Scale and Scope of Environmental Planning Transformations The Israeli Case

Planning Theory & Practice
ISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20
Scale and scope of environmental planning

transformations: The Israeli case
Deborah Shmueli, Eran Feitelson, Benny Furst & Iris Hann
To cite this article: Deborah Shmueli, Eran Feitelson, Benny Furst & Iris Hann (2015) Scale and
scope of environmental planning transformations: The Israeli case, Planning Theory & Practice,
16:3, 336-362, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2015.1054419
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1054419
Published online: 25 Jul 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 589
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rptp20
Planning Theory & Practice, 2015
Vol. 16, No. 3, 336–362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1054419
Scale and scope of environmental planning transformations: The Israeli case

Deborah Shmuelia*, Eran Feitelsonb, Benny Furstb and Iris Hannc
a
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; bDepartment of
Geography, University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel; cDESHE - Open Landscape Institute, Tel Aviv, Israel
(Received 9 May 2013; accepted 20 May 2015)
This paper explores the scale and scope of transformations in the environmental planning
field, and the factors that may advance or impede their widespread adoption. A conceptual
model is offered which examines scope (defined as type, breadth and structure of the
transformation), and the scale of its impact (categorized as stakeholder, organizational,
institutional or societal) and applies it to the analysis of several cases in Israel where
environmental transformations, affecting the way in which planning is conducted, have been
adopted. Conclusions include identification of conditions for facilitating and advancing
transformations, including knowledge of innovative alternatives, initiative, willingness to
adopt new practices, and identification of policy windows that emerge during conflict, reform,
or crisis. The fostering of relations between environmental non-government organizations and
planning systems and leadership roles are also significant in catalyzing environmental
transformation.
Keywords: environmental transformation; Israeli environmental planning; planning organiz-
ations; planning institutions; planning culture
Introduction
The question as to how policies are introduced and adopted has received wide attention in the
public policy arena (e.g. Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Kingdon, 1984). Discussions of policy
changes in the environmental field focus primarily on the introduction of the so-called new
instruments (Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito, 2003, 2013; Young, 2008, 2010). Some of these studies note
that many of the policy instruments introduced are rarely applied widely, and hence their overall
impact is limited (Feitelson & Salomon, 2004; Jordan et al., 2013).
Surprisingly, the extent to which practices in the environmental planning field have been
transformed, as well as those factors which either advance or impede such transformations, have
not been systematically explored. One possible explanation for this gap may be the lack of
specification as to what constitutes a transformation in environmental planning. Due to wide
differences in settings, the environmental facets of plans often have unique features. Thus, the
techniques used to address these unique features may well be seen as an adaptation to particular
circumstances, rather than as transformations in environmental planning. In addition, discussions of
the extent to which environmental planning has been transformed have to address the question of
the scale and scope of such transformations.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the scale and scope of transformations in the
environmental planning field, and the factors that may advance or impede their widespread
adoption. To this end examination of the literature dealing with both innovation and
transformation in the environmental planning field is discussed. This is followed by a conceptual
model which examines scope (defined as type, breadth and structure of the transformation),
*Corresponding author. Email: deborah@geo.haifa.ac.il
q 2015 Taylor & Francis

Planning Theory & Practice 337
and the scale of its impact (categorized as stakeholder, organizational, institutional or societal).
This model is applied to the analysis of several milestone cases in Israel where environmental
transformations – affecting the way in which planning is conducted – have been adopted.
We conclude by discussing the factors that may assist or impede environmental planning
transformations.
What do we know from the literature?

One of the conceptual points of departure for the analytical framework of this research on
environmental transformations is to examine them within both spatial contexts and policy studies.
Cooke, Gomez Uranga, and Etxebarria (1997) extended the concept of national innovation systems
to regional innovation systems (RIS) by focusing on the locational elements (interactions between
place, actors and institutions). Their focus on geographically specific values whose intensities
express “systematic interaction capacity and potential” (page 488) encourage the exploration of
innovation in specific spatial and policy settings. Doloreux and Parto (2005) point to the challenges
of RIS frameworks in terms of both definition, confusion, lack of empirical validation and the role
of institutions. The construction of the analytical framework presented here for environmental
transformations attempts to clarify these concepts (applicable to both innovation and
transformation) further.
Different types of policy shifts are identified in the literature. Baumgartner and Jones (1993)
and Young (2010) draw a distinction between incremental change, which occurs mostly within
existing organizations or institutional systems, and paradigm shifts, which often involve
institutional changes or the emergence of new institutions.
One may also distinguish between process-oriented and product-oriented transformations.
In the context of planning, the former refers to innovative planning procedures, e.g. those that
involve the public in the planning process (Feitelson, 2011) whereas the latter refers to innovative
results of planning, e.g. innovative metropolitan plans (Feitelson, 2004).
We focus here on environmental planning transformations as constituting a milestone in
changing Israeli planning culture, whereby new tools and processes previously unused or used
anecdotally become routine practices. Catalysts for such transformations are classified by three
main categories:
Category 1. External institutional circumstances that provide necessary (but not sufficient)
conditions for transformation. Such circumstances include:
. Policy windows (e.g. environmental and other crises) that can be exploited to push
innovative measures (Ekins, Salmons, & Salmons, 2009; Feitelson, 1998; Layzer, 2006;
Young, 2010).
. Emergence of new environmental problems characterized by uncertainty and calling for non-
traditional solutions (Kao’s “wicked problems”, Kao, 2007; Layzer, 2006).
. Regulatory change and developments in international environmental law (Rosenberg,
1991/2008 cited in Gavison, 2009; Gild-Hayo & Shahav, 2009; Laster & Choshen, 2003;
Perez & Rosenblum, 2010; Steelman, 2010).
. Research and alternative knowledge on environmental issues (Ekins et al., 2009; Friedman &
Hasson, 2003; Gidron & Fischhendler, 2010; Susskind, Jain, & Martyniuk, 2001).
. Suitable organizational culture, innovation-friendly structures and a political climate open to
innovation (Chapman, Berman, & Blitz, 2008; Steelman, 2010).
. Effective communication (Ekins et al., 2009; Schmidt, 2008).
. Processes of non-environmental reform/change in which environmental innovation can be
embedded (Feitelson, 1998).
338 D. Shmueli et al.
Category 2. Institutional features. Much of the literature review indicates that it is difficult
to identify institutions that encourage transformations. Nevertheless, the following institutional
features appear to be conducive to policy change:
. Environmental transformation mainstreamed within broader social and economic
institutional reform is more likely to succeed than stand-alone environmental institutional
transformation (O’Toole, 1997; Steelman, 2010; Young, King, & Schroeder, 2008).
. Organizational learning capacity (Sweeney, 1995 in Cooke et al., 1997).
. Organizational culture supportive of change is crucial to the willingness to assimilate new
tools and practices (Ekins et al., 2009; Underal, 2008).
. Decision makers’ willingness to adopt innovative solutions and to tackle uncertainty
contributes to transformations (Young, 2008, 2010).
Category 3. Features of actors and agents of change:
. The existence of individual or collective agents willing and able to initiate and lead change
(Feitelson, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Steelman, 2010).
. The availability of international support and internationally circulated knowledge (Feitelson,
1998; Steelman, 2010).
. The existence of a community acting as a collective agent of change, regardless of
institutional affiliation (Steelman, 2010).
Other factors conducive to transformation include openness to the participation of multiple
stakeholders in advancing and implementing reforms on the basis of maximal consensus, discursive
abilities, early identification and handling of expected resistance, and clearly and transparently
defined objectives, commitment to timetables and implementation strategy (Schmidt, 2008). Some
instances of innovation are of the initiating type (e.g. new policy) and others are the reacting type
(e.g. based on elimination of existing policies or regulations).
The literature indicates several obstacles to policy change in many fields (Bardach, 1977;
Feitelson & Salomon, 2004). These may involve unequal distribution of the consequences of
innovation across different populations, lack of coordination between the various individual and
organizational stakeholders, with possibly unequal consequences for different sectors, and the
inability to allay resistance among powerful agents.
A conceptual model for analyzing environmental innovation

The conceptual model advanced here is based on the above review and insights gained from
empirical data. It was developed and used to analyze the case studies. The model’s parameters
include the scope – type, breadth, structure, and scale of impact of environmental transformation,
leading to milestones in changing Israeli planning culture.
The model’s scope is defined by the following dimensions, presented in Figure 1.
. Type of transformation: ranging from incremental changes to a paradigm shift.
. Breadth of transformation: the areas or cases to which change applies, ranging from case- or
topic-specific to multidisciplinary transformation.
. Structure of transformation: the extent to which barriers among relevant actors are removed
or restructured. These are included in the model because they are crucial to effective
implementation of significant change.
The scope affects the scale of impact (Figure 2), which ranges from (1) change among a limited
group of stakeholders (e.g. individual professionals or a particular division within a government
ministry), to (2) organization- or profession-wide shift (e.g. new practice disseminated throughout
Figure 1. Scope of transformation. Source: author.
the Ministry of Environmental Protection or throughout the planning profession), to (3) institutional
change in the planning system as a whole, to widespread societal change (e.g. changes in a society’s
environmental ethos).
To further clarify the middle layers (2 and 3 in Figure 2) we refer to institutions as defining the
rules of the game – including norms, prerogatives and decision-making procedures intended to
shape action (e.g. Steelman, cited in Thelen & Steinmo, 1992; discussion of institutional culture as
a value system shared by members of a local or regional area in Cooke et al., 1997; institutions as
“social relations” in Doloreux & Parto, 2005); organizations as the collective agents playing by
these rules – the corporate entities with such features as ministries, professional teams, local
offices, budgets, equipment, and so on. The institution under scrutiny in the present study is the
Figure 2. Scale of transformation impact. Source: author.

