1 Introduction

Water is undoubtedly one of the most critical natural resources on the planet, especially for humans and the ecosystem. Given its importance, it is reasonable to assume that water, and drinking water in particular, may have one of the highest potentials for conflict. All the more so as it is essential for many aspects of everyday life, including drinking, food and energy production, most industrial processes and countless other cases. These are just a few general examples, which are illustrative of how dependent we (as humanity) are on water and how important it is to use this resource efficiently but also considerately. In recent years, mainly due to climate change and human influence, water and its management have become even more prominent and interwoven, as future conflicts of interest over its distribution are likely [1,2,3]. Since water affects and is affected by so many structures, its management is particularly challenging. For instance, the potential decline of drinking water, whether through changes in quality [4] or quantity [5] due to human behaviour, is a major concern. It is important to emphasise that anthropogenic activities such as groundwater impacts due to mining [6, 7], agriculture and fertilization, or chemical contamination of limited water supplies [8, 9] are already affecting drinking water resources.

However, the focus of this study is not on the fact that humanity has had problems or conflicts, for instance, over water. Nor exactly what kind of conflicts humanity will have. Rather, it is about methodically assessing the social and interwoven nature of conflicts, including the potential for exploring and addressing future conflict. Following Mitchell [10], the view is adopted that conflicts emerge between (human) parties. Moreover, as will be discussed further in the theory section, this study's approach assesses the interwovenness of conflicts in a social and structured way. The assumption in this work is that in all cases, including natural disasters, social interactions can cause conflict and, thus, potentially be the means of the conflict’s resolution or worsening. As this study assumes that water plays an extensive role in society, the focus is to expand on this perspective and ask whether there is more to the disputes over water than merely water distribution, given the reach of water to many areas, and the potential interests of individuals. In other words, the study wants to assess the acting structure(s) behind such conflicts. Therefore, this paper adopts the approach of Vuković et al. [11] for studying the complexity of conflicts in the example of water conflicts. In this study, however, the emphasis is on conflicts, not cooperation analysis as in the original approach. This modification aims to strengthen the focus on conflict assessment, which is also a significant part of their original approach. For this study, three types of conflict are applied: the conflict of interests, the conflict of values and the conflict of knowledge. This extension aims to provide a more nuanced examination of the selected conflicts while limiting the number to three distinct categories to ensure comparability across cases. Furthermore, it is considered that a structured understanding of the actors and their actions involved could also make it useful for analysing future developments. Thus, the central question is: In what ways are the conflicts interwoven, and how can structuring based on this adapted approach help in understanding them more comprehensively? This question also briefly addresses the question of how such an analysis might be useable for future-oriented conflict analysis, for example in the construction of scenarios.

Focusing on examples from Germany, this study will explore this research question through case studies. Germany is a relevant example, as the country has just experienced a huge problem with flooding, as in the case of the Ahr Valley [12]. In addition, recent years have also seen repeated heat waves, which, for instance, have affected groundwater recharge, the population [13] and agriculture [14]. Because of these witnessed disasters, as well as the persistent climate change, water has received particular political attention, resulting in the recent National Water Strategy [15]. The EU's Water Framework Directive for the Protection of Water and Nature was another political tool to bring the importance of water to attention [16]. Problems of water protection and water demand, compounded by some industrial visions such as the expansion of renewable energy and other water-intensive production could increase the potential for conflict, as in the recent case of a planned Tesla factory in the east of Germany potentially endangering groundwater [17]. Not to mention the overall degradation of water resources by agriculture, mining and human activity in general [18]. Germany's water problems are not yet as critical as they may be in countries with severe water shortages. Nevertheless, climate change could lead to a detrimental change and is already affecting some sectors in Germany [19]. However, as noted above, water conflicts seem to be mostly between different actor groups. This study will therefore examine examples in the context of Germany, taking into account the multidimensionality of the conflicts.

The next section describes the framework of the study by first discussing conflict and conflict assessment (2.1) and then presenting the adapted approach (2.2). Followed by the examination of the research cases: Currenta (3.1), a double conflict case involving a freshwater and wastewater conflict, and Nordheide (3.2) and the dispute over groundwater. Finally, the findings are discussed (4) and the study concluded with a synopsis (5).

2 The framework of the study

2.1 Conflicts and conflict assessment

The purpose of this section is to provide a theoretical framework for this study's understanding of conflict. As already mentioned, this study wants to argue for the social or even interpersonal view of conflicts. This aim is why this work considers conflicts as "a relationship between two or more parties (e.g. individuals or groups), who have, or think they have, incompatible goals" [10]. Furthermore, this study does not view conflicts as being undesirable per se because some of them, especially non-violent ones, could cause a valuable change. After all, solving the problem that caused a conflict in the first place is undoubtedly desirable. This value is mirrored in literature by scholars, such as Simmel's perspective on conflicts as intrinsic to human culture and as a motor of socialisation [20] or Dahrendorf, who views conflicts as essential for societal change [21]. Moreover, this shift from conflict to cooperation, or the general path to peaceful relations, can also be seen in historical examples related to water management [22].

