Review Reports - Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Structural Drivers of Urban Inclusive Green Development in Coastal China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally speaking, the paper has done a research regarding the the spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of IGD, I think it is a complete research and included the analysis framework and the effective methodology, also have put forward some new findings, while I have some little concerns need to authors to improved. My suggestions and the revision demands are in the following:

Theabstract haven’t refers to some policy implications and some detailed measures to promote inclusive and sustainable urban development in coastal economies, which should make up more in this point.
The authors have done a good literature summarize and review, which from different level. But I think it will need to be simplify and concise the contents.
The paper in the introduction section has done a good summarize about the research gap, this should be admired.
The biggest problem of the paper is that the authors haven’t construct a theoretical analysis framework, or at least a framework diagram, we can not see kindly the impact mechanism the most influential 23 driversin R&D and digital transformation. How does economic development and equitable public service provision impact the R&D?
Why the authors need to analysisthe spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of IGD. What are the directed technical routes of the paper, then the data and methodology will be specify and meaningful.
Evaluation indicator system for IGDis also clear and good, this should be admired.
The models and the methodology in the paper are good, also the findings are comprehensive and logic. While, section 4.2 should not be the discussion, it should be some analysis based on the findings. And the paper should applied a section 5, which specific introduce the policy implication. The implication and the policy recommendation should put together and be concise, also the policy recommendation should be simplify.
The reference lists is not enough, the authors should make up some more reference.

All in all, the paper has deal with a problem of spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of IGD. While I suggest the authors try to construct a research diagram or theoretical framework, this can make the paper much more complete and readable. The analysis and the methodology is deepen and the discussion is sufficient. While the arrangement of the conclusion and the policy implication are not reasonable. Hence the policy implication should be re-organize, and the theoretical contribution is insufficient, I therefore give the author the opportunity to revise the paper in the current stage.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language is good and need to be improved.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract haven’t refers to some policy implications and some detailed measures to promote inclusive and sustainable urban development in coastal economies, which should make up more in this point.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. As recommended, we have supplemented the abstract with concrete policy implications and actionable measures based on our empirical findings. The revised text (highlighted in red in the manuscript) explicitly addresses regionally adaptive strategies for coastal IGD advancement. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive suggestion regarding policy implications in the abstract. As recommended, we have enhanced the abstract by adding specific policy measures to promote inclusive green development (IGD) in coastal economies. The revised text is highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Comment 2: The authors have done a good literature summarize and review, which from different level. But I think it will need to be simplify and concise the contents.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' constructive suggestions. In response, we have thoroughly reorganized the literature review section, including updating key references, expanding the scope of literature coverage, and removing redundant publications. Please refer to Lines 57-120 in the revised manuscript for detailed modifications.

Comment 3: The biggest problem of the paper is that the authors haven’t construct a theoretical analysis framework, or at least a framework diagram, we can not see kindly the impact mechanism the most influential 23 drivers in R&D and digital transformation. How does economic development and equitable public service provision impact the R&D?

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the theoretical foundation of our study. In response to this valuable suggestion, we have added a dedicated theoretical analysis chapter (Section 2) titled "Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses" (see Lines 121–155 in the revised manuscript). These additions address the theoretical gap while ensuring alignment with empirical findings.

Comment 4: Why the authors need to analysis the spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of IGD. What are the directed technical routes of the paper, then the data and methodology will be specify and meaningful.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful questions. Our analysis of spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of Inclusive Green Development (IGD) is motivated by three critical research gaps and policy imperatives, with the technical routes rigorously designed to address them. Below we clarify the necessity and methodological coherence:

Why Analyze Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Structural Drivers?

First, the analysis of spatiotemporal dynamics and structural drivers of IGD is critically policy-relevant for coastal cities, which contribute over 60% of China’s GDP yet face acute sustainability challenges. These include pronounced spatial imbalances (e.g., 2.1-fold IGD gaps between northern and southern MEZs) and significant temporal shifts where environmental dimension growth (6.8%/yr) has outpaced economic growth (2.4%/yr) since 2020 (Fig. 3), signaling urgent policy realignment. Understanding these dynamics is essential for implementing China’s "Dual Carbon" goals and Marine Economy 14th Five-Year Plan.