Figure 3. Conceptual model. Source: author.
Israeli planning system; the organizations under scrutiny are the planning agencies operating by the
system’s rules, both within the system (government and quasi-governmental agencies) and outside
of it (non-governmental organizations, NGOs). The model assesses the symbiotic relations among
the various layers and when the transformations “scale up”.
Combining the components defined above (scope as in type, breadth and structure, and scale of
impact ranging from stakeholder to society) into the typology presented in Figure 3, provides a
useful conceptual framework for examining the interactions among the various dimensions.
Assimilation of environmental considerations into Israeli planning

Historical background
Shachar (1998), Rachewsky (2010) and Hasson (2012) have outlined the development of the
current Israeli planning paradigm, while Feitelson (1998), Brachya (2012, 2013) and Hasson and
Brachya (2012) have surveyed the development of environmental planning in Israel. In the 1950s,
planning in the nascent State of Israel was dominated by a powerful ethos of rapid economic
development. Yet, leading planners who were influenced by the “garden city” movement strove to
design “garden towns” and to identify areas of natural beauty that should be reserved as national
parks. Israel’s earliest environmental organizations were also founded during this period. Thus, the
Society for Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI), Israel’s largest environmental NGO, was formed
as a response to the drainage of the Huleh Lake during that period (Duany, 2010).
The 1960s were characterized by increasing institutionalization. Laws passed during this
decade included the Land Law, the Water Act, the Planning and Building Law, and the National
Parks and Natural Reserves Law. Each of these pieces of legislation formed an institutional setting
for the management of Israel’s main natural resources. In keeping with the then-dominant political
statist worldview, these institutional settings were highly centralized.
The Environmental Protection Service was established in December 1973 and incorporated into
the Ministry of the Interior in 1975. In subsequent years it strove to incorporate environmental
considerations in planning processes and in master plans, utilizing its organizational affiliation with
the Planning Administration within the Ministry of the Interior.
In the early 1980s the system of environmental impact assessment was incorporated into
the Planning and Building Law. After the Ministry of the Environment was formed in 1988,
environmental representation in the planning bodies was enhanced.
The 1990s marked a turning point in the history of Israeli planning in general and
environmental planning in particular. This was largely due to the crisis following the massive wave
of immigration from the former Soviet Union, but also due to other important developments, such
as ideological change, decentralization, and crisis in the rural-agricultural sector. The mass
immigration of the 1990s required the rapid rezoning of land for future development (Alterman,
1995). To meet this need, planning procedures were expedited and the Israel Land Administration
(ILA) underwent reform, being moved from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Housing Ministry.
At the same time, significant developments in agriculture (rapidly falling profits, farmers’ loss of
land and water quotas in exchange for debt relief) led to massive rezoning of agricultural land for
residential building purposes (Feitelson, 1999).
Ideological change also contributed to this process. From the pre-state era through to the
1970s, Zionist ideology in Israel was dominated by romantic visions of rural life and agriculture
(de – Shalit, 1995), spearheaded by the kibbutz (communal) and moshav (cooperative) settlement
movements which played dominant roles within the ruling Labor Party. In the 1970s and
increasingly in the Reagan –Thatcher era of the 1980s, market-based neo-liberal ideologies began
to circulate and eventually to dominate the thinking of Israel’s elites. This development had
a clear influence on natural resource management in Israel. Whereas in earlier decades natural
resources were public property, owned and managed by the government, the 1990s were
highlighted by calls for the partial or complete privatization and commercialization of land. The
ILA’s 1991 decision to make its land leases tradable was an early sign of this ideological
transformation (Barshishat & Feitelson, 1998). More recently the ILA trend toward development
has resulted in an intensification of privatization and increasing pressures to decentralize the
regulatory planning system (Feitelson, 2012). These processes have raised considerable
environmental concerns.
Planners’ main response to the crisis was the 1993 National Master Plan (NMP) 31. This plan
advanced a new set of environmental guidelines, which are discussed below. District plans prepared
in the 1990s also began to adopt new planning concepts, placing more emphasis on densification
of development and protection of open areas. Concurrently, metropolitan plans were prepared
following the recommendations of NMP 31. In these plans several additional environmental
planning innovations were advanced (Feitelson, 2004).
A review of Israeli planning procedures and outcomes shows that despite the low priority given
to environmental issues in Israeli politics, Israeli planning has moved considerably in the direction
of environmentally sustainable planning. Feitelson (1998) argues that planners’ contribution to
this process has been greater than is generally believed, as they acted as “ policy entrepreneurs ”
driving environmental planning initiatives. He cites a series of environmental changes in long-term
planning in Israel, including provisions for open space management, water management and risk
management in NMP 31, open space conservation and flood water retention in the Tel Aviv
Metropolitan Plan, multipurpose zoning in Regional Master Plan (RMP) 2/9 for Northern Israel,
open agricultural areas, water and sewage management, and buffer areas around infrastructure
facilities, ecological restoration in regional plans for the Yarkon, Soreq, and Alexander streams,
risk management in NMP 31, NMP 37, and NMP 30 (Haifa Bay Area); and clean air standards in
plans for the Haifa Bay (NMP 30) and the Be’er Sheva metropolitan areas.
The Israel 2020 strategic master plan presented in 1995 was another milestone in the history of
environmental planning in Israel, introducing principles of sustainability into the work of planners.
Sustainability informed the plan’s provisions on environmental thresholds, environmental
reporting mechanisms, economic assessment of environmental concerns, and environmental rights
for various population groups. The Israel 2020 master plan served as a foundation to NMP 35,
which replaced NMP 31, and advanced a new planning terminology.
This brief overview of the shifts in Israeli planning is a bird’s-eye view of the main changes and
plans that were prepared over a period of five decades. Now we turn to the question of how these
shifts came about, focusing on environmental planning practices. To this end we identify the
elements which have led to various types of transformations in these practices, and the scales of
impact, and explore whether this understanding can lead to positive future environmental changes.
Methodology
The research team, comprising two academics and two leading practitioners with expertise in
environmental policy and planning, examined 30 cases which they identified as having either
transformative characteristics relating to planning tools, procedures or new perspectives. Together
with the former Deputy Director General for Planning in the Ministry of Environment and then
Director of the Environmental Policy Center at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, they chose
five cases from the 30 for in-depth analysis. Each case chosen represents a milestone in the history
of the country’s environmental planning. A milestone was defined as the case after which a new
tool, procedure or perspective became pervasive in Israel. Each case does not necessarily represent
the first instance that a new tool, procedure or perspective was introduced into Israel. Rather, these
cases were controversial at the time, and led to a change in the routines of planning thereafter.
These cases were chosen for their salience, as assessed by the team, and to cover a variety of time
periods, areas of environmental planning, planning instruments, and actors.
. The cases cover three decades, from the early 1970s to the late 1990s (later cases were
deemed too recent to allow perspective).
. They embrace different fields and spatial levels of environmental planning, including energy
infrastructure (the Hadera Power Plant), road engineering (Tefen – Carmiel road),
transportation planning (Highway 6), open space conservation (NMP 31), and coastal
preservation (the Herzliya Marina). In area they range from local to regional and national
scales.
. They reflect the introduction of different instruments and procedures used in environmental
planning, which have since become routine. In this sense, they are considered transformative.
. The cases involve a variety of actors: government agencies, environmental NGOs, the courts,
planners, the public, and the media, the weight of which varies across cases.
The geographical locations of the local and regional cases are marked in Figure 4 (the NMP 31
deals with the entire country). These cases can thus be viewed as representing major
transformations in the history of environmental planning in Israel, and constituting milestones in
the overall transformation of environmental planning in Israel, as outlined by Feitelson (1998).
However, they clearly are not the only milestones in this transformation, and are not a statistically
representative sample, as they were not randomly selected from the original list of cases (which
arguably was also not exhaustive). Yet, they are indicative of the scale and scope of the
transformations that took place in Israel over the past 40 years.
Each case was studied chronologically, covering planning and assessment procedures,
interactions among various stakeholders, and impact over time. The cases were analyzed in
accordance with the model’s parameters, the policy windows of opportunity present in each case;
Figure 4. Map – location of cases. Source: author.

