I

Ben-Gurion University of the The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research The Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies

Cross-Cultural Perceptions of the Environment:

A Study of local residents in the Southern Arava Valley on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts”

By Hila Sagie

Under the Supervision of Dr. Yodan Rofè and Dr. Avigail Morris

Department of Man in Drylands

Author's Signature …… …… Date 6.6.2012

Approved by the Supervisor…………….…………….. Date 6.6.2012

Approved by the Supervisor…………….…………….. Date 6.6.2012

Approved by the Director of the School …………… Date ………….… II

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research The Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies

Cross-Cultural Perceptions of the Environment:

A Study of local residents in the Southern Arava Valley on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of "Master of Arts"

By: Hila Sagie

12.3.2012 III

Abstract

Cross-Cultural Perceptions of the Environment: A Study of local residents in the Southern Arava Valley on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border

By Hila Sagie

The thesis is in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts, Ben-Gurion University of the

Negev, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Albert Katz International School for Desert

Studies, 2012.

Increasing international attention is being directed to the conservation and management of ecosystems (Zube & Pitt 1981) and the need to better understand the dynamics of the relationship between humans and the ecosystems on which they rely

(Carpenter et al. 2008). Little is known, however, about the variability among cultures in the perceptions of the environment. This research studies cross-cultural perceptions of the environment in the hyper-arid Southern Arava Valley on both sides of the Israeli-Jordanian border. The Israeli side of the border is mainly settled by Kibbutzim (collective Zionist settlements) and the Jordanian side by pastoral Bedouin villages. In order to fulfill this goal the research employs the concept of ecosystem services (benefits humans derive from nature) which is one of the major links between the environment and society (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2005). It concentrates on cultural services of the ecosystem, and focuses on the concepts of place attachment and sense of place, as a key to the relationship between humans and their locale.

The research uses an anthropological approach which involved living among the populations under study while carrying out both passive and participant observations as well as in-depth interviews with the residents. The research studied the Southern Arava’s IV populations, their perceptions of the environment, the way it is used, how they relate to their environment, and their views on agriculture and development of the region. Important differences were found among groups in the perceptions of the environment. These differences may be explained both by the economic gap and the difference in prevalent ideologies and traditions; specifically, the Zionist- ideology and environmental ideology on the Israeli side and the Bedouin tradition on the Jordanian side.

The research contributes to the field of ecosystem services by assessing 1) awareness of ecosystem services and their importance to the general public and 2) the intangible values of cultural ecosystem services (aesthetic, recreation, spiritual etc.). It also shows that local residents from different cultures that live in a similar ecosystem, use and value ecosystem services differently. Moreover, the inquiry indicates that respondents from both sides of the border express a strong attachment and a rooted sense of place for the

Southern Arava environment. However, the expression of these emotional bonds and the sources of attachment (community/environment) varied between the two cultural groups.

Implications of the research findings are indicated for policy makers and ecosystem managers of the region.

V

Acknowledgments

First of all I would like to express my greatest gratitude for my supervisors Dr. Avigail Morris and Dr. Yodan Rofè for their guidance, dedication and support during my study and the time and effort spent on my thesis. Avigail, thank you for setting an inspirational example of a 'true anthropologist', leading me through the anthropological approach and methods and encouraging me to reach perfection. Yodan, thank you for helping me in organizing my thoughts and giving structure to my ideas. To Prof. Alon Tal, thank you for being my supervisor when my supervisors were on sabbatical. This work was partially supported through a scholarship made available through the framework of the LTSER (Long Term Socio-Ecological Research) site situated in the Southern Arava Valley. I owe my greatest thanks to the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies and the Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies (AKIS) for enabling me to take part in such an amazing program. Thank you Ms. Dorit Levin, Assistant to the Director in AKIS, for your kindheartedness and all the bureaucratic help. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Elli Groner, academic director of the Arava Institute. Thank you for proposing this research topic and introducing me to the field of ecosystem services. To Dr. Daniel Orenstein, I enjoyed our collaboration during the study and the writing of the paper. Thank you both for believing in me and pushing me forward in the academic world and specifically for inviting me to participate in conferences and propelling me to publish a paper. I am in gratitude to my Arab translators and fellow students from the Arava Institute without which this research could not have been carried out. Mais Bader, Bilal Obaidat and Diab Obaidat, thank you for agreeing to join me in the field, despite the risk or discomfort which may arise from being affiliated with an Israeli student in an Arab country. Thank you also for your patience and extended long hours spent in the field. To Waad Nasrallah, Sabreen Shaheen and Aya Yassin I appreciate your help in translating documents from Arabic to English and to Bara Wahbeh for your help in introducing me to the Jordanian culture and society. My gratitude also goes to Cameron Davidson who conducted research in the Jordanian villages of the Southern Arava and shared her knowledge with me. I would also like to thank Dr. Amani Al-Assaf from for sending me reports and information about the Jordanian villages. To all the Southern Arava residents whom I have interviewed, thank you for your time and kindness. I'm also grateful to the residents, who were my informants and introduced me to the ways of life in the Kibbutzim and villages of the Southern Arava and helped me to gather information. In particular, my deepest gratitude to Carol and Yoram Hoffman who were my 'adopting family' while I was living on Kibbutz Ketura and always made me feel at home. Finally and most importantly, thank you to my family and friends for your endless support and love during the entire research.

VI

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... III Acknowledgments ...... V Table of Contents ...... VI List of Figures ...... VIII List of Tables ...... VIII Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 1 1.1 - Framework of research ...... 2 1.2 - Importance of research ...... 3 1.3 - Aim of research ...... 4 1.4 - Review of the thesis ...... 5 Chapter 2 - Theoretical Background and Survey of the Literature ...... 7 2.1 - “Perception” and "perceptual relativism" ...... 7 2.2 - Interactions between culture and the environment ...... 7 2.3 - Ecosystem services ...... 9 2.4 - “Place attachment” and “sense of place” ...... 14 2.5 - Studies in the Southern Arava Valley ...... 15 Chapter 3 - Fieldwork and Methodology ...... 17 3.1 - Anthropological qualitative methods ...... 17 3.2 - Objectivity, reflexivity and bias ...... 21 Chapter 4 - Southern Arava Valley and Population ...... 25 4.1 - General description of the Southern Arava Valley ...... 25 4.1.1 Geology ...... 26 4.1.2 History ...... 27 4.1.3 -Jordan peace treaty ...... 28 4.1.4 Israeli-Jordanian co-agricultural-project in the Jordanian Arava Valley ...... 29 4.2 - Israeli Southern Arava Valley ...... 30 4.2.1 Kibbutz ...... 30 4.2.2 National support and ideological background ...... 31 4.2.3 Population, economy and public services ...... 33 4.3 - Description of the Kibbutzim under study ...... 35 4.3.1 Kibbutz ...... 35 VII

4.3.2 Kibbutz Ketura ...... 37 4.3.3 Kibbutz Samar ...... 39 4.4 - Jordanian Wadi Araba ...... 41 4.4.1 Bedouins and their sedentarization process in Jordan ...... 43 4.4.2 Organizations and national support ...... 45 4.4.3 Population, economy and public services ...... 47 4.5 Description of the Jordanian villages under study ...... 51 4.5.1 Rahma ...... 51 4.5.2 Al-Qatar ...... 53 Chapter 5 - Results ...... 57 5.1. - General perceptions of the environment ...... 57 5.1.1 Descriptions of the environment ...... 58 5.1.2 Perceptions on desired changes of the environment ...... 60 5.1.3 Most important aspects of the environment ...... 68 5.2 - Perceptions on ecosystem services ...... 73 5.2.1 Provisioning services ...... 76 5.2.2 Cultural services ...... 77 5.2.3 Ecosystem disservices ...... 79 5.3 - Perceptions of agriculture ...... 84 5.3.1 Importance of and residents' opinions on agriculture – Israel ...... 86 5.3.2 Importance of and residents' opinions on agriculture – Jordan ...... 93 5.4 - Arava residents' sense of place and place attachment ...... 98 5.5 - Perceptions of both sides of each other ...... 108 Chapter 6 - Discussion and Conclusions ...... 115 6.1 - Contributions to the scientific literature ...... 122 References ...... 125 Appendices ...... 138 Appendix 1 - Questionnaire with the local residents of the Southern Arava Valley ...... 138 Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Questionnaire ...... 139

VIII

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Link between ecosystem services and constituents of well-being ...... 10 Figure 2 - Panorama of the Southern Arava Valley ...... 25 Figure 3 - Geological map of the Southern Arava ...... 26 Figure 4 - Hevel ...... 30 Figure 5 - Yotvata's agricultural fields ...... 36 Figure 6 - Kibbutz Ketura...... 37 Figure 7 - Kibbutz Samar ...... 39 Figure 8 - Division of Jordan into governorates ...... 41 Figure 9 - Aqaba governorate's division to districts ...... 42 Figure 10 - Rahma ...... 51 Figure 11 - Al-Qatar ...... 53 Figure 12 - Descriptions of the environment ...... 58 Figure 13 - Perceptions on desired change - Israel ...... 61 Figure 14 - Perceptions on desired change - Jordan ...... 62 Figure 15 - Most important in the environment - Israel ...... 69 Figure 16 - Most important in the environment - Jordan ...... 70 Figure 17 - Most important in the environment divided into 3 categories ...... 72 Figure 18 - Distribution of opinions on agriculture - Israel ...... 91 Figure 19 - Distribution of opinions on agriculture - Jordan ...... 95 Figure 21 - Distribution among sense of place typologies - Jordan ...... 100 Figure 20 - Distribution among sense of place typologies - Israel ...... 100 Figure 22 - Kibbutz Ketura with Rahma in the background ...... 108

List of Tables

Table 1 - Summary of Ketura, Yotvata and Samar ...... 40 Table 2 - Summary of Hevel Eilot and Wadi Araba districts ...... 50 Table 3 - Summary of Rahma and Al-Qatar ...... 55 Table 4 - Southern Arava residents’ perceptions of the ecosystem services in their environment . 74 Table 5 - Willingness to move, where to and attachment to environment versus community/people ...... 104

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

This research studies local people's perceptions of the environment, and how these perceptions vary among two different cultures residing in the same natural environment.

The research was carried out in the Southern Arava Valley, an extreme desert environment with an average annual rainfall of 25 mm. The valley is divided by a political border between two different states: Israel and Jordan, which differ greatly in ethnicity, religion and level of economic development. The Israeli side of the border is mainly settled by

Kibbutzim (collective Zionist settlements) and the Jordanian side by pastoral Bedouin villages. While there exist some similarities in the ways the environment is perceived by the two populations there are also significant differences. These differences are explained by two main underlying forces: economy and culture. Three aspects of culture were especially significant: ideology, tradition and origin (native/non-native to the desert environment).

Research on 'Perceptions of the Environment' was first proposed by UNESCO

(United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization) in the Man and the

Biosphere program. This program is an integrated approach with the purpose of studying human interaction with the environment for ecosystem conservation and national use of natural resources. In the program, it was argued “that in trying to understand man/biosphere inter-relations, we deal not only with a "real" world that is the same objective reality for all observers, but with a subjectively perceived environment”

(UNESCO, 1973:5). Therefore, it was decided to initiate "project 13" for studying perceptions of the environment. This project led to the understanding that by expanding our knowledge of cross-cultural perceptions of the environment, our ability to efficiently 2 manage the natural resources of the biosphere would increase (Zube & Pitt 1980). One of the priority research themes that was suggested for possible development within the program was: "perception of the environment in isolated or peripheral ecological areas".

The aim was to understand people’s adaptations to existing conditions in peripheral regions and their capacity to adjust to environmental changes brought about by economic development. The Arava Valley, where the research is carried out, is such an area: it is a peripheral region in both Israel and Jordan, which is undergoing economic development.

Cross-cultural perceptions of the environment include how people of different cultures and nations understand and value the same landscape (Zube & Pitt 1980); use the environment in their daily lives as a means of livelihood, for recreation and for aesthetic pleasure; and relate to and feel towards the environment (Rapoport 1980; Stephenson

2008). The current research employs these ideas in order to examine cross-cultural perceptions of the environment in the Southern Arava Valley.

1.1 - Framework of research

This research is a part of the International Long Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network. ILTER consists of networks of scientists engaged in long-term, site-based ecological and socio-economic research. Its goal is to improve understanding of global ecosystems and to provide solutions to current and future environmental problems (ILTER website). Recently, it was decided to incorporate social science research into the LTER platform and transform it into LTSER (Long Term Socio-Ecological Research). LTSER focuses on complex socio-ecological systems that emerge through the continuous interaction of human societies with ecosystems (Redman et al. 2004) with the goal of increased involvement of local populations towards sustainability (Haberl et al. 2006). 3

Israel is part of the LTSER network and the research was carried out in one of its monitoring sites in the Southern Arava Valley. Although Jordan is still in the process of seeking membership, Israel and Jordan are already cooperating on various projects involving their shared ecosystems.

1.2 - Importance of research

Often, development projects are conducted with little or no consideration for, or involvement of, local residents living in the area. The Arava Valley is largely used for military purposes and intensive agriculture (especially date farming) and attracts new entrepreneurs in tourism, alternative energy, mining etc. By knowing how the residents feel about their environment, future projects can be adjusted to the needs and perceptions of the local population (Zube & Pitt 1980).

A cross-cultural study in this field is important because management practices developed in one culture may not be suitable in another, particularly if the experiential, educational and occupational differences between cultures are great. Israel and Jordan may share a common natural environment, but due to different cultural outlooks, may perceive this environment in different ways (Lipchin et al 2005). While there are many examples of culture-environment bonds in ethnographic literature, there are few cross-cultural or comparative analyses of such topics (Altman et. al 1980). Cross-cultural studies of attitudes towards the environment were exceptionally rare up until the 80's (Zube & Pitt 1980) and as far as I have been able to ascertain, are still rare today. Therefore, in addition to enlarging the existing literature on the subject, it is hoped that this research will enhance the efficacy of formulating and applying nature conservation policies and of implementing development plans in the region, by considering the perceptions of the local residents. 4

1.3 - Aim of research

The aim of this study is to explore how differences in livelihood, culture and socioeconomic capacity influence perceptions and attitudes toward the environment. More specifically, how differences between Israelis and Jordanians affect their perceptions, relation to and use of the environment. As part of exploring these perceptions, I focus on two concepts: ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘sense of place’. I assess how the Arava’s residents define, use and value the ecosystem services that they receive from their environment. I explore their relation to the environment through their attachment to the local environment and their sense of place. In addition, I explore the perceptions of residents, from each side of the border, for the purpose of assessing the possibility of future cooperation between the two sides. In order to fulfill these goals I ask the following questions:

 How do Israelis and Jordanians perceive the Southern Arava environment that they

share?

 What are the similarities and differences between the perceptions, relation to and

use of the environment between both groups under study and how can they be

explained?

 Can the perceptions which are shared serve as a common ground for cooperation on

environmental conservation issues?

5

1.4 - Review of the thesis

The thesis is compiled of six chapters. The first chapter introduced the background of research on cross-cultural perceptions of the environment which was proposed by

UNESCO in 1973; the framework of the research - LTSER network; and the importance and aim of the research. Chapter two describes the theoretical perspectives and concepts that support this study which are: theories of perception, interaction between culture and the environment, cross-cultural perceptions of the environment and the concepts: ecosystem services, place attachment and sense of place. In addition, a short survey of the studies done in the Southern Arava Valley is described.

Chapter three includes the methodology used in this research, the way it was analyzed and the biases and challenges stemming from the research. The chapter also includes a discussion of the complexity of conducting cross-cultural anthropological research, in particular where political, language and gender issues are apparent.

Chapter four introduces the natural aspects of the Southern Arava Valley environment as well as the social settings of the populations residing in this environment. It describes the specific characteristics of the populations on each side of the Israeli-Jordanian border including an explanation of the particular features of each of the five settlements chosen for this study (two on the Jordanian side and three on the Israeli side).

Chapter five portrays the findings of the fieldwork regarding the perceptions of the environment of the Southern Arava residents as well as their perceptions of each other. The chapter is divided into five sections: the Arava residents' descriptions of the environment and the valued and less valued aspects of their environment (5.1), use of the environment and perceptions on ecosystem services (5.2), views on agriculture (5.3), relation to the 6 environment and sense of place & place attachment (5.4) and lastly, perceptions of both sides of each other (5.4).

Chapter six summarizes and discusses the differences in perceptions, use and relation to the environment of the two groups under study as well as the perceptions on agriculture and development according to these explaining variables: economic gap, origin (native/non native to the desert), ideology (including Zionist Kibbutz ideology and environmental ideology) and Bedouin tradition. It points out a complex picture of perceptions which policy makers of the region are encouraged to take into account in their work on ecosystem management and development of the region. Lastly, the contributions of the research to the literature pool of cross-cultural analysis of environment-behavior relationships, ecosystem services, sense of place and place attachment are described. 7

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Background and Survey of the Literature

Several theoretical perspectives and concepts underpin this study. These include theories of perception, the interaction between culture and the environment, and studies of cross-cultural perceptions of the environment. Important concepts include “ecosystem services”, “place attachment” and “sense of place”. In addition, this chapter describes research that has been done in the Southern Arava Valley and that is relevant to this study.

2.1 - “Perception” and "perceptual relativism"

In order to explore cross-cultural perceptions of the environment it is important to first understand how the term "perception" is understood in the related literature.

“Perception” is defined as an organism's own explanatory movement through the world which is influenced by its surroundings and society (Gibson 1986). The first part of the definition - explanatory movement through the world - can be understood as the descriptions, valued aspects, feelings and uses people have for their environment. The second part of the definition – influenced by its surroundings and its society - relates to a concept practiced in anthropological thinking of "perceptual relativism". According to this concept, people of different cultural backgrounds perceive reality in different ways since they process the same data of experience in terms of alternative frameworks of belief or representational schemata (Ingold 2000). Therefore, different interpretations of the same environment are likely to be present between different cultures.

2.2 - Interactions between culture and the environment

One of the theories regarding the links between culture and the environment

(Marten 2001; Hull & Revell 1989; Ingold 2000; Nassauer 1995) is articulated by Joan 8

Iverson Nassauer, who is a researcher in the fields of landscape architecture and landscape perceptions. She suggests four principles regarding culture and landscapes: 1) Human landscape perception, cognition and values directly affect the landscape and are in turn affected by it. 2) Cultural conventions powerfully influence landscape patterns in both inhabited and apparently natural landscapes. 3) Cultural concepts of nature are different from scientific concepts of ecological function. 4) The appearance of landscapes communicates cultural values (Nassauer 1995). According to her theory, cultures have a large impact on their environments and what appears to be the "same" natural environment will be perceived very differently by people of different cultures. She also suggests that there would be some similarities between perceptions and values of people from different cultures that reside in the same natural environment because human perception is not only influenced by culture but is influenced by the environment as well.

Further, Hull and Revell (1989) have summarized the theories that explain the possibility of similar perceptions and of different perceptions, among people of diverse cultural backgrounds:

 People from different cultures value the environment similarly: all humans have

and use similar information-processing mechanisms. Thus similarities in

information-processing capabilities lead to similarities in the use and interpretation

of the environment (Kaplan 1973). Another theory suggests that there is an agreed

upon scenic standard and there are inherited mechanisms which are responsible for

these similarities. For example, the inherited mechanism of 'survival' may lead to an

agreed upon preference for verdant environments as they are more productive and

easier for survival in supplying food and building material. This idea suggests that 9

some perceptions of the environment will be agreed upon, regardless of cultural

affiliation.

 People from different cultures relate to the environment differently: aesthetic

criteria and landscape values are socially and culturally learned. People tend to use

their past experience to evaluate environments (Ingold 2000). For example, in a

research on cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluation in Bali

it was found that the beauty of a landscape was much more valued by the residents

who assigned meaning to certain features of the landscape than the ones who were

ignorant to these meanings. This implies that landscape perceptions are culturally

learned (Hull & Revell 1989).

The current research sheds a light on the debate as to whether perceptions of different populations residing in the same environment will be more similar or different. It also explains the reasons and the ways in which perceptions of the environment are similar/different in the Southern Arava Valley.

2.3 - Ecosystem services

One of the major links between the environment and society is through the emerging concept of ecosystem services. This concept is becoming a dominant theme in sustainable natural resource management and land use policy. The Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment suggests viewing ecosystems through the lens of the services that they provide to society, how these services benefit humanity, and how human actions alter ecosystems and the services they provide (Carpenter et al. 2008). The political importance of studying ecosystem services is described by Haines-young et al. (2008): “By making the link to human well-being, the initiative demonstrated forcefully that arguments about the protection of species and ecosystems are not merely about conservation of biodiversity. It 10 showed that they can also be made in terms of the role of ecological systems in sustaining people’s livelihoods and quality of life” (Haines-young et. al 2008:29).

Ecosystem services are benefits derived from nature that have either a utilitarian

(monetary) or non-utilitarian (aesthetic, spiritual) value to humans. It is intended to provide a holistic assessment of the benefits humans derive from ecosystems (Gee & Burkhard

2010). Natural and semi-natural ecosystems provide goods and services with ecological and socio-economic value (de Groot et. al 2002). Scientists have classified the services into four types: Supporting services, provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Figure 1 below explains the four types of ecosystem services and their connections to constituents of well-being as was presented by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Figure 1 - Link between ecosystem services and constituents of well-being

11

Despite numerous calls to integrate diverse disciplinary approaches towards the assessment of ecosystem services (Haberl et al. 2006, Burkhard, 2008, Daily et al, 2009,

O’Farrell et al. 2011, Collins et al. 2011) the overwhelming amount of research on ecosystem services has been conducted by ecologists and economists (Ohl et al. 2007).

For understanding the links between humans and ecosystem services, research methods from the fields of sociology and anthropology are needed. Swinton et al. (2007) assert that understanding how humans perceive and value ecosystem services is fundamental to ecosystem management as much as understanding how ecological functions generate these services. De Groot et al. (2002) add that the analysis of ecosystem functions and services involves different scales that don’t necessarily correspond; the physical scale of the ecosystem function itself and the scale at which humans value the goods and services

(de Groot et. al 2002). Carpenter et al. (2008) highlight the lack in basic information on the dynamics of social-ecological systems and the relationship between ecosystem services, and incremental changes in them, to human well being. To address these gaps in the study of ecosystem services in the Arava Valley, this study applies an anthropological approach to assess how local people perceive ecosystem services and how these services are linked to their well being.

In desert ecosystems, the services, in particular the provisional services are much less prominent as the biomass is much smaller than in other ecosystems. Drylands are characterized by scarcity of water, which constrains their two major interlinked services— primary production and nutrient cycling. This potential water deficit affects both natural and managed ecosystems, which constrains the production of crops, forage, and other plants and has great impacts on livestock and humans (Safriel et al. 2005). Naidoo et al

(2008) divide the regions of the world according to their level of importance of bio- 12 diversity and ecosystem services. Where tropical regions have a high importance for ecosystem services and biodiversity, desert regions have low priority for both. It is argued that although desert regions may be relatively poor in provisioning ecosystem services, they may be rich in cultural services, as illustrated in this research.

Although frequently referred to in the literature, the concept of cultural ecosystem services has so far been limited in its application (Gee & Burkhard 2010). Tourism, spiritual, religious, recreational, and educational services tend to be assessed only at a fine scale in small local studies, typically because the data required for these assessments is not available at a broad scale and because of the culture-specific, intangible, and sometimes sensitive nature of these services. Gee & Burkhard (2010) find that while provisioning services such as water, medicinal plants, wood for fuel, and food are very important, services which provide both spiritual and mental wellbeing in the local landscape also have a very specific and important value to local people across all the assessments. The cultural services provided by the ecosystem of the Arava, which include both tangible and intangible services, are elaborately depicted in this research.

Studies on examining how people value biodiversity and ecosystem services have only limited application in developing countries (Van Beukering, 2007; Christie et al.

