GeoJournal 13.4 401-411

401

© 1966 by D. Reidel Publishing Company

Israel's

Map of Inequality in Spatial D e v e l o p m e n t

Efrat, Elisha, Prof. Dr., Tel Aviv University, Department of Geography, POB 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel Abstract: The objectives of the paper are to indicate, on a national and regional level, the areas of geographical inequality in Israel, which create economic and social gaps in the development of the country. Geographical inequality in this study has been analyzed through eleven different criteria, relevant to economic and social welfare situations, as: distance from the nearest big city, road accessibility, rate of population density, natural economic potential, spatial security, distance from the central plain and centers of economic activity, climatic index of discomfort, topography, oldness of the settlements in the surroundings, etc. Each element of inequality has been plotted on a map indicating its quantitative values, on the basis of square units, comprising 25 km 2 each. A weighting of all the squares according to qualitative criteria enabled to prepare a comprehensive and compilative map with isolines showing the different spatial and inequality degrees. The map which has been elaborated from the data shows districts and localities in a range of different spatial degrees of deprivation. The history of settlement in Israel since the end of the 19th century, the planning guidelines since the establishment of the State in 1948, and the main geographic features of the country are the reasons of regional disparities.

The population in a country is almost never dispersed equally. We may find congested regions in certain parts of countries, while others remain sparsely inhabited; some have satisfactory conditions for living in terms of climate, water resources, agricultural land, minerals, communications systems .etc., while others lack in basic facilities which makes the existence in them very difficult. Even the means of production in countries are not equally distributed, while in certain parts of them we may find a concentration of sophisticated technology, industrial plants, efficient communications arteries and modern agricultural equipments, while in other parts the level of services, amenities, the average income, the rate of production and the standard of living is low, so that the chances for the inhabitants living in them to gain economic or social advantages in due time are not promising. This situation even exists in modern countries of the western world, as in Great Britain, France, The Netherlands or Italy. Geography of Inequality, which is a quite new field in the geographic discipline, tries to analyze and to examine spatial factors, which may create those phenomena in countries, with the aim to initiate improvement in living

conditions in peripheral and depressed areas. Recent geographic literature in that field indicates disparities in countries and regions on a comparative level, combining geography with political, administrative and planning aspects (Smith 1979; Cole 1981; Coates, Johnson and Knox 1977; Cox 1979). Geography stresses mainly physical and economic conditions as factors which cause spatial inequality. They are expressed, for instance, by growth of urban centers against iow-density fringe zones, developed networks of roads against sparse communications systems, areas with close distances to occupation centers against peripheral regions with remoteness to towns, stabile demographic regions against labile areas with a high rate of in-and-out migration, etc. Geography tries to isolate those physical and economic elements, and to describe and analyze their effect and influence on spatial development, with the aim to encourage politicians and planners to improve the unequality in spatial spheres. In Israel, a young and modern country, with great mindedness to planning and equal rights, unequality in spatial development still exists, after 38 years of statehood. Although its goals of popUlation distribution all over the

GeoJournal 13.4/1986

402

country on an economic basis, promising every inhabitant equal conditions for- living, education, employment, culture, infrastructure were the main guidelines at the establishment of the state, people do not live there everywhere, and different rates of economic investment, different standards of housing, employment and living are to be found, specially when we compare the richer districts along the coastal strip with the remote districts, as the Galilee in the N and the Negev in the S. Israel's policy in closingthe gap between regional disparities has achieved only a partial success.Geographical weaknesses have, therefore, to be eliminated on the spatial level, in order to find out where the main economic efforts should be concentrated to equalize much more spatial development in the future. The aim of this paper is to delimit, from a spatial point of view, regions in Israel according to their rank of disparity in convenience for habitation. Because of basic geographical facts, history of settlement, priorities in regional development and lack of sufficient budgets for construction, a spatial inequality was created during years in the country, which discriminates some regions from the others. Some of them are very close to main centers of economic and social activity, while others are very remote and demanding help and financial aid in order to maintain a reasonable standard of welfare for their population. The main problem which arises, therefore, is how can we delimit those regions, and how can we arrange them in a rank-size order of priority for further economic and social development?

