Stefan Döring

Cooperation and Conflict amid Water Scarcity

Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Sal IV, Universitetshuset (University Main Building), Biskopsgatan 3, Uppsala, Friday, 13 May 2022 at 10:00 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor Päivi Lujala (University of Oulu, Finland).

Abstract Döring, S. 2022. Cooperation and Conflict amid Water Scarcity. Report / Department of Peace and Conflict Research 127. 61 pp. Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research. ISBN 978-91-506-2936-1.

Over two billion people remain without safe drinking water and more than four billion lack basic access to sanitation. Safely managing water is key for livelihoods, food security, energy production, and overall socio-economic development. This dissertation analyzes how scarce water resources affect cooperation and conflict. First, I study water scarcity in relation to communal violence. Second, I consider how water scarcity can be a source of cooperative behavior, a key ingredient to peace.

This dissertation contributes to research on peace and conflict issues and across other disciplines, studying the consequences of water scarcity. Essay I shows how lacking groundwater access increases incidences of communal violence. This is the first study on armed conflict that combines data on groundwater, surface water, and precipitation. Essay II analyzes spatial spillover processes of conflict-inducing factors. The study introduces a theoretical framework explaining spillover dynamics of communal conflict. Furthermore, the analysis shows that drought explains violence not locally but through wider neighborhood exposure. Essay III suggests drought-prone regions could be harbingers for water cooperation even in places with a history of violence. This research is also the first to analyze water cooperation at the sub-national level, thereby providing more detailed insights into peaceful hydropolitics. Essay IV shifts to the individual level. Studying the effect of exposure to water scarcity on altruism, the essay contributes to our understanding of microdynamics in conflict and adds to social psychological research on altruism.

In sum, the dissertation makes four broader contributions. First, the findings suggest we need to look beyond resource scarcity as a cause for conflict. Instead we ought to study the potential of peaceful resource sharing and cooperation. Second, the dissertation addresses political actions by both individuals and groups, while also considering those in relation to government action. Addressing different group levels is key because conflict or cooperation dynamics address different spheres of action (individual, group, state). Third, the dissertation covers Africa, the Southern Mediterranean, and parts of the Middle East, thereby showing relevant findings for a larger geographic area than many previous studies. Lastly, the dissertation contributes to research on water issues by focusing on access to groundwater, which has been largely neglected in previous research. The findings can provide insights into our understanding of sustainable water management and environmental peacebuilding. Climate change challenges how we engage with water and, therefore, we must find more sustainable ways to use this resource.

Keywords: conflict, cooperation, water, water scarcity, drought, communal violence, non-state actors, environmental peacebuilding, environmental security, groundwater, water security, geo-referenced data, climate variability, natural disaster, resilience

Stefan Döring, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Box 514, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden.

© Stefan Döring 2022

ISSN 0566-8808 ISBN 978-91-506-2936-1 URN urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-470330 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-470330)

List of essays

This thesis is based on the following essays, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals.

I Stefan Döring. Come Rain, or Come Wells: How Access To Groundwater Affects Communal Violence. Political Geography, Volume 76, January 2020, 102073.

II Stefan Döring and Katariina Mustasilta. Spatial Patterns of Communal Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Unpublished manuscript. Last presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention 2019, Toronto, Canada. Lead author: Stefan Döring

III Stefan Döring. From Bullets to Boreholes: A Disaggregated Analysis of Domestic Water Cooperation in Drought-prone Regions. Global Environmental Change, Volume 65, November 2020, 102147.

IV Stefan Döring and Jonathan Hall. Drought exposure and altruism: Evidence from Surveys. Last presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention 2022, Nashville, USA. Lead author: Stefan Döring

Reprints were made with permission from the publishers.

Kappa: Introduction to the Dissertation

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Central Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Relation to Existing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Presenting the Essays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Acknowledgments

Plenty of water has run under bridges since I began my studies at the Depart-ment in 2012. The starting point on my PhD journey was working as a research assistant in 2014. Without this job, I might have done something completely different, therefore I express my gratitude to Kristine Eck and Håvard Hegre who hired me. The greatest thing about working at the Department stems from the sheer amount of expertise in peace and conflict research, but also the colle-giality and friendship one can find on its corridors and through conversations in the fika room. This dissertation benefited from many such conversations, including discussions on methods and data, but also lots of other things that have little to do with research, but are invaluable for work spirit. While it is impossible to mention everyone that helped in one way or another, I want to collectively thank the Department for creating this working environment that made it a lot easier to write the dissertation.

I also want to express gratitude to my two PhD supervisors: Håvard Hegre and Ashok Swain. Thank you for instilling in me a great sense of indepen-dence and agency over my own work. All along I knew that there was a light-house if I would hit some rough seas, and I am especially thankful for all the encouragement when I needed it the most.

One of the best things about the Department’s PhD program are in fact the supervision groups. In the beginning of my studies, I was part of the newly formed Fresh Monday group. I thank Karen Brounéus and Isak Svensson for their guidance in the crucial fledgling phases of my project– much of the advice has stuck with me ever since. I later moved to the other Monday group (now convening on Wednesdays). For their advice and leadership, I would like to thank Magnus Öberg, Hanne Fjelde, Håvard Hegre, Nina von Uexkull, and Lisa Hultman. Somebody once said that the supervision groups could be called peer-supervision groups. Clearly, I received some of the best feedback during the group meetings and I learned so much through the discussions with my fellow PhD students. I am extremely thankful for the excellent advice on even the most drafty drafts from: Charlotte, Susanne, Kyungmee, Anni, Eric, Karin, Sophia, Ida, David R., Mihai, Kristina, Gulla, Jenniina, Marcelina, and Maxine.

I thank everyone for participating in engaging discussions at Department’s Research Paper Seminar. For their valuable feedback, I would like to espe-cially thank my discussants Nina von Uexkull, Florian Krampe and Kristine Eck. I am also very grateful to Hanne Fjelde and Emma Elfversson who thor-oughly engaged with the dissertation during the manuscript conference.

I would also like to thank my co-authors. It has been great to work with you Katariina, your optimism was truly contagious. Jonathan, it has also been a pleasure to work with you; I really appreciated the continuous encouragement.

7

What makes the Department’s doctoral program so special is the sense of togetherness among PhD students. From my first days as a PhD student I remember fondly how senior PhD colleagues gave me key advice and how I could just walk into a colleague’s office when I had a question. I would like to acknowledge many of these colleagues that have since graduated, but provided key support: Ralph Sundberg, Lisa Ekman, Colin Walch, Ilmari Käikö, Florian Krampe, Nina von Uexkull, Mathilda Lindgren, Emma Elfversson, Sara Lind-berg Bromley, Nynke Salverda, Niklas Karlén, Anne Deglow, Sophia Hatz, Charlotte Grech-Madin, Anni Tritschoks, Eric Skoog, David Larsson Gebre-Medhin, Sebastian van Baalen, Kyungmee Kim, Ida Rudolfsen, and Karin Johansson. I would also like to give a huge thank you to Stina, Desirée and Hanne for their excellence in leading the PhD program and for helping to cre-ate this working environment.

While I have tried to keep the acknowledgments to work-related expres-sions of gratitude, it is often impossible to distinguish colleagues and friends. Coming to the office has always been something I looked forward to, because I really like to do research, but also because I can spend time with friends. Thus, I thank all of you for providing additional motivation to come to work. Extra thanks go to my PhD-cohort: my first PhD office mate Charlotte, a con-stant stream of wisdom; Eric, who no matter how stressed he was, always made time to help; Anni, who is probably the most caring person in the world, and more importantly helped me to keep alive my "sächseln"; Kyungmee, a bedrock of encouragement; and lastly Ida, who left us on several occasions (first the fourth floor, then the country) but gave great advice on what to focus on. I would also like to mention Susanne S. who has been an amazing col-league and provider of key feedback on teaching, research, and much more. I thank Sophia for being a key sounding board through the years. Also Karin has been a great listener and source of advice in any life and work situation. It is impossible to list everyone, but I would also like to give an honorable mention to David, Espen, Florian, Kate, Kristina, Niklas, Sabine, Tom and Yumiko.

There are many other great colleagues at the Department who helped me along the way. First, I thank Erika Forsberg for giving me the opportunity to start teaching before the PhD program and for being a great teaching mentor through many years. I am also grateful to Peter Wallensteen who on several occasions introduced me to policy makers and always highlighted the impor-tance of research on water. From my time as a Master’s student, I would like to thank Joakim Kreutz, my thesis supervisor, and Anders Themnér, my stu-dent mentor; both sparked my interest in research and told me more about the PhD program. I would also like to thank Marga Sollenberg and Sebastian van Baalen for sharing with me their wisdom and enthusiasm for football, often making me looking forward to the Thursday fika already during CL evenings. It is fair to say that almost nothing at the Department would work without our administrative colleagues. Thus, I would like to give a special thank you to

8

Anna, Chris, Christofer, Helena M., Ingalill, Liana, Marie, Naima, Susanne O. and Ulla. As a frequent user of conflict data, I would also like to thank everyone who contributes to UCDP and related projects. You are doing an invaluable service to the research community. In the beginning of the PhD, I often knocked on the doors of anyone who could help me out with a question. In particular, I thank Lotta, Sam, Stina, Therese and Gabrielle for making time to discuss coding or helping me with teaching materials.

During my PhD I ventured outside Uppsala on several occasions. At UN Environment in Kenya I worked in the Freshwater Ecosystems Unit. I will al-ways remember the great working environment with amazing colleagues that made me quickly feel a part of the team. Big thanks go to Joakim Harlin, Lis Bernhardt, Alain Tchadie, Stuart Crane, June Jeong and Caroline Odhiambo. I also want to thank Lea for hosting me in Nairobi and reminding me that weekends are not for research. I am very happy that I could return to Ann Arbor for the fall of 2019. My stay at the University of Michigan would have not been possible without the generous support from Chris Fariss. I really enjoyed participating in the Conflict and Peace, Research and Development seminars and thank Christian Davenport for making sure that I was included in all activities – especially Fiesta. During my PhD I also spent two months with PRIO which was another great experience. My time in Oslo coincided with Halvard Buhaug being a visiting scholar in Uppsala and I am thankful that he still managed to connect me to the climate-conflict group from afar. I also thank Nils Petter Gleditsch for taking the time to talk environmental politics and about a draft of what became the third essay. I want to thank Elis-abeth Rosvold and Jenny Lorentzen for integrating me into PRIOs PhD group as well as Cathrine Bye for the help with organizing my stay. My stay in Oslo was financed through the Research School on Peace and Conflict. For orga-nizing the School and many great workshops in Oslo and Cyprus, I would like to thank Covi Morales Bertrand, Marte Nilsen, Gregory Reichberg, Kristoffer Lidén, Lynn Nygaard and Jørgen Jensehaugen. During the workshops I had the opportunity to meet many amazing young scholars and was able to dis-cuss research with some good old friends: Benjamin Schaller, Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel, Phil Nelson and Wara Thiyagaraja. Trips outside the De-partment also included my first visit to Ann Arbor for ICPSR as well as for courses in Essex. I would like to thank Eric Skoog for being my room mate at ICPSR; long nights on assignments and museum visits would not have been nearly as fun. From my trips outside the Department, I also thank Philipp Schulz who encouraged me apply for the Department’s RA position in the first place and was my room mate during all my ISA trips. My last research stay brought me back to Cyprus. Though it came toward the end of my journey, for reasons outside my control, I look forward to engage more with everyone who took the time to discuss environmental cooperation and water scarcity.

My time outside the Department would have not been possible without the very generous support by the Anna-Maria-Lundin stipendiefond. A crucial

9

part of my work in Cyprus was supported by Forskraftstiftelsen Theodor Adel-swärds minne. I also acknowledge support for conferences from the Interna-tional Studies Association (ISA), the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) and the Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science (CNDS). This dissertation is written as part of the Research School on International Water Cooperation. I would like to thank Ashok for helping to bring the Research School to the Department. I acknowledge the support from the International Centre for Water Cooperation and SIWI, and in particular I would like to men-tion Marian J. Neal, Martina Klimes, Mats Eriksson, Therése Sjömander Mag-nusson and Jenny Grönwall.

As my studies progressed I more frequently reflected on privilege and social mobility. I am a first-generation Abitur graduate, the German high-school diploma required to go to college. Figures for Germany show only 1% of children from parents without university degrees go on to earn a doctorate degree.1 I have many reflections on this but it is fair to say that I would have not pursued a PhD if it was not fully funded. Thus, I am incredibly grateful to the opportunities the Swedish education system has provided to me and others.

On a more personal note, I would like to thank my family for their support over the years. Thank you for your support Anna, without you I would not be the person I am today. I appreciate that you and our children came along with me to Cyprus. I am grateful for having you by my side throughout this and many adventures to come.

There are so many that have been part of my journey. For those I have not mentioned, I hope you will forgive me.

Uppsala, March 2022 Stefan Döring

1This is about 10 times less than those with at least one parent holding a higher education diploma. Source: "Hochschul-Bildungs-Report 2020", Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wis-senschaft & McKinsey. Essen 2019.

10

Introduction

Social complexity stem[s] in part from the need to organize to confront water phenomena, whose scale far exceed[s] the agency of any individual. The scale of those phenomena, in turn, [is] a consequence of the physical properties of water. [...] If the energy used in the global economy – all transport, power plants, homes, heating systems – were one unit of energy, then the water cycle of an average hurricane releases roughly one unit, the Asian monsoon about ten units, and the global annual precipitation several thousand units.

Water overwhelms humanity.

From: Boccaletti (2021, p. 10)

Is water a source for peace or a harbinger for conflict? Most researchers probably agree with Rapoport’s statement that "conflict and cooperation are complementary" (1992, p. 83). Yet, peace and conflict scholars predominantly study resource scarcity as a cause of war. This tendency is not specific to work on water or other natural resources. Systematic research on the outcomes of peace still remains piecemeal compared to the ocean of studies on violent con-flict. As peace and conflict scholars, we eagerly study conflict duration, the involved actors, the types of violence, or the intensity of fighting. One might ask why similar systematic approaches are not as prevalent for the study of peace. There is clearly no dearth in notable conceptualizations of peace be-yond the absence of violence (Galtung 1969; Boulding 1978; Rapoport 1992; Höglund & Söderberg Kovacs 2010; Wallensteen 2011; Themnér & Ohlson 2014; Wallensteen 2015; Goertz 2016; Davenport, Melander, & Regan 2018; Söderström, Åkebo & Jarstad 2020). Studying peace and conflict in a single study remains methodologically and theoretically challenging. For this disser-tation as a whole, I do not favor either conflict or peace. I study both. With a focus on water scarcity, this dissertation analyzes how resource access affects cooperation and conflict.

In the dissertation’s first part, I study water scarcity in relation to a specific type of conflict, namely communal violence. The second part deals with water scarcity as a source of cooperative behavior; this includes individual as well as group level cooperation. I consider cooperative behavior as a key ingredient

11

to peace. Furthermore, the essays in the second part also account for previous exposure to violence, thereby further linking cooperation and conflict.

Safely managing water is key for livelihoods, food security, energy produc-tion and overall socio-economic development. The good news is that the vast majority of people have safe access to water. Over the last century, worldwide water use has increased sixfold and is estimated to increase at about 1% per year for the foreseeable future (UN Water 2020). Yet over two billion people remain without safe drinking water and more than four billion lack basic ac-cess to sanitation (ibid). There are about 160 million people who fetch water from a river or lake, the majority of them in Sub-Saharan Africa (WHO 2017). An estimated 844 million people worldwide spend 30 minutes or more to col-lect water for everyday needs. In rural Ethiopia, for instance, average daily fetching for drinking water may be five hours per household and this work is predominantly done by women and children (Calow et al 2010). During El Niño drought periods, collecting water can take up to 12 hours a day and then often requires entire families to help (MacDonald et al 2019). Globally, 80% of households without their own water supply rely on women and girls to fetch their water (WHO 2017; Devoto et al 2012). On a large scale we may notice great improvements in water supply, yet a significant amount of people across the globe continue to face serious challenges.

