The Impact of Digital Technology Penetration on Sustainable Household Consumption: Evidence from China’s Sinking Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your Intro needs to be grounded in a real-world context right from the start. You should really motivate the paper by asking: why is this important? I'd suggest revising the introduction to include more data or statistics that prove this is a relevant, real-world issue.

Your hypotheses (H1, H2, etc.) should each start on a new line. It makes them much easier to read.

I have some questions about how you built your main index. You combine the digital financial inclusion index with internet penetration using the entropy method, but it's not clear what the weights for each dimension are (e.g., the coefficients you got from the entropy method). You also need to better justify why you chose these three specific financial dimensions to represent the broader concept of "digital technology penetration." Could you add a bit more detail on this, or maybe run a PCA as a robustness check?

There seems to be a disconnect between your paper's title and your key variable. The title emphasizes "sustainable consumption," but your empirical work just uses a logged measure of total per capita spending. It's not obvious how total spending captures the "sustainability" aspect. This feels like a bit of a mismatch.

In your parallel mediation model for the "income effect" and "financial development effect," you treat them as two separate pathways. But have you considered if they might be related? For instance, it seems plausible that digital finance could amplify the income effect. You should probably discuss this potential interaction between your two mechanisms.

You focus on the "sinking market" , but your data only includes 231 prefecture-level cities and excludes county-level cities and districts. The real "sinking market" consists of those smaller counties, towns, and villages (the 6th census puts nearly 900 million people there). By excluding them, your claims about this market are on shaky ground.

It's interesting that you identified a human capital threshold (at Hca = 0.0068), but you never explain the economic meaning of it. What does that number actually signify in the real world? You need to interpret that result for the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper makes a timely and relevant contribution by exploring the impact of digital technology penetration on household consumption in China’s sinking markets using panel data from 231 prefecture-level cities (2011–2023). The empirical strategy is carefully designed, incorporating fixed effects, threshold models, instrumental variables, and mediation analysis, and the robustness checks (e.g., entropy method, PCA, and exclusion of COVID-19 years) are commendable. The topic is important for both digital economy and sustainability debates, and the focus on sinking markets adds novelty compared to existing research that tends to prioritize first- and second-tier cities.

At the same time, the paper would benefit from refinement in several areas. First, the conceptual framing of sustainability needs strengthening. In Section 2.3, “Definition of Sustainable Household Consumption,” sustainability is equated with “continuous growth in household consumption levels.” While this reflects economic inclusivity, it risks conflating sustainability with simple consumption expansion. It would be valuable to clarify how digital penetration fosters consumption that is not only higher but also more sustainable in terms of resource efficiency, reduced waste, or alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Second, the literature review (Section 2.2) is heavily weighted toward Chinese sources and focuses mainly on the demonstration effect and ratchet effect. For example, references [21]–[27] are almost exclusively domestic. Greater engagement with international scholarship on digital inclusion, green consumption, and sustainable development would enrich the theoretical grounding. Studies from Europe or the U.S. on digitalization and household sustainability practices could provide useful comparative perspectives and highlight where China’s sinking markets fit in the global debate.

Third, the interpretation of certain empirical results requires more theoretical grounding. In Table 5, human capital exerts a negative effect on consumption before crossing the identified threshold (coefficient –2.44, significant at the 10% level). The paper suggests a threshold effect, but the underlying mechanism is not fully developed. Why would human capital initially suppress consumption, and what socio-economic factors explain the turning point? Similarly, in Section 4.3, the regional heterogeneity analysis shows that the effect of digital penetration is strongest in central China, weaker in western China, and weakest in the east. The results are interesting but deserve deeper explanation, perhaps drawing on differences in industrial structure, urban–rural divides, or policy implementation across regions.

Fourth, the use of distance to Hangzhou as an instrumental variable (Table 7) is creative but requires further justification. While Hangzhou is a hub for digital innovation, distance may also correlate with other regional characteristics such as infrastructure development or income levels, potentially violating the exclusion restriction. A more detailed argument or robustness check (e.g., alternative instruments or falsification tests) would strengthen the causal claims.