Second, prior IGD literature exhibits theoretical gaps by focusing predominantly on macro-level (national/provincial) assessments while neglecting intra-city heterogeneity (e.g., core-periphery disparities in PRD/YRD) and spatial spillover effects (e.g., SDM-confirmed R&D investment spillovers at β=0.217, p<0.01). Our city-scale analysis addresses this by revealing granular "four-pillar" clustering patterns (Fig. 5) and polarization trends (Fig. 4), offering actionable insights for regional governance.

Third, methodological limitations persist as existing evaluations rely on static indices or single-method approaches, failing to capture key spatial autocorrelation (e.g., Moran’s I surge post-2020) or decompose inequality sources (e.g., Dagum Gini identifying 68% inter-MEZ variation). Our hybrid framework resolves these gaps through integrated spatial econometrics and inequality decomposition, ensuring robust technical routes that align data and methodology with the study’s objectives.

Technical Routes

First, we employed the Vertical-Horizontal Scatter Degree Method (VHSDM) to comprehensively evaluate IGD levels across 54 coastal cities (2012–2022), dynamically anchoring 24 indicators to theoretical frameworks including spatial justice (Theil index) and innovation diffusion (R&D inputs). Second, spatiotemporal pattern diagnosis was conducted through Dagum Gini decomposition to quantify intra/inter-MEZ inequality (e.g., 68% inter-regional variation) and Kernel Density Estimation to visualize polarization dynamics (e.g., southern MEZ’s multi-peak evolution), supplemented by Global/Local Moran’s I to confirm intensified spatial clustering post-2020 (e.g., YRD high-high agglomeration). Third, structural drivers were rigorously detected using GeoDetector to identify dominant factors (digital transformation) and synergistic interactions (R&D and Digital), while the Spatial Durbin Model (SDM) with dual weight matrices distinguished local effects (public services) from spillovers (), ensuring robustness. Ultimately, empirical findings were translated into adaptive policies, establishing differentiated MEZ governance—carbon reduction for Northern MEZ heavy industries and digital integration for Eastern MEZ.

Comment 5: The models and the methodology in the paper are good, also the findings are comprehensive and logic. While, section 4.2 should not be the discussion, it should be some analysis based on the findings. And the paper should applied a section 5, which specific introduce the policy implication. The implication and the policy recommendation should put together and be concise, also the policy recommendation should be simplify.

Response 5: Many thanks to the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. Section 4.2, titled "Spatial Distribution Characteristics," analyzes the features and correlations of spatial distribution, while Section 5 presents the discussion, including conclusions, policy recommendations, and limitations.

Comment 6: The reference lists is not enough, the authors should make up some more reference.

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions and have enriched the references in the manuscript. Please refer to Lines 57-120 in the revised manuscript for detailed modifications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study develops a comprehensive evaluation framework integrating the Vertical and Horizontal Scatter Degree Method (VHSDM), Dagum Gini coefficient decomposition, and spatial econometric models to analyze the spatiotemporal evolution and structural drivers of inclusive green development (IGD) across 54 coastal cities in China. The research demonstrates methodological innovation through its hybrid analytical approach and provides valuable insights into regional disparities and spatial spillover effects. However, several issues concerning the justification of the indicator system, graphical presentation, interpretation of results, and linkage to policy recommendations need to be addressed to enhance the manuscript's academic rigor and logical coherence.

1.Justification of the Indicator System

The study constructs a comprehensive evaluation system encompassing economic, social, and green ecological dimensions. However, the theoretical or empirical rationale behind the selection of specific indicators is not sufficiently elaborated. It is recommended to provide a clearer justification for the indicator system's construction logic and validity.

2.Resolution of Figures

The resolution of several figures (e.g., Figures 4, 5, 6) is suboptimal, impairing visual clarity and the ability to discern details. It is essential to regenerate all figures at

a higher resolution to ensure they meet publication standards for sharpness and legibility.