Furthermore it is not possible to separate water supply issues from climate change. Climate change poses additional risks to sustainable water manage-ment as extreme variation in weather directly impacts the hydrological cy-cle; major environmental hazards such as drought and flooding are prime ex-amples. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that global population growth propelled through higher consumption "caused un-precedented rates of land and freshwater use", with agriculture alone account-ing for approximately 70% of worldwide water usage (Shukla et al 2019, p. 7). This development has contributed to higher greenhouse gas emissions as well as significant losses to ecosystems such as forests, savannahs, and wetlands (ibid). We know that climate change accelerates land degradation through ex-ceptional occurrences of precipitation, flooding, droughts, dry periods, and heat waves – all phenomena which the IPCC predicts to increase in frequency for the foreseeable future (Seneviratne et al 2012; Shukla et al 2019). These developments threaten livelihoods because degrading water quality and quan-tity further elicits severe socio-economic consequences.

As a unique resource, water has garnered research interest across disci-plinary boundaries. For example, access to piped water supply decreases early childhood mortality and waterborne infectious diseases (Merrick 1985; Fewtrell et al 2005; Humphrey 2009; Pickering & Davis 2012; Duflo et al 2015). Improved sanitation minimizes childhood diarrhea, a cause for stunt-ing, by 30% (Bhutta et al 2008). Positive health effects through improving water access are more significant in lower income countries, and particu-larly among the least-privileged income groups. Yet, even in areas with rela-

12

tively high public health standards, improving water access can significantly ameliorate living conditions. For example, establishing household pipes can strengthen social integration and mental health (Devoto et al 2012). These are important insights that inform more general research on water and society.

Peace and conflict literature has studied water issues at the inter-state, intra-state and local levels. There are two main strands of literature in regard to wa-ter scarcity. For water sharing more generally, existing research has focused on freshwater basins and how interactions over transboundary rivers create disputes or foster cooperation (Bernauer & Böhmelt 2020). Studying coop-erative interactions at the subnational level has largely been disregarded by such research. Another strand of literature focuses on water by analyzing pos-sible connections between violence and weather-driven phenomena such as meteorological drought, flooding, or more general variations in rainfall. For instance, climate-conflict literature enriches our understanding of conflict dy-namics in civil wars and other non-state conflicts (Koubi 2019; Mach et al 2020; von Uexkull 2016).

Both literature strands provide enormous insights into the role of water for peace and conflict. Yet, there are also some shortcomings. Climate-conflict literature has focused almost entirely on explaining violent conflict and of-ten neglects cooperation as an outcome. Research on river basins and hydro-politics provides many great examples for studying both peace and conflict, yet the majority of this research is restricted to inter-state relations. Another issue within the literature is its focus on a few selected types of water scarcity. Climate-conflict studies predominantly deal with drought or rainfall variation. Work on transboundary basins naturally focuses on river properties as well as national aggregates for water use. Very few of these studies take more holis-tic approaches combining several parts of the hydrological cycle, i.e., rainfall, surface water, and groundwater.

Addressing these gaps, this dissertation contributes to several strands of lit-erature within peace and conflict research as well as across other disciplines. Essay I shows how lacking groundwater access increases incidences of com-munal violence. To my knowledge, this is the first study on armed conflict that combines data on groundwater, surface water, and precipitation. The findings suggest water scarcity can directly affect instances of violence, not just through conditional channels as shown in recent research. Essay II an-alyzes spatial spillover processes of conflict-inducing factors. The study in-troduces a theoretical framework explaining spillover dynamics of communal conflict. Furthermore, the analysis shows drought impacts violence not locally but through wider neighborhood exposure. Essays III and IV shift the focus toward studying the impact of scarcity on cooperation. The findings in Essay III suggest drought-prone regions could be harbingers for water cooperation even in places with a history of violence. This research is also the first large-N study of water cooperation at the sub-national level and provides detailed in-sights into peaceful hydro-politics. With survey data on refugees, the unit of

13

analysis in Essay IV shifts to the individual level. Studying the effect of ex-posure to water scarcity on cooperative behavior, the work contributes to our understanding of microdynamics in conflict as well as for countries hosting refugees.

Taken together, the dissertation makes four broader contributions. 1) The findings suggest we need to look beyond resource scarcity solely as a cause for conflict. Instead we ought to study the potential of peaceful resource shar-ing and cooperation. 2) The dissertation addresses actions by both individuals and groups, while also considering those in relation to government action. Ad-dressing different group levels is key because conflict or cooperation dynamics transition different spheres of action (individual, group, state etc). 3) Much of the literature on climate-related violence focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa. The dissertation also covers the Southern Mediterranean and parts of the Middle East, thereby showing relevant findings for a larger geographic area. Lastly, 4) the dissertation contributes to research on water issues by focusing on access to groundwater, which has been largely neglected in both climate-conflict and hydro-politics literature.

The dissertation also provides key insights to policy makers. Climate-change challenges how we engage with water and we therefore must find more sustainable ways to use this resource. The impact of extreme weather events can be mitigated by proper water management. This requires an understand-ing of socio-economic dynamics in relation to water scarcity across different scales and units of analysis. Providing disaggregated evidence to factors to-wards climate-resilience enables policy interventions where they are needed the most.

This introduction serves as an entry and overview to the subsequent four essays which together form this dissertation. The rest of this introduction is structured as follows. In the next section I present several key concepts. The following sections situate the work within the previous literature and then in-troduce the dissertation’s underlying theoretical argument. Subsequently, I outline the employed methods and research design choices before providing an overview of the essays that constitute the dissertation. I conclude the intro-duction by summarizing the main contributions and by drawing implications for policy work and future research.

Central Concepts The presented theoretical framework builds on several central concepts which require further examination. In this section I first discuss the key theoretical elements, namely water scarcity, cooperation and non-state conflict as well as the involved actors.

14

Water Scarcity

The most central concept for the dissertation is water scarcity. I define wa-ter scarcity broadly as an excess of water demand over available supply in a specific area. This definition builds on conceptual arguments by previous literature (FAO 2012, p. 6; Rijsberman 2006, Ostrom 1990). We could also think about water scarcity as a deficit of available supply relative to water de-mand. However, most water literature uses demand-focused approaches as such definitions better reflect how human behavior is the starting point for understanding water scarcity.

Throughout the dissertation I also use the following terms interchangeably to refer to similar situations of water scarcity: water crisis, water deficiency, water stress, or water shortage. While there have have been enormous efforts to define and operationalize water scarcity, there is relatively small agreement on a commonly applied definition (Falkenmark 1989; Vörösmarty et al 2000; Rijsberman 2006; Pedro-Monzonís et al 2015). Yet, most authors agree that water scarcity relies on local needs vis-à-vis environmental constraints, but also on actual physical water availability (Rijsberman 2006). The latter is also a function of the available resources and technology to extract water resources. Note that The term water security (as opposed to water scarcity) is also used in several policy circles. We can think of water security as the "availability of, and access to, water sufficient in quantity and quality to meet the livelihood needs of all households throughout the year, without prejudicing the needs of other users" (Calow et al 2010, p. 248).

While I follow a relatively broad definition for water scarcity, it is impor-tant to acknowledge how concepts on this term differ depending on the liter-ature. This variation is a direct consequence of the multi-disciplinary char-acter of research on water issues. Being aware of conceptual distinctions is key when considering insights from other fields, particularly in regard to hy-drology, ecology, and agriculture studies. On the one hand, other research might refer to very specific features of water availability for some of the terms the dissertation uses interchangeably. There is an entire academic genre de-voted to distinguishing conceptualizations of water scarcity. For instance, we can further classify water scarcity based on industrial, agricultural, and pro-duction sectors, or through blue and green water (Falkenmark 1997). On the other hand, policy-oriented publications tend to treat the term water scarcity even more broadly encompassing any reduction in access to water. Nonethe-less, for the purpose of this work I argue that taking a more parsimonious approach better summarizes incompatibilities over water issues at different levels of analysis while also allowing for flexibility in operationalizing water scarcity.

Since water issues are often analyzed at the state level, conceptualizations are more established for this level of analysis. Here water issues pertain to three main categories, namely disputes over quantity, quality, and control

15

(Swain 2012). Yet, I argue that these incompatibilities translate well into dif-ferent types of actors or units of analysis. For example, conflicts between herder groups might arise over how much water to share, whether the water is for animals or drinking (quality), and who controls wells or other access points. Likewise we can understand scarcity issues on an individual or house-hold level. Particularly during times of armed conflict, individuals may face different types of water scarcity linked to these three domains. Furthermore, responses to water scarcity occur on different societal levels: through individ-ual or group-specific coping strategies and through adaptation processes at the macro level (regional, state, and transboundary).

Further unpacking the water scarcity concept we ought to consider who de-termines demand and supply. The definition used in the dissertation implicitly assumes some type of human agency, i.e., demand and supply are being de-termined by individuals, groups, or states. While water scarcity often refers to the absence of adequate water resources in a specific geographic area, water scarcity is always relational and thereby user-dependent. Solely human rela-tions can exhibit water deficiencies even if water scarcity originates through exogenous natural phenomena like geological or climatic processes (e.g. ero-sion, rainfall, or salination). Thus, how communities consume water deter-mines their desired and expressed water needs. This means that water scarcity is shaped by prevalent norms and practices over water use. Such norms can vary by geography, ethnic kinship, income levels, age, or gender, among other factors.

Recurring shortages as well as expected changes to water supply shape per-ceptions of scarcity. This means water scarcity can be an expression of uncer-tainty over future water usage (Ostrom 1990). Most norms over water use have developed gradually and to some extent they even mirror adaptation processes to their respective environment. Established norms over water use can change, for instance through higher living standards, but also through induced shortage from other uses. Demands from increasing urbanization, agriculture as well as manufacturing industries are crucial determinants of water scarcity. These sectors can accelerate or even drive erosion, pollution, or other processes that in turn further exacerbate water scarcity. In addition, both large scale wars and low-intensity armed conflict frequently alter land use, including the destruc-tion of water infrastructure (Baumann & Kuemmerle 2016; Lin 2020; Zeitoun & Talhami 2016).

Lastly, I consider groundwater a crucial buffer that helps to overcome rain-fall and surface water shortages. By groundwater I refer to water obtainable from below the land surface. More specifically I follow Giordano (2009, p. 155) who describes groundwater as underground water completely saturating "fissures and pores below the earth’s surface". He further explains that ground-water aquifers are those layers of earth, gravel or stone holding the groundwa-ter (ibid). In Essays I and III, groundwater is conceptualized through informa-tion on depth to usable below-surface water resources. Drilling and pumping

16

are more expensive with increasing depth to groundwater tables. Thus, it is assumed that access to water is more difficult where groundwater tables are on average particularly deep. Yet, depth alone is not sufficient as an indicator as it does not say anything about pollution and the general chemical features of the water. Furthermore, geology and contingent rock formations exacerbate well-building. This means that using groundwater requires knowledge of the specific aquifer, know-how of abstraction, and pecuniary means, among other things. I argue that everything else equal, access to groundwater should be more common in areas with a lower depths to groundwater.

Actors, Conflict and Cooperation The main actors in the essays can be described as different types of non-state groups. Definitions of non-state actors vary by literature and sub-disciplines; for instance, groups can subsume refugees groups, NGOs, or even armed mili-tia.

In conflict research, non-state groups often relate to rebel groups and also communal conflict actors (e.g. Cunningham, Gleditsch & Salehyan 2013; Sundberg, Eck & Kreutz 2012), however non-state groups as firms, NGOs or interest groups are also important actors within political science, develop-ment studies, or law (Higgott et al. 2000). Essays I and II focus on communal conflict actors. In Essay III, I also consider grassroots organizations, NGOs and local communal groups –with some belonging to the same groups as in Essay I and II. Lastly, Essay IV takes a more micro-level approach by focus-ing on individuals. Yet the analysis incorporates salient group identities which are underlying similar group distinctions as found in the other essays.

A key sub-category of non-state actors are communal conflict groups found in Essays I and II. Within conflict research, the term non-state group often generally subsumes a set of actors neither of which controls the state (Sund-berg, Eck & Kreutz 2012; Pettersson & Öberg 2020). As a specific subset of non-state actors, communal groups are defined as informally organized ac-tors which are mobilized along a common identity. Group affiliation can be tied to religious, ethnic, or language distinction; these can intersect and are often associated with certain livelihoods (Brosché 2014; Eck 2014; Elfvers-son 2017; Krause 2018). For instance, parties in farmer-herder conflicts might also belong to different religious or language-use groups. Depending on the circumstances, these identities can shift and might be exploited for different political purposes (Habyarimana et al 2007; Brosché & Elfversson 2012).

Taking into account a broader category of non-state groups, Essay III in-cludes all actors not directly representing the government of a state, thereby also excluding any lower level administrative representation such as munic-ipal or federal state capacities. I acknowledge that this represents very dif-ferent types of actors and organizational structures, yet it is vital for the re-search question to distinguish actions by non-state groups from those initiated by governments. The latter have different mandates and institutional capacity

17

whereas the dissertation centers on cooperative efforts of groups that do not possess such attributes.

Cooperation Another central aspect is cooperation. One can think of cooperation as a sign of peaceful interaction, or a type of "stable reciprocity" (Axelrod & Hamilton 1981). Indeed, cooperation usually involves non-violent actions between two actors which can represent positive developments. For simplicity I focus on cooperation towards peaceful or non-violent means. There are of course also more violent types of cooperation. For example military alliances are key to some conceptualizations of peace (Rapoport 1992). While I acknowledge that collaboration between two actors could aim at violence towards a third actor, such discussions are outside the scope of this dissertation.

Altruism (also referred to as prosocialty) is one key aspect of cooperation. Cooperation between individuals or between groups is fundamental to modern society. Cooperation among humans has been widely understood as a function of prevailing norms and implemented sanctions for those disregarding social norms. Altruistic emotions and preferences are key aspects that moderate the extent of self-interest and prosocialty, for example how much we strive for equity or much we value the well-being of others (Fehr & Fischbacher 2003; Kay, Keller & Lehmann 2020). Altruism is defined as the willingness to com-promise individual welfare for the sake of the welfare of someone else.

Whether at the state, group or individual level, cooperation predominantly results through negotiation and bargaining practices within disputes. Being able to cooperate between individuals or as part of group networks is the foundation of human progress. Within social psychology, altruism is one key aspect of cooperation. Here, altruism is defined as the willingness to compro-mise individual welfare for the sake of the welfare of someone else. Cooper-ation among humans has been widely recognized as a function of prevailing situational norms as well as possible sanctions for those disregarding social norms. Altruistic emotions and preferences are key aspects that moderate the extent of self-interest and prosocialty, for example how much we strive for equity or much we value the well-being of others (Fehr & Fischbacher 2003; Kay, Keller & Lehmann 2020).

In more general social science research, theories over cooperative behav-ior are linked to different applications of the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Axelrod 1980). In Hardin’s work we would observe cooperation if both pastoral-ist herders limit the number of grazing cattle, instead of choosing to defect (Hardin 1968; also: Ostrom 1990). Fearon and Laitin (1996) argue that co-operation (and non-violence) between different ethnic groups is maintained as long as the groups have approximately equal expectations about the fate of de-fectors. In a related argument, Ostrom (1990) holds that cooperative stability can be achieved through institutional authorities which could enforce penalties to defectors. Using Hardin’s example, she argues that such institutional frame-

18

works make pastoralist herders negotiate over pasture usage (ibid.). Thus, it is useful to understand such negotiations seen as cooperative actions in their own right.

Again, the groups that could potentially engage in cooperation are slightly different between Essays I-II and Essay III. Essay IV even considers individ-ual behavior, yet also here in reference to group identity. This is not to say that individual behavior can always be aggregated to group actions, or vice versa. The rationale of groups however does directly relate to individual-level behavior. Thus, I find the following theoretical argument very much applica-ble regardless of the actual composition of an actor. More specifically I argue that individual and group-level explanations of war and peace are intertwined as this better reflects actions taken within and across political actors.

Despite the focus on non-state groups, I acknowledge that such actors do not act in vacuum outside of any state influence. For instance, different types of non-state actors can be supported by local or foreign governments (Brosché 2014; Karlén 2017) and governments are crucial when intervening in com-munal fighting (Elfversson 2015). Therefore, the dissertations makes explicit reference to state capacity both theoretically and empirically. This includes ar-guments over state institutions as important mediating factors between water scarcity and cooperation or conflict.