instance: transportation, security, quality of making life, social opportunity and participating, recreation and entertainment, individual development through learning, etc. They were arranged in homogenous groups and subgroups and distributed among different groups of people, who have been asked to response to their realibility to habitation. At the next stage, the remained criteria were strained by a group of graduate students of geography, who were conscious to Israel's background in planning and development, and to the dominant factors which play a role in spatial welfare. They took into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of topography, places with diversified landscapes, climatic conditions in the different parts of the country, and also the artificial constrains which may have an influence upon habitation, as borderlines, history of settlement, distances from economic centers, culture, education, health, communications, etc. At that stage 11 criteria remained, which seemed to be the most reliable ones, and very typical to Israel's circumstances. The final criteria which have been chosen were, as follows: -

The Methodology

-

Every person of family in any place will naturally try to find optimal conditions for habitation. Such conditions or minimal requirements could be the following: local security, employment, spatial convenience, social and economic opportunities, culture, services, mobility, accessibility, health institutions and environmental quality. Not all of these conditions can always be achieved with full satisfaction. People use to resign themselves to a compromise in their affordness. It could be assumed, that every person or family lives in conditions of spatial welfare and habitation which could be achieved under certain economic, social, political and financial circumstances. The natural dispersion of population may be the result of the combination of geographical factors and economic, social and artificial compulsions (Efrat 1983). In order to convert the above-mentioned requirements into a geographical meaning, specific and representative criteria for spatial welfare and habitation were chosen. As a matter of fact, there is no limit to the number of criteria which could be chosen for that purpose. At the first stage, many criteria, which seemed to be relevant to spatial welfare, have been elected from professional literature, as for

-

Distance from borderlines Distance from a town with more than 20,000 inhabitants Distance from a town or urban center with more than 10,000 inhabitants Distance from main employment center Area according to type of region Zones of priority for directed development Distance from main road Climatic regions Topographic conditions Diversified landscape Nuisance areas

In the next stage, all those qualitative criteria had to be evaluated quantitatively. Each of the 11 criteria of spatial welfare and habitation was divided into 5 ranks according to degrees of convenience for habitation or of regional disparity. The best one, from the point of view of convenience, was given the value of 5, and the worst one - the value of I. Some criteria which had for certain reasons more than 5 degrees or less, were ranked accordingly. But it should be mentioned, that not all of the 11 criteria had the same qualitative importance for spatial welfare and habitation. Following a referendum among groups of students, the criteria were ranked between 11 to 1, according to their relative importance. It was found, for example, that the most important one, as seen by the referendum groups, was "distance from borderlines", which got, therefore, the degree of 11, while the less important one was "nuisanse areas", which got the degree of 1. Then, on a map of Israel, on scale 1:100,000, equalized squares of 4kin ~ (1.6sq. mile) were delimited. Each square has been examined according to the 11 criteria, one by one, and was given its

GeoJournal 13.4/1986

value. Each value was afterwards multiplied by the degree of relative importance. The sum of all multiplied values received for each square was expressed by a number, which indicated the relative quantitative value of each square, based upon all its graded qualitative criteria. For example: If a certain square was remote more than 20 km (12.5 mile) from main employment center, it received the degree 1, out of 5, being the worst in this category. After multiplication by 8, because of being the fourth most important one among' the 11 ranked criteria, it got the final vaue of 8. For that square all the other 10 qualitative criteria have also been examined in the same way. The accumulation of all the multiplied degrees for that square was expressed by a total number, as 1 8 1 . . . 2 0 2 . . . 270 etc., indicating its spatial quality. Eleven maps were drawn, each for one weighted criterion, in which isopleths delimited the different ranks of regional disparity or inequality (Fig 1 to 11). At the last stage, all the total accumulative values of the squares were grouped into 5 ranks, where the highest one indicated the most convenient places for habitation, and the lowest one indicated the worst places, or those which suffer most from inequality and disparity in development. The isopleths on that map divided the whole country into 5 main degrees of inequality (Fig 12).

