Driving Green Transformation Through the National Digital Economy Innovation Pilot: A Quasi-Experimental Study on Reducing Urban Energy Intensity in 282 Chinese Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript should be revised from the following perspectives:

1. Although the current literature review is relatively comprehensive, the marginal contribution of this study is insufficiently emphasized. It is recommended that the introduction and conclusion clearly articulate the novel perspective or incremental contribution of this paper compared to existing studies. For example: Is this the first study to identify specific mechanisms? Does it uniquely examine policy heterogeneity? Are there methodological improvements? Or theoretical model extensions?

2.The measurement methods for Digital Economy Development Level (DEG) and Regional Green Innovation Capacity (RGIC) are introduced rather briefly. It is recommended to provide detailed definitions of each indicator and a clear description of the data processing procedure—such as the specifics of entropy weight calculation—in the appendix or methodology section. For the energy intensity indicator, which is defined as “energy consumption per unit of GDP,” it should be further clarified whether price factors have been deflated and how differences in energy structure have been accounted for.

3. There are numerous inconsistencies in font type, size, and formatting throughout the manuscript. It is advised to carefully revise the manuscript in accordance with academic writing standards. For instance, the font style and bold formatting of the section titles in Sections 1 and 2 are not consistent.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1's Comments​​

1. The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the topic; however, it would benefit from more explicitly articulating the study’s novelty. Delineate the research gaps this work addresses and precisely formulate the research questions and objectives to guide the reader.

In response to the reviewers' comments, this revision emphasizes in the Introduction (pp. 3–4) that the key innovation of our study lies in selecting China’s National Digital Economy Innovation and Development Policy as the research object. This approach provides a comprehensive framework to evaluate the carbon emission reduction effects of both digital economic activities and their associated policies—an aspect inadequately addressed in prior literature. Thank you for your advice!

 

2. The hypotheses are well-conceived and grounded in theory. Strengthening this section with additional recent literature citations would enhance its scholarly rigour. Furthermore, it provides a more detailed rationale for selecting the mediating variables digital economy development, technological innovation, and economic agglomeration, particularly in urban China.

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have updated the literature review in the theoretical framework and hypotheses section (pp. 5–6) to enhance the academic rigor of these foundational components. We sincerely appreciate this constructive feedback!

 

3. While measuring key constructs such as urban energy intensity and digital economy development is generally appropriate, the manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion on these proxies' validity and potential limitations. Clarify the reasoning behind the chosen indicators, especially for constructs like regional green innovation capacity and economic agglomeration.

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have provided enhanced documentation of the variable indicators selected for our study (pp. 9–10), supported by additional literature review. We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion.

 

4. The manuscript should include a detailed account of data quality, including treatment of missing data, outliers, and any data preprocessing steps undertaken. Transparency in these aspects will bolster confidence in the robustness of the empirical analyses.

Our study utilizes panel data from Chinese cities spanning 2011–2021. Although these data are relatively dated, their selection ensures accessibility and accuracy. Additionally, supplementary explanations have been provided regarding data processing methodologies, such as adjusting GDP figures for price factor interference, among other refinements.

 

5. The inclusion of multiple robustness tests is commendable. To further strengthen the study, elaborate on the interpretation of these tests and their implications for causal inference. Consider incorporating additional sensitivity analyses exploring alternative model specifications or variable operationalisations.

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study provides expanded interpretations of the robustness test results to clarify the implications of these empirical findings. Additionally, in the DID (Difference-in-Differences) analysis, conducting spatial econometric models such as the Spatial Durbin Model is generally challenging. Therefore, this research primarily adopts the Placebo Test and PSM-DID Test as the main robustness verification methods. These essential testing frameworks have been systematically implemented to ensure methodological rigor. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' insightful suggestions.

