Reframing intangibles: Bridging implementation gaps in contested water infrastructure projects in the Middle East

Abstract

Water infrastructure projects in transboundary conflict settings, such as the Middle East, are shaped by political tensions, governance fragility and competing narratives. Traditional assessment approaches of water projects focus on tangible factors such as water volume, cost-benefit analyses and technical feasibility; while intangibles, including peace dividends, trust building, cooperation and inclusion, remain insufficiently operationalized and underexplored for optimizing decision-making processes. This paper addresses this gap by deductively applying the concept of intangibles – categorized as human, structural and social capital, as established in corporate finance – to the planning and implementation of contested water infrastructure projects. Drawing on examples from the Middle East, including the Red-Dead Canal and the Jordan-Israel water-energy exchange project, the paper outlines how neglecting intangibles may exacerbate mistrust, stall cooperation and undermine project progress. Overall, the paper aspires to propose a typology of intangibles and to demonstrate the potential of operationalizing them in water projects within a politically sensitive region.

1. Introduction

1.1. Water realities and contestation in the Middle East

During the first Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Climate Week, 2022, Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, described climate impact in the MENA region as a ‘grave threat to life’ (Kennedy, 2022). Water scarcity in the region, compounded by climate change, is already exacerbating geo-political tensions, particularly in conflict contexts such as the Middle East. Water projects in this region are entangled with political power struggles, fragile governance systems and socioeconomic challenges (Giordano & Rüttinger, 2021). This paper focuses on three nations, Israel, Palestine and Jordan, where discourse about water is often shaped by asymmetric power relations, historical disputes and competing national interests.

The water conflict in the Middle East is deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is debated that tensions over the Jordan River’s headwaters among Israel, Syria and Lebanon contributed to the breakout of the 6-day war in 1967 (Boast, 2015). Water has also been addressed in different peace efforts, including the Oslo Interim Accords and the Jordan-Israel Treaty in 1994 (Sofer, 1998). Article 40 of the Oslo Accords created limited mechanisms in managing shared water resources between Palestinians and Israelis (Zeitoun, 2008), largely reinforcing Israeli dominance rather than establishing true co-management, described by Selby (2003) as ‘dressing up domination’. Palestinian projects have since faced obstruction (Carry, 2019; Zeitoun, 2007), worsening water scarcity and deepening dependency on Israeli supply (Bromberg et al., 2020; Selby, 2013). Meanwhile, Israel’s booming desalination industry is designed to meet domestic, Palestinian and Jordanian needs (Tal, 2011; Tsur, 2020). Power asymmetry materializes in contexts in which transboundary water governance is shaped by unequal financial resources and political control, resulting in the more powerful party having leverage in exploiting and managing shared water resources (Petersen-Perlman et al., 2017; Zeitoun & Warner, 2006).

At the intersection of geo-political tensions and environmental pressures, water infrastructure ¹ emerges not merely as a technical solution, but as a socio-political construct shaped by competing interests and values. In the Middle East, water infrastructures are both essential and deeply contested. Some have sparked controversy and debate among stakeholders and publicly, concerning their purpose, feasibility, safety and other considerations and are further challenged by fragile political systems, complex governance contexts and ongoing, in parts violent, conflict.

Gleick and Iceland (2022) categorize water resources and water-related infrastructures into three distinct roles: catalysts for conflict, instruments of warfare or casualties of violent confrontations; all of which are relevant to the Middle East. The recent Gaza-Israel war, which erupted in 2023, illustrates each of these roles. The widespread destruction of water and sanitation systems was described as ‘disaster by all standards’ by the Chairman of the Palestinian Water Authority (WAFA Agency, 2024). A UN report stipulated human development in Gaza had been set back nearly 70 years (UNDP, 2024). The deliberate cutting of water supply from Israeli transmission lines was described as an act of weaponizing water (McKernan, 2023; Nagheeby, 2023), while severe contamination of the Coastal Aquifer and the Mediterranean due to untreated sewage represents another dimension of water as a victim of war.