Relation to Existing Work

Water is far from a simple commodity, Water’s a sociological oddity, Water’s a pasture for science to forage in, Water’s a mark of our dubious origin, Water’s a link with a distant futurity, Water’s a symbol of ritual purity, Water is politics, water’s religion, Water is just about anyone’s pigeon, Water is frightening, water’s endearing, Water’s a lot more than mere engineering, Water is tragical, water is comical, Water is far from the Pure Economical, So studies of water, though free from aridity, Are apt to produce a good deal of turbidity.

Kenneth Boulding (1962) [as cited in Lonergan 2001, p. 109]

This dissertation broadly speaks to two strands of literature, namely climate-conflict research, as well as more general International Relations (IR) studies on water and conflict. In the subsequent sections I summarize major works of

19

different literature and situate the dissertation in relation to such work. How-ever, I begin by drawing on more general literature on water use and resource allocation.

Within peace and conflict research, there is both a tradition and ambition to reach across disciplines, thereby "draw[ing] on natural science methods, quantitative data, statistics, comparative approaches, experimental designs, surveys, and new developments in geographical analysis such as geographic information system (GIS) [...]" (Wallensteen 2011, p. 17; see also Boulding 1978). It follows that peace research ought to engage with arguments and findings across different fields of scientific inquiry. The insights from this dissertation track the footsteps of seminal works on resources from anthro-pology, economics, geography, health research, or sociology, among many others. Such work, for instance, highlights cooperation issues for pasture land by herder communities (Hardin 1968), groundwater allocation (Ostrom 1990) and access to safe water (Duflo et al 2015). This is also in line with a tradition for peace and conflict researchers to engage in questions over water resources (Falkenmark 1990; Wallensteen & Swain 1997).

Studying the effects of water infrastructure combines development studies, public health or economics. Such work highlights how improvements in wa-ter infrastructure can decrease water-related diseases or childhood mortality (Merrick 1985; Galiani, Gertler & Schargrodsky 2005; Fewtrell et al 2005; Ahuja, Kremer & Zwane 2010; Kremer et al 2011; Duflo et al 2015). Some of this research is particularly relevant as it bridges literature on water access and property rights, thereby providing insights to links between water scarcity and disputes. For example, Duflo and Pande (2007) find that the effects from dam construction on poverty vary with existing property rights. For Western Kenya, findings by Kremer et al (2011) suggest communal property norms for water sharing have been more efficient than systems with private property access to water. This relationship flips however with increasing population, higher water demand, and the potential for better water infrastructure (ibid). Recently, field experiments on environmental issues have also become more frequent in eco-nomics (List & Price 2016). For example, community resilience is found to be higher in rural areas and group identification can explain individual responses to take action on communal land erosion (Rapaport et al 2018; Rabinovich et al 2020).

By focusing on different effects from exposure to water scarcity, the dis-sertation builds on climate-conflict literature. Extensive reviews and meta-analysis on the links between violence and climate factors have been pub-lished in recent years (Dell, Jones & Olken 2014; Seter 2016; Theisen 2017; van Baalen & Mobjörk 2017; Koubi 2019; Scartozzi 2020; Vesco et al 2020; Buhaug & von Uexkull 2021; Theisen et al 2022; Daoudy, Sowers & Weinthal 2022; among others). This literature does not find robust evidence for links between climate-change impact and violence at the inter-state level. Instead much more focus is placed on the role of water scarcity in relation to different

20

types of intra-state conflict, including civil war-related violence, social unrest and protest, or communal violence (see further below).

A recurring feature of this literature centers on climate-induced changes as external shocks to explain conflict onset (Miguel, Satyanath & Sergenti 2004). But there are also insights on conflict dynamics. For instance, variation in rainfall patterns has been found to create imbalances between conflict dyads or alliances (König, Rohner, Thoenig & Zilibotti 2017), especially in connection with ethnic group exclusion and agricultural dependence (von Uexkull et al 2016; Vesco et al 2021). Climate-conflict literature is also associated with research on resource extraction and civilian targeting (Weinstein 2006; Fortna, Lotito & Rubin 2018), yet very few studies consider the role of water access for one-sided violence. For instance, one study finds local drought conditions to decrease the likelihood of violence against civilians (Harari & La Ferrara 2018) and another provides mixed results looking at similar outcome variables (Landis et al 2017).

Water issues and conflict have also been studied in relation to protest or other forms of social unrest. Insights from these studies are slightly diverg-ing. This might be due to differences in general methodology but also vary-ing input variables and operationalizations for unrest. Some suggests local droughts during the growing season do not affect rioting (Harari & La Fer-rara 2018). Using different data, others find dry spells to increase the likeli-hood of rioting, especially in areas with below-average blue water supply or competing ethnic groups (Almer, Laurent-Lucchetti & Oechslin 2017; Lan-dis et al 2017; Unfried, Kis-Katos & Poser 2022). Flooding, in particular, has been associated with subsequent political unrest over water issues within less democratic regimes and countries with politically excluded groups (Ide, Kristensen & Bartusevicius 2020). Similar conditional factors are present in a related study linking non-violent protest to water supply cuts (Ide, Lopez et al 2020). Evidence from Kenya suggests water insecurity increases the likeli-hood of protest; however, rather than culminating in violence, external shocks from climate-related events are more likely to lead to non-violent campaigns (Koren, Bagozzi, & Benjamin 2021). What is more, protests have been stud-ied in relation to planned construction of hydro-dams. While dams can ab-sorb shocks from climate extremes on poverty downstream, they can threaten livelihoods in locations where dams are built (Duflo & Pande 2007). This also might explain social unrest in connection with hydro-projects. Such protests directly concern the irreversible impact of dams on local livelihoods (Del Bene et al 2018; Brennan & Döring 2014). Here, those organizing unrest or more generally working on environmental issues can become the target of repression and human rights abuses, a trend also seen in protest movements generally (LeBillon & Lujala 2020; Kim 2021; Weidmann & Rød 2019).

21

Communal Violence and Climate-Conflict Perspectives Communal violence has been studied from different perspectives and disci-plines. More qualitative studies on communal violence exist within geography whereas quantitative reserach on communal violence is mostly found within political science and related subjects. Crucial advances from within ecology and human geography contributed to better understanding farmer-herder dis-putes (Bassett 1988; Benjaminsen & Lund 2002; McCabe 2004; Lund 2008; Turner et al 2014).

Within the last decade communal conflict has received increased attention within conflict research, yet still remains understudied when compared to lit-erature on civil war. The role of water scarcity (and related resources) is a key feature in such studies. This connects directly to formal and informal gov-ernance, which have been argued to be key factors that mitigate communal conflicts. Studying communal disputes over water ties together issues over land tenure, climate change, and grievances. There are also theorized links to migration, an inherent feature of pastoralism. For instance, pastoralists are found to avoid land conflict and generally move to more favorable vegetation (Lenshie et al 2020). Yet, this can create tension elsewhere.

The literature suggests group competition over resources largely depends on the level of governance as well as socio-economic marginalization (Benjamin-sen et al 2012; Raleigh & Kniveton 2012; Devlin & Hendrix 2014; Fjelde & von Uexkull 2012; Detges 2014, Papaioannou 2016; Balestri & Maggioni 2017; Linke et al 2017; Nordkvelle, Rustad & Salmivalli 2017; van Weezel 2017; Vestby 2019; Linke & Tollefsen 2020). Indeed, political and economic disparities have been found to increase disputes particularly in settings with large income inequality (Fjelde & Østby 2014; Detges 2016, 2017; Hillesund 2017). This is also visible in the water sector, where service provision has been linked with a lowered risk of communal violence (Cao et al 2020).

Local (and central) governance can hinder or feed into communal con-flict escalation through legal systems or by fueling expressed grievances (Eck 2014; De Juan 2015; Wig & Tollefsen 2016). Property rights issues are often directly associated with watershed use (Katusiime & Schütt 2020). More gen-erally, communal conflicts often relate to reforms of the legal system which may overrule existing (in)formal over land use practices (Lund 2008; Ben-jaminsen & Ba 2009; Boone 2014; Turner & Moumouni 2018). This can also be linked to governments taking sides in favor of certain ethnic groups. Such biases can either aggravate or dampen existing disputes (Brosché 2014; Elfversson 2015; Klaus 2017; Krause 2018; Brosché 2022). However, there is also potential to resolve disputes through institutions. For this research, customary governance has been identified as an important ingredient to the resolution of communal conflicts (Brosché & Elfversson 2012; Greiner 2013; Higazi 2016; Wig & Kromrey 2018; Elfversson 2019; Petrova 2022). Lo-cal community and religious organizations hold higher trust and are generally

22

more successful in reaching non-violent solutions to communal disputes (De Juan 2015; Cao et al 2018; Krause 2018; Mustasilta 2018, 2020).

Environmental Peacebuilding and Water Cooperation Water as a source of cooperation has been covered partially by environmental peacebuilding literature, but more importantly by research on hydro-politics. The former specifically analyzes how peacebuilding can be facilitated through natural resource management and sustainable environmental policy (Ide et al 2021; Dresse et al 2018; Ide 2018; Krampe, Hegazi & VanDeveer 2021). Among other subjects, this research has contributed rich qualitative accounts of water management in post-war society (Conca & Dabelko 2003; Weinthal, Troell & Nakayama 2011; Krampe 2016; Ide, Sumer & Aldehoff 2018; Moosa 2018; Krampe & Gignoux 2018). However, there has been far less compar-ative cross-case research considering water resources (Schillinger et al 2020; Talhami & Zeitoun 2020).

The literature on hydro-politics has provided both case- and cross-case ev-idence. Large-n approaches have been driven by several high-quality global and regional datasets on water conflict and cooperation. These include for in-stance the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD) (Wolf 1998, 1999) and the related Basins at Risk data (BAR)(Yoffe, Wolf & Giordano, 2003) covering global events on cooperative or conflictive hydro-political is-sues. The International River Conflict and Cooperation dataset (IRCC) (Kalb-henn & Bernauer 2012) uses a similar approach to create international river basin dyads. There are also other more regional datasets which may pro-vide more specialized and higher resolution coverage. The Water Relations in Central Asia Dataset (WRCAD) (Menga 2016), for instance, covers water-related events in the Aral Sea Basin whereas the Water Conflict Chronology lists specific conflict events involving water (Gleick 1993). Water-Related Intrastate Conflict and Cooperation (WARICC) data (Bernauer et al 2012) in-cludes unique national and sub-national hydro-events and allows users to dif-ferentiate by state and non-state actors (see Essay III). The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) River Claims dataset (Hensel et al 2008) represents a dif-ferent but vital alternative approach by focusing on territorial dispute dyads relating to water. The overall picture emerging from these datasets displays cooperative water events outweighing the number of conflictual interactions. However, cooperation and conflict are not mutually exclusive and may appear side by side depending on the level of spatial and/or temporal aggregation.

These datasets have enabled researchers to conduct empirical comparison across river basins, thereby leading to more nuanced inferences from com-paring water disputes. A crucial insight is that outright water wars are not fought between or within countries. Instead , solving water issues rarely, if at all, involves violence (Gleditsch et al 2006; Furlong, Gleditsch & Hegre 2006; Raleigh & Urdal 2007; Tir & Ackerman, 2009; Tir & Stinnett 2012; Barquet, Lujala, & Rød 2014; Bernauer & Böhmelt 2014; Devlin & Hen-

23

drix 2014; Schmidt, Lee & Mitchell 2021). Here, democratic institutions are vital factors vis-à-vis water service provision and peace (Gizelis & Wooden 2010; Povitkina & Bolkavadze 2019). Country border disputes along water delineations (river, lake, etc.) are also at lower risk to provoke conflict (Goe-mans & Schultz 2016). An often cited source of international water conflict are upstream-downstream power asymmetries. While this is visible in cer-tain cases, there is more evidence that such relationships do not lead to water conflict (Beck et al 2014).

Clearly water shortages can create openly expressed disputes between ri-parians. Yet, the majority of these incompatibilities result in non-violent out-comes (Fischhendler 2008; Brochmann & Hensel 2009; Dinar et al 2015; Ovo-denko 2016; Owsiak & Mitchell 2017; Dinar 2020). This includes the differ-ent track-based negotiations that are part of hydro-diplomacy. Water diplo-macy has been key to river claim settlements for decades, yet more explicit research on this topic has started to emerge only recently (Susskind & Islam 2018; Grech-Madin et al 2018; Klimes et al 2019; Salmoral et al 2019; Zareie, Bozorg-Haddad & Loáiciga 2021).

Groundwater Groundwater has been mostly neglected by peace and conflict research on water. Targeted groundwater governance can decrease over-extraction. Such policies can potentially make groundwater use more sustainable (Sekhri 2011) or enable higher irrigation-based crop efficiency (Nazari et al 2020). Sekhri (2014) finds difficult groundwater access to increase poverty and lead to dis-putes over well usage, e.g. irrigation vs. drinking water. For Northern Kenya, Detges (2014) shows pastoralist fighting to be more likely in proximity to well sites. This is also one of a few climate-conflict studies that speak to groundwa-ter. The findings suggest that violence is more common where access to water is scarce, yet this was not tested more explicitly with regard to groundwater storage.

It is crucial to understand that meteorological drought conditions do not necessarily correlate with groundwater scarcity. More generally, groundwater levels do not vary with local rainfall. Depending on the unit of analysis, such considerations can be misguided. In many areas heavy rainfall, following even long streaks of drought, can fully replenish groundwater levels, enabling wa-ter use throughout the year. However, there are some caveats. For instance, sporadic rain can increase groundwater contamination, and sustained heavy rainfall has even been linked to groundwater decrease (Scanlon et al 2005; Taylor et al 2013). The ambiguities between groundwater and weather are explained through different local or regional features which make predictions over groundwater level more difficult. Changing rainfall or temperature ex-tremes (e.g. high or low vis-à-vis timing of such events) lead to different groundwater-level outcomes.

24

Thus, it is useful to think about climate and groundwater through direct and indirect links. First, groundwater is replenished through surface water leak-ages (wetlands, lakes, and rivers) as well as through precipitation recharge (Taylor et al 2013). Though again, groundwater levels often do not directly follow local precipitation levels. This is due to differences in evapotranspira-tion and runoff, which are interacting with weather systems, geology, altitude, soil type, or land use. Second, indirect impact between groundwater and cli-mate patterns appears through the use of groundwater (and surface water) as a reaction to climate-induced scarcity. One consequence of prolonged rain-fall shortages can be intensified groundwater abstraction beyond recharge ca-pacities. However, cropland changes as a result from drought do not always further deplete groundwater. For example, Western Sahel groundwater lev-els increased even after multiple droughts because land clearances led to soil crusting and higher runoff (Leblanc et al 2008; Taylor et al 2013).

There are several distinct differences between the availability of ground-water and other water sources. Most types of surface water (wetlands, lakes, or rivers) are naturally limited to specific geographic locations, which also explains the presence of the earliest, larger human settlements around such bodies of water (Rose 2010; Scott 2017; Boccaletti 2021). Yet, the spatial distribution of groundwater can be far greater, often providing underground water access to larger areas away from rivers (Giordano 2009). Another dif-ference is the immediate access. While fetching water from rivers or lakes for small-scale use requires only basic technology, modes of groundwater extrac-tion vary greatly by geology. Seasonal handdug wells in riverbeds require far less equipment than 450 meter deep boreholes through solid rock formation. Furthermore, pollution is a problem for both groundwater and surface wa-ter. Yet, underground aquifer recharge occurs through filtrating water which makes groundwater more important for drinking water and other household uses (Giordano 2009).

Groundwater represents an important buffer for dry seasons. Even for areas with rainfed agriculture, groundwater access ensures supply during critical growth stages as the sole perennial water supply (Calow et al 2010; Sekhri 2011; Taylor et al 2013). This is even more important with changing rainfall patterns and diverse crop use. Defying increased regional water variability and climatic changes, Africa as whole has not seen significant longterm decreases in available groundwater (Bonsur et al 2018; Kolusu et al 2019; MacDonald et al 2019). Other research on India however finds that further expanding irrigation would result in unsustainable groundwater abstraction even for areas with climate change-related rainfall increase (Zaveri et al 2016).

Overall, these different research approaches provide enormous knowledge connecting water resources with peaceful or conflictual behavior. Yet, gaps remain across different aspects of the literature. Climate-conflict research em-phasizes water scarcity as a potential driver of violence, but there are fewer in-sights into how, for example, drought could lead to more cooperative behavior.