and the activity of agents of change. Data were obtained from three archival databases: State of
Israel Archive (specific plans), Ministry of the Interior Archive (specific plans, judicial decisions,
letters and protocols of the National Council of Planning and Building) and the Ministry of
Environmental Protection Archive (specific plans, letters and judicial decisions) as well as reports.
The plans and protocols of relevant planning and government bodies were gathered first and the
content of 35 of the documents were analyzed in depth. A list of key players at the time was
developed for each case and, given Israel’s small scale, a number of players were key in more than
one of the five cases. They included professionals from the Ministries of Interior, Environment and
Infrastructure; from environmental NGOs (the Society for the Protection of Nature and its Open
Landscape Institute subsidiary), the Israel National Roads Company, environmental consultants
and lawyers, architects, planners and academics with both specific involvement in the chosen cases
and overall experience within the politics and context of Israeli planning. A total of 27 experts
contributed their insights to the research as interviewees and/or round-table participants, most of
them as both (a list of interviewees and round-table participants can be found in the Appendix). The
round table was held on 9 May 2012, after most of the interviews had been completed. All
interviews save one were done in person at the offices/home of the interviewee. One was conducted
by phone. The semi-structured interviews with these players, feedback from the round table forum,
as well as protocols, research papers and newspaper articles, comprise the empirical database. The
analysis of each of the five cases, ordered sequentially, was then followed by a cross-case analysis.
The analysis of each case included three stages. First, each case was described based on primary
archival sources including protocols from the national, regional and local planning committees,
media reports, various ministry and NGO archives, and in-depth interviews1 with stakeholders.
Then each case was analyzed in accordance with the conceptual model. This includes the type,
scope and scale of transformation impact. The analysis is based on the basic questions which went
into the development of the conceptual model, as well those arising from a critical reading of the
literature mentioned above. The model’s key concepts were used as a typology for the content
analysis applied to all empirical data. Finally, the results of stages one and two were presented to a
round table forum consisting of 26 participants, including many of the interviewees and other
central players in the Israeli planning system. A brainstorming session at the round table followed,
exploring the ramifications, as well as written input solicited from three of the participants
following the forum. On this basis an informed-subjective understanding of empirical data with an
emphasis on the perspectives and insights of the research participants was derived. While it is
always possible that additional or other participants may have gained some different insights, the
substantial number of well-informed experts (relative to the small community of veteran
environmental planning experts in the country) assures that most of the likely insights have indeed
been presented.
Case studies of institutional transformation

The Hadera Power Plant
Background
Three power plants managed by the Israel Electric Company (IEC) were operative in Israel in the
late 1960s: Haifa C, Reading D (in Tel Aviv), and Eshkol C (near Ashdod). Facing growing
demand for electricity, the IEC resolved to find sites for six new power plants to be built by 2000
(Maariv, 1969).
Two alternative sites proposed for a 1400-MWe power plant – the first at the Taninim Stream
estuary, the second at the Hadera Stream estuary – became the subject of heated controversy. The
Taninim Stream proposal met with fierce resistance from environmental organizations which
charged that the site’s advantages in terms of accessibility and land rights were strongly outweighed
by its environmental disadvantages, in particular by the proposed plant’s damage to the Carmel
shore, the Mount Carmel ridge (then slated to become a national park), and the Taninim Stream
itself (the last remaining free-flowing freshwater stream within the densely populated coastal plain)
(Teva v’Aretz, 1971). The then Secretary General of the Society for the Protection of Nature in
Israel requested a meeting with the planning team which included members of the Electric
Company, and the Interior and Development Ministries to register his opposition to the siting of the
plant near the Taninim Stream, but his request was rejected (Alon, interview, 12 January 2009).
While government and academics conducted an extensive public information campaign, the
Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel joined forces with the Nature Reserves Authority in
their campaign against siting the power plant adjacent to Nahal Taninim.
Unable to make a decision, the National Council of Planning and Building (NCPB) turned in
late 1971 to a US expert, Professor Roy Weston. The Weston Report, published in early 1972,
rejected the Taninim Stream location in favor of the Hadera Stream alternative (Alterman,
interview, 18 November 2011).
Based on the recommendations of the Weston Report and the Hill Committee2 (Hill, 1972),
and in keeping with the Ministry of the Interior’s approach to national development planning, the
NCBP finally decided in favor of the Hadera Stream on 20 June 1972. Among its reasons was the
fact that “the potential ecological hazard posed by the Taninim Stream site is greater than that posed
by the Hadera Stream alternative.” Approved in February 1973, the plan authorized the
construction of a mazut- (fuel oil)-run power plant near the Hadera Stream estuary, on lands owned
by the Caesarea Development Corporation (Reicher, 1972, p. 6).
In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the global oil crisis, Israel decided to diversify
its energy sources (Israeli Government Decision, 4 August 1974). To help meet this objective,
the prospective power plant was to be adapted to coal as well as to fuel oil. The IEC was to prepare
an environmental impact survey, and the NCBP was to appoint a committee to examine the plant’s
environmental implications. Submitted to the NCBP in May 1976, the IEC’s survey addressed the
prospective plant’s production output and coal consumption and called for various environmental
protection measures, including the establishment of a monitoring system to be operated by
an Environmental Protection Towns Union, and various steps to prevent air and groundwater
pollution, coastal and marine damage, noise hazards, and visual damage. Following expert
assessment of the survey, the NCBP approved the construction of a coal-run plant at Hadera.
Furthermore, it required the IEC to rehabilitate the Hadera Stream adjacent to the site and to build a
park along it.
According to the first Director General of the Ministry of the Environment (who prior to
that had been the first Director of the Environmental Protection Service in the Ministry of the
Interior), these requirements were highly innovative at the time in Israel, as the siting of large-
scale facilities until this point was determined largely by the government agencies with
minimal public involvement and little regard for environmental issues (Marinov interview, 28
November 2011).
Analysis
In terms of scope, the Hadera case placed environmental considerations as central issues in the
planning process, and not just as a secondary category of concern among many. Likewise, prior to
Hadera, the developer (in this case the IEC) was seen to have a monopoly on relevant technical
knowledge; here the inputs of environmental planners proved critical. In retrospect these two
transformations signify a paradigm or cultural shift in the planning system. In subsequent siting
decisions of energy facilities, environmental considerations and planners were integral to the
process.
Requiring the IEC to provide environmental compensation by constructing the Hadera Stream
Park, and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Towns Union as a monitoring body
with the power to require a shift to low-sulfur coal in case of meteorological conditions3 are both
based on existing principles in Israeli law. Hence they can be regarded as incremental
transformations. While developers in Tel Aviv were required to provide public compensations in
exchange for planning approvals as early as the 1960s, the scale of both the compensation, the
inherent environmental focus and their implementation was seen by the interviewees as particularly
significant.
Other transformations experienced included the breaching of some long-existing obstacles in
the interaction among governmental ministries and the public. Public input and participation was
sought at the early stages of evaluating alternative sites for the new power plant. This provided
decision makers with a wider corpus of knowledge resulting in the adoption of a hazard prevention
plan which served as a precedent for subsequent environmental impact assessments. The plan also
involved a multidisciplinary committee which guided the assessment of alternatives. A topic-
specific transformation involved environmental considerations having had a significant impact on
the level of detailed power plant planning and construction, especially on choice of fuels (Brachya
and Marinov, round table, 9 May 2012).
Two other noteworthy transformations in terms of scope focus on process and outcome/product
were highlighted in the round table (9 May 2012) discussion. The diversity and the quantity of
actors who participated in the process included academics, foreign experts and the public. This
resulted in a longer process but was viewed as beneficial by the vast majority of decision-makers.
The products themselves were new in the Israeli scene: environmental accountability of the
developer and the drafting of a partial – topic-specific – national master plan.
The policy windows were twofold: internally there was a pressing and immediate need
for energy due to Israel’s rapid development process which began in the late 1960s; externally,
there was a rise of environmental awareness (the United Nations Stockholm Conference in
1972)4 and the oil crisis (1973). These combined factors forced the Israeli government, industry
and society to reexamine the policy balance between development and environmental
protection.
A primary agent of change was the chair of the National Council of Planning and Building
(NCPB), whose aim was to reconcile the needs of the Israeli economy with other public needs and
create a climate conducive to dialogue among the IEC, municipal authorities, professionals and
other stakeholders. There was consensus among all round table participants that the Chair’s
charisma and personality as well as his attitude of inclusiveness rendered him an effective leader
and a “model civil servant” (round table, 9 May 2012). In subsequent siting of large-scale energy
facilities, most notably the Rothenberg Power Plant in Ashkelon, these measures were used as
routine procedures. Hence, these changes may be viewed as transforming the way large-scale
facility siting is conducted.
The Tefen – Carmiel road (Route 854)

