Enhancing the Conversion Efficiency of Ecological Product Value Through Digital Finance: Measurement and Mechanism Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled Enhancing the Conversion Efficiency of Ecological Product Value Through Digital Finance: Measurement and Mechanism Analysis approaches an interesting topic and could represent a valuable input for scientific literature.

However certain major gaps are to be addressed and clarified for the reading scholars in view of publishing as explained below:

• The paper focuses on the topic of ecological products value which represents a broad subject with multiple facets. The authors should explain segmentation of the concept and further state which sub-topics were approached by this study and also why…its motivation and importance for the regional/geographic context.
• Introduction is too much extended and contains part of literature review chapter
• In literature review subchapters on indirect impact mechanisms need to be extended and generate separate hypotheses (hypothesis 2 should be split into H2.1…H2.2….as treating different components which could have different validation results).
• Results should be enlarged and include parts of the actual discussion chapters …at least for tests and analysis results and tables. Discussions should reiterate each of the hypotheses state if validated and discuss related to existing studies differences in results and/or regional implications
• Conclusions and recommendations chapters should also include limitations…possible extrapolations of analytics tools. Often a simple mathematic regression relationship alone is not able to generate convincing conclusions on economic complex phenomena. Should variables non comprised in the current analysis be envisaged in the future (non-available)…or other tools of analysis …capable to generate more nuanced results…this should be stated in study’s limitations.

For major improvements of the paper in view of its publication I recommend the authors to read all above comments and modify their initial version of the article.

Author Response

1. The paper focuses on the topic of ecological products value which represents a broad subject with multiple facets. The authors should explain segmentation of the concept and further state which sub-topics were approached by this study and also why…its motivation and importance for the regional/geographic context.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. In the revised Introduction, we have clarified that ecological product value (EPV) is a broad and multifaceted concept encompassing provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. This study specifically focuses on the conversion efficiency of ecological product value (CEEPV), which reflects how effectively ecological resources are transformed into economic outcomes. We also explain why this sub-topic is especially relevant in the Chinese provincial context: many provinces are rich in ecological resources but face barriers such as information asymmetry, financing constraints, and limited market access, particularly in rural areas. This revision can be found in the second and third paragraphs of the Introduction.

2. Introduction is too much extended and contains part of literature review chapter.

Authors’ reply:

In the revised manuscript, we have restructured the content: the Introduction now only covers the research background, motivation, and objectives in a concise way, while the detailed review of existing studies has been moved to a new Section 2.1 Literature Review. This section systematically introduces the evolution of the ecological product value (EPV) concept, methods of EPV accounting, prior empirical applications, and the role of digital finance in rural and ecological development. By doing so, we not only reduce redundancy in the introduction but also provide a clearer, more coherent theoretical foundation for our study.

3.In literature review subchapters on indirect impact mechanisms need to be extended and generate separate hypotheses (hypothesis 2 should be split into H2.1…H2.2….as treating different components which could have different validation results).

Authors’ reply:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion of the indirect mechanisms and reformulated Hypothesis 2 into five separate and more specific hypotheses:

H2a: Digital finance enhances CEEPV by alleviating rural financing constraints.

H2b: Digital finance enhances CEEPV by promoting rural entrepreneurial activity.

H2c: Digital finance enhances CEEPV by fostering agricultural green innovation.

H2d: Digital finance enhances CEEPV by improving agricultural socialization services.

H2e: Digital finance enhances CEEPV by supporting rural e-commerce development.

These changes ensure that each mechanism is explicitly tested, improving both the clarity of our research design and the robustness of the empirical analysis.

4. Results should be enlarged and include parts of the actual discussion chapters …at least for tests and analysis results and tables. Discussions should reiterate each of the hypothesis’s state if validated and discuss related to existing studies differences in results and/or regional implications.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added the interpretation of our findings in the discussion section. We have reorganized the discussion to explicitly revisit each hypothesis, stating whether it is supported by the empirical results. We also compare our findings with existing literature, highlighting both consistencies and differences. Furthermore, we discuss the regional implications of these results, particularly in the context of China’s provincial disparities in marketization, urbanization, and institutional capacity.

6.1 Interpretation of our findings

The empirical results provide strong evidence that digital finance significantly enhances the conversion efficiency of ecological product value (CEEPV). This finding supports Hypothesis 1 and aligns with prior studies that emphasize the positive role of digital finance in promoting green growth and resource efficiency (Razzaq & Yang, 2023; Gao et al., 2022). By improving access to financial services, reducing transaction costs, and enabling new market connections, digital finance contributes to translating ecological resources into tangible economic and ecological benefits.