 

6. Given the reliance on difference-in-differences methodology, validating the assumption of parallel trends is critical. The presentation of the parallel trends test results would be improved by including explicit confidence intervals, statistical test values, and a more comprehensive explanation of their implications for the study’s internal validity.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. On one hand, the reporting of parallel trend test results in our study aligns with the methodological standards established in published literature (Xu, L.; Zhou, J. Y.; Liu, Y. How Upgrading of Provincial Development Zones Reduces Urban Carbon Emission: Evidence from a Time-Varying DID Analysis. Sustainability.. 2024, 16(20), 8852.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208852.). On the other hand, the purpose of the parallel trend test is to verify whether the treatment and control groups exhibited similar pre-treatment trends. Our results demonstrate that the estimated coefficients for the National Digital Economy Innovation and Development Pilot Policy were statistically insignificant prior to policy implementation, indicating no significant differences in energy intensity between pilot and non-pilot cities before the intervention. Given the inherent nature of parallel trend testing, the focus should primarily be on whether the confidence intervals encompass zero, rather than reporting specific interval values.

 

7. The policy recommendations section would benefit from an expanded discussion addressing potential challenges and barriers to the broader implementation of the pilot policy. Consider including insights into practical implementation strategies and the applicability of findings to other national or regional contexts with differing socio-economic structures.

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study has revised the recommendations section, with supplementary discussions added to partially address the potential applicability of the research conclusions to other national contexts. We sincerely appreciate this constructive feedback.

 

8. Some referenced figures and tables would gain from clearer captions and more thorough integration within the narrative. Ensure all visual elements are sufficiently described and interpreted to maximise reader comprehension. Adding more intuitive or summary visualisations could further aid in conveying complex results.

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study has supplemented the documentation of relevant variables (e.g., DEG) through figures and tables, drawing on methodological frameworks from articles previously published in this journal(Sheng, Z. Y. F.; Zhu, C. P. Chen, M. Exploring the Impact of the Digital Economy on Green Total Factor Productivity-Evidence from Chinese Cities. Sustainability. 2024, 16(7), 2734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072734.). We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion.

 

9. The conclusion would be strengthened by incorporating a candid discussion of the study’s limitations, such as data constraints and generalizability concerns. Additionally, explicitly outlining avenues for future research would provide valuable guidance for scholars and practitioners interested in advancing this line of inquiry. I suggest taking an idea from the following article. (https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153605)

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study has incorporated insights from the following references to supplement discussions on the limitations requiring improvement and to outline future research directions, particularly the need to expand the research sample and apply innovative empirical models. These revisions are detailed in Section 6 of the revised manuscript.

(Sun, Y. Ma, Z. Q. Chi, X. M. et al. Decoding the Developmental Trajectory of Energy Trading in Power Markets through Bibliometric and Visual Analytics. Energies. 2024, 17(15), 3605. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153605.;

Sheng, Z. Y. F.;  Zhu, C. P. Chen, M. Exploring the Impact of the Digital Economy on Green Total Factor Productivity-Evidence from Chinese Cities. Sustainability. 2024, 16(7), 2734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072734.)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the topic; however, it would benefit from more explicitly articulating the study’s novelty. Delineate the research gaps this work addresses and precisely formulate the research questions and objectives to guide the reader.
2. The hypotheses are well-conceived and grounded in theory. Strengthening this section with additional recent literature citations would enhance its scholarly rigour. Furthermore, it provides a more detailed rationale for selecting the mediating variables digital economy development, technological innovation, and economic agglomeration, particularly in urban China.
3. While measuring key constructs such as urban energy intensity and digital economy development is generally appropriate, the manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion on these proxies' validity and potential limitations. Clarify the reasoning behind the chosen indicators, especially for constructs like regional green innovation capacity and economic agglomeration.
4. The manuscript should include a detailed account of data quality, including treatment of missing data, outliers, and any data preprocessing steps undertaken. Transparency in these aspects will bolster confidence in the robustness of the empirical analyses.
5. The inclusion of multiple robustness tests is commendable. To further strengthen the study, elaborate on the interpretation of these tests and their implications for causal inference. Consider incorporating additional sensitivity analyses exploring alternative model specifications or variable operationalisations.
6. Given the reliance on difference-in-differences methodology, validating the assumption of parallel trends is critical. The presentation of the parallel trends test results would be improved by including explicit confidence intervals, statistical test values, and a more comprehensive explanation of their implications for the study’s internal validity.
7. The policy recommendations section would benefit from an expanded discussion addressing potential challenges and barriers to the broader implementation of the pilot policy. Consider including insights into practical implementation strategies and the applicability of findings to other national or regional contexts with differing socio-economic structures.
8. Some referenced figures and tables would gain from clearer captions and more thorough integration within the narrative. Ensure all visual elements are sufficiently described and interpreted to maximise reader comprehension. Adding more intuitive or summary visualisations could further aid in conveying complex results.
9. The conclusion would be strengthened by incorporating a candid discussion of the study’s limitations, such as data constraints and generalizability concerns. Additionally, explicitly outlining avenues for future research would provide valuable guidance for scholars and practitioners interested in advancing this line of inquiry. I suggest taking an idea from the following article. (https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153605)