Background
Located in northern Israel, Route 854 stretches from the town of Carmiel in the south to the Tefen
industrial zone and the town of Maalot-Tarshiha in the north. The road was originally planned to
take a western course, to which the Nature and Parks Authority objected in an effort to protect rare
rock formations (fossil reefs) (Darom, interview, 4 January 2012). The road was then rerouted to
run along the highly visible Tzurim escarpment, a bluff overlooking Beit Hakerem Valley and
separating Upper Galilee from Lower Galilee. After some delays, plans to build the road finally
went forward as part of the more comprehensive plan to populate the area with Jewish settlements
(Darom, 1982). The proposed road was to boost the region’s economy by offering the residents of
the new settlements access to jobs and other resources in nearby Carmiel.
According to Plan 4408/c, drafted in 1977 by the Israel National Roads Company and the
Jewish Agency, the road was to cross the Tzurim escarpment. Environmental organizations led by
the SPNI strongly objected, claiming that the damage to the escarpment’s unique landscape would
be visible from dozens of miles away. As a compromise, the organizations first suggested rerouting
the road to Mount Gamal in the west. Their suggestion was rejected, however, due to its proximity
to a large military facility. Consequently they suggested a more northern and less visible route. This
alternative was also rejected by planners, who did not wish the road to run through Kibbutz Lavon,
a temporary hilltop settlement built in the 1970s on the Tzurim ledge. The environmental
organizations initiated a public struggle, culminating in a mass protest with thousands of
demonstrators, held in October 1982 while the Northern Israel Regional Council of Planning and
Building was holding its decisive meetings. The protestors’ slogan was “this can be done
otherwise”. According to Brachya (2012), and articles in the national newspapers, Maariv, 31
October 1982 and Yediot Aharonot, 27 October 1982, this was the first effective public struggle
against the construction of a road.
In 1984, once the United Kibbutz Movement abandoned its plans to establish a permanent
settlement in Lavon, a major obstacle to the road’s alternative northern route was removed. In its
decisive deliberations on 4 September 1984, the National Council of Planning and Building
(NCPB) revised the National Road Master (NMP 3) to include a new plan for the road which
required environmental stipulations.
The new route was eventually approved, with a proviso requiring that a “blueprint for the
prevention and restoration of landscape damage” be prepared. The blueprint was drafted by the
Israel National Roads Company and approved by a special team of professionals from the Planning
Administration, the Northern Israel Regional Council, and the Environmental Protection Service.
Moreover, the Nature Reserve’s Authority was given a supervisory role over the construction
activities (Ministry of Environment, 1989).
The struggle over the Tefen-Carmiel Road and the ensuing dialogue between planners
and environmental organizations led to the adoption of new environmental standards for road
planning, later enshrined in Israel’s National Roads Master Plan (NMP 3) (Avnun, interview,
20 November 2011).
Analysis
In a meeting of the NCPB (meeting 221) on 7 January 1986, Rachewsky, then Head of the
Planning Division at the Ministry of the Interior, stated that on 17 November 1985 the sub-
committee overseeing the road addressed the following objections from the Ministry’s Northern
District:
1. that the plan should be submitted to the District Planning Committee accompanied by a
landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect,
2. the engineering plan would show the places to be excavated as well as those to be filled, and
would include measures to be taken to prevent deterioration and erosion of the slope,
3. perspectives must show the shape of the slope to the road and how it will be maintained,
4. the plan must include directions regarding the clearance/removal of excavated soil and
debris, and to which site so as not to leave it on the slope,
5. the roadsides must be landscaped (technical and horticultural plans).
Indeed, following approval of this route, the National Public Works Department, responsible at the
time for all inter-city roads, hired landscape architects to mitigate the visual effects of roads.
A change also occurred in the Nature Reserves Authority (later merged with the National Parks
Authority). From this point on, it became a regular overseer of infrastructure projects in sensitive areas,
thereby forcing its employees to professionalize and specialize in infrastructure project planning and
management. These were changes in Israel’s planning culture or paradigm transformations.
Two incremental transformations include the preparation of detailed plans for local roads at the
national planning level, and a professional team vested with oversight power for the first time in
local road planning processes. This idea was later adopted for national roads, such as Highway 6
(Israel’s transnational highway) and Route 431 (a freeway south of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area).
With the (then) new requirement that the developer finance a professional architect as part of
the team, a basic obstacle was removed. The physical sensitivity of the Tzurim ledge and its broad
visibility forced both the professionals and the public to examine the issues of landscape closely in
road planning, and became standard.
The involvement of the Nature and Parks Authority as an official member in the planning
process added a multidisciplinary balance, imposing additional checks and balances on the
developer. The involvement of the Nature and Parks Authority as a landscape “expert” brought
about a topic-specific transformation – in that from that point on the professionals became
the inspectors at road construction sites. In addition to the governmental institutions, non-
governmental organizations and citizen groups from northern Israel – with the Society for the
Preservation of Nature in Israel in the lead, had significant input into landscape considerations.
Through a close reading of the numerous meeting protocols, the primary agent of change was the
same chair (as in the Hadera case) of the NCPB, who facilitated a climate of inclusive, open
dialogue, engaging a diversity of actors. His high esteem for the then Director of the Society for the
Protection of Nature in Israel, rendered the organization’s involvement in the process particularly
influential. The window of opportunity was the concurrent “hilltop plan” – a national project to
establish new Jewish settlements in Galilee. Within this context, the Tefen – Carmiel road was
framed as a national rather than a local issue, and introduced a focus on landscape planning.
National Master Plan 31: building, development, and immigrant absorption

Background
Prepared in response to the massive immigration from the former Soviet Union, which began in
1989, NMP 31 was the first comprehensive planning document to be drafted in Israel since the 1951
Sharon Plan. While the Sharon Plan was largely a development plan with no legal standing, NMP
31 was a statutory plan with legal standing, and hence the first comprehensive statutory plan in
Israel (Rachewsky, 2010).
Of the five case studies, NMP 31 is the only one to be initiated by the NCPB. Prior national
plans initiated by the NCPB were sectorial plans that pertained to a specific issue, such as roads
(NMP 3), rail (NMP 23), mining and quarrying (NMP 14), or national parks and nature reserves
(NMP 8). In each of these only the specific environmental facets of the particular issue at hand were
addressed.
NMP 31 utilized a sensitivity analysis of open spaces, prepared jointly by all environmental
bodies (governmental, quasi-governmental and non-governmental) to delineate conservation-
oriented areas. The norms developed in the plan included recognition of the growing scarcity of
land, importance of conserving open space and a recommendation for intensive development in
urban areas. The plan created the metropolitan concept, attempting to guide most of the country’s
future population growth to urban spaces, while protecting open spaces from development
(Rachewsky, 2010).
The planning process included numerous forums, which provided collaborator platforms for
governmental and non-governmental agencies, academic experts, and public input.
Analysis
Although the Israeli planning system required national, regional and local plans even prior to the
passage of the Planning and Building Law in 1965, NMP 31 was the first statutory plan to put forth
a national vision outlining the relationship between conservation and development. NMP 31 was
followed by NMP 35, which incorporated this vision, thus demonstrating that NMP 31 was a
turning point in environmental planning, not a one-time event.
Despite expedited procedures and the sense of impending crisis, the plan included several
provisions that were so transformative as to represent a comprehensive paradigm shift in Israeli
planning (Rachewsky, 2010; Shachar, 1998). Recognition of land scarcity translated into policy
and rules – the most transformative of which was the avoidance of building new settlements.
These led to a new paradigm of metropolitan population concentration – a major deviation from
the historical population dispersal policies which had been a basic tenet of Israeli development
until then.5 Raphael Lerman, the head of the planning team, in the NCPB meeting (278) on 1
August 1991 notes: “during the planning process the basic planning doctrine regarding
population dispersion and center-periphery relationships were redefined.”
As part of these paradigm shifts, incremental transformations also took place: NMP 31 included
a development plan and a follow-up/supervision plan, both with significant environmental input.
These components have since been adopted in most national plans. Additionally, many of the
agricultural areas were rezoned as “open rural areas”, with a stronger conservation emphasis,
signifying the decline in agricultural uses (Feitelson, 1999). The protocol of the NCPB meeting
(296) on 14 April 1992 refers to the importance of development plans. The NCPB Chairman: “The
plan that is being submitted before us is different from other plans as it includes a development plan
– a mechanism of implementation and operation.” Further, the protocol quotes Yonatan Golani,
then head of Planning Administration: “This plan is exceptional and stands out compared to other
NMPs in that it includes not only statutory documents but also a wide-ranging development plan
with recommendations for practical actions to be implemented. This is an important innovation in
the framework of national plans.”
For the first time the planning team was selected by tender, not appointed by the Ministry of the
Interior, thereby allowing it to include an environmental planner, something that was not included
in the original tender, as it was not considered central by the Ministry of the Interior. The
demonstrated centrality of environmental considerations in this plan led to a shift in tendering
processes thereafter. All planning teams are now required (by the Ministry of the Interior) to
include environmental planners. Moreover, planning budgets were significantly increased to enable
a more inclusive process and the introduction of new (environmental) topics (Rachewsky, round
table, 9 May 2012).
Although not innovative for many developed countries at the time, a specific transformation in
Israeli planning was that building permits were made conditional upon suitable sewage solutions,
definition of general health impact areas, and designation of water sensitivity zones. These
regulations are now required in all environmental plans.
A product-oriented transformation, which has been incorporated into the Israeli planning
process, is environmental sensitivity mapping, although the State budget has not been expanded to
take this into account.
The mass immigration from the former Soviet Union that began in 1990, and the resultant
housing and employment crises were the policy window seized by the then head of the national
planning department in the Planning Administration (Lerman and Koptasch, round table, 9 May
2012). The increasing power of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and non-governmental
environmental organizations, and the positive interaction between them and planners, led to the
integration of environmental principles within the development plan (Kaplan, interview, 1
November 2011). Israeli planners returning from international conferences and workshops conveyed
principles of the smart growth movement, which served as a backdrop for the new population
concentration policies (Arnon, round Table 9 May 2012). Officials in the Planning Administration
served as agents of change, supported by the work of multidisciplinary planning teams.
Trans-Israel Highway (Highway 6)

