020). How can use of the Theoretical Domains Framework be optimized in qualitative research? A rapid systematic review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(3), 677–694.
Müller, A. C., & Guido, S. (2016). Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Data Scientists. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media
Orel, M., & Orel, M. (2019). Coworking environments and digital nomadism : balancing work and leisure whilst on the move Coworking environments and digital nomadism : balancing work and leisure whilst on the move. 8055. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2019.1639275
Pilliod, D. S., Rohde, A. T., Charnley, S., Davee, R. R., Dunham, J. B., Gosnell, H., Grant, G. E., Hausner, M. B., Huntington, J. L., & Nash, C. (2018). Survey of beaver-related restoration practices in rangeland streams of the western USA. Environmental Management, 61, 58–68.
Reichenberger, I. (2018). Digital nomads–a quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(3), 364–380.
Rosá, M. (2024). Tourism sustainability, friendly policies, and infrastructure: Digital nomads’ motivations for visiting Portugal. 8(6), 1–25.
Thompson, B. Y. (2019). The digital nomad lifestyle:(remote) work/leisure balance, privilege, and constructed community. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 2(1), 27–42.