2008). Often, people from the poorest nations, lacking access to technology and markets, have the greatest immediate dependency on ecosystem services. Thus, gaining a better understanding of the role ecosystem services play in these people’s lives is fundamental for securing their livelihoods and wellbeing (Christie et al. 2008). Findings show that the way people in developing countries think about the natural environment is different from those living in developed countries; people in developing countries tend to have much closer ties to their natural environment and much of their knowledge is experiential, as opposed to 13 scientific. For example, it may be extremely difficult for people from developing countries to express the economic value of natural resources (Christie et al. 2008; Fazey et al. 2007).

The Arava Valley provides a unique setting in which it is possible to examine the differences in perceptions of ecosystem services among communities who are very different in their level of economic development. Findings of this research support the above statements and show that the Jordanian Bedouins, a population undergoing a process of development, have a much greater immediate dependency on the ecosystem services

(especially the provisioning services) for their basic livelihood, than the Israeli Kibbutz residents.

Scientists, resource managers and policy makers have already begun to integrate ecosystem service protection into their work. What is still missing is an understanding of how the residents and stakeholders perceive the services they receive from their ecosystem.

Without such stakeholder participation and consultation, decision makers cannot prioritize management decisions towards the needs of the public (Orenstein 2010; Jeffrey 2000;

Lipchin et al. 2005). Very few studies to date have assessed ecosystem services using a sociological/anthropological approach (see Sodhi et al. 2010, Gee and Burkhard 2010,

Vejre et al. 2010). The potential advantages and relative strengths of using such an approach to assess ecosystem services include (Christie et al 2008): understanding the importance of ecosystem services for the local people, assessing them in developing countries where scientific knowledge is missing, assessing spiritual and cultural meanings and values, gaining perspectives of marginal groups and making the findings accessible for policy makers. In addition, Christie et al explain the advantages of using qualitative methods for the assessment of ecosystem services: “Qualitative approaches (such as in- depth interviews) provide opportunities for the researcher to probe more deeply into 14 people’s preferences... Further, the insights gained from qualitative research may provide important supplementary information that might be useful to help understand the reasons underlying people’s values" (Christie et al. 2008:15-16). These advantages and relative strengths receive further support in this research.

2.4 - “Place attachment” and “sense of place”

One approach to studying landscape values and perceptions is through the framework of "place attachment" and "sense of place" (Brown & Raymond 2007). "Place attachment" is the symbolic relationship formed by people giving culturally shared emotional meanings to a particular space or piece of land that provides the basis for the individual's and group's understanding of and relation to the environment (Low 1992).

"Sense of place" is defined as people's subjective perceptions of their environment and their conscious feelings about those environments (Steele 1981). "Sense of place" is dual in nature: involving both an interpretive perspective of the environment and an emotional reaction to the environment (Hummon 1992). These concepts are also included in ecosystem service assessments as they are regarded as significant cultural ecosystem services.

Our perceptions always involve sentiment, value and other personal meanings

(Tuan 1980). The way we exist in the world is described by Heidegger (1993) as dwelling – the way we make the world meaningful, or place-like. The focus on place, attends to how we, as humans, are in-the-world – how we relate to our environment and make it into place

(Cresswell 2009). These concepts study place related meanings and the ways in which these meanings can be applied to ecosystem management (Williams & Patterson 1996). Studies have shown that the various levels of attachment, and strength of sense of place that people 15 have for their environments, impact the way they think of and act within their environment

(Kaltenborn 1999, Brown & Raymond 2007). Therefore, “place attachment” and “sense of place” are essential in explaining differences and similarities in perceptions among people from different cultures. Not many researchers have explored sense of place through cross- cultural fieldwork, particularly regarding differences between modern and indigenous population’s sense of place (see Hay 1998). This research studies and compares the sense of place of the Jordanian Bedouins, indigenous to the desert, and of the Israeli Kibbutz residents, a modern population non-indigenous to the desert.

2.5 - Studies in the Southern Arava Valley

No research has yet been done on perceptions of the environment in the Arava

Valley, but there are a few studies with cross-cultural implications that focus on various aspects of the environment. For example, an ecological study of the diversity of reptiles on both sides of the Arava border concluded that the cultural differences between societies, and their different land use practices, have impacted the diversity and community structure of reptiles in the Arava. Therefore, cultural differences should be considered when conservation plans are developed for cross-border ecosystems (Shanas et. al 2006). This also implies that the ecology of the environment is, to a certain extent, different on each side of the border; which, again, may influence the residents' perceptions of this environment.

The following studies discuss collaborations between different societies in the

Arava Valley. Lipchin & Kronic (2009) conducted a specialized study on the social impact of the proposed Dead Sea Water Conveyance Scheme passing through the Arava.

The study included information about the societies living along the proposed canal

(including the ones studied in this research). They conclude that the Scheme should have a 16 strong social corporate responsibility unit with presence in each of the three beneficiary party areas (Israel, Jordan and the West Bank) as each of these societies greatly differ from the other and may be affected differently. This point strengthens the need for cross-cultural research in such an environment. Two studies investigated the collaboration between Israel and Jordan on an agriculture project that had taken place in the Jordanian Southern Arava

(Heidtmann 2001, Feuer 2006). These studies contain useful information about the agriculture on both sides of the border (which is an important factor in the Arava residents' use of the environment) and general information about the Jordanian villages (which is very hard to find elsewhere) (see chapter 4 and section 5.3).

The theories and literature reviewed have shown the need for cross-cultural research in the fields of perceptions of the environment, ecosystem services and sense of place. It also points to the specific gaps in each of these fields that the current research may shed light on. For example: the debate of similarities and differences among different cultures in perceptions, the links between human well-being and ecosystem services, the intangible values of cultural services, assessment of ecosystem services in third world countries and differences between modern and indigenous populations' sense of place.

17

Chapter 3 - Fieldwork and Methodology

3.1 - Anthropological qualitative methods

The literature review points to the use of qualitative anthropological methods for assessing cross-cultural perceptions of the environment, in particular in the Southern

Arava Valley where cultural differences are great. An ethnographic approach was used to conduct the research. An ethnographic approach is defined as a systematic way of studying cultural behavior with the aim of understanding the values, beliefs, ideologies, traditions and world views. This approach can be useful in determining ones interaction with the environment. Ethnography involves living among the populations under study while carrying out both passive and participant observations as well as interviews with the residents (McCurdy et al. 2005). During the research I spent a year living on Kibbutz

Ketura in the Southern Arava Valley, while often visiting the other two Kibbutzim under study; Samar and Yotvata. In addition, I conducted several visits, including over-night visits, to the Jordanian villages.

This research involved two types of observations: 1. General observations which involved documenting the natural environment (soil, vegetation etc.), the man made environment (buildings, fields etc.) and the way these environments are used by the residents. 2. Participant observation which included participating in social activities or events and in the work day of some of the communities under study.

Data was gathered by conducting semi-structured open-ended interviews. These interviews were based on a set of open questions which allowed the conversation to flow beyond the set of questions asked. Hummon explains the importance of using the 18 anthropological methods of in-depth interviews, in this type of research: “…depth interviews enable people to convey their perspectives with spontaneity, detail and complexity. Most importantly this enables adherents of different ideologies to "speak for themselves" using the cultural imagery and vocabulary of their perspective" (Hummon

1990: 41).

The questions chosen for the interviews expanded on previous research (McCurdy et al. 2005, Hummon 1992, Christie et al. 2008). Two were descriptive questions about the environment and experiences in it. Using such questions is an ethnographical method for understanding culture; as they encourage the respondents to speak about their cultural worlds and in the process to use folk terms (McCurdy et al. 2005). Folk terms stand for cultural categories. Understanding how the folk terms are organized and what they mean helps to understand culture. For example “Mansaf”, a Jordanian-Bedouin traditional dish, is a folk term that symbolizes the Bedouins’ importance of living in a rural environment where they can raise their meat and cook it on an open fire for several hours and then serve it to their guests. Through this folk term much can be learned about the Bedouin's culture and relation to the environment.

The rest of the questions covered: valued and disturbing aspects of the environment, services that residents get from their environment, perceptions on agriculture, residents’ relation and attachment to their environment and perceptions of Jordanians on Israelis and vice versa (see appendix 1).

A pilot study was conducted in order to test whether the questions chosen for the open-ended interviews were understood in both cultures and whether they provided the information necessary for the research. In addition, I aimed to discover the main focal 19 points within the broad concept of environment. A sample of eight Arava residents from each side of the border, half male, half female, were interviewed. The pilot study showed that the questions were understood and that agriculture was a repeated theme, therefore questions regarding agriculture were added to the questionnaire.

Following the pilot study, sixty-four in-depth interviews took place involving residents on both sides of the border. On each side 32 people were interviewed. In Jordan -

22 from Rahma and 10 from Qatar; in Israel - 10 from Samar, 11 from Ketura and 11 from

Yotvata. There was a fairly equal distribution among males and females as well as among age groups. Two main groups emerged – “young” between 16-35 who spent all their life or most of it in the Arava and “adults” between 40-65 who spent at least 15 years in the

Arava. The interviewees were selected randomly within the gender and age groups mentioned above. I walked around the Kibbutz or Bedouin villages and asked to interview whoever stumbled upon my path. At times I asked the people who I already interviewed to recommend me or take me to someone they knew will be willing to be interviewed. Follow up interviews were conducted when necessary for the purpose of clarifying and broadening the understanding of specific themes that rose during the research.

During the course of research it was realized that the residents’ experience with their environment, must be located within the historical, social, ideological, political, cultural and gender related framework or context in which it is embedded. For that purpose, documents, reports and social artifacts about the communities and populations under study were collected. This information is presented in chapter four. In addition, ten stakeholder interviews were conducted with key leaders within the region (appendix 2).

These interviews provided insight as to how these leaders perceive the value of ecosystem services and how they see the reality and future of the Arava’s environment in terms of 20 development. These interviews were conducted as part of a study held in the Arava on

“valuing stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services” with Dr. Daniel Orenstein.

The interviews and observations were analyzed qualitatively according to Strauss &

Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory analysis framework. This approach is inductive and encourages generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research. Key- points from the gathered data were coded to categories and sub categories; first by "open coding" – to general concepts and categories and then for the properties and dimensions of each concept. Properties of a concept are the characteristics, while the dimensions are the level at which each characteristic is apparent. For example analyzing the concept - 'greener environment' the properties could be: more local plants, agriculture fields, gardens near the homes, ornamental plants within the community etc. The dimensions will be the levels of greening the environment along these properties. The categories and concepts were tabulated into graphs according to the different subjects in the questionnaire, comparing their frequency on each side of the border. The third and final step is called "selective coding" in which the core categories are identified and related to the other categories.

The residents' perceptions of ecosystem services were analyzed according to the four types of ecosystem services and their sub-categories in the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MEA 2005) described above. Analysis of the residents’ "sense of place" was done by using Hummon’s typology of five different senses of place that try to capture people’s diverse emotional experiences with locales (Hummon 1992). This typology is described in detail in section 5.4. 21

3.2 - Objectivity, reflexivity and bias

The idea of a truly objective inquiry has long been understood to be a delusion; however, striving for objectivity is important. Bernard (2011:pg. 278) in his book on qualitative research says: “…no human being can be completely objective. We can’t rid ourselves from our experiences... We can however, become aware of our experiences, opinions, our values…” In the course of the research I tried as much as possible to be conscious of potential biases.

In this section I discuss the possible impact of aspects of my identity on the research. Being a female, from Israel, originally from (a big city in the center of

Israel as opposed to the periphery), and an M.A. student for environmental studies, at the

Arava Institute affected my interaction with respondents as well as the analysis of the data.

In general, as a stranger arriving to the Bedouin society, which is extremely hospitable, I was always very welcomed and given tea and even food. My Israeli identity wasn’t always revealed; if I wasn’t asked where I was from I chose not to volunteer this information, as I knew it might have an effect on the respondents. Although Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994, the relations between the two countries remain relatively cold, especially since the second Palestinian uprising in the year 2000 (see sub-section 4.1.3). Some of the

Jordanians who participated in the study mentioned fear from the Israeli army and authorities. There were a few residents who did not want to be interviewed as they heard I was from Israel, but usually it was not a problem. Some even thought that it was interesting that I had come from the other side of the border and asked me questions about the life there (see section 5.5). 22

Difficulties which can arise from being a female researcher in a male-dominated setting, such as in the Bedouin society were thoroughly discussed by Gurney (1985). She described a situation where the males consider the women as inferior and sexist remarks, sexist behavior and sexual hustling may occur. From my experience with Jordanian

Bedouins, I found that being a female was more useful than disturbing. The fact that I was a female made it possible for me to interview both males and females easily, as opposed to a male interviewer who would not be able to interview females, unless male members from their family were in the room and at times not even then. This was noticed when I came with a male translator as opposed to a female and interviewing women was almost impossible. Luckily, I found a woman in the village that spoke English and agreed to act as my translator. There were also some disadvantages to being a woman. An example of a disturbing remark that I received was by an adult male respondent who shared with me his desire to marry a younger wife, implying the possibility of he and I getting married.

My appearance as an “educated-modern-woman" sometimes made my informants think that I had come to the village as part of “foreign aid”, or some non-governmental organization. This prompted some of the interviewees to ask me for help in their daily problems and needs for improvement in the village. Another difficulty that I had in interviewing on the Jordanian side was my dependency on translators. As I hardly speak

Arabic, every time I went to interview on the Jordanian side, a Jordanian student from the

Arava Institute accompanied me for translation. The translators tried their best to be professional as they could in their translations. However, having to pass the interview through translation made it less flexible, as well as less accurate.

The language barrier was also noticed while translating the word "environment" into Arabic. As environment was mentioned in most of the questions of the research it was 23 important for me to use the right word in Arabic. My Arab colleagues told me that the direct translation is "bia" but they said it was a rarely used word, and told me to use "tabia", which means nature. This was problematic as “environment” includes more than just the

“natural environment” and I wanted to allow for an emic description of what the respondents’ felt was their environment. Therefore, in the interviews, we started by using the word 'bia' and only if it wasn't understood used 'tabia' or other words that mean

'surrounding'.

On the Israeli side, I felt as though the fact that the interviewees knew I was studying environmental studies might have affected their answers. Many of the respondents thought I had come to ask them about "environmentalism" or about being "green".

Occasionally they spoke to me about their environmental habits such as recycling, or about the environmental conflicts in the area (which was not always relevant). Some of those even thought that they are not ‘green’ enough to qualify for an interview. One woman from

Yotvata said:

“No, no, no, I am not ‘green’; I'm not good with the environment. You should talk to my husband, he loves the desert”.

Often people tried to propel me to interview other people who are considered more

“environmental”, and I had to explain that my goal was to get a wide range of views as opposed to only environmental ones.

The difficulties mentioned above are examples of the complexity of conducting anthropological research, in particular a cross-cultural one where political, language and gender issues are apparent. In order to overcome these difficulties, I attempted to remove the 'glasses' of a female-Israeli-environmental studies student and go to the field "tabula 24 rasa". I also tried to learn as much as I could of the Bedouin culture and Jordan and about

Kibbutzim in the Arava.

25

Chapter 4 - Southern Arava Valley and Population

This chapter introduces the natural aspects of the Southern Arava Valley environment as well as the social settings of the populations residing in this environment. It provides the background for understanding the residents’ perceptions, use and relation to the environment. The chapter begins with a general description of the Southern Arava in terms of the natural environment (geology, fauna and flora), history and political border. It continues with a description of the specific characteristics of the populations on each side of the Israeli-Jordanian border including: the regional council/district of the settlements, their relation to the state, their economies, lifestyles and ideologies that influence their behaviors and perceptions. Lastly, each of the five settlements chosen for this study (two on the Jordanian side and three on the Israeli side) is portrayed for its specific features.

4.1 - General description of the Southern Arava Valley

Figure 2 - Panorama of the Southern Arava Valley

The Arava valley is a small part of the Great Rift Depression which is approximately 6,000 km long, running from northern Syria in southwest Asia to central

Mozambique in East Africa. The upward movement of the Arabian plate about 105 km northwards, caused the formation of a deep valley and dramatic changes in the geology, climatology and biotic evolution of this region. The particular conditions of this geomorphologic formation created a corridor for flora, fauna and human migration from

Africa northwards. The Arava Valley is a hyper-arid region with an average annual rainfall 26 of 25 mm. In the summer the temperature can reach 47 degree C and in the coldest month of the winter it varies around 13-16 C (Hevel Eilot website).

It consists of two major sub-basins: the Dead Sea and the Red Sea. The divide between the two lies about 15 kilometers north of the Jordanian Bedouin camp site

Gharandal (or the Israeli Kibbutz ), and has an elevation of about 280 meters above sea level (Shanas et. al 2006). The region has a hyper-salinity gradient starting from the highest level in the Dead Sea which creates one of the most extreme habitats, with very sparse microorganism diversity. Plant cover is sparse and limited by low rainfall, elevated temperature and high soil salinity. The most common plants inhabiting this extreme environment are the Acacia species, which are the most drought-resistant trees (Pen-

Mouratov et al. 2010). The Arava is a habitat for gazelles, ibexes, foxes, caracals, rock hyrax, jerboas, wolves, spiny tailed lizards and desert porcupines (Hevel Eilot website).

Figure 3 - Geological map of the Southern Arava

4.1.1 Geology

Different types of land formations exist in the Southern Arava Valley; rocks, sand dunes, alluvial fans and salt flats. Rocks cover the Arava region such as – Magmatic rocks, metamorphic rocks and land and marine sedimentary rocks. The sand dunes are formed by the northern winds and the south-western sand storms and are situated near the

Israeli settlements - , Samar and Elifaz as well as the Jordanian settlements - Al-Qatar and Rahma. Salt-rich soil is being created on top of the alluvial fans desert. This land, as well as the fine grain land is used as a platform for the agricultural crops in the Arava. The 27 salt-flat region, also referred to as the Yotvata salt flat, is located 30 km north of the Gulf of

Eilat/Aqaba near the sand dunes. It is a leveled, salty, plant-free plain (Hevel Eilot website).

4.1.2 History

Beginning in the Chalcolithic era (approximately 6,000 years ago) and especially in the Late Bronze Age, copper was mined from the Arava valley, primarily in underground tunnels. In Biblical times the Arava valley was a center of copper production; King

Solomon apparently had mines there. In the exposed white sandstone in the Timna Valley, concentrations of copper can be found. In the first millennia B.C. the Arava was usually regarded as the border between the kingdoms of Judah and . The Iron Age kingdom of the Edomites (Edom was called "Idumea" in Roman times) was named after the Edom mountain range on the east side of the Valley. East of the Arava was the domain of the Nabateans, the builders of the city of Petra (Bienkowski 2001). Despite its overall barrenness, the Arava Valley has a number of springs and areas with dense vegetation.

Recent research shows that in most periods Southern Jordan and the Negev were part of the same socio-economic system, implying that the Arava was a bridge between them. Several trade routes are known, and ethnographic sources indicate that Bedouin groups from

Southern Jordan regularly crossed the Arava Valley in order to reach the Negev and beyond

(Wadi Araba project website).

28

4.1.3 Israel-Jordan peace treaty

The Arava Valley today is separated by a border between Israel and Jordan. The boundary was first created during the Ottoman period, in 1906 and was called the

“administrative separation line”. It established Trans-Jordan east of the Arava Valley and

Palestine to the west. In 1922, the British established the boundary between Trans-Jordan and the area nominated to become the Jewish homeland (Palestine) along the same line

(Biger 2008). After the 1948 war, this line became the armistice line between Jordan and

Israel. On October 26, 1994 the Israel–Jordan Peace Treaty was signed in the Arava. The ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Rabin, King Hussein, and President Clinton creating optimism for better relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, the Oslo peace process 1 ended in failure and this had a major impact on the relations between Israel and Jordan. After the eruption of the second Intifada2, Jordan recalled its ambassador for several years and relations remain strained. Nevertheless, the leaders of both countries have continued to maintain and even advance the peace and peace building practices between the sides (Maoz et al. 2009). The governments of Jordan and Israel are promoting the development of the region. There is a plan to bring sea water from the Red

Sea to the Dead Sea through a canal (Red–Dead Sea Canal), which flows along the Arava.

It was recently agreed that the project will be constructed on the Jordanian side (Red Sea-

Dead Sea Water Conveyance Study 2010).

1 Oslo accords were an attempt to solve the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was the first face-to-face agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). It was conducted secretly in Oslo, Norway in August, 1993. 2 The Second Intifada, referred to by the Palestinians as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada," is the second Palestinian uprising, a period of intensified Palestinian-Israeli violence that started in September, 2000. 29

4.1.4 Israeli-Jordanian co-agricultural-project in the Jordanian Arava Valley

In 1997, the Southern Arava Research and Development center was approached by

King Hussein of Jordan for advice on how to develop agriculture in the Jordanian part of the Southern Arava. It was decided to embark upon a mutual project in an area around 50

Km from Aqaba between Kibbutz Yotvata on the Israeli side and Rahma village on the

Jordanian side. The project received financial support from the Jordan Valley Authority and mainly from Al-Haq Farms, the private investor responsible for carrying out the project

(Heidtmann 2001). The target of the project was to introduce modern and efficient agricultural production technology to the Jordanian part of the valley in order to raise the living standards of the Bedouin settled in this region by providing them with employment opportunities. As part of the agricultural cooperation, the first three-month training for the

Bedouins from Rahma and the agronomists from Amman took place in Yotvata. The training was followed by successful cultivation of melons, tomatoes, onions, grapes, lemons and date palms (Fueur 2006). While the project was considered a success in agricultural terms, unfortunately, it did not meet its goals for social integration. According to my data, approximately ten men and thirty women are directly employed as a result of the program and only rarely have they advanced to managerial jobs. Most of the workforce employed in the project is not local, but include Jordanians of various professions from

Amman, Israeli experts and Egyptian laborers (Fueur 2006). This project has encouraged additional cooperation projects in the Southern Arava region (described in section 5.5).

30

4.2 - Israeli Southern Arava Valley

Israel is divided into three types of local government entities: regional councils, local councils and cities. The southern half of the Arava Valley, reaching about 100 kilometers north of , is in the jurisdiction of the Hevel Eilot Regional Council. The council is managed by a committee including representatives from each community in the region. Hevel Eilot lies on an area of 2.2 million dunams 3 Figure 4 - Hevel Eilot (220,000 hectares) with a population of approximately 3,300 residents. The council includes twelve settlements. Three of these settlements are located in the Negev Mountains. The remaining nine settlements are situated in the Arava Valley and include eight Kibbutzim: the largest being Yotvata with 640 residents, Ketura, Eilot, Grofit, Samar, Yahel, Lotan and Elifaz with 45 residents, and the private settlement of Beer Ora (see figure 4, Bureau of Statistics 2009).

This research focuses on three of the Kibbutzim of the Arava Valley; Yotvata,

Ketura and Samar which are situated parallel to the Jordanian villages on the other side of the border. However, some background information of the whole region and its historical ideological context is given here in order to allow for a wider perspective of the area and to provide the socio-political context which underlies the results of the research.

4.2.1 Kibbutz

The Southern Arava region was initially settled by Kibbutzim (Cohen et al. 2009).

A Kibbutz is a collective community, traditionally based on agriculture, combining both

3 Dunam - measure of landholdings used during the time of the Ottoman Empire. Equals 1000 square meters. 31 socialism and Zionism. It is a socio-economic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation in production, consumption and education.

Kibbutzim are guided by the principle adopted from the writings of Karl Marx (1875) that money is collectively earned "from each according to his abilities" and distributed "to each according to his needs". Everyone receives the same amount of money, regardless of the type of work or amount of hours spent at work. The members are thus motivated by conscience, responsibility, and peer-pressure, rather than personal economic gain (Ketura website). Members are not charged for home electricity or for collective services, such as laundry or meals in the communal dining room (Cohen et al. 2009). The expanses for anything that falls under the title “education” or “health” are funded by the Kibbutz and all apartments are owned by the Kibbutz. Recently, many of the Kibbutzim in Israel are going through various processes of privatization and are becoming less committed to traditional

Kibbutz principles. However, the three Kibbutzim under study have stayed relatively true to the original Kibbutz ideology.