Background
Proposals to build a national highway crossing Israel from North to South were made as early as the
1960s by the Ministry of Transportation’s Planning Division (Rabinovitch & Vardi, 2010). The
major catalyst for the road was NMP 31 (approved by the Israeli government in January 1993),
which had been designed to address the needs created by mass immigration from the former Soviet
Union. As part of its development plan, NMP 31 advanced the building of a trans-Israel highway as
designated in the National Master Plan for Roads (NMP 3, from 1976) (Schlein, interview, 15 May
2012; round table, 9 May 2012).
With planning well underway, the government decided to authorize establishment of the Trans-
Israeli Highway Company in November 1992. This governmental company was to plan the road
and administer the tender for building it as a build, operate, transfer project. The project’s legal
foundations were provided by the Trans-Israel Highway Law (approved December 1994) and the
Toll Road Law (approved July 1995), which designated the highway as a toll road and determined
tender procedures for the franchise. A development strip was planned alongside the highway, and
alternatives assessed (Government of Israel, 1997).
The main segment of Highway 6 was approved in 1996 (NMP 31a). An agreement between the
State of Israel and the franchisee, Derech Eretz Highways, was signed in 1998. Work on the first
segment of the road commenced in November 1999.
The first completed segment of Highway 6 was opened to the public in September 2002 and
officially inaugurated in January 2004. As of 2011 the highway extended 138 km from the Maahaz
interchange in the south to the Ein Tut interchange in the north (Schlein, interview, 15 May 2012).
Analysis
According to Brachya (interview 27 December 2011), Highway 6 was the first and largest challenge
for the then new Ministry of the Environment in the early 1990s. Encouraged by the legitimization
accorded to Ministry professionals during the NMP 31 process, environmental planning, including
public input, had become important in government decision-making. Highway 6 was controversial,
engendering wide opposition from a variety of environmental activists and NGOs. As part of this
opposition several alternatives were raised, including investments in public transport in lieu of the
highway. This led to widening the set of alternatives assessed and greater emphasis on the
mitigation of the environmental effects of the highway (Marinov, interview, 28 November 2011).
The case empowered the alternative environmental planning discourse among the planning
authorities. The ability of environmental NGOs to suggest alternatives, including fundamental
policy alternatives such as public transportation, is now widely acknowledged.
As part of this transformation a two-step environmental impact survey was introduced,
constituting an incremental change. This was new for the period, with a comparative
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 1 of all alternatives occurring during the first stage, and
after determination of the preferred alternative, a detailed EIS of the chosen option. This was
adopted officially in the revised EIS regulations in 2003. The topic-specific practices introduced to
Israel in this case include new road standards, tunneling to preserve landscapes, ecological
restoration and wildlife crossings.
In terms of planning process the scale of discussion has been widely expanded to include the
development strip planned alongside the highway, as well as additional topics. Since Highway 6,
plans for new roads do not only relate to their physical impacts but also refer to their wider
environmental, economic and social impacts. (Marinov, interview, 28 November 2011) This
introduced a new language, norms and values into the road planning process, with environmental
concerns playing a significant part.
These transformations were enabled by the policy window that emerged from the crisis
atmosphere following the immigration wave, and the widespread acceptance of NMP 31 thereof.
To facilitate the plan, widespread investments in transport infrastructure were called for. These
stemmed to a significant degree from the change in the professional discourse facilitated by
Aschauer’s (1989) work, which found transport investments to be a significant variable –
explaining economic development also in highly developed countries, such as the USA. This
argument has since been widely accepted by the Israeli Ministry of Finance as part of the neo-
liberal turn in the Israeli economy and polity (Ben Porat, 2008). Hence, Highway 6 received special
treatment that allowed the Highway 6 company to undertake new procedures.
Due to the increasing prominence of environmental interests in planning committees, the
company was willing to undertake new obligations to advance the road, thereby setting precedents
that have since become common practices in road development in Israel. According to Arnon
(interview, 16 May 2012), one of the reasons for the transformations discussed was that “for the
first time a road was being marketed as a consumer product, in order to both justify its existence and
to cover the high economic costs through the collection of tolls.” She continues on to note that in
fact the road was already approved after completion of only the first two parts of the EIS, without an
in-depth examination of the expected environmental impacts. While the preparation of a two-tier
EIS was novel, the statutory process in the case of Highway 6 was incomplete. There was a need to
paint the road “green” and market it as necessary infrastructure in order to prevent economic loss.
The Herzliya Marina

Background
Inaugurated in 1995, the Herzliya Marina extends over 120 acres of Herzliya’s Mediterranean
shore, just south of Acadia Beach. The marina plan was the first of its kind in Israel to designate
commercial zones in addition to docking areas and permitting construction in reclaimed lands of
structures without a marine purpose. According to round table participants, the Herzliya Marina
represents a quantum leap in marina planning in Israel, although eventual construction diverged
from the plans originally submitted to the National Council of Planning and Building.
Approval of the marina plan relied on special procedures included in NMP 13 (National
Shoreline Plan) which authorized the National Council of Planning and Building to approve
construction within 100 meters of the shoreline despite general prohibitions on such construction.
Special approval was given to the marina’s Local Master Plan HR/2002 in 1985. A more detailed
plan (HR/2002a) was approved in 1987, and a revised plan with further concessions (HR/2003) was
approved in 1992– 1993.
The marina plan stimulated public debate about the project’s necessity and location, bringing to
public consciousness normative questions about coastal conservation, the public’s right to coastal
access, and incompatible land use categories (e.g. tourism versus housing).
Analysis
The cultural transformation in Israeli planning, resulting from the Herzliya plan, was the emergence
of a new conception of marinas, shorelines, and recognition of the public’s right to coastal access.
The critical attitude towards marinas (seen as commercial opportunities) and the awareness of their
environmental and public cost increased. No new marinas have been approved since the Herzliya
Marina. (Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, n.d.)
An incremental change in attitudes towards coastal modeling followed the Herzliya process,
because the Environmental Impact Assessment had neglected to foresee the main damages that
would accrue to the coasts north of the marina (Brachya, interview, 27 December 2011; Papai,
interview, 2 January 2102). The change involved the designation of no-construction zones within
100 meters of the shoreline. The Israeli Supreme Court was involved in the designation, and its
involvement helped to further embed environmental considerations in planning processes
(Brachya, interview, 27 December 2011). Non-planning aspects of the plan were acknowledged
and an economic forecast and tender were included in the appendices to the plan (two product
transformations). For the first time, the SPNI became involved in the management of urban beaches
(not only open-space coastlines) (Lipshitz, interview, 8 December 2011).
The plan involved multidisciplinary collaboration between insiders (Ministries of Interior
and Environment, Herzliya municipality) and outsiders (SPNI, public) (Lipshitz, interview,
8 December 2011).6 In terms of topic-specific transformations, vacation homes were identified as
being problematic, since they functioned as dwellings, which are forbidden on the coasts and lack
the necessary accompanying infrastructure for permanent residences. The discourse surrounding
the public’s right to coastal access and use led to the initiation of coastal legislation – the Protection
of the Israeli Coastal Environment Law, 2004 (Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, n.d.).
Another transformation which occurred, in light of the Herzliya Marina, was a process-oriented
transformation. Planning no longer stops at the shoreline, but now includes marine areas. The
National Commission for the Protection of the Coasts now addresses plans dealing with both sea
and land construction.
The policy windows stemmed from the knowledge transfer from the international community on
coastal management and from the extensive activities in Mediterranean countries concerning coastal
protection and management. These were utilized by the SPNI and the Ministry of Environment to
challenge the economically driven development plan of the marina, and were subsequently accepted
by the court, thereby altering the view of coastal development in Israel thereafter.
Discussion
The five case studies feature a wide variety of transformations. These differ both in scale and scope,
as depicted in Figures 1 and 2.
The scope of environmental transformations