In addition, the understanding of conflict in this study does not consider nature as an entity with which someone can engage in conflict. If someone loses their home due to flooding, they may have a problem that nature has caused. However, from this study’s viewpoint, conflict would only occur when dealing with a human actor who, for instance, prevents the solving of a problem, such as an employee of an insurance company that refuses compensation for the damages. The intertwined problem of conflict assessment is also visible in their meta-discussions, where even the structuring or different framing of problems as conflicts (as well as no framing at all) could have consequences and even change the view on the conflict and thus the identification of potential problems. Structuring problems according to certain types of conflict (instead of other types) always has specific path dependencies [23]. Furthermore, instead of arguing about a particular problem or conflict, the discussion about the "right" conflict framing could become a new conflict [24].

Nevertheless, why does this conflict study mention that conflict assessment can be problematic? Firstly, it can be assumed that assessing conflicts is not rigid and that different analyses or arguments may always be possible. Therefore, this study can only address some of the potentially many perspectives. Secondly, it is important to note that conflict assessment is still an essential topic for discussion, especially regarding how conflicts can be framed or even structured for solution approaches. Thirdly, rather than focusing solely on the content of conflicts, this study examines the structuring of conflicts. From this perspective, water conflicts may be more than disputes between human actors over the distribution of water.

Examples in the literature already point to this direction that social aspects or other conflicts are essential to water distribution conflicts. Water and other resource conflicts can be about power inequalities, as their resolution might favour the ruling party [25]. In particular, in cases that extend across national boundaries, there may be instances where certain nations (or hegemonies) exert influence over water resources, while others pursue counter-hegemonic strategies to address such conflicts [26]. This view is consistent with the social understanding of conflict in this paper, in the sense that there is not necessarily a conflict with limited water (or natural constraints) per se, but rather with individuals or groups influencing or even hindering the actions of others and thus affecting availability and distribution [27]. Participants in such cases can also include so-called "shadow actors", as coined for an analysis of the situation in Jordan, who, in this instance, seek to maintain the status quo or privilege on water without interference [28]. In general, "shadow actors" are actors parallel to government or decision-makers who can influence policies and laws or potential implementation phases. These actors often have a certain level of power (e.g. financial military resources), but can also change frequently [29]. Additionally, water conflicts (especially transboundary) can be regarded as "wicked" problems, as they encompass not only tangible elements, such as national interest but also, in the context of the modern era, potential misinformation, which further complicates the situation, as observed by Wheeler and Hussein [30]. Furthermore, such transboundary cases are often closely linked to national development strategies and demand, as well as geopolitical entanglement and can have an effect on the conflict but also potential cooperation [31]. Other cases demonstrate that (water) inequalities can also necessitate political mobilisation by affected communities [32]. Social aspects and factors such as poverty or inequality [33] are some of the problems cited that can fuel water conflicts or conflicts in general. Therefore, there seems to be a conflict on a governance level, looping water distribution problems back to the social side. By observing some cases from Germany, this study aims to highlight the interwovenness of water conflicts and will use three types of conflict for analysis, each with a different focus on what is being disputed in a conflict.

These three types are interest, value and knowledge conflicts, which are also explored in the articles in an edited volume on environmental and technological conflicts [34]. First, in the case of conflicts of interest, it is about the potential wide-ranging interests of a particular distribution of goods. This work adopts the view that these goods are not limited to tangible objects, as goods could also be roles, power or other intangible properties that are distributable or already shared and therefore fought over. As this type of conflict is most likely to be associated with water conflicts, the study examines whether distribution conflicts are due to different interests and can therefore be considered as conflicts of interest, or whether other aspects are similarly involved.

Second, value conflicts describe the dispute over different valuations of goods. Such conflicts are often difficult to manage because the more controversial an issue is in the public sphere, the harder it is to take sides or reach a mutual agreement, as seen in mass media cases such as recurring debates over abortion [35]. When it comes to water, different cultures may have differing values, for instance, due to historical or geographical factors, indicating a need to recognise such differences [36]. In addition, even the definition of topics or problems can be based on dissimilar values and, therefore, might create conflicts, such as defining water scarcity. For instance, a narrative about water scarcity based on specific definitions can be used for one's personal interest [37].