Author Response

​Response to Reviewer 2's Comments​​
​

1. Although the current literature review is relatively comprehensive, the marginal contribution of this study is insufficiently emphasized. It is recommended that the introduction and conclusion clearly articulate the novel perspective or incremental contribution of this paper compared to existing studies. For example: Is this the first study to identify specific mechanisms? Does it uniquely examine policy heterogeneity? Are there methodological improvements? Or theoretical model extensions?

In response to the reviewers’ comments, our study further clarifies its key innovation (pp. 3–4): by focusing on China’s National Digital Economy Innovation and Development Policy as the research subject, it comprehensively captures the carbon emission reduction effects of both digital economic activities and their associated policy interventions. Compared to existing studies, this research pioneers the identification of the policy’s decarbonization impacts and systematically explores its specific transmission mechanisms.We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback.

 

2. The measurement methods for Digital Economy Development Level (DEG) and Regional Green Innovation Capacity (RGIC) are introduced rather briefly. It is recommended to provide detailed definitions of each indicator and a clear description of the data processing procedure—such as the specifics of entropy weight calculation—in the appendix or methodology section. For the energy intensity indicator, which is defined as “energy consumption per unit of GDP,” it should be further clarified whether price factors have been deflated and how differences in energy structure have been accounted for.

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study has supplemented the documentation of relevant variables by referencing articles published in this journal(Sheng, Z. Y. F.; Zhu, C. P. Chen, M. Exploring the Impact of the Digital Economy on Green Total Factor Productivity-Evidence from Chinese Cities. Sustainability. 2024, 16(7), 2734.). However, following the convention in that study, detailed explanations of the entropy weight method were omitted for conciseness, as it is an established objective weighting methodology. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions.

 

3. There are numerous inconsistencies in font type, size, and formatting throughout the manuscript. It is advised to carefully revise the manuscript in accordance with academic writing standards. For instance, the font style and bold formatting of the section titles in Sections 1 and 2 are not consistent.

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have carefully checked and corrected all font formatting issues. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submission titled " Driving Green Transformation through the National Digital Economy Innovation Pilot: A Quasi-Experimental Study on Reducing Urban Energy Intensity in 282 Chinese Cities" provides some interesting results. But, some issues need to be addressed as following .
1.    The innovation needs to be clearer than the last published papers in the field special over 
-    Digital Economy and Urban Carbon Emissions: A Quasi-Natural Experiment of the National Big Data Comprehensive Pilot Zone in China
-    Has digital technology innovation improved urban total factor energy efficiency? — Evidence from 282 prefecture-level cities in China
-    Digital Economy and Urban Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Prefecture-Level Cities
2.    Highlights should be added to indicate the key findings.
3.    Nomenclature should be updated with all symbols and abbreviations as GD, DEG, …………. 

4.    “Our study, we categorize provincial capitals, sub provincial cities, and municipalities as special cities, while other cities are considered ordinary cities to examine the influence of administrative level heterogeneity, with results displayed in columns (1) and (2) of Table 4”
It is not recommended  to use  personal pronouns in academic writing as “We, our….”,. Also it is very long sentence.
5.     Also check “The impact of the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy on energy intensity may, therefore, be less pronounced in larger cities. In our study, cities with above-average population sizes are classified as large cities, while those below are regarded as small cities, with results shown in columns (3) and (4) of Table 4”
6.    Also check “From Table 4, it can be observed that after distinguishing between special and ordinary cities, the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy does not have a significant impact on the energy intensity of special cities, while its impact on the energy intensity of ordinary cities is -0.0210, passing the significance test at the 1% level” please check all paper about long sentence and personal pronouns
7.    Figures 3 and 4 need to be more clear
8.    For the recommendation section, it should be summarized in one paragraph or small summarized  points
9.    English needs to be carefully checked