The Kibbutzim of the Arava were founded from the end of the 1950s through the

1980s. The young settlements of the Arava were founded by: ‘Nachal’4, North American

Jews, Zionist youth movements, and descendents of other Kibbutzim in Israel. These pioneers were aided by the government and other Zionist organizations.

4.2.2 National support and ideological background

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, settling the desert has been a stated goal of nearly every government. Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, said:

4 “Nachal”- Noar Halutzi Lohem, in English Fighting Pioneer Youth is a program that combines military service and establishment of new agricultural settlements, often in outlying areas. Today, the program branched out into volunteering and social welfare projects.

32

“If the country does not conquer the desert, the desert will conquer the country”.

The Negev region, which includes the Arava are the largest and most sparsely populated areas of the country. Both the Jewish Agency and the government recognized its importance for absorbing immigrants, creating a clear Jewish presence along borders otherwise inhabited only by Bedouin, and dispersing the more densely populated center.

These institutions understood themselves as being responsible for providing the funds and planning, necessary to create settlements and lead them to economic independence, recognizing that the costs involved would be unaffordable for individual settlers. The 1973

Jewish Agency “blueprint” for settling the Arava planned Kibbutzim with a minimum of

100 families each, the first 60 of whom are supported through agriculture and the rest through industry, tourism, and services. Today only Yotvata has passed the 100-family mark, and five Kibbutzim have between 60 and 100 families. Only three have industry, and only at Yotvata industry replaced agriculture as a major source of income (Strom 2004).

The Jewish National Fund (JNF) is a major source of support for the Southern

Arava Kibbutzim. JNF was established more than 100 years ago with the goal of purchasing land, to provide the basis for the rebirth of the nation of Israel. One of its major projects, initiated in 2003, is “Blueprint Negev”, a campaign to revitalize the Negev Desert and make it home for future generations. In the Arava it is specifically responsible for building agricultural roads and preparing land for cultivation. The JNF provides funding each year in response to the requests made by the settlements and regional councils (Strom

2004, JNF-Blue Print Negev webpage). Another major source of support for the Kibbutzim is “Mekorot”, the national water company, which provides water for agriculture at a subsidized price to help lower the cost of the yield (Strom 2004). 33

4.2.3 Population, economy and public services

The median age of the population is twenty six, which is younger than that of Israel as a whole. The proportion of Israeli born and immigrant residents has changed since the beginning of settlement in the area. Eighty two percent of Hevel Eilot residents were born in Israel, while the rest were born mainly in Europe, America and Africa. Households are relatively small with the mean number of children per woman at 1.5 and an average number of persons per household at 2.3 persons. In the year 2009, 97.6% of the women and 99.7% of the men over 15 were part of the civil work force with an estimated 2% incapable of working. The high employment rate among the residents is due to the fact that on the Kibbutz everyone must work and employment in Kibbutz services such as Kibbutz management, communal kitchen, dining room and laundry is considered work as well

(Bureau of Statistics 2009).

The economy in the Arava is based mainly on modern agriculture – date orchards, vegetables, dairy production and a small amount of mari-culture. Many of the agricultural products are processed and marketed by the “Ardom” factory that represents the products of the region. There is an economic development company in charge of attracting economic investments for the creation of a strong business infrastructure for the residents of the area.

One of the new major economic initiatives in the region is in the field of renewable energies. Hevel Eilot Regional Council is the leading body for creating renewable energies infrastructure in Israel. It is currently recruiting government and foreign investment for the construction of experimental fields and creating a general system for producing energy while preserving the quality of the environment (Hevel Eilot website). 34

All settlements have agricultural land. Date orchards are the main economic produce. Treated waste water of Eilat is used to irrigate the orchards as well as local saline water provided by ‘Mekorot’. The traditional crops of the Arava are onions, melons and watermelons. Potatoes and sweet potatoes were later added to this list. Today a large part of the agricultural labor is done by Thai workers which help the Kibbutzim enlarge their cultivated areas and try new crops. Some of the Kibbutzim, such as Yotvata and Samar, do not hire Thai workers and do the work themselves with the help of volunteers.

The population is highly educated. More than 50% of the adult population has a post high school education (27% in university and the rest in professional studies). The children of the Southern Arava (grades one through twelve) all study in the regional school

- "Ma'ale Cooperative School”, which is located on a hill overlooking Kibbutz

Yotvata. The school also stresses personal responsibility and community involvement, and therefore, students from grades 8-11 work one day a week in their respective Kibbutz

(Hevel Eilot regional school website).

The majority of water used in the Arava is brackish water pumped from local fossil aquifers by artesian wells that access aquifers as deep as 900 meters below land surface. In

Israel, the pumping, desalination, conveyance, management, and pricing of water are all centrally controlled by “Mekorot”. The amount, quality, and price of water depend on its salinity, which can be very high in the region. Drinking water is locally desalinated and provided by local wells. Every Kibbutz in the Arava Valley has a small desalination plant

(Lipchin 2007).

The regional and cultural center of Hevel Eilot region is located in Yotvata. The center includes all the regional council offices, cultural halls, gym, a health center and a 35 psychological services station. Public transportation in the region is provided by a regional bus that passes through all of the settlements and reaches Eilat 11 times a day. It also takes the children to and from the regional school.

4.3 - Description of the Kibbutzim under study

In this section the three Israeli Kibbutzim chosen for the research are described; in a chronological order based on their date of establishment – Yotvata, Ketura and Samar.

Although the Kibbutzim may be alike in their overall idea of communal life, each Kibbutz has a unique way of expressing it, its own motivations, principles and lifestyle as well as different histories and productive activities.

4.3.1 Kibbutz Yotvata

Kibbutz Yotvata is located 40 Km north of Eilat near the ancient spring of Ein

Radian. It was the first Kibbutz established in the Southern Arava Valley. Yotvata was settled in 1951 by the ‘’5 with the dual purpose of preparing for a civilian settlement and guarding the road to Eilat. The founding group included mainly young people from Tel

Aviv and Rehovot, most of them graduates of “Hakfar Hayarok” agriculture school. They were joined in the following years by youth from other Kibbutzim and other “Nahal” groups. Six years later, the settlement became a civilian Kibbutz. Yotvata began by providing vegetables to the young city of Eilat. At the same time, the kibbutz experimented with different types of livestock. Members eventually settled on dairy farming and opened what is today a successful dairy processing plant (Strom 2004).

5 “Nachal”- Noar Halutzi Lohem, in English Fighting Pioneer Youth is a program that combines military service and establishment of new agricultural settlements, often in outlying areas. Today, the program branched out into volunteering and social welfare projects. 36

Yotvata is the largest and most prosperous settlement in the region, with 640 residents out of which there are 302 members and around 200 children under the age of 18

(Bureau of Statistics 2009). Yotvata is the center of the region and the place where most regional facilities are based. Yotvata's largest income producing branch is their dairy plant.

The dairy plant was established in 1962; today its products are sold all over Israel. The milk processed in the dairy plant is provided by the cowsheds of Yotvata and most of the surrounding settlements, producing a variety of products. The Kibbutz also has a large restaurant and gift shop on the Arava highway to Eilat, selling their products as well as the products of other Kibbutzim in the region. The second largest economic activity is the date orchard. The first date orchard was planted in 1953. Since then many orchards have been planted and today there are 50 hectares of date orchards.

Figure 5 - Yotvata's agricultural fields

Yotvata has many agricultural fields growing varied crops such as: onion, potato, pumpkin, sweet potato, cow feeder, garlic and corn. With the help of the Southern Arava

Research and Development center and their persistence in finding ways to cultivate plants in the desert, they manage to overcome the harsh desert conditions. Unlike many other settlements in Israel (and in the Arava), all the work in the fields is done by Yotvata’s residents. Yotvata also has smaller productive activities such as handicrafts businesses, a horse riding and therapeutic riding center and a plantation of domesticated Hoodia cacti from the Kalahari desert in Africa, which can be used for diet products (Yotvata website). 37

According to Yotvata’s leaders, environmentalism or ecological awareness is not on the main agenda of the Kibbutz. Despite this, there are many environmental initiatives in

Yotvata. One of these initiatives is the treatment and turning of the waste products from the dairy into heavy fuels and treated water. The heavy fuels are used for steam generation, and the treated water is used to grow fodder for the cows. Solar panels on the roofs of the cowshed as well as Yotvata’s restaurant are used for energy production.

4.3.2 Kibbutz Ketura

Kibbutz Ketura is located 50 kilometers (31 miles) north of Eilat. The Kibbutz was founded by a small group of young North Americans, graduates of the Young Judaea Youth

Movement6 Year-In-Israel Course, at the close Figure 6 - Kibbutz Ketura of the Yom Kippur War in November 1973. In time, other Young Judeans, a variety of Jewish immigrants from all around the world, and graduates of the Israeli Scout Movement joined the core group of the members who remained.

Ketura is the second largest settlement in the region, with 483 residents, of which

154 are members and 145 are children (population report, Ketura 2011). One third of the members are native Israelis; the rest are immigrants. The majority of the immigrants come from English-speaking countries, with a smaller number from Europe, the former USSR and South America. statistics show that Ketura has the most highly

6 “Young Judaea” is a Zionist youth movement of Hadassah, which recognizes the state of Israel as a central part of Jewish life and encourages both visiting and moving to Israel. 38 educated Kibbutz population in the country, and the number of members with advanced degrees is continually growing.

Ketura is dedicated to progressive religious policies; while members are free to conduct their lives as they see fit in their own homes, the Kibbutz observes “Kashrut”

(Jewish dietary laws) and “Shabbat” (Jewish day of rest) in the dining room and at cultural events (Ketura website). Until a few years ago, agriculture and salaried work outside the

Kibbutz were the economic pillars of Ketura, today tourism and new enterprises are also important elements of the Kibbutz economy. In the late 1990s, following an economic crisis, Thai workers were brought in for agriculture work, and two large agricultural ventures that had become unprofitable were abandoned. A few years later, there was a decision to stop growing field crops. The date orchard is Ketura’s highest income business, followed by salaries from outside work and the dairy. Forty six percent of Ketura’s members work off the Kibbutz. They are mainly employed in: the regional date packing plant, regional mobile computer repair unit, regional council and school, agricultural research and development center, a cooperatively owned fish farm and the Arava Power

Company – Solar Panels.

The productive enterprises employing the most members are all based on information services or high value-added products: an accounting business, an algae production plant, tourism and an educational institute (Cohen et al. 2009). These include:

“Keren Kolot” - educational tourism based on Jewish, desert, environmental and Kibbutz studies, AIES – Arava Institute for Environmental Studies: academic environmental program for Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians and International students, and the experimental orchard – growing plants that fit the desert climate. All of these are environmentally oriented businesses. 39

4.3.3 Kibbutz Samar

Kibbutz Samar is located about 30 Km North of Eilat. Surrounding it is a nature reserve. Across from Samar is the entrance to the ‘Hai Bar’, animal and nature reserve for endangered desert animals. It was founded in 1976 by young Kibbutz members and army

“Nahal” units of the “Hashomer Hatzair”7, with the purpose of building a Kibbutz with a decidedly different lifestyle (Faiman 1998). The Kibbutz has 264 residents out of which around 95 are members and 100 are children under the age of 18 (Bureau of Statistics

2009).

Samar is a collective secular Kibbutz which describes itself as anarchic. Decisions of the general assembly are non-binding recommendations, and all workers run their enterprises autonomously (Strom 2004). Samar is based on a maximum of personal freedom and mutual trust among the members. An example of this is individual consumer freedom without limitation or inspection of the Kibbutz system. People work as many hours as they feel are needed. There are no written regulations regarding how the members’

Figure 7 - Kibbutz Samar houses should look and what they should include inside (Hevel Eilot website).

Two thirds of the income of Samar comes from agriculture and a third from people working outside or from small businesses. The agriculture is based on; onions, plant nurseries and especially on the date orchard, most of which is organic and intended for export. Samar does not employ hired workers, Israeli or foreign, in its agriculture. The Kibbutz also has a dairy and a

7 “Hashomer Hatzair” is Socialist–Zionist youth movement founded in 1913 in Galicia. Today, it continues as a youth movement based in Israel, and operates internationally. 40 computer company (regional school website) and is the owner of – defined as a spiritual guest house. The community takes pride in their environmental awareness. Most of

Samar's electricity is provided by a 30 meter-high hybrid solar/gas turbine tower. The power tower provides 100 kilowatts of energy, as well as the Kibbutz's heating needs. The tower was built by the company AORA, an Israeli solar power startup (Green Economy

Post website). Samar also has a center for desert and environmental studies and tours, and an organic health food store in Eilat.

Table 1 - Summary of Ketura, Yotvata and Samar

Yotvata Ketura Samar Year of Foundation 1957 1973 1976 Population 640 438 264 Founders Young Kibbutz North American Young Kibbutz members and graduates of Young members and “Nachal” Judaea “Nachal” units of “Hashomer Hatzair” Main economic Dairy plant, date Date orchard, Organic date production orchard, field crops, tourism and algae- orchard, health restaurant tec store, center for desert studies Environmental Treatment and reuse Arava Institute for Solar/gas turbine initiatives of dairy plant waste, environmental tower, compost, studies, Organic farming, solar panels Arava power Health store, company Desert Studies Center Specific lifestyle Promoting the Tolerant Jewish Anarchistic characteristics secular democratic community approach Jewish tradition, promoting Jewish communal life and customs and the agriculture environment

41

4.4 - Jordanian Wadi Araba8

Jordan is divided into twelve governorates (see figure 8), each headed by a governor appointed by the King. Wadi Araba is under the Aqaba governorate.

Each governorate is divided into districts and sub-districts. Aqaba governorate is divided into three districts: Al-Aqaba, Wadi Araba and Al-Quwairah (see figure 9). The research focuses on the Wadi Araba district.

Figure 8 - Division of Jordan into governorates

8 Wadi Araba is the Arabic name of the region.

42

Figure 9 - Aqaba governorate's division to districts

The Wadi Araba district is 2.4% of Jordan’s area. It includes eight settlements (see figure 9) with a total population of 6,775. Al-Karikara is the largest village with 2,200 inhabitants followed by Al-Rishe, Rahma, Bir Mathkur, New Feinan, Abu Hashiba, Al-

Qatar and Old Feinan, the smallest, with 200 inhabitants. An additional area that is partially inhabited is Gharandal, an area containing springs which is occupied by nomadic Bedouins for short periods of time throughout the year. While most residents live in permanent 43 housing, some of the populations of Bir-Matkur, Abu Hashiba and Old Feinan are nomadic and live in temporary housing, or caves.

Five major Bedouin tribes comprise eight settlements on the Jordanian side. These tribes are: Al-S'eediyeen, Al-Ihewat, Al-Ammareen, Al-Rashaideh, and Al-Azazmeh, as well as some smaller tribes. Al-S'eediyeen comprises 51% of the whole Wadi Araba population. Recent history of the area shows that in 1946 about 3,370 people lived in Wadi

Araba including the Gulf of Aqaba, most of them nomads. These people cultivated a few date orchards in the Aqaba area. Tribes would come there from Wadi Araba in the fruit- picking season. Due to the harsh conditions and instability of these date trees, they raised livestock as their main source of livelihood (Heidtmann 1998).

4.4.1 Bedouins and their sedentarization process in Jordan

In Jordan 80% of the land area is called “el badiya” – the desert. From the word “el badiya” comes the word “el badu” – the Bedouins which means the people who live in the desert (Heidtmann 1998). The majority and the ruling class in Jordan is made up of people of Bedouin Arab descent. The Bedouin population is Muslim. Most of the Bedouins of

Jordan are descendents from peoples who migrated from the Arabian Peninsula between the

14th and 18th centuries. Bedouins were once a pastoral nomadic community raising sheep, goats and camels while moving in annual cycles in the desert according to the seasonal availability of pasture and water (Dinero 2004; Heidtmann 1998). Their culture and their social behavior are strongly influenced by their dependence on animal production and the harsh conditions of the desert (Alafenish 1987).

Bedouins are organized into tribes and clans. Politics and power in Jordan, as well as state resource allocation, are still based on competing families and tribes that have 44 dominated Trans-jordan in 1946. Jordan’s army is based on Bedouins and their tribal support to the king (Jureidini 1984). Although some of the Bedouins in Jordan have left their pastoral lifestyles and are now in key positions in the government, most of them make up the poorest sector of society and have a very low standard of living (Jureidini 1984).

In the past 50-100 years the Bedouins have gone through a transition. In some countries in the Middle East, state policies have resulted, in a reduction of nomadic living space and a loss of several traditional sources of income for the Bedouins (Alafenish 1987).

Governments pressure pastoral nomads to go through processes of sedentarization and social modernization (Meir 1986). The Kingdom of Jordan’s pro-tribal army policies as well as the closeness of the King to the tribes established a bond between governments and the Bedouins which helped in settling them (Berman-Kishony 2008). Economically, the

Bedouin transition away from pastoralism and towards wage labor is occurring with difficulty (Dinero 2004). Many of the Bedouin communities in Jordan which previously lived off their herds are now highly dependent on government handouts. In addition to the government’s efforts to settle the Bedouins, several changes within the Bedouin society itself called for a change in life-style (Heidtmann 1998).

These changes began with the replacement of camels with smaller ruminants such as goats and sheep. The camels used to be effectively exploited for transportation as well as for meat, milk, skin, manure for burning fuel, and as a commodity when in need for other products (Abu Hoseh 1992). With the introduction of motorized vehicles the camels were no longer needed for transportation and were largely replaced by goats and sheep that need a steady source of water and pasture, forcing the Bedouins to stay in confined areas. In addition, two heavy droughts which occurred in the 1940’s - 1950’s in the Araba region, caused the Bedouins to lose most of their livestock and forced them to look for other 45 sources of income in villages or cities nearby. Due to their lack of education they could only work in jobs involving physical labor which were formerly beneath their dignity

(Heidtmann 1998).

The army was another parameter that influenced the Bedouin’s life-style. Glubb

Pasha, leader of the “Arab legion” 1939-1956, formed the Bedouin tribes into the desert patrol in order to cease tribal raids and chaos in the region. Many Bedouins agreed to join the army because it provided subsidies to tribal Sheiks and a soldier’s pay could sustain several families in times of famine. This had a large impact on the Bedouin life-style since the army encouraged the Bedouins, living in permanent settlements, to engage in agriculture and built schools for their children (Jureidini 1984). Still today most of the schools in rural-marginal zones in the Jordanian desert are run by the military (including schools of the Southern Wadi Araba).

The Bedouin’s nomadic life-style and their permanent struggle for rangelands for their herds led to great difficulties in terms of integration into Jordanian society which is still undergoing a process of urbanization and industrialization. Furthermore, the gap between the Bedouins’ living conditions, compared with those of city-dwellers, was increasing rapidly. This gap had to be narrowed in order not to further marginalize the

Bedouins (Heidtmann 2001). This was especially important in Jordan where to be a

Bedouin, or to come from Bedouin roots, is a matter of national pride (Ghazi 1999, Patai

2002).

4.4.2 Organizations and national support

Several government and non-governmental organizations' initiatives are present in

Wadi Araba. Organizations such as the USAID (United States Agency International 46

Development), and JOHUD (Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development) contribute to the development of marginalized Bedouin societies by economic assistance, providing services such as water and health care and empowering them in modern agriculture and other areas that will raise their living standards (Dicampo 2004). Twenty percent of all the families benefit from the National Assistance Fund. There are eight cooperative institutions that provide jobs and rent irrigated lands. Several agricultural projects were established by the Ministry of Agriculture (Heidtmann 2001).

There are some associations that give loans for small businesses such as seeds and machinery for agriculture, buying sheep, and handicrafts (Poverty in Wadi Araba District report 2005). The Economic and Social Productivity Program (ESPP) under the Ministry of

Planning and International Cooperation have built 156 houses in the Wadi Araba villages, established an ostrich farm near Rahma (a project that failed), built wells in the area, a packaging center for agricultural produce, class-rooms, roads and brought in an ambulance

(ESPP report 2006).

The Jordan River Foundation (JRF), a non-profit, non-governmental organization established in 1995, is one of the major contributors to the development of the Wadi Araba region. Its main goals are protecting the rights and needs of children, empowering individuals and communities and giving them aid in agriculture projects. One of JRF’s biggest success stories in the region was solving a 70 year dispute over land between the government and the local tribes as well as resolving internal conflicts between the tribes in the area (JRF website). 47

4.4.3 Population, economy and public services

Despite the help of the government and organizations to the population of the Wadi

Araba region, in 2004, 53% of the Wadi Araba residents were considered to be beneath the poverty line, compared with 14.2% in the whole Kingdom (The Hashemite Kingdom of

Jordan Poverty Assessment Report 2004). The high poverty rate may be explained by problems such as: high unemployment rates, lack of economic opportunities, large families and lack of education as well as poor health, transportation and infrastructure services.

The families in Wadi Araba on average are large due to the practice of polygamy and married women bearing children at an early age. This phenomenon is also a result of the Bedouin traditional belief that the larger the group, the stronger its power and the higher its socio-political status (Meir & Ben-David 1995). Whereas on average a Jordanian family has 5.7 members, the average family in the Wadi Araba consists of 6.2 members and even more in the nomadic settlements. The median age of the population is twenty years of age

(Poverty in Wadi Araba District report 2005).

The main economic activities of Wadi Araba residents are working in government positions9, the army, herding sheep, agriculture and handicrafts (Poverty in Wadi Araba

District report 2005). According to a study made by the Science and Technology Center in

2002, 22.7% of the Wadi Araba residents were unemployed compared with 15.3% in the entire Jordanian Kingdom. One of the main problems hindering the economic development in the region is the long history of inter-clan disputes and disputes between clans and the local government (JRF - Sustainability Report 2008).

9 Woman in these villages are not permitted to work in government jobs outside their villages. 48

There are four main privately owned agricultural projects in the area established with government assistance, out of which two are in the Southern Araba: Al-Haq near

Rahma and one near Al-Qatar (a project that failed). There is a pipe network for agricultural water for these farms managed by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI

Jordan website). Water for irrigation is available from the Southern Wadi Araba Basin as well as the Disi aquifer. An additional source of water for the agricultural sector is the treated waste water from Aqaba, used especially for the date orchards (Feuer 2006). The agriculture in the area covers only 25% of the cultivable land. The low percentage is due to the management of the Jordan Valley Authority which is not giving people permits to use the local wells and the cultivable lands in the area. The crops that are being cultivated include: dates, vegetables, grapes, citrus, guava, mango, watermelon and melon.

Most of the residents of Wadi Araba have not been educated resulting in a 28.7% illiteracy rate. Today there is an attempt to improve the education level but it is still facing a number of problems. Currently there are eleven schools in the region: six high-schools and five primary schools. Two out of the eleven schools provide military education for boys.

There are no professional training centers in the Araba, except for one in Rishe that gives courses in information technology. Despite the presence of schools, 26% of the children of school age do not attend school, partly for lack of transportation for children to get to the high-schools in the adjacent villages, and partly for cultural reasons. Some girls are not permitted to go to school by their families, because of fear of them meeting boys in, or on their way, to school (personal communication). A similar problem was described by Abu-

Rabia (2006) in her study on girl-dropouts from school in Bedouin villages in Israel.

Basic public services such as water, health clinics, transportation, electricity, communication and shops are very limited in the region and have been a common source of 49 complaint through-out the interviews. There are drinking water distribution networks in most of the villages but water availability and quality is poor. The drinking water is provided by Aqaba Water Company from the Disi Aquifer. Trucks transport tanks of water to the villages filling their reservoirs. This water is then redistributed to each household.

There is a conflict between the Water Company and the residents because the residents have not been paying their water bills for years. There are no hospitals in Wadi Araba, but there are three health centers. The health centers have limited medical equipment and facilities. Road infrastructure and public transportation between the villages and Aqaba is very poor. The main roads of the villages are paved but the side roads that lead to the houses inside the villages are dirt roads. There is no formal public transportation that reaches these villages apart from the buses that drive on the main Araba road and the buses that come once a day to bring the teachers and government workers. Lack of proper roads or public transportation contributes to the lack of economic development in the district

(Poverty in Wadi Araba report 2005).

There are a few public institutions in the area including an office for agricultural supervision, development office, center for storing fodder, security center, and an office for the governorate of Wadi Araba. Today, there are electricity networks available for most of the settlements; however, it has been noticed that the number of users is decreasing. This is due to the low incomes of the residents which make it difficult for them to pay for electricity. Some of the villages suffer from continuous power shortages, especially in the summer (JRF website).

50

Table 2 - Summary of Hevel Eilot and Wadi Araba districts

Israel – Hevel Eilot Jordan – Wadi Araba District Type of settlement Kibbutzim and one private Bedouin villages, some semi- settlement nomadic groups Population 3,300 6,775 Median age of population 26 20 Average family size 3.5 6.2 Education More than 50% of the adult 28.7% illiteracy rate. 26% of population have continued the children of school age do their studies after high not attend school school (27% in university and the rest in professional studies) Unemployment Less than 2% 22.7% Economic activities Agriculture, dairy Government positions, production, mari-culture, military, herding goats and tourism, renewable energy sheep, agriculture and and small businesses handicrafts Roads & Transportation Paved roads inside the Dirt roads inside villages. No Kibbutzim. formal public transportation Regional bus that passes in apart from the buses that drive all of the settlements and on the main Araba road and reaches Eilat 11 times a day the buses that come once a day to bring the teachers and government workers Water Locally desalinated and Drinking water is provided by provided by local wells. Aqaba Water Company from Abundant the Disi Aquifer. Availability and quality is lacking Electricity Provided by the national Only some of the houses are network and some connected to the grid renewable energy sources Main sources of support Jewish National Fund USAID, JOHUD (Jordanian (JNF), Jewish Agency Hashemite Fund for Human “blueprint” and Development), National “Mekorot” Assistance Fund and Jordan River Foundation (JRF) 51

4.5 Description of the Jordanian villages under study

The focus area of my research is the southern part of the Wadi Araba sub-district below Gharandal (see figure 9). Apart from the military bases, the population consists mainly of two Bedouin villages that were settled by the government: Rahma and Al-Qatar which were founded in the years 1957 and 1984 respectively. Al-Ihewat tribes live in the southern part of Wadi Araba. They belong to the tribe Masaeed which migrated from

Southern Hejaz to the Levant and Palestine 900 years ago. Today parts of this tribe are in

Sinai and some returned to Saudi Arabia (Alon 2007). The special characteristics of each of the two villages are described below.

Figure 10 - Rahma

4.5.1 Rahma

Rahma village is situated about 45 km from

Aqaba city on the lower slopes of the Edom Mountains overlooking the Southern Araba Wadi (Heidtmann

2001). The former name of the village was “Darba” which was associated historically with the water source situated near the village (Abu Aziz 2007). The present location of the village has been used for a long time by the Bedouins as a site for their tent groups as several springs are available in the area (Heidtmann 2001).

The permanent settlement in this location dates back to the late 1940’s when the

British Army established a base in the outskirts of where the village is today, and a handful of Bedouins from the Al-Ihewat tribe settled there. In the following years the first settlers were joined by more and more families from the Al-Ihewat tribe (Heidtmann 2001, Abu 52

Aziz 2007). The village name changed officially in 1975 when Prince Hassan visited the region and decided to call it by the name of his oldest daughter Rahma which means mercy.

He also initiated the first agriculture project in the Southern Arava, affiliated with the

Jordan Valley Authority (JVA), which failed and was replaced by an Israeli-Jordanian cooperation project (Abu Aziz 2007). Since 1975 the huts and tents in the village have been replaced by brick houses. In 1987 a small brick factory was set up by a private initiative in

Rahma to facilitate the process (Heidtmann 2001). In 1990 the Jordanian government set up

20 housing units in the village in order to supply the nomadic Bedouins with a permanent home. The houses stayed empty for many years because the payment for the houses was too expensive for them to afford (Heidtmann 2001).

The population of the village is around 1,200 people (Abu Aziz 2007). Rahma is affiliated with Aqaba Special Economic Zone (ASEZA). The men mainly work in Aqaba as drivers, workers in the port, security personnel, office workers in ASEZA, or in the

Jordanian military. A few work locally in Al-Haq farms and in the local brick factory.

Many of the residents raise sheep and goats which are mainly used for their milk and meat or are sold. Some of them live off military retirement pensions (Feuer 2006). Most of the women in the village are housewives, but a growing number are working in various jobs outside the home. A few work as teachers in the girl’s school (which previously had teachers coming from Aqaba) or as cleaners in the health clinic and school. Around 30 women between the ages of 20-45 work in Al-Haq farms, as opposed to 10 men. In 1995,

Rahma Charity Women Association was established by the Jordan Valley Foundation in order to teach women how to read and write, and enrich them in the following subjects: child care, computer skills, sewing and growing herbs. 53

The village has two schools: the first was built in 1972 – a military school for boys and the second - Wadi Araba School for girls was built in 1975, located on the opposite side of the village (Lipchin & Kronic 2009). Only a few of the students have continued on to university. The village provides a primary health center, a youth club, a post office and a mosque (Abu Aziz 2007). There was a village council initiated in 1984 but it stopped functioning in the 1990’s. Today the men meet in the house of the Sheik of the village.

Every other day drinking water is supplied by the Aqaba Authority from the Disi aquifer.

Trucks arrive from Aqaba and fill the tanks of each house. In addition, saline water is piped from the local aquifer which is considered to be bad for one’s teeth and therefore is only used for purposes other than drinking. There is also a spring behind Rahma, although the government does not allow the villagers to use this water for home use, it is available as drinking water for their animals.

4.5.2 Al-Qatar

The village was formally settled in 1984; the lands formerly belonged to the government. It is situated very close to the eastern side of the salt flat (Lipchin & Cronic

2009). Some of the people came to Al-Qatar from Aqaba in order to raise their goats and sheep. In the beginning they were living under the Acacia trees in tents. The King made the decision to transform it into a village and to provide some of the housing units with

Figure 11 - Al-Qatar furniture at no cost to the settlers. Some of the people still reside in shacks (see figure

11). 54

The village is spread out creating a rural sprawl similar to the unrecognized

Bedouin villages in Israel. There are many Acacia trees as well as a few planted trees. The

Sheik (local leader) of the village has a house in Aqaba where he lives most of the time. He has authority over village decisions and holds meetings in his house in Al-Qatar.

The population in Al-Qatar is 225; most families have between 4-5 children. The people are all from the greater tribe of Al-Ihewat (Lipchin & Kronic 2009). All families belong to the ‘Kbeish’ clan except for one family that belongs to the clan ‘Eshyan’.

‘Kbeish’ is a very conservative clan, which makes the village more conservative than the rest of the Wadi Araba villages. Some people from Al-Qatar are employed by the government in Aqaba or by the military. Others work locally in the school and the health clinic, or in “Al-Haq” farms in Rahma. Every family has 10-20 goats used for domestic needs such as milk and cheese. In addition, some people have donkeys mainly to carry wood. According to the interviews, only one person in the village has a camel. The main problem in Al-Qatar, as described by the director of the school, is that the majority of the residents didn’t go to high-school; therefore, they cannot work in most government jobs.

Many are without jobs and are supported by their families. The villagers in Al-Qatar have tried to use the micro-environments surrounding the salt-flat region for agriculture but have failed due to the salinity of both the soil and the underground water.

Boys and girls study in a mixed school from kindergarten to 6th grade, established in

1987. In order to continue their studies, the boys go to high-school in Rahma and girls continue in Al-Qatar school until 10th grade. The girls' families decide whether to continue the girl’s education in the school in Rahma, or to end it. A very small number of girls and boys have finished high-school out of which only a few girls have continued to college

(personal communication). 55

Al-Qatar has a clinic that works twice a week. The village was connected to the electricity around 10 years ago; however, not all the houses are connected to the network.

The people have gas for cooking, but they prefer to use fire for preparing bread and

‘Mansaf’ (traditional Jordanian food). Water is supplied in the same way as in Rahma but drinking water is only supplied twice a week (as opposed to every other day in Rahma).

Table 3 - Summary of Rahma and Al-Qatar

Rahma Al-Qatar Year of Foundation 1957 1984 Population 1,200 225 Founders Clans of Al-Ihewat tribe Clan ‘Kbeish’ of Al-Ihewat tribe Main sources of Drivers, workers in the port, Government jobs in Aqaba, income security personnel, office military, "Al-Haq” farms, goat workers in ASEZA, military, herding “Al-Haq” farms, brick factory and goat herding Drinking Water Provided every other day from Provided twice a week from Disi Aquifer Disi Aquifer Agriculture “Al-Haq” farms Non (one project that failed) Specific lifestyle Tribal Bedouin lifestyle Conservative Bedouin lifestyle characteristics

Summary of chapter 4

On both sides of the border the settlements under study were established between the 1950's and the 1980's. However, on the Jordanian side the villages were established by tribes that were already in the area, while on the Israeli side the settlers were new to the area and sometimes even to Israel. The Israeli settlers came with motivation and ideology to "conquer the desert", cultivate lands for agriculture and raise cows in the desert. The

Bedouins continue with their traditional practices such as raising sheep and goats.

However, they were forced by their governments to settle in permanent villages and were encouraged to join the military, government jobs and engage in agriculture, which was 56 formerly foreign to them. On both sides the governments and organizations support the settlements in the Arava and aid them financially. The Israeli side of the border enjoys a better quality of life and more advanced economy and services. The Bedouin side of the border is poorer with many of the services such as water and electricity still lacking. The population is in the process of adjusting to a modern-sedentary lifestyle, while continuing to adhere to Bedouin tradition. The Israelis are engaged in various environmental initiatives, and environmental awareness is part of the regional agenda. Environmental initiatives hardly exist on the Jordanian side.

57

Chapter 5 - Results

This chapter presents the findings of the fieldwork regarding the perceptions of the environment of the Southern Arava residents as well as their perceptions of each other.

Throughout the chapter, the perceptions of the Israeli Kibbutz members and the Jordanian

Bedouins are compared. The responses of the interviewees to the questionnaires were coded into the dominant categories and sub-categories. In addition, the responses were grouped by country of respondent (Israel/Jordan) and when found significant; distinctions between respondents from different settlements within each national group, or differences between gender and age groups were made. The chapter is divided into five sections corresponding to the main themes that emerged from of the literature review and the preliminary study regarding perceptions of the environment. These are the Arava residents' descriptions of the environment and the valued and less valued aspects of their environment

(5.1), use of the environment and perceptions on ecosystem services (5.2), views on agriculture (5.3), relation to the environment, sense of place and place attachment (5.4) and lastly, the perceptions of both sides on each other (5.5).

The findings from the fieldwork show that the differences between the residents’ perceptions of the environment on each side are influenced by two main underlying forces: economy and culture. Culture includes: ideology, tradition and origin (native or non-native to the desert) which were significantly influential. These will be emphasized throughout the chapter.

5.1. - General perceptions of the environment

This section presents the interviewees' responses to the questions asking them to describe their environment, what would they change in the environment and what is most 58 important for them in the environment. The responses were tabulated and charted to present the main themes mentioned and to compare their frequency on each side of the border.

5.1.1 Descriptions of the environment

In their descriptions, respondents mentioned different aspects of the environment which I grouped to the following categories: the natural environment - such as the climate, mountains, dunes, animals, plants; the man-made environment – agriculture, gardens and grass; and the social environment – people and communities of the Arava. Their descriptions were colored by adjectives depicting the environment - such as quiet and unique as well as by their feelings towards the environment.

Figure 12 - Descriptions of the environment

25 natural man-made

adjectives environment environmentenvi 20 social environment 15 climate conditions 10

feelings of people people who of mentioned 5 Israel

No. Jordan

0

In general, the Israelis had a tendency to describe their environment with much more enthusiasm and elaboration than the Jordanians. Following is a quote from a member 59 of Ketura in his 50's who has lived in the Arava for the last 30 years. He describes his desert environment with great zeal:

“I always say that I have the privilege to wake up and go to sleep in such an extraordinary place. Not only the view of Edom Mountains and the Syrian-African-rift but also in the wider sense the unique-virgin desert. It is a pure pleasure to live in such a unique landscape.”

The Jordanian descriptions of the environment tended to be short and concise including a short list of what their environment includes and sometimes a few adjectives

(positive or negative). Here is an example from a 20 year old resident from Rahma:

“The environment is a desert with a few trees, dunes, the village and beautiful mountains.”

The most common descriptions of the environment on both sides were adjectives such as beautiful and quiet. On both sides of the border respondents spoke of the natural environment, where the Jordanians spoke more of the animals and plants and the Israelis more of the Mountains of Edom and sunsets coloring them. Israelis often mentioned the man-made environment especially the green vegetation of their communities and the agriculture and perceived the Kibbutz as an “oasis” or a distinct “bubble” from the rest of the desert. A woman from Yotvata said:

“I think of the Kibbutz as an oasis in the middle of the desert, especially when you see it from an airplane; it’s very recognizable as a green aggregate in the middle of all the yellow and brown.”

The Jordanians made no such distinctions between their village and the rest of the desert. The Israeli respondents positively emphasized the lack of pollution and industrial development in their environment. A woman in her 50’s said:

“I’m so happy that my environment is so clean and quiet and that I don’t need to stand in traffic on my way to work and smell the pollution.”

About a third of the Jordanian respondents mentioned the difficulty of living in their environment or dislike for their environment. They commented negatively on the lack of 60 development and services such as: lack of water, shops and job opportunities in their environment. A woman in her 60’s from Rahma described her environment in the following manner:

“There is nothing around. It is peaceful but there is no vegetable market, no shops, no chicken farms. Just a village…”

5.1.2 Perceptions on desired changes of the environment

From the descriptions above, it appears that the Israelis have a more positive view of their environment than the Jordanians. This section shows the aspects of the environment that each side is unsatisfied with, from the most mentioned to the least. The various responses10 to the question: “If you could, what would you change in your environment?” are shown in figures 13 and 14.

10 The respondents could say more than one thing that they want to change. 61

Figure 13 - Perceptions on desired change - Israel

Israel

14 12 10 8 6 4

2

of people people who of mentioned

0

No.

62

Figure 14 - Perceptions on desired change - Jordan

Jordan

14

12

10

8

6

4

of people people who of mentioned

No. 2

0

Figures 13 and 14 show that on each side of the border the respondents have very different perceptions and preferences regarding what they would change in their environment. The dominant categories are “water situation”, “heat”, “development in job offers/services/transportation”, “environmentally friendly”, “greening the environment” and

“change nothing.” The meanings of each category are not necessarily the same on both sides.

63

Water situation

The most common answer on the Israeli side and the second most common on the

Jordanian side was the desire to change the water situation. This concern, which seems to be shared by respondents from both sides, was expressed in completely different ways on each side of the border. On the Israeli side, where it was mentioned by half of the people, the majority spoke of changing the water situation in the sense of improving the aesthetics of the desert or for recreation. Four different types of ‘change the water situation' were mentioned by Israelis (from the most to the least common): having more rain, having springs or lakes nearby, bringing the sea closer and having more floods. Only one Israeli respondent spoke about the need of having more water for the practical purpose of growing more dates. In contrast, on the Jordanian side, while speaking of changing the water situation, the emphasis was on improving livelihood and living standards. The four main types that were mentioned were: having more drinking water, more water for growing plants in the gardens or in the village, more water for agriculture, and improving water quality. As was described in section 4.5, water availability and quality in Rahma and Qatar is poor and is perceived by the locals as insufficient. On the Israeli side, in contrast, water is abundantly available for irrigation and domestic use and is desalinated for the purpose of drinking (Section 4.2).

Jordanian women mentioned the desire to change the water situation significantly more often than the men, where on the Israeli side no such gender difference was found.

Research on gender and water shows, that in almost all rural communities in developing countries, it is primarily women, and sometimes girls, who collect water, protect water sources, maintain water systems and store water (Regmi & Fawcett, 1999). In Bedouin 64 society also, traditionally it was the role of the women to bring water from the wells, and to be in charge of the domestic use of water (Abu-Loghud 1990). In the Jordanian villages studied here, according to interviews with women, they are still in charge of all domestic use of water, as they are the ones who cook, clean, wash and water the plants in the garden.

Heat

The second most dominant feature for the Israeli respondents, mentioned by a third of the people, was reducing the heat. Two thirds of the respondents who mentioned it were adults (between 40-70). No Jordanian respondent brought up the subject of heat. While all the Israeli respondents have air-conditioning in their homes and in all public buildings of the Kibbutz, none of the Jordanians have air-conditioners in their homes, and from the houses that I have seen not even a fan. This could be explained by the fact that the

Bedouins are more acclimatized to the heat of the Arava or because they are simply more concerned with other issues, such as the following.

Development in job opportunities, public services, transportation and education

The most common notion of change for the Jordanians was to develop the village in terms of job opportunities and services such as; supermarkets, shops, public transportation, health clinic and education. The women spoke more than the men about having a supermarket and more shops as well as about improving the education system. This is probably due to the fact that the women are usually in charge of supplying and cooking food for the household. Regarding education, it was understood from the interviews that girls study more seriously than boys. A young man from Rahma said while he was taking his goats to graze:

“Girls study more because they can’t leave their home, boys go outside.” 65

The director of the school in Qatar told us that more girls graduate from high-school than boys; when asked why, she said:

“Because girls have more motivation to study, boys don’t care. They want to be shepherds.”

From the interviews with young women, I understood that education for them is a way to advance beyond traditional Bedouin life, where women are confined to household chores.

For instance, many of them aspire to become teachers.

On the Israeli side, according to the interviewees, the area is developed in terms of public services, education, transportation, and to a lesser degree, job opportunities.

Therefore, this category was only mentioned by two people, of which one wanted to improve transportation by having a train from the center of Israel to Eilat going through the

Arava and the other wanted more job opportunities.

Environmentally friendly

Environmental awareness and concern plays an important role in the Israeli residents’ perceptions of the environment. A fifth of the Israelis mentioned changes that may be called: ‘becoming more environmentally friendly’. This category includes the following aspects: making compost, saving water, having less ornamental plants and grass on the Kibbutz grounds, or not developing anymore pristine areas of the Arava.

Environmental awareness is prevalent in all of the Kibbutzim but is stronger in Ketura and

Samar. Both have made a conscious decision to become a “green Kibbutz” establishing a committee responsible for implementing environmentally friendly activities.

“Environmental quality” is even stated as a goal on Ketura’s mission statement,11 where there is a paragraph obligating the residents to protect and preserve the environment. At

11 Every Kibbutz has a mission statement where the ideology, values, goals and vocation of the Kibbutz are written. 66

Yotvata, despite many environmental initiatives, the Kibbutz doesn’t place environmentalism as one of its main goals. This was mentioned by the head of Yotvata’s economic initiatives:

“There is no agenda of the Kibbutz that being environmental is something that we place on our flag, but there is tolerance for anyone that wants to do it.”

In Yotvata’s mission statement there isn’t a specific chapter on environmental quality, but respect of nature and its conservation are mentioned.

On the Jordanian side, “becoming more environmentally friendly” was mentioned by only two respondents. One was a man who joined the three-months training in Kibbutz

Yotvata during the cooperation between Yotvata and Rahma in the "Al-Haq" agricultural project (see section 4.1.4). He said:

“Plant in the environment what is good for the environment and not like this (referring to Al- Haq farms). Plant something that uses less water and is good and resistant for heat.”

Another man from Rahma in his 20’s was concerned about building a factory in the desert because it would bring noise and pollution.

It is likely that the Israelis are more concerned with environmental quality simply due to the fact that the Israeli Southern Arava is more developed and therefore contains more threats to the environment. Moreover, in research on environmentalism in the global south Peritore (1999) concludes that environmental concern is a luxury good purchased by a population only after it gained affluence. Therefore, the difference in environmental awareness reflects the economic differences between the two sides. As the majority of the population in the Jordanian villages is poor, it is plausible that other concerns such as having water and employment take precedence over concerns for environmental quality.

This point will be developed further below. 67

Greening the environment

C.A. Lewis (1996) in his book about the “meaning of plants in our lives” concluded that as part of human nature, people tend to feel good around plants as they induce calm and relaxation. In this research it was found that respondents from both sides of the border would like to have a greener environment.

About half of the Jordanians expressed a desire for a “greener environment”, or having “more date orchards and agriculture.” Currently there is one agricultural project in

Rahma and otherwise, the villages are hardly landscaped with plants, except for a few date trees that were donated by the King but are in poor condition. Only a few people have their own gardens with some herbs and small fruit trees. The respondents who wanted a greener environment wanted it both for improving their livelihood and for aesthetic reasons. Many expressed a desire to grow edible plants and trees in their home gardens and villages, or wanted more desert vegetation as fodder for their animals. Others mentioned that the environment would look more beautiful if it was greener. All of them have mentioned lack of water as the main limiting factor for greening their environment.

In contrast, only about a fifth of the Israelis expressed the same desire. On the

Israeli side the settlements are green; with grass, trees and flowers, agricultural fields and orchards. Many of the residents cultivate their own private gardens. Although not many respondents mentioned a greener environment, the importance of being surrounded by green was often repeated and can be seen in the lush landscaping of these communities.

68

Change nothing

Some residents on both sides of the border express an ideological, deterministic approach to the environment saying that they would not make any changes to it. A young woman from Yotvata said:

“I wouldn't change it, it is a pity to change the environment, if you don't like where you are you should move."

A Jordanian man from Rahma stated:

“God created this system, so if you change it you say god is wrong. Like this it should be.”

In summary, the responses to the question of desired change in the environment show more concern with aesthetic/environmental changes on the Israeli side, while the Jordanians are mostly focused on economic changes. On the Jordanian side, the respondents wanted changes that will improve their living standards by developing the water situation, services, job opportunities and having a greener, more productive, environment. On the Israeli side, residents mentioned changes that were more “theoretical.” They were usually for the purpose of recreation and comfort and related to the natural environment and climate; such as having more water sources, rain and floods, reducing the heat, having less electricity lines and fences and having a greener environment.

5.1.3 Most important aspects of the environment

Figures 15 and 16 present the responses of the interviewees to the question: “What is most important for you in your environment?” 69

Figure 15 - Most important in the environment - Israel

Israel

20

15

10

5

of people people who of mentioned

0

No.

70

Figure 16 - Most important in the environment - Jordan

Jordan

14

12

10

8

6

4

of people people who of mentioned

No. 2

0

The most important aspect of the environment for the Israelis is: “quietness of nature”. “Quietness of nature” included features such as calmness, lack of extensive development, uncrowdedness, and open space. This is strengthened by the finding that in their descriptions of the environment, “quietness of nature” was mentioned by over half of the respondents. The other two categories that were mentioned most often by the Israeli respondents were the “beauty of nature”, and “balance between nature and development”, which correlates with many of the respondents’ desire to become more environmentally friendly. 71

For the Jordanians the most important aspects, are “water”, "quietness of nature"

“beauty of nature” and “job/livelihood/education”. This finding is buttressed by the respondents’ desire to improve the water situation, mentioned in the previous section.

Development in the Arava

On the Israeli side, a theme that was expressed by about a third of the respondents, both under the category of the “quietness of nature” and the “balance between development and nature” was opposition to particular future development plans in the area. The plans which were opposed were: bringing more people to the desert, factories, building a hotel at

Sasgon Valley, building an international airport, making new roads or widening the existing roads, increasing the number of electricity lines and mining in the Samar sand dunes12. There were also a few respondents who saw that the balance between nature and development was slanting more towards development. They spoke about protecting the environment while acknowledging that “humans are more important and therefore nature should sometimes be sacrificed.” They supported the following aspects of development: bringing more people to the area, giving up open space when needed and growing more dates.

12 The plan to build a hotel in Timna Park, sand mining from Samar dunes and building an international airport are all ongoing environmental disputes that involve many of the residents of the area. A large regional environmental lobby is acting against these plans. 72

Another way to understand Figure 17 - Most important in the environment divided into 3 categories the differences between both 100% the Israeli and Jordanian sides 80% concerning development in 60% the area is shown in figure 17. Israel 40% The responses were divided Jordan 20% into three main categories 0% which mirror the three aspects Enviro. and livelihood social ties concern for and edu. of sustainability: it environment, economy and society (Goodland 1995). Concern for the natural environment groups together the issues of: quietness, beauty, balance between nature and development, livelihood and education. Economy groups: job opportunities, water, education and agricultural development. Social ties groups: people, family and community. In this manner, we can see that the concern for the natural environment is much higher on the

Israeli side but still gets mentioned often on the Jordanian side. Concern for livelihood and education is much stronger on the Jordanian side and concern for home and social ties is relatively low for both sides (probably because respondents interpreted the question as implying the natural environment as opposed to the social environment). The differences found reflect the economic gap between the two sides, where one side is more concerned with its livelihood and the other with environmental quality. However, at the same time we can see the appreciation that both sides have towards the beauty and quietness of their environment regardless of the economic situation. 73

5.2 - Perceptions on ecosystem services

This section presents the perceptions of the Arava residents regarding ecosystem services (benefits humans attain from their environment as described in section 2.3). The results are based on both interviews with the local people as well as stakeholder interviews with people in key positions in the Southern Arava. The interviews with people in key positions, such as head of the regional council, agriculture managers, businessmen, etc. provide an expert view on the ways the communities use the environment in different branches.

Two different methods were applied to obtain the perceptions on ecosystem services. In the interviews with key stakeholders we explained the term “ecosystem services” and then asked them directly about the ecosystem services of their area. In the interviews with local residents, the respondents were asked about the services indirectly.

The question asked was: “how do you use your environment in your daily lives?” This question was structured as such because the term ecosystem services, a professional- scientific term, was not easily understood by the stakeholders. When the question wasn’t clear, or wasn’t leading to the stated intention, additional questions were added, such as:

“how does the environment serve you?” and “which activities do you do in your environment?”

The components, qualities and areas of the environment that were reported as being used by the residents of the Southern Arava and the ways in which they are being used by or serve the residents are summarized in the table below. For purposes of comparison the table divides between the services that have been mentioned by Israelis alone, by residents from both sides, and by Jordanians alone. The results have been tabulated according to the 74

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s division to types of ecosystem services and sub- categories of each (MEA 2005). Only two types of services are included in the table: provisioning services (products obtained from ecosystems), and cultural services (non- material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems). Two other types, intermediary services, namely: supporting services (services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services) and regulating services (benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes), were hardly mentioned by the interviewees (except for water that has been recognized also as a supporting service). Therefore, they are not included in the table. While the cultural and provisional services are directly affecting human wellbeing, the other two are only indirectly affecting it through their impact (Mäler et al. 2008) and are therefore harder for locals and scientific experts to grasp and perceive

(Dick et al. 2011).

Table 4 - Southern Arava residents’ perceptions of the ecosystem services in their environment

s

Israel Shared Jordan

Final Service

Cow farm, dairy plant Use of the fine grain sand and Hunting local animals Beetles - food for the Thai aquifer water for vegetable such as: gazelles, In the past raising fish - agriculture and mainly date rabbits, crows and spiny orchards tailed lizards

“Ardag” fish factory

Growing fodder for the cows Advantages of the weather –

Food yield to markets early in the season and high quality dates (esp. ‘Majhul’) Raising Sheep and goats for milk and meat (more in Jordan) Sun and dryness used for Solar Trees and bushes used

energy, desert cooler and for for heating and

drying clothes cooking

Attempts for developing wind Fuel/

Energy power and biomass Kikayon project in Yotvata for

Bio-Diesel/Bio-Ethanol Provisioning Services Provisioning

Mud for building structures Trees and bushes for shade Wood for building

Parts of the date trees for domestic animal decoration shelters

Raw Sand mining from the dunes Local plants as forage Material 75

Aquifer water are used for all Local aquifer water used for Spring water used for

domestic water needs and irrigation Domestic animals desalinated for drinking.

Water Use of treated waste water for irrigation Production of Algea Traditional use of local

Cultivation of Hudya - cacti plants for relieving

s used for losing weight pain ic

Green clay for facial masks

Pharmaceuti cals&Cosmet

Inspiring for music & art Powerful nature The space allows to

Enables to focus the attention Easy to be alone in preserve the Bedouin inside The view and the quietness tradition of ‘honor’ and

Feeling the presence of god allow to contemplate about life of raising sheep & tradition Spiritual/ Spiritual equanimity goats Feeling safe The view and dry air create a

Being far from the center of the feeling of inner peace country Relief of daily stress The agriculture and vegetation Merging with the rhythm/slow

Mental create an oasis which pace of the desert wellbeing compensates for the hard desert Affinity to nature conditions The agricultural fields are Desert education about plants, Bedouin heritage important for teaching Kibbutz animals and survival in the and Zionist values such as desert. “working the land” Working in agriculture teaches Research & Development how to grow vegetables

research center for desert agriculture Education / Sustainable desert agriculture

research

Riding on horses, bicycles and Climbing on the mountains Hunting jeeps Observing animals Riding camels, donkeys Playing in the sand dunes Camping mostly in the and cars in the desert Walking, running and riding in mountains Picnics outdoors the agricultural fields Swimming in the red sea Smoking Nargila Organized field trips in the Meteor shower gazing outdoors desert with family, community, Flood watching, playing in the

Recreation/sports school and daycare mud

Photography Cultural Services Cultural

Edom Mountains in the Amazement from the view sunset/sunrise Enjoyment of the vast open The beauty of the green space orchards and fields that create

Aesthetics an oasis Eco-tourism: Mud building, environmental education, renewable-energy-visitor center, Hai Bar (desert animals’ park) and bird watching Archeological and geological

Tourism tourism (Timna park) Theme tourism: Judaism, Zionism Road services Ideological sense of belonging: Strong sense of place and  Rooted sense of

“redemption of the land”, nostalgia belonging to the land

“conquering the Negev”, Strong connection and where their forefathers “protecting the borders” were born

place attachment to the environment

Sense ofSense Sense of home Identification of self with place 76

5.2.1 Provisioning services

More differences than similarities can be found in the perceptions of the provisioning services of the two sides. On the Israeli side the use of provisioning services is mainly for industrial purposes and the resources used are chiefly: the sun, aridity, sand and the local aquifer water. In contrast, on the Jordanian side the use of provisioning services is mainly for their basic life needs and the resources used are mostly: animals, trees, bushes and spring water. The similarities between the two sides are in using the fine grain sand and aquifer water for the purpose of agriculture and raising livestock and using the dry weather for the date trees. However, the frequency of respondents mentioning these, varied; on the

Israeli side more people spoke of using their environment for agriculture, especially for growing “Majhul”13 dates, whereas on the Jordanian side more people spoke of using the environment to raise livestock. The type of livestock raised differs, on the Israeli side cows are dominant, and on the Jordanian side goats are most prevalent.

There is a big difference when it comes to using the environments resource's for fuel. While both sides are connected to the national electricity grid (although not all the houses on the Jordanian side are connected), each side uses additional energy sources. In

Jordan dry wood from the bushes and trees is used for cooking and heating, while on the

Israeli side various types of renewable energy are now being introduced such as: solar energy, wind power, and bio-diesel.

13 “Majhul Date” is a species of very sweet and humid dates. “Majhul” is the most popular type of dates grown in the Southern Arava and produces most of the income from dates. 77

5.2.2 Cultural services

A significant common denominator between the two sides was in their perception of cultural services. Although these services referred to in more detail by the Israelis, both sides mentioned similar services. The shared cultural services were mainly expressed in terms of admiration of the view and their enjoyment of the quietness, open space and calm that the desert is perceived to provide. An Israeli man described it as such:

“The pleasure I get from nature and the landscape compensates for my boring job.”

A Jordanian woman said:

“I love the mountains early in the morning, they make me feel good and my problems become small.”

Cultural services were also expressed through the strong sense of being at home and the attachment that people maintained for their environment. This subject is further elaborated in section 5.4 below.

Both sides spoke of the spiritual force and powerful feeling of the desert. A third of the Israelis mentioned spiritual experiences in the desert; some specifically mentioned feeling the presence of God. An Israeli man said:

“I love the fact that I can climb the mountain and be there alone with God.”

A woman spoke of the powerful feeling of the desert which made it a good place for religions to develop, saying:

“The landscape here is very inhuman, it isn't a soft view, it is powerful. Why do you think the Torah was given in the desert?”

The Jordanians didn’t specifically speak about God, but spoke about going for relaxing walks in the desert. A Jordanian man said:

“Many people go with a donkey to the desert for a few days to change, to relax, to think...” 78

Both sides spoke often of recreational activities in their environments. While both sides enjoy activities such as: mountain climbing, camping , desert hikes, growing a garden and watching the stars, floods and wild animals, each side emphasized specific activities.

The Jordanians mentioned hunting, picnics & barbecues, smoking hookah (nargila) outside, and camel and donkey riding. The Israelis mentioned playing in the sand dunes and riding on a bicycle, horse or jeep in the agricultural fields or in the desert. Although most people mentioned walking in the desert, there were a few, on both sides, that while being interviewed realized that they hardly spent time in their environment and that they would have liked to do it more often.

On the Jordanian side, activities in the desert were often prohibited for women depending on how conservative their families were. Some women mentioned hiking in the desert together with their families, and there were others who said that they can’t go on desert hikes. One girl from Al-Qatar said that except for going to and from school she isn’t allowed to leave her home. Therefore, some of the women’s recreational use of the environment was cultivating gardens near their homes.

Some of the difference in the use of the environment between the two sides is because of government restrictions. For example, sand dunes exist on both sides of the border, but are being used only by the Israeli respondents. On the Israeli side the sand dunes are used for recreation and biodiversity research as well as for sand mining. On the

Jordanian side the sand dunes are a restricted-military-zone. The situation is similar in terms of the agricultural fields, which are often being used by the Israelis also for recreation but are restricted areas for the Jordanian residents except for those who work there. 79

A new type of ecosystem service was mentioned by the Head of Yotvata’s economic initiatives with regard to the success of Yotvata’s milk products. She said:

“Yotvata's taste has nothing to do with the taste of the chocolate milk but with the taste of a Kibbutz in the desert on the way to Eilat with the dates and the sun. We don’t sell chocolate milk here, we sell an idea, a perception, an image… It’s the landscape which people want to go to on their vacation.”

In this case it is the image of the landscape symbolizing vacation which is perceived as an ecosystem service. This specific service supports Yotvata’s main source of income – the dairy plant and in the same way it supports the tourism activities of the Kibbutzim in the area.

A big difference between the two sides was found regarding tourism. On the Israeli side the cultural services are used productively in a rapidly developing tourist industry. On the Jordanian side tourism doesn’t exist at all, but was often mentioned, as an area that they would like to develop.

5.2.3 Ecosystem disservices

While searching for the services of the environment, many of the respondents found it easier to describe negative services, lack of services, or the disservices of their environment. Ecosystem disservices is a relatively new concept in the ecosystem service literature (Swinton et al 2007, Agbenyega et al 2009, Dick et al. 2010, Zhang et al. 2007).

Ecosystem disservices are either a result of ecosystem functions or are environmental

‘‘bads’’ that result from human actions (Agbenyega et al. 2009). The harsh conditions of the desert are responsible for many disservices which make it hard for humans to live there; where even the services needed for basic existence, such as wood, drinking water and plants, are of lower quality than in other environments (Safriel et al. 2005). In the words of one of the interviewees: 80

“The Arava environment is an extreme arid environment where humans would have probably not been able to survive without a strong ideology or tradition of many years.”

Many of the residents mentioned their dissatisfaction with the following environmental conditions: sand/dust storms, heavy heat, strong radiation, insects, aridity, the saline soil, quantity and quality of the water and the lack of vegetation. The Jordanians talked mainly of the salinity of the soil, the poor quantity and quality of the water, wild animals attacking their livestock and the lack of plants to feed their animals. For example: a man from Al-Qatar described how they tried to farm the land but failed due to the salinity of the soil which made the fruit of the trees come out dry. Many respondents mentioned that they would like to grow more plants, for shade and food, but cannot because of the lack of water. One man from Rahma described a decline in some of the services in the last years and the outcome:

“In the last 12 years we have no rain, so there are not enough plants to feed our animals. This caused people to lose their animals. Today we need a job with a salary.”

This quote shows that the Jordanian residents are still highly dependent on the provisioning services for their basic livelihood and are therefore sensitive to its disservices in that respect. For example, some of the Bedouins live off their livestock and when there isn’t enough fodder in their environment, they need to earn money in order to buy fodder for their animals.

On the Israeli side the respondents spoke of the difficult struggle they have in order to survive in such an arid environment. One of the pioneers of the Israeli Southern Arava from Yotvata who works in agriculture and the Research & Development Center said:

“We are in a horrifying struggle to live all the time … It’s only because the people here are tough, ambitious, pioneers, Zionists and all of these words that we survived here, in this VERY difficult environment, you know what, in the hardest place to live in Israel, a place that in its basic conditions is an extreme arid-barren-desert with salty water.” 81

The high cost of the various disservices of the environment was described by a Yotvata member:

“The life here is expensive. It is hot so we use lots of energy for cooling that is polluting. We want our children to study so we must provide it for them in the central areas, far from home. When we do agriculture, bringing the merchandise is expensive and since our water is saline, all of our trees, without exception, give fewer yields. Our disadvantage here is enormous. In order to grow cows we need to wash them to cool them down and we found out that if our cows weren’t drinking saline water they would have produced two additional liters of milk per day.”

Respondents spoke of the negative effects of the conditions of their environment on their health. They mentioned the following health risks: strong radiation of the sun, inhaling dust particles, being exposed to the West Nile Virus and the health effects of showering with saline water and drinking it for many years before the introduction of the desalination plants. Others spoke of the mental difficulty which arises from living in a desert without green around them.

Overcoming the disservices

In an interview with the head of the Hevel Eilot regional council, it was found that today there is an attempt to shift the economy of Hevel Eilot from agriculture towards tourism and renewable energy. In terms of ecosystem services we can see a shift from trying to overcome the provisional disservices with respect to agriculture (infertile soil, saline soil and water, high evapo-transpiration rate etc.) to increasing the use of cultural - educational and aesthetic services. This is true as well for the provisional services which are abundant in the desert such as sunlight and mud. As explained by the head of the regional council:

“We have gone from mostly doing agriculture to a huge emphasis on education & tourism. Now as a Kibbutz, we use the environment for bringing tourists here, for people to stay here in educational seminars and hikes.” 82

The sun of the Arava as an energy source and mud for building are both provisioning services that are used also as cultural services in their educational-tourism functions. The head of the regional council spoke of renewable energy and mud building as two fields which the council is promoting more than other areas. As he explained both of these attract target-clientele tourists for eco-tourism. He mentioned a plan to build the first visiting center for renewable energy in the world. This new type of tourism is called theme tourism, he explained:

“One of the directions of ‘theme tourism’ is nature and environment. People are tired of going to a regular hotel; they want to see something special. We are developing the idea of offering something special and I think it will develop well."

This type of tourism uses not only the aesthetics and recreational services of the environment, but also its resources to produce renewable energy and ecological buildings which are used for education as well. For example, Kibbutz Lotan of the Southern Arava has a center for creative ecology which includes courses of mud-building.

Summary of perceptions of ecosystem services

This study illustrates how both sides of the border have some difficulty in trying to make a living out of the relatively poor quantity and quality of the provisioning services as well as overcoming the disservices, but enjoy an array of cultural services. On the Israeli side, in order to produce income, provisioning services are used for industries such as: small factories, agriculture, date orchards and livestock while the cultural services are used for tourism and education. On the Jordanian side the provisioning services are used for agriculture, date orchards and livestock as well, but more for the daily lives of the residents: wood for cooking and heating, hunting animals and bushes and trees for fodder and shade.

The cultural services are enjoyed by the residents but do not produce income in terms of tourism and education. As mentioned by Christie et al. (2008), people from the poorest 83 nations often have the greatest immediate dependency on ecosystem services. The fact that the Jordanians have more of an immediate dependency on the ecosystem services than the

Israelis reflects the economic gap, but also the cultural preferences.

Many similarities can be found in the respondents’ use of cultural services: enjoyment of the view and the quiet, spiritual experiences, mental wellbeing, a sense of place and activities in the area such as hikes and camping. Some differences can be found in the type of service that a certain ecosystem-good provides. For example, while the

Israelis use the birds for bird-watching (cultural service) the Jordanians hunt them

(provisioning & cultural). There are also external causes that affect their activities: Israelis often use the agricultural fields and the sand dunes for recreation, while these two parallel areas on the Jordanian side are not accessible for the Jordanian residents. Another difference involves gender; while on the Israeli side men and women engage in similar activities in their environment, on the Jordanian side women are often restricted from outdoor activities that men engage in, but have their own activities such as taking care of their home gardens. This shows that it is significant for policy makers to pay attention to gender specific needs and restricted areas in their considerations on future development plans.

Regarding the disservices of the environment, both sides are concerned with the disservices that make it difficult to grow plants and practice agriculture and especially with the salinity of the water. The Israelis put an emphasis on disservices such as heat, health risks and their distance from the center of Israel which makes life expensive. The

Jordanians are more concerned with the worsening of the natural conditions of their environments such as less rain and plants to feed their livestock. On the Israeli side, a shift is envisioned for the area in which the economy will depend less on agriculture and more 84 on cultural services by developing theme tourism which will focus on the environment, education and renewable energies. On the Jordanian side, the aim for the local economy continues to focus on developing the agricultural sector, but in addition the residents are aspiring for the government and NGOs to help in developing the tourism sector.

From the interviews with locals and key people in the region the agricultural sector was found to be a key issue of the regional development agenda on both sides of the border.

As was shown in this section, one side wants to develop it further and the other is considering reducing its role in agriculture. The following section describes the specific ecosystem services of agriculture in the Arava and the residents' views on its future.

5.3 - Perceptions of agriculture

This chapter describes the importance of the agricultural fields to the residents as well as their various opinions regarding agriculture and its future in the region. I chose to describe the opinions of the Israelis and the Jordanians separately as agriculture on each side of the border and its impact on the lives of the people are very different. I begin by briefly introducing the state of agriculture on each side of the border and the underlying cultural influences that affect it.

As mentioned in section 4.2, on the Israeli side of the valley agriculture has been developing since the 1950’s using western technologies and has now reached a highly advanced stage. On the Jordanian side of the Southern Arava the agriculture is much less developed. The first agricultural attempt in the 1980’s failed. In 1997, another project was initiated on over 50 hectares of land by the Jordan Valley Authority and Al-Haq farms (a private enterprise) in collaboration with Hevel Eilot Research and Development Station

(see sub-section 4.1.4). This project still exists today, managed by Al-Haq farms and 85 employs local residents as well as Egyptians (Feuer 2006). In short, on the Israeli side there are more years of experience, higher levels of development and the agriculture is owned locally versus by an external private enterprise on the Jordanian side.

Another big difference between the two sides lies in the cultural understandings of agriculture. In Israel, especially for Kibbutz members, agriculture was originally perceived as the symbol of the creative union of the Jewish people with their homeland which according to A.D. Gordon 14 could only come through manual labor (Sternhell 1995;

Albright 1947). Agriculture, specifically in the desert, was a symbol of the fulfillment of

Ben-Gurion’s15 vision of “settling the Negev” and “making the desert bloom.” Moreover, the settlement of the land by means of agriculture was considered a national goal for a continued Jewish presence in Israel (Lipchin 2007). Many of the Kibbutzim in the Arava were established by pioneers who came from youth movements or other Kibbutzim which were based on these ideologies.

On the Jordanian side, agriculture has been introduced to the Bedouins in Jordan in order to indirectly contribute to their sedentarization, and in an attempt to improve their living conditions (Heidtmann 2001). Many of these projects have failed to improve the living conditions of the Bedouins. According to Patai (2002) agriculture was never part of the Bedouin culture as their mentality holds aversion to manual labor; in particular to work

14 Aaron David Gordon (1856-1922) was a Zionist ideologue and the spiritual force behind practical Zionism and Labor Zionism. He sought to promote physical labor and agriculture as a means of uplifting Jews spiritually. He founded Hapoel Hatzair, a movement that set the tone for the Zionist movement for many years to come.

15 David Ben-Gurion (1886-1974) was the first prime-minister of Israel. He was a major Zionist leader and Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization in 1946. Ben-Gurion believed that the sparsely populated and barren Negev desert offered a great opportunity for the Jews to settle in Palestine with minimal obstruction of the Arab population. 86 that involves dirtying one’s hands. Therefore, foreign laborers were often brought in to do the agricultural work.

5.3.1 Importance of and residents' opinions on agriculture – Israel

The importance of agriculture for the Israeli residents of the Southern Arava can be summarized in three ways: as a form of livelihood, recreational/aesthetic value and ideological value.

From the interviews it was understood that for the Israeli Arava residents, turning the land into agricultural land is perceived as the primary grounds for the survival of the people in the area. One of the adult Kibbutz members that has been working in agriculture since his arrival to the Arava expressed it in the following words:

“The fact that we managed to do agriculture in the Arava is one of the main reasons that we are able to survive here and live here... Eilat managed to survive because of the beach and tourism. We wouldn’t have survived here without the agriculture.”

Agricultural ecosystems are described in the literature as a newly recognized potential to deliver more diverse ecosystem services and mitigate the level of past ecosystem disservices (Swinton et al 2007). As we have seen in the ecosystem services section, the desert Arava environment is very poor in provisioning services sufficient to sustain all the needs of a population. Therefore, by practicing agriculture and turning the land to productive use many new ecosystem services, both provisioning and cultural become available.

The agricultural products cultivated are used for four types of provisioning services:

1. Food: vegetables & fruit; mainly dates and fodder for cattle. 2. Fuel: plants that can

produce energy - bio diesel/bio-ethanol/biomass such as the castor oil plant (in Hebrew: 87

Kikayon). 3. Pharmaceuticals: plants such as ‘Hoodia Gordonii’ – an African cactus used

in diets for weight loss. 4. Ornamental plants: such as grass. Most of the agricultural yield

is not consumed within the Arava but is exported and provides the residents with income.

Most of the income comes from the date orchards, while the rest of the agricultural

initiatives provide smaller amounts of income or are still in the experimental phase. From

the Kibbutzim studied in this research, only Yotvata continues to directly profit from

growing vegetables. Ketura also has vegetable fields but they are rented and therefore the

Kibbutz only benefits from the rental fees.

The cultural services stemming from the agricultural activity were found to have an

important role in the lives of the Arava residents. The cultural services were described in

terms of aesthetics, sense of home, recreation, education and ideology.

Aesthetics and sense of home:

The agricultural fields were often mentioned as an inseparable part of the residents’ landscape which gives them their sense of home and aesthetic pleasure. A woman from

Yotvata said:

“The best thing for me is to go out of my house and see the Edom Mountains with the vegetable fields! The combination of fields in the desert is amazing…When I see the agricultural fields I know that I am home.”

The fields and date orchards were often mentioned as creating an oasis in the desert. As was illustrated in section 5.1 the green of the environment is very important for the residents’ wellbeing. Five of the residents have specifically attributed the aesthetic value of the green of the agriculture to their mental wellbeing and their need of it. A young man from Ketura said: 88

“If there wasn’t green here I don’t know if I could be in a desert environment all the time… the date orchard is a big part of the view…seeing bright green in the middle of the desert is very special.”

When I asked about the impact of the agriculture on the view, almost all the respondents agreed that it enhances the view; some said that it is an inseparable part of the landscape and that they can’t imagine the view without it. There were only three respondents that said that they wouldn’t mind not having the agriculture; one of them said:

“the more desert the better.” All together I could sense that the advantage of the agriculture in adding green to the desert was very important for the residents.

Recreational value:

The importance of the agricultural fields is enhanced by the fact that they are not attended only by the people who work there but also by many others who like to use them for recreation, relaxation and sports. As mentioned in the previous section activities such as walking, running and riding a bicycle in the fields are common, sometimes on a daily basis.

A man from Ketura said:

“I love running in the fields, especially in the afternoon when the weather is perfect for it.”

The younger interviewees spoke of going there with their friends to pick from the fresh yield. Someone also mentioned going there for romantic excursions.

Ideological and educational value:

The ideological value of agriculture was linked to Zionist principles that were adopted by Kibbutz ideology, such as “manual labor”, “connection to the land” and

“settling the borders.” Eight people spoke of the ideological importance of the agriculture.

For example: a woman from Yotvata said about the agriculture: 89

“It is a big branch that doesn’t make much money but we keep it anyhow for ideological reasons, for our connection to the land, and so that the claim to our right to settle here will be based without any doubt.”

The younger generation also mentioned the ideological importance of the agriculture. A young woman from Samar said:

“I think that the agriculture is what makes us a Kibbutz, what maintains our connection to the land and to this area.”

The educational value was mentioned as well. A young woman from Yotvata said:

“I think it is important to develop agriculture so that it stays part of the Kibbutz... It is something moral; it teaches children work-values and manual labor.”

The social importance of the agricultural fields was described by a young woman from

Yotvata:

“Agriculture used to be a social thing in the Kibbutz, they would do “Giusim” (drafting the Kibbutzniks from all sectors to help in the agriculture sector)... It is a pity that we don’t have this anymore... It is a type of thing that preserves the Kibbutz of old times.”

The idea that agriculture is a fundamental part of the Kibbutz lifestyle, which is important to preserve and pass on to future generations is the common theme in all the above quotes. It is interesting to see that the age of the respondent wasn’t significant here as both the older Kibbutz members and the young mentioned this ideology; however, this ideology was much more prevalent in Yotvata than in Ketura and Samar.

There were also people who thought that the agriculture in the desert is important and should be continued and even expanded for other ideological reasons, based on Ben

Gurion’s ideology of “redeeming the desert” and “making the desert bloom.” This was poetically described by a man from Samar:

“In the Guliver book there is a line that says: ‘The one that grew a field of grains in a place where it didn't exist before did a favor to his people more than anyone else’. So, the one that grows a field of grains in the desert is doing a favor to his people and heals the desert.” 90

Another man from Yotvata spoke of his agricultural vision:

"... I would like to see a continuous date orchard from Eilat all the way to the Dead Sea.”

As we have seen above, the agricultural fields have many advantages for the residents of the Southern Arava but there are many disadvantages as well. As was mentioned by respondents, growing vegetables today in the Southern Arava is not profitable. As a result of the water scarcity in the region together with the development of renewable energy initiatives and the promotion of sustainable development in Hevel Eilot, the future of agriculture is strongly debated in the region. Therefore, the residents’ opinions regarding agriculture are particularly relevant today.

The findings show that the range of opinions lies between people who love agriculture and think it should be kept for its own sake, to those who think agriculture should be stopped and see the future of the region in solar panels. The distribution of the residents’ opinions is shown in figure 18. The total responses of the interviewees were divided into four main opinions and nine sub-categories. 91

Figure 18 - Distribution of opinions on agriculture - Israel

Opinions on Agriculture- Israel

Love it and want to continue having it 27% Pro-but under conditions

Indifferent 6% 58%

9% See future without

Figure 18 shows that most of the residents love agriculture and would like to continue cultivating it. These people mentioned the ideological, economic and professional value of the agriculture. Although these respondents want to keep agriculture in the Arava, most of them said that they would not want to expand it to virgin lands. The second group included those who are pro-agriculture but only under certain conditions - if it is sustainable for the desert, or if it involves only date orchards. Very few were indifferent to the subject, and didn’t care if there will be agriculture or not. The “indifferent” sub-category included only young people which had no experience with agriculture. The fact that except for these few “indifferent” respondents, all the interviewees had firm opinions regarding agriculture reveals the importance of this issue for the residents.

About a third of the respondents see the future of the Arava without agriculture

(vegetables and dates) with more than half of these respondents visioning the future specifically in solar energy generation. It is important to note that many of those who see the future without agriculture have also mentioned that they would have preferred today to only have date orchards. 92

The following examples illustrate the categories in figure 18 and the complexity of people’s opinions on agriculture. Examples from the respondents who are agriculturists show that for many of the Arava residents the agriculture fields are more than just a work place but also a part of their identity. A man from Samar said:

“Agriculture is engrained in my soul, I’m a farmer.”

Some of the respondents had conflicting thoughts regarding agriculture. On the one

hand they thought it is amazing that the Kibbutzim managed to do agriculture and want the

agriculture to be kept, but on the other hand they fear for its ecological disadvantages. This

was especially noticeable in the responses of young members from Ketura. One of the

people who thought agriculture should continue but only if it is sustainable said:

“There are lots of options for agriculture here, doesn't have to be oranges, could be lots of stuff like Agave which is a desert plant that you could make local tequila out of. You just need to check what will be suitable here.”

These respondents were environmentally concerned about the agriculture but at the same

time wanted it to remain in a certain way which is less harmful to the environment. Those

that see the future in solar energy production also expressed a conflicting notion because of

its aesthetic disadvantage. The head of the regional council said:

“…it is obvious that on the one hand having a solar field is environmental, because it is instead of coal and oil, but on the other hand when you see it from the Arava road it is a bruise...”

It was interesting that the ones who love agriculture and think it is important ideologically seemed very confident in their opinions about the future of agriculture. A woman from Yotvata said:

“I'm sure that it should be kept even if it isn't economical sometimes, I believe that agriculture has a national significance and I would like for the country to subsidize it so that it would be economically viable.” 93

In an interview with a businessman from Ketura I could sense how the different opinions on agriculture and its importance could create conflict and tension between the residents. His opinion is that all the agriculture in the Southern Arava, except for the dates, should be stopped because it is unfit for the desert and only loses money. When I asked him why vegetables are still grown, he said:

“It's a psychological problem of the people here; people came to the Arava to be farmers."

This section discussed the ecosystem services and the opinions that Israeli Arava residents hold towards agriculture in the Arava. We could see that in addition to the economic considerations, the fields play a very important role in the aesthetics of the Arava environment, in their sense of home, in their daily or weekly recreational activities, and largely as a part of Zionist and Kibbutz ideology. The situation of agriculture on the

Jordanian side is described below.

5.3.2 Importance of and residents' opinions on agriculture – Jordan

As was mentioned in section 4.4, today Al Haq farm is the only farm still functioning in the Southern part of the Arava. In a research conducted in 2001 it was found that this project as well as several other agricultural projects in the region, have failed to improve the residents’ living conditions, because not many of the Bedouins agreed to work in agriculture (Heidtmann 2001). This section will describe the residents’ opinions regarding agriculture and its development in the region, ten years later, as well as their willingness to work in agriculture, its importance for them and the ecosystem services it provides.

Ecosystem services stemming from the agricultural fields are very limited on the

Jordanian side and the interviewees spoke mainly of the lack of services. This is primarily 94 due to the fact that the agriculture is owned by an outside company, and not by the residents, therefore the profit is earned by the company. The main service that the agriculture provides for the residents is employment and income, but as we have seen not many residents work there, and the ones who do are usually manual laborers, while the managerial positions are filled by employees from Amman. The entire agricultural yield is sold outside the region, and neither the residents nor the workers enjoy it. Some interviewees complained that the farm doesn’t even agree to give them the bad produce that can’t be sold, which could be used for feeding their livestock, but burns it instead. In terms of cultural services, as mentioned earlier, the residents cannot use it for recreation since it is fenced and entry is prohibited for non-workers. No specific ideological importance was mentioned; however, a young woman from Rahma mentioned the educational service of learning how to grow plants:

“Although I receive a low salary, I’m happy to learn how to plant, seed and grow vegetables.”

A few have mentioned the aesthetic value of the dates, but some of those referred to the dates on the Israeli side. Another disadvantage of the agricultural project is that it is an area guarded by the military. In the interviews the respondents often mentioned in fear the word ‘Muhabarat’ (intelligence unit) referring to their presence in their village. In general it can be seen that many of the residents are unsatisfied with the current situation regarding agriculture; however, according to the following figure most of them are supportive of developing more agriculture. 95

Figure 19 - Distribution of opinions on agriculture - Jordan

Opinions on Agriculture- Jordan

11% Would like to have more agricultural projects

14% Would like to be able to independently grow small scale farms Don’t like agriculture 75%

Figure 19 shows that, in fact, no one said anything against having more agriculture, but some mentioned dislike for the current agricultural project or not wanting to work in agriculture. The first category of people who would like to have more agriculture projects is further divided into four sub-groups according to the common characteristics of their answers. The first sub-group includes adults, (mostly men but also three women) who think that agriculture in the area should be developed and will help the economy. They all thought that the government or NGO’s should help initiate it because they don’t have the lands, water and money to do it. For example, the director of the school in Qatar explained why she thinks it would be good to have agriculture:

“More agriculture would be good because most people here are uneducated and it is a good job for them.”

The second sub-group included people who work or have worked in agriculture and like it and therefore think it should be further developed. The third sub-group included women who said that they would like to have more agriculture in order to work and earn their own money. From the interviews with women I understood that not all women are 96 allowed to work, it depends on the extent to which the family is conservative in their behavior. As a young woman from Al-Qatar said:

“I would like to work in agriculture if my parents will allow it.”

On the other hand since the agricultural fields are located near their village, it was considered by some, as a good work place for the women. The fourth sub-group included people who had no experience with agriculture, but thought that in general it is a good idea to have more plants around. All four sub-groups have in common the desire of the residents to have more agricultural projects in their area.

The second category in figure 19 includes only women who wanted to have small scale independent agriculture, such as growing olive trees, pomegranates, guavas and tomatoes around their houses in order to sell in local markets. The last category includes those who specifically mentioned that they wouldn’t want to work in agriculture. They were all young men around the age of 20. One of them said:

“I wouldn’t want to work there. It is hard work, it’s not stable and it pays only 150 JD a month.”

Others spoke of wanting to work in computers or to be shepherds. I noticed that the residents who do work in agriculture are either women, or adult men. The young men were the least enthusiastic about working in agriculture. In a conversation I had with an Israeli woman that works with Bedouins in the unrecognized villages of the Negev it was also found that young men were much less interested in working in agriculture than their parents

(personal communication).

Seeing that most people would like to have more agriculture and grow more plants I inquired about what prevents it from happening. Most people gave answers such as:

“There are no lands, they are owned by the government and there is no water... People would grow plants if they could.” 97

A teacher from Al-Qatar thought differently:

“More agriculture is needed and possible; we don't have agriculture because the people are lazy and would rather sell their land than cultivate it.”

Following the relatively unsuccessful attempt of integrating local residents in the agriculture project in Rahma, I asked the interviewees whether they thought that the residents in their village would work in agriculture if there were additional projects. It was interesting that all the answers that I received agreed that nowadays Bedouins would work in agriculture. The question remains whether they would actually work or not. This shift in their view on agriculture may reflect the high unemployment rate in the villages and their low economic level.

Summary of perceptions of agriculture

The main differences between the two sides regarding agriculture can be explained by two factors: cultural-ideological background and stage of regional development.

Agriculture is considered a national, ideological and economic goal in Israel, and is thus highly developed and valued by the residents. In the Eilot region, however, it has reached a stage at which its future is being questioned as a result of growing environmental awareness, as well as regional difficulties in profiting from crops other than dates. While agriculture is linked to economic benefits and food security in Jordan, it remains underdeveloped in the Arava region due to two main factors: the country’s economic level and the fact that agriculture has historically been culturally foreign to the Jordanian

Bedouins (Perevolotsky 1981). The government, NGOs and local residents, however, are promoting the development of agricultural projects in the region (JVA and ASEZA website). 98

The opinions of the residents on agriculture, on each side, could be partially explained in light of the prevailing discourses of developing countries versus developed countries (Sachs 1992). The Jordanian Bedouins are a developing society, where the dominant discourse is still one of development and basic needs, therefore a desire for development initiatives such as agriculture would be expected. Israeli society, much more developed economically, is in the midst of sustainability and environmental discourses, therefore a desire for sustainable development such as renewable energies could be expected. This research shows that while many of the residents’ opinions fit this paradigm, there are some who do not. Many of the Israeli respondents would like to continue cultivating the fields, despite their awareness of its adverse environmental and economic impact, mainly for cultural/ideological reasons. On the Jordanian side, while most of the respondents did express an interest in developing agriculture, the young men expressed an interest in careers either in technology or in traditional Bedouin work such as sheep- herding, rather than agriculture.

5.4 - Arava residents' sense of place and place attachment

The following section will elaborate on the various relations and feelings that the residents hold for their environment/place of residence, which may explain their care and concern for decisions regarding development, such as agriculture in the area. The sense of place and place attachment of the Arava residents were found to be a significant cultural service of their environment. This service has an impact on people’s perceptions of the environment and their views on development. The respondents were asked questions regarding their attachment level, their willingness to move, and their relation to their environment. Hummon’s (1992) categories of “community attachment, local sentiment and 99 sense of place” are used to analyze the responses. Hummon distinguished between five different types of place sentiments to capture people’s diverse emotional experiences with locales:

1. Ideological Rootedness: strong feelings of satisfaction, attachment and home are

combined with self-conscious identification with the community. All these sentiments

are situated within a perspective that is highly favorable, consciously articulated with a

commitment to the community's lifestyle.

2. Everyday Rootedness: sense of home and attachment are embedded in a perspective

that is relatively simple, taken for granted. An attachment for the place that comes

from the fact that they lived there for so long and are used to it.

3. Alienation: feelings of dislike for the place and estrangement from it. Comparing the

place of residence to a more favorable place, lived in or visited before. Doesn’t relate

to the place’s identity and very willing to move.

4. Relativity: few emotional ties to locale. Thinks moving and living in many places is

good. Has a sense of home (people and geography) but with little commitment and

necessity (any place could be home; not just one particular place).

5. Uncommitted Placelessness: few emotional attachments, indifference to place.

Wouldn’t mind moving out. (Hummon 1992, Lewicka 2011). 100

In the analysis of the Arava residents’ sense of place, “relativity” was not included as it didn’t match any of the interviewees’ responses. The distribution of the Arava respondents, from both sides of the border, between these four typologies is shown in figures 20 and 21.

Figure 20 - Distribution among sense of place typologies - Israel

Israel

16.60% Ideological Rootedness 3.30% Everyday Rootedness

Alienation 16.60% 63.30% Uncommitted Placelessness

Figure 21 - Distribution among sense of place typologies - Jordan

Jordan

Ideological Rootedness 20% Everyday Rootedness Alienation 16.60% 53.30%

Uncommitted Placelessness 10%

Figures 20 and 21 show that most of the interviewees on both sides of the border feel rooted in their environments, in an either “ideological” or “everyday” sense of rootedness, where it was a bit more apparent on the Israeli side than on the Jordanian side.

“Alienation”, a feeling of estrangement and dislike for their place was felt by a few of the respondents on the Jordanian side and only by one respondent on the Israeli side. Dislike 101 for their environment was also seen in section 5.1 where it was mentioned in the description of the environment by a small group of the Jordanian respondents and only by one Israeli respondent. A small group of Jordanian and Israeli respondents felt a sort of “uncommitted placelessness” meaning that they are indifferent about their place and wouldn’t mind moving to a different place. The following examples illustrate how the four types of relations with place mentioned above, are manifested in the Southern Arava.

Ideological Rootedness

These people usually had a very enthusiastic-positive description of their environment and community. They feel very attached to it, identify with it, and want to stay living there. There were some young respondents who were ideologically rooted but expressed a will to move out for a few years for studies or for a change, and then to come back to live there. The responses of the Jordanians were different from those of the Israelis in their emphasis. The Jordanians’ rootedness was often expressed with an emphasis on possession: “their land”, “their region” and four people mentioned a “desire to die on this land.” On the Israeli side, a “sense of home” and a strong connection with the desert environment and people were mainly mentioned. A 60 year old woman from Jordan, who lives in the village for the past 40 years said:

“I would like to live my whole life here until I die. There is no other piece of land to build my home. Here it is my region. I wouldn’t move anywhere else.”

A woman in her 50’s from Israel, lives in the Kibbutz for 32 years:

“This place is very strong inside of me as well as my friends and the people not only from my Kibbutz, but also from the whole area… My connection to this environment is very strong, here is my home; I don’t see myself leaving it. I see myself as a desert kibbutznickit (female Kibbutz identity).”

102

Everyday Rootedness

For these people, the feeling of strong attachment and connection to their environment wasn’t as obvious as it was for the “ideologically rooted” people. However, they felt attached and usually didn’t want to move but also didn't reject the possibility all together. On the Israeli side it was usually people who didn’t come to the Arava for the environment but for the Kibbutz and got used to the environment with time. On the

Jordanian side it was people that like their place because they were born there or lived there for many years and got used to it, but don’t necessarily feel an ideological connection for it.

A 20 year old from Rahma:

“I was born here and I will probably want to stay here. I like it here because my friends are here.”

A man in his 40’s from Samar, who was born in Europe and has lived in the Arava for the last 15 years, arrived there in search of a small-young Kibbutz and not specifically for the desert:

“Maybe I'm more attached than what I think. These are things that I take for granted… I didn't come because of the desert. I got here by chance. I didn't grow up in the desert I grew up in a very green environment… Now I enjoy it very much, I learned to know it and love it, it comes with time.”

Uncommitted Placelessness:

The difference between the responses under this category and “everyday rootedness” is in the respondents’ desire to move out and try out other places to live.

“Uncommitted placelessness” usually included respondents who were usually “O.K.” with their place but not enthusiastic about it. A man from Rahma in his 60’s, born in the Arava valley said: 103

“I live here and like it, but would love to go elsewhere, maybe to Vadi Guweire. I would stay here if there were more projects here. I don’t really care where I live as long as I have a house and a job.”

A woman in her 50’s from Ketura, born in the U.S. and moved twice within Israel before settling in the Arava said:

“I'm not stuck; it isn't the place that I need to live my life. I would be happy to live somewhere else. I'm attached to it because I have lived here for so long. But I could pack my things and leave.”

Alienation

People who are “alienated” strongly dislike their place and would definitely want to move away. On the Jordanian side it included three adults and two young persons. The adults were born elsewhere and unwillingly moved to the Arava, usually for family reasons

(such as marriage). The youngsters were both high-school students that don’t like the desert and the people in their community and feel that the Arava has nothing to offer them in terms of a career for the future. An 18 year old girl from Al-Qatar who was born in Aqaba said:

“I absolutely don’t like it here. I’m scared of the desert, I don’t go out. I hate this place, I love green. The communication between the people here is bad. I would like to marry someone from Irbid or Jaresh so then I could move there.”

On the Israeli side there was only one person who felt alienated, a man in his 20’s who lived in the Kibbutz all his life and has recently moved to the north of Israel to study.

He said:

“I definitely don’t want to live here. It used to be an ideal to stay but today it isn’t. I don't feel so at home here… The desert is a kind of disease at some point. The animals got used to the desert but humans weren't born to live like this.”

Both “alienation” and “uncommitted placelessness” include people who are willing to move elsewhere, but “alienated” people suffer and feel uncomfortable in their current 104 place and would definitely like to move. “Uncommitted placeless” people are fine with their place but wouldn’t mind living in a different place as well.

In order to further develop the Arava residents’ sense of place beyond the typologies above, I added a breakdown of their responses to the following questions: 1) Are you willing to move? 2) If you were to move where would you move to? 3) Are you more attached to the environment, the community/people or to both? The reason I added the third question was because I noticed that many of the respondents’ rooted sense of connection was to their community and not necessarily to the environment, and I wanted to distinguish between the two as the research is about the environment.

Table 5 - Willingness to move, where to and attachment to environment versus community/people

Israel N=30 Jordan N=30 Willingness to move Definitely willing 36.6% 20% Could move (would 36.6% 30% probably come back) Not willing 26.6% 50% Sum 100% 100% Move where? A greener area (most 50% 16.6% mentioned: Israel - Galil/Golan, Jordan – Irbid/Vadi Guweire) A city 10% 30% A rural place - not to a city 23.3% - Another desert 10% - Closer to the beach 6.6% 0% United States 0% 3.3% Nowhere 0% 50% Sum 100% 100% Place Attachment mainly to: The environment 26.6% 76.6% The community 46.6% 20% Both 26.6% 3.3% Sum 100% 100%

105

The first part of the table shows, that although there are more Israelis with a rooted sense of place than Jordanians (figures 4 and 5), there are also more Israelis who are willing to move. Half of the Israelis who are willing to move are young people that feel very rooted but definitely can see themselves moving to another place. On the Jordanian side, half of the respondents are not willing to move anywhere, compared with only a quarter of the

Israelis. This corresponds to Sampson's findings in his research about community attachment in urban and rural localities in Great Britain. He finds that more well-to-do people are usually more willing to move than others, but attachment levels do not relate to higher social class (Sampson 1988).

A major difference was found between the two sides regarding the place they would want to move to. On the Jordanian side, a third would like to move to a city, either Aqaba or Amman. In addition, some of those who wanted to move to a greener area, wanted to move to Irbid (a city in north Jordan). On the Israeli side, only a few people wanted to move to a city, and even those said that they would like to try it out, but will probably eventually live in a rural place. Moreover, a quarter of the Israelis specifically mentioned not wanting to live in a city. On both sides, most of the respondents who wanted to move to a city were young. The fact that there were more Jordanians who wanted to move to a city than Israelis could be explained by the scarcity of job opportunities, public services and transportation in the rural Jordanian Arava. A young Jordanian woman said:

“I would like to live in Aqaba. I prefer city than this village, because here transportation is difficult. I want to be closer to facilities.”

On both sides many people mentioned specifically moving to a greener area; more on the Israeli side than on the Jordanian side. As the majority of the Israeli residents migrated to the Arava from greener areas, this is what they said they are mostly missing. 106

Almost all of the Israelis in this category spoke of either the Galil or the Golan, and one mentioned the Jerusalem Mountains. In Jordan the respondents mainly mentioned Irbid or

Wadi Guweire16. On the Israeli side there were three respondents that claimed that they love the desert environment so much that even if they had to move, it would be to another community in the desert. On the Jordanian side half of the respondents where firm that they would not move anywhere.

The last part of the table shows that on the Jordanian side people are more attached to their environment than they are to their community, whereas on the Israeli side the opposite is true. A recurrent theme on the Israeli side among the adults was: “I live here not because it is in a desert but despite the desert.” A man from Samar said:

"I didn't come because of the desert, but because of the Kibbutz… The desert was less important, it was secondary…"

On the Jordanian side, speaking of the desert as the source of their attachment was common. A woman from Al-Qatar states:

“I like the beautiful desert, open desert. I feel peaceful here. I’m attached to this desert.”

The influence of mobility

Studies of sense of place have often examined the influence of “mobility” on residents’ place sensitivity (Hummon 1992, Hay 1998). For the purposes of this research mobility implies people who left the Arava for a while (from a few days to a year) and then came back. In most cases mobile residents valued their place more after gaining perspective by being away for a while and then coming back. This experience was noted by 13 out of the 64 respondents on both sides of the border. Following are a few examples. A girl in her

20’s, born and raised in Yotvata said:

16 Wadi Guweire is a desert as well, but greener and more developed than the Arava. 107

“The desert used to be really boring, I felt like I already understood it and was ready to move on, but since I came back from abroad, half a year ago, I am really impressed and in awe of the landscape.”