In such complex settings, water issues are shaped by multiple variables (i.e. economic, social and political) involving several parties, stakeholders and institutions, within highly volatile and unpredictable environments. Discourse around these issues is often prone to subjectivity and biased narratives, resulting in a nonlinear relationship between these variables. Nevertheless, such situations present an opportunity to develop tools and constructive guiding principles for conflict resolution and water diplomacy (Abigail, 2024; Islam & Susskind, 2018).

What is missing in Gleick and Iceland’s categorization is such a potential role of water in promoting cooperation and conflict resolution. Water resources and infrastructure can serve as tools for confidence- and peacebuilding in transboundary contexts (Schmeier, 2024; Turgul et al., 2023; Wolf et al., 2006). Water diplomacy can function both as a goal and a mechanism for creating sustainable dialogue platforms, generating trust, building capacities and institutions for joint technical and governance mechanisms (Islam & Susskind, 2018; Sehring et al., 2022). Such approaches can help develop guiding principles to bypass conflicts and magnify discourses over mutual benefits that extend beyond water-related issues (Abigail, 2024; Petersen-Perlman et al., 2017). This is where intangibles come into play and merit further exploration.

In social science research, and in epistemological terms, social phenomena are examined regarding their interdependence and independence (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Thus, intangibles and contested infrastructure projects should be examined through a lens of causality and relational dynamics, and how they co-exist within a particular socio-political context (Hayes & Fawcett, 2023). The purpose of this paper is therefore to explore how intangibles can be applied in water infrastructure development in conflict settings. It pursues two objectives: (a) to analyze the role of intangibles – human, structural and social capital – in influencing project outcomes, and (b) to propose a framework for integrating intangibles into transboundary water governance to better understand and bridge implementation gaps. The paper mainly adopts a deductive approach through a literature review ² and draws on the anthropology of infrastructures for its theoretical framework. The analysis is triangulated with anecdotal inductive insights from field observations, private conversations and professional settings of one of the authors as head of an environmental NGO in the Middle East. The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 outlines the (theoretical) role of intangibles in water infrastructure projects based on an extensive literature review and real-life examples of existing infrastructure projects through the lens of the anthropology of infrastructure. Section 3 contextualizes water infrastructure projects in the Middle East, and Section 4 presents a tentative framework for integrating intangibles into transboundary water governance. The paper concludes with an outlook and suggestions for policy recommendations.

2. Understanding intangibles

The concept of intangibles originates in corporate finance literature, where non-physical assets – such as intellectual property, organizational culture and human expertise – drive value creation (Lev, 2001; Moro-Visconti, 2022). Corporate literature categorizes intangibles into three domains, identified by using the term ‘capital’, treating them as inputs or investments made to support generating revenue (OECD, 2001):

1. Human capital, demonstrating skills and expertise.

2. Structural capital, tackling governance systems and institutional frameworks.

3. Social capital and customer capital, building on understanding networks and stakeholder relationships that enable actions and processes serving the collective good (Gannon & Roberts, 2020). This also considers how these processes shape ties with end-users or customers (Meiseberg, 2015) and influence public perceptions.

This paper proposes that the current knowledge on intangibles in finance and economics can be fruitfully transferred to the anthropology of water infrastructures, not to render such intangibles in water infrastructures marketable or monetized, but to better understand implementation gaps, especially in conflict settings. The paper presents a typology of intangibles in water infrastructure projects based on a systematic literature review, triangulated with some original data from participatory observations. A theoretical framework is later developed as illustrated in Figure 1, Section 4 below.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for applying intangibles to water infrastructure projects in conflict areas.

2.1. What are intangibles and why are they important?

There is no standard definition for intangibles, which poses challenges regarding how intangibles can best be classified, evaluated and managed (Zadorozhny & Yasyshena, 2019). In general, intangibles are known as non-physical, non-monetary assets that come with economic value and benefits (Moro-Visconti, 2022). According to Kaufmann and Schneider (2004), studies are either too broad or too focused, limiting their ability to offer standardized guidance on managing intangibles.

Intangible assets are widely discussed in the literature on corporate investments within manufacturing and services (Kolev et al., 2013; Lev, 2001; Moro-Visconti, 2022), encompassing areas such as Research and Development, branding, copyright, software development and patents. Financial institutions and services companies have become increasingly interested in non-market values, or intangibles, mainly to assess growth or decline in productivity, and to validate the added value of financial investments (OECD, 2021).