25

Figure 1. Theoretical argument

Resource scarcity

Livelihood changes incl. work, nutrition, sanitation

Incompatibility

ContestationCooperation

Response incl. coping, social behavior

Institutions

While water cooperation is extensively studied by literature on inter-state wa-ter relations, those analyses often neglect that violence can still occur among actors within hydro-basins. Lastly, very few approaches combine varying wa-ter sources, i.e., they often feature only one of the following: rainfall, surface water, or groundwater. Here it is particularly notable that groundwater has been largely left out by much of the literature on drought and violent behavior.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical approaches laid out in the four essays can be summarized to a broader argument applicable to the dissertation as a whole. This section first outlines this overall argument (see also figure 1) and summarizes key theo-retical paths in more detail. I then briefly discuss how the process could be understood as iterative while also considering confounding factors and alter-native explanations. As a disclaimer I do not render the following arguments as deterministic; even for detailed descriptions of mechanisms, causal rela-tionships are considered probabilistic.

Water Scarcity and Disputes The overarching argument views scarcity as a starting point for both individual-and group-level processes. While the dissertation focuses on water scarcity, other resource scarcities are also applicable to the general theoretical argu-ment. Facing water scarcity affects livelihoods by deteriorating access to nu-trition and sanitation, moreover, water scarcity worsens conditions for agri-culture and other labor sectors that require water. Such changes then lead to some type of response by individuals or groups. One possible response can

26

be individual-level coping through altruistic behavior. Specifically for the in-dividual level, I argue that individual pro-social behavior can facilitate group cooperation. This does not mean that cooperation requires a certain degree of altruism. However, interactions between non-state groups should be more cooperative if group members are more pro-socially. On the flip-side, some ac-tors who perceive threats to their livelihoods might act less pro-social, thereby potentially provoking incompatibilities with other actors. This increases the likelihood of incompatibilities between the affected actors. Ensuing disputes can either be linked directly to issues over resources or indirectly through ef-fects on livelihoods. The resulting issues then are either resolved to some degree, or in some instances they will be further contested with the potential of escalation.

On the group or individual level, water scarcity emerges through different social and cultural processes. At its core, water scarcity implies that the at-tainable water sources cannot cover what is actually required for average use. Again, the same shortage in water quality or quantity does not necessarily lead to similar effects everywhere. Even small deviations from water accessibility could destroy harvests in one area, while similar water shortages remain unno-ticeable in other places. Actors that rely on one water source for crop irrigation as well as their daily nutrition and sanitation needs will be more affected by water scarcity than those with more diverse sources of water allocation. Yet, extreme scarcity also impacts those with more diversified water sources be-cause of redistribution or rationing as well as through aforementioned indirect effects. Some regions in Somalia, for instance, are defined as having good WASH provisions (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene), yet berkads remain the main source of water, with boreholes being the second most important type of water access (Mafuta, Zuwarimwe & Mwale 2021).2 Changes to this access are therefore more significant in comparison to areas with more diversified water use.

More generally, violent behavior can be linked to established theories on income shocks which are seen as drivers to disputes and incompatibility more general. Such mechanisms have also been applied in literature on climate change impacts, including water scarcity. Extreme water shortages lead to lower economic outputs through different paths, especially in already water-scarce regions. One mechanism links declining livelihoods and the subsequent lowered opportunity costs to a higher likelihood of participating in illegal ac-tivity (Grossman 1991). This also relates to relative deprivation which argues that individuals are more inclined to use violence when they perceive a grave mismatch between their expectations and their actual situation (Gurr 1970). This mechanism is more likely in gradual shifts of scarcity, like drought or de-pleting water access (Koubi et al 2018). However, these factors alone cannot

2Berkads are small reservoirs for households lined with stones and concrete which can capture rain.

27

lead to violent behavior. Instead, several contextual factors have to coexist for violence to prevail. Another issue is that these arguments often say less about conditions of cooperation.

Literature on scarcity and conflict predominantly argues that exogenous shocks (e.g. extreme weather events) alter livelihoods through decreased in-come or generally lower economic activity (Gilmore & Buhaug 2021; Koubi 2019; Mach et al 2019). This is the case with water scarcity, too. In fact, water shortages threaten livelihoods through multiple channels, income-related links being just one of them.

Intense water stress has drastic consequences to health and hygiene by di-minishing daily access to nutrition and sanitation. People affected by such shortages prioritize water collection over farming, other employment, or even school attendance; furthermore, extended time to fetch water has been linked to increased disputes and violence both within households and between com-munities (MacDonald et al 2019). Water scarcity can indirectly affect com-munities through decreased employment opportunities, higher utility costs, higher food prices, or health issues. These are significant incisions to daily life. Furthermore, entire groups, regions or even countries can feel burdens of water shortages when a sufficient amount of its members suffer from scarcity.

Witnessing suffering from water shortages is one way of creating ingroup cohesion. The latter is important because cooperative behavior is implausible for larger groups of unaligned actors unless there is a functioning institutional framework (Elster 2007). A focal point for group mobilization are ethnic net-works which in turn can make perceived hardships more salient (Buhaug et al 2020; Buhaug, Cederman & Gleditsch 2014). Yet, there is still a theoretical (and empirical) mismatch between individual level and group processes. A key to understanding violence at the group level could be decreased pro-social behavior at the individual level. Drought-driven lowered altruism at the indi-vidual level could increase the likelihood of violence observed at higher group levels. Prolonged experiences from environmental scarcity can shape behavior over longer periods (Evans 2019). Exposure to drought may not necessarily increase support of violence directly. Yet, if hardship decreases pro-social be-havior, repeated instances of selfishness could create incentives for some indi-viduals favoring violent behavior. This is especially true for instances where cooperative behavior is more directed at specific (in)groups.

For water shortages we should expect increased pressure on livelihoods in times of scarcity. Such pressure makes responses to scarcity more burden-some, thereby increasing competition over resources. This may lead to dis-putes, for instance if available water is over-exploited or if resources are ap-propriated by others (in- or outgroup members). Yet, we can understand such disputes both as potential breeding ground for the use of violence, but also as source for cooperative action. In the long-term most actors will determine con-flict to be too costly as compared to finding collaborative solutions. Seminal work by Ostrom (1990) demonstrates that habitual, frequent interactions will

28

ultimately create cooperative solutions. This is also an underlying assumption of resilience arguments (Folke 2006), namely that exposure to scarcity leads to adaptive processes that favor collaboration. Yet, ethnically motivated fighting can support parochial behavior and thereby make in- and outgroup differences more salient. This salience could diminish pro-social behavior or inter-ethnic cooperation commonly found in drought-experienced communities.

Intervening Processes The outlined argument above only briefly notes other important variables, specifically the role of institutions or externalizing factors like migration. While those are not directly part of the overarching argument, I consider migration and institutions as conditioning, mediating, or confounding factors. The spe-cific relationships vary by point of departure which I argue in the following paragraphs.

Depending on the context, institutions can be either mediating or confound-ing factors in the causal argument. They are mediating factors between scarcity and cooperation mostly in places where institutions are strong. For example, high groundwater shortages in Uppsala as experienced in 2019 did not lead to armed conflict (and many people are probably just reading about this for the first time), instead we were celebrating over 200 years of peace. Clearly, many states have functioning institutions that regulate the allocation of water and foster cooperation between actors in need. Such governance solutions of-ten are understood as more formal institutions like a water authority, but they can also take the form of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) frameworks, river basin organizations, or other types of treaties. Most liter-ature considers non-state groups to engage predominantly through informal institutions, especially where formal governance structures are missing (Os-trom 1990). However note that even formalized transboundary institutions might stipulate resource sharing space for non-state actors such as farmer-herder groups. Acknowledging the broad range of water sharing institutions one must consider differences in prevailing social and administrative norms.

We can further think about institutions as confounding factors, especially in regard to water scarcity and conflict. This is the case where institutions do not work as intended because of bias or dysfunction. Others have argued that the number of potential interaction actors determines the efficiency of institutional interactions (Olson 1974; Fearon & Laitin 1996; Fearon & Laitin 2003). When informal institutions jar with governance rules, unpunished free-riding could be one result (Brown & van den Broek, 2020). This can lead to both further scarcity and create potential for conflict via different channels. First, over-exploitation of water resources is unsustainable, thereby creating further scarcity issues in the future. Second, unsanctioned free-riding may lead to grievances, non-altruistic behavior, and consequently further tension

29

over resource allocation. Institutions as confounding factors could also include cases where existing institutions are biased towards one group, for instance by selective resource provisions or one-sided support of armed dispute resolution.

At the group level, I further acknowledge that cooperation favoring pro-cesses could be disrupted by parochial behavior. Such disruptions could arise from ethnically motivated fighting which makes in- and outgroup differences more salient (Hall & Kahn 2019; Skoog 2020). This salience could diminish pro-social behavior or inter-ethnic cooperation commonly found in drought-experienced communities. This again ties to the establishment of institutions mediating cooperative behavior between in- and outgroups.

The dissertation further acknowledges migration through different perspec-tives. Considering migration as a coping mechanism is what brings together refugees fleeing civil war (Essay IV) with migration issues concerning com-munal groups in the first part (Essay I-II), but also through the proximity and history of armed conflict in Essay III. Migration also differs depending on the spatial or temporal perspective. In one way, migration away from a water-scarce area decreases pressure on water resources and potential for disputes in that area, yet it might increase water demand and intergroup conflict in another area (see Essay II). The latter is also true for migration for other reasons such as armed conflict. Moving away from exposure to water scarcity is often con-sidered a temporary strategy, even if it eventually leads to long-term migration (Abel et al 2019; Koubi et al 2016; Swain 1993). Farmer-herder relations are special cases of migration patterns in relation to violence and cooperation. It is in the nature of most pastoralist groups to move between locations, like pas-tures or water points. Here we see established norms of migration addressing seasonal resource scarcity through moving animals. However, the mobility of many groups has been threatened due to land reforms, soil degradation, de-sertification, or promotion of sedentism. Such disputes arising through com-petition over scarce resources also explain the emergence of institutions for conflict resolution and cooperative solutions as discussed before (Turner et al 2012; Boone 2014).

For the overarching argument I assume several iterative processes. These can be described in two ways: (1) within the causal argument, and (2) as consecutive iterations of the full causal theory, e.g. through a series of re-peated games between at least two actors. Starting with (1), we can consider several feedback loops within the argument. I identify and name six key pro-cesses that can link back into the causal story. First, cooperation might not be durable, thereby fueling future disputes. This also applies to the exclusion of third-party actors when cooperation is limited to a set of actors. Second, lowered pro-social behavior by one actor can increase resource scarcity for others. Third, violence itself can lead to further scarcity or lowered liveli-hood conditions, for example when infrastructure or resources are destroyed. Fourth, previous exposure to violence can change pro-social attitudes, depend-ing on the context through higher or lower tendency to altruism. Fifth, over

30

time, even disputes initially ending in violence are more likely to turn to more cooperative outcomes.

Furthermore, the overall causal story can also be viewed as a series of re-peated actions (2). For instance, different cycles of facing scarcity might yield either cooperative or conflictual outcomes. Here we can consider specific groups as self-regulation entities in which environmental changes (especially water scarcity) initiate processes that either limit such change, or attempt to return to the previous status quo (Rappaport 1984). This is also analogous to theoretical approaches on resilience. For example, Folke (2006) considers how actors in changing environments consistently reconfigure their behavior based on new challenges. This can entail to "revolt and remember [as] exam-ples of the interplay across scales [...] in the context of building resilience" (Folke 2006, p. 259). Specifically for human adaptation to exogenous shocks, Adger considers "social resilience as the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change" (Adger 2000, p. 347f). Thus, we might understand a given coping mechanism leading to either cooperation or conflict as part of re-peated processes towards adaptation to scarcity. These arguments also dovetail with seminal work on socio-economic behavior. For instance, Ostrom shows that repeated interactions, even if conflictual, will eventually lead to more co-operation over shared resources (Ostrom 1990, 2002, 2007). Such interac-tion might also include the role of institutions (as introduced above) which means repeated cooperative interactions help to create informal or formal in-stitutions, or to solidify such institutions. Repeated cooperation also fosters altruism (Fehr & Fischbacher 2003) and more generally, repeated interactions yield cooperative outcomes, with potential setbacks depending on the number of involved actors (Olson 1974), the number of iterations (Selten & Stoecker 1986), in- and outgroup dynamics (Fearon & Laitin 1996) or the history of worse-off outcomes (Dal Bó 2005, Dal Bó & Fréchette 2011). These theoreti-cal and empirical insights highlight the importance of the overall argument as an iterative system.

In sum, the dissertation proposes that scarcity can create incompatibilities over resource allocation which then either produce cooperative or conflictual outcomes. The exact pathways depend on several underlying factors. Further-more, the mechanism as a whole should be understood as iterative, thereby ideally studied over repeated instances.

Data and Methodology The dissertation strives to be normatively oriented, empirical, and theoretically engaged. As Gerring and Yesnowitz (2006, p.133) argue "good social science involves a marriage of science and social importance". This research aims to be normative because it is aimed at being relevant to concerns in society, es-

31

pecially in regard to water provision and peace. Rigorous empirical research forms the foundation of informed policy and decisions toward improving de-velopment. In this section I outline the overall methodological approach, de-scribe main sources for the data used in the empirical analysis, and discuss ethical considerations.

All essays apply frequentist large-N approaches, albeit with some differ-ences. Essay I includes mixed effect logit models for conflict incidences and Essay II focuses on spatial econometric models. While Essay III uses a simi-lar approach as in Essay I, it also includes several robustness tests with multi-nominal modeling or fixed effect eigenvector decomposition, among others. Essay IV relies on mixed effect random intercepts to model the multilevel, hierarchical character of the data.

Figure 2. Overview of countries and territories included for the analysis

An advantage is that these approaches allow for more generalist interpreta-tion while the obvious disadvantage is that the analyses can lose case-specific depth, thereby failing to explain idiosyncrasies across observations. I have tried to overcome these challenges in two ways. First, advocating for epis-temological plurality, case-specific research and critical literature informs all four essays both empirically and theoretically. While the data for the essays builds primarily on publicly available datasets, my theoretical assumptions on (ground)water usage also rest on extensive qualitative data. For all essays, I corroborated desk-based information through conversations with other re-searchers who have conducted in-person visits in the regions that are covered by the studies. I also frequently discussed my assumptions on water access with technical experts at the Stockholm World Water Week, which is an annual gathering of water sector professionals from across the world. This also in-cluded interviews with hydrologists, stakeholders, or experts on borehole and well construction. Additionally, this dissertation builds on a research work in Cyprus (five weeks) and Kenya (two months) where I interviewed stakehold-

32

ers, policy experts or engineers whose day-to-day job is to drill boreholes or prepare structures for small dams.3

The unit of analysis is the grid cell-year in Essays I-III, while Essay IV examines survey respondents per administrative regions. Furthermore, Es-say IV includes several variables derived from the same grid structure as the other essays. Other research has studied communal conflict or water coop-eration with country-level aggregates. However, such analysis units make it more difficult to observe subnational variation (Buhaug & Lujala 2005). This applies particularly when considering hydrological factors which can vary sig-nificantly within countries. By employing PRIO-GRID (Tollefsen 2012) it is possible to draw more fine-grained inferences. The grids are based on a global fishnet with 0.5 by 0.5 decimal degree cells, which implies each grid cell is about 55 by 55 kilometers when measured at the Equator. The processes most relevant for communal conflict as well as for domestic water coopera-tion correspond well to such measurement units. In addition, the impact of climate-related variables are more appropriately measured in an area of this size. All essays also include additional robustness tests with different grid sizes. A main advantage of grid cells is that their boundaries are exogenous to previous events and thereby carry no explicit political meaning (Theisen 2012, Tollefsen 2015).