In general moving out for a few months or a year was less common on the Jordanian side. However, short visits to Aqaba were frequent and gave the residents a new perspective on their place. Interestingly, although they often complained about the lack of development in their environment, relative to Aqaba, the comparison with Aqaba usually enhanced their love for their place. A Woman in her 60’s from Qatar:

“Here is better than Aqaba. Calm, more beautiful, the weather is cooler. I like to live here.”

Summary of sense of place and place attachment

On both sides of the border residents have a strong place attachment and a very rooted sense of place. The Jordanian-Bedouin residents’ rooted sense of place was based on their ancestral connection to the desert environment, and their cultural practices, such as raising goats and sheep, which can only take place in a rural-open environment. The Israeli residents rooted sense of place was connected to the Kibbutz lifestyle and the peacefulness of life in the desert, as well as to the connections they have made with other members of their community and neighboring communities over the years. Alienation and dislike of place wasn’t very common on either side, but was more common on the Jordanian side, for reasons such as: forced displacement, the difficult economic situation, or a dislike for the desert environment. For many of the Israeli interviewees, the desert was initially a difficult environment to get used to, and often their attachment and appreciation of it appeared or was enhanced after being away for a while.

On the Israeli side people are more willing to try out different places, despite their strong place attachment. This may be due to difficulties with the conditions of the natural 108 environment, more familiarity with other environments and their economic ability to move.

It could also be explained by the finding that in many cases attachment is more to the community and the Kibbutz rather than to the desert. For the Jordanians the main reason for moving to a different place would be to improve their life in terms of job opportunities, services and facilities; therefore a desire to move to a city was more common. For the

Israelis, moving to a rural greener environment was mostly desired, as it compensates for the difficulties that were often mentioned such as the harsh weather and lack of green and water in the landscape (figure 13). As was mentioned earlier, their desire for a greener environment can also be explained by their longing for the greener environments that they lived in before they came to live in the Arava.

5.5 - Perceptions of both sides of each other

In this section, the perceptions of the Figure 22 - Kibbutz Ketura with Rahma in the background Rahma Arava residents of their neighbors from the other side of the border are described. Ketura Questions were asked regarding what the residents on either side think or know about each other, and about previous contact they had with each other.

The interviews revealed that several projects which required collaboration between the two sides took place. These projects were often mentioned by the Israelis when speaking about what they know about the Jordanian side. On the Jordanian side it was mentioned only by a few. The following projects were mentioned: 109

 Co-agricultural-project between Yotvata and Rahma - agricultural training for

locals from Rahma and agronomists from Amman in Kibbutz Yotvata, followed by the

establishment of a technologically advanced farm in Rahma (see sub-section 4.1.4).

 Exchange students - a school program organized by the Hevel Eilot regional school

where students from Israel visit the Jordanian Arava, and Jordanian students visit the

Israeli Arava. A student field trip from the school in Yotvata to Rahma as part of

geology class was mentioned as part of this program.

 Fun-fair in Rahma - students from 10th-12th grade from the Hevel Eilot regional

school went with fun-fair equipment (toys, booths, etc.) to make their Jordanian

neighbors happy. One of the Israeli students who was there conveyed her experience:

“They were looking at us with admiration, because we came from a ‘high-class place’. We came to make fun for them with all our fancy-sophisticated equipment; wooden slides and bubbly soap.”

 Kite peace activity - children from both sides of the border flew their kites at the same

time for peace. An activity organized by a Kibbutz member from Yotvata who took

part in the agricultural project.

 Organized Kibbutz trips to the villages (“tiul meshek”) - after the peace treaty

several trips were organized for the Kibbutz members to visit the villages. One of the

respondents said: “we came to bring them our salutes from the other side.”

 Mutual lighting of fires on Lag Ba’Omer and Hanukkah - on both sides eight fires

are mutually lit on the mountains behind the settlements. It is coordinated by a member

from Yotvata and a resident from Rahma that took part in the agricultural project. 110

 Adi Ramot’s women project - women from both sides meet each other in Rahma to

speak about issues that they are concerned with, as women in their societies.

These projects were all initiated around the agricultural cooperation at the end of the

1990’s, and lasted for a few years. Today most of these projects have ceased but some collaboration still exists in agriculture and the student’s program (although the Jordanian exchange-students are usually not from the Southern Arava). As a result of these projects, a large number of Israelis have visited at least one of the Jordanian villages of the Southern

Arava. In contrast, only one Jordanian respondent has been in the Israeli Kibbutzim as part of the agricultural cooperation project.

Although several projects and visits took place, most of the respondents spoke about being ignorant or having very limited knowledge about the people on the other side.

Therefore their perceptions of the other side often reflected their ignorance or preconceived notions of each other. A man from Samar said:

“I know nothing, absolutely nothing about them and it is a pity.”

A woman from Rahma:

“I don't know how they live there; I think that they have the same life as here.”

On both sides people expressed their curiosity and desire to know more about the residents of the other side, but more so on the Israeli side than on the Jordanian. A woman from Ketura said:

“I’m very curious to know them. If there will be another arranged trip to go there, I'll be the first to go. Many times I look to the lights of Rahma village and think how people live there.”

A young Jordanian man said:

“I’m interested about how it looks and if they have camels there”? 111

There were also others who were indifferent about it, or thought that they have nothing in common therefore it would be artificial to get to know these people just on the basis of them living in the same area. A woman from Ketura said:

“I have no opposition to meet them but I don't know how much we have in common. I have met with urban-educated Jordanians and I enjoyed it very much, but here, as I understood, it is a remote village of small farmers so it’s not that interesting.”

The themes that emerged from the interviews regarding their perceptions of each other are described below.

Israelis think of the other side as poor and underdeveloped

A common theme on the Israeli side, mentioned by a third of the respondents, was to speak about the other side’s poverty and underdevelopment. Some of these respondents have actually been there and others speculated from what they heard or saw from their side of the border. A young woman from Ketura said:

“I know that it is much harder for them in terms of resources, water, education and electricity. But in some way I blame them for that. The country could develop these things. We did it, they can do it too.”

Another young woman said after being there:

“I was a bit surprised how much it looks like a third world country. I didn’t expect it. Somehow it reminded me more of Thailand than Israel.”

Jordanians feel envy for the development of the other side

Half of the Jordanians described the other side as being better than theirs in the following aspects: more beautiful, greener, better quality of life and better services. Two respondents said that it is like Europe there because it is very developed. Three said that there are no water problems there, better economy and better education. A man that lives in

Rahma all his life said: 112

“Before 1967 there was nothing there, then they started to build. Since then, they grew a lot every year. We don’t grow. We have only one project that started in 1982. There they have resources, we do not.”

The interviewee that was in Yotvata as part of the agricultural cooperation project was very impressed with the Kibbutz. He said:

“I liked the Kibbutz, I thought it is like a dream… They are educated there so they manage well.”

Envy of the Israelis towards the Jordanians’ nature

A few of the Israeli respondents mentioned being jealous of the Jordanians because of the natural assets on their side of the border, especially because of the Edom Mountains, the sand dunes (a larger part of them is on the Jordanian side) and the large amount of streams. A woman from Ketura said:

“Their mountains are nicer than ours. Sometimes there is snow on the other side and it makes me jealous.”

Israel’s help in developing the Jordanian side

About a fifth of the Israeli respondents spoke about how Israel helped the

Jordanians in developing, especially through the cooperation in the agriculture project. A woman from Ketura:

“Now the other side is developed probably because of how Yotvata helped them to develop economically and socially.”

Awareness about each other's development and growth along the years

Both Israeli and Jordanian residents mentioned noticing the development and growth of the settlements over the years. Israelis noticed when they started having electricity; Jordanians noticed the expansion of the agricultural fields.

113

Safety/political issues

Some of the Israeli respondents spoke of the political aspect of the border. Three mentioned the fact that it is safe. A young man:

“I know that it is a border without a fence that is safe and quiet. There were no incidents for a very long time.”

Others spoke of the good relations they have with the Jordanians and their aspiration for an open border that they could pass easily through, even just for coffee. Only one young woman from Samar expressed a fear of the other side, because of not knowing the intentions of the people living there.

Three Jordanian respondents mentioned fear from the police on the Israeli side and told of stories of people who tried to cross the border. A girl from Al-Qatar said:

“If anyone goes there they will go to jail.”

A young man:

“People there are nice, but the police are not.”

There were also a few negative responses regarding the Israelis. The most extreme response was by an 18 year old boy from Rahma that said:

“It should be burnt because they are Jews.”

In addition, three others referred to the people in Israel as enemies. However, there were also some positive feelings from both sides. Two Jordanians said that the people on the

Israeli side are peaceful and friendly and called them “our neighbors.” Four Israelis that met the Jordanians said that they are very nice people.

114

Summary of perceptions of both sides of each other

The data above indicates that both sides don’t know much about each other, beyond their socio-economic level. The Israelis know a bit more because many of them have been there, and participated in the collaboration projects or trips. Both sides have hardly spoken about the other’s culture. The Israelis expressed a slight sense of superiority over the

Jordanians in what they have managed to achieve on their side of the border, and in their ability to help the Jordanians develop. The Jordanians feel jealous of the Israelis’ green farms, perceived abundance of resources and higher education level, while the Israelis are jealous of the natural assets on the Jordanian side. Here again, it seems that the main influencing variable on the residents’ perceptions on each other is the economic gap, but the political tension between Jews and Arabs also plays some role. This was especially true on the Jordanian side, where a few of the residents described the people of the other side as

Jews, and therefore, enemies. Nevertheless, there are many people, on both sides, who are curious about meeting and learning more about each other.

115

Chapter 6 - Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of the research was to describe the Southern Arava residents' perceptions, use and relation to the environment (while employing the concepts of ecosystem services and sense of place) and to explain the differences and similarities between the perceptions of the Israelis and Jordanians living on each side of the border. Their perceptions were described and compared in the previous chapter. These will be summarized and discussed here according to the following core explaining variables: economic gap, ideology

(including Zionist-Kibbutz ideology and environmental ideology), Bedouin tradition and origin (native/non-native to the desert). In addition, I inquired about the possibility of cross- border collaboration on environmental conservation and development issues in the region which will be discussed at the end of this section.

The results described in chapter five indicate that more differences than similarities can be found in perceptions, use and relation to the environment between Israeli and

Jordanian residents of the Southern Arava Valley. The similarities between the perceptions of the environment were mainly related to the appreciation of the beauty, quietness and strength of the landscape, and making recreational use of the environment (such as hiking, climbing, watching the floods etc.). On both sides, the majority of the residents also expressed the importance of green in their environment. These similarities can be explained both by the theory that there is a universal preference for open, verdant environments (Hull

& Revell 1989), and by the theory that these similarities are a result of a learned process of the residents influenced by the environment and the many years spent in it (Nassauer 1995,

Kaplan 1973). 116

The position taken on difference in perception suggests that perception is a learned process which differs across cultures (Zube & Pitt 1981). Sonnenfeld (1967), in his study of differences in perceptions between native and non-native populations in the Arctic, suggested that significant cultural differences may produce variation in the perception of landscapes. The current research, which also studied differences in perceptions between native and non-native populations in the desert, showed significant differences of culture leading to differences in perceptions. Moreover, disparity in economic development and the deep historical and cultural roots of Bedouin in the desert in contrast to the ideological commitment of the Kibbutzim help to explain the gap in perceptions of the environment.

On the Israeli side two prevailing ideologies were noted. The first I called: ‘Zionist-

Kibbutz ideology’ and the second: ‘environmental ideology’. Zionist-Kibbutz ideology includes Ben Gurion’s vision of “making the desert bloom”, “settling the Negev” and A.D.

Gordon’s vision of “connecting to the land through manual labor”. The first settlers in the

Arava arrived with these ideologies to create a Kibbutz of farmers in the desert, cultivating crops and raising livestock (especially cows). These ideologies, to a certain extent, are still influential today, especially on their opinions on agriculture in the region. Environmental ideology, is more recent, and includes care for the quality of the environment, the promotion of environmental initiatives, such as renewable energies, and an aspiration to preserve the open space and biodiversity of the area. This ideology is growing in importance for the Israeli residents of the Southern Arava.

On the Jordanian side the desire to maintain Bedouin traditions was significant in their perceptions. Their tradition includes activities such as: goat and sheep herding, cooking their customary food on open fire and hunting. 117

Many differences in perceptions relate to the large differences in economic conditions between the two sides. On the Jordanian side, many of the perceptions relate to difficulties in making a living in the environment and the need to raise living standards. On the Israeli side, the answers are related more to aesthetics, recreation, comfort and environmental quality.

A major difference found in the respondents’ attitude to the natural environment could be explained by their origin. On the Jordanian side, an indigenous society, culturally accustomed to the desert, there is more acceptance of the climate and nature as is. On the

Israeli side, an immigrant society to the desert, which is aware of greener places, less hot and difficult to live in – fantasizing about a possible change of the environment was often mentioned, even by those who felt rooted to their environment.

The residents’ use of the environment for livelihood (provisioning ecosystem services) was different on each side for cultural, ideological or economic reasons. While both sides use the environment for farming and raising livestock, each side has additional uses. On the Israeli side, the cultural services of the environment, such as the beautiful and powerful landscape, and natural resources such as the sun and mud are used for eco- tourism, education and renewable energies. These are economic activities which are influenced and guided by an environmental ideology. On the Jordanian side, nature's resources are used for the residents basic needs such as: cooking, heating, hunting and fodder for animals. However, these activities are practiced, not only due to their low economic situation, and lack of facilities, but also because of traditional preference. For example: cooking bread and traditional food (“mansaf”) on an open fire is preferred, despite having gas stoves at home; desert animals are hunted in addition to buying meat from Aqaba; goat herding is continued despite the difficulties which arise from the shift 118 from a semi-nomadic to a sedentary society and the decrease in rainfall which make it necessary to purchase fodder from the outside.

The type of livestock raised on each side is also influenced by their culture. Israelis mainly raise cows, despite their incompatibility with the desert environment, because cows are the customary type of livestock raised in most Kibbutzim in Israel (influenced by the members' European/American origin). The Jordanians raise mainly goats which are more suitable to the environment and are the traditional type of livestock raised by pastoral

Bedouins in the desert. The use of the environment for farming differs as well, both for economic and ideological reasons. While both sides receive financial aid for developing agriculture in the region, both from the government and organizations such as the JNF

(Jewish National Fund) in Israel and JRF (Jordan River Fund) in Jordan, agriculture continues to be much more intensive and developed on the Israeli side. This is due not only to Israel being a more developed country than Jordan but also to the ideology and traditions of the people involved. For the Israelis, agriculture was one of the goals of coming to live in the Arava and part of the Kibbutz ideology (Sternhell 1995; Albright 1947); therefore, they were highly motivated to develop the agricultural sector. For the Bedouins in this area, agriculture was traditionally foreign (except for the cultivation of some date trees near

Aqaba). It was originally introduced in order to facilitate their sedentarization process and as a means of livelihood with no ideological significance (Heidtmann 2001, Patai 2002).

The respondents' perceptions of agriculture and its future are influenced by both ideology and the economic situation. On the Israeli side, there is a latent conflict between the Zionist-Kibbutz and environmental ideologies, economics and aesthetics. While many people think that agriculture should remain, because of ideological and aesthetic 119 importance, even if it is not profitable, others think that other, more environmentally friendly, sources of livelihood, such as solar panels, should be developed instead. However, there are also concerns about the aesthetic impacts of solar panels versus agriculture. On the Jordanian side, it seems that economic considerations take precedence to tradition, because most of the respondents expressed a desire for more agricultural projects in order to increase job opportunities, except for a few youngsters who opposed working in agriculture and preferred either traditional jobs as shepherds or modern technological jobs outside their region.

A strong place attachment and a rooted sense of place were found to be common among the Southern Arava Valley residents. Contrary to the expectations that modernity will weaken emotional bonds with place (Giddens 1991), and that attachment will increase with age (Lewicka 2010) the findings of this research show that a rooted sense of place is encountered almost equally frequently on both sides of the border, and is similar across both gender and age groups. Another surprising finding is the low frequency of "everyday rootedness" among the Jordanian Bedouin population (10%), which is described as a taken for granted sense of place, characterizing people who live a traditional way of life and are less mobile outside their region (Hummon 1992, Lewicka 2010). This can possibly be explained by the fact that although the Bedouins are living on their ancestral land, their semi-nomadic-traditional lifestyle is changing to a modern-sedentary lifestyle. They are not immigrants to the region, but they are “migrants” to a sedentary life-style and to modernity.

In fact, the unexpectedly similar and high levels of "ideological rootedness" found on both sides of the border reflect, the necessary adaptation to the extreme conditions of the

Southern Arava Valley and its peripheral location. On the personal level, the interviewees, people who live at least 15 years in the Arava, are usually people who made a conscious 120 decision to stay, despite other options, and the harsh conditions of the desert. Those people, who had less of a commitment to this place, have probably left. Moreover, both cultures and nations stress the connection to place as a manifestation of their respective national, or ethnic, identity and ideology.

Further, Roger Hay (1998), in his cross-cultural research on the sense of place of

Maori versus European-descent residents of New Zealand, found that the indigenous sense of place is based more on their cosmology and culture, rooted in tribal territory while the sense of place of European-descent people is based on attachment to family-farms. In a similar way, in the Arava valley the Jordanian-Bedouin residents’ rooted sense of place is associated with ancestral ties to the land, and the traditional Bedouin practices affiliated to the desert, on the Israeli side it was more connected to the Kibbutz lifestyle, community, family and personal meaningful experiences in the environment. This may be explained by a stronger identification between Bedouin culture to life in the desert environment (the word Badu = desert), while the Kibbutz is based on a communal society (the word Kibbutz

= making a group) not necessarily tied to place.

Not many respondents expressed alienation towards their environment, but a desire to try out other environments or move out was often mentioned, more so on the Israeli side.

The responses regarding the place they would like to move to, illustrate the aspects of the environment that are difficult for the population on each side. The Israeli residents emphasized their desire to move to a greener environment, indicating the residents’ difficulty with the natural conditions of the environment. The Jordanians mainly mentioned moving to a city, or to a place with better living standards, showing their hardships with the economic condition. 121

In terms of development, people on both sides expressed a need for development in order to assure survival in the environment. Inhabitants on the Jordanian side are highly concerned with the current economic situation and desire more development in the region.

To the Israeli settlers, enjoying most of the comforts that come with a developed economy

– the environmental and social drawbacks of development are more apparent, and therefore, the need for more development is fraught with concern. While people on both sides see tourism as a good source of livelihood, on the Jordanian side tourism is lacking, so for them any tourism would be viewed as a positive development, and on the Israeli side, specific types, such as: theme-tourism and eco-tourism, are preferred. Agriculture is also perceived as a means to develop by the Jordanians, while the Israelis speak of continuing to profit from the date trees and the development of renewable energy farms.

The populations of each side of the border are not homogenous in their perceptions of the environment. For example, while the two ideologies influence the perceptions of the residents in all the three Kibbutzim; in Yotvata, the Zionist-Kibbutz ideology is more pronounced, while Samar and Ketura are more “environmental”. In the Jordanian villages,

Al-Qatar is more traditional and kin on observing Bedouin customs than Rahma. Gender was also found to have an influence on perceptions, but this was more evident in Jordan than in Israel, where women are less free to wander about in their environment and are more confined to household chores such as washing, cooking and shopping.

As we have seen the research portrays a complex, conflicting, picture of perceptions.

For example on the Israeli side, there is a struggle with the conditions of the natural environment (heat, aridness and lack of green) but on the other hand, a love for the beauty and quietness of the landscape. In addition there is the need for development which 122 conflicts with the conservation of nature. The choice of the type of development is impacted by Zionist-Kibbutz ideologies, environmental ideologies, economic realities and aesthetic sensibilities, which don't always intertwine. On the Jordanian side the main conflict is between the traditional Bedouin lifestyle, which can no longer support people economically and the sedentary modern lifestyle, which is still in its inception.

Lastly, I attempt to answer the third research question: "can the perceptions which are shared serve as a common ground for cooperation on environmental conservation issues?"

The answer to this question is multifaceted. On the one hand, the fact that both sides have repeatedly emphasized their appreciation of the view, quietness and open space, points to a possibility of mutual effort to protect these aspects of the environment. However, the economic gap between the two sides, the differences in perceptions of the environment, and the pressing need for development on the Jordanian side, may lead the Jordanians to be more receptive than the Israelis, towards a wider range of development initiatives. Further research needs to be done on residents' opinions on specific development initiatives in order to ascertain this point. From people’s perceptions on each other, we can see that cooperation has already existed in the past, and there is some interest in its reoccurrence; however, the great differences between the people, the lack of familiarity with each other, and the political tension may make such cooperation difficult.

6.1 - Contributions to the scientific literature

The research contributes to the knowledge of cross-cultural analysis of environment-behavior relationships. The importance of this subject was emphasized by

UNESCO in the man and the biosphere program, suggesting it would increase the efficiency of natural resources management and ecosystem conservation (UNESCO 1973). 123

However, the subject was not frequently studied since the publication of the series of books on: Human Behavior and Environment (Altman et al. 1980).

The research adds to the field of ecosystem services in four ways. 1) It demonstrates the importance of using anthropological research methods to assess awareness of ecosystem services and their importance to the general public. 2) It shows that in-depth interviews assist in the assessment of cultural ecosystem services, particularly the intangible benefits that do not have a monetary value, and are difficult to capture using other methods (Gee &

Burkhard 2010). 3) The findings show that, despite the fact that deserts are often considered to be lacking in ecosystem services (Naidoo et al. 2008), one can find many services there, in particular cultural services. 4) The research shows that local residents from different cultures sharing the same ecosystem use and value its services differently. This has important policy ramifications, as development plans made for one culture may not be suitable for the other (Zube & Pitt 1980, Gee & Burkhard 2010).

The greatest difficulty, however, is still to find meaningful ways of comparing the intangibles of the cultural ecosystem services to the economic value generated from it. For example: what is more important, the market value of electricity generated by solar panels, or the aesthetic value of the landscape to local residents; the economic value of mining the sand from the Samar dunes, or its environmental, recreational and aesthetic value to the local residents? These are decisions that need to be considered by society through transparent and comprehensive dialogue. This research strengthens the point found by Gee

& Burkhard (2010) that it is possible to bring the intangibles to the discussion table and to operationalize them in the context of ecosystem services. 124

This study also contributes to the research on sense of place in cross-cultural situations. It describes how Hummon's classification of sense of place is expressed among the two cultures/nations residing in the southern Arava Valley. It shows the different sense of place prevalent in cultures which are native and non-native to their environment. The findings show that despite the differences, there is a strong attachment to place on both sides of the border. This may be important because as studies show, a strong place attachment is correlated with more environmental awareness (Vorkinn & Riese 2001), higher participation in community planning (Manzo & Perkins 2006) and more active involvement in protecting the quality of the social and the natural environment (Avni

Avriel 2010). As a result of the high attachment levels found, the Arava residents are more likely to be motivated to take part in decision making and planning in their area, a tool which could be useful for policy makers.

125

References

1) Abu Aziz, M. 2007. Bedouins of the South. Available at: http://www.bdoaljnob.com/showthread.php?p=4891. Accessed at 1.7.2011.

2) Abu Hoseh, A. 1992. Cultural Transformation among Bedouins of Jordan. Al-Hilal Press, Amman.

3) Abu-lughod, L. 1990. The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations of Power through Bedouin Women. American Ethnologist, 17: 41–55.

4) Abu Rabia, S. 2006. Between tradition and modernization: understanding the problem of female Bedouin dropouts. British journal of sociology of education, 27 (1): 2-17.

5) Agbenyega, O., Burgess P.J, Cook M., Morris J. 2009. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy, 26: 551– 557.

6) Alafenish, S. 1987. Processes of Change and Continuity in Kinship System and Family Ideology in Bedouin Society. Sociologia Ruralis, 27 (3): 323-340.

7) Albright, W.F. 1947. Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. I, Yale University Press, p. 352.

8) Alon, Y. 2007. The Making of Jordan: Tribes, Colonialism and the Modern State. I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London.

9) Altman, I. & Low, S. M. (eds.) 1992. Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York.