In financial analysis, returns from investments in intangibles are central to assessing corporate value (Puca & Zyla, 2019). Interest in valuing intangibles has grown particularly in Europe and the United States, with investment shares in intangibles rising by 29% over the past 25 years (Corrado et al., 2018; Hazan et al., 2021; Lev & Gu, 2016). Literature provides guidance on valuating intangibles (Reilly et al., 2019). Several accounting methods have been developed to give intangibles a monetary value to aid the feasibility analysis and reporting on intangibles; methods to be used are dependent on whether the reporting is external to investors or internal for strengthened management (Andriessen, 2003; Filice, 2020). Nichita (2019) noted a wave of research on the topic of intangibles throughout the transition period between the 20th and 21st centuries, very likely due to the modifications made to accounting standards of intangibles in earlier years.

2.2. Intangibles in infrastructure

Intangibles are associated with the term ‘non-market value’ (FASB, 2019; Markantonis et al., 2012), which is commonly used in valuating infrastructure (David et al., 2004; Johansson & Kriström, 2011; Peterson, 1974). According to Rohaizad et al. (2021), researchers agree that intangibles are connected to the ‘tangible’ aspect of an infrastructure project, as a property and structure that provides public services.

Throughout this study, it was challenging to find academic papers related directly to ‘intangibles in infrastructure’. A wider search revealed intangibles such as safety, sustainability, social equity, building image and reputation of goodwill, ownership, recreational benefits, cultural and aesthetic value, community wellbeing, improved access for marginalized communities, ecological preservation, climate change mitigation and reliability of water and sanitation supply. These were mainly found in the literature since 2000, from the US, Europe and Australia (Global Impact Assets, n.d.; Gunawardena et al., 2020; Hamzah et al., 2022).

Research focuses largely on non-physical or non-monetary inputs or resources (intangible assets) that are deployed in entities that aim to produce benefits (Yallwe & Buscemi, 2014). In water infrastructure projects, those benefits can yield tangible outputs, that is, the production and supply of usable water and the financial returns from utilization in agriculture, industry and power generation (Gleick, 2023; Molle & Berkoff, 2009). Alternatively, they can also yield intangible outputs and services (Kanoi et al., 2022).

Traditionally, water infrastructure projects have been evaluated based on tangible metrics, such as cost-benefit analyses, technical performance and measurable outputs (Marcelo et al., 2016), reflecting their purpose for delivering tangible values; that is, providing specific quantities and qualities of water to specifically targeted locations and populations (Johansson & Kriström, 2011).

Over the past two decades, the seemingly mundane yet profoundly influential role of infrastructure has drawn increased academic attention (Kanoi et al., 2022), particularly for its impact on the interaction between social, economic and political systems. Scholars have used infrastructure as an analytical lens to examine how infrastructural systems traverse space and place (Harvey, 2017; Knox et al., 2023).

The anthropology of infrastructure tackles the interplay between material systems and social relations (Knox et al., 2023), that is, between tangible and intangible factors. Infrastructures, while material in nature, transcend their technical role by shaping citizen-state relations, representing and reinforcing social dynamics, making them ‘technically social’ (Larkin, 2013). They are central to the enactment and reproduction of states, modernity and development (Bakonyi & Darwich, 2024; Knox et al., 2023), influencing the intricate dance of inter-state politics. As Kanoi et al. (2022) note, water projects often illustrate or mirror power dynamics, wherein authority, influence and control are distributed and exercised through interactions between groups and states (Lukes, 2005).

Cultural and ethnic values, even historical and political narratives, find their way into water infrastructures (Adugna, 2011). States often frame large-scale infrastructure projects as symbols of national pride and image building to gain further legitimacy, foster social cohesion, project modernity and position the nation as globally competitive (Bassant et al., 2022; Higgins & Kanaroglou, 2016). Allouche (2020) described this as the ‘hydraulic mission’ of states, outlining how infrastructure development, driven by water nationalism, has consequences on intra-state dynamics and transboundary water interactions.