The dimensional analysis further reveals that usage depth and digitalization level are the primary drivers of this effect, while coverage breadth is not statistically significant. This partially validates the expectation that broader access to financial services would matter for ecological outcomes, but also suggests that simply expanding cover-age without improving service quality or digital intensity is insufficient. This nuance is consistent with evidence from rural financial studies, where accessibility alone does not guarantee efficiency gains unless accompanied by depth and innovation in financial services (Xu et al., 2022).

The mechanism analysis confirms Hypotheses H2a–H2e, showing that rural financing, entrepreneurship, green innovation, agricultural socialization services, and rural e-commerce are crucial channels linking digital finance to CEEPV. These results echo existing research that highlights digital finance’s role in alleviating financing constraints (Song & Du, 2024), fostering rural entrepreneurship (Xie et al., 2020), and supporting agricultural modernization (Liang et al., 2022). At the same time, the evidence from this study adds nuance by quantifying their relative contributions to eco-logical value realization, thus bridging the gap between theoretical claims and empirical validation.

The synergistic role of traditional finance and regulatory frameworks further strengthens the case for an integrated financial ecosystem. This supports findings by Li and Huang (2020) and Wang et al. (2021a) that traditional and digital financial systems are not substitutes but complements, with regulation providing stability and tradition-al finance offering credibility to digital innovations. The implication is that policy de-sign should not treat digital finance in isolation but embed it within a coordinated financial and regulatory environment.

Finally, the heterogeneity analysis reveals that digital finance promotes CEEPV predominantly in provinces with higher levels of marketization and urbanization. This suggests that a conducive institutional and infrastructural environment is a prerequisite for digital finance to translate into ecological efficiency gains. The finding partially contrasts with studies that emphasize the universal benefits of digital finance, but it resonates with evidence that institution-al quality and infrastructure are critical moderators in sustainable finance outcomes (Cheng et al., 2022). From a regional perspective, this highlights the importance of tailoring digital finance policies: while developed regions can focus on deepening digitalization and service quality, less-developed areas may require simultaneous improvements in infrastructure, governance, and market institutions to fully leverage the ecological benefits of digital finance.

In summary, digital finance is shown not only to enhance CEEPV but also to rely on specific mechanisms and enabling conditions. This underscores the need for differentiated, context-sensitive policies to maximize the ecological and economic value of digital finance.

5.Conclusions and recommendations chapters should also include limitations…possible extrapolations of analytics tools. Often a simple mathematic regression relationship alone is not able to generate convincing conclusions on economic complex phenomena. Should variables non comprised in the current analysis be envisaged in the future (non-available) …or other tools of analysis …capable to generate more nuanced results…this should be stated in study’s limitations.

Authors’ reply:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the conclusions section should explicitly acknowledge the limitations of our analysis and outline future research directions. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph on “Limitations and future research” at the end of the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter. These additions directly address the reviewer’s concern by clarifying the methodological and data-related constraints of our study and by outlining possible extrapolations to strengthen future research. The revised content can be found in the Discussion section.