3.Visual Distinction of Marine Economic Zones in Figure 5

Although the analysis is structured around the three major Marine Economic Zones (MEZs), Figure 5, which depicts the spatial distribution of IGD, fails to provide clear visual differentiation between these zones (e.g., using boundaries or distinct shading). It is recommended to add MEZ boundaries or a corresponding legend to Figure 5 to reinforce the alignment between the visual representation and the analytical framework.

4.Sorting Principle in Figure 7

Figure 7 presents the explanatory power of various driving factors but does not specify the sorting principle applied (e.g., based on q-value magnitude, dimensional category, or temporal change). The readability and interpretability of this result would be significantly enhanced by clearly stating the sorting criteria in the figure caption or the main text.

5.Inadequate Emphasis on the Green Ecology Dimension

The description in lines 417–424, which discusses Figure 7, does not sufficiently highlight the role of factors related to the green ecology dimension (such as ecological governance and green production) in enhancing IGD. It is advised to strengthen the discussion concerning the driving forces within the green dimension, emphasizing its importance within the IGD system.

6.Limited and Outdated References

The reference list is relatively limited and lacks recent publications, particularly concerning emerging topics like digitalization, green finance, and spatial spillover effects, which are relevant to this study. Incorporating some high-quality, recent references would better situate the research within the current scholarly conversation and demonstrate its timeliness.

Author Response

Comment 1: Justification of the Indicator System

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have supplemented the rationale for indicator selection and added a dedicated column in Table 1 to explain the justification for each chosen indicator.

Comment 2: Resolution of Figures

The resolution of several figures (e.g., Figures 4, 5, 6) is suboptimal, impairing visual clarity and the ability to discern details. It is essential to regenerate all figures at a higher resolution to ensure they meet publication standards for sharpness and legibility.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have redesigned the relevant figures and improved their resolution to ensure clarity and readability.

Comment 3: Visual Distinction of Marine Economic Zones in Figure 5

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have added demarcation lines in Figure 5 to clearly distinguish regional boundaries.

Comment 4: Sorting Principle in Figure 7

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the sorting criteria in the caption of Figure 7 for clarity.

Comment 5: Inadequate Emphasis on the Green Ecology Dimension

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have enhanced the discussion on the endogenous drivers within the green dimension in the description of Figure 7, as detailed in Lines 550-560 of the manuscript.

Comment 6: Limited and Outdated References

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' constructive suggestions. In response, we have thoroughly reorganized the literature review section, including updating key references, expanding the scope of literature coverage, and removing redundant publications. Please refer to Lines 57-120 in the revised manuscript for detailed modifications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses an interesting topic, focusing on inclusive green development (IGD) in China’s coastal cities. The authors use an impressive and sophisticated methodological framework; the topic is relevant and the analyses are thorough. However, the manuscript in its current form is very, very methodologically oriented, with insufficient attention to the substantive insights and implications that can be drawn from the results. Scientific research should primarily aim to uncover new phenomena, patterns, or knowledge, rather than to showcase analytical sophistication for its own sake.

Major points:

The manuscript does not clearly state research questions and hypotheses. It also lacks a dedicated section on literature review and theoretical framework. The introduction mentions prior studies only briefly and focuses mainly on what was analysed and how. Authors should expand the review to include more detailed findings from previous research, not just methodological aspects, and clearly position their contribution in relation to these studies.

In the regional studies literature, there is a long and rich discussion on the topic of equitable or balanced growth and development. I suggest that the authors avoid definitive and unambiguous terms such as “balanced economic growth” or “development imbalances”, as these concepts are highly problematic – does truly balanced growth necessarily promote development? What does “balanced” mean, at what scale, in what scope, and with what margin of inequality? A safer approach would be to refer to striving for “more balanced growth/development” or to “reducing disparities.”

Statements such as “Spatial autocorrelation has intensified since 2020, indicating stronger regional clustering and spillover effects” require further explanation. Similarly, the claim that “in coastal regions local differences can be pretty major” needs justification, either through data evidence or references. Also “These regions form the core areas of China’s marine economy and play a pivotal role in both national development strategies and international cooperation” should be supported with concrete evidence, metrics, or references.