The Results The results received for each criterion, were as follows: 1. Distance from borderlines (Fig 1) a) The less-safe areas lie near the Lebanese border, E of the Golan heights, at the foothills of Hebron Mts., near the Gaza Strip, and along the Egyptian border in Sinai. b) All these strips of land comprise an area of 2,200 km 2 (880sq. mile), which is about 10% of Israel's territory. c) The most safety areas, remoted 10kin (6.25 mile) or more from the borderlines, are mainly in the Galilee and the Negev and in a narrow strip in the central part of the country. 2. Distance from a town with more than 20,000 inhabitants (Fig 2) a) The best areas, in that case, with the shortest distances, are in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, in the surroundings of Haifa, around Jerusalem, along the axis between Ashdod and Ashqelon, in the surroundings of Tiberias, Beer Sheva and Elat, and on the axis between Nazareth and Afula. b) The worst areas lie in the NE part of the Galilee, in the Golan heights, in the Bet Shean valley, and in most parts of the Negev. c) The big urban centers have a tendency to sprawl forwards the S part of the coastal plain.

403

d) About 60 % of Israel's territory lies too remote from towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants. 3. Distance from a town or urban center with more than 10,000 inhabitants (Fig 3) a) More than 45% of Israel's territory is served by towns of that size. b) Remote areas from towns of that size are to be found in the N Golan heights and in most parts of the Negev. c) The N part of the country has much more towns of that size than the S. 4. Distance from main employment center (Fig 4) a) Main employment centers overlap conurbations and big towns. b) Employment centers tend to sprawl towards the S coastal plain and towards the N Negev. c) The Sand W Negev are the most remote areas from employment centers. d) Only 70% of Israel's territory is in reasonable distances from main employment centers. 5. Area according to type of region (Fig 5) a) Most of the land is agricultural. New potential agricultural areas are to be found mainly in the S coastal plain, in the Negev, in the W Galilee, and in the Golan heights. b) The areas with full developed infrastructure are mainly in the central coastal plain and around the big cities. c) Veteran agricultural settlements extend in an "N"shaped axis, from the Hula valley in the N, through the valleys of Bet Shean, Harod and Yisreel in the center, and to the coastal plain in the W. d) Concentration of Arab settlements is to be found in the central and E Galilee and along the foothills of Samaria. e) The most uninhabited areas lie in the S Negev. f) Conveniency in spatial welfare decreases from the central coastal plain northwards and southwards. 6. Zones of priority for directed development (Fig 6) a) No priorities exist in the central coastal plain. b) The highest priority is given to the Negev, S of Beer Sheva. c) Prefered priority is given to the Golan heights, to the E Galilee, to the ]udean lowlands and to the Jerusalem Corridor. 7. Distance from main road (Fig 7) a) Most of the N part of Israel is covered by a dense network of roads, with an accessibility distance of less than 6 km (3.75 miles) to a main road. b) The worst accessibility to main roads is in the central and SW part of the Negev. c) In the central and N parts of Israel accessibility was made possible only by a few linear axes.

404

GeoJoumal 13.4/1986

DISTANCE

FROM

BORDERLINES

DISTANCE FROM A MORE THAN 20,000

I., ~'~)

TOWN

WITH

INH.

,,~./-? I'

')

i

'-.,~

f,

I HAIFA

/" f'

I!!

i

/

./

/

"-.----.j

~.~ [

.~=.

tEL- avzvJ

~

i(

/'

/

j,

(-

..

\

\

Ej~i

'~~

/

(

!

\.

I

I

\

I" \

i i,"":~i~ii

\

/

t

-(

5 I

/

k.