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3's Comments​

1. 
   The innovation needs to be clearer than the last published papers in the field special over
   - Digital Economy and Urban Carbon Emissions: A Quasi-Natural Experiment of the National Big Data Comprehensive Pilot Zone in China
   - Has digital technology innovation improved urban total factor energy efficiency? — Evidence from 282 prefecture-level cities in China
   - Digital Economy and Urban Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Prefecture-Level Cities

In response to the reviewers' comments, our study has been updated and referenced with the latest relevant research, incorporating valuable insights from these recent studies to enhance the academic rigor of our work. These revisions are detailed in the Introduction and Research Hypotheses sections (pp. 3–6, 9–10). We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

2. 
   Highlights should be added to indicate the key findings.

Thank you for the suggestion! While highlighting key points through formatting can indeed enhance content organization, our review of articles published in this journal indicates that such formatting practices are not commonly adopted.

(Xu, L.; Zhou, J. Y.; Liu, Y. How Upgrading of Provincial Development Zones Reduces Urban Carbon Emission: Evidence from a Time-Varying DID Analysis. Sustainability.. 2024, 16(20), 8852.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208852.

Sheng, Z. Y. F.;  Zhu, C. P. Chen, M. Exploring the Impact of the Digital Economy on Green Total Factor Productivity-Evidence from Chinese Cities. Sustainability. 2024, 16(7), 2734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072734.)

3. 
   Nomenclature should be updated with all symbols and abbreviations as GD, DEG, ………….

The variable names in this study are derived from their English abbreviations, a naming convention that may enhance content clarity.

 

4. “Our study, we categorize provincial capitals, sub provincial cities, and municipalities as special cities, while other cities are considered ordinary cities to examine the influence of administrative level heterogeneity, with results displayed in columns (1) and (2) of Table 4”It is not recommended to use personal pronouns in academic writing as “We, our….”,. Also it is very long sentence.

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised the English phrasing of this sentence. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

“To examine the influence of administrative-level heterogeneity, provincial capitals, sub-provincial cities, and municipalities are classified as special cities, while all other cities are categorized as ordinary cities. The corresponding results are presented in columns (1) and (2) of Table 4.”

5. 
   Also check “The impact of the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy on energy intensity may, therefore, be less pronounced in larger cities. In our study, cities with above-average population sizes are classified as large cities, while those below are regarded as small cities, with results shown in columns (3) and (4) of Table 4”

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised the English phrasing of this sentence. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

“The impact of the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy on energy intensity may, therefore, be less pronounced in larger cities. In this analysis, cities with above-average population sizes are classified as large cities, while those with below-average populations are considered small cities. The corresponding results are reported in columns (3) and (4) of Table 4.”

6. 
   Also check “From Table 4, it can be observed that after distinguishing between special and ordinary cities, the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy does not have a significant impact on the energy intensity of special cities, while its impact on the energy intensity of ordinary cities is -0.0210, passing the significance test at the 1% level” please check all paper about long sentence and personal pronouns

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have carefully reviewed and revised the English phrasing of this sentence. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

“Table 4 indicates that, after distinguishing between special and ordinary cities, the National Digital Economy Innovation Development Pilot Policy does not exert a statistically significant effect on the energy intensity of special cities. However, for ordinary cities, the policy’s effect on energy intensity is −0.0210, which is statistically significant at the 1% level.”

7. 
   Figures 3 and 4 need to be more clear

Figures 3 and 4 were generated and exported using Stata. We have replaced them with higher-resolution versions to improve clarity. We appreciate your suggestion.

8. 
   For the recommendation section, it should be summarized in one paragraph or small summarized points

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have streamlined specific formulations in the recommendations section. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

9. 
   English needs to be carefully checked

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the English expressions throughout the study. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addressed all the comments, so it is now ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comments therefore the paper is recommended to be accepted