Finally, the presentation of results could be made more accessible. For example, in Figure 4, which illustrates the threshold effect of human capital, the implications are not clearly explained in the main text, leaving readers uncertain about the practical meaning of the slopes before and after the threshold. Similarly, the mediation analysis in Table 6 would benefit from a clearer narrative on how income and financial development transmit the effects of digital penetration to consumption.

In conclusion, the paper presents strong empirical work and addresses an important gap in the literature, but revisions are needed to clarify the sustainability dimension, broaden the literature base, provide deeper theoretical interpretation of key findings, and better explain the mechanisms and heterogeneity. With these improvements, the manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to research on digital economy and sustainable development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript The Impact of Digital Technology Penetration on Sustainable Household Consumption: Evidence from China’s Sinking Market.

The study addresses an extremely relevant topic with a solid conceptual structure and advanced research methods. The manuscript offers a valuable contribution, particularly through its focus on emerging markets.

Please see below my suggestions on this manuscript.

Introduction. I suggest the authors to clearly state the specific objectives of the paper immediately after presenting the overall aim. I also suggest that the authors highlight (if applicable) whether the mechanisms/hypotheses proposed in the literature review are also found in existing literature from various other consumption contexts, thus better substantiating the choice of the model analyzed.

Theoretical analysis. Please make the hypotheses more visually distinct. For example, they could be placed on separate lines or in a numbered list to enhance clarity.

In Section 3.2, while proxy variables for Sustainable Consumption are mentioned, details on the final index construction are missing. I suggest the authors to include the explicit formula or describe the exact statistical method (e.g., PCA, weighted average) used to aggregate the proxy variables into the final Sustainable Consumption Index.

Additionally, I believe the justification for the 231-city sample and the 2011–2023 time interval is insufficient. I suggest that the authors provide a detailed justification for the specific selection of the 231 cities and explain the reason for choosing 2011 as the starting period (e.g., data availability or relevance of the political/economic context).

Section 4.3. The discovery of the threshold effect is key, but it is presented primarily qualitatively. Therefore, I suggest that the authors specify the exact numerical value of the human capital threshold obtained from the econometric model. This quantification is vital for translating the result into precise policy recommendations in Section 5 (Conclusions and Policy Implications).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract does not clearly specify the specific econometric methods used; it is recommended to supplement this information.
2. The paper emphasizes the "sinking market" as an innovative point, but the argumentation for "why the sinking market has unique research value in the context of digital technology" is not sufficiently in-depth.
3. The analytical framework diagram in Figure 2 is overly simplified and does not show the causal pathways between variables. It is recommended to replace it with a more structured path diagram.
4. The paper explicitly states that "this study focuses on the sinking market (Tier-3 and below cities)" and accordingly "excludes all Tier-2 and above cities." However, the sample includes 4 Tier-1 cities, 15 New Tier-1 cities, and 30 Tier-2 cities from the Yicai (First Financial) ranking. This completely contradicts the definition. The authors describe an exclusion process but do not show the final list of cities after exclusion.
5. The paper only mentions synthesizing a composite index from several sub-dimensions using the entropy method but does not provide any specific algorithmic details. There is a lack of explanation for the following key information: (a) the specific original indicators and data sources for each sub-dimension; (b) the specific method for data standardization; (c) the formulas and steps for calculating weights using the entropy method (e.g., calculation of information entropy, utility value).
6. The review of previous studies on the mediating mechanisms through which digital technology affects consumption is not systematic, and the theoretical application is insufficient.
7. The paper lacks discussion of the results, which are merely presented descriptively, and there is an absence of comparison with the literature.
8. The policy recommendations section is somewhat generic, with suggestions not specifically linked to the concrete results. There is a lack of concrete implementation pathways and prioritization.
9. There are minor grammatical and punctuation issues; please check and proofread.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study investigates the impact of digital technology penetration on sustainable household consumption in the sink market. The investigation is based on data from 231 prefecture-level cities in China from 2011-2023, and the methods employed include the fixed-effects model, the threshold model and the mediated-effects model. The paper is structurally complete, methodologically rich, and robustness testing has been adequately conducted; however, there is still room for improvement.