All the cases involved some elements of cultural changes in Israeli planning institutions as well as
incremental change. Cultural/paradigm shifts were reflected in the environmental considerations
that have become central elements in the planning and approval of national infrastructure plans
(Hadera), and in the challenge to the monopoly that developers had previously held in knowledge
and expertise (Hadera and Tefen-Carmiel). With the planning of the Trans-Israel Highway,
environmental concerns and issues became a focal point for discussion among government, civil
society and developers, rather than being seen as the interest of environmental groups only. With
NMP 31 a new planning doctrine was advanced (Shachar, 1998). Within this doctrine
environmental considerations became central to overall planning, and land scarcity was recognized
to be a central planning concern (Feitelson, 1998). The transition from a policy of population
dispersal as the basis for planning, to recognition of depletion of land resources as the new basis for
planning was seen as the central change and contribution of NMP 31 by all interviewees (i.e.
Kaplan, interview 1 November 2011; Sagi, interview, 14 November 2011; Lerman, interview, 14
December 2011; Rachewsky, interview 1 February 2012; also Rachewsky, 2005/6). This change
has resulted in an emphasis on maintaining open areas and denser urban development within an
inclusive planning process. The perception that NMP 31 was a turning point was discussed in
numerous NCPB meetings including that of 1 August 1991 and 13 March 1992, and the next
national master plan, NMP 35, followed the same principles.
In the Herzliya Marina case a broader concept of marinas, shoreline protection and the public’s
right to coastal access emerged, thereby shifting the way coastal planning has been viewed since.
Prior to the Herzliya case many mayors were pursuing options for developing marinas within their
jurisdictions; post-Herzliya these initiatives abated. The halt of marina initiatives was attributed by
interviewees to the decisions surrounding Herzliya (Brachya, interview, 27 December 2011; Papai,
interview 2 January 2012; round table discussion 9 May 2012).
These cases also included multiple incremental transformations. Developer-funded
environmental compensation packages were required for approval of the Hadera Power Plant.
These included establishment of the Hadera Stream Park by the Power Company, as well as the
formation of a municipal association for environmental protection, vested with powers.
Subsequently such associations became standard practice, and similar municipal associations were
established around all power stations in other parts of the country as well.
The Tefen – Carmiel road case, and subsequently the Trans-Israel Highway case, transformed
the way environmental issues are addressed in transport planning in Israel. In essence,
environmental consultants became important members in road (and later also rail) planning teams.
Moreover, external bodies were vested with oversight power over road construction. Consequently
the professionalization of environmental bodies in transport issues improved dramatically. This is
manifest by the advancement of alternative alignments for transport infrastructure by
environmental bodies, originally in the Tefen –Carmiel road, and now on a regular basis.
The Trans-Israel Highway case was also instrumental in changing the dominant discourse from
predict and provide to management and public transport.7
NMP 31 was the first comprehensive plan to internalize environmental considerations from the
outset. Since that plan, environmental goals and environmental planners have become central to all
major comprehensive planning efforts, not only at the national but also at the district and city levels.
In addition, a number of new measures were introduced to the Israeli scene in this plan (Feitelson,
1998, Shachar, 1998). These included the conditioning of housing development approval on
sewage treatment plants8 (rather than merely sewage collection and disposal), protection of aquifer
recharge areas, delineation of risk zones around concentrations of hazardous materials and
establishing buffer zones around landfills and the introduction of environmental criteria in
prioritizing investments in the development plan that accompanied NMP 31. While not all these
provisions were fully adopted or implemented (Feitelson, 1994), they did set the stage for similar
measures in subsequent planning initiatives. These transformations in environmental planning
pertain to all facets of the conceptual model presented in Figure 3.
All of the cases led to changes in the way environmental planning is conducted and hence can
be seen as paradigmatic transformations. This is not surprising as this was the main criterion for
choosing these cases in the first place. However, the nature of the changes varies among cases. Most
of them introduce process changes (Hadera, Tefen – Carmiel, Trans-Israel Highway and NMP 31).
While the nature of transformations varies from case to case, all of them led to product changes
with new measures being used.
The five case studies also vary in the breadth of the transformation they represent, from
multidisciplinary transformations to topic-specific. Examples of each emerge in all cases.
Multidisciplinary transformation is reflected in the assessment of planning alternatives led by the
multidisciplinary committee in Hadera. In the Tefen –Carmiel road process, the Nature and Parks
Authority became involved in the planning process and the building of the road was subject to dual
supervision by landscape architects and the Nature and Parks Authority. The scope of the planning
team was greatly widened and environmental professionals were included in planning for the
Trans-Israel Highway. The NMP 31 process ensured that government ministries collaborated with
each other as well as with external organizations, and a broad multidisciplinary team was
assembled (Rachewsky, 2005/6). The Herzliya Marina introduced collaboration between insiders
(planners, government ministries and locality) and outsiders (citizens and NGOs) on a scale new to
the Israeli planning arena. The collaboration between the Ministry of Environment and the Society
for the Protection of Nature in Israel developed the basis for working relationships in other
struggles, making it easier to explore mutual interests (Brachya, interview, 27 December 2011;
Lipshitz, interview 8 December 2011).
Each of the cases encompassed topic-specific innovation as well. With the Hadera Power plant
planning process, environmental considerations were introduced which affected power plant
planning, hazard minimization and fuel choice. Innovative landscape management was introduced
with the Tefen – Carmiel Road plan. Road planning innovations included in the Trans-Israel
Highway included new environmental standards: tunneling, stream crossings, groundwater
conservation, landscape and ecological restoration and wildlife crossings. With NMP 31, the
requirement that building permits be conditional upon suitable sewage solutions, the definition of
impact areas, and the identification and designation of water sensitivity zones are now an integral
part of comprehensive plans. In terms of coastal area planning, the Herzliya Marina case exposed
the problem of vacation homes (sometimes camouflaged as hotels) built on the coast as
problematic, acknowledged the public’s right to coastal access, and resulted in the initiation of
coastal legislation (Papai, interview, 2 January 2012).
Finally, the transformations also had significant organizational facets. In all the case studies the
transformations involved changes in relations among actors. In several of them, environmental
NGOs and civil society institutions were introduced into planning decision-making for the first
time, and thereafter became routine. In other cases government agencies that previously had little
sway or say in a particular field became more prominent. Thus, for example, in the Tefen – Carmiel
road case the Nature and Parks Authority (and its predecessors) were, for the first time, substantially
involved in road alignments, something that has since become standard practice. However, the
organizational changes have not been limited to inter-organizational relations. In some cases the
innovations also involved significant intra-organizational changes. In the Tefen-Carmiel case, for
example, the Public Works Department responsible for inter-urban roads (and subsequently the
National Roads Company into which it evolved) introduced landscaping and environmental
assessment as part of its internal procedures, setting up an appropriate unit within it to deal with
these issues. In other cases the transformation pertained to the way planning is conducted and
regulated. Perhaps the most fundamental organizational change in this regard was the introduction
of environmental planners into comprehensive planning teams, first introduced in NMP 31.
Rachewsky (interview 1 February 2012; Rachewsky 2005/6, 2010) discusses this in detail, relating
that in order to accelerate the preparation of the plan, a wide interdisciplinary team of planners was
formed and they met with numerous stakeholders. The transparency and collaborative interactions
of this planning team became an important new baseline for Israeli planning. Since then,
comprehensive and interdisciplinary planning teams have become the norm.
The scale of environmental innovation impact

As Figure 5 illustrates, most instances of environmental planning transformations drawn from our
case studies were organizational, profession-wide, and institutional. Yet, these did not lead directly
to societal change. It can be argued, however, that these transformations were part of a wider
Figure 5. Scale of environmental transformations impact. NMP, National Master Plan; PP, power plant.
Source: author.
societal transformation whereby environmental concerns rose in prominence in Israeli society, and
in land use planning in particular, in the late twentieth century and the first decade of the 21st
century. These are discussed below.
How did the transformations come about?

