This article introduces the immersive focus group as a mixed-methods approach in planning research. Using the immersive focus group we generate genuine knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative data about the diverse and nuanced perceptions of forest landscapes in order to then extract planning decisions. The article elaborates on the deployment of focus groups in a particular venue: the immersive theater laboratory. In doing so, we hope to position the immersive focus group as a viable tool for planning research. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and its potential further development.
AllmendingerP.Tewdwr-JonesM.2002. “The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions.” Space and Polity6 (1): 5–24.
2.
AmaratungaD.BaldryD.SarsharM.NewtonR.2002. “Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the Built Environment: Application of ‘Mixed’ Research Approach.” Work Study51 (1): 17–31.
3.
AndrewsM.GaterslebenB.2010. “Variations in Perceptions of Danger, Fear and Preference in a Simulated Natural Environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology30 (4): 473–81.
4.
ArriazaM.Cañas-OrtegaJ. F.Cañas-MadueñoJ. A.Ruiz-AvilesP.2004. “Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning69 (1): 115–25.
5.
BarrosoF. L.Pinto-CorreiaT.RamosI. L.SurováD.MenezesH.2012. “Dealing with Landscape Fuzziness in User Preference Studies: Photo-Based Questionnaires in the Mediterranean Context.” Landscape and Urban Planning104 (3/4): 329–42.
6.
BertoR.2005. “Exposure to Restorative Environments Helps Restore Attentional Capacity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology25 (3): 249–59.
7.
BlascheckT.KurzhalsK.RaschkeM.BurchM.WeiskopfD.ErtlT.2014. “State-of-the-Art of Visualization for Eye Tracking Data.” Paper presented at: EuroVis 2014: The Eurographics Conference on Visualization, June 9–13, 2014; Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.
8.
BloorM.FranklandJ.ThomasM.RobsonK.2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. London, UK: Sage.
9.
BuijsA. E.ElandsB. H. M.LangersF.2009. “No Wilderness for Immigrants: Cultural Differences in Images of Nature and Landscape Preferences.” Landscape and Urban Planning91 (3): 113–23.
10.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R.2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed.New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
11.
ChristT. W.2009. “Designing, Teaching, and Evaluating Two Complementary Mixed Methods Research Courses.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research3 (4): 292–325.
12.
CodispotiM.De CesareiA.2007. “Arousal and Attention: Picture Size and Emotional Reactions.” Psychophysiology44 (5): 680–86.
13.
CorburnJ.2003. “Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making: Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk.” Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (4): 420–33.
14.
CrangM.2003. “Qualitative Methods: Touchy, Feely, Look-See?”Progress in Human Geography27 (4): 494–504.
15.
DanahyJ. W.2001. “Technology for Dynamic Viewing and Peripheral Vision in Landscape Visualization.” Landscape and Urban Planning54 (1/4): 127–38.
DuchowskiA. T.2002. “A Breadth-First Survey of Eye-Tracking Applications.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers34 (4): 455–70.
18.
DuchowskiA. T.2007. Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. London: Springer.
19.
EdsallR. M.LarsonK. L.2009. “Effectiveness of a Semi-Immersive Virtual Environment in Understanding Human–Environment Interactions.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science36 (4): 367–84.
20.
EizenbergE.ShilonM.2016. “Pedagogy for the New Planner: Refining the Qualitative Toolbox.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design43 (6): 1118–35.
21.
FarnsworthJ.BoonB.2010. “Analysing Group Dynamics within the Focus Group.” Qualitative Research10 (5): 605–24.
22.
FieldingN. G.2012. “Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Data Integration with New Research Technologies.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research6 (2): 124–36.
23.
GaberJ.GaberS. L.2007. Qualitative Analysis for Planning and Policy: Beyond the Numbers. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
24.
GeeK.BurkhardB.2010. “Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Context of Offshore Wind Farming: A Case Study from the West Coast of Schleswig-Holstein.” Ecological Complexity7 (3): 349–58.
25.
GobsterP. H.2001. “Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration.” Landscape and Urban Planning56 (1): 35–51.
26.
GrayT. N. E.BoreyR.HoutS. K.ChamnanH.CollarN. J.DolmanP. M.2009. “Generality of Models That Predict the Distribution of Species: Conservation Activity and Reduction of Model Transferability for a Threatened Bustard.” Conservation Biology23 (2): 433–39.
27.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S.2005. “Paradigmatic Controversies Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by DenzinNorman K.LincolnYvonna S., 3rd ed., 191–215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
GurranN.AustinP.WhiteheadC.2014. “That Sounds Familiar! A Decade of Planning Reform in Australia, England and New Zealand.” Australian Planner51 (2): 186–98.
29.
HanichJ.2010. “Collective Viewing: The Cinema and Affective Audience Interrelations. Passions in Context.” Journal for the History and Theory of Emotions1 (1).
30.
HealeyP.1996. “The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and Its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formations.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design23 (2): 217–34.
31.
HealeyP.2013. “Circuits of Knowledge and Techniques: The Transnational Flow of Planning Ideas and Practices.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37 (5): 1510–26.
32.
HollanderJ. A.2004. “The Social Contexts of Focus Groups.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography33 (5): 602–37.
33.
HuxleyM.YiftachelO.2000. “New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (4): 333–42.
34.
IvankovaN. V.KawamuraYoko. 2010. “Emerging Trends in the Utilization of Integrated Designs in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences.” In Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by TeddlieCharlesTashakkoriAbbas, 2nd ed., 581–611. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
JuppE.InchA.2012. “Introduction Planning as a Profession in Uncertain Times.” Town Planning Review83 (5): 505–12.
36.
KamberelisG.DimitriadisG.2011. “Focus Groups: Contingent Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics, and Inquiry.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S., 4, 545–61. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
KrollT.BarbourR.HarrisJ.2007. “Using Focus Groups in Disability Research.” Qualitative Health Research17 (5): 690–98.
38.
KruegerR.CaseyM. A.2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
LarsonK. L.EdsallR. M.2010. “The Impact of Visual Information on Perceptions of Water Resource Problems and Management Alternatives.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management53 (3): 335–52.
MasseyO. T.2011. “A Proposed Model for the Analysis and Interpretation of Focus Groups in Evaluation Research.” Evaluation and Program Planning34 (1): 21–28.
42.
MertensD. M.2007. “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research1 (3): 212–25.
43.
MorganD. L.1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
MorganD. L.2007. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research1 (1): 48–76.
45.
NewmanJ.ClarkeJ.2009. Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
46.
NuisslH.HeinrichsD.2011. “Fresh Wind or Hot Air—Does the Governance Discourse Have Something to Offer to Spatial Planning?”Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (1): 47–59.
47.
OrensteinD. E.ZimroniH.EizenbergE.2015. “The Immersive Visualization Theater: A New Tool for Ecosystem Assessment and Landscape Planning.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems54:347–55.
48.
PheasantR. J.FisherM. N.WattsG. R.WhitakerD. J.HoroshenkovK. V.2010. “The Importance of Auditory-Visual Interaction in the Construction of ‘Tranquil Space.’”Journal of Environmental Psychology30 (4): 501–9.
49.
PropstD. B.McDonoughM. H.VogtC. A.PynnonenD. M.2008. “Roving Focus Groups: Collecting Perceptual Landscape Data In Situ.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods7 (3): 1–14.
50.
RigolonA.FlohrT. L.2014. “Methodological Trends in Planning: Qualitative Approaches in Transformative Mixed Research Studies.” Paper presented at: the ACSP (2014) Annual Conference, October 30–November 2, Philadelphia, PA.
51.
RishbethC.2001. “Ethnic Minority Groups and the Design of Public Open Space: An Inclusive Landscape?”Landscape Research26 (4): 351–66.
52.
RyanK. E.GandhaT.CulbertsonM. J.CarlsonC.2014. “Focus Group Evidence: Implications for Design and Analysis.” American Journal of Evaluation35 (3): 328–45.
53.
SagerT.2012. “Comment Adapting Planners’ Professionalism for Inclusive Processes in Neo-liberal Environments.” Town Planning Review83 (5): 619–24.
54.
WebbC.KevernJ.2001. “Focus Groups as a Research Method: A Critique of Some Aspects of Their Use in Nursing Research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing33 (6): 798–805.
55.
ZubeE. H.PittD. G.1981. “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Scenic and Heritage Landscapes.” Landscape Planning8 (1): 69–87.