1. It is recommended that the abstract be enriched and that some data be provided to quantitatively describe the findings of the study.
2. In terms of structure, the paper adheres to the conventional framework of empirical research; however, the concept of 'sinking market' remains ambiguous in the introduction, and there is an overlap between the literature review and theoretical analysis. In the methodology section, the variable measures are described in detail, but there are inconsistencies in the numbering of formulas in the baseline model setting section.
3. The basis for the selection of 231 prefecture-level cities, preferably accompanied by relevant references, is to be added.
4. In terms of methodology, the paper adopts a more rigorous measurement approach, including the instrumental variables approach to deal with endogeneity. Nevertheless, the core variable measure of digital technology penetration may rely excessively on the Digital Financial Inclusion Index, which is inadequate in reflecting the degree of penetration of digital technology itself.
5. The instrumental variables are selected to be distant from Hangzhou, where the exogeneity argument can be more thoroughly developed. The question must be posed as to whether this instrumental variable is scientific from a geospatial perspective. Geographically, the closer two points are in terms of geographical proximity, the stronger the correlation between them. The author's exclusive focus on the distance difference, while ignoring the interconnected nature of all things, is a key limitation.
6. The section on policy recommendations is more generalized and lacks differentiated recommendations for different regions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is OK.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my manuscript and for providing such positive feedback. I am truly honored by your approval, and your comments mean a great deal to me.

I will continue to approach my work with dedication and attention to detail, striving to meet the highest academic standards in future endeavors.

Once again, I greatly appreciate your valuable support and feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-executed and timely study on how digital technology penetration influences sustainable household consumption in China’s sinking markets. The topic is highly relevant in the context of digital transformation and sustainable development. The paper has significantly improved in its revised form, particularly through clearer conceptualization of sustainability, stronger theoretical grounding, and expanded international references. The inclusion of detailed explanations for the human capital threshold effect, regional heterogeneity, and instrumental variable justification has enhanced both the academic rigor and interpretive depth of the study.

To further strengthen the manuscript, the discussion section could include a clearer linkage between the empirical findings and broader sustainability theories, particularly those related to behavioral change and resource efficiency. The engagement with global literature is much improved but could still benefit from additional insights drawn from non-Chinese contexts to situate the results within an international framework. Minor stylistic refinements to improve sentence flow and clarity are also recommended.

Overall, this paper makes a meaningful contribution to the fields of digital economy and sustainable consumption. With minor revisions focused on refining discussion depth and ensuring smoother narrative transitions, the manuscript will be well positioned for publication in Sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English in the manuscript is satisfactory and allows readers to understand the research clearly. The academic tone is consistent, and technical terms are correctly used. However, several sections would benefit from stylistic refinement to improve readability and precision. Some sentences are unnecessarily long or contain redundant expressions that could be divided for smoother flow. For example, sentences introducing theoretical explanations or describing empirical mechanisms could be shortened to make the argument more direct. Minor grammatical adjustments, such as article usage and subject–verb agreement, would also enhance clarity. Overall, the English is acceptable for publication after minor editing to ensure conciseness, natural phrasing, and improved sentence rhythm.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been sufficiently improved.

I wish the authors all the best!

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to review my manuscript. I am grateful for your positive feedback and am pleased to know that the paper has met your expectations after the revisions.

Your encouragement and support mean a great deal to me, and I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful input throughout this process.

Wishing you all the best as well, and thank you again for your valuable contribution.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommend acceptance.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review and for recommending the acceptance of my manuscript. I am truly grateful for your positive evaluation and for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing my work.

Your support is greatly appreciated, and I am thrilled to know that the paper has met your expectations.

Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback and recommendation.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Indeed, the selection of the instrumental variable, Great Circle Distance to Hangzhou (dis_s), is indicative of the authors' profound comprehension of China's digital economy development landscape. The paper ingeniously combines a geographic and historical factor with a strong economic reality, thus providing a creative solution for accurately identifying the impact of digital technologies on consumer behaviour. It is imperative that the basis, i.e. the references, be documented in the Variable Definitions section.

The full text will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny before a decision is reached regarding its suitability for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx