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

Evolution of settlement typologies in rural Israel

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

By: Keren Shalev

November, 2016

“Human settlements are a product of their community. They are the most truthful expression of a community’s structure, its expectations, dreams and achievements.

A settlement is but a symbol of the community and the essence of its creation.

”D. Bar Or”

~ III ~

תקציר

למשבר הדיור בישראל השלכות מרחיקות לכת הן על המרחב העירוני והן על המרחב הכפרי אשר עובר תהליכי עיור מואצים בעשורים האחרונים. ישובים כפריים כגון קיבוצים ומושבים אשר התבססו בעבר בעיקר על חקלאות, מאבדים מאופיים הכפרי ומייחודם המקורי ומקבלים צביון עירוני יותר. נופי המרחב הכפרי הישראלי נעלמים ומפנים מקום לשכונות הרחבה פרבריות סמי- עירוניות, בעוד זהותה ודמותה הייחודית של ישראל הכפרית משתנה ללא היכר. תופעת העיור המואץ משפיעה לא רק על נופים כפריים, אלא במידה רבה גם על מרחבים עירוניים המפתחים שכונות פרבריות עם בתים צמודי קרקע על מנת להתחרות בכוח המשיכה של ישובים כפריים ולמשוך משפחות צעירות חזקות. כתוצאה מכך, סובלים המרחבים העירוניים, הסמי עירוניים והכפריים מאובדן המבנה והזהות המקוריים שלהם והשוני ביניהם הולך ומיטשטש. על אף שהנושא מעלה לא מעט סוגיות תכנוניות חשובות ונחקר רבות בעולם, מעט מאד מחקר נעשה בנושא בישראל. מחקר מקומי אשר בוחן את תהליכי העיור של המרחב הכפרי דרך ההיסטוריה והתרבות המקומית ולוקח בחשבון את התנאים המקומיים המשתנים, מאפשר התבוננות ואבחנה מדויקים יותר על ההשלכות מרחיקות הלכת. על מנת להתגבר על הבסיס המחקרי הדל בנושא, המחקר הנוכחי החל בבניית בסיס נתונים רחב של 84 ישובים כפריים (קיבוצים, מושבים וישובים קהילתיים( ומצייר תמונה כללית על תהליכי העיור של המרחב הכפרי ומאפייניה. המחקר בחן ישובים כפריים בנגב המערבי ומצא כי על אף תהליכי העיור המהירים, הפיתוח במרחב הכפרי אינו אקראי אלא מושפע מגורמים חברתיים-כלכליים, דמוגרפיים וגאוגרפיים המשפיעים מבנית על התפתחות הקיבוצים המושבים והישובים הקהילתיים. הגורמים המבניים נמצאו מתואמים מאוד עם קצב הפיתוח של שכונות הרחבה ועם המאפיינים הפיזיים שלהן. על מנת להעמיק את ההבנה של קישרי הגומלין הללו, בנינו כחלק מהמחקר מתווה מאפיין לשכונות הרחבה של יותר מ 75 ישובים, תוך סיווג שכונות ההרחבה על פי מיקומן ביחס לישוב המקורי. מצאנו כי ניתן לסווג את כל 122 ההרחבות שנבדקו לשלושה ארכיטיפיים עיקריים: )1( הרחבה אינטגרטיבית )2( הרחבה צמודת דופן )3( והרחבה מנותקת וכן לתשעה תתי-סוגים.

~ IV ~

הגורמים המבניים שנמצאו בעלי קשר חזק עם קצב ואופי הפיתוח בישובים הכפריים הם סוג הישוב, ושנת פיתוח שכונת ההרחבה וקירבת הישוב למטרופולין תל אביב ולנתיבי תנועה ראשיים. מצאנו כי מושבים לדוגמא נוטים לפתח יותר שכונות הרחבה מקיבוצים וישובים קהילתיים וכי כל אחד משלושת סוגי הישובים נוטה להעדיף סוג אחר של שכונת הרחבה. מושבים נוטים לפתח שכונות הרחבה אינטגרטיביות אשר מתמזגות בתוך המרקם היישובי הקיים, בעוד קיבוצים וישובים קהילתיים מעדיפים לפתח שכונות הרחבה צמודות דופן. להעדפה זו יש דפוס המשתנה עם הזמן, למשל עד שנת 2002 מושבים בחרו באופן מובהק הרחבות אינטגרטיביות, לאחר מכן החלו להעדיף הרחבות צמודות דופן ומשנת 2005 ואילך החלו לפתח בעיקר הרחבות מנותקות. ניתן להסביר דפוס משתנה זה הן ע"י הפניות של קרקעות לפיתוח והן ע"י עקומת למידה של הישובים. יתרה מכך, ישובים אשר ממוקמים רחוק מנתיבי תנועה ראשיים )ארציים ומקומיים( ורחוקים ממטרופולין תל אביב יפתחו פחות שכונות הרחבה. תוצאות אלה עומדות בהלימה עם מחקרים שבחנו את נושא הפיתוח במדינות מפותחות ויכול להיות מוסבר ע"י היצע נמוך יותר של תעסוקה ואפשרויות קיום במקומות מרוחקים ועל כן ביקוש נמוך יותר לפיתוח. לעומת זאת, ישובים אשר ממוקמים קרוב מאד לנתיבי תנועה ראשיים )ארציים ומקומיים( יהיו בעלי נטייה לפתח יותר הרחבות צמודות דופן וישובים הקרובים יותר למטרופולין תל אביב יעדיפו לפתח יותר הרחבות אשר יושבות מנותקות מהמרקם היישובי הקיים. שני גורמים מעניינים שנבדקו ונמצאו כי אינם בעלי קשר חזק לאופי פיתוח הרחבות הם "מדד הפריפריאליות" של ישוב, כלומר מרחקו הממוצע של ישוב מכל ישוב אחר ואופיו החילוני או הדתי של ישוב. המחקר מהוה התחלה של אפיון ובחינה של המרחב הכפרי והשלכות תהליכי העיור המקומיים. המחקר בראשיתו ובכוונתנו לחקור ולהעמיק בנושא. בחינת שלושה עשורים של דפוסי הפיתוח והעיור אפשר לנו להציג תפיסה מרחבית קוהרנטית על העבר והעתיד של הפיתוח הכפרי בישראל כבסיס לעיון והבנה של התהליכים הדינמיים ומשמעותם לטווח הארוך.

~ V ~

Abstract

The rural landscape of Israel has been evolving and experiencing fundamental changes within the last couple of decades. Rural settlements that were based mainly on agricultural production, have been shifting to a more suburban form of life. Traditional landscapes are disappearing as rapid development of new suburban neighborhoods, put at risk unique settlement types such as the Kibbutz and Moshav which are experiencing fundamental identity shifts. These changes although similar to those occurring in rural regions in many developed countries, are at the same time influenced by local environments and are in many ways unique. Thus said, there have not been many studies on the subject in Israel which may lead to a better understanding of the particular local suburbanization processes and their implications on Israel’s rural regions.

Due to lack of research on the subject, the study began by identifying which socioeconomic, demographic and geographic factors influence the likelihood for development of new neighborhoods, as well as revealing which factors have impact on the adoption of their specific typology. A large database of

84 settlements and 122 new neighborhoods was assembled, examining the three most common types of Jewish rural settlements in Israel, the Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement. The database covers information about these settlements both before and after the addition of new neighborhoods and characterizes their spatial architypes and sub-types.. Examining three decades of

~ VI ~

rural settlement growth, allowed us to impose a coherent spatial vision on past and future rural development in Israel.

~ VII ~

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisors Prof. Isaac (Sakis) Meir, Dr. Yodan Rofe for the hard work, patient guidance, encouragement and advice they have provided me in this research. I convey my deepest gratitude for both of you for I have learned from you not just the basics of research, but other life lessons I am taking with me. It was a pleasure being your student.

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my significant other Omri and our daughter Clil for being the inspiration for my work and believing in me along the bumpy academic road. To my sisters Adi and Gili which supported me along the way and I am greatly thankful for my father, Prof. Lavy, for all his guidance, teachings and unlimited patience. His creative insights have sparked my critical thinking and are imbedded within the study.

Last but not least, I dedicate my work to my dear mother, that although was a true urbanist, had a deep love and respect for the countryside and empowered me along my studies and academic achievements. I thank her from the bottom of my heart for being a beam of love and light in my life.

~ VIII ~

Table of Contents

IV ...... תקציר Abstract ...... VI Acknowledgments ...... VIII Table of Contents ...... IX List of Figures ...... XI 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Evolution of rural settlements, the uniqueness of Israel ...... 1 1.2 Fusion of built environment typologies ...... 2 1.3 Research significance and objectives ...... 3 2 Background ...... 6 2.1 Rural areas in Israel - their makeup and evolution ...... 6 2.1.1.1 The Rural Urban Continuum ...... 6 2.1.1.2 Location and Size of Settlements ...... 7 2.1.1.3 Rural Region Research ...... 7 2.1.1.4 Accessibility – Proximity, Time and Cost ...... 10 2.1.1.5 Location of Settlements on the Rural Urban Continuum ...... 10 2.2 Evolution of Rural Settlements in Israel and the Negev ...... 11 2.2.1 Three Types of Rural Settlements - Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement ...... 12 2.2.2 Founding period ...... 14 2.2.3 Crisis period ...... 17 2.2.4 Contemporary period ...... 20 2.3 Spatial Typologies ...... 22 2.3.1 Basic typologies of the Kibbutz ...... 23 2.3.2 Basic typologies of the Moshav ...... 28 2.3.3 Basic typology of Community Settlement ...... 31 2.3.4 Religious/Secular Nature of Settlements ...... 32 2.3.5 College graduates ratio ...... 32 3 Methods ...... 34 3.1 Hypothesis and Methods ...... 34 3.2 Research Structure ...... 36 3.3 Area of Research and Study Sample ...... 37 3.4 Typological Analysis...... 38

~ IX ~

3.4.1 Original settlement typologies ...... 38 3.4.2 Contemporary settlement typologies ...... 39 3.5 Settlement Database ...... 39 3.5.1 Socioeconomic-demographic data ...... 40 3.5.2 Geographic Data ...... 40 3.6 Statistical Analysis of Database and Typologies ...... 43 4 Results ...... 45 4.1 Results of Typological Lab ...... 46 4.1.1 4 architypes of extension neighborhoods ...... 46 4.1.2 9 Sub Types of extension neighborhoods ...... 47 4.1.3 Type of Settlement ...... 49 4.2 Demographic & Socioeconomic Factors associated with Extension ...... 53 4.2.1 Year of establishment of extension neighborhoods ...... 53 4.2.2 Other Socioeconomic & Demographic Factors – no significant results ...... 55 4.3 Results for Geographic Factors ...... 57 4.3.1 Proximity of settlement to main road ...... 58 4.3.2 Proximity of settlement to the border of TLV district ...... 59 4.3.3 Other Geographic Factors - No significant Results ...... 61 5 Discussion ...... 62 5.1 Settlement Type matters ...... 63 5.1.1 Traditional typologies, new architypes and sub-types ...... 63 5.1.2 Settlement Development and Social Structure ...... 65 5.1.3 Preferred Typologies and, Combinations of Typologies ...... 67 5.2 Rurality matters ...... 71 5.2.1 Settlement Accessibility ...... 71 5.2.1.1 Accessibility and Proximity to the border of Tel Aviv district ...... 72 5.2.1.2 Proximity to Main Local Roads ...... 74 5.2.2 Negev “Rurbanism” ...... 76 5.3 Unexpected Results ...... 77 5.3.1 The Rate of Population Growth Matters Less ...... 77 5.3.2 How Religion Matters ...... 77 6 Conclusions ...... 79 7 References ...... 86 8 Appendices ...... 91 8.1 Appendix 1 – List of settlements and their type ...... 91 ~ X ~

List of Figures

Figure 1Figure 1 Research Area: The Western Negev Region in Israel ...... 5 Figure 2 Ben Simon: ‘On the Lawn of the Kibbutz’ 1956 ...... 23 Figure 3 Figure 2 Ben Simon: ‘On the Lawn of the Kibbutz’ 1956 ...... 24 Figure 4 Classic Kibbutz Courtyard (source, Maos 1998) ...... 25 Figure 5 Integration of buildings and landscape areas: (1) the garden scape dominates the buildings; (2) organic emphasis of the buildings by the garden scape; (3) the buildings dominate the garden scape...... 26 Figure 6 Schematic plan of a Kibbutz (source, Maos 1998) ...... 26 Figure 7 Figure 7 General diagrammatic plan for a kibbutz of the Kibbutz Artzi movement; architect: Shmuel Mestechkin (Source, Maos 1998)...... 27 Figure 8 Evolution of Moshav Typology (source, Maos 1998) ...... 30 Figure 9 Research General Structure ...... 35 Figure 10 Study Flow Chart ...... 36 Figure 11 Five Regional Councils in the Research Area ...... 38 Figure 12 Illustrations of "near tool” ArcMap ...... 42 Figure 14 Proximity to TLV District (ArcMap) ...... 42 Figure 13 Proximity to Highway (ArcMap)...... 42 Figure 15 Rurality Ratio "Kernel Density" ArcMap ...... 43 Figure 16 Independent Model - Gvaot Bar Community Settlement ...... 47 Figure 17 Adjacent Model - Kibbutz Beit Kama ...... 47 Figure 18 Integrated Model- Moshav Zruaa ...... 47 Figure 19 Nine Sub types of contemporary rural settlements ...... 49 Figure 20 Distribution of Settlements Types with extension neighborhoods ...... 50 Figure 21 Ratio of Typologies per Settlement Type...... 51 Figure 22 Ratio of Sub Typologies per Settlement Type ...... 52 Figure 23 Three most uncommon sub typologies ...... 53 Figure 24 Year of establishment of extension neighborhood" ...... 54 Figure 25 Year of establishment of extension neighborhoods in A Moshavim ...... 55 Figure 26 Ratio of college graduates...... 56 Figure 27 exponential Growth rate of Population per year ...... 56 Figure 28 Year of establishment of extension neighborhood in A Community Settlement ...... 56 Figure 29 Year of establishment of settlement ...... 56 Figure 30 Ratio of Religious/Secular Settlements by Typology Type ...... 57 Figure 31 Proximity to Main National Highway (Rout 6) ...... 58 Figure 32 Proximity to Main Locale roads (number 25 and 40) ...... 59 Figure 33 Proximity to Tel Aviv District...... 61 Figure 34 Size of extension neighborhood ...... 61 Figure 35 Size of settlement ...... 61 Figure 36 Rurality - Local Proximity of each settlement to all other ...... 62 Figure 37 Ratio of Settlement size and extension neighborhood size ...... 62

~ XI ~

1 Introduction 1.1 Evolution of rural settlements, the uniqueness of Israel

Rural regions in the world have been evolving and experiencing fundamental changes in the last couple of decades.

Israel's rural regions serve as an interesting and unique example of settlement evolution since most of the country’s Jewish rural settlements were established as various types of collective communities (Kibbutz, Moshav and

Kvutza). Despite the fact that all Jewish rural settlements in Israel reflected common Zionist ideals, they differed from one another in their social organization and functional structure and each developed a unique ideology and a spatial model that reflects it.

These unique settlement types and characteristics are now at risk as rural regions in Israel are experiencing a rapid suburbanization process, similar to many rural regions in the world. The Kibbutz and Moshav, have been altered in the past three decades due to socio-economic changes (Grossman & Katz 1992;

Sofer 2005; Feinerman et al. 2011) and are experiencing a fundamental identity shift as a result of this process.

Therefore, it is important to better understand the contemporary constraints on processes of rural settlements and characterize the various types of their respective communities. Furthermore, exploring the background and leading forces of Israel’s settlement evolution is a crucial step in examining the declining rural countryside and loss of identity. ~ 1 ~

The Western Negev area in Israel was chosen as a case study for the research. Although it is a peripheral area, it serves as the edge of the developing center of the country and is dense with rural Jewish settlements. The area has many Kibbutzim and Moshavim1 as well as a third type of common rural settlements which emerged in the late 1970, the Community Settlement.

Furthermore, the Western Negev’s agricultural countryside is going through profound changes, experiencing accelerated development during the last three decades (Grossman & Katz 1992; Schwartz 1999) and making it an interesting case study.

The Western Negev region has been under rapid development due to a number of factors: growing shortage of land for new development in the center of the country; improvement of transportation that eased access to peripheral regions; increasing demands for rural tourism and recreation; and increasing opportunities for non-agricultural employment in the periphery. In fact, the area has been experiencing considerable immigration of young families and, as a result, accelerated construction of single-family homes, making it a good representation of changes occurring in other rural regions in Israel.

1.2 Fusion of built environment typologies

The sharp evolutionary shift, expressed in the form of suburbanization is the result of a severe socio-economic and ideological crisis in Israel’s Jewish

1 “Kibbutz” and “Moshav” is the Hebrew determination for a singular settlement, their plural determination is “Kibbutzim” and “Moshavim” ~ 2 ~

rural settlements, which occurred in the mid 1980’s. After this crisis, a new rural community and built environment emerged as large scale suburban typologies were introduced into the rural built environment. Hence, new suburban patterns are usually referred to as extension neighborhoods partly due to their lack of assimilation into the existing settlements. Nonetheless, the fusion of the two very different built typologies of old and new, forms a contemporary complex rural habitat which has not yet been fully addressed by the research.

1.3 Research significance and objectives

The main objective of this research has been to document and create a typology of all three types of rural settlement in Israel (Kibbutz, Moshav and

Community Settlement) and the various ways the created extension neighborhoods, covering information about the settlement both before and after the addition of new neighborhoods. A further aim was to explore the structural correlations between a settlement’s location, original form, and socio-economic conditions, and the type of extension(s) it has chosen to build.

The empirical work in this study is focused on the Western Negev region situated in the South-Western part of Israel (Fig.1). It is a semi-arid area chosen due to its many rural settlements Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement, with all extension types. Furthermore, its agricultural landscape experienced in recent decades a rapid expansion of new residential neighborhoods (Grossman and Katz 1992; Schwartz 1999), making it an interesting case study of the

~ 3 ~

evolution of rural settlements. Growing shortage of land for new development in the center of the country; transportation improvements that improved access to peripheral regions; increased tourism and recreation in rural areas; and opportunities for non-agricultural employment in the periphery, all have impacted the development of this region.

The research consisted of three main parts: (1) first, I built a basic database of all 84 settlements in five regional councils in the Negev area, in terms of their socioeconomic, demographic and geographic attributes, thus constructing the sample for further study. (2) The second part of the research consisted of building a set of typological prototypes of contemporary rural settlements and defining them through their spatial characteristics and their

“scale of integration” between original settlement typology and their new extension neighborhoods. (3) The third part comprised at exploring which factors were the better correlated with different settlements and integration typology.

Moreover, although the Negev is undergoing strong vast development, there is a substantial lack of research on the area and specifically on the types of novel rural communities. Studying the subject is crucial particularly for the

Negev’s future plans, since the area encompasses the largest land reserves for residential use in Israel and is expected to go under intensive development of settlements in the next few decades. This study’s conclusions will hopefully serve as a stepping stone for future planning of rural areas and rural settlements growth. ~ 4 ~

Figure 1Figure 1 Research Area: The Western Negev Region in Israel

~ 5 ~

2 Background 2.1 Rural areas in Israel - their makeup and evolution

2.1.1.1 The Rural Urban Continuum

Early rurality studies devoted much time to exploring the differences between “rural” and “urban” societies in sociodemographic and cultural aspects

(Friedland 2002; Creamer et al. 2009). Nonetheless, rural development must be acknowledged as integral to regional and national balanced development. In contrast to the core-periphery approach, in recent years researchers are finding rural and urban to be non-dichotomist but rather as stations along a continuum

(Friedland 2002; Murdoch & Pratt 1993). Hybrid spaces emerge leading to new concepts such as peri- or rur-urbanization (Theobald 2001). The indistinct boundaries of rural areas raises important questions about the future role of the countryside.

The traditional distinction between rural and urban areas has gradually evolved (Friedland 2002) due to the rise of both spatial mobility as well as the need of rural inhabitants to commute to cities in order to access employment opportunities and services. Research shows that reginal development has to do with the balance between two aspects, accessibility to urban employment centers (daily commuting), which offers economic opportunities outside the agricultural sector; and simultaneously achieving a quality of life in the countryside (Sofer 2001).

Thus said, the recognition is that rural areas are comprised of differentiated spaces and require place-specific development, are among the ~ 6 ~

greatest challenges to establishing an effective vision for the future of the countryside (Creamer et al. 2009). Changes in rural areas are not uniform, some regions and communities experience social and economic growth as others are left behind with no significant change in their economic, social and infrastructure development (Bryden & Bollmanb 2000). Hence, this research embraces the non- dichotomist approach of the rural-urban continuum as its conceptual framework, and examines the effects of location of each settlement, along the continuum between Tel Aviv district and the furthermost point in the Western Negev.

2.1.1.2 Location and Size of Settlements

In many places of in the world, the distribution and size of rural settlements are a result of topography, arable land, access to water, and climatic characteristics. Historically, rural economies are relatively closed economies and the sizes of settlements are largely determined by the food availability as well as the settlement's capacity of production (Gude et al. 2006). Hence the research examines among other characteristics, the location of each settlement and the impact of its location has on its development, using the type of new extension neighborhood as a marker for change.

2.1.1.3 Rural Region Research

The contemporary rural habitat is a reflection of its community. It expresses the complexity of the rural community’s social structure, ambitions and achievements (Bar Or 2010). The meeting and mixing of social relations and the combinations of local characteristics with those wider social relations are

~ 7 ~

what constructs a place and its uniqueness. Allowing each place to be individual in its characteristics and combination of social processes. (Massey 1995). This argument is strengthened by Murdoch which claims that the countryside is already hybrid and is defined and constituted by multiple dimensions and networks, giving rise to many types of countryside’s, each slightly different from the other. The evolution of the countryside is one of multiple hybridity, constantly evolving through interaction between many elements such as social, natural, human and non-human, rural and non-rural, local, national and global (Murdoch 2003)

Keeping in mind that the rural landscape in Israel has been transformed in the past two decades, moving from a variety of settlement types to a more standardized suburban pattern, there have not been many studies on the subject in Israel. The rural development research in the world is only somewhat relevant to Israel, since rural areas are complex, diverse, and rapidly changing, making generalizations very difficult (Brown & Swanson 2003; Brown & Schafft 2011).

Thus, local research in Israel, may lead to a better understanding of the particular local suburbanization processes and their implications on Israel’s rural regions.

Rural areas throughout the world have evolved in different ways over the past century, resulting in various types of ‘rural’, attaining functional diversity

(Friedland 2002). Each type of rural area experiences its own range of challenges, some of which are place-specific and some of which are generic. The

~ 8 ~

changes have profound effect on how the countryside functions as well as on the demographic profiles of rural inhabitants (Creamer et al. 2009). Furthermore, these changes greatly impact the organizational structure and environmental qualities of rural areas, which are gradually losing the basis of their unique features and identity as rural community (Sofer & Applebaum 2006)

The geographic location and scale of “rurality” is a crucial factor of development of rural settlements (Friedland 2002; Murdoch and Pratt 1993).

Many indicators and variables are used in studies for defining “rurality”. Each rural area has its own set of indicators and measures, best defining its “Rurality

Ratio”. The rurality parameters of the study were chosen as to most accurately articulate Israel’s rural regions as well as on the basis of data availability.

Nevertheless, although each area has its own unique characteristics and processes that shape the rural landscape, there is much inferred from this case study on the way rural landscape evolve in industrialized settings. It is fair to assume that many of the forces that shape our rural landscapes can be projected elsewhere.

In conclusion, research in the field of rural settlement evolution in Israel is an urgent task, as the unique traditional agricultural character of rural regions is disappearing in the vast suburban living patterns. Hopefully, by examining more than three decades of rural settlement growth from various angles including social, economic and architectural aspects, I will succeed in imposing a coherent spatial vision on future rural development.

~ 9 ~

2.1.1.4 Accessibility – Proximity, Time and Cost

Another aspect affecting development of rural regions is the ability to reach other locations (i.e. economic centers and contemporary countryside activities) efficiently within a reasonable time and cost. “Changes in accessibility lead to changes in the value of a region’s economic potential” (Vickerman 1996).

Remote places are usually poorly accessible, constrained by high travel costs.

Remoteness is a crucial issue in the definition of rurality leading research to focus on the hypothesis that accessibility and the rurality of a place are strongly correlated (Barnett et al. 2001; Caschili et al. 2015).

2.1.1.5 Location of Negev Settlements on the Rural Urban Continuum

The research focuses on the three most common types of rural Jewish settlements: the Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement. As there are distinct differences between the Jewish and Non-Jewish rural settlements, each coping with different challenges, history and issues, I chose to focus this research on the Jewish rural settlements. Unlike many places in the world where the size and location of rural settlements were historically a result of natural characteristics, in Israel size and location of rural settlements were mainly a result of geopolitical interests and limited to land available for purchase by the

Jewish Agency before the establishment of the state of Israel, and to land declared as state-owned land after Israel’s independence.

The study locates each settlement along the rural-urban continuum between Tel Aviv district and the furthest point in the Western Negev based on

~ 10 ~

the perception that the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area and its wider region corresponds to the core; and the rest of the country represents the periphery.

Tel Aviv district and the city at its core are the dominant economic area of

Israel, thus having significant influence on the rest of the country’s economy, having the ability to draw labor, capital, and enterprise (Bar-el and Parr 2003;

Creamer et al. 2009). .

The Negev periphery is in a sense, the obverse of the core, having limited economic and social dynamics and thus suffering from a condition of dependency. The Negev’s settlements have been reliant on external forces, thus having limited control of their economy. Peripheral areas tend to be less developed and possess less financial and social capital. They are also characterized by low levels of service and selective out-migration of population and labor (Bar-el and Parr 2003; Sofer and Applebaum 2006).

2.2 Evolution of Rural Settlements in Israel and the Negev

The evolution of rural settlements in Israel is attributed both to long- term global processes common to many developed economies, as well as to endemic processes such as local socioeconomic shifts, political trends, and changing ideological perceptions which contributed to rural demographic changes. These trends impact the way in which settlements develop, making the period or year of establishment an important factor in their study. I divide the evolutionary process into three main periods in time: (1) The founding and

~ 11 ~

establishment period 1910 - 1974; (2) Crisis period 1975 – 1985; (3)

Contemporary period from 1985 until 2013.

The Negev was first settled by Kibbutzim and Moshavim on land owned by the Jewish National Fund, in the beginning of the 20th century. Although half a century would pass before the Negev would become more densely populated, it nonetheless developed in similar processes to other rural regions of the country.

2.2.1 Three Types of Rural Settlements - Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement

Being the most common type of rural settlement in Israel, the Kibbutz first emerged in the Negev area around 1910. Although there are several types of

Kibbutzim, distinguished from one another in ideological, social and economic character, the research focuses on the most prevalent type of Kibbutz; the

Kibbutz Shitufi. This Kibbutz was based on distinct communist ideology, with equality among all members, and mutual responsibilities where all members receive their needs from the community and contribute according to their ability.

All assets and economic activities were shared jointly by its members, having common ownership of means of production and consumption in an economy based mostly on agriculture. Self-labour was a strong ideal as was direct democracy in local governance (Palgi & Getz 2014).

The Moshav type of Settlement emerged in the Negev area around the late

1930s, and were the second most common type of rural settlement in Israel.

Similarly to the Kibbutz, several types of Moshavim developed throughout the years and we focus on the most prevalent type, the Moshav Ovdim. The original ~ 12 ~

character of the Moshav was a form of a cooperative agricultural settlement, where each family owned its land and practiced in independent agricultural work. Each family was economically independent, but farmers had mutual responsibilities and common ownership of certain assets (Friedland 2002; Sofer

2005).

The third type of rural settlement is the Community Settlement, which first emerged in the 1950’s, but only much later, in the late 1970’s, established itself as one of the main types of settlements of rural Israel accommodating up to few hundred families.. Hence, Community Settlements became part of the Israeli rural landscape much later than the Moshav and the Kibbutz. Unlike the Kibbutz and the Moshav, the Community Settlement was initially planned as non- agricultural, non-communal patterns of rural settlements, with many similarities to suburban neighborhoods where each family is economically independent.

Nonetheless, all residents belong to a community association, which decides on various issues of the settlements such as acceptance of new members and businesses, overseeing matters of local education and deciding on public issues.

This allows the residents to mold their settlement under particular shared ideological or religious preferences and beliefs, or desired lifestyle on the one hand; but on the other hand, encourages a socially homogenous settlement with young middle class families (Weizman Eyal 2007).

~ 13 ~

2.2.2 Founding period

During the pre-statehood British Mandate period the prime national priority was the formation of a Jewish national territory in Palestine. At the time the Arab population constituted the majority and inhabited most of the arable land (Kipnis 1987). The Kibbutz and the Moshav were both perceived as serving a national mission, and assumed significant social importance after World War I.

Their status was very high and they were perceived as crucial for Jewish national revival and redemption of the Jewish land. In the attempt to create a new social alternative for the Jews, the Zionist Movement granted financial support to

Kibbutzim and Moshavim (Schwartz 1999; Talmon 1985).

Until the 1940s, the Negev area was still very sparsely populated. The few

Kibbutzim and Moshavim were sparsely scattered in the desert region and were essentially used as more political-military outposts of the young state of Israel, than as actual agricultural settlements. This began to change from the late 1940s the Negev desert became a settlement target as the Jewish country’s frontier, and slogans of 'conquering the wilderness' and 'making the desert bloom' were widely adopted (Kellerman 2016) aiming to extend Jewish presence from the core area of the coastal plain to the newly acquired frontiers by a leap frogging” pattern.

Kibbutzim and Moshavim were ideal for the leap frogging” pattern due to their socio-economic, ideological and spatial structure as both types were structured as independent entities and could exist in isolated and remote regions. Kibbutzim and Moshavim responded to the need of the time and slowly created inhabited sequences of Jewish territory (Kipnis 1987). At the same time, ~ 14 ~

the scarcity in essential development resources as well as the limitation of buying lands which Arabs were willing to sell, forced development efforts to focus on the most essential geopolitical territories of the time, that were usually marginal sparsely populated areas with poor agricultural potential as the Negev.

Following the establishment of the state of Israel (1948), in the beginning of the 1950s, more rural settlements were established in the Negev. Their economic status was improving due to a large flow of Jewish immigrants, which increased demands for agricultural produce. The government's policy was to encourage Jewish immigrants to become farmers by moving to rural settlements and enhancing their self-image as Israeli pioneers. At the same time, the supply of agriculture produce from Arab farmers had declined due to the displacement of “fellaheen (Arab farmers) population from agricultural lands.

Consequently, new agricultural Jewish settlements were flourishing in the

Negev due to political driven objectives of settling more areas along the country’s borders and acting as essential elements in Israel’s national security.

The settlements were a part of regional strategies aiming to ensure control over national territorial space and viable resources such as land and water (Kipnis

1987; Schwartz 1995).

David Ben-Gurion, The founding prime minister of Israel, tied his leadership to the Negev vision, by saying in his speech in 1955 that the people of

Israel will be tested in the Negev, for only with a united effort of a volunteering people will Israel accomplish the great mission of populating the wilderness and bringing it to flourish. He further said that this effort, will determine the fate of ~ 15 ~

the State of Israel and the standing of the Israeli people in the history of mankind. These words by David Ben-Gurion reflect the prevailing view of the time.

Many of the Negev’s settlements were established by immigrants with no prior knowledge in agriculture: Tifrach, Bitha, Renan, Maslul, Pduim and Gilat, are only a few of these settlements which take part in this study (Barkai & Shiller

2001). The challenge of building a generation of economically independent communities in the Negev, rather than creating a generation of hired workers in the suburbs of cities wasn’t easy but despite the hardships, in the late 1950s many of the immigrants succeeded in becoming farmers as more and more

Kibbutzim and Moshavim were established (Talmon 1985). Both were still characterized by strong social values such as high standards, hard work, mutual help and non-materialism. During the first decade of the young country,

Moshavim became the most common agricultural settlement model in the country. It succeeded in being flexible enough to fit populations of various backgrounds and was significantly less demanding socially than the Kibbutz model (Schwartz 2004).

It is important to note that the motivation for settling the Negev was ideological and political, and was only possible with substantial financial support. It is fair to say that Jewish rural settlements would not have succeeded without the direct financial support and bank credit given to them throughout their founding period (Karak 1985). On the other hand, the ongoing financial support made these settlements dependent on outside financial sources making ~ 16 ~

them vulnerable to outside political and economic shifts. (Talmon 1985). To some extent, their state of isolation from the social and economic changes occurring in the country, contributed to their social, economic and organizational crisis in the 1980’s (Applebaum 1998).

2.2.3 Crisis period

Following the 1967 war rural agricultural settlements experienced prosperity, largely due to the subsidies given by the government. Rapid financial growth of the Moshavim occurred as the Israeli economy was thriving, in addition to the “open bridges policy” which enabled low-wage Palestinian workers to work in agriculture within Israeli borders (Schwartz 2004).

Furthermore, both traditional rural settlement types, led the national deployment project after the 1967 war, making it possible to inhabit large areas by very small human and material resources (Kipnis 1987).

In the kibbutzim, the 70s were characterized by expansion of professional diversification and accelerated industrial development. Many factories of the

Kibbutzim in the Negev were flourishing, for example, “Netafim”, a company specializing in drip and micro irrigation solutions in Kibbutz Hatzerim became successful worldwide. Another example is “Nirlat”, a paint company in Kibbutz

Nir Oz, which is one of the leading paint companies of Israel. After the peace treaty with Egypt, signed in 1978, many new settlements were established in the

Negev following Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai, many of them to the area examined in this research (Barkai & Shiller 2001).

~ 17 ~

At the same time, the strong ideological foundation of the settlements was diminishing and individualistic ideals slowly replaced collective ones. These shifts in ideology and social structure had great impact on the standard of living and economic welfare of the individuals living in the Kibbutzim and Moshavim.

People were less interested in socialist ideals of materialistic modesty and were aiming for a higher standard of living. The Zionist pioneering spirit began to dim and shifted to settlement in the contested West Bank and Gaza Strip, influencing the Negev as well. Even Ben-Gurion's retirement to the Negev to a remote

Kibbutz in the desert did not manage to influence the masses to move to the

Negev area (Kellerman 2016).

In the late 1970s when Israel’s economy had moved to a recession and much of the financial support was discontinued (Schwartz 2004). The

Nationalist-Liberal coalition gained power and as a result, in the following years rural settlements underwent substantial changes: settlements endured a slow but steady demographic decline; a decrease of political and national security key roles; and a decline in national economic support as cooperative and collective ideals were being marginalized and public support of socialist ideals was weakening (Schwartz 1995).

Following these changes, at the end of the 1970s Kibbutzim and

Moshavim found themselves in the midst of a crisis. The 1977 political shifts became an upheaval, which from then on an economic recession occurred following the “Yom Kipur War” and the world energy crisis. This caused a sharp

~ 18 ~

rise of national inflation and thus worsen the status of the agricultural settlement. The Negev settlements in particular experienced a decrease in support as a result of a change in priorities of the government in favor of settling

Judea and Samaria (Barkai & Shiller 2001). The broken bond, slowly led to an economic, social and demographic crisis, followed by a social and ideological crisis (Schwartz 1995).

This period was followed by a dramatic rise in the rate of unemployment in rural agricultural settlements (Bar Or 2010) and a rapid process of outward migration. Many people left rural settlements to urban centers seeking more personal and professional opportunities (Schwartz 2004) leaving many rural settlements with a high percentage of elder population and with struggling public services (Maos 1998). At the same time, the collective values of mutual support, and a member's mutual social commitment in Kibbutzim and

Moshavim, slowly shifted towards values of family unity and personal fulfilment.

As a result, many Kibbutzim shifted to a new framework of socio economic and ideological nature. The “Renewed Kibbutz” is an example of such a new framework which was identified with far less shared social and economic activities. In the 1980’s, development in rural settlements stagnated as settlements had to deal with financial difficulties and ideological crisis as the future of Kibbutzim and Moshavim was unknown.

Consequently, in the late 1970s a vast establishments of Community

Settlements in rural areas of Israel (mainly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) was

~ 19 ~

occurring in response to the need of more flexible and individualistic rural settlements. These Community Settlements maintained some degree of community life, with residents sharing a common set of values and offering high level of housing and public services. They offered privately owned single family detached house in the countryside, but without the social and economic commitment found in the Kibbutz and Moshav (Weizman Eyal 2007).

Furthermore, the new of Community Settlements, did not suffer as much from the economic crisis and were greatly encouraged by the government.

Despite the fact that many community settlements established in Israel, in the Negev area only a number of community settlements were established. The

Kibbutz and Moshav were still the most prevalent settlements (Karak 1985) partly due to the isolated nature of the area, which offered less options for self- employed professionals at the time.

2.2.4 Contemporary period

In the late 1980’s three major changes were taking place, impacting development of rural regions: (1) a vast immigration from the Soviet Union led to increasing residential demands, which were urgently needed (2) a counter- urban phenomenon increased demands for “rural houses” as the dream of living in a “country lifestyle” grew. (3) The decline of agriculture as a major economic sector and source of livelihood. Following these changes, development of

Community Settlements was increasing as well as the emergence of a new ambitious development plan for Kibbutzim and Moshavim (Schwartz 2004).

~ 20 ~

The Israeli government was seeking new ways to help Kibbutzim and

Moshavim decrease their large debts and recover from their situation. Their plan enabled the privatization of land for the first time in the history of Kibbutzim and

Moshavim, and had several socioeconomic aims: (1) addressing rising demands for rural living options; (2) helping settlements recover financially through the payments received for the new neighborhoods; (3) reviving them with young families boosting the deteriorating public services.

The new neighborhoods were developed as non-agricultural suburban style neighborhoods, intended for economically and professionally independent residents. The new rural population, was associated with young middle class families, moving from urban areas in search of a rural lifestyle (Sofer 2005) but demanding new housing and car accessibility (Shoshany & Goldshleger 2002).

Historically, a person wishing to join a Kibbutz or Moshav had to join the cooperative association and was bonded by its socioeconomic benefits and responsibilities (Greenberg 2012; Schwartz 2004). However, the new governmental plan, changed this by offering the option of external residency.

This had a great impact upon the relation of the original and new communities.

These changes greatly affected the social fabric and living patterns of rural regions (Greenberg 2012).

In the Kibbutz for example, the new types of neighborhoods and the new residents, created a complex situation where for the first time, the communal society of the Kibbutz, accepted people with different world views as neighbors,

~ 21 ~

causing much tension. In the Moshav on the other hand, new plans enabled descendants of farmers to either build a residential unit in their parents’ yard or buy a smaller plot in the new neighborhood. Most importantly, it allowed people from “outside” the Moshav to buy a plot without being employed in any agriculture or farming activity (Greenberg 2012). The result was a new pattern of rural living, in the form we will refer to as “extension neighborhoods”.

There is a substantial lack of research on the types and character of new extension neighborhoods and their convergence with traditional Kibbutz and

Moshav settlements. Studies on the subject are crucial to the future of the Negev in particular, since the Negev has already been experiencing vast immigration and development mainly in construction of single-family homes and is expected to go under mass development of settlements in the near future; it is important to better understand the contemporary era of rural settlements, better characterize the types of contemporary habitats and explore what led settlements to evolve the way they did. This study’s conclusions will hopefully serve as a stepping stone for future planning of rural settlements.

2.3 Spatial Typologies

This chapter presents in detail the evolution of the basic traditional typologies of all three settlement types, Kibbutz, Moshav and Community

Settlements. Laying the basis for a better understanding of the future fusion with new extension neighborhood typologies. There is much research done on the

~ 22 ~

basic typologies of the Kibbutz and the Moshav in Israel, but lack of research on

Community Settlement typologies and their implications.

2.3.1 Basic typologies of the Kibbutz

The Kibbutz was a unique architectural challenge do to its strong ideologies. In their book “Kibbutz- Architecture without precedence” Bar Or and

Yaski argue that the planning of the Kibbutz is an expression of true collaboration between architectural vision and in-depth social dialogue (Bar Or

2010). The built environment of the Kibbutz was seen as a reflection of its social order and served as the platform for the Kibbutz idealistic society (Kahana 2011;

Bar Or 2010). Every kibbutz had a masterplan, which was the physical expression of ideals such as equality, mutual assistance, sharing of property and full participation in all spheres of life.

The kibbutz landscape served as a big garden, whereas all open areas were public green spaces, with a network of pedestrian paths, encouraging social interactions and outdoor activities. All kibbutz plans dictated simple and modest residential units (Kaufmann 2007) and minimized private areas to a minimum. A communal center with a main dining hall, collective laundry room and grocery store which were surrounded by a large outdoor common space encouraging collective activities was a crucial part of all Kibbutz masterplans. The communal center operated as the collective social center and was located in the highest topographic area, surrounded by wide landscape areas emphasizing its importance (Kleot 1979; Samuel Bickels 2010) .

~ 23 ~

Figure 3 Figure 2 Ben Simon: ‘On the Lawn of the Kibbutz’ 1956

Historically, the Kibbutz started out as a small public courtyard surrounded by communal building and agricultural plots. In its early days it was compared the Kibbutz to a big farm, where all workers have joint ownership on means of production, share almost all aspects of everyday life and aspire towards common goals (Maos 1998). But as population grew and agricultural and industrial sectors developed, the former courtyard typology was no longer able to accommodate the changes and the need to spatially expand arose. Kibbutzim sought to expand while still keeping their ideals and without losing the advantages of a small settlement, i.e. preserving accessibility, local employment and community life (Maos 1998).

~ 24 ~

Figure 4 Classic Kibbutz Courtyard (source, Maos 1998)

Accessibility, for example, would be challenged when expanding and adding residential units on the outskirts of the Kibbutz, leading to increased walking distance (Kleot 1979; Maos 1998). The life fabric of the Kibbutz, was very much influenced from the distances between the center of the kibbutz and its periphery, large distances from the center may cause decrease in usage of its services, thus strengthening the family unit at the account of social and collective

~ 25 ~

systems (Kahana 2011). To avoid this, some Kibbutzim for example, increased residential densities by adding floors to existing residential buildings. Another solution was expanding the settlement in a circular pattern (fig.4) keeping the social public areas in the center of the Kibbutz, in-between residential and industrial areas. Despite its advantages in terms of accessibility, the circular typology was very limited in terms of spatial growth and was soon modified by a new “zoning approach” (Maos 1998). The new zoning approach designated specific areas for residential, social and consumer uses, while separating the agricultural and industrial areas (Kleot 1979), helping to maintain high accessibility between residential units, social areas and commerce areas (Maos

1998; Samuel Bickels 2010).

Figure 5 Integration of buildings and landscape areas: (1) Figure 6 Schematic plan of a Kibbutz the garden scape dominates the buildings; (2) organic (source, Maos 1998) emphasis of the buildings by the garden scape; (3) the buildings dominate the garden scape.

~ 26 ~

Social and idealistic shifts in the 1970’s were soon to challenge the

Kibbutz built environment once again, as collective ideals were weakening

(Schwartz 1995), replaced by individualistic ideals and family oriented preferences. A good example is found in the issue of children’s collective sleeping arrangement which was slowly ending, and children were allowed to sleep in their parents’ houses. Consequently, families preferred dining in their own homes instead of in public dining halls. The new family circumstances demanded expansion of the modest residential units in order to accommodate the rising quality of life (Kleot 1979), deeply influencing the social and physical nature of the Kibbutz.

Figure 7 Figure 7 General diagrammatic plan for a kibbutz of the Kibbutz Artzi movement; architect: Shmuel Mestechkin (Source, Maos 1998)

In the mid 1980’s, following the social and ideological crisis, a rapid change culminated in less than a decade in new patterns of spatial forms in the

Kibbutz. Kibbutzim were in great debt, the rate of unemployment dramatically

~ 27 ~

rose and they were in the process of losing much of their collective nature

(Schwartz 1995). In the late 1980’s the Israeli government offered to implement a large size project of new, suburban style neighborhoods. As the new large extension neighborhoods disregarded the former unique typologies of the

Kibbutz, and had a tremendous impact on the nature and character of the

Kibbutz.

2.3.2 Basic typologies of the Moshav

The Moshav had unique spatial living patterns, which expressed it’s the social, economic and ideological values (Sofer & Applebaum 2006). The Moshav’s master plan, expressed its unique set of ideals such as equitability and collective community life. The spatial structure was based on long straight streets with private farming plots on both sides. This formed a residential density which on one hand enabled accessibility for both farming vehicles and residents to community services, while still allowing each family to have a similar size plot with adjacent residential and agricultural areas (Kleot 1979; Maos 1998).

Although the general structure made it easy for farmers to access their fields and comfortably develop agricultural service structures, it on the other hand generated unequal distribution of land between farmers, in terms of land quality which stood in contradiction to a basic social and economic ideal of the Moshav, the ideal of equitable allocation of production means. (Maos 1998).

New typologies of the Moshav attempted to eliminate the gap between the ideological backbone and its physical plans. Growing rural population and

~ 28 ~

improvements of agricultural technology were also challenging the basic spatial

Models of the Moshav, calling for integration of more complex components into the plans, without risking their ideological platform (Maos 1998). New plans divided agricultural plots into two: (1) small plots, adjacent to the farmer's residential unit, which served as a service area; (2) main agricultural plots, which were much bigger in size and were located outside the Moshav. Despite the fact that the new spatial arrangements made it more difficult for farmers to function, the second model succeeded in creating a plan where all farms and plots are equal in size, quality and distance from the fields (Kleot 1979; Maos

1998).

Moshavim aspired in meeting their own needs and being independent entities. Even more so, Moshavim in the Negev did not see themselves a part of the Negev master plan, which was based on Walter Christaller’s central place theory, advocating a hierarchical settlement structure of the Negev area (Barkai and Shiller 2001). Following this, in the beginning of the 1950’s a problem of supply and demand for services arose, challenging the basic ideal of the Moshav as an independent settlement. The provision of public services in the Moshav experienced economic difficulties due to a relatively small number of costumers; services such as grocery shops, health clinics and pools had financial difficulties especially in small settlements. A new spatial “multi-nucleated villages” plan (fig.

9c) tried to address issues of supply and demand while still maintaining small community sizes and an independent support system (Maos 1998).

~ 29 ~

Figure 8 Evolution of Moshav Typology (source, Maos 1998)

The Western Negev has a number of “multi-nucleated villages” which have yet to be studied. By using “rurality analysis”, I examine in the research whether the clustering of villages has any impact on the chosen model of integration of new neighborhoods into the settlements of the clusters. The

“multi-nucleated villages” consisted of clusters of 5-6 settlements, and integrated service areas in a hierarchal mode in means of achieving economies of scale

(Kleot 1979; Maos 1998). Yet the large distances between settlements and joint service center, lowered the number of consumers and eventually failed in creating an independent network of Moshavim.

~ 30 ~

In the late 1960s, similarly to the Kibbutz, Moshavim were experiencing social and idealistic shifts. Ideals such as modesty and collectiveness were gradually replaced by individualism and consumerism. Residents were aiming for a higher standard of living and called for new, more suitable living patterns.

This had much influence mainly on two aspects: (1) the size residential houses grew dramatically (2) shifting to more expensive sectors of agriculture

(Schwartz 1995). But, all these changes were true up until the late 1970’s when

Moshavim began suffering from Israel’s economy which had moved to a recession and Moshavim found themselves in large debts and in the midst of a social and financial crisis (Schwartz 2004). As in the Kibbutzim, the Moshavim had to implement the plan of new suburban neighborhood development in the late 1980s, thus changing the nature and character of Moshavim, too.

2.3.3 Basic typology of Community Settlement

The Community Settlement is the only form of rural settlement that succeeded in keeping its original character over the years, continuing to expand within its original standardized suburban form (Applebaum 1998). This has to do with the increase in demands for suburban style neighborhoods, with private housing and automobile accessibility (Shoshany & Goldshleger 2002).

Although community settlements were flourishing in Israel since the

1960s, in the Negev area only few were established successfully and specifically in the research study area in the Western Negev, there are only six community

~ 31 ~

settlements. Nonetheless, the residential model of the community settlement became one of the most important and influential rural typologies in Israel’s housing culture and found its way into the Negev through the suburban typologies of the new extension neighborhoods in many Kibbutzim and

Moshavim.

2.3.4 Religious/Secular Nature of Settlements

Religion is a dominant factor which has been largely studied and linked to various characteristics and is often perceived as a base for minority groups maintaining strict and often separate lifestyles, many times abstaining widespread social, economic, and demographic changes (Altmetric et al. 1979).

All of these factors have social, economic and political implications making the comparison between religious and secular communities an interesting and important topic when studying socioeconomic and demographic aspects of communities.

2.3.5 College graduates ratio

The impact of collage studies (higher education) on various aspects of a graduate’s life has been widely examined. Lifetime earnings by occupation, age, race/ethnicity, and gender are only some of the factors taken into account in different studies which find that a college degree is an important key to economic opportunities and higher income (Cheeseman & Eric 2002). For example in their report “The Collage payoff” Carnevale et.al claim that although there are significant variations based on age, gender, race/ethnicity and

~ 32 ~

occupation; over a lifetime, individuals with a Bachelor’s degree may reach an cumulative income higher by 84% compared to that of than those with only a high school diploma (Carnevale et al. 2011).

To conclude, this study aims to better understand the various structural characteristics which impact the way rural settlements develop in Israel. I examine how original typologies of the Kibbutz, Moshav & Community

Settlement influence the development of extension neighborhoods and impact the specific type of integration typology. An additional aspect studied how geographical factors such as location, degree of rurality and size, influence the likelihood for development of an extension neighborhoods and impact the specific type of integration typology. Furthermore, I study how socioeconomic and demographic factors of settlements impact the development of extension neighborhoods and their type of integration typology.

~ 33 ~

3 Methods 3.1 Hypothesis and Methods

In order to examine the research hypotheses, a descriptive statistics of the settlements and their growth was conducted including. The research was conducted using tried and well-established methods: (a) varied analysis with

ANOVA (b) Descriptive analysis using excel (c) Spatial pattern analysis using

Master Plans. In order to test the hypothesis I further examined correlations between certain spatial architypes of settlements and their structural variables.

My first hypothesis was that original settlement typologies influence the location of available lands for residential development, thus impacting the type of integration architype. In order to examine this hypothesis I first conducted a spatial typological analysis of the settlements and their extension neighborhoods by implementing a simple pattern analysis using general settlement plans. The architypes and sub-types found, refer to the spatial configurations of residential areas in original settlement fabric and new residential areas developed through three decades. I than correlated them with the three settlement types (Kibbutz,

Moshav and Community Settlement) in order to identify if and how the original typologies influenced the location of available lands for residential development in all three types of settlements.

My second hypothesis was that as a settlement is more rural it experiences a lower demand by incoming residents, leading to more integrated typologies of extension neighborhoods. The rurality ratio each settlement was calculated by “Kernel Density” in ARCGIS, where each settlement was given a ~ 34 ~

“rurality score” and then correlated with the spatial architypes in order to examine if settlements which are more rural tend to use to more integrated architypes of extension neighborhoods.

The third hypothesis claimed that religious settlements are characterized as having more cohesive communities, thus leading them to embrace more integrated typologies. A simple excel descriptive analysis was used between the spatial architypes of settlements and their religiosity or secularity nature in order to better understand the influence between the two variables.

An additional correlation was done between the spatial architypes of settlements and their exponential growth rates, in means of examining the fourth and last hypothesis which claimed that settlements with higher growth rates, experience rapid development of large scale community neighborhoods, leading to a tendency of developing more independent typologies

Figure 9 Research General Structure

~ 35 ~

3.2 Research Structure

My study of the spatial patterns of rural settlements and their change over time, includes four main parts (Fig10): (A) Spatial identification and characterization of all 122 extension neighborhoods into four main architypes and nine sub-types (B) construction of a database of all 84 settlements, including the geographic characteristics of each settlement (including settlements without extension neighborhoods); (C) construction of a database of the socioeconomic, demographic characteristics of all settlements (including settlements without extension neighborhoods); Since there is limited research on this topic, the systematic and consistent construction of this data base is an essential step for analyzing and understanding the nature and features of the study sample (D)

Figure 10 Study Flow Chart

~ 36 ~

Analysis of the relationships between the predicting variables of the research which are the socioeconomic, demographic and geographic variables, and between the spatial architypes and sub-types of settlements that constitute the dependent variables of the study.

3.3 Area of Research and Study Sample

Rather than working on all rural settlements in Israel, I selected the

Western Negev as an area for detailed analysis – so that you can examine more in detail. I examine all settlements within five regional councils in the Western

Negev (Fig.8): Sha'ar HaNegev (11 settlements); Bnei Shimon (13 settlements);

Merhavim (15 settlements); Sdot Negev (16 settlements); Eshkol (29 settlements).

The study sample includes 84 settlements (see settlement list in Appendix

1) composed by 34 Kibbutzim; 44 Moshavim, and 6 Community Settlements. 66 out of the 84 settlements developed extension neighborhoods within the last three decades, most of them developing more than one new neighborhood, amounting to a total of 122 extension neighborhoods. The extension neighborhood is the basic unit for statistical analysis and, as will be shown below, its quantity (N=122) is high enough to allow statistical analysis.

Nonetheless, due to the small amount of community settlements in the study area there may not be enough statistical power in the empirical analysis for this group.

~ 37 ~

Figure 11 Five Regional Councils in the Research Area

3.4 Typological Analysis

3.4.1 Original settlement typologies

The spatial patterns of the settlements and their change over time, were examined in detail, to show the evolution of the original typologies of all three settlements types: Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement. The original typologies of each type of settlement were characterized, based by historic, social and architectural literature analysis (as elaborated in the background), of

~ 38 ~

historical master plans of settlements and their development until the 1980’s.

The data on land-use was obtained from historical master plans, attained from the archives of Israel Land Administration., as well as from satellite images.

Based on this data, I constructed a classification of the Kibbutz, the Moshav and the Community Settlement’s historical patterns, laying the base for identification of the fusion with new neighborhood typologies and identification of integration models.

3.4.2 Contemporary settlement typologies

In the second part of the typological analysis, I study the contemporary typologies of rural settlements, examining the fusion of original typologies with new suburban typologies of the extension neighborhoods. I characterize the prototypes of fusions with regard to the relative location of “extension neighborhoods” to original settlements and defined four general ’models of integration‘: (1) No Development (2) Integrated; (3) Adjacent (4) Independent.

After studying the “General Master Plans” of all 122 extension neighborhoods, I further defined 9 sub-typologies characterizing these rural settlement extensions. The sub-typologies give a more accurate and detailed picture of the nature of “integration” between old settlement fabric and new

“suburban type” of neighborhoods.

3.5 Settlement Database

The database has two main sources. The social-demographic datum was collected from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics for the years 1983, 1995,

~ 39 ~

2013, corresponding to the year of the Population Census or Survey source. The geographic part of the database includes information about original as well as new spatial patterns of settlements. This part was done using GIS data, aerial photographs and using data collected from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics data for 1983, 1995, 2013.

3.5.1 Socioeconomic-demographic data

The variables included in the data base of the research are: (1) type of

Settlement; (2) year of establishment of settlement; (3) year of establishment of

Community neighborhood; (4) religious status of settlement; (5) population growth (exponential) rate ; (6) the population ratio of college graduates; (7) dependency ratio ; (8) car ownership ratio; (9) average family size; (10) average household Income.

These variables were taken for each extension neighborhood from the census closest to its date of completion. For example Kibutz “Nirim” developed an extension neighborhood in the year 2009, therefore the relevant data for this specific neighborhood was derived from the 2008 census. Another example is

Kibbutz “Alumim”, which developed two “extension neighborhoods”; one in the year 2000 and the other in 2008. For the first I used data from the 1995 census and for the second from the 2008 census.

3.5.2 Geographic Data

~ 40 ~

The geographic variables used in the research are: (1) Size of settlement, measured by settlement population size, from Central Bauru of Statistics “CBS” ;

(2) Size of extension neighborhood measured by the number of residential units in each neighborhood, collected from “General Master Plans”; (3) Ratio of the size of the extension neighborhood and the size of the Settlement is calculated as follows assuming average family size is 3.7: # of residential units in extension neighborhood X 3.7 ;

(4) Proximity to main road measured by ‘near’ tool in the proximity toolset in

ArcMap (fig14) ; (5) Proximity to the border of Tel Aviv district measured by ‘near’ tool in the proximity toolset in ArcMap as well (fig 15) ; (6) Rurality - Local

Proximity of each settlement to all other settlements with respect to their size.

The distance is calculated by the ‘kernel density’ 2tool in ArcMap (fig16).

2 The measures of “Kernel distance” map is weighted by the values of the population field. Conceptually, each settlement is located in a smoothly curved surface where the value is highest at the location of the point and diminishes with increasing distance from the point, reaching zero at the Search radius distance from the point (Berbnard Silverman 1986). The area taken into account in the Kernel Map was broader in 30 KM from the couture line of all study settlements in order to receive a more accurate representation of each settlements density ratio by taking into account settlements that are near but not part of the study. ~ 41 ~

Figure 12 Illustrations of "near tool” ArcMap

This database was setup and elaborated within ARCGIS 10 and its

Network Analyst extension. Metric Distance is often used as a measure of proximity but may not be the most accurate way of understanding the true impact of rural settlement proximity to main roads and to the main economic centers (Antrop 2000a). Concepts such as time distance and cost distance have been fundamental in studies of rural landscapes and were used in this research with the ‘Network Analyst’ tool. The permitted driving speed of each road was taken into account along with the driving distance, two important factors impacting everyday life of rural residents.

Figure 14 Proximity to Highway (ArcMap) Figure 13 Proximity to TLV District (ArcMap)

~ 42 ~

An additional factor tested is the “ratio of rurality”. The Rurality map was constructed by the “kernel density” tool in ArcMap which defines the density of a settlement by calculating the distance and size of all settlement around it.

Figure 15 Rurality Ratio "Kernel Density" ArcMap

3.6 Statistical Analysis of Database and Typologies

Statistical significance of the effect of the Socioeconomic, demographic and geographic data and “Integration models” was analyzed using ANOVA with

Systat analysis of variance.

~ 43 ~

In conclusion, in order to study the evolution of rural settlements in

Israel, the Western Negev area was chosen as a case study on the edge of the expanding Tel-Aviv metropolitan area. Using spatial analysis, grounded in the historic, geographic and architectural literature, the research established a typology of extension neighborhoods and their integration models with the existing settlements. Following that, we used descriptive and analytical statistical methods to examine the relationships between these spatial integration models and various geographic, demographic and socioeconomic factors.

~ 44 ~

4 Results

In this chapter I describe the results of the typological analysis and the statistical exploration of the factors influencing the choice of extension model chosen by each settlement as it decided on an extension neighborhood. It describes the complex relationships between specific socioeconomic, demographic and geographic factors and specific contemporary typologies of settlements. Using typological and statistical analysis I am able to discriminate across the different factors and show that the rural settlements in the research develop in systematic and consistent patterns, rather than being a random or site specific process. This evolutionary process is affected by various structural characteristics and parameters.

To investigate this claim empirically, I examined three types of factors, geographic, demographic and socioeconomic, overlying them with spatial typological data through statistical analysis. In addition, I find that the same four spatial typologies recur in all 122 ’extension neighborhoods’ and that these general typologies may be further subcategorized into recurring 9 sub- typologies.

~ 45 ~

4.1 Results of Typological Lab

4.1.1 4 architypes of extension neighborhoods

An examination of the detailed Master Plans of each neighborhood, I identified a set of prototypes based on patterns of interlinkage between the existing and the new residential areas of the 84 rural settlements in the Western

Negev. There are four architypes describing the “models of integration” of all 122 extension neighborhoods:

(1) “No Development” – settlements which did not develop any new neighborhoods between the years 1980 – 2013;

(2) “Integrated” –new extension neighborhoods that are fully integrated into the existing residential fabric (see Figure 8, Moshav Zruaa as an example);

(3) “Adjacent” –extension neighborhoods are adjacent to the built fabric of the existing settlement, and have a joint border (see Figure 9, Kibbutz Beit Kama as an example);

(4) “Independent” - extension neighborhood is built away from the built fabric of the existing settlement, is located in a completely detached location, and not having any physical connection (see Figure 10, Gvaoot Bar Community

Settlement as an example).

~ 46 ~

Figure 18 Integrated Model- Figure 17 Adjacent Model - Figure 16 Independent Model - Gvaot Bar Moshav Zruaa Kibbutz Beit Kama Community Settlement

These basic four architypes cover all 84 settlements, and all 116 extension neighborhoods studied in this research can be associated with one of these three main extension architypes. In terms of numbers, the division of architypes is as so: 18 “No Development”; 51 “Integrated”; 31 “Adjacent”; 34

“Independent”.

4.1.2 9 Sub Types of extension neighborhoods

Further examination of the detailed master plans of the 122 extension neighborhoods led to further elaboration of the typology into nine sub-types.

Each of the three archetypical integration models can be further classified in three sub-types (fig20):

(A) The Integrated architype includes the following sub-types:

(A1) “Re parceled” - unoccupied areas (zoned residential or as public open space) within the settlement’s built fabric are converted into new residential plots (usually about 500 sq. meter in area).

~ 47 ~

(A2) Scattered in-fill - new plots are dispersed into vacant areas within the original fabric in-between existing residential units.

(A3) Center in-fill - new residential plots are located in large open spaces that remained in the center of settlements.

(B) The Adjacent architype includes the following sub-types:

(B1) Continued network– adjacent new neighborhood is planned as an extension of the original settlement’s road network.

(B2) Patch – an adjacent new neighborhood is without apparent resemblance or reference to the nature of the original settlement.

(B3) Wrap around– the new neighborhood is located around the original residential area.

(C) The Independent architype includes the following sub-types:

(C1) Neighboring - the new neighborhood is geographically detached from the existing neighborhood but continues its road network

(C2) Detached - the new neighborhood is detached from the existing settlement fabric having its own independent road network and is connected to it by only one road.

(C3) Buffered - the new neighborhood is geographically detached from the original settlement by a main road.

~ 48 ~

Figure 19 Nine Sub types of contemporary rural settlements

All 122 extension neighborhoods in the research sample may be associated with one of these nine sub-types. In terms of numbers, the division of sub architypes is as so: 24 “Re parceled” (A1) ; 11 “scattered in-fill” (A2); 12

“Center in-fill” (A3); 9 “Continued network” (B1); 5 “Patch” (B2); 13 “Wrap around” (B3); 18 “Neighboring” (C1); 14 ”Detached” (C2) 11 “Buffered” (C3).

4.1.3 Type of Settlement

Among all three types of rural settlements, the Moshav has the highest tendency of developing an extension neighborhood. The Kibbutz and the

Community Settlement are more similar in their development patterns. The statistical correlation between the three architypes integration and the types of

~ 49 ~

settlements (Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement) is positive and significant, revealing that each type of settlement tends to develop a specific architype of extension neighborhood. Stating this pattern differently, each type of settlement has a “preferable architype” of extension neighborhood often developed.

Thus said, among all the 44 Moshav settlements in the research, 59 Figure 20 Distribution of Settlements Types with extension neighborhoods percent developed an extension neighborhood of the integrated typology type

(fig.21); 59 percent of the 34 Kibbutz settlements in the research, developed an adjacent typology of extension neighborhood (fig.21). The relationship between the type of settlement and the type of extension neighborhood was tested by the

Chi Squared Test χ2,4=25.04139, which indicates a strong and statistically significant relationship (fig.22).

~ 50 ~

Figure 21 Ratio of Typologies per Settlement Type

In a similar analysis a strong correlation is also found between settlement type and the subtype of extension neighborhood. Each type of settlement has, respectively, a “preferable sub type” of extension which it often developed. The three most common sub-types organize by settlement type (fig.23); Moshavim tend to develop more integrated extension neighborhoods of the re–parceled sub-type; Kibbutzim, on the other hand, which tended more to develop adjacent extension neighborhoods, prefer the wrap-around sub-type. The few Community settlements included in the research sample seem to prefer the adjacent type as well, mostly developing the continued network sub-type.

~ 51 ~

Figure 22 Ratio of Sub Typologies per Settlement Type

The rarest sub-types are presented in Fig.24. Although rare these developments help to understand the development patterns of rural settlements shedding light on which types of settlements and development types and sub - types do not integrate. Moshav settlements have one sub-type they never chose to develop, and that is the adjacent patch sub typology; the Kibbutz type of settlements rarely developed the integrated re-parceled sub-type of extension neighborhoods; and none of the few community settlements participating in the study has chosen the scattered in-fill sub-type.

~ 52 ~

Figure 23 Three most uncommon sub typologies

4.2 Demographic and Socioeconomic and Factors associated with extension type

To study the effect of the socioeconomic and demographic factors on the extension type two statistical methods were used: descriptive analysis and analysis of variance. Results show two strong statistical correlations with extension type; (a) religious or secular character of settlement (b) the year of establishment of the extension neighborhood.

4.2.1 Year of establishment of extension neighborhoods

The year of establishment of the extension neighborhood has a strong and statistically significant relationship with the integration type of the extension neighborhood (F2,110 = 4.4622, p = 0.0137, One Way ANOVA). During the period from 2000-2003 the integrated type was very dominant in the development of extension neighborhoods. Later on, between 2004 and 2007 there is a strong shift in the types of extensions adopted, as the adjacent and independent types

~ 53 ~

became more prevalent (Fig.25). This result suggests that there are “trends” in the ‘popularity’ of integration types, the dominant type changes over time.

Figure 24 Year of establishment of extension neighborhood"

This is seen most clearly with regard to Moshav settlements that exhibit the strongest shifts in trend in all three types of settlements, (F2,62 = 4.4622, p =

0.0254, One Way ANOVA Fig18-20). Moshav settlements move from developing mostly integrated typologies (2000-2002), to adjacent typologies (2001- 2005) and lastly shifting to independent typologies (2004 - 2006) as seen in Fig.26. On the other hand, Kibbutzim have tended in the early years to develop extension neighborhoods based on the adjacent and independent types, and only later, from 2007 on, they adopt the integrated type as their most dominant extension model.

~ 54 ~

Figure 25 Year of establishment of extension neighborhoods in A Moshavim

4.2.2 Other Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors – no significant results

I also examined the relationship between several other socioeconomic and demographic factors and the chosen extension model, such as the year of establishment of the settlement; the growth rate of the population in the original settlement; the ratio of college graduates per settlement; and the religious or secular nature of a settlement. None of these factors had a significant relationship with the likelihood of developing an extension neighborhood nor with a specific extension model chosen (Fig. 28-31).

~ 55 ~

Figure 27 exponential Growth rate of Population per year Figure 26 Ratio of college graduates

Figure 29 Year of establishment of settlement Figure 28 Year of establishment of extension neighborhood in A Community Settlement

~ 56 ~

Figure 30 Ratio of Religious/Secular Settlements by Typology Type

4.3 Results for Geographic Factors

In this section I examine the empirical relationships between various

geographic factors and types of Integration models. To examine the strength of

the statistical significance of the relationship, I used the network analysis tool in

ARCGIS and ANOVA Analysis of Variance in Systat program.

Results show a strong correlation between proximity to a main road

(regional and national) and the proximity to Tel-Aviv District and the type of

integration model chosen. On the other hand, the size of settlements, size of

extension neighborhoods and the ratio between these two measures as well as

the “rurality” measure of a settlement, its proximity to all other settlements

around it, were found to be insignificant in shaping the choice of extension

model.

~ 57 ~

4.3.1 Proximity of settlement to main road

The effect of proximity of settlements to both main national highways as well as main regional roads was found very significant to both the likelihood for development of an extension neighborhoods and impact on the specific type of integration typology.

A settlement’s proximity to the main national highway in the Western

Negev area (Route 6) has a strong statistical connection to the type of integration model (F(3,129) = 8.0891, p = 0.00006, One Way ANOVA, Fig.32). Settlements closest to the highway (15-20 km distance) tend to develop adjacent models, while settlements further away from the highway (20-30 km) tend to develop more integrated and independent models. Another interesting connection found is that settlements that are the farthest away from the highway (35 – 45 km) tended not to develop any extension neighborhoods.

Figure 31 Proximity to Main National Highway (Rout 6)

~ 58 ~

A settlement’s proximity to the two main regional roads in the Western

Negev area (Roads 25, 40) is also strongly correlated (F(3,117) = 4.6379, p =

0.0042, One Way ANOVA fig.33) with the type of integration model chosen

(Figure 26). Settlements closest to the two main local roads (500-900 meters)

tend to develop adjacent models. Settlements further away from the main roads

(1000-1400 meters) tend to develop more independent extension types.

Settlements located (1400-1800 meters) have a higher tendency to develop

more integrated models. Furthermore, settlements which are located farthest

away from main regional roads (1500 – 2300 meters) have a higher tendency of

not developing extension neighborhoods at all.

Figure 32 Proximity to Main Locale roads (number 25 and 40)

4.3.2 Proximity of settlement to the border of TLV district

~ 59 ~

Using The Kernel Density tool we created a mapping of each settlement’s location and “scale of rurality”. Since population size of settlements were taken into account, we found (fig7) that there are a few “density hotspots” located mainly in the center of the study area, around the urban areas. Subsequently, we found that the southern outskirts of the study area is mainly characterized by very low density of settlements.

The effect of proximity of existing settlements to the Tel Aviv district on the choice of a specific type of an extension neighborhood is very significant (F

(2,112) = 7.7186, p = 0.0007, One Way ANOVA Fig.27). Despite the small differences in distance between settlements, results show strong connections.

Settlements located closest to Tel Aviv (92-97 km) tended to develop independent types of extension neighborhoods. Settlements located somewhat farther away from Tel Aviv (98-104 km) tended more to develop adjacent types of extension neighborhoods. Settlements located farthest away from Tel Aviv

(105-109 km) tended more to develop integrated types of extension neighborhoods.

~ 60 ~

Figure 33 Proximity to Tel Aviv District

4.3.3 Other Geographic Factors - No significant Results

Four other geographic factors were tested, but were found to have no

statistically significant correlation with specific integration types. These are the

size of settlement, size of extension neighborhood and the ratio between these

two variables (Fig 35-38).

Figure 35 Size of settlement Figure 34 Size of extension neighborhood

~ 61 ~

Figure 37 Ratio of Settlement size and extension Figure 36 Rurality - Local Proximity of each neighborhood size settlement to all other

5 Discussion

The initial notion of the study was that contemporary rural landscapes in

Israel are lacking losing local identity, and are becoming characterized mainly by uniform patterns and solutions. Since it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize traditional landscapes, the study sought to examine if traditional rural

~ 62 ~

landscapes still exist, and if the impression of them as being isolated patches in a large scale uniform suburban space is accurate.

We further sought to define the structural forces leading to this type of development and found that the way rural settlements develop in Israel is neither random nor a site specific process but is rather a process impacted by various structural characteristics of existing settlements, and their location within metropolitan and regional space. Based on the evidence presented above, we can conclude that the choice of integration model is not random, nor is the development process of a homogenous suburban nature, but rather it is a systematic and specific process impacted by the characteristics of the original settlement type, namely the Kibbutz, the Moshav and the Community Settlement.

5.1 Settlement Type matters

5.1.1 Traditional typologies, new architypes and sub-types

Traditional settlement patterns in Israel’s countryside were found to have much influence on new living patterns of rural regions. The study shows that the distinct social, economic, ideological and spatial characteristics of the Kibbutz,

Moshav and Community Settlement, influenced significantly their future development patterns. Nonetheless, the research also found that despite the variance of the settlements’ traditional patterns, their contemporary development is very similar and may even be classified into three spatial architypes (integrated, adjacent and independent). Hence, although contemporary settlement patterns are influenced by traditional ones, the impact

~ 63 ~

is still somewhat confined to several patterns which have been dominant in modern residential development.

The new patterns are also different from traditional patterns of Kibbutz and Moshav and more similar to the suburban patterns of Community

Settlements. Despite their division into three architypes, the integrated, adjacent and independent architypes are all composed of similar internal characteristics such as being strictly residential, comprised of detached family homes and having high vehicle accessibility. The nine sub-types all have the same suburban nature. The differences between the architypes and sub-types are in their relative position to the original settlement.

The physical built patterns of settlements play an important role in shaping the everyday life practices of residents, influencing their behavior, physical activities and quality of life. Recent studies have shown that settlements that provide physical space with access to mixed land use, walkable destinations and high quality of open spaces, significantly enhance the quality of life of residents (Yousefian et al. 2010; Frank et al. 2010).

On this note, studies have shown that suburban forms of settlements often lead to automobile dependency and anti-pedestrian outdoor spaces

(Moudon 1991, Southworth 1993). Therefore it is interesting for future research to examine whether the architypes and sub-types of rural settlement adopted in

Israel have led to the same consequences. It will be interesting to further investigate how each of the three architypes of extension neighborhoods has affected factors such as walkability, accessibility, open space quality and outdoor ~ 64 ~

activity of inhabitants. Is it safe to assume for example that integrated patterns of new neighborhoods increase pedestrian walking and better enhance outdoor activities than independent patterns which are located further away? Another question arising is how the various architypes and sub-types impact open space quality. Does each architype develop a specific type of open space? And if so, what kind of open spaces are developed and in what way do they differ from the open spaces in the traditional settlements?

Among other things, these questions highlight the profound differences between traditional and new patterns of rural settlements and how their spatial patter affect the same factors such as walkability, accessibility, open space quality and outdoor activity of inhabitants. Examining both patterns, traditional as well as new, may shed some light on what has been lost and gained as part of the reconstruction of these rural settlements.

5.1.2 Settlement Development and Social Structure

There is a strong correlation between the type of settlement (Kibbutz,

Moshav, and Community Settlement) and the type of extension neighborhood most preferred. As the three settlements have very different and distinct original typologies, this may be an indication that the original typologies has an influence on the growth and development of the settlement, and affects the specific type of integration typology as well. To begin with, Moshavim have a higher tendency to develop extension neighborhoods than Kibbutzim and Community Settlements.

Although Moshavim were similar to Kibbutzim in their need of a social and ~ 65 ~

economic revival, their different socioeconomic structure Kibbutzim may have contributed to their ability to respond faster to the crisis. The Kibbutzim, being a cohesive community with commonly owned property, experienced longer and more complex restructuring processes. In many cases, these resulted in tensions within the cooperative community between the old and new residents

(Greenberg 2012). This may have contributed to their slower rate of development.

Moshavim on the other hand, are more flexible, and significantly less demanding in terms of social commitment and communal lifestyle. Moshavim succeeded in addressing rising demands for rural living options, enhancing external residency in the form of non-agricultural suburban style neighbourhoods, intended for economically and professionally independent residents. This is yet another circumstance in which, similar to previous occasions in the history of rural settlement in Israel, the flexible nature of the

Moshav was successful in accommodating populations of various backgrounds

(Schwartz 2004).

Nonetheless, former rural uniformity is disintegrating due to consistent development of rural settlements, as a wider range of settlement typologies is established. Rural settlements are growing more heterogeneous, having various social and economic characteristics and thus rendering the traditional model obsolete (Friedland 2002, Murdoch 2003). In recent years, contemporary rural regions have represented a divergent set of landscapes. The encounter between

~ 66 ~

original and new typologies, of old and new spatial patterns have made rural settlements sites of immense change. To borrow from other fields of knowledge, in ecology, diversity itself increases resilience and enhances stability (Adger

2000). Thus when examining the bigger picture, contemporary rural regions are in a way, more resilient to change than original rural regions due to their exhibition of diversity of social and professional profiles and variety of spatial typologies.

5.1.3 Preferred Typologies and, Combinations of Typologies

Typological analysis was done in order to better understand the diversity of the study’s sample of rural settlements, their characteristics and the nature of their new typologies. In his paper from 2004, Mikelbank talks about the importance of in-depth research of typologies: “Typologies serve as a springboard from which the behavior of complex and diverse phenomena can be more clearly understood. Classification research can help bridge the conceptual gap between the seemingly unique character of an individual observation and the well-understood behavior of groups of similar observations” (Mikelbank 2006). Hence, when examining the types of settlements results show that each has a “preferable” integration model of extension neighborhood as well as a “preferable” sub typology.

Moshavim for example, tend to develop more integrated typologies of extension neighborhoods and in particular the re-parceled sub typology.

~ 67 ~

Kibbutzim on the other hand, tend more to develop adjacent extension neighborhoods, leaning towards the “wrap around” sub typology. This raises the question why settlements in the same area, with similar economic characteristics, develop in such different patterns? My answer is that original typologies, themselves a product of the underlying ideology of each settlement type, determine the availability of lands for residential development, and thus influence the development of specific typologies of extension neighborhoods.

For example, Moshavim tend to develop integrated typologies and specifically re-parceled sub-typology due to two factors, both having to do with the original spatial plan of the Moshav. The first is that the original plans dedicated small residential plots (between 500-1000 sq.m.) in their center for residents working as "service professionals.” This was a result of the ideological aspiration for creating self-sufficient communities. However, in reality, many of these small plots, located in the center of Moshavim, were left vacant because, in fact, the Moshavim were too small to support many of the services envisaged, and therefore these plots were left vacant. The second factor leading to the availability of land within Moshavim in our area, thus influencing Moshavim to adopt the integrated and re-parceled typology, may be that many Moshavim in the Negev area were less in demand due to their rurality, leaving many of the planned plots within the existing fabric uninhabited. Both these factors led to the existence of available vacant land within the original fabric, allowing the Moshav to inhabit new residents in an integrated manner without spatially developing outward, by subdividing this land into smaller parcels. ~ 68 ~

Kibbutzim on the other hand, despite suffering from the same hardships of rurality and low demand, “preferred” developing adjacent integration models.

This could be due both to their cohesive community structure, which made it more complicated to accept “outside” residents into its spatial realm.

Additionally, it could be a result of the Kibbutz’s "Hermetically sealed” spatial planning which planned all designated areas in the Kibbutz (industrial, residential, public, commercial) with a strong dependency on pedestrian accessibility, a strong social center and no private land, leaving no vacant areas within the settlement. This led to a lack of vacant plots or areas within the built fabric of the Kibbutz, which could be developed, into new residential areas.

It is also instructive to examine which typologies were uncommonly used.

Results show, for example, that the adjacent typology and specifically the Wrap-

Around sub-typology were not used at all by Moshavim, and that Kibbutzim avoided developing the integrated typologies and specifically never developed the re-parceled sub-typology. In the case of the Kibbutz it is because of the social spatial structure as explained in the previous paragraph. In the case of the

Moshav the adjacent typology was so uncommon probably due to the original spatial form of the Moshav. Residential plots border private agricultural plots, leaving no available land on the outskirts of the Moshav that could be developed.

Furthermore, the impact of original typologies on the availability of land for residential development had a strong effect on the rate of development of settlements. The availability of vacant plots inside the Moshav, made it easier for

Moshavim to grow and accept new residents, as there was no need for a long ~ 69 ~

planning process of new neighborhoods and statutory changes of land uses, but rather a short process of re-parceling the existing residential plots. As we see in the study, this assisted Moshavim in rehabilitation and precipitated their recovery from the crisis faster than the Kibbutzim.