The literature review also showed that the study of infrastructure is inherently interdisciplinary, bridging geography, science and technology, political science and urban studies (Bakonyi & Darwich, 2024). By recognizing this blend of disciplines, assessing infrastructure projects becomes more wholistic and empirical, beyond their service provision purposes (Buier, 2023; Ferguson, 2012).

The technical and financial feasibility of water infrastructure projects is typically assessed through various project documents, such as cost-benefit analyses (Djukic et al., 2016; Marcelo et al., 2016). Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) address environmental aspects such as biodiversity, hydrology, traffic, waste and management and pollution prevention(Glasson et al., 2005). Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (EISA) and Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) were introduced later on to provide a more holistic approach to cover and analyze the interaction between environmental, economic and social dimensions (OECD, 2010). EISAs commonly focus on public wellbeing, demographics, land acquisition, cultural heritage and safety and rights of indigenous people; these issues are typically outlined in standards and guidelines of international funding agencies, and are often presented in terms of tangible gains and losses (Dendena & Corsi, 2015). While such assessments have the potential to examine projects beyond their tangible potential and impacts, they rarely do so, and they still lack a robust scientific foundation to enable integrating cultural and political dimensions, such as building trust among stakeholders, fostering interdependence and cooperation values (Löhr et al., 2022; Suryanata & Umemoto, 2005). They would arguably benefit from a better understanding of intangibles as provided by this article.

This is particularly true in complex geo-political contexts, where narratives, cultures, political backgrounds and nationalism are important intangibles in discourses about urban planning and development (Fischhendler, 2018). Non-physical, non-monetary values, such as trust, political narratives, peace dividends, social equity and national pride, influence decision-making and stakeholder perceptions (Gunawardena et al., 2020) and play a crucial role in transboundary water projects, as will be demonstrated below with some examples from the literature review and anecdotal insights.

3. Contextualizing intangibles in water infrastructure governance in the Middle East

Hydro-politics, water-related conflicts, water diplomacy, water governance and water securitization are often treated as stand-alone research fields, with a rare explicit correlation or references to ‘intangibles’ in literature. In a correspondance in 2023, Katz confirms that in policy studies and geopolitics, many issues can be considered as ‘intangibles’, including patriotism and national security.

In the Middle East, intangibles have noticeably influenced water infrastructure projects. The concept of ‘peace dividend’ has been invoked as an intangible to justify mega-infrastructure projects, to either gain public acceptance or secure funding (Fischhendler et al., 2015). In the Red-Dead Canal project, ³ geo-political narratives and trust deficits have shaped public opinion and affected project feasibility (Abitbol, 2009; Fischhendler & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2019).

Studies from other world regions reveal similar controversies concerning the relationship between infrastructure, peace and trust building. While Rohaizad et al. (2021) present a positive example of a land port complex strengthening relationships between Malaysia and Singapore, Pamungkas (2021) finds that introducing a modern connecting road in West Papua by the Indonesian government had minimal peacebuilding effects for the indigenous communities. Such established controversy underscores the need to understand how infrastructure projects, especially in transboundary and conflict contexts, can genuinely foster lasting peace.

Walschot and Katz (2022) further concluded that the relationship between desalination and cooperation is context dependent. Their study revealed that there is no clear trend towards either improving relations or increasing conflict. Hence, the role of desalination in hydro-diplomacy may aggravate existing disputes and create new ones (Abitbol, 2009), while other arguments examine desalination as a catalyst to reconfigure established power asymmetries and re-introduce negotiation terms through increasing the volume of available water, so that water is no longer a zero-sum game (Katz, 2021).

Theories of hydro-diplomacy and peacebuilding are well established in the literature, focusing often on state-level agreements and institutions. Yet, empirical evidence is more limited on how transboundary water agreements, projects or shared infrastructure contribute to generating trust and promoting peace at the grassroots level, or impacting cognitions and behaviours at the community level vis-à-vis peace and cooperation (Peters et al., 2025). Krampe and Gignoux (2018) note that linking water service provision to local peacebuilding is inherently challenging, and drawing on Ide (2019), it remains unclear whether environmental peacebuilding initiatives or transboundary water arrangements function as part of a broader peacebuilding agenda or remain siloed away from peacemaking processes. In the Middle East, this may become even more challenging to examine, where the number of water treaties and developed infrastructure for the purpose of shared water management represent the lowest number globally (Schmeier, 2024).

