Integration of Environmental Assessment

into the Regional Development Planning

Process of the Galilee
S. AMIR*
A. FRENKEL
H. LAW-YONE
D. SHEFER
T. TROP
TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning
Center for Urban and Regional Studies
Haifa 32000, Israel
ABSTRACT / The Galilee region on the northern edge of Israel constitutes more than 15% of the states territory, supplies more than half of its drinking water needs, and is an
important recreational resource and destination for Israelis.
One of the main objectives of the plan for the Galilee was to
devise a regional physical and economic development strategy for the years 19922007 that would arrest the trend of
emigration of its residents, attract newly arrived immigrants
to the region, and at the same time protect natural resources
and environmental quality. This paper is limited to discussion

The plan for the Galilee covers areas within the

northern district whose size, not including the Golan, is
332,500 ha. This area constitutes 15.2% of the area of
the state of Israel. The regions population in 1989 was
737,700 (16.2% of the states population), in 365
settlements. Sixty-eight percent of the population was
urban, distributed in 61 towns, eight of which had more
than 20,000 residents and one (Nazeret) had more than
50,000 people.
The district supplies more than half of the states
usable water, with the Sea of Galilee being the main
drinking water source. The landscape is mountainous
with large sections covered with dense maqui-type
vegetation. Annual average rainfall varies between subregions and ranges between 300 and 700 mm.
The regions physical and cultural properties make it
a very attractive recreational destination for Israelis.
However, its peripheral location in relation to the major

KEY WORDS: Environmental assessment; Development planning;

Galilee
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 5968

of the environmental aspects of the plan. It analyzes spatial concepts for distribution of projected population
growth, evaluates environmental impacts of alternative
plans, and proposes a decision-making framework and
tools for minimizing natural resources loss from development
at the local level. Assessment of potential environmental
impacts generated quantitative data of natural resources
areas. Application of the data in the plan evaluation stage
showed that the alternative that concentrated most of the
new development in central Galilee was the second-best
choice environmentally, but was preferred as the best
choice for overall qualities. The planning study offers an
alternative environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to the one presently used in Israel by incorporating
environmental considerations at the initial plan-making
stage and not at the plan-approval stage. It demonstrated
that in order to be effective, environmental assessment and
land-use planning should be seen as one effort that is integrated from the start and in each stage of the plan-making
process.

economic centers of the country make it less economically attractive to its population and to investors. During
the last decade, the district lost population by emigration of its working-age citizens to regions with better
employment opportunities in the center of the state.
Due to these conditions, the task of planning the
Galilee for the next generation requires the development and implementation of a policy that would minimize potential conflict between the need to conserve its
natural resources and the need to provide economic
growth opportunity to its local population.
Preparation of a new plan for the Galilee began in
1989 as part of the effort to prepare the region for
absorption of newcomers from Eastern Europe and East
Africa. Development was also needed to stabilize the
size of the local population and to attract a veteran
(economically established and nonimmigrant Israeli)
population to the region. Decision makers on the
national level set goals for the plan where expected
changes would create conditions amenable to economic development, improve the standard of living,
balance population distribution among all economic
and ethnic groups in the region, change its composi-

r 1997 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

60

Table 1.

S. Amir and others

Environmental goals and objectives

Goals
Conservation and
protection of
natural values
and
environmental
quality for the
benefit of all
population
groups

Objectives
Protect open
spaces

Protect water
resource quality
and quantity
Increase the
effectiveness of
water resources
use

