China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project: A Review and Reach Beyond China’s Borders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Evaluation
This manuscript provides a comprehensive and well-structured overview of China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project (SNWDP), focusing on both domestic and international implications. The paper’s major strength lies in linking the project’s hydrological, economic, and geopolitical aspects with global food security and sustainability discourse an angle rarely emphasized in existing literature. The authors demonstrate wide knowledge of the subject and utilize an extensive range of references, including recent Chinese-language sources.
However, while the manuscript is rich in content, it would benefit from sharper analytical framing, improved methodological rigor in the literature synthesis, and greater clarity in argumentation. Certain sections overlap or repeat ideas, and the discussion would be strengthened by more explicit critical analysis and integration of quantitative evidence.
Major Comments
- The paper’s objective to highlight the SNWDP’s global significance is commendable. However, the organization could be improved by aligning each section more closely with the stated goals. Condense the domestic review section (Section 3.1) and expand the “Global aspects” (Section 3.2) to emphasize new findings and contributions.
- Much of the text remains descriptive rather than analytical. Statements about impacts on food security, climate resilience, or hydropolitics are persuasive but lack quantification or comparative perspective. Include summarized data or model-based evidence on how SNWDP influences national water balance, agricultural output, or transboundary water diplomacy.
- The manuscript could benefit from more critical evaluation of the cited works. Many references (e.g., Webber, Moore, Lin) provide differing interpretations of the SNWDP’s governance and environmental implications, which are not fully synthesized.
Integrate these perspectives into a more cohesive analytical framework contrasting techno-authoritarian versus participatory water governance models.
- The global food security argument is novel but underdeveloped. The linkage between China’s domestic water redistribution and international grain markets remains conceptual.
Support claims with data (e.g., FAO or World Bank figures) or discuss specific pathways such as changes in irrigation water efficiency and their implications for global trade.
- The manuscript’s English is generally understandable but contains numerous grammatical inconsistencies, redundant phrases, and long sentences that obscure meaning. The paper requires professional language editing to meet the publication standards of Water. Particular attention should be given to tense consistency, article use, and sentence clarity.
- Figure 1 and Table 1 are informative, but figure captions and table notes could provide more explanatory detail (e.g., data sources, year of estimation). Ensure all figures/tables are self-explanatory and consistent with journal formatting guidelines.
Minor Comments
- Line 18: “heavy engineering focus” → “strong engineering emphasis.”
- Line 105: “Although, it was the late chairman Mao Zedong…” → “Although the late Chairman Mao Zedong…”
- Standardize acronyms at first use (e.g., SNWDP, IWRM).
- Remove redundant phrases like “as mentioned above.”
- Improve reference consistency—some sources (e.g., [29], [30]) lack full English citations.
- Ensure DOI formatting and uniform citation style per Water journal guidelines.
Overall Recommendation
- Recommendation: Major Revision
- The paper addresses a significant and globally relevant topic and could make a strong contribution once improved. Major revisions are needed to:
- Strengthen analytical depth and evidence-based argumentation,
- Clarify review methodology,
- Enhance linguistic precision and structure, and
- Provide a more concise, policy-oriented conclusion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachments, clean and track-change versions, point-to-point responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of manuscript 3949310
An interesting manuscript, putting into evidence some key aspects that are not often properly analyzed in mega-projects like SNWDP. The Authors show that not only economic, but also social, climatic, environmental and, more interestingly, global geopolitical issues are strongly involved with these engineering projects, and should be therefore critically analyzed in order to acquire a holistic perception of the real impacts (both positive and negative) of such huge transboundary water works. The Reviewer has found particularly interesting the analysis from an international food security perspective, which is perhaps the main original contribution of the paper.
According to the Reviewer, however, there are still some modifications to be done to the manuscript, in order to provide a more up-to-date view of the literature about similar mega-projects around the world. Moreover, an in-depth analysis about some key-points should be carried out by the Authors, as described below.
1) Some more updated references should be included in the paper, regarding data about climate change, water scarcity and drought problems worldwide.
2) The Authors should provide information about the security of the SNWDP: in other words, it would be interesting to know if there has been an analysis of the likely consequences due to a malfunction or even a failure of the canal. In addition, what kind of security studies, if any, have been made regarding the robustness or reliability of the project ? It could also be of interest to know whether and to what extent the consequences of an intentional attack have been taken into account.
3) The Authors should give some more details about the considerations on the demand side: new technological development in agriculture will of course determine less water demand, but is there any projection about the amount of water saving that could be achieved by such technology? This could be of relevance, because it increases the redundancy of the project.
4) With regards to China's food production self-sufficiency, it should be interesting if the Authors could provide some more data: for example, the Authors should produce a chart showing the projected (likely) variation in China population, together with the increasing water-efficiency for irrigation and crops, and how this will impact the global food market and food security, in percentage terms.
5) The Authors should give some more space describing the peculiarity that the SNWDP, although an inter-basin mega-project, is entirely contained in one country, that is China. But what about the feasibility of a similar project in the context of a trans-boundary (international) scale ? in other words, should be the SNWDP considered a 'felix' case study or are there possibilities of replication of such mega-water projects in other parts of the world? It could be, for example, that a similar project within the European Union could not be ever realized. Thus, it might be that, due to geopolitical reasons, such mega-projects are constrained to be an exclusivity only of 'big' countries, the spatial extension of the borders, and not the financial or economic power, conditioning the feasibility of mega-water diversions or transfers.
6) The 'Conclusions' section must be carefully checked, and in some parts rewritten, because of the several repetitions present in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachments, clean and track-change versions, point-to-point responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI don't have any additional comments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