Third, in knowledge conflicts, claims about the validity of factual claims are at the centre of the dispute. This type of conflict can arise when the disputing parties have different knowledge, base their actions on different knowledge or doubt and therefore challenge the circulated knowledge of others or different disciplines. In this case, the focus is less on the object of the conflict, such as a disputed distribution of water or other resources, and more on the debate over the validity of the knowledge processed for the respective case [38]. If there was objective knowledge about a particular issue and one party disagreed with the solution, the conflict might qualify as a conflict of interest because that party would be rejecting the knowledge because of its interests. However, there is also discourse on the validity of knowledge, such as with the concept of scepticism [39], especially in the case of the current still uncertain effects of climate change [40] but also the accuracy of simulations and forecasts [41, 42]. In addition, if knowledge is scarce or low and there is an elevated level of non-knowledge, the conflict could shift to a conflict of interests and values, as the parties could base their actions more on their interests or values [43]. This view of conflict can be supported by a study on decolonising water diplomacy, which makes similar observations about these three types of conflict, adding a focus on identity and equity [44]. The more interest-driven approaches of the Global North to water diplomacy, which promote hegemonic policies and often build on biased knowledge, can lead to these conflicts of interest or knowledge. At the same time, the values (or identities) of the actors from the Global South involved in these policies are often lacking, potentially creating value conflicts. This also contributes to the idea that these are more than distributional conflicts, as it can also be recognised that certain types of conflict can be influenced or fostered by the actors involved (their identities or socio-political dynamics) and can occur in parallel. To add to the understanding of conflict, it is also important to note the potential dimensions of justice that underlie such cases, as this may affect the continuation or resolution of conflicts. Fraser's work [45] highlights aspects of justice that can have different foci when dealing with conflicts, ranging from justice of redistribution (especially in terms of a fair distribution of goods) to recognition (the appropriate highlighting of all stakeholders, such as minorities, in the discourse). Here a third aspect is offered with representation, alluding to the potential injustice of undermining certain political voices of members even within an already embedded community. Further, the work likewise mentions that conflicts are not so simple (dualistic) leading to the need for a reconsideration of what is just or, in the context of this work, the need for a nuanced assessment of conflicts.

2.2 The methodical approach of the study

In an attempt to assess methodically the issue of interwoven conflicts and to explore different types of conflicts that may exist, the following case studies are analysed using several variables to structure them. This study's approach is inspired by the work of Vuković et al. [11], who described this method for their study on the Danube River Basin concerning water conflicts. As a further method, the "TWINS" approach can be mentioned, which is used to examine coexisting conflict and cooperation in transboundary water cases [46] or the more detailed approach for the assessment of hegemonies and counter-hegemonies [26]. In Vuković's work, for the analysis, they used multiple variables, such as structural variables, type of conflict, and linkage variables, with the addition of "third-party involvement" as an intervening variable. Structural variables include the regional distribution of power between the parties to the conflict and the countries in the region, such as economic, geopolitical or military factors. However, it is also about the distribution of power over an issue, such as, for instance, the location of a water source. The type of conflict (variable) in their study looks at whether it is a more symbolic conflict, such as a conflict of perceptions, rather than a strategic conflict, which is more about the specific distribution of a resource and a subsequent conflict. By describing these two conflict types, they also note that different perceptions can make negotiations over water conflicts difficult. The linkage variables they describe for the study of international environmental cooperation, here by looking at the dimensions and issue areas, the policy linkages (domestic and international), and the actors, such as national or international actors potentially operating in both policy spheres. Last, with the final variable, third-party involvement, their intervening variable, they examine whether other actors were involved in the conflict, for example, acting as mediators or negotiators. In this approach, these variables are useable to determine whether cooperation is voluntary, induced or imposed by the conflict parties or another actor. Furthermore, while this study employs the approach to conflict research, the aforementioned analysis is focused on cooperation. Therefore, the following section will show how this study adopted the approach, as well as a graphical depiction of how the method is applied (Fig. 1). Although this study does not focus on the notion of cooperation, the lack of cooperation or some agreement is sometimes a part of the conflict or the cause that the conflict is still unresolved. However, a conflict could also be the cause for the development of future cooperation. Vuković's approach and assessment are also reflected in other studies of water conflicts, which demonstrate that conflict and cooperation often coexist and shift over time [47, 48]. This consideration was also the initial idea behind the use of this approach, which at first sight may seem somewhat removed from the study presented in this paper.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Graphical representation of the method’s application

Full size image

The first variable described in the original method, the structural variable, examines the parties involved and their potential power in this conflict. Building on this idea the proposed conflict analysis explores whether and how these factors correlate with conflicts. Thus, this variable also addresses one of the central ideas of this study, that conflict is about social and interpersonal aspects and that factors such as power can play a role. In this respect, the variable may include hidden politics that could affect the overall structure of the conflict. In this context, the term hidden politics refers to political processes that are not transparent, often accompanied by limited public statements or policy negotiations [49]. As a kind of intervening variable, third-party involvement in this adapted approach accompanies the structural variable and refers to parties that are not directly affected by the conflict but participate in it and could even be a kind of instance for conflict resolution, especially since in this study there is no direct international link between the parties.

The second variable, which is more interesting for this study, is the type of conflict. This study translates the symbolic and strategic conflict assessment into the three types of conflict discussed above. This adaptation reflects the recognition that water conflicts, including distributional conflicts, may be, or may evolve into, more than just a question of water distribution. This study also assumes that conflicting interests generally lead to distributional conflicts. It is also important to note here that there may be a difference between a "mere" conflict of interests and perhaps even corruption (e.g. by some of the actors) that is fuelling the conflict. By looking at the definitions of symbolic and strategic conflicts, symbolic conflicts primarily represent value and knowledge conflicts, as they have a more non-material focus. Strategic conflicts, on the other hand, are perceived as conflicts over "tangible interests" [11] and will therefore be translated into interest conflicts.