Protect planted
and native
forests

Protect wildlife and

other vegetation
resource systems

Protect visual
regional
resources

Protect cultural
and historic
values

Means
Adjust building
densities to
landscape
character
Plan green area
as undeveloped
zone
Protect agricultural
land
Develop sewage
purification and
recycling systems
Require closed
sewer systems
exclusively
Prepare a plan for
solid waste
management
Develop
multipurpose
forest policy
Rehabilitate native
forest
Plant forest for
recreation
Use statues related
to National
Parks and
Natural Reserves
Law
Protect ecological
resources in
natural drainage
system
Identify and
protect visual
sites
Reclaim visually
damaged sites
Identify and
protect historical
sites

tion, and protect water and other natural resources in

the region, which is the countrys main reserve area for
outdoor recreation and fresh water-related tourism.
Total population in 2007 was projected to be 1.3
million. Table 1 describes the environmental goals and
objectives.
This paper is limited to a discussion of the environmental aspects of the plan. These aspects were an
integral part of most stages of the task, which included
setting of goals and objectives, identification of development concepts, development of an information base,
formulation of alternative solutions and their evaluation, and design of tools for implementation of the
preferred plan.

The paper reports on the process of incorporation of

environmental assessment into regional land-use plan
of the Galilee. It presents the environmental impact
evaluation method and context and describes a decisionmaking strategy that was developed as a tool for minimizing potential environmental impact from land-use decisions at the local level.
The process provides a model for inclusion of environmental considerations in development planning
that is different from EIA policy in Israel.
Environmental protection policy in Israel is tied to
the physical planning process. An EIS program is
administered through Israels Planning and Building
Law. As in the traditional EIA model, government
involvement in environmental protection is formally
mandated and begins at the plan-approval process,
when a plan is completed and its public or private
initiator is asked to prepare an EIS for the plan. Final
plan approval depends, to some extent, on the outcome
of the evaluation [Planning and Building Law (Israel)
1965].
The present Israeli model was defined as a corrective type, while the process that was applied in the
Galilee project was defined as a preventive type (Amir
1985). In the latter model, decisions regarding the
environmental aspect in development planning are
made at the start of the process and are an integral part
of the plan making. Such decision-making models
prevent or solve developmentenvironment conflicts at
the initial stage of their identification. In preventive
planning process, dealing with environmental issues is
part of the planning problem and begins much earlier
in the plan-approval stage. Theoretically, the recommended final plan also represents the result of an EIA.
The significance of the process used in the Galilee is
that it is an early experiment that implements a corrective model in a new development planning setting in
Israel.

Environmental Development Concept

Two types of environmental principles were adopted
during the plan-making process. They were used to
minimize negative environmental impacts of the proposed physical development. The first dealt with setting
general macro scale policy regarding the size and
location of settlements for the new population. The
main assumption of this policy is that the greater the
concentration of new development, the less the potential environmental impact. This assumption evolved
from findings of a previous study on the actual impact
of rural development on the Galilees environment
(Amir 1990). That study showed that the most environ-

Environmental Assessment and Regional Planning

mentally impacting actions in the Galilee were those

related to introduction of new settlements in previously
uninhabited regions, to soil reclamation for intensive
agriculture, and to fencing of grazing land. Most impacts from these new settlements result largely from
development of new infrastructure in the form of roads,
pipelines, power lines, and fences. Rural development
was found to be more costly than urban development
and created greater impact on the natural environment
and on its visual quality (Carmon and others, 1988).
A policy that encourages concentration of development led to the adoption of the following development
directives:
c

Absorption of additional population growth by expansion of residential areas in existing settlements.

No new settlements were proposed. Proposed population size was based on existing natural growth rate
and immigration trends. This size was adjusted
according to the capacity of rural areas, existing
local services, and infrastructure. The policy limits
consumption of rural land by increasing housing
densities to a minimum of 20 dwelling units to the
hectare.
The share of rural population in the region will be
reduced from 32% to 25%. This change will redirect
the growth pressure from rural areas, which are
usually located in less disturbed rich resources areas,
to larger urban centers.
Increasing of concentration of projected urban
population into two towns in the regionKarmiel
and Nazeret. Together they will absorb 65% of the
projected urban growth. Much of the industrial
growth will be concentrated in existing industrial
areas, with preference given to locations out of the
settlement area in existing subregional industrial
parks.

