Engineering Diplomacy for Water Sustainability: From Global Indicators to Local Solutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is very well-written and has provided me with a lot of inspiration. I am honored to have the opportunity to review it, and I have tried to offer a few small suggestions. I hope the recommendations in this paper can be adopted by many countries around the world to improve water-use efficiency and benefit more people.
This paper introduces the Engineering Diplomacy Framework (EDF) as a pragmatic approach to address the challenges in implementing SDG 6.4, highlighting the need for context-sensitive, negotiated solutions to improve water-use efficiency and reduce water scarcity. This perspective is very enlightening, and I have a few minor suggestions for revisions as follows.
Line 22: It's best to add several key words
Line 55: I have noticed that some published papers also mention "engineering diplomacy." It would be beneficial to reference the relevant literature in the introduction.
Line 78 2. “From Water Diplomacy to Engineering Diplomacy: Framing a New Response to Address Sustainability Goals Framework”: It would be helpful to first briefly describe water diplomacy and then expand on it.
Line 187: The table name should be added to the table.
Line 203: "flows uphill toward money" It’s an interesting term. Could you provide further information? Has it been successfully applied elsewhere? Are there a few examples of how the phrase “flows downhill toward money” has been used? For example, “Water Allocation in the Rio Grande Valley (John Fleck's blog)”.
Line 635 “These shifts reflect EDF’s “Where do we put the X?”—they highlight how data needs to be targeted, contextualized, and decision-relevant rather than simply collected.” I completely agree with this viewpoint, but the background data analysis can be quite challenging, especially when building models. Data cleaning is often necessary, and to ensure consistency across different study areas, some background information is often discarded. Do you have any better suggestions regarding data classification, database construction, and which specific indicators need to be collected?
Line 681 As we advance toward 2030, with just five years remaining, do you think it is achievable within this timeframe, or will it require more time?
References
Lines 717, 719, 725, 742: The authors of the following several papers used "and", while the others used "&". The format of references should be consistent
The following several papers have not been cited in the main text:
“Line 717 15. Islam, S. and K. Madani (2017) Water Diplomacy in Action: Contingent Approaches to Managing Complex Water Problems, Anthem Press, New York, 315pp. 718
Line 719 16. Islam, S. and K. Smith (2020) Interdisciplinary Collaboration for Water Diplomacy: A Principled Pragmatic Approach, Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management by Routledge, New York, 306pp.
Line 720 17. Islam (2024): Synthesis of Scientific and Social Facts: Evolution of a Principled Pragmatic Framework for Decision Making, 721 ASCE J Environmental Engineering, 2024, 150 (2). https://doi.org/10.1061/JOEEDU.EEENG-7557”
Lines 702, 735, 744, 749: The full spelling of abbreviations should be written, such as “FAO, PUB Singapore, UNICEF, UN”
Author Response
COMMENT 1: This paper is very well-written and has provided me with a lot of inspiration. I am honored to have the opportunity to review it, and I have tried to offer a few small suggestions. I hope the recommendations in this paper can be adopted by many countries around the world to improve water-use efficiency and benefit more people.
This paper introduces the Engineering Diplomacy Framework (EDF) as a pragmatic approach to address the challenges in implementing SDG 6.4, highlighting the need for context-sensitive, negotiated solutions to improve water-use efficiency and reduce water scarcity. This perspective is very enlightening, and I have a few minor suggestions for revisions as follows.
RESPONSE1: Thank you for your encouraging note. We will revise the paper following your suggestions.
COMMENT2: Line 22: It's best to add several key words
RESPONSE2: Several key words added.
COMMENT 3: Line 55: I have noticed that some published papers also mention "engineering diplomacy." It would be beneficial to reference the relevant literature in the introduction.
RESPONSE 3: References added. Evolution of Engineering Diplomacy Framework from Water Diplomacy Framework discussed in the revised submission.
COMMENT 4: Line 78 2. “From Water Diplomacy to Engineering Diplomacy: Framing a New Response to Address Sustainability Goals Framework”: It would be helpful to first briefly describe water diplomacy and then expand on it.
RESPONSE 4: References to the Water Diplomacy Framework added and discussed in Section 2.1 as well.
COMMENT 5: Line 187: The table name should be added to the table.
RESPONSE 5: Table name added.
COMMENT 6: Line 203: "flows uphill toward money" It’s an interesting term. Could you provide further information? Has it been successfully applied elsewhere? Are there a few examples of how the phrase “flows downhill toward money” has been used? For example, “Water Allocation in the Rio Grande Valley (John Fleck's blog)”.
RESPONSE: New information and relevant references added.
COMMENT 7: Line 635 “These shifts reflect EDF’s “Where do we put the X?”—they highlight how data needs to be targeted, contextualized, and decision-relevant rather than simply collected.” I completely agree with this viewpoint, but the background data analysis can be quite challenging, especially when building models. Data cleaning is often necessary, and to ensure consistency across different study areas, some background information is often discarded. Do you have any better suggestions regarding data classification, database construction, and which specific indicators need to be collected?
RESPONSE 7: Thank you for agreeing to this viewpoint. As we mentioned, there is no generalizable solution to this issue. Data and related interpretation need to be problem-focused and contextualized.
COMMENT 8: Line 681 As we advance toward 2030, with just five years remaining, do you think it is achievable within this timeframe, or will it require more time
RESPONSE 8: Most likely not by 2030, however, significant advances can be achieved if we focus our attention to finding contextually relevant local solutions.