/

I

t

i \

ii )

/

?:\

\

!

\ /

f

~0-3

MILES

\

/' ~

/" I

/

t

M 6

MILES AND

] I

~4-6

MILES

i i

!

I,Q

20

3- 6 MILES

3,0

MILES s- 9

miLES

\

)

'~

1,0

20

MILES

! f

2-4

MILES

~ - - - ~ 0- 2 MILES

i

9-,2 MILES ~]12

~ELA~

MILES AN0 MORE

®

30

GeoJournal 13.4/1986

DISTANCE MOP=:

405

FROM

T I . I / t I~1

A TOWN

ll"t/"~ f't f'~

WITH

DISTANCE FROM M A I N E M P L O Y M E N T CENTER

I I%1I,.I

HAIFA

TEL-AVI~

JERUSALEM

['

I

(

.,,'

\

"~.

~,

\

"<

\

.i

\

/

\

\

d/

i

i"

I I (

/

L. \

I

I / ./ ~//////~] 0 - 3 MILES

\

~"~

3 - 6 MILES

~'. \

I I.

~6-9

J~"~'~ 0- 3 MILES \ ~ l

I

\

MILES

r'----~ 9 - 12 MILES J---'-~ 12 MILES AND MORE

i J

i

0

10

2,0

MILES

~ L AT

®

30

3- 6

MILES

\\~;;~-~

0..__. 10

~7--'~ 6-12 MILES r - - 7 - j 12-18 MILES

J------~18 MILES ANO MORE

20

MILES ELAT

®

30

GeoJoumal 1 3 . 4 / 1 9 8 6

406

AREA TYPE

ACCORDING OF R E G I O N

TO

ZONES Dr"-'"-"

OF

PRIORITY FOR "-'"-' "'""'-""

HAIFA

,--°

o.

TEL-AVIV

JERUSALEM

.x;::

/

! /'

r'

\

\

/

't

\ k. \.

/- J i \

i \

)

i

t. "\ \

\

x

~'~"~OLD AND URBA ~NEW ~

/ [~'/JJ~/'/'~N0 PRIORITY \

AND URBAN OLD ANO RURAL

~

NEW AND RURAL

•

RURAL AND ARAB

r-~

UNSETTLED

0 i

10 t

20

MILES

f

30 f

I~

PARTIAL PRmRITY~\

~7.-~ PRIORITY PREFEREO

LAT ~-~

/"

HIGH PRIORITY

•

/

t\

! ~'ELAT

io

2o

MILES

®

~o

GeoJoumal 13.4/1986

DISTANCE

407

FROM

MAIN

ROAD

CLIMATIC

REGIONS

HAIFA

TEL-AVIV

TEL-AVIV

JERU:

!JERUSAtEM

\

\ I \

VERY GOOD'~i~j~-~ i~ CLIMATE '~i~Yi~/iiiE

~j//;i//j//

\

GOOD CL I MATE'~i:I)

\ ~ 0 - 2

MILES

J T ~ - ~ 2 -4

MILES

\

SUFFICIENTLY "\

0

10

20

~ 7 " - ~ 4 - 6 MILES 6-10 MILES

]10 MILES AND MORE

PLEASANT CLIMATE

30

MILES

j

~i

GOOD CLIMATE

\

~

i

10

20

MILES

LESS PLEASANT CLIMATE

ELAT

@

UNPLEASANT CLIMATE

~

SEVERE CLIMATE

ELAT

®

30

408

GeoJoumal 13.4/1986

TOPOGRAPHIC

CONDITIONS

iC2~7

DIVERSIFIED

LANDSCAPE

/i

HAIFA

k.

TEL-AVIV

TEL-AVIV

JERUSALEM

JERUSALEM J

i /

i"

s"

,"

/-~//

r i (" J

i

I

j"

\

i

\ i 7

)

\

d

V

\ "t

#"J O" 150ft. LOW LAN"D./ ~150"300ft.