Additional principles dealt with a strategy for allocation of land for development on the local scale. The
strategy protects natural resources by ordering the
development of locally available public land parcels in a
way that minimizes environmental impact on areas rich
in natural resources.
The inventory of public land parcels pertains to land
owned by the central government that is available for
development in the planned durations of a plan. While
the majority of undeveloped land in Israel is public,
there are wide regional differences in the amount of
land available for development in a given period. This is
due to differences in levels of regional infrastructure
development, attractiveness of location, planning statues, level of contention by special interest groups for its

Table 2.

61

Public land reserves in the Galilee

Available for
development

Land to
remain
Land to be
developed undeveloped

Hectares % Hectares % Hectares %

Total reserve
For residential use
For industrial use

6395
4277
2118

100
67
33

4340
3540
800

68
83
39

2055
736
1316

32
17
62

preservation as undeveloped land, and other factors.

Economic and population growth rate planning in a
region will often depend on the size and physical
characteristics of its inventory of available public land
parcels. Since most land-use changes proposed in the
Galilee plan will take place within the available inventory, which is approximately 2% of the regions area,
these parcels become an important development factor
whose proper management will decide the environmental quality of the plan (Table 2).
Application of development concepts, principles,
and strategies resulted in a plan that concentrates new
development in existing residential and industrial areas. It also maintains large areas presently undisturbed
as undeveloped or less developed. The plan concentrates most future growth into areas with a welldeveloped infrastructure, larger population concentrations, and relatively poor natural resources. Furthermore,
it gives first preference to development of areas with
limited natural resources. Once implemented, the plan
will result in a regional form that distinguishes between
green-open and urban-developed Galilee. In the
long run, in a period beyond this plan, this distinction
will help influence the proper planning of future
growth areas and of industrial and population centers,
and it will provide policy makers with guidelines for
solving development/environment-related conflicts in
the Galilee (Shefer and others, 1992).

Environmental Evaluations
The environmental evaluation process included five
main stages (Figure 1):
1.
2.
3.
4.

Identification of environmental variables to be used

in the evaluation.
Preparation of environmental resources inventory
for the whole Galilee area.
Calculation of the size of different natural resources areas in public land reserves.
Quantitative evaluation of potential environmental
impacts of alternative development plans.

62

S. Amir and others

Figure 1. Integration of environmental assessment stages into the regional plan-making process.

5.

Development of environmental regulations, land

vulnerability ratings, and mapping for local decisionmaking during plan implementation.

Implementation of these stages produced three types

of outputs: identification of the amount of natural
resource land that could be affected by potential development, environmental evaluation of alternative plans,
and land vulnerability ratings of the whole district
according to the degree of environmental limitation on
its development.
Environmental Variables
Natural resources were defined as land with vegetation cover, underground and surface water resources,
prime agricultural land and ecologically rich and sensitive land (Table 3 and Figure 2). The inventory of
vegetation resources includes native and planted forest
or land that was designated for forestation in the
National Plan for Forestry (Ministry of the Interior
1995). All land in cultivation was defined as prime
agricultural soil. The use of land for modern intensive
agriculture in this largely mountainous region was
chosen as a best indicator of soil agricultural value.
During the last decade the practice of profitable agriculture in the Galilee was limited to cultivation of parcels
with the highest soil quality. Modern cultivation of
marginal land in this region is not economical and rare.

A water resources inventory was designed for evaluation of resource quality and quantity. Assessment of
aquifer vulnerability to water pollution included known
water recharge areas that overlap groundwater resources and land within the Sea of Galilee watershed
(Ministry of the Environment 1991).
The fourth part of the inventory included data that
describes the levels of ecological suitability of an area
for protection from development. The data are based
on a previously processed nationwide natural resources
survey of undeveloped land in Israel (Nature Reserves
Authority and others 1991). The survey classified land
into several types, largely according to wildlife habitats
and vegetation by land units. They were ranked according to sensitivity type levels. Units with a higher sensitivity level included resources with greater diversity, scarce
or rare species that are protected by Israeli law, or those
that are representative of native flora and fauna in a
given subregion. Resources were also rated for their
conditions, level of development, and the general
stability of their habitat.
These criteria are generally used in Israel for the
designation of new nature reserves and protected open
spaces as national parks. In the Galilee, land types A and
B from the national survey were used as indicators of
areas of rich resources or recreational value respectively. In a later stage of the analysis, they were used to

Environmental Assessment and Regional Planning

Table 3.