Finally, the linkage variables are, to an extent, taken over from the original approach. First, the linkage of issue or conflict dimensions and second, the linkage across issue or conflict areas will be analysed in this study as in the original approach. In this study, the third linkage, that between domestic and international (bilateral) politics, would apply correspondingly. However, since this study is limited to national cases, this part is not relevant to the assessment and has been excluded. Other research may want to consider this linkage variable if applicable. Nevertheless, the fourth linkage variable, the actor linkage in the case of these domestic examples, this study considers "both state and non-state player acting" potentially at the local, regional or national level adapted from the national and international level. This linkage also includes potential relationships between the stakeholders in the cases, for instance, the government in relation to the involved company as well as their interventions, which could relate to the aforementioned potential corruptions in a conflict. For potential studies on transboundary water conflicts, the linkage variables three and four still apply the same way as they were in the original approach. All these variables, but especially the linkage variables, already show the potential for interwovenness, as they indicate a multiplicity of aspects, not to mention potential changes over time. Furthermore, many different linkages might be possible in the examples for each linkage variable, as actor networks in particular allow entanglements. For example, an economic dimension that could play a role in the conflict, affecting certain interests and the scope for action of the parties involved.

In addition to this concept and as this paper understands that actors are an essential part of a conflict, there will also be a focus and a listing of relevant actors in the examples. As already mentioned, conflict can have implications for potential future cooperation, there ought to be many possible developments for any case. Therefore, structuring a current conflict might improve its implementation in scenario building.

The following section will explore two cases from Germany using this adapted framework. These case studies primarily relied on publicly available sources, such as newspaper articles, that documented the events. In terms of sources, for instance, different newspaper websites for the same case were considered to reduce potential bias in the coverage. This also included the publication dates of the articles to focus on reports around the time of the case. All sources were qualitatively analysed based on the described method (the variables). This allowed for a more structured analysis of the cases, excluding any irrelevant aspects. To briefly outline the cases: First, the study will look at two sides of water exploitation in an industrial case. The focus is on Currenta, a service company that owns chemical plants in the region around Leverkusen. Although other companies could have similar stories, at least in the case of water demand, it is a helpful example of different conflicts affecting one company. Second, it is an example of a conflict that has been going on for more than 50 years, where the conflict started over water distribution but may have developed into something bigger. The case is about an area south of Hamburg called Nordheide, where two sides are interested in the available groundwater. The following figure (Fig. 2) illustrates the location of the cases and gives a further indication of the various dimensions (and complexity) of water conflicts by showing an example of soil aridity also affecting both areas. These maps depict the extent of soil drought in Germany, as determined by the drought monitor of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) using a hydrological modelling system and daily data from around 2,500 weather stations [50].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Geographical visualization of the case study locations in relation to soil aridity

Full size image

3 Water conflict examples from Germany

3.1 Currenta—handling between wastewater and freshwater

This example will examine two conflict sub-cases since it is the same company (Currenta). Sub-case A addresses a wastewater discharge issue, while sub-case B deals with the company's demand for more water abstraction rights.

Following an explosion at a Currenta site in July 2021 that killed seven people, not only was there controversy over the safety of the area [51], but the water-related conflict that arose from this incident was what to do with the remaining water used in the fire and the water that had already been discharged. In this case, sub-case A, the water used to extinguish the fire thus contaminated with chemicals, and a conflict arose over the wastewater distribution. Before this conflict even came to public attention, some of the water was allegedly already being illegally discharged into the Rhine, apparently with the knowledge of the regional government [52]. It is worth noting that the Rhine is a significant river in Germany, serving as a crucial source of industrial water, shipping, and in some areas, even drinking water and tourism. A river that, especially before comprehensive environmental protection, has always been severely impacted by industrial pollution [53]. Given this historical background, it is reasonable to assume that any new pollution could create strong tensions. The Greens, the major environmental party in Germany, accused the politicians responsible for concealing the fact that 9.5 million litres of contaminated water were to be discharged into the Rhine while publicly announcing that all the water had been collected and properly disposed of [54]. About 18 months after the explosion, Currenta obtained the approval to discharge the remaining 20 million litres of water into the Rhine, but only with the polluted water being sufficiently filtered [55].

In addition to this controversial incident, there was already another conflict concerning this company, sub-case B, as Currenta was trying to increase its water withdrawal rights. Therefore, two sides of the conflict over water distribution are observable concerning a single institution: Wastewater discharge or distribution and process water extraction or distribution. Currenta holds water rights at many sites at the Rhine, one of which expired in 2020, meaning that the company had to re-apply [56]. As part of the reapplication process, they also applied for an increase in the amount of water extracted from the site which, if granted and combined with their other water rights, would amount, for instance, to five times the annual consumption of the population of Cologne [57]. In particular, BUND, a German environmental association, which is concerned about the drying up of the surrounding landscape, some of which is already visible, has opposed this proposal [57]. However, after making its plans available to the public, as required by law, Currenta now has to wait and see what the district government of Cologne decides to do [56].