All four essays rely on event data which has several implications for the analysis. As Davenport and Moore (2015, p. 14) note, conflict researchers "at a minimum [..] need to acknowledge the extent to which the use of con-venience samples impacts our descriptive and causal inferences". The key datasets used in this dissertation are UCDP and WARICC (Essay III). Both represent types of convenience samples. Some of the limitations with such samples include different types of biases, for example, through geo-coding processes or through reporting sources. Nearly all event data is derived from news media or reports by policy actors and the literature exemplifies how re-porting biases or varying coding procedures affect the quality of events data (Eck 2012; Otto 2013; Hensel & Mitchell 2014; Gleditsch, Metternich & Rug-geri 2014; Weidmann 2016; Croicu & Kreutz 2017). These issues apply to conflict data as well as other event data. Building on my experience working within the water policy sector, I acknowledge that data on water events poten-tially under-reports many observations due to the nature of track-2 efforts or behind-the-door hydropolitics. Such topics mostly are highly sensitive to gov-ernments as well as NGOs working on inter-community water issues (Grech-Madin 2021). The full impact of interventions and actions is difficult to as-certain and, for instance, Essay III aims to minimize biases through different control variables, e.g. accounting for government censorship as reporting bias could potentially affect analyses of cooperative water events.

3Other already scheduled in-person visits were canceled due to the Covid19 pandemic.

33

By employing ready-to-use datasets, I rely on the definitions applied from the respective data providers. A drawback is that dataset definitions do not always fully capture the theoretical concepts one wishes to cover. For exam-ple, using UCDP non-state violence observations (at organizational level 3) to measure communal violence does not fully align with studies more inter-ested in pastoralist violence only. This data focuses on fatal incidences that have reached certain thresholds. This is problematic as it misses instances of disputes that are solved non-violently, or even where violence did not reach a certain level. Nonetheless, using such data also eases comparability and repli-cation. Both for data on water cooperation and conflict, it is possible that the datasets exclude relevant events, e.g. because they were not included in search catalogues or because they were not reported in newspapers. Though, as both WARICC and UCDP use rigorous coding routines, I can at least be confident that all observations have in fact occurred. Several essays in the dissertation use analysis units based on yearly observations of incidences, which makes this also less vulnerable to differences in quantity of reporting.

Essay III also addresses some limitations specific to the original WARICC coding. As many water-related events are associated with national capitals, I include control variables for the vicinity to the seat of the country admin-istration. This is because capitals represent hubs for governmental agencies and NGOs. In addition, previous studies maintain WARICC events to be bet-ter suited for within-country comparison (Bernauer et al 2012). I therefore argue for capturing annual cooperative incidences instead of counts or scales. This is also because the magnitude of improvements in the water sector varies between regions and therefore have different baseline water availability. For instance, a rural area in a low-income country might drastically improve water quantity and quality by establishing a few new boreholes.

Another integral part of analysis pertains to the use of hydrological data to capture water scarcity. The essays differently utilize data for rainfall, drought, groundwater, and major surface water bodies. Essays I and III combine all of them. Essays II and IV focus on drought to directly link to existing litera-ture predominantly using drought to capture water scarcity. Groundwater data has been used very sparingly in conflict research. I discuss the coding and underlying assumptions for the groundwater data in more detail in Essay I.

The different water measures primarily build on data captured through re-mote sensing. A disadvantage with such data can relate to validity and relia-bility. It is also more difficult to obtain micro-level data on water resources. However, recent advances in satellite technology have drastically improved remote sensing data. I also acknowledge that norms and inter-personal differ-ences in water use cannot be obtained through remote data collection. I have tried to address this by taking into consideration ethnographic accounts of wa-ter usage as I rely on physical measures of water scarcity. Nonetheless, using remote sensing data even at lower spatial resolutions has several advantages. It allows one to compare large geographic areas and makes data collection

34

possible without on-site visits. Using such data also avoids the use of sur-veys on water scarcity reporting which has several ethical upsides. Research demonstrates that drought measures correlate well with people reporting such events (Linke, Witmer & O’Loughlin 2020) or that there is often little dif-ference between gauge- and satellite-based rainfall measures (Blatchford et al 2019; König et al 2017).

In sum, I acknowledge the challenges in data collection and required under-lying assumptions about the data generating process. Empirically distinguish-ing different norms and preferences on water use remains equally as challeng-ing as collecting comparable micro-level data on water disputes. The advan-tage of covering larger geographic areas with meso-level data is the ability to make more general inferences on the impact of water scarcity on society.

Ethical Considerations Throughout the dissertation several ethical aspects were critically assessed. As Wood puts it, "researchers in developing their research design and methods should take account of ethical imperatives from the beginning of the project’s development" (2006, p. 374). Considering ethical aspects is not new to peace research (Gustafsson, Rydén, Tibell & Wallensteen 1984), but engagement with ethical questions has increased in recent years. This relates to a range of topics, e.g. comparative field research (Wood 2006, Höglund 2011), an-thropology (Pacheco-Vega & Parizeau 2018), the use of illicit data (Thomas et al 2017), reflexive processes (Guillemin & Gillam 2004), interview tech-niques (Brounéus 2011), desk-based studies (Hoover Green & Cohen 2020) and for experimental settings (Morton & Tucker 2014; Humphreys 2015). Another issue is that being surveyed in itself can change respondents’ behav-ior. For instance Zwane et al (2011) find survey participants to increase their use of water treatment products in research on effects of water-born disease. This creates ethical concerns and could potentially bias model estimates (ibid). Ethics also relate to researchers’ own safety, data sharing, working conditions and emotional well being (Loyle & Simoni 2017; Kaplan, Kuhnt & Steinert 2020; van Baalen 2018; Krystalli & Schulz 2022). Some challenges might appear specific to the chosen methods, however most issues are in fact inter-linked. Thus, engaging with different ethical challenges should be on every researcher’s agenda.

There is a tendency to disregard ethical issues within quantitative literature, but human subject concerns also pertain to desk researchers, be it for qual-itative or quantitative approaches (Guillemin & Gillam 2004; Hoover Green & Cohen 2020). Problems over getting consent can be obscured through spa-tial and temporal distances between the researchers and the human subject. It is important to be cognizant of such issues. As users of publicly available datasets, we regularly lack in-the depth knowledge necessary to assess how possible benefits could potentially outweigh any risks (Hoover Green & Co-hen 2020).

35

For instance, Essays I to III directly utilize observational data compiled through human coding procedures (e.g. event data like UCDP, and WARICC, but also VDEMs democracy scores or disaggregated measures for GDP) or information derived from in situ gauges (precipitation, groundwater) and re-mote sensing devices (nightlight emissions, land changes). Possible concerns with such data relate to the uncertainty over specific actions or being unable to detect patterns where events remain undocumented. Another ethical concern with such event data is that publication could lead to individual identification (Hoover Green & Cohen 2020). This has been addressed in all essays as event data is aggregated to PRIO-GRID or larger administrative regions, and actor information is not available in the final datasets.

By utilizing already existing data the thesis conforms to a key ethical guide-line over reprocessing available information. This is a crucial question ev-ery researcher should ask themselves, namely whether relevant data for their research question already exists or not. This also means one should check whether other survey projects study very similar questions (Eck 2011). Ad-dressing this question has several ethical consequences, especially for peace and conflict scholars. If relevant data is available then researchers do not need to weigh potential benefits against serious concerns over how respondents could be re-traumatized, stigmatized, or be subject to research fatigue. This even includes potential issues with privacy and safety for both respondents or researchers. There is an immense upside over re-using available data to avoid such issues, yet this might also entail compromises. For instance, using estab-lished data can make it difficult to fully comply with pre-registration and data management requirements. But researchers need to seriously question whether an additional survey is an option only because of a slightly changed vignette or minimally altered geographic setting. Moreover, this is also a question of sustainable scholarship because these choices relate to the ethics of adequate use of public research funds or human resources.

Essays I-III only use observational data publicly available. In contrast, Es-say IV uses both observational data as well as information derived through an already completed survey experiment. For the latter, ethical challenges ought to be weighed against the potential benefits of conducting a survey. In this study potential insights include gaining crucial knowledge of how per-sons in post-war societies interact or how they perceive certain situations. It is extremely valuable for research to provide empirical foundations to policy interventions. Such actions can aim at improving people’s lives meaningfully, for instance by enabling better integration policies including addressing health and well-being. Here it is also important to note that survey participation built on consent and that no information allowing for identification of respondents was stored as all responses are completely anonymous. There are also other ethical considerations that are key when considering surveys in sensitive con-texts; more in-depth discussions for this particular sample are found in liter-

36

ature introducing this data (e.g. Hall & Kahn 2020; Hall et al 2021; see also Skoog 2020 for a comprehensive discussion on the data used in Essay IV).

Presenting the Essays The dissertation comprises four essays, each advancing our knowledge on how water resources affect cooperation and conflict among non-state actors. Table 1 provides an overview of the main findings for each essay while also stat-ing actor types, geographic coverage, and variables of interest. The first part (Essays I-II) shed light onto how access to water explains incidences of com-munal violence while the Essays III-IV provide novel insights into the role of water for cooperative actions.

Essay I: Access to Groundwater and Communal Violence The first work "Come rain, or come wells: How access to groundwater af-fects communal violence" focuses on water scarcity as a driver of conflict. The analysis differentiates water resources between groundwater, rainfall, and surface water. The Essay argues that it is crucial to analyze different water sources to explain incidences of communal violence because drought mitiga-tion is dependent on the available resources.

The Essay proposes theories on the effects of water scarcity with explicit reference to the availability of different sources of water. The main argument rests on the fact that groundwater is more readily available year-round and sometimes far away from streams and rivers. As a consequence, groundwater provides a much needed buffer to communities that suffer from water short-ages. The paper also presents conditional arguments further explaining the role of groundwater vis-à-vis population density and state presence. On the one hand, more densely populated areas create higher demand on water use for agriculture, industry, and household water services. This means that the effect of dwindling groundwater access should be more pronounced in more densely populated areas. State presence, on the other hand, is crucial when mitigating the adverse effects of water shortages for communities. Similarly, inclusive property rights implemented through the state can dampen the effect of groundwater access on communal violence.

The findings show that lacking access to groundwater increases the risk of communal violence. Further, the effect of groundwater access on communal violence is conditioned by precipitation levels as well as population density. The results also suggest that state presence lowers the effect of groundwater on violence.

The paper makes a number of contributions to the literature. While there are many in-depth case studies on farmer-herder conflicts, there are very few

37

large-N studies on communal violence and water scarcity beyond meteorolog-ical drought. Moreover, no large-N study on armed conflict had incorporated groundwater access before. The study is also the first to use geo-spatial data on a combination of groundwater, rivers, and precipitation. Furthermore, the majority of climate-conflict studies analyzed only Sub-Saharan Africa. Here the analysis expands to other geographic areas, where despite being rare, com-munal violence is not absent.

38

Ta

ble

1.

Ove

rvie

w

Ess

ay

Wat

er m

easu

res

Out

com

e A

ctor

s R

egio

ns

Mai

nfin

ding

s va

riab

le

Com

e R

ain,

I:

or

Com

e w

ells

: G

roun

dwat

er,

Com

mun

al

Info

rmal

A

fric

a,

Low

gro

undw

ater

acc

ess

incr

ease

s H

ow A

cces

s to

Gro

undw

ater

dr

ough

t, ra

infa

ll,

viol

ence

no

n-st

ate

Mid

dle

Eas

t vi

olen

ce; s

tate

pre

senc

e m

itiga

tes

Aff

ects

Com

mun

al V

iole

nce

surf

ace

wat

er

grou

ps

effe

ct o

f sca

rcity

on

confl

ict

Spat

ial P

atte

rns

of

II:

Dro

ught

C

omm

unal

In

form

al

Sub-

Loc

al d

roug

ht in

crea

ses

risk

of

Com

mun

al V

iole

nce

in

viol

ence

no

n-st

ate

Saha

ran

near

by v

iole

nce

(not

loca

lly)

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afr

ica

grou

ps

Afr

ica

From

Bul

lets

to B

oreh

oles

: II

I:

Gro

undw

ater

, W

ater

G

rass

root

s M

edite

rra-

Low

gro

undw

ater

acc

ess

incr

ease

s A

Dis

aggr

egat

ed A

naly

sis

of

drou

ght,

rain

fall,

co

oper

atio

n or

g., N

GO

s,

nean

, w

ater

coo

pera

tion;

pre

viou

s ar

med

D

omes

tic W

ater

Coo

pera

tion

surf

ace

wat

er

indi

vidu

als;

Sa

hel

confl

ict e

xpla

ins

stat

e-ba

sed

wat

er

in D

roug

ht-p

rone

Reg

ions

go

vern

men

t co

oper

atio

n

Dro

ught

IV:

expo

sure

and

D

roug

ht

pro-

soci

al

Indi

vidu

als

Iraq

, Syr

ia

Exp

osur

e to

dro

ught

dec

reas

es

altr

uism

: Evi

denc

e fr

om

beha

vior

pr

o-so

cial

beh

avio

r Su

rvey

s

39

Essay II: Spatial Dynamics of Communal Violence Essay II "Uncovering Spatial Patterns of Communal Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa" sheds light on the spatial dynamics of communal violence and water scarcity. Regarding the latter, the Essay focuses on drought and how such water shortage affects fighting through spillover effects. I argue that to explain communal violence we have to distinguish local and neighborhood effects.

As other forms of conflict, instances of communal violence cluster in space, yet little explicit theoretical and empirical attention has been given to the spa-tial processes of communal disputes. Spillover of violence is defined as fatal incidences occurring as a direct response to nearby violence. This is different from spillover of predictors which describes instances of violence occurring due to nearby conflict-inducing factors. For spillover of violence, the paper argues that such processes arise through tangible factors, such as movements of refugees or arms, as well through intangible factors such as learning or emulating behavior. Furthermore, predictors of violence do not necessarily influence armed conflict locally, but rather further away. This is especially im-portant for water shortages. Fighting over such resources might not take place where droughts occur, but rather in neighboring areas which might have been less affected.

The analysis in Essay II empirically shows that communal violence spills over to other nearby areas. Furthermore, the findings uncover that predictor-spillover is crucial when explaining incidences of communal disputes, namely that drought explains violence not locally but rather through neighborhood diffusion processes.

This Essay provides an important contribution to literature on communal violence specifically, and to research on climate-conflict links in general. The study is the first to develop theoretical arguments describing spatial dynam-ics of communal violence. The analysis also represent the first empirical test of communal conflict spillover arguments with appropriate spatial regression models. Previous studies on drought often neglected predictor spillover dy-namics and therefore potentially missed the direct impact of drought on vio-lence. Lastly, the study provides insights into the links between civil war and communal conflict, suggesting that civil war fighting affects fatal incidences of communal disputes only locally and not through spillover.

Essay III: Water Cooperation despite War and Scarcity Essay III "From Bullets to Boreholes: A Disaggregated Analysis of Domestic Water Cooperation in Drought-prone Regions" shifts the focus to the cooper-ation aspect of the dissertation. The study tests the relationship between water scarcity and incidences of water-related interactions, with a specific focus on water cooperation.

40

While much of the previous literature has focused on water scarcity and violent conflict, this analysis shows water-scarce areas are also more likely to witness instances of water cooperation. Everything else equal, more difficult access to groundwater is found to increase the likelihood of water cooperation, both between non-state actors but also between the government and non-state actors.

Several pathways linking resource scarcity to conflict are similar to those explaining how shortages might lead to cooperation. I argue that this is not puzzling per se. Upon recognizing resources shortages, communities or other actors usually begin to engage on distribution issues through explicit inter-ventions. Such behavior can be positive, i.e., they might result in sharing agreements or other allocation mechanisms. Water scarcity can also lead to interactions that are less positive in nature, like the illegal appropriation or diversion of water resources. While the theoretical argument assumes coop-eration to be the more likely result of experienced scarcity, violence might still occur over shared resources. For states and non-state actors, violent al-tercations are costly and will not benefit resource allocation or sharing in the long-term. Communities should thus have a particular interest in cooperation after incidences of violence. This also dovetails with seminal work by Ostrom (1990) who argues that repeated interactions, even if conflictual, will eventu-ally lead to more cooperation over shared resources.

The findings suggest that more difficult access to groundwater increases the likelihood of water cooperation, both between non-state actors but also between the government and other domestic actors. The work further shows that the relationship between water scarcity and non-state water cooperation is stronger in areas within less democratic countries. This suggests that in less democratic countries, actors find solutions to water scarcity without help from their central government. The insights from this study link to case studies which have long suggested that water scarcity can be a driver for cooperation. A large share of areas included in the analysis have witnessed armed conflict. Yet, the same areas also show incidences of cooperative water events. In fact, I find that areas with armed conflict in the previous year are more likely to witness incidences of state-initiated water cooperation. A similar relationship is, however, not found for non-state cooperation as an outcome variable.