63

Resources and their use in alternative plans on public land reserves in the Galilee
Resources on public land reservesa

Resources
Vegetation and soil
Planted forest
Natural forest
Proposed forest
Cultivated land
Underground water (UGW)
Vulnerability to UGW pollution
UGW recharge area
Surface water quality
Sea of Galilee watershed
Land resource sensitivity
A
B
Dust and noise exposure
Exposure to dust pollution
Exposure to airplane noise

Use of resource land (ha) in alternative plans

Hectare

Western (13)

Central (46)

Eastern (79)

316.9
24.2
40.1
411.9

4.9
0.4
0.6
6.4

249.0
17.5
30.0
146.8

230.0

9.0
146.8

230.0

18.7
146.8

1322.5
273.1

20.7
4.3

632.0
144.8

632.0
74.8

826.5
74.8

922.4

14.4

552.2

552.2

746.4

133.3
1407.0

8.4
22.0

113.0
1384.6

99.0
583.3

105.5
777.5

125.2
125.4

2.0
2.0

111.5

100.0

100.0

aHectares

and percentages indicate the share of resources area in public land reserve. Values in the two columns are not cumulative for two reasons:
several resources are often present on the same area and part of the public land reserves do not have resources and therefore are not counted in the
table.

identify parcels in the land inventory to be protected

from development.
The last variables used in the evaluation related to
lands exposed to high levels of dust or noise pollution.
These are areas located near operating quarries and
airports, respectively. Their development would depend
on the elimination or mitigation of the source of
pollution.
Inventory of Resources on Public Land Reserves
The data on public land area and the resources were
used in the analysis to advance two objectives: inventory
the resources in the whole Galilee planning area and
calculate the resources present on public land reserves.
The second objective is to assess the potential impact on
environmental resources of different alternative landuse plans developed for the Galilee project.
Quantitative values on public land reserves were
generated from public documents and official maps
and plans (Israel Land Authority 1990, 1991). Values on
the size of resources areas were calculated from existing
resources maps referred to above.
Table 2 shows the total size of reserves is 6395 ha; of
which 4277 ha is available for residential and 2118 ha
for industrial use. Of this reserve, only 4340 ha or 68%
will be needed for development and 2055 ha or 32% will
be left undeveloped. This provided flexibility in planning the development of reserves in a way that protects
those parcels with rich resources while satisfying the
demand specified in the development program. The
data show that there is more flexibility in the location of
industrial than residential land uses.

Findings from the analysis are summarized in two

separate parts of Table 3. The sizes of different resource
areas that are present in total public land reserve are
summarized in the column resources on public land
reserves. Hectare and percentage values in these columns
are not cumulative since several resources could be present
in the same area. Percentages indicate the share of resources area from total public land reserves.
Results show that approximately 5.3% of land reserves are forested and 6.4% in cultivation; 25% of
reserves are in areas that might threaten the quantity
(20.7%) and quality (4.3%) of underground water
resources; 14.4% of reserves are within the Sea of
Galilee watershed and would be a potential source of
surface water pollution; 30.4% of reserves are classified
as environmentally sensitive to development; and 2%
have unacceptable levels of dust or noise. The data
indicate the high level of vulnerability of resources on
public land reserves to water pollution and to physical
changes in areas with rich and sensitive habitats.
Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts
of Alternative Plans
The second stage of environmental analysis included
evaluation of the degree to which the plan will protect,
improve and develop natural and landscape values and
the regions environmental quality. The planning
team applied the EVAMIX computer program in the
evaluation of alternatives and in the selection of a
preferred plan (Shefer and others 1996). Four evaluators rated the various alternatives according to an
agreed set of criteria set by subjects. Several criteria