Starting with the twofold conflict, although this case could illustrate the intertwined nature even more, it is essential not to mix these two somewhat independent conflict parts (the sub-cases). First, for the structural variables, it is observable that the conflict triggered by the deadly explosion in Sub-case A has political actors playing an active role. More precisely, a political conflict fuelled by different political actors, with one side apparently in the interests of the company Currenta or at least not with decisive action against this company, which may be related to hidden politics, although not verifiable. However, because companies usually bring economic benefits to the city or region, politicians may overlook some problems in favour of the company. While the other political side is more in favour of the environment and the inhabitants, this case is also potentially useful as an advertisement for their parties. These conflicting interests are depicted in Table 1. Although both sides are political actors, the politicians currently in charge have a slight power advantage, as some of the knowledge and especially decisions are in their hands [55]. In the parallel conflict over the renewal and increase of water extraction rights (sub-case B), the company is more involved (as an actor) in conflict with the public. Potentially affected by the mishandling of the explosion and the wastewater, the company is also dependent on political actors, especially the decision-making authority, to allow the renewal of the rights. The legal system, embodied by decision-makers or politicians, is an intervening variable in both conflicts, acting as an intermediary, although there is always leeway affected by the relationship between companies and the government. Concerning wastewater, at least, the power of the ruling parties was able to overrule the conflict and impose a "solution" of discharging the polluted water into the Rhine [55]. However, it remains an open case whether and how the conflict over water rights will be resolved, as further development will depend on the eventual decisions. The political actors will decide on the continuation of water rights, possible increases or decreases, or other solutions, where each decision can lead to new developments, such as social, environmental but also economic consequences.

Table 1 Actor overview for the Currenta conflicts
Full size table

Regarding conflict types, the conflict over water rights is currently in an early state depicting a distribution conflict fuelled by different interests. In particular, since the decision on the future of their water rights is still open, there has been no continuation of the conflict, such as over the decision. The conflict, if present, is only between the political actors, who are discussing Currenta's request non-publicly [56], which may have to balance multiple interests, including potential economical for the region. However, the other part of this twofold conflict, the explosion and the subsequent issue of wastewater distribution, seems to have developed into a web of different types of conflict until a political decision resolved the case. Even though the tangible problem started with illegal distribution and then developed into the question of appropriate wastewater disposal, the conflict surrounding this case began in the realm of knowledge. One side, particularly the Greens, argued that knowledge of Currenta's activities had not been communicated sufficiently to the public and that the information about this incident was kept somewhat hidden [54] as maybe the ruling party works in favour of the company instead of the public. However, the politicians responsible responded that they were having an open discourse with the public about what was happening. After the relevant information became public, this conflict of knowledge turned into a conflict of interest, again on the part of the Greens, because discharging the wastewater into the Rhine would be against their values. Although not on this interpersonal level, a political decision resolved the conflict by giving Currenta the right to discharge their wastewater into the Rhine. The question here (in both cases) is to what extent there was corruption in the decision-making positions, or whether it is more a case of an extended conflict of interest.

As for the linkage variables, a web of linkages is observable: First, regarding issue dimensions, the two conflict parts (wastewater and water rights) connect to this one company and location. This issue dimension could become even more important in the future, depending on the outcome of the water rights case (e.g. if the wastewater accident affected this case). However, even for each side independently, there is a link between the dimensions of the problem. For the wastewater accident, the dimensions of the problem revolve around two water issues: Firstly, the already polluted water and its treatment, and secondly, the potential risk to another water body (the river) from this wastewater.

While for the issue areas, the opponents of the wastewater discharge focused on environmental issues linked to safety, the other side tried not to attach the conflict to other areas and was more interested in finding a solution, even if this solution might not be perfect. In this case, as these links never really got beyond conflicting interests, the case was addressed and even resolved as such. Nevertheless, one side blamed the lack of concrete information in this case and so initially, the focus of discussion was knowledge, but did not specify it in terms of potential corruption and would be rather in this case an attempt at hidden politics. However, after the information got public, it was no longer an essential part of this conflict. Finally, for the actors, a predominant side of political actors is noticeable, who to a certain degree stand in affiliation with each other, as they are in the same government. As these relevant actors were in the district government, they were regional political discussing and deciding on a regional to a local level, as the effects on the river would at least affect the near vicinity further than some cities and potentially even cross the border, as the Rhine connects many countries.

Regarding the conflict over water rights, the dimension of the problem remained that of the conflict over the right to distribute water. In this case, however, Currenta itself broadened the issue area, or at least tried to address potential problem areas, by ensuring that the water is technically not used but only "borrowed", mainly for cooling purposes [56]. On the actor side, the media more than other actors, such as the public or political stakeholders, nourished this conflict through their coverage. Even when Currenta had to publicise their proposal, no conflict seemed to have stemmed from it. It is now open how the conflict actors will change after there is an initial decision. Finally, to summarise, these two conflicts had different developments; one case proved to be more tied to different interests and values and focused on missing knowledge, while the other was and is still in the process of weaving together.