Literature does further highlight uncertainty regarding the ‘spillover effect’ from transboundary water cooperation on advancing sustainable peace (Döring et al., 2024; Jägerskog, 2009; Hoffmann, 2018). Some scholars explain that in order to achieve meaningful progress towards peace and stability, transboundary water cooperation must go beyond high-level agreements, include diverse stakeholders, strengthen grassroots participation and introduce new structural configurations to rebalance power dynamics (Fröhlich, 2012; Dube & Makwerere, 2012; Jong, 2019; Kooy et al., 2015). Dresse et al. (2019) further point to a gap in literature regarding the instrumentalization of peacebuilding discourse as an ‘intangible’ within project implementation.

Ide (2018) emphasizes that even when interdependence increases and transaction costs are reduced, political elites interpret transboundary cooperation differently. The varied terminology, framing and communication tools used by different parties to address ‘intangibles’ reflect their distinct intentions and motivations in decision-making processes (Ambrose et al., 2025; Fischhendler et al., 2015).

In transboundary contexts, stakeholders may prioritize differing intangible goals, such as regional stability, economic benefits, or ecological sustainability. This may result in varied interpretations and applications, and even heightening tensions (Zeitoun & Mirumachi, 2008). Recognizing these differences helps comprehend why some actors embrace or reject the ‘peacebuilding’ rhetoric as an intangible when advancing water projects of transboundary nature.

The influence of intangibles extends beyond decision-makers to a broader public sphere, including the direct and indirect beneficiaries or potentially affected groups (Fischhendler, 2015). This connects with notions of ‘social/customer capital’, and the public’s willingness to pay for social intangible benefits (Frey et al., 2004). For example, in real-estate projects, amenity values – proximity to a green space – can be estimated with statistical modelling to inform purchase decisions of a property (Gunawardena et al., 2020).

Despite the growing societal demand for transparency in communicating intangibles (Cañibano & Sánchez, 2004), there is no evidence in the literature that examines the public’s willingness to pay for intangibles such as peacebuilding, improved security, national pride, or climate adaptation. In Jordan, for instance, a commitment was made of nearly 5 billion USD for the National Water Carrier project – a massive pipeline to convey desalinated water from the Gulf of Aqaba (Al-Junaidy, 2023). Katz (2022) understands this as ‘the willingness to pay a premium for water independence’ driven by a government decision and elevated by King Abdullah II as a top national priority project, immediately after halting a deal with Israel on purchasing desalinated water in exchange for renewable energy ⁴ (Al-Junaidy, 2023). The King’s announcement was widely supported by the public, but when the government’s Economic Modernization Vision Report made no mention of the project after the King’s announcement, the public questioned its fate (Nobani, 2024). It remains unclear if framing water independence or cooperation as intangibles would impact the public’s willingness to pay.

4. Building a conceptual framework

4.1. Deploying a typology of intangibles

Literature in the finance and economic fields identifies three categories of intangibles: human capital, social/customer capital and structural capital (Sharma & Dharni, 2016). However, their implications for water infrastructure remain largely unexplored. Despite some critique on the use of ‘capital’ in social and anthropological contexts (Arrow, 1999). In this literature review paper, introducing these categories should not be misconstrued as an argument to monetize intangibles; instead, the goal is to take advantage of already existing knowledge in the corporate world to help systematically research and provide a typology of intangibles in water projects. Thus, this paper intends to bridge existing knowledge from literature on intangibles from the corporate sector with insights derived from the anthropology of infrastructure and from first-hand insights from related socio-political fields, such as peacebuilding dividend, cross-border cooperation, national pride or security. In contested settings, these interact with:

• Trust among stakeholders and across borders.

• Political narratives, that is, projects framed as peace dividends or national priorities can impact public perceptions and cooperation.

• Equity and inclusion, that is, addressing marginalized communities, gender inclusion and power asymmetries.

