Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 368–376 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Cultural heritage and its economic potential in rural society: The case of the kibbutzim in Israel Irit Amit-Cohen a , Michael Sofer b,* a Department of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel b Department of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 24 June 2015 Received in revised form 13 April 2016 Accepted 29 May 2016 Keywords: Kibbutz Cultural heritage Population attitudes Location Economic development a b s t r a c t For nearly a century, the kibbutz – an Israeli communal settlement form based on total cooperation and equality in production, marketing, and consumption – has been part of the Israeli legacy, expressed in its many historical assets and cultural landscapes. In recent decades, the economy, society, and landscape of the kibbutz-type settlement have undergone significant changes, affecting its very identity. The pur- pose of this research was to examine the attitudes of different population groups (young and veterans members, and newcomers residing in the expansion neighborhoods) towards the tangible heritage of the kibbutz from the perspective of these changes. Differences in the attitudes, willingness to become involved, and perception of conservation and economic development of cultural built heritage assets were found to correspond with age and membership status. Examination of the attitudes of people liv- ing on kibbutz to its cultural heritage and eventual economic potential may inform the development of general guidelines for the maintenance and sustainable development of these cultural assets in the “new kibbutz.” Such guidelines might also be applicable to other rural societies that are undergoing significant identity-shaping changes. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The kibbutz is a rural settlement form in Israel. For about 100 years, it was known for being completely communal, based on cooperation and equality in every aspect of production and con- sumption. Currently, however, the kibbutzim (plural for kibbutz) are undergoing a process of restructuring, involving significant identity-shaping changes, including economic diversification, pri- vatization, expanding inequality, and changes in the kibbutz’s green image. The pressure to change the nature of the kibbutz stems among others from (a) ideological changes among the younger generations, which are moving away from the philosophy of the kibbutz founders (Gal, 2011); (b) trickling down of current pri- vatization processes based on neoliberal economics in Israel, in general, to the economic structure and land values of rural soci- eties (Ben-Rafael and Topel, 2011); and (c) the establishment of nonagricultural activities in the rural space (Pavin, 2011). Alongside the shift in the economic base and the increased demand for privatization, the kibbutzim are attracting new resi- * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: amitcoi@biu.ac.il (I. Amit-Cohen), soferm1@biu.ac.il, soferm1@gmail.com (M. Sofer). dents as part of their establishment of expansion neighborhoods (Charney and Palgi, 2011; Greenberg, 2011). Most of the new arrivals are settling in these new neighborhoods, in many cases located at the edges of the kibbutz built-up area (they are also known as “community extensions” or “extensions”). The influx of newcomers actually represents a type of amenity-led migration of people seeking houses, quality of life, participation in a small com- munity, and even new economic opportunities. The new residents do not become kibbutz members; they are considered kibbutz “res- idents” (Arbel and Czamanski, 2001; Getz, 2009). As such, they are involved in the communal life (cultural and social activities), but do not share ownership of the economic and public assets of the kibbutz. The space of the kibbutzim and their environs contain a large inventory of sites and buildings with historical and architectural values that reflect past events, social ideology, and lifestyles that no longer exist. Most of these buildings reflect “everyday life” – agricultural uses and technology, vernacular architecture, local building materials, residential buildings, and ordinary community facilities (Lowenthal, 1997). Only a few sites reflect heroic histori- cal events or unique architectural styles (Amit-Cohen, 2012, 2014). Nevertheless, the economic changes since the mid-1980s, together with social and ideological shifts, have threatened this unique cul- tural built heritage. One of the explanations for this is that the http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.031 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.