64

S. Amir and others

Figure 2. Selected environmental factors in the Galilee. The

map is produced from data in the National Master Plan
T.M.A. 31 (Lerman and Lerman 1992). Areas AD show major
environmental characteristics in the Galilee: A: Area sensitive
to surface water pollution and including the Sea of Galilee
watershed. B: Area rich in natural and landscape resources
with underground water formation. C: Area with distinct rural
characteristics with exceptional visual values. D: Highly urbanized area.

were used to evaluate the degree to which the alternatives achieved this environmental goal. The criteria are
listed in decreasing order of importance as suggested by
evaluators: degree of protection of quantity and quality
of water resources and of open spaces in nature reserves, national parks, and agriculture; degree of protection of visual qualities of the landscape and of other
wildlife and vegetation resources; and degree of protection of sites of historical and cultural significance.
Figure 3 shows the nine alternatives selected in the
final evaluation stage. Each is different in type and
distribution of population that is allocated to major
towns and their surroundings and in the stage of
development at which the growth is planned (short
range up to 1997, long range 19972007). The nine
alternatives are grouped into three types: those that
concentrate the growth in the western, central, or
eastern parts of the district.
The remaining columns in Table 3 show the size of

Figure 3. Schematic representation of nine alternative plans.

Nine alternatives are grouped into three types: western (13),
central (46), and eastern (79). Areas in black and gray
indicate timing of development in the short term (19921997)
and long term (19972007) respectively. Letters indicate
names of urban centers: S, Shaal; C, Karmiel; N, Nazeret; A,
Afula; Z, Tzfat; and T, Tiberias. Alternative 6 is projected to
have the least environmental impact. Alternative 5 was rated
highest for overall criteria and was selected for development as
in Figure 4.

resource area on public reserves to be used by each of

three groups of alternatives. The table shows that values
in columns of alternatives that concentrate most development in central Galilee are likely to use less resource
land and cause less impact. Values in the other two
columns represent resource land needed for the western and eastern alternatives. They represent solutions
which will potentially have greater impact on the
environment of the Galilee.
The western group, as indicated in alternatives 13
in Figure 3, represents a solution in which a new city,
Shaal (S), will be established and cause significant
environmental impact. This will require the development of residential areas on 266.5 ha of planted and
natural forest and 30 ha for proposed forest. An
important impact of these alternatives will be on the

Environmental Assessment and Regional Planning

quality and quantity of underground waterpart of the

144.8 ha of the site feed the local aquifer. In comparison
to the central alternative, the western type doubles the
loss (1497.6 ha) of resources that are ecologically
sensitive (type A) and are valuable recreational land
(type B).
The eastern group, as presented in alternatives 79
in Figure 3, represents solutions in which the city of
Tzfat (Z) will grow to a population of 47,000 in the year
2007. It will prevent future expansion of forest on 18.7
ha, require investment in surface water quality protection measures in 746.4 ha in the Sea of the Galilee
watershed, and prevent the use as residential land of
777.5 ha with visual and recreational values (level B),
and negatively affect 105.5 ha of sensitive resource areas
(level A).
The central alternatives (46), which concentrate
the main growth in the towns of Karmiel (C) and
Nazeret (N) were preferred for implementation due to
the presence of a larger amount of public land reserves
in the central mountain region. These reserves will
provide a greater degree of flexibility in the selection of
sites for development in the future. The flexibility
enables the development of sites that impact the environment less and leaves undeveloped reserves with rich
resources. The potential impact of the western and
eastern alternatives is also greater due to the limited
availability of public land in the respective subregions.
This means that plans for these areas will use most or all
public land reserves and provide no flexibility in sparing resource-rich parcels from development.
Among the three central alternatives, number 6 was
found to have the least potential impact on the environment. Most of the urban development will occur in the
first stage and will be limited to the area of Nazeret. The
town is located in a more developed region of the
Galilee, which is relatively poor in resources and has a
highly disturbed environment (Figures 2 and 4). The
region has limited underground water resources, is
located out of the Sea of Galilee watershed area, and is
poorer in vegetation. However, this alternative was not
selected for implementation. It required the concentration of most urban development in one area and was
found to be difficult to implement for two reasons: the
area did not have a sufficient reserve of building land
and it was administratively incapable of absorbing the
large population growth in the first phase of development.
Alternative 5 was chosen for development. It was the
second best from an environmental standpoint. It
provided an additional amount of land suitable for
building at the first stage of development in the town of
Karmiel. Development in this area would partly affect