Drawing on original insights from participatory observations, the paper demonstrates how these sets of intangibles co-exist within a complex socio-political setting and conflict contexts such as the Middle East, and how they could interact through reciprocal influences and potential causal relationships (see Figure 1). Water projects can both be impacted by intangibles and could likely produce intangibles.

For instance, investing in knowledge, skills, talent, ethics and values of individuals, that is, ‘Human Capital’, has an eminent impact on an institution’s growth and performance (Cañibano & Sánchez, 2004; Osinski et al., 2017). In conflict areas, investing in capacity-building of stakeholders is key for effective transboundary water management; not only in enhanced technical skills but also by deploying negotiation and water diplomacy skills, and effective data sharing mechanisms (Salamé et al., 2009; Shroder, 2016).

Effective governance in conflict zones requires those skilled professionals, willing to build trust, navigating political sensitivities and securing long-term commitments (Osinski et al., 2017; Salamé et al., 2009). Well-trained ‘human capital’, invested in trust building, data sharing and active working relationships, is key to strong institutional capacity, that is, ‘Structural Capital’, and is essential to foster cooperation, resolve conflicts and prevent failing agreements (Islam & Susskind, 2018).

Research shows that investing in ‘Structural Capital’ as an intangible can also have a positive impact on organizational performance and growth (Beltramino et al., 2020). In water infrastructure, this is illustrated by governance systems, institutional frameworks, operational systems and political transparency (Frijns et al., 2016). Projects with transboundary dimensions require multilateral interactions, supportive governance structures and institutional capacities to maintain cooperation and avoid conflicts, which various studies describe as a challenging endeavour (Varady et al., 2023).

The 2023 Jordan-Israel Water-Energy exchange, known as Project Prosperity, promoted regional stability through fostering cooperation and cross-border governance frameworks (Al Jazeera and News Agencies, 2023). Yet, by focusing on the technical and economic gains, it overlooked intangible social factors central to Jordanian public opinion, thus highlighting the need for inclusive governance processes that consider public sentiment and local narratives of sovereignty and national pride. This has been made evident when the deal was suspended after public upheaval in Jordan post 7 October 2023 (Al Gebaly & Tolba, 2023), illustrating why incorporating transparency, inclusivity and institutional trust are paramount for implementing water infrastructure in fragile political contexts.

Addressing public sentiment also aligns with the ‘social/customer capital’, reflecting how governance systems engage with end-users (Del Bello, 2006; Sharma & Dharni, 2016) – that is, water service recipients. Multiple studies confirm that citizens’ willingness to pay for water services is heavily dependent on satisfaction with the service quality, including water quantity and quality, which is fundamental for cost recovery and sustainable improvements in water and sanitation services (Boukhari et al., 2024; Byambadorj & Lee, 2019). A World Bank (2018) report described how failure to meet these expectations has created a ‘vicious cycle’, where weak institutions and political constraints lead to poor services and low revenue, which in turn further undermine investments and perpetuate chronic water insecurity.

Willingness to pay is also influenced by factors such as education and awareness, income and economic welfare, age and size of the family, making the ability to pay an important determinant, too (Bogale & Urgessa, 2012; Devi et al., 2009). Based on insights from Dolnicar and Schäfer (2009) and Moya-Fernández et al. (2021), further research is needed on how the source of water supply: freshwater, desalinated or treated wastewater and even the question of whether goods are locally produced or imported, affects perceptions and willingness to pay in water-scarce areas.

Participatory observation in several EIA studies for sanitation projects in Palestine shows that scoping sessions ⁵ mainly addressed willingness to pay higher municipal tariffs for sewage treatment, framing reduced pollution as an intangible. Nevertheless, willingness to pay was never discussed as a matter to resolve transboundary pollution and/or enhanced cross-border relations. Research confirms limited knowledge on the economic valuation of transboundary ecosystem services degradation (Obeng & Aguilar, 2021), meaning our understanding of the willingness to pay for transboundary project benefits and the associated intangibles, such as cross-border cooperation, is limited.