LOW HILLS

0 i

7--'~300- 600ft. HILLS ~-~ r

"l

600-1200ft. MOUNTAIN,S LOW j MOST THAN 120Oft, HIGH MOUNTAINS

ELAT

10 20 MILES i

i

®

30 i

MOST DIVERSIFIED~.l~ ~/" ~ //'1 ~ ' - ~ DEFINITELy II \~. /

~-~

UIVERSIFIEO

~-~

LESS DIVERSIFIED ~ MONOTONOUS

i

j LAT

oi

,,

loi

20

MILES

®

30

GeoJournal

13.4/1986

409

NUISANCE

AREA DISTRIBUTION CONVENIENCE FOR

AREAS

./

I

OF SPATIAL HABITATION

I

HAIFA

/

i

HAIFA

/ /'"

0

(.--/

i

k._

,/

,\ TEL-AVIV / *,. + ["

) C.---'~..-]~, J ERUSALE i

1:' / \

JERUSALEM

.,

.J

"i /

/I

i

.I

TEL-AVIV

}~\

t

/0

i (. ........ -""

•

~

/

J"

/(./ / [

/

\

) '\

/J

.7 "\

/ \

/

/

\.

!

W

\. !

j

i

i

I

I

i

I

I w~T"°UT

NUISANCE

}

~NUISANCE AT TIMES'

~ ~

NU'SAN~E

'"",0 ~

CONSIDERABLE NUISANC'E

~STRONG "*'+"-+÷

NUISANCE

RAILWAY LINE

~..0H .0v..T.0~/ f , •

i/

J

!JELAT

0i

10i 20i MILES

®

30f

r//J

CONSIDERABLE \ ADVANTAGES \ /

/

i

/

!

~---~EOOA, AOVANTAOES~/," " 'ANO D'SADVANTAOES~/j~j

~---"~ HIGH DISADVANTAGES

0

10 20 MILES

30

@

410

GeoJournal 13.4/1986

8. Climatic regions (Fig 8) a) The most convenient climate exists in the N Galilee and in the Golan heights. The most severe one is in the E Negev depression, in the Judean desert and in the E lower Galilee. b) A quite convenient climate exists in the mountainous areas of Jerusalem and on the Mt. Carmel near Haifa. c) The central plain, where most of Israel's population is concentrated, has a less convenient climate, especially during the summer season. d) In about of half of Israel's territory there exists a severe climate. Only the N half of the country has mild temperatures and low rates of humidity. 9. Topographic conditions (Fig 9) a) The less convenient areas for settlement are to be found in the central and S Negev, in the Golan heights and in the Jerusalem Corridor. b) Topographic differences extend from the lowlands in the W up to the mountainous crest, and from there eastward to the J ordan valley. 10. Diversified landscape (Fig 10) a) The N part of Israel is very diversified in its landscape, and therefore is attractive for dwelling and habitation. b) Diversified features of landscape are to be found especially in Jerusalem and its Corridor, in the ] udean desert, and in the surroundings of Elat. 11. Nuisance areas a) Places which reject habitation are dispersed all over the country. b) Nuisance areas are to be found in the Haifa bay, around Ben-Gurion airport, around the power stations of Ashdod and Haifa, along the main railway lines, and near stone quarries and military training grounds in the Galilee and in the Negev.

The Map of Inequality The 11 weighted criteria enabled to indicate, as was mentioned above, five degrees of spatioal convenience for habitation (Fig 12): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Region of Region of Region of Region of Region of

high advantages considerable advantages equal advantages and disadvantages considerable disadvantages high disadvantages

From the map compiled it was found, that remarkable inequalities and disparities exist in the S part of the country. More than a third of Israel's territory, between the valley of Beer Sheva and Elat, is included in the worst degree of high disadvantages. It was also found, that regional desparities increase from W to E, and that the coastal plain is more developed and attractive than the foothills, and they -

much more than the mountainous areas or the desert in the E. The proportional area distribution of spatial inequality shows, as follows: I. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Regions of Regions of Regions of Regions of Regions of

high advantages considerable advantages equal advantages and disadvantages considerable disadvantages high disadvantages