65

Figure 4. Preferred development and conservation policies

by subregion. The figure is a schematic representation of the
location of major facilities and urban concentrations as planned
in the preferred alternative plan. IIV indicate the land uses
most preferred in each of the four subregions: I, limited
development; II, residential and industrial development; III,
low-impact outdoor recreation; IV, tourism development.
Letters indicate names of urban centers: S, Shaal; C, Karmiel;
N, Nazaret; A, Afula; Z, Tzfat; and T, Tiberias.

land rich in resources and would require special measures to prevent underground water pollution.
Figure 4 represents the preferred regional development policy according to alternative 5. It shows the most
preferred land uses for each of the four subregions. In
addition to socioeconomic criteria, which were not
noted here, each represents different environmental
characteristics. The policy expresses the need to maintain environmental quality and to preserve the Galilees
natural resources.
Development in subregion I in the western Galilee
will be limited and controlled to protect underground
water and other resources, which have been negatively

66

S. Amir and others

affected by past development. Subregion II will carry

the major development of residential and industrial
land uses in urban settlements. Subregion III has rich
vegetation resources and is located partly in the Sea of
Galilee watershed. Development will be limited to
extensive, low-impact tourism in existing rural settlements. Subregion IV is recommended mainly for tourism and agriculture. The plan takes advantage of the
subregions warmer winter climate, ample surface water, and prime agricultural land resources. Urbanization will be limited and will take place largely in the
town of Tiberias (T).
Protection of Environmental Resources
on the Local Level
Environmental protection in the Galilee was also
managed through microanalysis of natural resources on
the individual site scale. The proposed evaluation framework will enable detailed day-to-day implementation of
the development concept presented in the prefered
alternative. The framework was proposed as a regulatory tool for protection of natural resources in decision
making related to the final plan approval stage.
Table 4 and Figure 5 describe environmental limitations on developed land. Both constitute part of the
legal documentation of the plan. Once the plan is
approved, the tools must be used by local and district
planning and building commissions that approve master plans and building permits for individual projects.
Regulations are based on a strategy that takes into
consideration the sites resource characteristics, the
type of land use, the availability of land reserves in the
immediate area of the settlement, and the availability of
environmental impact-reducing measures.
The strategy is intended to maximize the protection
of resources during plan implementation stages by
setting an order of priorities for land development
among parcels with different environmental characteristics. Since all public land parcels are potentially available for development and the overall inventory of land
reserves in some localities is greater than is required,
the strategy was developed to select and order parcels
for development in a way that limits the damage to
resources. This is done by selecting at the first stage of
development the parcels poor in resources. This postpones the potential consumption of land rich in resources to a later development stage.
As in many land-use plans that are prepared for a
period of 1020 years, initially projected demands for
land do not always fully materialize, either due to
changes in growth rate or in its location. The proposed
implementation strategy is defensible in nature and
developed to prevent unnecessary environmental dam-

Table 4. Environmental regulation of

development land
Objective of
area type
Conservation, 1

Resource
characteristics
Presence of
multiple rich
natural
resources
presently not in
protected zone
(sensitivity
level A)
Forested land
Cultivated land
(sensitivity
level B)

Land management
and development
policy
Do not develop;
conserve; permit
with caution the
passage of a
limited amount
of connecting
infrastructure