This study also contributes to the literature in several ways. To the au-thor’s best knowledge, the study is the first quantitative, sub-national study on water cooperation, or water-related peaceful interaction more generally. The findings also go beyond samples use in most previous studies, which focused on particularly conflict prone areas. The results hold for different samples in Northern Africa and other countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea.

41

Essay IV: Drought Exposure and Altruism All parts of the dissertation make assumptions and arguments regarding indi-vidual behavior following exposure to water scarcity, but only Essay IV specif-ically tests one causal path of these assumptions. Shifting focus from group level to individual level analysis, this paper examines the role of exposure to drought for pro-social behavior.

How drought exposure could shape altruism has been neglected by both climate-conflict literature as well as research within social-psychology. This Essay considers cooperation through data from surveys among refugees from Syria and Iraq. The responses were matched to observational data on drought for years respondents left their home areas. War and extended water scarcity can negatively affect personal health, especially in regard to mental well-being. Experiences of livelihood loss have been associated with higher threat perceptions and decreased altruism. Here the Essay argues that drought expo-sure could affect such processes as well. Individuals are more inclined to value their own welfare over other individuals’ welfare. Thus lowered altruistic be-havior should be visible particularly for persons with high drought exposure.

The findings suggest that drought exposure is associated with decreased altruism for the survey respondents generally. The Essay further points to moderating effects through group affiliation. Lowered altruism due to drought is found to be more pronounced when the potential recipients of cooperative actions are presented as members of an ethno-religious outgroup.

This study ties together literature on social psychology and climate-conflict, making three important contributions. As in Essay III, this analysis zooms in on cooperation (here as altruism), thereby departing from research with armed conflict as the dependent variable. The Essay makes a theoretical and empirical case for why this link is important for our understanding of the climate-security nexus. Second, for this specific sample, the results sug-gest water scarcity (measured with an array of different operationalizations for drought) decreases pro-social behavior. Third, the findings show that in-and outgroup relationships are important factors explaining the relationship between drought and altruism. While the latter finding could be specific to the sample, this still represents an important insight into our understanding of resilience in environments hit by armed conflict and water scarcity.

Conclusion In this section the main findings from the dissertation are summarized. I also briefly discuss implications for policy work and future research. In the disser-tation I consider cooperation and conflict as outcome variables. There has been much more research on conflict outcomes relative to studies on cooperative, peaceful behavior. Yet, if all we do is study conflict, we overlook cooperation and peace. Similarly, when we focus too much on what explains cooperation,

42

we underestimate the misery created by rare events such as armed conflicts While this is not an argument for always studying war and peace in one study, broader research agendas in peace and conflict research should always con-sider both sides of the coin.

Essay I finds that lacking access to groundwater increases the likelihood of communal fighting. The findings further suggest state presence and prop-erty rights are important factors mitigating groundwater access on conflict in-cidence. This highlights the vital role of groundwater access as a tool for climate adaptation strategies. The study also suggests that investing in water governance and state institutions represent sustainable instruments to address disputes in water-scarce areas.

The second study shows communal violence breeds communal violence in nearby areas independent of local conflict-inducing factors. The analysis further finds drought exposure to increase the likelihood of violence in nearby areas and less locally where such water scarcity occurs. These insights suggest future research on climate-conflict should focus more on how environmental scarcities affect conflict behavior for different spatial scales. While the analy-sis focuses on drought, further research should consider other potential causes of disputes. The study’s findings also potentially help actors engaged in con-flict prevention and resolution. As conflict-inducing factors can reach more distant areas, it is key to consider how such conflict affects communities not directly linked. This can aid more targeted actions of multi-stage integrated approaches that bring together peacebuilding efforts with rapid response mea-sures.

The findings in Essay III link more difficult groundwater access to instances of water cooperation. This applies to cooperation between non-state actors but also between the government and other state or non-state actors. The work also shows that water cooperation among non-state groups is more likely in areas with less democratic governments. This points to certain independence of groups in such cases, i.e., actors find solutions to water scarcity without help from their central government. This could be vital for organizations working in in the water sector.

Essay IV finds drought exposure to correlate with reduced altruism. While the general results suggest drought reduces individual prosocialty, there are important variations when looking at differences in ethno-religious group af-filiation. In particular, the findings suggests exposure to severe water scarcity makes individuals are more altruistic towards ingroup members as compared to outgroups. This is important as reducing impact of drought could both increase altruism and reduce parochial tendencies. The latter could be an im-portant insight for stakeholders working with communities facing repeated drought years, especially in areas with more salient group identities like post-war societies.

Significant parts of the dissertation make a special case for the incorporat-ing groundwater into our analysis on climate, conflict, and cooperation. This

43

is by no means a call to only study groundwater. Yet, there exists very lit-tle research on groundwater and conflict (or cooperation). This is surprising because groundwater represents the largest distributed store of freshwater on earth (Taylor et al 2012). About 32 % of Africa’s urban population relies on groundwater and there is a potential to use more (Chávez García Silva et al 2020). Indeed, the quality and quantity of groundwater often remain hidden to many of its users. But this also creates challenges to sustainable use, often resulting in overextraction and pollution (Gleeson et al 2015). Despite climate-change-driven weather extremes, there has not been any long-term decrease in groundwater storage in Africa (Bonsor et al 2018), even after record-breaking drought events (Kolusu et al 2019). This highlights both the potential and the urgency of safely managing groundwater storage. Moreover, it stresses that we need to further study the impact of groundwater on socio-economic changes, including the impact of pollution. To this end research still lacks better measures to capture the quantity and quality of available groundwater globally (Famiglietti 2014; Cleeson et al 2020).

Furthermore, there is still a gap on gender issues in relation to water and se-curity issues. There is ample evidence for issues over gender inequality within the WASH sector, climate-resilient farming, and general water service provi-sions (Perez et al 2015). We ought to further foster insights from research on gender, water and armed conflict. Women and girls face a disproportion-ate burden from water scarcity (Kadir, Shenoda & Goldhagen 2019). Societal taboos have also found to make women more reluctant to bring attention to is-sues with sanitation access (Mafuta et al 2020). Ensuring water access affects the well-being of society through different channels, particularly in regard to gender issues. This also relates to gender-based violence, for instance in cases where women fetching water are regular targets of violence. Stevenson et al (2012) find water insecurity measures to be associated with psychosocial dis-tress among women. Women face a disproportiate burden from water scarcity and their voices can be further undermined when WASH services are insuf-ficient. This also relates to societal taboos making women more reluctant to bring attention to menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and sanitation (Mafuta et al 2020). Here there are several avenues for future research that could ultimately provide important information to stakeholders.

The dissertation also speaks to several UN Sustainable Development Goals, especially considering water (Goal 6) and peace (Goal 16). Using water in a sustainable, equitable way is one of the most crucial aspects for human devel-opment. The IPCC has robust evidences that climate change will significantly decrease both renewable surface water and groundwater resources in arid re-gions (Jiménez Cisneros et al 2014). This dissertation shows that such changes can explain violence between actors, but also that there is a vast potential for peaceful, cooperative actions. The impact of water scarcity on society is less severe in areas with strong democratic institutions and better socio-economic status. These are not new insights and they are not necessarily helpful for many

44

professionals working in the water sector or generally on environmental issues. However, these relationships highlight the need to strengthen civil society, democratic norms and institutions, or social justice and equity. Such actions would have an enormous impact on how societies cope with water scarcity. Eventually improved access to water resources feeds back into strengthening these factors and influences how societies mitigate water scarcity.

The global water community continues to rely on water scarcity indicators for country-aggregate levels. This is unfortunate because more and more fine-grained data is made available through remote sensing and machine-learning applications. Although even more high-resolution data would be beneficial, especially on water services, there is certainly an even greater need to make existing data more digestible. This means more effort should be placed on translating insights from the latest geographic technologies to the policy sector and development programming.

Another issue relates to the nature of how research reaches policy. Scien-tists might lament that very little of their insights are being adopted by water professionals. However, the problem lies not necessarily within the policy sector. As researchers we also bear responsibility to make findings visible to a range of audiences. This entails communicating knowledge in a way that is accessible to stakeholders and the wider public. This could strengthen how we engage with water issues and help in finding solutions for more sustainable water use.

45

References

Abel, G. J., Brottrager, M., Cuaresma, J. C., & Muttarak, R. (2019). Climate, conflict and forced migration. Global Environmental Change, 54, 239–249.

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.

Ahuja, A., Kremer, M., & Zwane, A. P. (2010). Providing safe water: Evidence from randomized evaluations. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2(1), 237–256.

Almer, C., Laurent-Lucchetti, J., & Oechslin, M. (2017). Water scarcity and riot-ing: Disaggregated evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 86, 193–209.

Axelrod, R. (1980). Effective choice in the prisoners dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 3–25.

Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.

Balestri, S. & Maggioni, M. A. (2017). Land-use change and communal conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 23(4).

Barquet, K., Lujala, P., & Rød, J. K. (2014). Transboundary conservation and milita-rized interstate disputes. Political Geography, 42, 1–1.

Bassett, T. J. (1988). The political ecology of peasant-herder conflicts in the North-ern Ivory Coast. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(3), 453– 472.

Baumann, M. & Kuemmerle, T. (2016). The impacts of warfare and armed conflict on land systems. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(6), 672–688.

Beck, L., Bernauer, T., Siegfried, T., & Böhmelt, T. (2014). Implications of hydro-political dependency for international water cooperation and conflict: Insights from new data. Political Geography, 42, 23–33.

Benjaminsen, T. A., Alinon, K., Buhaug, H., & Buseth, J. T. (2012). Does climate change drive land-use conflicts in the Sahel? Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 97–111.

Benjaminsen, T. A. & Ba, B. (2009). Farmer-herder conflicts, pastoral marginal-isation and corruption: A case study from the inland Niger Delta of Mali. The Geographical Journal, 175(1), 71–81.

Benjaminsen, T. A. & Lund, C. (2002). Formalisation and informalisation of land and water rights in Africa: An introduction. The European Journal of Develop-ment Research, 14(2), 1–10.

Bernauer, T. & Böhmelt, T. (2014). Basins at Risk: Predicting International River Basin Conflict and Cooperation. Global Environmental Politics, 14(4), 116–138.

Bernauer, T. & Böhmelt, T. (2020). International conflict and cooperation over fresh-water resources. Nature Sustainability, 3(5), 350–356.

46

Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., Buhaug, H., Gleditsch, N. P., Tribaldos, T., Weibust, E. B., & Wischnath, G. (2012). Water-related intrastate conflict and cooperation (WAR-ICC): A new event dataset. International Interactions, 38(4), 529–545.

Bhutta, Z. A., Ahmed, T., Black, R. E., Cousens, S., Dewey, K., Giugliani, E., Haider, B. A., Kirkwood, B., Morris, S. S., Sachdev, H., & Shekar, M. (2008). What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. The Lancet, 371(9610), 417–440.

Blatchford, M. L., Mannaerts, C. M., Zeng, Y., Nouri, H., & Karimi, P. (2019). Sta-tus of accuracy in remotely sensed and in-situ agricultural water productivity esti-mates: A review. Remote Sensing of Environment, 234, 111413.

Boccaletti, G. (2021). Water: A Biography. Pantheon. Böhmelt, T., Bernauer, T., Buhaug, H., Gleditsch, N. P., Tribaldos, T., & Wischnath,

G. (2014). Demand, supply, and restraint: Determinants of domestic water conflict and cooperation. Global Environmental Change, 29, 337–348.

Bonsor, H., Shamsudduha, M., Marchant, B., MacDonald, A., & Taylor, R. (2018). Seasonal and decadal groundwater changes in African sedimentary aquifers esti-mated using GRACE products and LSMs. Remote Sensing, 10(6), 904.

Boone, C. (2014). Property and Political Order in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Boulding, K. E. (1978). Stable Peace. University of Texas Press. Brennan, E. & Döring, S. (2014). Harnessing Myanmar’s hydropower and negotiat-

ing conflict. Institute for Security and Development Policy. Brochmann, M. & Hensel, P. R. (2009). Peaceful Management of International River

Claims. International Negotiation, 14(2), 393–418. Brosché, J. (2014). Masters of War: The Role of Elites in Sudan‘s Communal Con-

flicts. Uppsala universitet. Brosché, J. (2022). Conflict over the commons: Government bias and communal

conflicts in Darfur and Eastern Sudan. Ethnopolitics, (pp. 1–23). Brosché, J. & Elfversson, E. (2012). Communal conflict, civil war, and the state:

Complexities, connections, and the case of Sudan. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 12(1), 9–32.

Brounéus, K. (2011). In-Depth Interviewing: The process, skill and ethics of inter-views in peace research, (pp. 130–145). Routledge, first edition.

Brown, J. & van den Broek, M. (2020). Crime and punishment: The challenges of free-riding and peer sanctioning in the rural water sector – lessons from an innova-tion in Uganda. Geoforum, 112, 41–51.

Buhaug, H., Croicu, M., Fjelde, H., & von Uexkull, N. (2020). A conditional model of local income shock and civil conflict. Journal of Politics.

Buhaug, H. & Lujala, P. (2005). Accounting for scale: Measuring geography in quantitative studies of civil war. Political Geography, 24(4), 399–418.

Buhaug, H. & von Uexkull, N. (2021). Vicious circles: Violence, vulnerability, and climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1).

Calow, R. C., MacDonald, A. M., Nicol, A. L., & Robins, N. S. (2010). Ground water security and drought in Africa: Linking availability, access, and demand.

47

Groundwater, 48(2), 246–256. Cao, X., Gizelis, T.-I., Shortland, A., & Urdal, H. (2020). Drought, local public

goods, and inter-communal conflicts: Testing the mediating effects of public ser-vice provisions. Defence and Peace Economics, (pp. 1–21).

Cederman, L.-E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Buhaug, H. (2013). Inequality, grievances, and civil war. Cambridge University Press.

Chávez García Silva, R., Grönwall, J., van der Kwast, J., Danert, K., & Foppen, J. W. (2020). Estimating domestic self-supply groundwater use in urban continental Africa. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 1040b2.

Conca, K. (2005). Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building. MIT Press.

Conca, K. & Dabelko, G. D., Eds. (2003). Environmental Peacemaking. Washington, D.C. Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center and Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cook, S. J. & Weidmann, N. B. (2018). Lost in aggregation: Improving event analy-sis with report-level data. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 250–264.

Croicu, M. & Kreutz, J. (2017). Communication technology and reports on political violence: Cross-national evidence using african events data. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 19–31.

Cronin-Furman, K. & Lake, M. (2018). Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(03), 607–614.

Cunningham, D. E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Salehyan, I. (2013). Non-state actors in civil wars: A new dataset. Conflict management and peace science, 30(5), 516–531.

Dal Bó, P. (2005). Cooperation under the shadow of the future: Experimental evi-dence from infinitely repeated games. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1591– 1604.

Dal Bó, P. & Fréchette, G. R. (2011). The evolution of cooperation in infinitely re-peated games: Experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 101(1), 411– 429.

Daoudy, M., Sowers, J., & Weinthal, E. (2022). What is climate security? fram-ing risks around water, food, and migration in the Middle East and North Africa. WIREs Water.

Davenport, C., Melander, E., & Regan, P. M. (2018). Peace Continuum: What It Is and How to Study It. Oxford University Press.

Davenport, C. & Moore, W. (2015). Conflict Consortium Standards & Best Practices for Observational Data (April 7). Technical report, Conflict Consortium.

De Juan, A. (2015). Long-term environmental change and geographical patterns of violence in Darfur, 2003–2005. Political Geography, 45, 22–33.

Del Bene, D., Scheidel, A., & Temper, L. (2018-04). More dams, more violence? a global analysis on resistances and repression around conflictive dams through co-produced knowledge. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 617–633.

Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2014). What do we learn from the weather? The new climate-economy literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(3), 740– 798.

48

Detges, A. (2014). Close-up on renewable resources and armed conflict. Political Geography, 42, 57–65.

Detges, A. (2016). Local conditions of drought-related violence in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of road and water infrastructures. Journal of Peace Research, (pp. 696–710).