So far the transformations have been described and analyzed. The remaining question is how they
came about. While the specific circumstances of each case were described above, in this section we
outline the underlying factors as they emerge from these descriptions.
The transformations in environmental planning cannot be understood separately from wider
societal changes. Perhaps the most important is the rise of environmental consciousness, which is
inter-related to the advent of environmental movements, as part of the growing involvement of civil
society in governance (Tal, 2006; Talshir, 2002).
Yet the increasing visibility of environmental movements alone cannot explain the
transformations described above. A second factor that led to these transformations was the
changing nature of planning in Israel; in particular the increasing prominence of regulatory land use
planning, resulting in greater power to the planning committees (Feitelson, 2012). While
environmental planning began as a reactive enterprise, as seen in the Hadera and Tefen – Carmiel
cases, environmental NGOs, and later the Ministry of Environment, increasingly utilized the
planning committees as arenas in which the environmental concerns were raised. This led in turn to
shifts in the way planning was conducted.
The ability of environmental interests to be heard and to influence planning outcomes was
greatly enhanced by the changes in planning committees. After the Ministry of Environment was
formed in 1988, it became a member of district committees and the NCPB. In addition,
representatives of green NGOs were also added by law to planning commissions, in addition to the
representation of the Nature and Parks Authority in the NCPB. So in all the major planning
committees, the representation of environmental interests increased.
Finally, there was an underlying shift in the attitudes of planners. This can be largely attributed
to a generational change within the planning bodies. In the 1990s a new generation of planners
joined the planning administration, as well as many development bodies. In addition, the green
NGOs began employing environmental planners. These had a common language with the younger
planners in the Planning Administration, as well as with planners in the private sector. Hence, there
was an epistemic shift in the planning community, allowing greater openness to environmental
arguments. This shift was somewhat facilitated by the changes in the professional discourse in the
Anglo-American world, to which Israeli planners are increasingly exposed.
While to some extent the scale of impact may be seen as a layering up over time, the temporal
period during which each case took place was critical. The increasing independence of planning in
the late 1980s and 1990s, together with the introduction of a new planning doctrine (Shachar,
1998), allowed environmental planners to introduce new environmental planning concepts. Their
success in doing so was facilitated by the receptivity of central figures in the Israeli planning
establishment. Hence, the importance of individuals who are in positions of power in specific time
periods where new concepts are put forward cannot and should not be overlooked.
Conclusions
The transformation of environmental planning does not happen all at once. However, while the
processes underlying such changes may seem continuous, the transformations occur at specific
points in time with regard to specific plans. Yet, the nature of the transformations, their scope and
scale, vary widely. In this paper we outlined the possible scale and scope of such transformations
and analyzed how they occurred in practice in several Israeli case studies.
The analysis of these cases shows that in both scale and scope there is a nested effect. That is,
transformations that have wide ramifications, as in the cases chosen for this study, are likely to
include both paradigmatic and incremental changes, multidisciplinary and topic specific changes
that affect inter-organizational and intra-organizational procedures, and institutional and
organizational scales. This does not mean, however, that all transformations have all these
effects. Even among our case studies there were some that had wide-ranging effects, while others
did not, and cases which had wider implications than others. To some extent this may reflect the
scale of the cases studied. For example, NPM 31, which was a national master plan, had a greater
potential to affect wider scales than the Tefen – Carmiel road, which was a local project. But an
even more interesting insight is that even local projects can be the setting for introducing large-
scale, wide-scope transformations. Hence, transformations in environmental planning are not
necessarily driven by the upper echelons of government or by wide-ranging plans. Rather,
innovative concepts, for the specific time and place, can be also introduced in small-scale plans. Yet
not all plans necessarily imply a transformation. Many plans, including large scale ones, follow the
precedents set by other plans. Thus the Hadera plan served as a precedent for subsequent power
station siting in Israel. Most notably the Ashkelon Power Plant and Highway 6 served as a
precedent for subsequent large-scale roads, such as the current upgrade of Highway 1 (the Tel-
Aviv –Jerusalem highway).
A second question is whether the scale and scope of transformations affect the likelihood that
planning innovations will be adopted. As we did not analyze cases where innovative proposals (for
the time and place in which they were proposed) were rejected, or small scale changes, we cannot
provide an answer to this question.
The findings show there is no single path to the transformation of environmental planning,
thereby validating the multiple possible paths shown in Figure 3. However, some conditions for
facilitating and advancing transformations can be identified. These include:
. the transfer of knowledge within the epistemic community,
. a readiness of the wider planning community to adopt innovative suggestions (for the time
and place they are proposed),
. leadership within the planning community and in planning institutions,
. awareness of the environmental issues and alternatives by a wider policy community.
The combination of these factors allows planners to undertake the role of “policy
entrepreneurs”, as was noted in previous studies (i.e. Feitelson, 1998), thereby advancing new
concepts within the planning system, and garnering the necessary political support to see them
through. Indeed, these factors have allowed planners to take on transformative roles. In each of
these cases, policy windows were exploited smartly. Tama 31 (national outline plan) is a striking
example, when the then head of the planning administration grabbed the opportunity to develop the
first comprehensive planning document since 1951, in a response to the massive immigration from
the Soviet Union. She overtly pointed to the wave of immigration as a policy window to be used
advantageously. The other cases exploited policy windows of varying scales: Highway 6 built on
the environmental principals which gained momentum in Tama 31, and the abandonment of the
plan to establish a permanent settlement in Lavon enabled the environmental planners to push for
the northern Tefen – Carmiel route. The Herzliya Marina was an opportunity for planners from the
Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel to become involved in the management of urban
beaches and form collaborations with planners from the Ministries of Interior and Environment.
This, in turn, was a precedent for many subsequent planning endeavors. The global energy crisis
was used to expand the environmental impact survey process in the case of the Hedera Power Plant.
To this end the fostering of positive relations between environmental NGOs and planning systems
and leadership roles were significant in catalyzing environmental change. These factors hold for all
types of transformation, regardless of scale and scope. But the implications of the transformations
vary by scale and scope. The question that needs further study is how environmental planning
transformations can be leveraged to widen their original scope and affect wider-scale
transformations.
Acknowledgments
Appreciation and thanks to Valerie Brachya for her initiative, vision and ongoing interest throughout the
research process. We wish to thank Ariel Saban for his help in locating relevant archival materials, Noga
Yosilevech for her dedication and graphic skills, and the reviewers and editors for their constructive
suggestions and insight.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was initiated and funded by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.
Notes
1. Interview protocol questions per case included:
. Describe the sequence of events, including dates, time frame, significant stakeholders.
. Describe the acceptable norms before the case.
. Were there institutional/organizational/regulatory changes which occurred as a result of the case?
Describe.
. Can you characterize the essence of the change (temporary or permanent; semantic or fundamental,
one-time or continuing)?
. What affected/catalyzed the change: internal to Israel (Israeli political, civil society pressures) or
external to Israel (international/global awareness, strengthening of global environmental discourse)
. Can you identify catalyzers (key players) of change?
. Was there a window of opportunity within which the case occurred and developed?
. Were there subsequent cases in which changes in the planning systems resulting from this case were
implemented or expressed?
. Have the changes in the planning system which emerged from this case affected other public decision-
making mechanisms (aside from planning)?
. Can you direct us to additional sources – media, literature and other interviewees?
2. The Hill Committee was appointed by the Ministry of the Interior. It was headed by the late Professor
Moshe Hill of the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) thereby bringing Israeli academics for the first
time into the heart of planning decision-making.
3. The novelty here is the Towns Union’s environmental mandate. Towns Unions existed at this time, usually
for solid waste or fire- fighting. The innovation is the concept, not the administrative body (Marinov,
interview, 28 November 2011).
4. Marinov was Israel’s delegate to the Stockholm Conference. At the round table on 9 May 2012 he described
the major impact of the conference on his own environmental tenets and outlook which guided his
professional career first as Director General of the Ministry of the Environment and prior to that as the first
Director of the Environmental Protection Service in the Ministry of the Interior.
5. Interviews with Kaplan (1 November 2011), Sagi (14 November 2012), Lerman (14 December 2011) and
Rachewsky (1 February 2012). See also Shachar (1998).
6. According to Lipshitz the collaboration was requested by Brachya from the Ministry of Environment at a
critical juncture.
7. While the objections that suggested that public transport should substitute for Road 6 were not accepted, the
view that there is a trade-off between public transport investments and further road development has since
become commonplace.
8. Koptasch (round table discussion 9 May 2012) described the sewage conditions as one of the major turning
points of NMP 31.
Notes on contributors
Deborah F. Shmueli is a faculty member in the Department of Geography and Environmental
Studies at the University of Haifa and former Department Head, and a co-Principal Investigator of
the Minerva Center for Law and Extreme Conditions at the University of Haifa. She is a planner
specializing in environmental policy issues related to land use and allocation, water and
transportation, and has published widely in these areas. Strong foci are public sector and
environmental conflict management and community and institutional capacity building. She has
served as an environmental consultant on planning teams and run many workshops on consensus
building, conflict assessment, environmental and public sector conflict management and public
engagement. Her undergraduate and master’s degrees are from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) (1980) and her doctorate degree from the Technion, Israel Institute of
Technology (1992). She is a visiting scholar at the Wagner School for Public Policy at New York
University in 2014– 2015.
Eran Feitelson is a Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A former chair of the
Department of Geography, he was for five years the head of the Federmann School of Public Policy
and Government. Currently he is head of the Advanced School for Environmental Studies. He holds
an MA in Geography and Economics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a doctorate
from the Johns Hopkins University. In 2009 –2010 he was a visiting professor at the Transport
Studies Unit, Oxford University. He has edited or co-edited three books, and published over 70
papers in refereed journals and edited volumes in the fields of transport policy, land use planning,
environmental policies and water policy. In addition to his academic work Eran Feitelson has
participated in several national planning teams and has been a member of many national
committees. He has also served as chair of the Israeli Nature Reserves and National Parks
Commission for 10 years.
Benny Furst is a geographer and environmental planner (BA, MA and PhD from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem). He works in the Planning Department of the Ministry of Environmental
Protection in Israel. His doctorate (2013) focused on environmental campaigns and he has
published several articles on the subject. He was an adjunct lecturer at the University of Haifa, and
is now in that capacity at the Technion.
Iris Hahn is a planner (MA Technion) and Lawyer (Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya). She
coordinated planning for the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI), and went on to
head planning and research for DESHE (a subset of SPNI) specializing in the preservation and use
of open spaces. In that capacity she served as the representative of the non-governmental
environmental organizations on the National Committee for Planning and Building for over a
decade. From 2014 – 2015 she served as Acting Director for Planning in the Ministry of
Environmental Protection. She is an adjunct lecturer at the University of Haifa and at the
Technion.
References
Alterman, R. (1995). Can planning help in time of crisis?: Planners’ responses to Israel’s recent wave of mass
immigration. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 156 – 177. doi:10.1080/
01944369508975630
Aschauer, D. A. (1989). Is public expenditure productive?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, 177– 200.
doi:10.1016/0304-3932(89)90047-0
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Barshishat, U., & Feitelson, E. (1998). The widening of private entrepreneurship in public land. Jerusalem:
The Floersheimer Institute (Hebrew).
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Ben Porat, G., Levy, Y., Mizraji, S., Naor, A., & Tzfadia, E. (2008). Political economy: Liberalization and
globalization. In G. Ben Porat, et al. (Eds.), Israel Since 1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brachya, V. (2012). Environmental planning in Israel: The development of environmental thinking in Israeli
planning. In S. Hasson (Ed.), Shaping Israel’s land and settlement map (pp. 211–226). Jerusalem: Keter
and the Institute for the Study of Land Policy and Use (Hebrew).
Brachya, V. (2013). Towards sustainable development: Mainstreaming environment in Israel. In D. Orenstein,
A. Tal & C. Miller (Eds.), Between ruin and restoration: an environmental history of Israel (pp. 258–308).
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Chapman, M., Berman, S., & Blitz, A. (2008). Rethinking Innovation: insights from the world’s leading CEOs.
Roseville, NSW: Fast Thinking Books.
Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and
organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475– 491. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
Darom, Y. (1982). A road on a steep cliff: Can’t it be done otherwise? Teva v’Aretz, 1, 2– 3. (Hebrew).
de-Shalit, A. (1995). From the political to the objective: The dialectics of Zionism and the environment.
Environmental Politics, 4, 70 – 87. doi:10.1080/09644019508414183
Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues.
Technology in Society, 27, 133– 153. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.01.002
Duany, M. (2010). From drainage to conservation of the Hula Wetland: Tracing the dynamics of nature
intervention (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Haifa, Israel.
Ekins, P., Salmons, R., & Salmons, R. (2009). Working Paper on National Environmental Policies: Making
Reform Happen in Environmental policy Paris: OECD.
Feitelson, E. (1994). Allowing for sustainable growth under drastic immigration stress in Israel. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 37, 379– 394. doi:10.1080/09640569408711984
Feitelson, E. (1998). Muddling toward sustainability: The transformation of environmental planning in Israel.
Progress in Planning, 49(1), 1– 53.
Feitelson, E. (1999). Social norms, rationales and policies. Journal of Rural Studies, 15, 431– 446. doi:10.
1016/S0743-0167(99)00013-3
Feitelson, E. (2004). The role of strategic planning in advancing sustainability at the metropolitan level: The
case of Tel-Aviv. In E. Feitelson (Ed.), Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-National Level: The Potential
and Limitations of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Feitelson, E. (2012). Physical planning in Israel: government, society, capital, and the environment.
In S. Hasson (Ed.), Shaping Israel’s land and settlement map (pp. 87 – 108). Jerusalem: Keter and the
Institute for the Study of Land Policy and Use (Hebrew).
Feitelson, E. I. (2011). Issue generating assessment: bridging the gap between evaluation theory and practice?.
Planning Theory & Practice, 12, 549– 568. doi:10.1080/14649357.2011.626305
Feitelson, E., & Salomon, I. (2004). The political economy of transport innovations. In M. Beuthe,
V. Himanen, A. Reggiani, & L. Zamparini (Eds.), Transport developments and innovations in an evolving
world. Berlin: Springer Verlaag.
Friedman, A., & Hasson, S. (2003). How researchers and policy makers exert their influence. Jerusalem: The
Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (Hebrew).
Gavison, R. (2009). The hollow hope: Can the courts effect social change? Ma’asei Mishpat, 2, 15 – 32.
(Hebrew).
Gidron, T., & Fischhendler, I. (2010). Science, Policy, and Uncertainty: scientists’ role in shaping
environmental policy in Israel. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies (Hebrew).
Gild-Hayo, D., & Shahav, S. (2009). Legislative lawyering as an instrument of social change. Ma’asei
Mishpat, 2, 69 – 86. (Hebrew).
Government of Israel. (1997). Comptroller’s Report 47. (pp.720– 723). Jerusalem: Government of Israel.
Hasson, S. (Ed.). (2012). Shaping Israel’s land and settlement map. Jerusalem: Keter and the Institute for the
Study of Land Policy and Use (Hebrew).
Hasson, S., & Brachya, V. (2012). Environmental policy in Israel, 1948– 2011. Position paper written for
Israel Sustainability Outlook 2030, www.kayamut2030.org
Hill, M. (1972). Evaluation of power station siting options. Haifa: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
(Hebrew).
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. R. (2003). New environmental policy instruments: An evolution or a
revolution in environmental policy? In A. Jordan, R. K. W. Wurzel, & A. R. Zito (Eds.), “New”
instruments of environmental governance? National experiences and prospects (pp. 201– 224). London
and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. R. (2013). Still the century of “new” environmental policy
instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity. Environmental Policy, 22, 155– 173.
Kao, J. (2007). Innovation Nation. New York: The Free Press.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.
Laster, R., & Choshen, E. (2003). Environment, governance, and law in Israel. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem
Institute for Israel Studies, (Hebrew).
Layzer, J. A. (2006). The environmental case: Translating values into policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Maariv. (1969). Sites for six power stations have been selected. Maariv, 8 (Hebrew).
Ministry of Environment. (1989). Annual report. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Environment (Hebrew).
Ministry of Interior. National Master Plan 6: Roads. Jerusalem: Ministry of Interior (Hebrew).
Ministry of Interior. National Master Plan 13 (Partial): Shores. Section 13: Mediterranean Shore. Jerusalem:
Ministry of Interior (Hebrew).
Ministry of Interior. National Master Plan 31 (Combined): Construction, Development and Immigrant
Absorption. Jerusalem: Ministry of Interior (Hebrew).
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration & Society, 29,
115– 138. doi:10.1177/009539979702900201
Perez, O., & Rosenblum, E. (2010). Environmental protection law. In R. Siebel (Ed.), International law
(2nd ed.). Jerusalem: The Institute for Legislative and Comparative Legal Studies, the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Protection of the Israeli Coastal Environment Law 5764. (2004).
Rabinovitch, D., & Vardi, A. (2010). Catalyzing factors – The transnational highway and privatization of
civilian infrastructure in Israel. Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute and Kibbutz Meuhad Publishers (Hebrew).
Rachewsky, D. (2005/6). Why National Master Plans? NMP 31 – National Master Plan for Building,
Development and Absorption of Immigrants. Tel Aviv, Israel: Work done within the framework of studies
in the Faculty of Arts, Tel Aviv University.
Rachewsky, D. (2010). From Arie to Arie – The context of Israeli planning. In E. Razin (Ed.), National,
district and metropolitan planning in Israel (pp. 13 – 48). Jerusalem: Floersheimer Institute (Hebrew).
Reicher, N. (1972). Acceptance of the power plant plan for the Hadera Stream. Yediot Aharonot, 6.9.1972, 6
(Hebrew).
Rogers, M. E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rosenberg, G. N. (1991/2008). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? (2nd ed.). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual
Review of Political Science, 11, 303– 326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
Shachar, A. (1998). Reshaping the map of Israel: A new national planning doctrine. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 555, 209–218. doi:10.1177/0002716298555001014
Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel. (n.d.). The defrauding of the public and damage to the beach as a
public resource – background document for an investigative report on the subject.
Steelman, T. A. (2010). Implementing innovation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Susskind, L. E., Jain, R., & Martyniuk, A. (2001). Better environmental policy studies. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Sweeney, G. (1995). National innovation policy or a regional innovation culture. Working Papers in European
Industrial Policy, No. 1, EUNIP, cited in Cooke et al. ibid.
Tal, A. (2006). The environment in Israel. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew).
Talshir, G. (2002). The political ideology of green parties: From the politics of nature to redefining the nature
of politics. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Teva v’Aretz. (1971). A new power plant – Danger to the Taninim Stream. Teva v’Aretz, June-July, 192
(Hebrew).
Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. In S. Steinmo,
K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis
(pp. 1 – 32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Underal, A. (2008). Determining the causal significance of institutions: Accomplishments and challenges.
In O. Young, A. K. Leslie, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change (pp. 49 – 780).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Young, O. (2008). Institutions and environmental change: The scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC
research. In O. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change
(pp. 3 – 46). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Young, O., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H. (Eds.). (2008). Institutions and environmental change: Principal
findings, applications and research frontiers. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Young, O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and
resource regimes. Global Environmental Change, 20, 378– 385. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.001
Websites:.
www.hozeisrael.co.il
www.sviva.org.il
Israel Ministry of the Interior Archives: Protocols of the National Council of Planning and Building.
Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection Archives.
Appendix
Round table (9 May 2012) participants and interviewees cited in article