Other factors making it easier for Moshavim to develop have to do with social, cultural and administrative aspects. This can be seen in the trends and shifts of typologies over the years, which were found to be different between settlement types. Moshavim experienced the strongest shift in trends of developed typologies from all three types of settlements, developing from the inner areas to the far outskirts, and from mostly integrated typologies, to adjacent typologies and lastly shifting to mostly independent typologies. In comparison Kibbutzim and Community Settlements had a more sporadic development nature.

The shift in typologies occurring in the Moshavim, could also be understood as a result of their more flexible social, cultural and administrative nature. This flexibility allowed them to be more open to outside changes, and made it easier for the Israeli Land Administration, which as owner of the land is its primary manager, to be more active, statutorily changing agricultural and industrial land uses to residential ones and proceeding to develop new neighborhoods. Furthermore, as the Moshav was “more open” to outside influences, it may have been exposed to implications of earlier rural settlement development. The independent model for example was found to have many

~ 70 ~

social challenges with regard to the consolidation of original and new settlement members.

The more cohesive community nature of Kibbutzim, on the other hand, caused the decision making processes to be more complex. All details of development needed a community vote and the changes necessitated significant ideological shifts. Moreover, Kibbutzim are also part of the “Central Kibbutz

Movement” which was very influential and may have made decision-making processes even more complex for those Kibbutzim wanting to develop. The social communal characteristics may be another important aspect making the

Kibbutz society less inclusive of the new residents. Initially new residents could only live on the Kibbutz if they became members, which they were not willing to become. Thus both structural and social characteristics of Kibbutzim made them less capable of quickly implementing the changes necessary, and as a result they have developed less extension neighborhoods.

5.2 Rurality matters

5.2.1 Settlement Accessibility

Improved accessibility initiated urbanization processes in remote countryside increasing inequality in rural settlements’ potential for development. It is important to recognize these inequalities, define them and understand their origins. This study indicates that rurality measures have much impact not only on the rate of development of rural settlements in the Western

~ 71 ~

Negev, but also on the way in which they develop and more specifically the type of integration model they develop.

5.2.1.1 Accessibility and Proximity to the border of Tel Aviv district

Proximity and accessibility are complimentary factors when it comes to rurality, we found both to have a strong relationship in terms of development of rural settlements. Both geographical proximity measured by distance from the boundary Tel-Aviv district, and highway accessibility (Route 6 connecting the

Southern regions with the country’s center and northern regions) have a substantial impact on the rate and nature of development.

We found a strong correlation between the rate of development of a settlement and the settlements’ proximity to main local and national roads.

Results indicate that settlements located farthest from a national highway (Route

6) tend to develop less extension neighborhoods, hence experience less growth than settlements located closer to Route 6. This nature of relationship is found in many rural areas around the world.

Areas which are significantly less connected to main economic centers suffer from lower residential demand and lower investment in development

(Bar-el & Parr 2003). Today, the diversity of village development patterns depends primarily on accessibility, which provides development opportunities.

Easy access and the availability of cheap open space attracts rapid new residential development, small industries and commerce. Surveys carried out in

Northern Vietnam for example, revealed strong relationships between the

~ 72 ~

location of the village with respect to the national road network and the nature of its land-use systems, its poverty level and its potential for development.

(Castella & Hung 2005).

The nature of land use was examined by identifying the specific integration model of neighborhood development. We first found that settlements further away from Route 6 had a tendency of developing more integrated and independent models. Furthermore, we found that although both the proximity to

Tel Aviv and Route 6 had great impact on the type of integration model, it nonetheless had a different impact. We expected the two attributes to have similar results since both are an expression of the relativity to Tel Aviv district, but found that settlements closer to the financial heart of the country tend to develop more independent extension neighborhoods while settlements closest to Route 6 tend to develop more adjacent models.

This difference could be attributed to a time related attribute, since development of extension neighborhoods started in the mid 1980’s while Route

6 opened its southern parts only twenty years later at the end of 2007. This argument is supported by previous results presented in the thesis about the significance the year of establishment of the extension neighborhood has on the integration type of the extension neighborhood. Since the research didn’t use multi varied analysis, and didn’t cross examine both year of establishment and proximity measures, we can only suggest that due to the fact that Route 6 became influential only in the late 2007 in terms of connectivity to Tel Aviv, the

“trends” in the ‘popularity’ of integration types were different. ~ 73 ~

Road investments has been shown to influence indirect development effects, since altering accessibility between resource regions and a market regions may have substantial implications on economic opportunities. Improved road networks decreases transport costs and travel time considerably (Castella

& Hung 2005). On the other hand, by stimulating development, improved accessibility intensifies the contrast with peripheral and isolated regions. Hence planning roads is not merely an economic task, but increasingly involves considering environmental aspects, such as social and ecological effects (Antrop

2004).

5.2.1.2 Proximity to Main Local Roads

The regional network of roads in the Western Negev was found to have a dominant impact on the rate and type of development as well. In terms of rate of development, an interesting regularity found in the data is that settlements which are located farthest away from the two main regional roads (Routes 25 and 40) experience less residential development and have a higher tendency of not developing “extension neighborhoods” at all. This once again corresponds with the notion that inadequate transport infrastructure restricts socio– economic and demographic development (Antrop 2000b).

Further results show that settlements closest to the two main regional roads tended to develop adjacent models as settlements further away from the main roads tended to develop more independent extension neighborhoods.

Finally, settlements furthest away from the main roads have a higher tendency of

~ 74 ~

developing more integrated models which could be an indication of a small community which has less pressure and demand for development thus having more vacant areas within the settlement’s original fabric. Another aspect could be that more remote settlements tend to be smaller in size, thus being more open to accept new residents into their small community life.

Although results show that the “remoteness” measures of settlements (their proximity to all other settlements around) is insignificant in shaping specific types of development; they also show that distance from urban centers and accessibility ratios are significant. The later results are in line with other global studies showing that patterns of change differentiate among settlements with regard to the distance from urban centers. Castella and Hung addresses this scope of study, claiming that the indicators, which are used to express remoteness, vary among various studies, making it difficult to obtain accurate relative results. They further stress the need for development of standard methods of measurement and unified indicators of accessibility since they believe it will have a considerable impact on rural development in the coming decades (Castella & Hung 2005).

In general, the fact that regional road networks impact regional development, is an important step in encouraging examination of local small scale aspects.

Antrop suggests that changes in local landscape can be fully understood only when examined with all their related dynamics and as part of its general geographical context. He believes that good decision-making relies on reliable data of landscape conditions and detailed monitoring of change (Antrop 2004). ~ 75 ~

Hence embracing not only the regional scope but the local scale and its dynamics, may assist in tailoring development to the specific environmental, social, economic and institutional context of the Western Negev.

5.2.2 Negev “Rurbanism”

Our results highlight the magnitude and pervasiveness of urban sprawl in the Western Negev area. The development patterns and trends in housing growth express the need for growth management policies as a means of achieving “smarter rural growth”. (Radeloff et al. 2005). Rural regions in Israel are beginning to standardize and coordinate plans with adjacent municipalities.

Agricultural communities are also beginning to act in order to preserve their farmlands as well as their social cultural heritage.

As urban lifestyles and practices have seeped from the city into rural

areas, traditional social and cultural aspects of the local communities are

extremely affected. Since both urban and rural communities wish to maintain

their social and cultural identities many settlements experience social tension

and are divided into insiders and outsiders. Residents living in the same small

rural settlement are separated by their sense of belonging, by being considered

an insider or an outsider and by their cultural orientations towards either the

village or the city. Rural settlements are having a difficult time building

relationships and coherent communities (Greenberg 2012). Our hope is that by

improving understanding of why and how development patterns occur, rural

~ 76 ~

communities may be able to incorporate this knowledge in managing their

residential development and more effectively direct future growth.

5.3 Unexpected Results

Some of the socioeconomic and demographic factors examined in the research were expected in the hypothesis to have a strong relationship to the type of integration model, but turned out having very weak correlation.

5.3.1 The Rate of Population Growth Matters Less

The rate of population growth in settlements is an expression of the relative sizes between original and new neighborhoods. My hypothesis was that relatively larger neighborhoods would tend to develop more adjacent and independent typologies due to their need of large spaces. Large spaces are very scarce within existing settlement fabric leading new development to form in the outskirts. However, the connection between the population growth rate and the type of integration model developed, was found to be very weak in relative to other stronger factors such as settlement type and rurality measures.

5.3.2 How Religion Matters

The hypothesis that argued that religious settlements tend to embrace more integrated typologies than secular settlements due to them being characterized as having more cohesive communities, has been found untrue. Previous research that show that religious communities are characterized as being more cohesive and having a stronger sense of place than secular communities (Mazumdar 2005;

Casakin & Billig 2009), leading us to believe that these communities will choose ~ 77 ~

and integrative manner of expansion. However, community traits have not been studied in regard to this study’s settlements and results indicate that their religiosity hasn’t led them to choose more integrated typologies in means of wishing to keep and strengthen the character of their community.

Nonetheless, seeking to understand both the emotional and psychological connections between people and place is of great importance. While trying to preserve the disappearing identities of rural communities, it is not enough to protect their architectural and aesthetic components, but rather to recognize the importance of conserving their social attributes. Despite the fact that in this study religiosity and secularism have not been shown to have strong impacts on the spatial settings, the importance of social interactions, bonding and social empathy are crucial in nourishing and preserving these everyday people and communities.

~ 78 ~

6 Conclusions

The spatial patterns of Jewish rural settlements in Israel have gone through profound changes in the past three decades. The changes are similar to those occurring in rural regions in many developed countries, but are at the same time influenced by local environments and are in many ways unique. In this research I document the changes of settlements in the Western Negev area, characterize and analyze their patterns and typologies that emerge and correlate them with socio-economic and geographic determinants. I focus on three types of settlements, Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement, which significantly differed from each other in terms of original spatial pattern as well as social and economic characteristics. I analyze how these typologies have evolved into more heterogeneous rural societies with diverse occupational profiles but at the same time developed into a more homogenous rural-built environment with standardized suburban patterns.

The original distinct characteristics of settlements influenced their future development patterns, they did so within standardized suburban patterns.

Furthermore, the changed nature of rural settlements, and the way the

Kibbutz and Moshav are becoming hybrid are replacing the original complex patterns, and turning rural settlements into suburban, mainly residential, entities comprised of detached family homes and high vehicle accessibility. The social, economic and spatial implications of these transformations are yet to be fully understood as well and should be analyzed in future research.

~ 79 ~

All contemporary rural development can be divided into just three spatial recurring patterns, the integrated, adjacent and independent architypes, which are all part of the new contemporary suburban typologies. Despite the suburban similarity of all three architypes, the distinction between them is defined as a result of their relative position to the original settlement. A further examination of the three architype patterns led to further elaboration of the typology and classification of each architype into three sub-types, resulting in nine sub-types: re parceled; scattered in-fill; center in-fill; continued network; patch; wrap around; neighboring; detached; buffered. As this study is the first to identify and define the architypes and sub-types of contemporary rural settlements in Israel, their impact on significant aspects such as social, behavioral and environmental aspects, have yet to be addressed.

The way rural settlements develop in Israel is not a random or site specific process but rather a process impacted by various structural characteristics. The type of settlement and its original pattern is one of the structural characteristics found to have much influence on rural settlement development. Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlements each have a different likelihood of developing new neighborhoods as well as a tendency to develop different architypes and sub types.

Hence, settlements with similar socioeconomic characteristics which are located in the same area, develop in distinctly different patterns. Moshavim for example have a higher tendency of developing new neighborhoods than

Kibbutzim and Community Settlements and are more likely to develop ~ 80 ~

integrated neighborhoods and specifically the re-parceled sub type. Kibbutzim on the other hand, tend to develop adjacent extension neighborhoods, leaning towards the “wrap around” sub type. These distinct differences among settlement types, may be a result of their original typologies, which determine the availability of land for residential development and are historically a product of their underlying ideologies. The hope is that rural communities may be able to incorporate this knowledge in designing and planning more effectively their development and growth in the future, while succeeding in preserving some of the positive and successful features of traditional landscapes.

The study further finds that patterns of change differentiate among settlements with regard to the distance and accessibility from urban centers, which is in line with other global studies. Rurality was found to be yet another meaningful structural characteristic having much impact on the rate and character of development of rural settlements. More specifically, the proximity and accessibility to main economic centers (local and national) have a substantial impact on the rate and nature of development. First we found that the independent model was most popular among settlements closest to Tel Aviv

District. Secondly, settlements that are well connected by a highways (local and national) tend to develop more adjacent models while areas that are less connected by highways suffer from much lower residential development and tend to develop more integrated models. Hence from both a local and national perspective, we see a recurring pattern indicating a strong relationship between accessibility measures and specific architypes of residential development. ~ 81 ~

This pattern could be a result of the fact that the more rural a community is, the less pressure and demand for development it experiences, thus having more vacant areas within the settlement’s original fabric. These vacant areas enable the development of more integrated residential areas. Furthermore, remote settlements may tend to be smaller in size and thus more willing to integrate new residents into their community. Last, we find that inadequate transport infrastructure decreases development rates and that both proximity and accessibility are crucial in providing development opportunities to contemporary rural Settlements. Nonetheless, when estimating future development, it is important to bear in mind that it may also intensify the gap between peripheral areas to more isolated regions.