Detges, A. (2017-11). Droughts, state-citizen relations and support for political vi-olence in Sub-Saharan Africa: A micro-level analysis. Political Geography, 61, 88–98.

Devlin, C. & Hendrix, C. S. (2014). Trends and triggers redux: Climate change, rainfall, and interstate conflict. Political Geography, 43, 27–39.

Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., Parienté, W., & Pons, V. (2012). Happiness on tap: Piped water adoption in urban Morocco. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(4), 68–99.

Dinar, S. (2020). Emerging issues and challenges in transboundary freshwater: The role of treaties and treaty design. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science.

Dinar, S., Katz, D., De Stefano, L., & Blankespoor, B. (2015). Climate change, con-flict, and cooperation: Global analysis of the effectiveness of international river treaties in addressing water variability. Political Geography, 45, 55–66.

Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Østergaard Nielsen, J., & Zikos, D. (2018). Environ-mental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Con-flict, 54(1), 99–119.

Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., Guiteras, R., & Clasen, T. (2015). Toilets Can Work: Short and Medium Run Health Impacts of Addressing Complementarities and Ex-ternalities in Water and Sanitation. Technical report, NBER.

Duflo, E. & Pande, R. (2007). Dams. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 601–646.

Eck, K. (2011). Survey Research in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, (pp. 165– 181). Routledge, first edition.

Eck, K. (2012). In data we trust? A comparison of UCDP GED and ACLED conflict events datasets. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(1), 124–141.

Eck, K. (2014). The law of the land: Communal vonflict and legal authority. Journal of Peace Research, 51, 441–454.

Elfversson, E. (2015). Providing security or protecting interests? government in-terventions in violent communal conflicts in Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 52(6), 791–805.

Elfversson, E. (2017). Central politics and local peacemaking: The conditions for peace after communal conflict. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Upp-sala University.

Elfversson, E. (2019). The political conditions for local peacemaking: A compara-tive study of communal conflict resolution in Kenya. Comparative Political Stud-ies, (pp. 001041401983073).

Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

49

Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.

Estache, A., Gomez-Lobo, A., & Leipziger, D. (2001). Utilities privatization and the poor: Lessons and evidence from Latin America. World Development, 29(7), 1179–1198.

Evans, G. W. (2019). Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 449–474.

Falkenmark, M. (1989). The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa: Why isn’t it being addressed? Ambio, 18(2), 112–118.

Falkenmark, M. (1990). Global water issues facing humanity. Journal of Peace Research, 27(2), 177–90.

Falkenmark, M. (1997). Meeting water requirements of an expanding world pop-ulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352(1356), 929–936.

Famiglietti, J. S. (2014). The global groundwater crisis. Nature Climate Change, 4(11), 945–948.

FAO (2012). Coping with Water Scarcity: An Action Framework for Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Fearon, J. D. (2009). Economic development, insurgency, and civil war, (pp. 292– 328). Harvard University Press.

Fearon, J. D. & Laitin, D. D. (1996). Explaining interethnic cooperation. American Political Science Review, 90(04), 715–735.

Fearon, J. D. & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(01), 75–90.

Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791.

Fewtrell, L., Kaufmann, R. B., Kay, D., Enanoria, W., Haller, L., & Colford, J. M. (2005). Water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less de-veloped countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 5(1), 42–52.

Fischhendler, I. (2008). Ambiguity in transboundary environmental dispute resolu-tion: The israeli-Jordanian water agreementt. Journal of Peace Research, 45(1), 91–109.

Fjelde, H. & Østby, G. (2014). Socioeconomic inequality and communal conflict: A disaggregated analysis of Sub-saharan Africa, 1990–2008. International Interac-tions, 40(5), 737–762.

Fjelde, H. & von Uexkull, N. (2012). Climate triggers: Rainfall anomalies, vulnera-bility and communal conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Geography, 31(7), 444–453.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.

Fortna, V. P., Lotito, N. J., & Rubin, M. A. (2018). Don’t bite the hand that feeds: Rebel funding sources and the use of terrorism in civil wars. International Studies Quarterly, 62(4), 782–794.

50

Furlong, K., Gleditsch, N. P., & Hegre, H. (2006). Geographic opportunity and neo-malthusian willingness: Boundaries, shared rivers, and conflict. International Interactions, 32(1), 79–108.

Galiani, S., Gertler, P., & Schargrodsky, E. (2005). Water for life: The impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality. Journal of Political Economy, 113(1), 83–120.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

Gerring, J. & Yesnowitz, J. (2006). A normative turn in political science? Polity, 38(1), 101–133.

Gilmore, E. A. & Buhaug, H. (2021). Climate mitigation policies and the potential pathways to conflict: Outlining a research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, 12(5).

Giordano, M. (2009). Global groundwater? Issues and solutions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 153–178.

Gizelis, T.-I. & Wooden, A. E. (2010). Water resources, institutions, & intrastate conflict. Political Geography, 29(8), 444–453.

Gleditsch, K. S., Metternich, N. W., & Ruggeri, A. (2014). Data and Progress in Peace and Conflict Research. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 301–314.

Gleditsch, N. P. (2001). Armed conflict and the environment. In P. F. Diehl & N. P. Gleditsch (Eds.), Environmental Conflict (pp. 251–272). Westview Press.

Gleditsch, N. P., Furlong, K., Hegre, H., Lacina, B., & Owen, T. (2006). Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries? Political Geography, 25(4), 361–382.

Gleeson, T., Befus, K. M., Jasechko, S., Luijendijk, E., & Cardenas, M. B. (2015). The global volume and distribution of modern groundwater. Nature Geoscience, 9(2), 161–167.

Gleeson, T., Cuthbert, M., Ferguson, G., & Perrone, D. (2020). Global groundwater sustainability, resources, and systems in the anthropocene. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 48(1).

Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 18(1), 79–112.

Goemans, H. E. & Schultz, K. A. (2016). The politics of territorial claims: A geospatial approach applied to africa. International Organization, 71(1), 31–64.

Goertz, G. (2016). The puzzle of peace: The evolution of peace in the international system. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grech-Madin, C. (2021). Water and warfare: The evolution and operation of the water taboo. International Security, 45(4), 84–125.

Grech-Madin, C., Döring, S., Kim, K., & Swain, A. (2018). Negotiating water across levels: A peace and conflict “toolbox” for water diplomacy. Journal of Hydrology, 559, 100–109.

Greiner, C. (2013). Guns, land, and votes: Cattle rustling and the politics of bound-ary (re)making in northern kenya. African Affairs, 112(447), 216–237.

Grossman, H. I. (1991). A general equilibrium model of insurrections. The American Economic Review, 81(4), 912–921.

51

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.

Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press. Gustafsson, B., Rydén, L., Tibell, G., & Wallensteen, P. (1984). Focus on: The upp-

sala code of ethics for scientists. Journal of Peace Research, 21(4), 311–316. Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why

does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Sci-ence Review, 101(4), 709–725.

Hall, J., Kahn, D., Skoog, E., & Öberg, M. (2021). War exposure, altruism and the recalibration of welfare tradeoffs towards threatening social categories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 94, 104101.

Hall, J. & Kahn, D. T. (2020). Exposure to wartime trauma decreases positive emo-tions and altruism toward rival out-groups (but not nonrival out-groups): A survey experiment in a field setting among Syrian refugees. Social Psychological and Personality Science, (pp. 194855061987663).

Harari, M. & La Ferrara, E. (2018). Conflict, climate, and cells: A disaggregated analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(4), 594–608.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. Hensel, P. R. & Mitchell, S. M. (2014). Lessons from the issue correlates of war

(ICOW) project. Journal of Peace Research, 52(1), 116–119. Hensel, P. R., Mitchell, S. M., Sowers, T. E., & Thyne, C. L. (2008). Bones of con-

tention: Comparing territirial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Reso-lution, 52(1), 117–143.

Higazi, A. (2016). Farmer-pastoralist conflicts on the Jos Plateau, central Nigeria: Security responses of local vigilantes and the Nigerian state. Conflict, Security & Development, 16(4), 365–385.

Higgott, R., Underhill, G., & Bieler, A. (2000). Introduction: Globalisation and Non-State Actors, (pp. 1–12). Routledge.

Hillesund, S. (2017). Choosing whom to target: Horizontal inequality and the risk of civil and communal violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 528–554.

Höglund, K. (2011). Comparitive Field Research in War-torn Societies, (pp. 114– 129). Routledge, first edition.

Höglund, K. & Söderberg Kovacs, M. (2010). Beyond the absence of war: the diver-sity of peace in post-settlement societies. Review of International Studies, 36(02), 367.

Homer-Dixon, T. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. International Security, 19(1), 5–40.

Hoover Green, A. & Cohen, D. K. (2020). Centering human subjects: The ethics of "desk research" on political violence. Journal of Global Security Studies.

Humphrey, J. H. (2009). Child undernutrition, tropical enteropathy, toilets, and hand-washing. The Lancet, 374(9694), 1032–1035.

Humphreys, M. (2015). Reflections on the ethics of social experimentation. Journal of Globalization and Development, 6(1).

52

Ide, T. (2018). The impact of environmental cooperation on peacemaking: Defini-tions, mechanisms, and empirical evidence. International Studies Review, 21(3), 327–346.

Ide, T., Bruch, C., Carius, A., Conca, K., Dabelko, G. D., Matthew, R., & Weinthal, E. (2021). The past and future(s) of environmental peacebuilding. International Affairs, 97(1), 1–16.

Ide, T., Kristensen, A., & Bartuseviˇ First comes the river, then cius, H. (2020a). comes the conflict? A qualitative comparative analysis of flood-related political unrest. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 83–97.

Ide, T., Lopez, M. R., Fröhlich, C., & Scheffran, J. (2020b). Pathways to water conflict during drought in the MENA region. Journal of Peace Research, (pp. 002234332091077).

Ide, T., Sumer, V., & Aldehoff, L. (2018). Environmental peacebuilding in the Mid-dle East, (pp. 175–87). Routledge.

Islam, S. & Susskind, L. (2018). Using complexity science and negotiation theory to resolve boundary-crossing water issues. Journal of Hydrology, 562, 589–598.

Jakiela, P. & Ozier, O. (2019). The impact of violence on individual risk preferences: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 547–559.

Jiménez Cisneros, B., Oki, T., Arnell, N., Benito, G., Cogley, J., Döll, P., Jiang, T., & Mwakalila, S. (2014). Freshwater resources climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, part a: Global and sectoral aspects. contribution of working group ii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (editors: Field et al).

Kadir, A., Shenoda, S., & Goldhagen, J. (2019). Effects of armed conflict on child health and development: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210071.

Kalbhenn, A. & Bernauer, T. (2012). International water cooperation and conflict: A new event dataset. SSRN, No. 2176609.

Kaplan, L., Kuhnt, J., & Steinert, J. I. (2020). Do no harm? field research in the Global South: Ethical challenges faced by research staff. World Development, 127, 104810.

Karlén, N. (2017). Sponsors of war: State support for rebel groups in civil conflicts. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.

Katusiime, J. & Schütt, B. (2020). Linking land tenure and integrated watershed management—A review. Sustainability, 12(4), 1667.

Kay, T., Keller, L., & Lehmann, L. (2020). The evolution of altruism and the serial rediscovery of the role of relatedness. PNAS, 117(46), 28894–28898.

Kim, K. (2021). Civil Resistance in the Shadow of War: Explaining popular mobi-lization against dams in Myanmar. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.

Klaus, K. (2017). Contentious land narratives and the nonescalation of election vio-lence: Evidence from Kenya’s coast region. African Studies Review, 60(2), 51–72.

Klimes, M., Michel, D., Yaari, E., & Restiani, P. (2019). Water diplomacy: The in-tersect of science, policy and practice. Journal of Hydrology, 575, 1362–1370.

53

Kolusu, S. R., Shamsudduha, M., Todd, M. C., Taylor, R. G., Seddon, D., Kashaigili, J. J., Ebrahim, G. Y., Cuthbert, M. O., Sorensen, J. P. R., Villholth, K. G., Mac-Donald, A. M., & MacLeod, D. A. (2019). The El Niño event of 2015–2016: Cli-mate anomalies and their impact on groundwater resources in East and Southern Africa. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(3), 1751–1762.

König, M. D., Rohner, D., Thoenig, M., & Zilibotti, F. (2017). Networks in conflict: Theory and evidence from the Great War of Africa. Econometrica, 85(4), 1093– 1132.

Koren, O., Bagozzi, B. E., & Benson, T. S. (2021). Food and water insecurity as causes of social unrest: Evidence from geolocated twitter data. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 67–82.

Koubi, V. (2019). Climate change and conflict. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 343–360.

Koubi, V., Böhmelt, T., Spilker, G., & Schaffer, L. (2018). The determinants of en-vironmental migrants’ conflict perception. International Organization, 72(4), 905–936.

Koubi, V., Spilker, G., Schaffer, L., & Böhmelt, T. (2016). The role of environmental perceptions in migration decision-making: Evidence from both migrants and non-migrants in five developing countries. Population and Environment, 38(2), 134– 163.

Krampe, F. (2016). Water for peace? post-conflict water resource management in Kosovo. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(2), 147–165.

Krampe, F. & Gignoux, S. (2018). Water service provision and peacebuilding in East Timor: Exploring the socioecological determinants for sustaining peace. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, (pp. 1–23).

Krampe, F., Hegazi, F., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2021). Sustaining peace through better resource governance: Three potential mechanisms for environmental peacebuild-ing. World Development, 144, 105508.

Krause, J. (2018). Resilient Communities. Cambridge University Press. Kremer, M., Leino, J., Miguel, E., & Zwane, A. P. (2011). Spring cleaning: Rural

water impacts, valuation, and property rights institutions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 145–205.

Krystalli, R. & Schulz, P. (2022). Taking love and care seriously: An emergent re-search agenda for remaking worlds in the wake of violence. International Studies Review, 24(1).

Landis, S. T., Rezaeedaryakenari, B., Zhang, Y., Thies, C. G., & Maciejewski, R. (2017). Fording differences? Conditions mitigating water insecurity in the Niger River Basin. Political Geography, 56, 77–90.

Leblanc, M. J., Favreau, G., Massuel, S., Tweed, S. O., Loireau, M., & Cappelaere, B. (2008). Land clearance and hydrological change in the Sahel: SW niger. Global and Planetary Change, 61(3-4), 135–150.

Lenshie, N. E., Okengwu, K., Ogbonna, C. N., & Ezeibe, C. (2020). Desertifica-tion, migration, and herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria: rethinking the ungoverned spaces thesis. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 32(8), 1221–1251.

54

Lin, E. (2020). How war changes land: Soil fertility, unexploded bombs, and the underdevelopment of cambodia. American Journal of Political Science.

Linke, A. M. & Tollefsen, A. F. (2021). Environmental stress and agricultural landownership in Africa. Global Environmental Change, 67, 102237.

Linke, A. M., Witmer, F. D. W., & O’Loughlin, J. (2020). Do people accurately report droughts? Comparison of instrument-measured and national survey data in Kenya. Climatic Change.

Linke, A. M., Witmer, F. D. W., O’Loughlin, J., McCabe, J. T., & Tir, J. (2018). Drought, local institutional contexts, and support for violence in Kenya. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(7), 1544–1578.

List, J. A. & Price, M. K. (2016). The use of field experiments in environmental and resource economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(2), 206–225.

Lonergan, S. C. (2001). Water and conflict: Rhetoric and reality. In P. F. Diehl & N. P. Gleditsch (Eds.), Environmental Conflict (pp. 109–124). Westview Press.

Loyle, C. E. & Simoni, A. (2017). Researching under fire: Political science and researcher trauma. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(01), 141–145.

Lund, C. (2008). Local politics and the dynamics of property in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

MacDonald, A. M., Bell, R. A., Kebede, S., Azagegn, T., Yehualaeshet, T., Pichon, F., Young, M., McKenzie, A. A., Lapworth, D. J., Black, E., & Calow, R. C. (2019). Groundwater and resilience to drought in the Ethiopian highlands. En-vironmental Research Letters, 14(9), 095003.

Mach, K. J., Adger, W. N., Buhaug, H., Burke, M., Fearon, J. D., Field, C. B., Hen-drix, C. S., Kraan, C. M., Maystadt, J.-F., O’Loughlin, J., Roessler, P., Scheffran, J., Schultz, K. A., & Uexkull, N. (2020). Commentary title: Directions for re-search on climate and conflict. Earth’s Future, 8.