3.2 Nordheide—an everlasting dispute?

The Nordheide is famous for its clean groundwater and was, and still is, an important water source for Hamburg. Hamburg, which has lost many of its groundwater sources due to salinization, has tried to fill the gaps with places around it, which is why the Nordheide only accounts for about 13% of the water used in Hamburg, which, according to the opinion of the inhabitants of this area, is far too much [58]. Notably, this conflict has been active for around 50 years when fears of a dry Nordheide were already circulating [59]. Over the years, water extraction has remained stable and even had reductions in recent years. However, there is still a dispute with the city of Hamburg, or in this case, its water company called "Hamburg Wasser", and the municipalities in the Nordheide. (Unless stated otherwise, Hamburg in the following refers to the water supplier rather than the city.) In 2019, Hamburg applied for a new groundwater permit, where they received a revocable temporary permit if the monitoring institutes examine water stress. It was a controversial decision for both the water company and the residents. For Hamburg Wasser, the amount of water was too small, and the source was unreliable because of the temporary permit. Thus, this example depicts two extreme sides, with Hamburg arguing for more water withdrawal and the Nordheide municipalities arguing for less water or none.

Again, by using the adapted approach the structural variables are the first focus. In this case, the central actors are, as depicted in Table 2, on the one hand, "Hamburg Wasser" as the water supplier. This industrial actor has a specific influence because, indirectly, the drinking water and the interests of the inhabitants, as sufficient supply, will always be a priority. On the other hand, a range of public actors is observable, from the residents of Nordheide itself to environmental organisations and dedicated interest groups or associations for the protection of the Nordheide area and especially the water resources and rivers. Given that the conflict is still ongoing, it is safe to assume that neither of the actors involved in this dispute had more (political) influence than the other did. It should be noted, though, that at least the city of Hamburg, because of its water needs, could be in favour of the company, even if not publicly, and may have more influence in the future due to its status as a city-state. In this case, the intervening party is the court or the judges, who can be assessed here as a negotiator, even though either side did not accept the judgement. Hamburg may also have influenced this intervening actor sufficiently to allow it to continue having temporary water access to meet the city's needs. When looking at the nature of the conflict, a kind of intertwining is perceivable: What was, and to some extent essentially still is a distributional conflict has also become a conflict of values and knowledge. First, to the potential conflict of values: Nordheide, which once had beautiful rivers and seas for swimming and fishing, is now or will be a dry place, judging by the fears of its inhabitants. The residents value nature and their history with the area, making it likely an important part of their identity, which is linked to the (ground) water in the area for people and the environment. This potential conflict of values intensified when people who had lived in the area for a long time noticed a steady decline in the rivers, some of which are now completely dry [60]. This symbolic aspect is observable in one of the interest groups in the Nordheide, which uses a camel in its logo to represent its perception that the Nordheide will be dry in the future. Following this track of values (value conflict), Hamburg values water more as a resource to sustain the population in the city. Due to industrial demand and population growth, the water demand has steadily increased, but it is also reasonable to assume that the company has an economic interest as well, since they would benefit from an increased distribution of the water. In this case, it could be argued that the two sides are not at odds over values, as it is much more a matter of water interests for Hamburg.

Table 2 Actor overview for the Nordheide conflict
Full size table

While there is this conflict of values on the side of the inhabitants, a new type of conflict has emerged with the growing awareness of climate change. In particular, the conflict over knowledge or even non-knowledge emerged, in this case, because of uncertainty. As the new water rights debate unfolded, both sides increasingly used information and therefore knowledge to argue their case to win the superimposed conflict over water distribution. On the one hand, there was the argument of climate change, parallel to the extraction of groundwater by Hamburg, which has led to a creeping degradation of this area. Consequently, residents argued, and still argue, that due to current weather trends, the water operators should reduce or stop pumping. On the other hand, Hamburg also argued to some extent that climate change has had and will affect surface water, even though it is unrelated to their groundwater extraction in the Nordheide area. While both sides used knowledge, one from Hamburg specifically showed that the surface and groundwater sources were not connected, meaning there was probably no link between their actions and the notable drought trends in the area.

The dispute over their knowledge and, to some extent, the uncertainty felt by residents led to many court cases. In a recent instance, the judges agreed with Hamburg's assessment [61] but decided to reduce groundwater extraction slightly, given the current climate change. This decision shows that the judiciary may have also recognised the future developments' uncertainty. However, this outcome was not a victory for either side, as Hamburg had to reduce their water withdrawal, and the residents could not stop the water extraction they had planned.

Looking at the linkages, at first, a mesh of issue dimensions is observable; the residents of Nordheide on the one hand value their region and address the water conflict regarding the local environment. Hamburg, on the other hand, tries not to dismiss this issue but raises, on the contrary, the issue of water supply for drinking water on a regional level. As the Nordheide provides usable drinking water for nearby towns, this dimension intensifies when linked to a global perspective of climate change and potential water impacts. Regarding the actors, the residents and civic groups are arguing not only on a local but also later even on a regional level and above, here bringing in political actors, primarily judges. In addition, the water company initially acted on a local level, discussing with the people in Nordheide. However, they turned to the abovementioned judges to help settle the case when the dispute escalated.