Develop as last
resort
Only for limited
expansion of
existing
residential sites
Use after
exhaustion of
land types 3
and 6
Open land without Development
Controlled
limited to
vegetation or
development;
residential use,
cultivation
preservation of
services or for
visual values, 3
open space
activities visually
compatible with
bordering land
uses
Develop in a way
Preservation of
Underground
that does not
water quantity, 4
water recharge
limit the capacity
area (UGW)
of the area to
Land exposed to
take in surface
dust and noise
water to UGW
Control
open/built ratio
Develop only after
pollution causes
are eliminated at
the source
Protection of water Land vulnerable to Develop only for
expansion of
quality, 5
water resource
existing
pollution
residential and
Land over UGW
services area; no
holding
septic or open
formations
sewage disposal
Sea of Galilee
is permitted
watershed
Land that does not Land development
Least
is permitted
qualify for types
environmental
after satisfaction
15
limitations, 6
of regular
planning
controls

Limited
development, 2

Environmental Assessment and Regional Planning

Figure 5. Classification of land according to type of environmental limitation on development. The figure is a partial
display of a map used as a transparent overlay on the master
plan for the Galilee. The original overlay map was drawn at
1:50,000 scale. One square in the figure equals 1 km2.
Numbers 16 indicate types of environmental resources and
constraints and the proposed development policy for the areas
as explained in Table 4: type 1, do not develop; 2, develop as
last resort; 3, manage residential development to preserve
visual quality; 4, manage development to protect water quality;
5, manage development to protect water quantity; 6, development is permitted.

age. It enables matching land-use development decisions on a local scale with those dealing with resource
protection. The strategy implies continuous decision
making at each stage of development at the local scale.
Table 4 describes six land types. Each is concerned
with different resource characteristics, was intended to
achieve a particular objective, and is based on its own
resource management and development policy. Resource characteristics differed in level of richness of
natural resources, vegetation cover qualities, suitability
of soil for cultivation, quantity and quality of water, and
conditions of resources.
The framework provides for a level of suitability to
the three types of land uses: conservation and open
space, residential and related services, and industry.

67

Environmental protection measures included limitations on the type of physical development permitted on
the site, its order of priority for development, determination of building density and percent of hard-surface
coverage, and the type of sewage disposal technology
that is permitted in the proposed project.
Parcels with rich resources were classified as land
type 1. This type has the highest priority for conservation and the lowest for development. Due to existing
laws, this level will be limited to development that
permits the passage through the area of necessary
infrastructure as utility lines, etc. Land type 2 includes
forested or cultivated land bordering existing residential development. Permission for development will be
given as a last resort, only in order to enable previously
planned growth, and after the use in a locality of all
parcels with land types 36.
Type 3 includes open land without vegetation cover
that is unsuitable for cultivation. Such land is proposed
for development of residential and open space uses and
in a way that is visually compatible with bordering land
uses. This land type is likely to be used widely in a
locality once land types 46 are used up. In rural areas
with highly exposed landscapes, any development is
likely to change the visual quality of the region. The
visual guideline provides an opportunity to minimize
the potential impact of residential development on a
visually exposed rural landscape.
Land types 4 and 5 deal with hydrological characteristics of the area and with land exposed to noise and
dust nuisances. Both determine the type of land use and
prerequisites that must be met before development is
permitted on the site. Regulations in type 4 are intended to protect the quantity of water through protection of the capacity of the area to absorb surface water
and transfer it to underground water formations. The
second part of the regulation provides noise and airquality protection. The first regulation demands the
preparation of residential plans with lower density and
in a layout that minimizes the percent of impermeable
surfaces. The plan needs to provide for maximum
capture of rainfall from impermeable surfaces in the
neighborhood and for their return locally to the underground water holding formation. Implementation of
the second part of the regulation requires the elimination of noise and dust pollution sources that presently
impact the area as a prerequisite for development of
affected land.
Land type 5 refers to water quality protection in
areas located over rich aquifers or areas with high
capacities for surface water intake (karst) and/or located in the Sea of Galilee watershed. Growth on such
land is limited to expansion of existing residential areas