The study’s results may find further meaning through the “Gestalt

Theory”3 that claims that the significance or value of every part (in our case every contemporary settlement) is created according to its wider context or its surrounding elements. Hence, because the function and structure of rural landscapes are greatly impacted by their dynamic nature; a thorough identification of their composing elements (typological and structural) and their developing inter-relationships, is crucial. In our case, one of the dominant processes impacting the function and structure of rural landscapes is the

3 Gestalt is a German word for form or shape, may refer to: Holism, the idea that natural systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. The organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. The concept of gestalt was first introduced in philosophy and psychology in 1890 by Christian von Ehrenfels (a member of the School of Brentano). The idea of gestalt has its roots in theories by Hume, von Goethe, Kant, Hartley, and Mach. Although gestalt has been criticized for being merely descriptive, it has formed the basis of much further research into the perception of patterns and objects (Carlson et al. 2000), and of research into behavior, thinking, problem solving and psychopathology. Wikipedia. ~ 82 ~

urbanization process, which creates complex interactions, as it is transforming the rural landscape into a suburban one (Antrop 2000b).

Moreover, the suburbanization phenomenon affects not only rural areas but urban areas as well. As a reaction, urban settlements in Israel, have shifted to developing many suburban neighborhoods with private detached housing as a means of attracting young families and stronger population leaking out to suburban settlements. Hence, both rural and urban areas are in the process of losing their initial structure and identity. Since both urban and rural communities wish to maintain their social and cultural identities many settlements experience social tension and rural settlements are having a difficult time building relationships and coherent communities (Greenberg 2012). The effect contemporary settlement patterns have on the social aspects of the

Kibbutz, Moshav and Community Settlement have yet to be addressed in research.

Another aspect that may have impact on the way rural settlements developed and is important to future research, is the level of flexibility of the community which may have much to do with its capacity for resilience. Adger defines social resilience as: “the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change“ (Adger 2000). This concept recognizes that change is always occurring, hence the expansion and development of extension neighborhoods in the Western Negev, may in a way be a testimony of the rural community’s ability to cope with crisis and indicate its resilience. This theory ~ 83 ~

raises interesting questions as to what type of the study’s rural settlements is more resilient and how?

Thus social resilience is defined at the community level rather than at the individual and is strongly related to a community’s social capital. Social resilience has social, economic and spatial dimensions and has a strong institutional context based on the community’s historical evolution and their tendency towards inclusivity and degree of trust within the community institution and structure. (Adger 2000). Holling on the other hand argues that resilience may be defined in different ways. For example, if we define resilience with an emphasis on the speed of recovery from a disturbance, than the results of the study indicate that Moshavim are the most resilient type of rural Jewish community, since they have experienced the most growth and development since the mid 1980’s crisis. By contrast, we can adopt another of Holling’s definitions, that resilience is the magnitude of the disturbance that can be absorbed before processes that control behavior change and reshape the system’s basic structure (Holling, C. Sanderson 1996). When examining the

Western Negev’s rural settlements through this definition, we may argue that the most resilient are the Community settlements, which succeed in keeping their original socioeconomic and spatial structure, or perhaps the Kibbutzim which up until today are attempting to maintain to their basic structure and keep searching for creative ways of balancing old and new socioeconomic, ideological and spatial features.

~ 84 ~

In conclusion, the way in which spatial architypes influence social relationships between traditional and new communities is an important topic for future research and may assist in improving future development. This study can be viewed as another step in enhancing our awareness of the importance of sustainable local development planning, to the improvement of rural environmental conditions.

~ 85 ~

7 References

Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience : are they related ? Progress in Human Geography Geography, 24(3), pp.347–364. Altmetric et al., 1979. Fertility patterns and trends among the Old Order Amish. Population Studies, 33(2). Antrop, M., 2000a. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15, pp.257–270. Antrop, M., 2000b. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15(3), pp.257–270. Antrop, M., 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, pp.9–26. Applebaum, L., 1998. The Changing Structures of Rural Areas in Israel. Horizons in Geography, 48/49, pp.9–24. Bar-el, R. & Parr, J.B., 2003. Overreliance on the core periphery model? The case of Israel. Environment and Planning C, 21, pp.353–369. Bar Or, G., 2010. The Initial Phases - A Test Case. In G. Bar or & Y. Yaski, eds. Kibbutz- architecture Without Precedents. Ein Harod: Museum of Art, pp. 17– 50. .עם הפנים אל הנגב. כתב עת לידיעת ארץ ישראל, Barkai, G. & Shiller, E., 2001. 151–150 Barnett, S. et al., 2001. A multilevel analysis of the e V ects of rurality and social deprivation on premature limiting long term illness. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, (55), pp.44–51. Brown, D. & Schafft, K., 2011. Rural people and communities in the 21st century: Resilience and transformation, Polity. Brown, D. & Swanson, L., 2003. Rural America Enters the New Millennium. In D. Brown & L. Swanson, eds. Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century. PA: University Park. Bryden, J. & Bollmanb, R., 2000. Rural employment in industrialised countries. Agricultural Economics, 22, pp.185–197.

~ 86 ~

Carnevale, A.P., Rose, S.J. & Cheah, B., 2011. The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings, Casakin, H. & Billig, M., 2009. Effect of Settlement Size and Religiosity on Sense of Place in Communal. Environment and Behavior, 41(6), pp.821–835. Caschili, S., Montis, A. De & Trogu, D., 2015. Computers , Environment and Urban Systems Accessibility and rurality indicators for regional development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, pp.98–114. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.05.005. Castella, J. & Hung, P., 2005. Analysis of village accessibility and its impact on land use dynamics in a mountainous province of northern Vietnam. Applied Geography, 25, pp.308–326. Cheeseman, J. & Eric, C., 2002. The Big Payoff : Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work -Life Earnings, Creamer, C. et al., 2009. Rural Restructuring : Local Sustainable Solutions to the Rural Challenge, 39 Abbey Street Armagh BT61 7EB Northern Ireland. Feinerman, E. et al., 2011. Impact of counter-urbanization on size, population mix, and welfare of an agricultural region. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(September 2010), pp.1032–1047. Frank, L.D. et al., 2010. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British journal of sports medicine, 44, pp.924–933. Friedland, W.H., 2002. Agriculture and Rurality : Beginning the “ Final Separation ”? *. Rural Sociology, 67(3), pp.350–371. Greenberg, Z., 2012. “Expansion Neighborhoods” and the sense of belonging of new residents to the place. Horizons in Geography, 79–80, pp.226–240. Grossman, D. & Katz, Y., 1992. Rural Settlement Patterns in Eretz-Israel. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 74(1), pp.57–73. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/490785. Gude, P.H. et al., 2006. Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1–2), pp.131–151.

~ 87 ~

Holling, C. Sanderson, and S.S., 1996. Dynamics of (dis) harmony in ecological and social systems, Island Press, Washington. Kahana, F., 2011. Neither Town Nor Village — The Architecture of the Kibbutz .M. Tzut & Y. Seter, eds., Tel Aviv: Yad Tabenkin .מוקי צור י 1990–1910 יישוב הנגב, .ed ,מ. נאור In .תנופת ההתיישבות בנגב בעשור שקדם לקום המדינה .Karak, R., 1985 .1900-1960 : מקורות, סיכומים, פרשיות נבחרות וחומר עזר. יד בן צבי Kaufmann, E., 2007. Sacralization by Stealth : Demography , Religion and Politics in Europe, Kellerman, A., 2016. Settlement activity : myth and settlement in the Zionist land of interrelationships Israel. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(2), pp.363–378. Kipnis, B.A., 1987. Geopolitical Ideologies and Regional Strategies in Israel. Jornal of Economic and Social Geography, 78(2), pp.125–138. המבנה המרחבי של קיבוץ מושב ומושבה - המפגש בין יעילות טכנית לסדר חברתי. .Kleot, N., 1979 .pp.115–132 ,מחקרים בגיאוגרפיה של ארץ ישראל, יא Maos, J.O., 1998. The Physical Planning and Transfomation of Modern Rural Settlements in Israel. Horizons in Geography, (48/49), pp.51–58. Massey, J., 1995. A Place in the World?: Places, Cultures and Globalization (Shape of the World: Explorations in Human Geography) P. Jess & D. Massey, eds., London: The Open University and Oxford. Mazumdar, Ã.S., 2005. Religious place attachment , squatting , and “‘ qualitative ’” research : A commentary. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, pp.87– 95. Mikelbank, B.A., 2006. Local Growth Suburbs : Investigating Change within the Metropolitan Context. International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies, 2(1). Murdoch, J., 2003. Co-constructing the countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. In P. Cloke, ed. Country visions. London: Pearson, pp. 263–82. Murdoch, J. & Pratt, A.C., 1993. Rural Studies : Modernism , Postmodernism and the ‘ Post-rural ”. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(4), pp.411–427.

~ 88 ~

Palgi, M. & Getz, S., 2014. Varieties in developing sustainability : the case of the Israeli kibbutz. International Review of Sociology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 24(1), pp.38–47. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.894344. Radeloff, V.C., Hammer, R.B. & Stewart, S.I., 2005. Rural and Suburban Sprawl in the U . S . Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and Its Relation to Forest Fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 19(3), pp.793–805. Samuel Bickels, 2010. On Some Problems of Gardening in Kibbutz Settlement Planning. In G. Bar Or & Y. Yuval, eds. Kibbutz- architecture Without Precedents. Ein Harod: Museum of Art, pp. 133–138. Schwartz, M., 2004. From Agricultural Cooperative to Rural Settlement. The story of the Israeli Moshav: ““Freezing” and Rapid Change in an evolving Environment. Horizons in Geography, 59, pp.11–35. Schwartz, M., 1999. The rise and decline of the Israeli moshav cooperative: A historical overview. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 27, pp.129–166. Schwartz, M., 1995. Unlimited Guarantees: History and Political Economy in the Cooperative Agriculture of Israel: The Purchasing Cooperatives, the System, and the Moshavim Before and After the Crisis., Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion Univer•sity Press. Shoshany, M. & Goldshleger, N., 2002. Land-use and population density changes in Israel-1950 to 1990: Analysis of regional and local trends. Land Use Policy, 19, pp.123–133. Sofer, M., 2001. Pluriactivity in the Moshav : family farming in Israel. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp.363–375. Sofer, M., 2005. The future of family farming in Israel: The second generation in the Moshav. Geographical Journal, 171(4), pp.357–368. Sofer, M. & Applebaum, L., 2006. The rural space in Israel in search of renewed identity: The case of the moshav. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, pp.323–336. יישוב הנגב, ed. 1900- ,מ. נאור In .ההתיישבות החקלאית בנגב, Talmon, M., 1985. 1959-1949 .1960 : מקורות, סיכומים, פרשיות נבחרות וחומר עזר. יד בן צבי

~ 89 ~

Theobald, D.M., 2001. Land-Use Dynamics Beyond the American Urban Fringe. Geographical Review, 91(3), pp.544–564. Vickerman, R., 1996. Location , accessibility and regional development : the appraisal of trans-European networks. Transport Policy, 2(4), pp.225–234. Weizman Eyal, 2007. Hollow Land, London: Verso. Yousefian, A. et al., 2010. Development of the rural active living assessment tools: Measuring rural environments. Preventive Medicine, 50, pp.86–92.

~ 90 ~

8 Appendices

8.1 Appendix 1 – List of settlements and their type

Settlement Name Type of Settlement Alumim Kibbutz Ammi'oz Kibbutz Avshalom Moshav Be'eri C.S. Beror Hayil Kibbutz Berosh Kibbutz Bet HaGaddi Kibbutz Bet Qama Kibbutz Bitha Moshav Deqel Moshav Devira Moshav Dorot Moshav En HaBesor Kibbutz En HaShelosha Kibbutz Erez Kibbutz Eshbol Moshav Gevim Moshav Gevulot Moshav Gilat Moshav Giv'olim Kibbutz Gvaot Bar Kibbutz Hazerim Kibbutz Holit Moshav Kefar Azza Moshav Kefar Maymon Kibbutz Keramim Kibbutz Kerem Shalom Moshav Kissufim Kibbutz Lahav Kibbutz Mabbu'im Moshav Ma'galim Moshav Magen Moshav Maslul Moshav Mefallesim Moshav Melilot Moshav Mishmar HaNegev C.S. ~ 91 ~

Mivtahim C.S. Nahal Oz Kibbutz Nevatim Kibbutz Nir Am Kibbutz Nir Aqiva Kibbutz Nir Moshe Kibbutz Nir Oz Kibbutz Nir Yizhaq Moshav Nirim Moshav Ohad Kibbutz Or HaNer Kibbutz Pa'ame Tashaz Kibbutz Pattish Kibbutz Peduyim C.S. Peri Gan C.S. Qelahim C.S. Rannen C.S. Re'im C.S. Ruhama Kibbutz Sa'ad Moshav Sede Avraham Moshav Sede Hemed Kibbutz Sede Nizzan Kibbutz Sede Zevi Kibbutz Sharsheret Moshav Shibbolim Kibbutz Shomeriyya Kibbutz Shoqeda Kibbutz Shoval Moshav Sufa Kibbutz Talme Bilu Moshav Talme Eliyyahu Kibbutz Talme Yosef Moshav Te'ashur Moshav Tequma Moshav Tidhar Kibbutz Tifrah Kibbutz Tushiyya Kibbutz Urim Moshav Yakhini Moshav Yated Moshav ~ 92 ~

Yesha Kibbutz Yevul Kibbutz Yoshivya Kibbutz Ze'elim Moshav Zeru'a Moshav Zimrat Moshav

~ 93 ~