Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research The Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies Navigating the path from planning paradigm to plan implementation: The case of a new Bedouin locality in Israel Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts” By: Abra Berkowitz <October, 2013> Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research The Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies Navigating the path from planning paradigm to plan implementation: The case of a new Bedouin locality in Israel Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “Master of Arts” By: Abra S. Berkowitz Under the Supervision of Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder Department of Environmental Studies And Daniel E. Orenstein Department of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion University Author's Signature …………….……………………… Date ……………. Approved by the Supervisor…………….…………….. Date ……………. Approved by the Director of the School …………… Date ………….… I Navigating the Path from Planning Paradigm to Plan Implementation: The Case of a New Bedouin Locality in Israel Abra S. Berkowitz, M.A. Student In partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies, 2012 The planning paradigm has been used by adherents of different schools of planning thought to claim dominance over the field. Yet, the only academic consensus that appears to have been reached in planning theory is that there is none. This has led some theorists assert that planning theory has fallen into a “postmodern abyss” (Harper and Stein 1995), as it lacks any agreed-upon principles or foundations. In a postmodern world, is there a need for such an inclusive perspective? This MA thesis addresses the question by applying two planning theories, communicative planning and planning-as- control to the case of urban planning for the Abu-Basma Regional Council, a new municipality being planned for the Arab-Bedouin in Israel’s Negev/Naqab Desert. These theories reflect the divided opinions regarding the program; while planners have represented Abu-Basma as collaborative planning, advocacy organizations and residents assert that the program is nothing more than an attempt by the government to limit the growth of Bedouin settlements. Through 90 focused interviews with residents, government representatives, planners, academics and activists, we obtained qualitative data on the formation and implementation of urban plans for Abu-Basma localities. This data allowed us to explore the role of the two planning theories in informing and explaining planning and its outcomes. The findings reveal that planners’ attempts to conduct a democratic planning process have come up against the traditional notions of representation in Arab- Bedouin society, whilst planners’ abilities to meet many residents’ needs were limited before planning began, by the institutional and ideological constraints set upon them by II the Israeli planning system. The findings are organized in two sections: “During Planning” (as planning proceeded) and “After Planning” (as plans were implemented). The findings suggest that no single planning theory can accurately explain how planning has proceeded for the Abu-Basma case; rather, both theories provided valuable insights into different aspects of the planning process and its outcomes. This thesis therefore supports the calls of theorists for a pluralism of planning theories, issued from diverse geographic and political contexts (e.g. Watson 2009, Yiftachel 2006), while cautioning against a deterioration into the “postmodern abyss”, in which relativism and ambiguity leave planners and theorists without any direction in which to advance the discipline or any guidelines to inform their work (Harper and Stein 1995). While no one “paradigm” may exist in a Kuhnian sense, it is suggested that planning theories, when articulated extensively in conjunction with other emerging theories, can serve as invaluable tools to understanding and enhancing practice. III Acknowledgements Thank you to my advisors, Dr. Daniel Orenstein and Dr. Sarab Abu-Rabia, for making a great team- who knew that an anthropologist could an ecologist could get along so well? Thank you for pushing me to “never be lazy!” Sarab, for teaching me to “go to your findings first!”, and to always comment on the theory. Thanks for the constant reminders, Daniel, that the research is “really good stuff!” as well as for the car rides around Haifa and the constant flow of new perspectives you have brought to the research. And thanks again to both of my advisors for their enduring patience, and their encouragement to keep pushing forward. All of those e-mails and meetings helped me to do what I think is, finally, really excellent research. Thank you to my parents who have supported me for all twenty-five years of my life. You watched me play soccer outside at February ice tournaments, went to every jazz band concert, and read every draft of this thesis, but never had a negative word to say about it. Thank you. Thank you also to my brothers, Ben and Mose, for the endless silliness which had not even seemed to subside from when we were toddlers. Thank you to my grandmother Sophie who passed away while I was writing this thesis; I know you thought that I was relaxing on the beach while I was actually still hunched over a computer, but I remember how proud you were of me. Now I think you can feel that I have finally finished. Thank you to Deena Knopkin for using her expert collating and binding skills to prepare the copies of this thesis, and to all of those other troublemaking peacebuilders at the Arava Institute, who are the next generation of researchers, rabble-rousers and do- gooders. Thank you to my friends at Sde Boker, in Provincetown, MA, New Haven, Everett, MA, Tel Aviv and Providence for keeping my head in the books, but reminding me to never stop having fun. Thank you for all of your love, support, silliness and surprises. And particularly, thank you Ashraf, Manar, Yaara, Itai, Hadas, Waad and Amer for your translation help in the field and during transcribing. None of this would have been possible without your patience and friendship. Thank you to all of my respondents, who shared their lives with a stranger, and some of whom became friends. Thank you in particular to the Local Committee of Umm Batin, for sitting with me numerous times and shuttling me to and from Beer Sheva, for the families in El-Huwashala who are good friends, to the planners, who never ignored my pesky e-mails and to Arale Zohar and Michal Zaibel at the Abu-Basma Regional Council for allowing me to shadow them during their busy work days. And thank you to myself, for finally letting this work be “good enough”, and letting it go. I hope it will prove interesting. IV 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables and figures 2 Abbreviations and terms 3 INTRODUCTION 5 Scientific background 10 History of planning theory 10 Communicative planning 15 Planning-as-control 17 Literature review I: Planning for indigenous peoples 19 Literature review II: Planning for Bedouin settlement in Israel 24 METHODOLOGY 36 RESULTS 54 During planning 56 Abu-Basma as a reflection of communicative planning? 57 Episode 1: Local representation 61 Episode 2: Minimizing distortion 72 Limitations 86 Abu-Basma as a reflection of planning-as-control? 94 Episode 1: The Territorial Dimension 100 Episode 2: The Procedural Dimension 109 Limitations 124 After planning: The “Grey Space” 131 Stage 1: Public service provision 139 Stage 2: Neighborhood development 150 DISCUSSION 167 How do different planning theories explain the process of planning and implementation 168 for the Abu-Basma Regional Council? What do the findings reveal about communicative planning and planning-as-control? 173 What, if at all, does planning theory have to contribute to practice? 183 Suggestions for practice 186 REFERENCES 193 APPENDICES 2 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure Page# 1. The Abu-Basma Regional Council, and 42 existing towns and councils in the Northern Negev 2. Recognized institutional structure of local governance 63 3. Arena of Abu-Basma local planning committee meetings 65 4. “Public meeting” with the local committee of Abu-Tlul 69 5. Physical challenges to accessing public participation 76 6. Bimkom workshop 80 7. Institutional structure of Israeli planning system 104 8. Municipalities in the Southern District of Israel 108 9. Reproduction of map presented by resident to planner 114 10. The unrecognized settlement of Abu-Asheba, and the first 117 neighborhood plan for Abu-Krenat 11. Celebrating village recognition in Kaser al-Ser with the 140 village representative to the Abu-Basma Regional Council 12. New ORT high school and library in Abu-Krenat 141 13. “Saucer road” in Umm Batin, and construction of an illegal wall bordering claim 147 14. The “gray space” between recognition and development in 152 Abu-Basma localities 15. Damaged road signs and women’s center along the main 154 road in Umm Batin 16. A legally built home in Abu-Krenat, and a view of the new 156 neighborhood from Abu-Krenat center 17. Unpermitted housing in Umm Batin and Kaser al-Ser 161 18. Challenges to communication through Abu-Basma’s approach to 169 resident participation in planning. 19. Map of the power of communication and control on Abu-Basma localities 174 Table Page#