4 Discussion

4.1 Limitations

Before discussing the results and their implications on conflict analysis, some potential limitations will be explored. One limitation of this study might be it is only an exploratory assessment of the cases, which was considered useful given the methodological research objective of this study. In addition, this study only used publicly available documents, which may have limited the information one the cases. For this exploratory approach, the information publicly available was sufficient, but for follow-up and more in-depth studies on the cases, additional information is recommended. In addition, the selection of cases is always a potential limitation, as any study leaves out potentially other valuable cases. In particular, as this study focused on Germany and therefore omitted similar or comparable cases from other countries. However, the demonstration of this methodology is intended to encourage similar studies in other countries or even concerning multiple nations, such as the case study of the original approach of the method, which covered a Hungarian-Slovakian conflict and inspired this work on German water conflicts.

In addition to the method, a lack of other variables can be mentioned, especially a temporal dimension, which could be useful for conflicts that have lasted for a long time or are even still ongoing. In general, it is obvious that this method only really allows the analysis of the variables that are included in it. As a result, important aspects of the study of conflict may not be at the centre of attention. It would therefore certainly be possible to include other aspects in the analysis, but these would then have to be integrated into the general method of analysis. However, an overly comprehensive analysis with a wide range of variables could make the study too confusing and, in the worst case, no longer precise or meaningful. This is also a reason why an exploratory assessment of the cases was chosen, as described in the first limitation. Nevertheless, some minor extensions, such as temporal components, appear to be important limitations that might be of interest for further research. In addition to the aforementioned limitations, it might also be beneficial to consider alternative approaches to conflict assessment. The choice of theoretical lens, in this case on conflict or conflict assessment, imposes a specific perspective (and thus potential theoretical limitations) on the findings. Nevertheless, alternative approaches may yield different results. From this more theoretical perspective, it is also important to be aware that conflict assessment can be more practically oriented, aimed at developing policy options for aid agencies [62], or even actively engaging with the relevant parties and attempting to find a solution [63]. In addition, there is also research (“conflict assessment”) into the possible effects that actions or ventures might have on a conflict or peace-building [64]. A review of different approaches to conflict analysis, for example, showed the different ways of collecting data and also mentioned the lenses, such as academic or practical assessment, as well as an interesting way of assessing the perspectives of practitioners [65]. The chosen approach would result in different outcomes, as it would then be focused on resolving the specific conflict at hand, rather than providing a more general overview. Again, there would be a difference in the way stakeholders are actively involved, for example through interviews and other methods to address, for example, criticisms of community approaches [66]. Finally, as already alluded to, the utility of conflict assessment can be questioned, especially as cases (conflicts) can always change and thus some might criticise such approaches, especially if the assessment provides an overly broad answer. Especially in the case of conflict assessment for mediation, there are debates on the universality of approaches [67] or even the missing local perspectives as most analyses are done by paid external teams [68]. On the other hand, in order to resolve any conflict, some form of assessment is needed at some point, but also by acknowledging its potential shortcomings.

4.2 Reviewing the cases (political implications)

By comparing the cases for an overview, see Table 3, similar aspects of these cases and their differences are observable. In all these cases, a political actor or government-related decision-maker is part of the structure of the conflict. In all conflicts, decision-makers have been or will be actively involved in the development of the conflict. However, in only one case was a political decision able to stop the conflict for the time by addressing the conflict object (the wastewater), but not to a mutual agreement. Moreover, regarding water rights, the verdict could further fuel the conflict. In all cases, the conflicts are to some extent related to water distribution, but as explored in this study, there is more to these conflicts than just the distribution of water. In the case of Currenta, it can be seen on the one hand that a political decision resolved the distribution conflict—making this political decision because of the emergency at hand rather than trying to resolve the issue of wastewater distribution for all parties to the conflict. On the other hand, the distribution conflict is more latent and fuelled by diverging values and interests and is not per se dependent on limited water resources but the decision of political actors. Finally, for Nordheide, it is traceable how a conflict initially around the dispute over water distribution was much more than the discussion around groundwater. Rather than just discussing different interests, the residents first incorporated values based on their identity that conflicted with this ongoing water extraction. In response to the use of knowledge, Hamburg also moved to this level of conflict by presenting its own initiated expert assessment. After that, when the court decided neither party was satisfied, the conflict returned to the level of interests and values, pending possible reassessments. Water relates to the environmental dimension and its potential negative aspects in all these cases. In the case of Nordheide, the issue lies more in the loss of drinking water, which is why this conflict still seems unresolved.

Table 3 Summarising overview of the study’s cases
Full size table

As seen in the examples, there are always many links between cases and conflicts, and parallel to this ongoing conflict over water in the Nordheide, there was another conflict over water needs in the immediate vicinity. In this instance, the Coca-Cola Company, which has a mineral water plant in this northern area, planned to build another well [69]. This case illustrates the interconnectedness of conflicts or areas of application. However, unlike in the Hamburg case, the company stopped its plans after much public protest, even after only some months compared to this “Nordheide—Hamburg” case that has been ongoing for years. To draw some political implications from this, it shows the social value of water, which is particularly important for Hamburg Wasser because it supplies a city with drinking water and the conflict has been going on for such a long time. In addition, even for Currenta, with its proposed water rights, the outcome could be the emergence of new conflicts and further intermingling. Recommendations in this regard, as far as this analysis and method is concerned, are to look in particular at the side of the stakeholders in this conflict and what their interests are in the conflict. Furthermore, once the stakeholders have been identified for potential policies, the framing of the conflict seems to be helpful for finding appropriate solutions, are there interests that need to be compromised, is more knowledge needed to assess the case, or are there values that need to be taken seriously? An assessment of the justice or injustice that might be fostered could further add to a reflective policy process. In particular, the environmental perspective needs to be brought more into focus, as the impact on nature was at some point at the centre of the conflict in all cases.