The abbreviation MEZ (Marine Economic Zones) is defined only in the abstract. It should be defined when it is first used in the main text as well, for readers who didn't read the abstract.

The description “For some annual data that are missing, this study uses the linear interpolation method to complete the data” requires more detail. Specify which data points were interpolated, the precise method used, the proportion of interpolated data relative to total data, and potential implications for the results.

Indicators in Table 1: Each indicator should be explained in detail, not merely referenced. Authors should justify the choice of indicators over possible alternatives.

The discussion is currently underdeveloped. Despite sophisticated analyses, the manuscript contains only three brief conclusions. Authors should expand on the explanations of observed patterns, discuss study limitations, and propose directions for future research. Policy recommendations should be critically assessed, considering feasibility and potential implementation barriers.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript does not clearly state research questions and hypotheses. It also lacks a dedicated section on literature review and theoretical framework. The introduction mentions prior studies only briefly and focuses mainly on what was analysed and how. Authors should expand the review to include more detailed findings from previous research, not just methodological aspects, and clearly position their contribution in relation to these studies.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have further enriched the literature review section and added theoretical analysis with hypothesis development, as highlighted in the red-marked portions of Sections 1 and 2.

Comment 2: In the regional studies literature, there is a long and rich discussion on the topic of equitable or balanced growth and development. I suggest that the authors avoid definitive and unambiguous terms such as “balanced economic growth” or “development imbalances”, as these concepts are highly problematic – does truly balanced growth necessarily promote development? What does “balanced” mean, at what scale, in what scope, and with what margin of inequality? A safer approach would be to refer to striving for “more balanced growth/development” or to “reducing disparities.”

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We revised the expressions in the text, changing them to "reduce differences" and "develop more evenly". These parts are specially marked in the text.

Comment 3: Statements such as “Spatial autocorrelation has intensified since 2020, indicating stronger regional clustering and spillover effects” require further explanation. Similarly, the claim that “in coastal regions local differences can be pretty major” needs justification, either through data evidence or references. Also “These regions form the core areas of China’s marine economy and play a pivotal role in both national development strategies and international cooperation” should be supported with concrete evidence, metrics, or references.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. Regarding the first issue, the statement mentioned appears in the abstract, and we have rephrased it for clarity (see lines 21–23). For the second point, which is located in Section 1, we have provided additional explanatory details (see lines 136–143). As for the third comment, which pertains to Section 3, we have further elaborated on the supporting evidence (see lines 231-238).

Comment 4: The abbreviation MEZ (Marine Economic Zones) is defined only in the abstract. It should be defined when it is first used in the main text as well, for readers who didn't read the abstract.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have redefined it when it was first used in the main text, and there are special marks in the text.

Comment 5: The description “For some annual data that are missing, this study uses the linear interpolation method to complete the data” requires more detail. Specify which data points were interpolated, the precise method used, the proportion of interpolated data relative to total data, and potential implications for the results.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In paragraph 2.2 of the text, we will specifically explain which data points were interpolated, the precise methods used, the proportion of interpolated data in the total data, and the potential impact on the results. It has a special mark in the text (see lines 250-253).

Comment 6: Indicators in Table 1: Each indicator should be explained in detail, not merely referenced. Authors should justify the choice of indicators over possible alternatives.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have inserted a new column in Table 1-"Basis for Indicator Selection", which specifically introduces the basis for selecting each indicator and explains the relationship.

Comment 7: The discussion is currently underdeveloped. Despite sophisticated analyses, the manuscript contains only three brief conclusions. Authors should expand on the explanations of observed patterns, discuss study limitations, and propose directions for future research. Policy recommendations should be critically assessed, considering feasibility and potential implementation barriers.

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. In response, we have added a dedicated discussion on "Limitations and Future Research" in Section 5 (see lines 708–713 for details).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the work you have put into revising the manuscript and for carefully addressing all of my comments. I can confirm that the article can be accepted for publication in its current form.