68

S. Amir and others

and development of open space facilities. Both are

permitted only with closed sewage disposal systems.
Land type 6 covers areas in existing settlements that
are already developed or undeveloped but were approved for development in earlier plans. All types of
land use, including industrial, are permitted in this type
after satisfaction of general plan objectives and planning controls.
Figure 5 is a section of an overlay map that was
prepared for the whole district at 1:50,000 scale. It
shows types of limitations on development. Most of the
land in the Galilee has water-related controls. This was
one of the factors that affected the decision on the
location of industrial development. The plan limits
development of industrial activity to existing sites,
which was possible because of the availability of sufficient land in existing industrial parks. This policy
enabled a more satisfactory concentration of environmental protection management efforts to a limited
number of sites.

Conclusions
The proposed plan for development of the Galilee
satisfied two major goals: it provided a development
program and strategy for future growth and settlement
of the region, and at the same time developed principles and a decision-making strategy for the conservation of its natural and recreational resources and for the
protection of their environmental quality. The plan is
the result of the use of a unified planning process that
considered environmental issues at each plan-making
stage. It is assumed that this would reduce or eliminate
future conflicts between development and environmental quality protection.
Results of the environmental assessment show the
importance, to environmental protection, of decisions
that were made at the earlier conceptual planning
stage. The decision to adopt a spatial solution, which
directs growth into existing settlements and the concentration of development into two major urban centers
located in less environmentally vulnerable areas, has
helped reduce most potential environmental impacts of
projected development. It made environmental protection at the macro/regional and micro/local levels more
achievable.
The framework helps link together various development decisions with the data on site environmental
quality. The link made the selection of ecologically
suitable land use for a site in a given stage of development and locality more effective.

In conclusion, the study demonstrated the value of

joining environmental protection and land-use planning into one effort that is integrated at each stage of
the plan-making process.

Acknowledgments
Preparation of the plan for the Galilee and related
analyses was funded in part by Israels Ministry of the
Interior, Ministry of Works and Housing, Israel Land
Authority, and the Jewish Agency Settlement Department. Our thanks to N. Lissovsky for computer processing of Figures 25.

Literature Cited
Amir, S. 1985. Environmental quality protection through land
use planning. Environmental Policy and Law 15:5663.
Amir, S. 1990. Evaluation of environmental impacts of large
scale physical development in central Galilee: Role of
experts and policy makers. Environmental Management 14(6):
823832.
Carmon, N., H. Law-Yone, G. Lifshitz, S. Amir, D. Czamanski,
B. Kipnis. 1988. The new settlements in the Galileean evaluation study. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa (in Hebrew).
Israel Land Authority. 1990. Land inventory. October. Planning and Development Department, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Israel Land Authority. 1991. Inventory of industrial land.
February. Planning and Development Department, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Lerman, E., and R. Lerman. 1992. Preliminary report on
environmental aspect. National Master Plan No. 31, Tel Aviv
(in Hebrew).
Ministry of the Environment. 1991. The Center for Geographic Information. Map of environmental constraints,
1:100,000 scale. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Ministry of the Interior. 1995. National plan for forestry and
forest No. 22, 1:50,000 scale. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Nature Reserves Authority, Jewish National Fund, Ministry of
the Environment, and Geological Institute. 1991. Open
space mapsensitivity evaluation, 1:50,000 scale. Jerusalem
(in Hebrew).
Planning and Building Law (Israel). 1965. Planning and
building regulationsenvironmental impact statements
(1982). Kobetz Htakanot 4307 (in Hebrew).
Shefer, D., S. Amir, A. Frenkel, and H. Law-Yone. 1996.
Generating and evaluating alternative regional development plans. Planning and Design (in press).
Shefer, D., S. Amir, A. Frenkel, and H. Law-Yone. 1992.
Development plan and master plan of the northern district,
Vol I and II. Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa (in Hebrew).