10) Altman, I., Rapoport, A. and Wohlwill, J. F. 1980. Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 4: Environment and Culture. Plenum Press, New York and London.

11) Avriel-Avni, N., Spektor-Levy, O., Zion, M. and Levi, N.R. 2010. Children’s Sense of Place in Desert Towns: a Phenomenographic Enquiry. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19 (3): 241-259.

12) Berlyne, G.M. & Morag, M. 1972. Metabolic Effects of Drinking Brackish Water. Desalination 10 (2): 215-219. 126

13) Berman-Kishony, T. 2008. Bedouin Urbanization Legal Policies in Israel and Jordan: Similar Goals, Contrasting Strategies. Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 17 (2): 393-413.

14) Bernard, R.H. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches 5th ed. Altamira Press, Maryland.

15) Bernstein, J.H. 2010. Folk Concepts. In: Birx, H.J. (ed.) 21st Century Anthropology: A Reference Handbook (pp. 848-855). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

16) Bienkowski, P. 2001. New Evidence on Edom in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. In: Dearman, J.A. & Graham, M.P. (eds.) The land that I will show you: Essays on the History and Archeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (pp. 197- 213). Sheffield Academic Press.

17) Biger, G. 2008. The Boundaries of Israel - Palestine Past, Present, and Future: A Critical Geographical View. Israel Studies, 13 (1): 68-93. Indiana University Press.

18) Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Ecological Economics, 63 (2-3): 616-626.

19) Brown, G. & Raymond, C. 2007. The Relationship between Place Attachment and Landscape Values: Toward Mapping Place Attachment. Applied Geography, 27: 89-111.

20) Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.

21) Burkhard, B. & Muller, F. 2008. Indicating Human-Environmental System Properties: Case Study in Northern Fenno-Scandinavian Reindeer Herding. Ecological Indicators, 8 (6): 828-840.

22) Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah,, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R.J. and Whyte, A. 2009. Science for Managing Ecosystem Services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 106 (5): 1305-1312.

23) Christensen, N.L., Bartuska, A.N., Brown, J.H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J.F., MacMahon, J.A., Noss, R.F., Parsons, D.J., Peterson, C.H., Turner, M.G. 127

and Woodmansee, R.G. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications, 6: 665-691.

24) Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., Bush, G., Brader, L., Nahman, A., deLange, W. and Reyers, B. 2008. An Evaluation of Economic and Non- Economic Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries. DEFRA, London.

25) Christopher L., Lant, J.B., Ruhl and Kraft, S.E. 2008. The Tragedy of Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 58 (10): 969-974.

26) Cohen, J., Pearlmutter D. and Schwartz M. 2009. Lifestyle and energy consumption: a comparison of four collective communities in transition. Energy Efficiency, 3 (1): 19-31.

27) Collins, S.L., Carpenter, S.R., Swinton, S.M., Orenstein D.E., Childers, D.L., Gragson, T.L., Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., Harlan, S.L., Kaye, J.P., Knapp, A.K., Kofinas, G.P., Magnuson, J.J., McDowell, W.H., Melack, J.M., Ogden, L.A., Robertson, G.P., Smith, M.D. and Whitmer, A.C. 2011. An Integrated Conceptual Framework for Long-Term Social Ecological Research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9 (6): 351-357.

28) Creswell, T. 1998. Place: A Short Introduction. Blackwell Publications, UK.

29) Darmame, K., Nortcliff, S. and Potter, R. 2011. Water and Land Management in Wadi Faynan. In: Black, E. & Mithen, S. (eds). Water, Life and Civilization: Climate, Environment and Society in the Jordan Valley. Cambridge University Press.

30) Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R. 2009. Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7 (1): 21-28.

31) Davidson, C. 2010. Water and Gender in the Middle East: A Case Study in Bedouin Communities of Israel, Jordan and the West Bank. Masters of Integrated Water Management. International Water Centre, Australia.

32) De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecological Economics, 41 (3): 393-408. 128

33) Dicampo, P. 2004. The Effects of Modernization on the Bedouin Populations in Jordan. ISP collection, Paper 530. Available at: http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/530.

34) Dick, J., Al-Assaf, A., Andrews, C., Díaz-Delgado, R., Groner, E., Halada, L., Izakovicova, Z., Kertész, M., Khoury, F., Krašić, D., Krauze, K., Matteucci, G., Melecis, V., Mirtl, M., Orenstein, D.E., Preda, E., Santos-Reis, M., Smith, R.I., Vadineanu, A., Veselić, S., Vihervaara, P. 2011. Ecosystem Services: a Rapid Assessment Method Tested at 35 sites of the LTER-Europe Network. Peer Reviewed.

35) Dick, J.M., Smith, R.I., Scott, E.M. 2011. Ecosystem Services and Associated Concepts. Environmetrics, 22: 598–607.

36) Dinero, S. 2004. New Identity/Identities Formulation in a Post-Nomadic Community: The Case of the Bedouin of the Negev. National Identities, 6 (3): 261-274.

37) Dunn, R.R. 2010. Global Mapping of Ecosystem Disservices: The Unspoken Reality that Nature Sometimes Kills Us. Biotropica, 42 (5): 555-557.

38) Endter-Wada, J., Blahna, D., Krannich, R. and Brunson, M. 1998. A Framework for Understanding Social Science Contributions to Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications, 8 (3): 891-904.

39) Faiman, D. 1998. The Arid Frontier: Interactive Management of Environment and Development. Bruins, H.J. & Lithwick, H. (eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

40) Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R.F. and Dovers, S.R. 2007. Adaptive Capacity and Learning to Learn as Leverage for Social–Ecological Resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 375-380.

41) Feuer, N., 2006. Technology Transfer and Sustainable Development: Implications for Local Culture Rahma Village, Aqaba Province, Jordan. Independent Research, Arava Institute for Environmental Studies. Available at: http://www.hartfeuer.net/academic/FeuerSustainableTechnologyRachme06.pdf.

42) Gee, K. & Burkhard, B. 2010. Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Context of Offshore Wind Farming. A Case Study from the West Coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Complexity, 7: 349–358. 129

43) Gerson, K., Stueve, C.A. and Fischer, C. 1977. Attachment to Place. In: Fischer, C., Jackson, R., Stueve, C., Gerson, K. and Jones, L. Networks and Places (pp. 139-161). The Free Press, New York.

44) Ghazi, B. M. 1999. The Tribes of Jordan at the beginning of the 21st Century. Turab, Amman.

45) Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, New Jersey.

46) Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Identity. Self and Society in the late modern age. Polity Press, Cambridge.

47) Giuliani, M.V. 2003.Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In: Bonnes, M., Lee, T. and Bonaiuto, M. (eds.) Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues (pp. 137-170). Hants, Ashgate.

48) Goodland, R. 1996. The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26: 1-24.

49) Gurney, J.N. 1985. Not One of the Guys: the Female Researcher in a Male-Dominated Setting. Qualitative Sociology, 8 (1): 42-62.

50) Haberl H., Winiwarter, V., Andersson K., Ayres, R. U., Boone, C., Castillo, A., Cunfer, G., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Freudenburg, W. R., Furman, E., Kaufmann, R., Krausmann, F., Langthaler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Mirtl, M., Redman, C. L., Reenberg, A., Wardell, A., Warr, B. and Zechmeister, H. 2006. From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the Socioeconomic Dimension of Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research. Ecology and Society, 11 (2): art.13.

51) Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Potschin, M., Brown, C., Tindall, C. and Walmsley, S. 2008. Scoping the Potential Benefits of Undertaking an MA-Style Assessment for England. DEFRA, London.

52) Hay, R. 1998. Sense of Place in Developmental Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18 (1): 5-29. 130

53) He, S. H., Lewis, J. L., Baer, A.D. and Nigh, T. A. 2010. Exploring Linkages between People and Rural Landscapes at Broad Ecological Scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97: 49-57.

54) Heidegger, M. 1977. Building Dwelling Thinking. In: Krell, D. (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writing (pp. 319-339). Harper and Row, New York.

55) Heidtmann, M. 2001. Southern Arava Valley Project. Collaboration between Arava R&D, Israel and Al-Haq Farms, Jordan: Project Impact Study Phase II. German-Israeli Foundation for Research & International Development.

56) Hull, R. B. and Revell, G. R. B. 1989. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 177- 191.

57) Hummon, D. M. 1990. Commonplaces: Community Ideology and Identity in American Culture. State University of New York Press.

58) Hummon, D. M. 1992. “Community Attachment”, in Altman, I. and Low, S. M. (eds.) Place Attachment (pp.253-278). Plenum Press, New York.

59) Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London.

60) Jazi, M. 2009. Desert in Southern Jordan Sociological Study of Economy. Treasure house of knowledge in Amman, Jordan.

61) Jeffrey, P. 2000. Cross-Cultural Valuations of Natural Resources. A Case Study in the Galilee Region of Northern Israel. A Report to the British Council under the Lord Goodman Fellowship Scheme.

62) Jureidini, P.A. 1984. Jordan: the Impact of Social Change on the Roles of the Tribes. Praeger, New York.

63) Kaltenborn, B.P. 1998. Effects of Sense of Place on Responses to Environmental Impacts: A Study among Residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian High Arctic. Applied Geography, 18 (2): 169-189.

64) Kaplan, S. 1973. Cognitive Maps in Perception and Thought. In: Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. (eds.) Image and Environment (pp. 63-78). Aldine, New York. 131

65) Kumar, M. & Kumar, P. 2008. Valuation of the Ecosystem Services: A Psycho-Cultural Perspective. Ecological Economics, 64 (4): 808-819.

66) Lewicka, M. 2011. On the Varieties of People’s Relationships with Places: Hummon’s Typology Revisted. Environment and Behaviour, 43 (5): 676-709.

67) Lewis, C.A. 1996. Green Nature/Human Nature: the Meaning of Plants in Our Lives. University of Illinois Press.

68) Lipchin, C., Antonius, R., Rishmawi, K., Afanah, A., Orthofer R., and Trottier, J. 2005. Public Perceptions and Attitudes toward the Declining Water Level in the Dead Sea Basin: a Multi Cultural-Analysis. In: Schoenfeld, S. (ed.) Palestinian and Israeli environmental narratives. Centre for International and Security Studies, York University, Toronto.

69) Lipchin, C. 2007. Water, Agriculture and Zionism: Exploring the interface between Policy and Ideology. In: Lipchin, C., Pallant, E., Saranga, D. and Amster, A. (eds.) Integrated Water Resources Management and Security in the Middle East (pp. 251–267). Springer, Netherlands.

70) Lipchin, C. and Kronich, S. 2009. Specialized Study on the Social Environment. Draft report for the proposed Red Sea Dead Sea Water Conveyance Scheme. Eco Consult.

71) Low, S. 1992. “A conceptual Inquiry”. In: Altman, I. and Low, S. M. (eds.) Place Attachment (pp. 1-11). Plenum Press, New York.

72) Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L.K., Normander, B., Bezák, P. 2008. Nature as a Nuisance? Ecosystem Services and Disservices to Urban Lifestyle. Environmental Sciences, 5 (3): 161-172.

73) Mäler, K.G., Aniyar, S., and Jansson, A. 2008. Ecosystem Services Special Feature: Accounting for Ecosystem Services as a Way to Understand the Requirements for Sustainable Development. PNAS, 105: 9501-9506.

74) Manzo, L.C. & Perkins, D.D. 2006. Finding Common Ground: the Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20 (4): 335-350. 132

75) Maoz, I., Shamir, J., Wolfsfeld, G., and Dvir, S., 2009. Psychological Correlates of Public Support for Reconciliation: The Israeli-Jordanian Case. Peace and Conflict Studies, 16 (1): 26-44.

76) Marten, G.G. 2001. Human Ecology - Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.

77) Marx, K. 1875. Critique of the Gotha Programme. English translation of Marx, K. and Engels, F. Selected Works, vol. II. Moscow: Foreign Languages P.H., 1958.

78) McCurdy, D.W., Spardley, J. and Shandy, D.J. 2005. The Cultural Experience: Ethnography in a Complex Society. Second Edition. Waveland Press, Inc.

79) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Our Human Planet – Summary for Decision Makers. Reid, W.V. (ed.) Island Press, Washington DC.

80) Meir A., 1986. Pastoral Nomads and the Dialectics of Development and Modernization: Delivering Public Educational Services to the Israeli Negev Bedouin. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 4 (1): 85-95.

81) Meir, A. & Ben-David, Y. 1995. From Latent Surplus to Changing Norms: Fertility Behavior of the Israeli Bedouin along the Nomadism-Sedentarism Continuum. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26:389-408.

82) Molla, A.S. Natural, Semi-natural and Artificial Ecosystems. Available at: http://www.mediabangladesh.net/articles.details.php?recordID=72 accessed at: 15.6.2011.

83) Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R. and Ricketts, T.H. 2008. Global Mapping of Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities. PNAS, 105 (28): 9495-9500.

84) Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Culture and Changing Landscape Structure. Journal Landscape Ecology, 10 (4): 229-237.

85) O'Farrell, P.J., De Lange, W.J., Le Maitre, D.C., Reyers, B., Blignaut, J.N., Milton, S.J., Atkinson, D., Egoh, B., Maherry, A., Colvin, C. and Cowling, R.M. 2011. The Possibilities and Pitfalls Presented by a Pragmatic Approach to Ecosystem Service Valuation in an Arid Biodiversity Hotspot. Journal of Arid Environments, 75 (6): 612-623. 133

86) Ohl, C., Krauze, K. and Grunbuhel, C. 2007. Towards an Understanding of Long-Term Ecosystem Dynamics by Merging Socio-Economic and Environmental Research: Criteria for Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research Sites Selection. Ecological Economics, 63 (2-3): 383-391.

87) Orenstein, D. 2010. Valuing Ecosystem Services through a Multi-National, Multi-Cultural Lens. A research proposal on behalf of the Dead Sea and Arava Science Center and Masar Center for Studies and Research.

88) Patai, R. 2002. The Arab Mind. Hatherleigh Press, New York.

89) Pen-Mouratov, S., Myblat, T., Shamir, I., Barness, G., Steinberger, Y. 2010. Soil Biota in the Arava Valley of Negev Desert, Israel. Pedosphere, 20 (3): 273-284.

90) Perevolotsky, A. 1981. Orchard Agriculture in the High Mountain Region of Southern Sinai. Human Ecology, 9 (3): 331-357.

91) Peritore, P.N. 1999. Third World Environmentalism: Case Studies from the Global South. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

92) Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M. and Kuby, L. H. 2004. Integrating Social Science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change. Ecosystems, 7: 161-171.

93) Regmi, S.C. & Fawcett, B. 1999. Integrating Gender Needs into Drinking-Water Projects in Nepal. Gender and Development, 7 (3): 62-72.

94) Riger, S. & Lavrakas, P.J. 1981. Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9: 55- 66.

95) Sachs, W. 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zen Books ltd., London.

96) Safriel, U., Adeel, Z., Niemeijer, D., Puigdefabregas, J., White, R., Lal, R., Winslow, M., Ziedler, J., Prince, S., Archer, E. and Caroline K. 2005. Dryland Systems. In: Hassan, R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N. (eds.), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (pp. 623-662). Island Press, Washington DC. 134

97) Sampson, R.J. 1988. Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systematic Model. American Sociological Review, 53: 766-779.

98) Shanas, U., Galyun, Y.A., Alshamlih, M., Cnaani, J., Guscio, D.U., Khoury, F., Mittler, S., Nassar, K., Shapira, I., Simon, D., Sultan, H., Topel, E. and Ziv, Y. 2006. Reptile Diversity and Rodent Community Structure across a Political Border. Biological Conservation, 132 (3): 292-299.

99) Shapira, I., Sultan, H. and Shanas, U. 2008. Agricultural Farming Alters Predator–Prey Interactions in Nearby Natural Habitats. Animal Conservation, 11: 1–8.

100) Sodhi, N.S., Lee, T.M., Sekercioglu, C.H., Webb, E,L., Prawiradilaga, D.M., Lohman, D.J., Pierce, N.E., Diesmos, A.C., Rao M. and Ehrlich, P.R. 2010. Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 1175–1188.

101) Sonnenfeld, J., 1967. Environmental Perception and Adaptation Level in the Artic. In: Lowenthal, D. (ed.) Environmental Perception and Behavior (pp. 42-59). University of Chicago.

102) Steele, F. 1981. The Sense of Place. CBI Publication, Boston.

103) Stephenson, J., 2008. The Cultural Values Model: an Integrated Approach to Values in Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84: 127-139.

104) Sternhell, Z. 1995. Nation Building or a New Society? Am Oved Publishers Ltd, Tel Aviv.

105) Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc, London.

106) Strom M., 2004. The development of Agriculture in the Kibbutzim and Moshavim of the Arava Vadi. Master Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

107) Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K. 2007. Ecosystem Services and Agriculture: Cultivating Agricultural Ecosystems for Diverse Benefits. Ecological Economics, 64 (2): 245-252.

108) Taylor, N. 2006. Ethnic Differences in Thermoregulation: Genotypic Versus Phenotypic Heat Adaptation. Thermal Biology, 31 (1-2): 90-104. 135

109) Tuan, Y.F. 1980. Rootedness and Sense of Place. Landscape, 24: 3-8.

110) UNESCO, 1973. Programme on Man and the Biosphere Expert Panel on Project 13: Perception of Environmental Quality. UNESCO, Paris.

111) Van Beukering, P., Brander, L.M., Tompkins, E., and McKenzie, E. 2007. Valuing the Environment in Small Islands: An Environmental Economics Toolkit. Joiint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

112) Vejre, H., Søndergaard Jensen, F. and Jellesmark Thorsen, B. 2010. Demonstrating the Importance of Intangible Ecosystem Services from Peri-Urban Landscapes. Ecological Complexity, 7 (3): 338–348.

113) Vorkinn, M. & Riese, H. 2001. Environmental Concern in a Local Context: the Significance of Place Attachment. Environment and Behaviour 33(2): 249-263.

114) Williams, D.R. and Patterson, M.E. 1996. Environment Meaning and Ecosystem Management: Perspectives from Environmental Psychology and Human Geography. Society and Natural Resources, 9 (5): 507-521.

115) Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M. 2007. Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services to Agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64 (2): 253-260.

116) Zube, E.H. and Pitt, D.G. 1980. Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Scenic and Heritage Landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8: 69-87.

Reports

 ESPP - Economy and Social Productivity Programs Report on Wadi Araba and Government Assistance, 2006. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26.6.2011].

 JRF - Jordan River Foundation, Sustainability report. 2008. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 2011].

 Population report Ketura 31.10.2011. [Personal communication].

 Poverty in Wadi Araba District report. 2005. Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, Judiciary of the Wadi Araba/Aqaba Governorate. 136

 Red Sea-Dead Sea Water Conveyance Study, 2010. [online] Available at: [accessed at: June 2011].

 The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Poverty Assessment Report, 2004. [online] Available at: [accessed 26.6.2011].

Websites

 Central Bureau of Statistics - Israel website: http://www1.cbs.gov.il. Accessed at 12.8.2011.

 Central Bureau of Statistics - Jordan website: http://www.dos.gov.jo/dos_home_e/main/index.htm. Accessed at 12.8.2011.

 Green Economy Post – Kibbutz Samar webpage: http://greeneconomypost.com/tag/kibbutz-samar. Accessed at: 12.3.2011.

 Hevel Eilot website: URL: http://www.eilot.org.il/. Accessed at 11.3.2011.

 Hevel Eilot regional school website: http://shaharoot.kfar-olami.org.il/salt- flat/plain/settlemnt.html. Accessed at: 12.3.2011.

 ILTER – International Long Term Ecological Research website: http://www.ilternet.edu/about/background. Accessed: 17.11.2010.

 JNF - Jewish National Fund – Blue print Negev website: http://www.jnf.org/work- we-do/blueprint-negev/. Accessed at 24.5.2011.

 JRF - Jordan River Foundation website: http://www.jordanriver.jo/Programs/rural/4.htm. Accessed at: 24.8.2011.

 Kibbutz Ketura website: http://www.ketura.org.il/hist.html. Accessed at: 12.3.2011.

:Accessed at ./ישובים/קיבוץ-סמר/ Kibbutz Samar website: http://www.eilot.org.il 3.7.2011.

 Kibbutz Yotvata website: http://www.yotvata.org.il. Accessed at: 12.3.2011.

 Mekorot website: http://www.mekorot.co.il/Eng/NewsEvents/catalogs/DesalinationMekorot.pdf. Accessed at 24.5.2011. 137

 MWI – Ministry of Water and Irrigation – Jordan website: http://www.mwi.gov.jo/sites/en-us/default.aspx. Accessed at 22.5.2011.

 Wadi Araba Project website: http://www.wadiarabahproject.man.ac.uk/index.htm. Accessed at 1.3.2011.

138

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire with the local residents of the Southern Arava Valley

Name: Age: Work: Residence: Previous residence: How long have you lived in the area?

Education: Family status: If relevant- when did your parents arrive here and from where?

1. Describe your environment. Define your environment (What do you see in your imagination when you think of your environment? 2. How do you relate to your environment? Which feelings and emotions do you have towards it? 3. How do you "use" your environment in your daily life? 4. If you could, what would you change in your environment (in a theoretical sense)? 5. Tell me of a significant experience you had in your environment. 6. Would you be willing to move from this environment (landscape) to a different one? 7. How attached are you to this environment? 8. What do you think or know about the other side of the Valley (For Jordanians - about the Israeli side, for Israelis - about the Jordanian side. 9. What is most important for you in your environment? 10. What do you think about agriculture in the Arava? 11. How does agriculture affect the view? 12. What is the ecological/environmental impact of agriculture?

139

Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Questionnaire in collaboration with Dr. Daniel Orenstein

Goal - Open ended interviews with community leaders and decision makers to define their concerns regarding ecosystem services and to learn from them how their constituents perceive ecosystem services

Introductory questions:

1. Describe your environment. Define you environment (What do you see in your imagination when you think of your environment?) 2. How do you relate to your environment? Which feelings and emotions do you have towards it? 3. How do you "use" your environment in your daily life? 4. If you could, what would you change in your environment (in a theoretical sense)? 5. How do you feel about areas in the Arava that are defined as open spaces? 6. Have you heard of the term “ecosystem services”? If so, what does it mean to you?

Read selected definition; can read examples beneath if the idea is not clear – but preferably not.

7. What ecosystem services do you derive from the natural environment around your community? 8. What components of the natural environment are responsible for providing these services? That is, if those components disappeared you would lose the service. 9. Can you place a monetary value on them? If so, how?

Explain that now I’d like to speak to you as a community representative

10. Do you think your answers above and your relationship with the environment are representative of the broader community? 11. Could you classify different groups with regard to their relationship to the environment? 12. Is there anything else you can add regarding how your community/customers/constituents perceive and/or value ecosystem services of the region?

Definitions of Ecosystem Services:

1. Ecosystem Services are the processes by which the environment produces resources that we often take for granted such as clean water, timber, and habitat for fisheries, and pollination of native and agricultural plants.

2. The benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. These benefits may be environmental, social, or economic. Examples of environmental outcomes include the protection of streams, reduced storm water runoff, reduced ozone concentrations, and increased carbon sequestration. Social outcomes may include 140

improved human health, buffers for wind and noise, increased recreational opportunities, and neighborhood beautification. Economic outcomes can include reduced heating and cooling costs and increased property values.

3. Healthy ecosystems perform a diverse array of functions that provide both goods and services to humanity. Here, goods refer to items given monetary value in the market place, whereas the services from ecosystems are valued, but rarely bought or sold. Ecosystem "goods" include:

 Food  Construction materials  Medicinal plants  Wild genes for domestic plants and animals  Tourism and recreation

Ecosystem "services" include:

 Maintaining hydrological cycles  Regulating climate  Cleansing water and air  Maintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere  Pollinating crops and other important plants  Generating and maintaining soils  Storing and cycling essential nutrients  Absorbing and detoxifying pollutants  Providing beauty, inspiration and research

(Christensen et al. 1996).