2.0 % 10.4 % 17.9 % 28.1% 41.6 %

Total: I00.0 % From that distribution of spatial inequality it could be concluded: I. About 70% of Israel's territory has considerable or high disadvantagesfor habitation. 2. Only 12.4% of the territory has considerable or high advantages for habitation. 3. The disadvantaged areas are six times larger than those of the advanced ones. 4. Only about 18 % of the territory has equal advantages and disadvantages and may perform as an immediate pioneering development and construction area. 5. The coastal plain is the most attractive area for habitation. Some other nuclea of attraction are to be found between Haifa and Acre, between Afula and Nazareth, around Tiberias and around Zefat. 6. The Galilee is more attractive for habitaiton than the Negev. 7. The region of considerable advantages in the coastal plain expands towards the S, more than towards the N. 8. A new regional strip of considerable advantages is gr0w-" ing between Haifa, Afula and Nazareth. 9. Regions of equal advantages and disadvantages extend equally in the N and S parts fo the country. 10. Gaps or regional development in the coastal plain are to be found mainly N to Nahariyya, between Haifa and Hadera, and S to Ashqelon. The main operational consequences which could be drawn from the map of inequality in spatial development, are as follows: I. There is no profitability in developing the central or S Negev in the near future. 2. In order to close the spatial gap of inequality and disparity in a short ti.me with minimal investment, regions of equal advantages and disadvantages should be prefered for settlement and habitation. 3. Places recommended for immediate development are, therefore: the central Galilee, the N Hula valley, the Jerusalem Corridor, the Judean lowlands, and the N part of the valley of Beer Sheva. 4. Spatial development with the aim to overcome regional inequalities could be achieved only by gradual extension of investments from areas of higher advantages to nearby areas of lower ones.

GeoJournal 13.4/1986

411

References:

Acknowledgement:

Coates, B.E., Johnson, R.J.; Knox, P.L.: Geography and Inequality. 292 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1977. Cole, J.P.: The Development Gap. 454 pp. John Wiley & Sons, New

The author is grateful to Mr. Avigdor Orgad for the preparation of the series of maps and for his cartographic advice.

York 1981. Cox, K.R.: Location and Public Problems. 352 pp. Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1979. Efrat, E.: Geographyof Welfare, Social Gap and Inequality. 239 pp. Ahiasaf, Tel Aviv (Hebrew) 1983. Smith, D.M.: Where the Grass is Greener.386 pp. Penguin Books, England 1979.

...... publication ailable in roform. versity Microfilms International reproduces this publication in microform: microfiche and 16ram or 35mm film. For information about this publication or any of the more than 13,000 titles we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response: 800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan, Alaska and Hawaii: 313-761-4700. [] Please send information about these titles:

Name Company/Institution

The Ecologist is one of the few journals still prepared to give its a u t h o r s the space to c o n s i d e r in-depth the e n v i r o n m e n t a l and social issues facing the world t o d a y - - a n d their p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . From its now f a m o u s Blueprint for Survival (1972) to its 1985 report on the World Bank's Global F i n a n c i n g of I m p o v e r i s h m e n t and Famine it has c h a l l e n g e d c o n v e n t i o n a l w i s d o m and led the way in reshaping our t h i n k i n g . Subscription Rates incl. index and postage:

Address City

State

Subscribe to the Ecologist

Zip

Phone[

Universi Micr6films International

Individuals £16.00 (US $28.00) Institutions £27.00 (US $46.00) Third World & Students £14.00 (US $22.00) Airmail £7.50 (US $12.00) extra For sample copies and subscriptions write to: The Ecologist, Worthyvale Manor Farm, Camelford, Cornwall PL32 9TT, UK. (Tel. 0840 212711)