Perhaps, the most significant intangible impacting water infrastructure projects in conflict settings is social capital, including public trust, societal perceptions and narratives and national pride. Trust influences stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate and invest in long-term projects. The Red-Dead Canal project failed to overcome the deep-seated mistrust between Israel, Jordan and Palestine. Palestinians saw it as reinforcing unequal power dynamics, undermining the peace narrative it was supposed to represent (Fröhlich, 2012). Similarly, the Jordan-Israel Water-Energy Exchange faced public backlash in Jordan, and months of protests against ‘buying water from the enemy’ (Jordan Times, 2021; Kuttab, 2021), calling for water security independence (Ghazal, 2024).

Investing in communication means that, as an intangible, to socialize project-specific intangibles can play a critical role in decision-making throughout project implementation, even if in a transboundary context, it entails further complexity (Rodriguez Lopez et al., 2019). As described by Fischhendler et al. (2015) in the case of the Red-Dead Canal, communications significantly shaped stakeholder and public perceptions, directly affecting project progress. Hence, exploring effective ways to communicate intangibles, whether through town hall meetings, different media outlets, or technical reports, is key to increasing project acceptance.

4.2. Operationalizing intangibles

As early as 1971, Wyckoff highlighted that rapid population growth and rising pressures on resources demanded improved decision-making processes capable of incorporating and valuing intangibles, particularly those linked to social welfare. While empirical evidence on how intangibles are operationalized in practice remains limited (Cañibano & Sánchez, 2004), their quantifying and reporting, even at a basic level, continue to be considered essential (Dhingra & Olson, 2018).

A substantial body of empirical research does exist on cooperation, trust building, community inclusion, peacebuilding, conflict transformation and governance across multiple disciplines and specialized journals. However, such dimensions are rarely explicitly framed as ‘intangibles’, and peacebuilding principles in particular remain insufficiently operationalized in project frameworks (Löhr et al., 2022). For instance, project documents of the Red-Dead Canal referred to a ‘peace dividend’ as an ‘intangible, yet implementing processes overlooked key aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and different stakeholders’ perceptions (Abitbol, 2009; Fischhendler & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, 2019).

Project examples provided earlier demonstrate that large-scale water infrastructure projects cannot advance on technical or financial feasibility alone. Their implementation and sustainability depend on investing in team capacity, governance and communications and contextual understanding of conflict dynamics. Accordingly, mechanisms are needed to effectively mobilize intangibles throughout the entire project cycle, from planning and implementation (construction) to operation.

EIAs partially cover intangible aspects in the planning phase (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000), and since the mid-twentieth century, tools such as cost-benefit analysis and the contingent valuation method have failed to express the broader value of water beyond its commercial uses in industry, food and power production (Gleick, 2023). Numerous tools exist to address intangible impacts and conflict risks, but research has shown that the implementation of such mechanisms remains limited (Schmeier, 2024).

Löhr et al. (2022) propose SIAs as a vehicle for incorporating peacebuilding considerations into project assessments. They suggest 17 indicators across 4 categories: social cohesion, agency, structural transformation and negotiation capacity. These indicators closely align with the typology of intangibles advanced in this paper, the human, structural and social capital. This work has established a valuable starting point for addressing intangibles at the planning phase and suggests further refinement and empirical testing on instrumentalizing these indicators effectively.

Beyond planning, greater attention must be paid to administering and valuing intangibles at the operational phase. This remains difficult due to the non-physical nature of intangibles and their classification as resources or outcomes (Andriessen, 2003; Grüber, 2015), often resulting in inconsistent accounting approaches and insufficiently informed decision-making (Anokhina, 2014; Pucci et al., 2014).

Valuation and decision-making processes are neither standardized nor easily transferable across different contexts, particularly where shaped by power asymmetries, hegemonies or wider third-party influences that determine transboundary dynamics (Abdelhady et al., 2015; Allouche, 2020; Motta et al., 2023). In the Middle East, large-scale water and sanitation infrastructures are predominantly donor-driven and often contain hidden intangibles and political agendas (Bassant et al., 2022; Jeuland et al., 2023; Jimenez & Perez-Foguet, 2009). Donor projects often have far-reaching (and sometimes unintended) impacts that transcend their immediate objectives, influencing spatial, societal and governance structures, as demonstrated in Trottier’s analysis of 2,000 donor-led projects in the West Bank over 25 years (Trottier et al., 2021).