COMMENT 9: References
RESPONSES: Revised as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript should be revised as follows.
(1) In the abstract, the significance of this manuscript is not stated and needs to be added.
(2) In the introduction, the current research status and development of the engineering diplomacy framework are not explained from various aspects for sustainable water resources management, and the technical difficulties of the engineering diplomacy framework for sustainable water resources management are not pointed out, and the summary and proposal of related problems are not based on sufficient evidence, which needs to be supplemented with the analysis of related research progress.
(3) In Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, it is necessary to increase the comparison of the differences between the engineering diplomacy framework and other frameworks, and to supplement the relevant literature and comparative analysis. Thus the innovative nature is highlighted for the engineering diplomacy framework.
(4) In the conclusions, there is no brief summary of the main findings of this manuscript. There is no description of the future research direction.
(5) In the references, the relevant literature about the engineering diplomacy framework should be added to compare this manuscript with the relevant results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
COMMENT 1: In the abstract, the significance of this manuscript is not stated and needs to be added.
RESPONSE: Abstract revised.
COMMENT 2: In the introduction, the current research status and development of the engineering diplomacy framework are not explained from various aspects for sustainable water resources management, and the technical difficulties of the engineering diplomacy framework for sustainable water resources management are not pointed out, and the summary and proposal of related problems are not based on sufficient evidence, which needs to be supplemented with the analysis of related research progress.
RESPONSE 2: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive comment. In response, we have expanded the Introduction section to better articulate the development and current status of the Engineering Diplomacy Framework (EDF), including its evolution from the Water Diplomacy Framework and its applicability to sustainable water resource management. We now provide a clearer description of the epistemological foundations of EDF, its unique focus on ambiguity and contested values, and a comparative positioning relative to existing approaches. We have also acknowledged technical challenges related to operationalization, stakeholder engagement, and integration across scales. Additional citations and discussion have been added to support this framing and strengthen the evidence base.
COMMENT 3: In Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, it is necessary to increase the comparison of the differences between the engineering diplomacy framework and other frameworks, and to supplement the relevant literature and comparative analysis. Thus the innovative nature is highlighted for the engineering diplomacy framework.
RESPONSE 3: We appreciate this insightful suggestion. In response, we have added a comparative subsection in Section 3.4 and incorporated additional references to explicitly contrast the Engineering Diplomacy Framework (EDF) with other commonly used frameworks such as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), Adaptive Management (AM), and Resilience Thinking (RT). This comparison highlights EDF’s distinctive contributions—particularly its emphasis on negotiated problem framing, ambiguity, and co-produced solutions—as well as its pragmatic orientation toward action under uncertainty and disagreement. These additions strengthen the manuscript’s analytical clarity and help position EDF as a novel and complementary approach to sustainable water governance.
COMMENT 4: In the conclusions, there is no brief summary of the main findings of this manuscript. There is no description of the future research direction.
RESPONSE 4: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the Conclusion section to include a concise summary of the manuscript’s main contributions, particularly the diagnostic and operational value of the EDF in addressing the shortcomings of SDG 6.4 implementation. We have also added a forward-looking paragraph outlining potential areas for future research, including empirical validation of EDF through field-based case studies and integration with emerging SDG tracking systems. These revisions strengthen the manuscript’s closing argument and clarify its contribution to ongoing interdisciplinary work in sustainable water governance.
COMMENT 5: In the references, the relevant literature about the engineering diplomacy framework should be added to compare this manuscript with the relevant results.
RESPONSE 5: Thank you. Several new references are added in Section 1, 2.1, and 2.3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI compliment the author for a well written paper. I found this to be an interesting paper. What would be very interesting is an example illustrating how EDF was actually applied, but I certainly recognize that as well out of the scope of this paper.
I have just several comments.
Abstract: As there is just one author; should not it be "I" instead of "we."? This may be just a stylistic preference as the "royal we" is often used.
No keywords.
Line 27: background information on SDGs should be briefly provided. At a minimum note that they are "of the United Nations" are provide a reference.
Line 253: change "n" to "In"
Author Response
COMMENT 1: I compliment the author for a well written paper. I found this to be an interesting paper. What would be very interesting is an example illustrating how EDF was actually applied, but I certainly recognize that as well out of the scope of this paper.
RESPONSE: Thank you!
COMMENT 2: Abstract: As there is just one author; should not it be "I" instead of "we."? This may be just a stylistic preference as the "royal we" is often used.
RESPONSE 2: One author. I am using 'royal we'.
COMMENT 3: Keywords
RESPONSE 3: Keywords added.
COMMENT 4: Line 27: background information on SDGs should be briefly provided. At a minimum note that they are "of the United Nations" are provide a reference.
RESPONSE: References added.
COMMENT 5: Line 253: change "n" to "In"
RESPONSE: Thank you for a very careful reading. Revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Thank you for finding our responses to your earlier comments acceptable. Your input and suggestions have significantly improved the clarity of our content and presentation.
COMMENT 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their observation regarding the clarity of language. While no specific suggestions were offered, we took this feedback seriously and conducted a thorough editorial review of the manuscript to enhance readability, clarify key ideas, and ensure consistency of tone and terminology. We paid particular attention to sentence structure and transitions in key sections—such as the abstract, introduction, and conclusion—to better convey the research contribution and core arguments. We hope that these improvements sufficiently address the reviewer’s concern.
