Scale and scope of environmental planning transformations: The Israeli case

This paper explores the scale and scope of transformations in the environmental planning field, and the factors that may advance or impede their widespread adoption. A conceptual model is offered which examines scope (defined as type, breadth and structure of the transformation), and the scale of its impact (categorized as stakeholder, organizational, institutional or societal) and applies it to the analysis of several cases in Israel where environmental transformations, affecting the way in which planning is conducted, have been adopted. Conclusions include identification of conditions for facilitating and advancing transformations, including knowledge of innovative alternatives, initiative, willingness to adopt new practices, and identification of policy windows that emerge during conflict, reform, or crisis. The fostering of relations between environmental non-government organizations and planning systems and leadership roles are also significant in catalyzing environmental transformation.

[1]  D. Doloreux,et al.  Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues , 2005 .

[2]  Arie Shachar,et al.  Reshaping the Map of Israel: A New National Planning Doctrine , 1998 .

[3]  W. J. Vrakking,et al.  The implementation game , 1995 .

[4]  Laurence J. O'Toole,et al.  Implementing Public Innovations in Network Settings , 1997 .

[5]  V. Schmidt.  Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse , 2008 .

[6]  Peter John,et al.  Agendas and Instability in American Politics , 2013 .

[7]  P. Ekins,et al.  Making reform happen in environmental policy , 2009 .

[8]  Heike Schroeder,et al.  Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers , 2008 .

[9]  Sven Steinmo,et al.  Structuring politics : historical institutionalism in comparative analysis , 1992 .

[10]  Oran R. Young,et al.  Institutions and Environmental Change: The Scientific Legacy of a Decade of IDGEC Research , 2008 .

[11]  David Alan Aschauer,et al.  IS PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PRODUCTIVE , 1989 .

[12]  Gerald N. Rosenberg.  The Hollow Hope , 1991 .

[13]  O. Young.  Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes , 2010 .

[14]  P. Cooke,et al.  Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions , 1997 .

[15]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[16]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity , 2013 .

[17]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[18]  Gerald N. Rosenberg.  The hollow hope : can courts bring about social change? , 1992 .

[19]  Eran Feitelson,et al.  Issue Generating Assessment: Bridging the Gap Between Evaluation Theory and Practice? , 2011 .

[20]  R. Alterman.  Can Planning Help in Time of Crisis?: Planners' Responses to Israel's Recent Wave of Mass Immigration , 1995 .

[21]  Ravi Jain,et al.  Better environmental policy studies : how to design and conduct more effective analysis , 2001 .

[22]  Y. Sagi,et al.  Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel. , 1986 .

[23]  Judith A. Layzer.  The Environmental Case: Translating Values Into Policy , 2002 .

[24]  Allowing for sustainable growth under drastic immigration stress in Israel , 1994 .

[25]  Avner de‐Shalit.  From the political to the objective: The dialectics of Zionism and the environment , 1995 .

[26]  E. Feitelson.  Social norms, rationales and policies: reframing farmland protection in Israel , 1999 .

[27]  A. Underdal.  Determining the Causal Significance of Institutions: Accomplishments and Challenges , 2008 .

[28]  S. Gabbay.  The environment in Israel , 1994 .

[29]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Comparative Conclusions - 'New' Environmental Policy Instruments: An Evolution or a Revolution in Environmental Policy? , 2003 .

[30]  Eran Feitelson,et al.  The Political Economy of Transport Innovations , 2004 .