. Osnat Arnon, Environmental impacts and transportation specialist.
. Valerie Brachya, Director of the Environmental Policy Center at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel
Studies in June 2009. She retired from her previous position as Senior Deputy Director General for
Policy and Planning in the Ministry of Environmental Protection. During 35 years in government
service, Valerie Brachya was a founding member of the environmental protection service and a central
figure in establishing environment as an integral part of decision-making in Israel, particularly in the
land use planning system.
. Galit Hazan, project manager, Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.
. Rafi Lerman, architect and co-head of one of the leading architectural and planning offices in Israel.
. Uri Marinov, professor and consultant on environment and development, has been working in the
field of environmental management for the last 43 years both in Israel and abroad. He was the first
Director General of the Ministry of the Environment and before that the first Director of the
Environmental Protection Service in the Ministry of the Interior, former head of Environmental
Management at the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management of Haifa
University and is currently at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya in the School of
Sustainability.
. Nir Papai, Deputy Director General, Environment and Nature Preservation, Society for Protection of
Nature in Israel.
. Bat-Sheva Koptasch, former manager of the central districts of the Ministry of Tourism and the
Ministry of Environment.
. Moti Kaplan, head of Planners Ltd, one of Israel’s leading firms in strategic and spatial planning. The
firm specializes in formulating regional and national master plans in the areas of development
policies; agricultural planning policies; preservation and rehabilitation of natural resources and
biodiversity, forests and nature reserves, rivers and coastal planning, as well as tourism and the
environment.
. Dina Rachewsky, architect and former head of the Planning Administration, Ministry of the Interior.
. Yoav Sagi, former Director of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Chair of the Open
Landscape Institute, the Society for the Protection of Nature, member of the National Committee for
Planning and Building.
. Ephraim Schlein, National Infrastructure Committee, Ministry of the Interior.
. Avinoam Avnun, architect, Israel National Roads Company, 20 November 2011.

. Azaria Alon, former Secretary General, the Society for the Protection of Nature, 12 January 2009.
. Rachel Alterman, Professor at the Israel Institute of Technology, 18 November 2011.
. Yohanan Darom, Nature Protection Coordinator, Northern District, the Society for the Protection of
Nature, telephone interview, 4 January 2012.
. Yoav Sagi, as above, 14 November 2011.
. Ephraim Schlein, as above, telephone interview, 15 May 2012.
. Mickey Lipschitz, Society for the Protection of Nature, 8 December 2011.
. Valery Brachya, as above, 27 December 2011.
. Nir Papai, as above, 2 January 2012.
. Motti Kaplan, as above, 1 November 2011.
. Raffi Lerman, as above, 14 December 2011.
. Dina Rachewsky, as above, 1 December 2012.

Scale and Scope of Environmental Planning Transformations The Israeli Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scale and Scope of Environmental Planning Transformations The Israeli Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Theory & Practice

ISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20

Scale and scope of environmental planning

Deborah Shmueli, Eran Feitelson, Benny Furst & Iris Hann

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1054419

Published online: 25 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 589

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Scale and scope of environmental planning transformations: The Israeli case

*Corresponding author. Email: deborah@geo.haifa.ac.il

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

What do we know from the literature?

A conceptual model for analyzing environmental innovation

Figure 1. Scope of transformation. Source: author.

Figure 2. Scale of transformation impact. Source: author.

Figure 3. Conceptual model. Source: author.

Assimilation of environmental considerations into Israeli planning

Figure 4. Map – location of cases. Source: author.

Case studies of institutional transformation

The Tefen – Carmiel road (Route 854)

National Master Plan 31: building, development, and immigrant absorption

Trans-Israel Highway (Highway 6)

The Herzliya Marina

The scope of environmental transformations

The scale of environmental innovation impact

How did the transformations come about?

Round table (9 May 2012) participants and interviewees cited in article

. Avinoam Avnun, architect, Israel National Roads Company, 20 November 2011.

You might also like