Mach, K. J., Kraan, C. M., Adger, W. N., Buhaug, H., Burke, M., Fearon, J. D., Field, C. B., Hendrix, C. S., Maystadt, J.-F., O’Loughlin, J., Roessler, P., Schef-fran, J., Schultz, K. A., & von Uexkull, N. (2019). Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict. Nature, 571(7764), 193–197.

Mafuta, W., Zuwarimwe, J., Kamuzhanje, J., Mwale, M., & Chipaike, R. (2020). Sustainable conflict resolution through community based water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) planning in fragile and conflict situations: The case of Somalia. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 56(2), 352–363.

Mafuta, W., Zuwarimwe, J., & Mwale, M. (2021). Universal WASH coverage: what it takes for fragile states. The case of Jariban district in Somalia. PLOS ONE, 16(2), e0247417.

McCabe, J. T. (2004). Cattle Bring Us to Our Enemies. University of Michigan Press.

Menga, F. (2016). The Water Relations in Central Asia Dataset (WRCAD) an online tool for researchers, practitioners and students. Eurasiatica, (pp. 185–202).

Merrick, T. W. (1985). The effect of piped water on early childhood mortality in urban Brazil, 1970 to 1976. Demography, 22(1), 1.

55

Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., & Sergenti, E. (2004). Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 725– 753.

Molinas, J. (1998). The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capital on local-level cooperation. World Development, 26(3), 413–431.

Moosa, H. (2018). Environmental peacebuilding in Iraq: Restoring the Iraqi Marshes and the ancient kahrez systems in the northern governorates, (pp. 188– 209). Routledge.

Morton, R. B. & Tucker, J. A. (2014). Experiments, journals, and ethics. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2), 99–103.

Mustasilta, K. (2018). Including chiefs, maintaining peace? examining the effects of state–traditional governance interaction on civil peace in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research, (pp. 002234331879078).

Mustasilta, K. (2020). The implications of traditional authority contest for local-level stability–evidence from South Africa. Conflict Management and Peace Science, (pp. 0738894220959655).

Nazari, S., Ahmadi, A., Kamrani Rad, S., & Ebrahimi, B. (2020). Application of non-cooperative dynamic game theory for groundwater conflict resolution. Jour-nal of Environmental Management, 270, 110889.

Nordkvelle, J., Rustad, S. A., & Salmivalli, M. (2017). Identifying the effect of cli-mate variability on communal conflict through randomization. Climatic Change, 141(4), 627–639.

Nugent, J. B. & Sanchez, N. (1998). Common property rights as an endogenous response to risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 651–657.

Olson, M. (1974). The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Col-

lective Action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS,

104(39), 15181–15187. Otto, S. (2013). Coding one-sided violence from media reports. Cooperation and

Conflict, 48(4), 556–566. Ovodenko, A. (2016). Regional water cooperation: Creating incentives for integrated

management. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(6), 1071–1098. Owsiak, A. P. & Mitchell, S. M. (2017). Conflict management in land, river, and

maritime claims. Political Science Research and Methods, (pp. 1–19). Pacheco-Vega, R. & Parizeau, K. (2018). Doubly engaged ethnography. Interna-

tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 160940691879065. Papaioannou, K. J. (2016). Climate shocks and conflict: Evidence from colonial

Nigeria. Political Geography, 50, 33–47. Pedro-Monzonís, M., Solera, A., Ferrer, J., Estrela, T., & Paredes-Arquiola, J.

(2015). A review of water scarcity and drought indexes in water resources plan-ning and management. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 482–493.

Perez, C., Jones, E., Kristjanson, P., Cramer, L., Thornton, P., Förch, W., & Bara-hona, C. (2015). How resilient are farming households and communities to a

56

changing climate in africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environmental Change, 34, 95–107.

Petrova, K. (2022). Floods, communal conflict and the role of local state institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Geography, 92, 102511.

Pettersson, T. & Öberg, M. (2020). Organized violence, 1989–2019. Journal of Peace Research, 57(4), 597–613.

Pickering, A. J. & Davis, J. (2012). Freshwater availability and water fetching dis-tance affect child health in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Science & Tech-nology, 46(4), 2391–2397.

Potters, J. & Stoop, J. (2016). Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field? Euro-pean Economic Review, 87, 26–33.

Povitkina, M. & Bolkavadze, K. (2019). Fresh pipes with dirty water: How quality of government shapes the provision of public goods in democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1191–1212.

Priscoli, J. D. & Wolf, A. T. (2009). Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge University Press, paperback edition.

Rabinovich, A., Heath, S. C., Zhischenko, V., Mkilema, F., Patrick, A., Nasseri, M., Wynants, M., Blake, W. H., Mtei, K., Munishi, L., & Ndakidemi, P. (2020). Pro-tecting the commons: Predictors of willingness to mitigate communal land degra-dation among Maasai pastoralists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101504.

Raleigh, C. & Kniveton, D. (2012). Come rain or shine: An analysis of conflict and climate variability in East Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 51–64.

Raleigh, C. & Urdal, H. (2007). Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict. Political Geography, 26, 674–694.

Rapaport, C., Hornik-Lurie, T., Cohen, O., Lahad, M., Leykin, D., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2018). The relationship between community type and community resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 470–477.

Rapoport, A. (1992). Peace : an idea whose time has come. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rappaport, R. (1984). Pigs for the ancestors: Ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people. Waveland Press.

Rijsberman, F. R. (2006). Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agricultural Water Man-agement, 80(1-3), 5–22.

Rose, J. I. (2010). New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf oasis. Current Anthropology, 51(6), 849–883.

Salmoral, G., Schaap, N. C. E., Walschebauer, J., & Alhajaj, A. (2019). Water diplo-macy and nexus governance in a transboundary context: In the search for comple-mentarities. Science of The Total Environment, 690, 85–96.

Scanlon, B. R., Levitt, D. G., Reedy, R. C., Keese, K. E., & Sully, M. J. (2005). Eco-logical controls on water-cycle response to climate variability in deserts. PNAS, 102(17), 6033–6038.

Scartozzi, C. M. (2020). Reframing climate-induced socio-environmental conflicts: A systematic review. International Studies Review.

57

Schillinger, J., Özerol, G., Güven-Griemert, S., & Heldeweg, M. (2020). Water in war: Understanding the impacts of armed conflict on water resources and their management. WIREs Water.

Schmidt, C. J., Lee, B. K., & Mitchell, S. M. (2021). Climate bones of contention: How climate variability influences territorial, maritime, and river interstate con-flicts. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 132–150.

Scott, J. (2017). Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. Yale University Press.

Sekhri, S. (2011). Public provision and protection of natural resources: Groundwater irrigation in rural India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(4), 29–55.

Sekhri, S. (2014). Wells, water, and welfare: The impact of access to groundwater on rural poverty and conflict. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(3), 76–102.

Selten, R. & Stoecker, R. (1986). End behavior in sequences of finite prisoner’s dilemma supergames, a learning theory approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 7(1), 47–70.

Seneviratne, S., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y., Marengo, J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C., Zhang, X., Alexander, L. V., Allen, S., Benito, G., Cavazos, T., Clague, J., Con-way, D., Della-Marta, P. M., Gerber, M., Gong, S., Goswami, B. N., Hemer, M., Huggel, C., Van Den Hurk, B., Kharin, V. V., Kitoh, A., Klein Tank, A. M., Li, G., Mason, S. J., McGuire, W., Van Oldenborgh, G. J., Orlowsky, B., Smith, S., Thiaw, W., Velegrakis, A., Yiou, P., Zhang, T., Zhou, T., & Zwiers, F. W. (2012). Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environ-ment. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (pp. 109–230). Cambridge University Press.

Seter, H. (2016). Connecting climate variability and conflict: Implications for empir-ical testing. Political Geography, 53, 1–9.

Shukla, P., Skea, J., Buendia, E. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., P. Zhai, R. S., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M., Petzold, J., Pereira, J. P., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., Kissick, K., Belkacemi, M., & Malley, J. (2019). IPCC, 2019: Summary for policymak-ers. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, de-sertification, land degradation, sustainable land managementm food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

Silva, R. C. G., Grönwall, J., van der Kwast, J., Danert, K., & Foppen, J. W. (2020). Estimating domestic self-supply groundwater use in urban continental Africa. En-vironmental Research Letters, 15(10), 1040b2.

Skoog, E. (2020). Preferences Under Pressure: Conflict, Threat Cues and Willing-ness to Compromise. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala Uni-versity.

58

Söderström, J., Åkebo, M., & Jarstad, A. K. (2020). Friends, fellows, and foes: A new framework for studying relational peace. International Studies Review.

Spilker, G., Nguyen, Q., Koubi, V., & Böhmelt, T. (2020). Attitudes of urban resi-dents towards environmental migration in Kenya and Vietnam. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), 622–627.

Steenbergen, M. R. & Jones, B. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 218.

Stevenson, E. G., Greene, L. E., Maes, K. C., Ambelu, A., Tesfaye, Y. A., Rheingans, R., & Hadley, C. (2012). Water insecurity in 3 dimensions: An anthropological perspective on water and women’s psychosocial distress in Ethiopia. Social Sci-ence & Medicine, 75(2), 392–400.

Sundberg, R., Eck, K., & Kreutz, J. (2012). Introducing the UCDP non-state conflict dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 49, 351–362.

Swain, A. (1993). Environment and Conflict: Analyzing the Developing World. Re-port No. 37. Department of Peace and Conflict Research.

Swain, A. (1996). Displacing the conflict: Environmental destruction in Bangladesh and ethnic conflict in India. Journal of Peace Research, 33(2), 189–204.

Swain, A. (2012). Understanding Emerging Security Challenges: Threats and Op-portunities. Contemporary Security Studies. Taylor & Francis.

Swain, A. (2016). Water and post-conflict peacebuilding. Hydrological Sciences Journal, (pp. 1–10).

SWALIM (2015). Hydrogeological Study in Ceel Waaq District, Gedo Region, So-malia. FAO-SWALIM.

Taylor, R. G., Scanlon, B., Döll, P., Rodell, M., van Beek, R., Wada, Y., Longuev-ergne, L., Leblanc, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Edmunds, M., Konikow, L., Green, T. R., Chen, J., Taniguchi, M., Bierkens, M. F. P., MacDonald, A., Fan, Y., Maxwell, R. M., Yechieli, Y., Gurdak, J. J., Allen, D. M., Shamsudduha, M., Hiscock, K., Yeh, P. J.-F., Holman, I., & Treidel, H. (2012). Ground water and climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 322–329.

Theisen, O. M. (2017). Climate change and violence: Insights from political science. Current Climate Change Reports, 3(4), 210–221.

Theisen, O. M., Hegre, H., Buhaug, H., Döring, S., Jansen, R., Lindqvist-McGowan, A., Rudolfsen, I., Vesco, P., Salido Marcos, J., Acaf, Y., Nahabedian, P., & Ismail, L. (2021). Understanding the potential linkages between climate change and con-flict in the Arab region. UN ESCWA. E/ESCWA/CL6.GCP/2021/TP.9.

Themnér, A. & Ohlson, T. (2014). Legitimate peace in post-civil war states: Towards attaining the unattainable. Conflict, Security & Development, 14(1), 61–87.

Thomas, D. R., Pastrana, S., Hutchings, A., Clayton, R., & Beresford, A. R. (2017). Ethical issues in research using datasets of illicit origin. IMC17: Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference.

Tir, J. & Ackerman, J. T. (2009). Politics of formalized river cooperation. Journal of Peace Research, 46(5), 623–640.

Tir, J. & Stinnett, D. M. (2012). Weathering climate change: Can institutions miti-gate international water conflict? Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 211–225.

59

Tollefsen, A. F., Strand, H., & Buhaug, H. (2012). PRIO-GRID: A unified spatial data structure. Journal of Peace Research, 49(2), 363–374.

Turner, M. D., Ayantunde, A. A., Patterson, K. P., & Patterson, E. D. (2012). Conflict management, decentralization and agropastoralism in dryland West Africa. World Development, 40(4), 745–757.

Turner, M. D. & Moumouni, O. (2018). Mosaics of property: control of village land in West Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies, (pp. 1–25).

UN Water (2020). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: Wa-ter and Climate Change. UNESCO.

Unfried, K., Kis-Katos, K., & Poser, T. (2022). Water scarcity and social conflict. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 113, 102633.

van Baalen, S. (2018). ‘Google wants to know your location’: The ethical challenges of fieldwork in the digital age. Research Ethics, 14(4), 1–17.

van Baalen, S. & Mobjörk, M. (2017). Climate change and violent conflict in East Africa: Integrating qualitative and quantitative research to probe the mechanisms. International Studies Review, 20(4), 547–575.

van Weezel, S. (2017). Short term effects of drought on communal conflict in Nige-ria. HiCN Working Paper 240, (pp. 1–30).

Vesco, P., Dasgupta, S., Cian, E. D., & Carraro, C. (2020). Natural resources and conflict: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Ecological Economics, 172, 106633.

Vesco, P., Kovacic, M., Mistry, M., & Croicu, M. (2021). Climate variability, crop and conflict: Exploring the impacts of spatial concentration in agricultural produc-tion. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 98–113.

Vestby, J. (2019). Climate variability and individual motivations for participating in political violence. Global Environmental Change, 56, 114–123.

von Uexkull, N. (2020). Climate, Conflict and Coping Capacity: The Impact of Cli-mate Variability on Organized Violence. Department of Peace and Conflict Re-search, Uppsala University.

von Uexkull, N., Croicu, M., Fjelde, H., & Buhaug, H. (2016). Civil conflict sensi-tivity to growing-season drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences, (pp. 201607542).

Vörösmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., & Lammers, R. B. (2000). Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289(5477), 284–288.

Wallensteen, P. (2011). The origins of contemporary peace research. In Understand-ing Peace Research (pp. 14–32). Routledge, first edition.

Wallensteen, P. (2015). Quality Peace: Peacebuilding, Victory and World Order. Oxford University Press.

Wallensteen, P. & Swain, A. (1997). Comprehensive assessment of the freshwater resources of the world. Stockholm Environment Institute.

Weidmann, N. B. (2016). A closer look at reporting bias in conflict event data. Amer-ican Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 206–218.

60

Weinstein, J. M. (2006). Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. Cam-bridge University Press.

Weinthal, E., Troell, J., & Nakayama, M. (2011). Water and post-conflict peacebuild-ing: introduction. Water International, 36(2), 143–153.

WHO (2017). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017. United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization (WHO).

Wig, T. & Kromrey, D. (2018). Which groups fight?Customary institutions and com-munal conflicts in Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 55(4), 415–429.

Wig, T. & Tollefsen, A. F. (2016). Local institutional quality and conflict violence in Africa. Political Geography, 53, 30–42.

Wolf, A. T. (1998). Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy, 1(2), 251–265.

Wolf, A. T. (1999). The transboundary freshwater dispute database project. Water International, 24(2), 160–163.

Wood, E. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Quali-tative Sociology, 29(3), 373–386.

Yoffe, S., Wolf, A. T., & Giordano, M. (2003). Conflict and cooperation over inter-national freshwater resources: Indicators of basins at risk. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39(5), 1109–1126.

Zareie, S., Bozorg-Haddad, O., & Loáiciga, H. A. (2020). A state-of-the-art review of water diplomacy. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 2337– 2357.

Zaveri, E., Grogan, D. S., Fisher-Vanden, K., Frolking, S., Lammers, R. B., Wrenn, D. H., Prusevich, A., & Nicholas, R. E. (2016). Invisible water, visible impact: Groundwater use and indian agriculture under climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8), 084005.

Zeitoun, M. & Mirumachi, N. (2008). Transboundary water interaction I: reconsid-ering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 297–316.

Zeitoun, M. & Talhami, M. (2016). The impact of explosive weapons on urban ser-vices: Direct and reverberating effects across space and time. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(901), 53–70.

Zwane, A. P., Zinman, J., Van Dusen, E., Pariente, W., Null, C., Miguel, E., Kre-mer, M., Karlan, D. S., Hornbeck, R., Giné, X., et al. (2011). Being surveyed can change later behavior and related parameter estimates. PNAS, 108(5), 1821–1826.

61