4.3 Further and subsequent research (theoretical implications)

As some of the conflicts are still ongoing or others, such as wastewater, could lead to new conflicts in the future, it might be interesting to examine such cases with a view to the future. In addition to structuring conflicts for further analysis, Vuković's approach might also be useable for scenario building. Because it is precisely the view from today to tomorrow that could also be important for conflicts and their solution or prevention. Particularly if the participants or decision-makers are also involved. It might also be interesting to look at the case in advance and compare it with the actual events. Based on the results of the method, there are already the following basic data for the analysed cases: The structural variables, which explore the general architecture of the conflict with the parties involved. The linking variables, here in terms of dimensions and areas, indicate important parts of the conflict. In addition, the underlying types of conflict can provide a direction for future developments. Vuković's approach and this adaptation illustrate not only the theoretical potential of assessing conflicts in a more structured manner but also the possibility of utilising these variables in ways that extend beyond evaluating the outcomes of individual cases.

Therefore, when following the idea of structuring, a scenario approach using these analysed structures may be subsequent research. Searching for a suitable approach led to identifying 'cross-impact balances' (CIB) as an appropriate way of integrating different variables to create scenarios [70], 71. This approach seems to integrate easily the variables studied in this paper and others, as the descriptors allow for general main variables or factors with different characteristics. There are even applications of the CIB method in the context of water [72, 73] or water conflicts [74].

In addition to this direction for future research with a scenario method, other aspects would be valuable to explore. As far as these case studies are concerned, they could be further explored by contextualising the conflicts even more with other aspects in the surrounding area, as alluded to at the beginning of the discussion with the case of Coca-Cola in the Nordheide region. The in this study employed approach, or the original one of conducting comparative studies could also be used to assess other conflicts over water. As for the approach itself, there are opportunities to evaluate how such an approach applies to different issues outside of water conflicts, or even more broadly to public or private conflicts in general. In addition to this slight modification of the approach, there are still opportunities to explore other modifications. For example, as mentioned in the limitations, it may be useful to emphasise a temporal dimension, which could be inspired by the “TWINS” approach [46] or by extending the view on justice. In general, there are many opportunities to vary the choice of cases and to expand such an analysis to other water conflicts or conflicts regarding different topics (e.g. other resources). As this study has shown that there has been a dynamic change in the type of conflict, but that most of the conflicts are related to a political entity, it would be particularly interesting to see studies of other countries in order to compare how conflicts develop there. Finally, and more importantly, further research on conflict assessment and its potential for structuring research on a theoretical level is recommended, as it is still a field with so many possibilities and uncertainties.

5 Conclusion

This study focused on two water-related cases to examine the question: In what ways are the conflicts interwoven, and how can structuring based on this approach help in understanding them more comprehensively? Potential water distribution conflicts were examined with respect to their complexity, using a variable-based conflict assessment approach. For the first case, a twofold conflict field of the firm Currenta was explored, which on the one hand, had a convoluted conflict about the distribution of wastewater that followed a fatal explosion. On the other hand, they desired to continue water rights for their industrial processes. The second case is a longstanding and ongoing conflict over water extraction from a small rural region called Nordheide.

However, although these cases were related to water distribution to some extent, (1) the analysis showed that there is more to water conflicts than just the distribution and differing interest in its usage. (2) The analysis also revealed that a number of different elements were involved in the conflicts, which served to increase the overall complexity of the situation, such as actors, their interests, but also values and knowledge, as well as other boundary conditions. The case about the explosion revealed another side of distributional conflicts, this time not over limited water desired by certain parties, but over the disposal of polluted wastewater into a river, shaped by political interests against environmental values. In addition, Currenta's water rights proposal indicated a distribution conflict based on the (economic) interest of one side (the company) against the possible decision not to allow the extension. In contrast, Nordheide is a case that started as a distribution conflict and is now a repeating conflict over different views and values.

With regard to the methodology, (3) the employed variable-based approach proved to be practical for case studies on conflicts, as it unfolds not only the different parts of a conflict but also the linkages that can be important for the development and completion or continuation of the given conflict, as well as the potential to adjust the analysis variables. Thus, this approach can be useful for studying past or current conflicts and potentially also for future-oriented conflict research. The idea of better understanding conflicts through structuring, but also of translating this structuring into future research, which emerged during the development of the study, was briefly discussed. Furthermore, (4) the study revealed that this approach with the different variables provides a good basis for scenario research. In this context, the approach is useful because it guides towards the present and future interactions of different factors, such as the actors with their interests and actions, as well as the actions or consequences. Finally, to conclude: Especially in conflicts that are still ongoing or in cases that have the potential for future conflicts, a suitable structuring might be useful to consider to map present cases for the future.