This raises critical questions regarding the role of intangibles in donor discourse. Terms such as cooperation and peacebuilding appear in funded project documents, as exemplified in the Red-Dead Canal and Project Prosperity. Fustec (2017) notes that even when donors pursue a genuine peace and state-building agenda, water projects serve strategic broader interests, aiming at reinforcing the donors’ legitimacy as influential actors in international negotiations.

Based on participatory observation, stakeholders in Palestine fear that projects with cooperation agendas are set to promote ‘economic peace’ while maintaining the status quo without a long-term political horizon, amid worsening security conditions. At the same time, stakeholders and organizations, adapt to donor rhetoric by aligning projects with a conflict-sensitive and peacebuilding agenda, a tendency described by Nwaneri (2024) as the ‘Donor Dance’. Fischhendler (2015) similarly highlights the strategic use of security discourse to attract international funding, calling for further research on the topic.

Consequently, intangibles are both used and misused by the various project actors, driven by their respective interests, shaping and at times distorting decision-making and development narratives.

5. Conclusion: Bridging the gap and proposing solutions

This literature review proposes to extend the concept of intangibles from its corporate origins to the governance of water infrastructure projects in contested areas. The analysis underpins the critical role of intangibles, such as building trust, narratives and governance quality, in shaping controversial water projects, especially in conflict settings like the Middle East, with a unique landscape of political tensions, climate stress, institutional weaknesses and complex dynamics.

By drawing on some examples from the Middle East, the paper shows how these intangibles co-exist, interact and intertwine with issues of trust, political narratives and equity and inclusion and can eventually impact decision-making processes on implementing these projects. Insights from the Red-Dead Canal and the Jordan-Israel Water-Energy Exchange illustrate the discourse around intangibles and its influence on these projects amidst weak governance systems and political tensions. Such findings call for integrating trust-building, social capital and cultural narratives as key factors in project design, stakeholder engagement and governance efforts; and for an interdisciplinary approach in water infrastructure governance – one that incorporates insights from corporate economics, anthropology of infrastructure and peace and conflict studies, supported by a thorough contextual analysis.

Neglecting intangibles creates implementation gaps, deepens mistrust and obstructs cooperation. Research is largely descriptive about intangibles without explaining how they are deployed, managed and evaluated, an issue also true for intangibles in infrastructure projects, considering the generally limited resources on this topic. The literature review did not yield any systematic research on the impact of intangibles on the successive phases of water projects.

While earlier research resulted in some level of optimism, pointing to opportunities for cooperation, trust building and peacemaking through shared environmental challenges, gaps remain around how intangibles, such as security, peacebuilding or national pride, influence decision-making. This opens new avenues for further research on the topic. An on-going PhD project draws on interviews with a variety of multinational stakeholders and delves deeper into case studies to better understand perceptions of the use, misuse and abuse of intangibles, how they influence each other and impact decision-making processes, and how they can be operationalized constructively to support the success and sustainability of water infrastructure projects.

Against the backdrop of climate change and continued political conflict in the Middle East, transforming theoretical insights into an actionable framework can promote resilience and stability. This suggests leaning further towards constructivist-transformative research and developing instruments to integrate intangibles into decision-making processes, public consultations and international negotiations. Robust empirical methods are needed to determine when, how and by whom intangibles are communicated and used, whether by technical governmental stakeholders, developers, donors, politicians or the public. Measurable intangibles could also be embedded into EIAs and feasibility studies to better capture social dimensions and foster inclusive governance in the water sector. Those ideas will be further examined as part of upcoming publications as part of an ongoing research project.

Further research could inform policy recommendations, such as:

1. Enhanced human capital through investing in capacity-building programmes focused on water diplomacy, technical expertise and negotiation skills.

2. Strengthen structural capital by developing inclusive and transparent governance frameworks that integrate public concerns and foster institutional trust.

3. Build social capital by prioritizing community engagement and incorporating local cultural narratives and national identities into project planning.

By systematically defining and applying intangibles as measurable variables, alongside technical and financial aspects, water infrastructure projects could better align with stakeholder needs and avoid the pitfalls observed in the cases from the Middle East.