6.3 Limitations and future prospect

Despite these contributions, this study is not without limitations. First, the empirical analysis relies on provincial-level panel data, which may obscure firm-level or household-level heterogeneity in the relationship between digital finance and CEEPV. Future work could incorporate micro-level survey or transaction data to capture more nuanced behavioral responses. Second, while the fixed-effects regression framework allows us to address unobserved heterogeneity, it may not fully reflect the dynamic and nonlinear nature of the mechanisms involved. The adoption of more advanced tools—such as spatial econometric models, structural equation modeling, or ma-chine-learning-based approaches—could provide deeper insights. Third, the present analysis is limited by data availability, excluding variables such as environmental regulation intensity, local governance capacity, and digital literacy, which may also shape the impact of digital finance. Future research should integrate these dimensions to enhance explanatory power. Finally, although this study is situated in the Chinese context, comparative analyses across developing and developed countries would help to evaluate the generalizability of the findings and refine policy recommendations in a broader global setting.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lines 63-65. This sentence emphasized the weak EPV in rural areas, thereby establishing a strong connection between CEEPV and rural areas, agriculture, and farmers. However, this description is too simplistic. It is suggested to add 1-2 more sentences to explain why such a strong connection between the two is emphasized and what the significance of this connection is.
2. Lines 96-117 are used to introduce the research advantages of this article, but some parts of the content have an exaggerated nature. Lines 106-107, the authors stated that this article "uniquely examines the impact of digital finance on CEEPV", but in fact, articles that study the impact of digital finance on the transformation efficiency of ecological value do exist, not only in Chinese but also in English. Therefore, the wording of this paragraph needs to be adjusted.
3. In sections 2.1 and 2.2, the authors explained the conversion relationship between digital finance and EPV from a theoretical perspective. However, there are already many relevant cases in practice. It is suggested to add 1-2 real-life cases, and the details can be referred to the "Typical Cases of Ecological Product Value Realization" (1-4 batches) released by the Ministry of Natural Resources, so as to enrich the theoretical framework content of this part.
4. The subheadings and the structure of the article need to be adjusted. It is suggested to group the methods, framework, and data together, and the parts involving specific data results should all be placed in the results section. For example, in 3.1. Variables, the authors expected to introduce the relevant variables in this subsection, but actually also introduced some calculated data. It might be more appropriate to adjust the content related to the results to section 4.
5. In the figures, a corresponding scale should be added to each small map. Also, why are the scale of Figure 4 and Figure 5 so different? Additionally, the attached map of the South China Sea Islands should follow the national standard map format (it should only show 9 lines instead of 10 lines).
6. In the result section, the R² values in multiple tables are generally low. This is most likely due to the insufficient explanatory power of the model framework and problems with the model design. Based on Table 1, some of the indicators have a minimum value of 0 and a relatively low mean value. This indicates that the data has a high degree of dispersion, and the regression analysis results will have certain fluctuations. Additionally, in Table 2, most models are not significant, suggesting that the indicators and the model may need further optimization to enhance their significance. The authors seem not to have completed the endogeneity test of the indicators. It is recommended to add this part of the content.

Author Response

1. Lines 63-65. This sentence emphasized the weak EPV in rural areas, thereby establishing a strong connection between CEEPV and rural areas, agriculture, and farmers. However, this description is too simplistic. It is suggested to add 1-2 more sentences to explain why such a strong connection between the two is emphasized and what the significance of this connection is.

Authors’ reply:

Thank you for this constructive comment. We have expanded the discussion on the linkage between CEEPV and rural areas. Specifically, we now emphasize that rural regions not only hold a large share of ecological resources but also face structural disadvantages such as financing bottlenecks and weak institutional support. Improving CEEPV in these areas is significant because it simultaneously supports ecological conservation, poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and the broader green transition. This elaboration is provided in the third paragraph of the revised Introduction.

2.Lines 96-117 are used to introduce the research advantages of this article, but some parts of the content have an exaggerated nature. Lines 106-107, the authors stated that this article "uniquely examines the impact of digital finance on CEEPV", but in fact, articles that study the impact of digital finance on the transformation efficiency of ecological value do exist, not only in Chinese but also in English. Therefore, the wording of this paragraph needs to be adjusted.

Authors’ reply:

We fully agree with this comment and have carefully revised the wording to avoid exaggeration. Instead of claiming uniqueness, we now state that “fewer studies have focused explicitly on the efficiency dimension of ecological value realization.” Our contribution lies in extending this growing body of literature by explicitly linking digital finance to CEEPV, testing multiple mechanisms, and situating the analysis in China’s provincial context. The revised wording can be found in the latter part of the Introduction.

3. In sections 2.1 and 2.2, the authors explained the conversion relationship between digital finance and EPV from a theoretical perspective. However, there are already many relevant cases in practice. It is suggested to add 1-2 real-life cases, and the details can be referred to the "Typical Cases of Ecological Product Value Realization" (1-4 batches) released by the Ministry of Natural Resources, so as to enrich the theoretical framework content of this part.

Authors’ reply:

We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion. We agree that including real-life cases can enrich the theoretical framework and strengthen the practical relevance of our arguments. In the revised manuscript, we have added two illustrative cases from the Typical Cases of Ecological Product Value Realization released by the Ministry of Natural Resources:

In Section 2.1 (Direct Impact Mechanism), we introduce the case of Guizhou’s Chishui bamboo industry. Supported by digital finance, local cooperatives obtained credit for ecological bamboo cultivation and used e-commerce platforms to expand branding and online sales. This case demonstrates how digital finance reduces transaction costs and broadens market access, facilitating the direct conversion of ecological resources into sustainable economic value.

In Section 2.2 (Indirect Impact Mechanism), we add the case of Zhejiang’s Anji white tea industry. Here, digital finance products provided loans for ecological tea farming while online platforms enabled direct trading and brand building. This integration illustrates how digital finance supports rural e-commerce development, thereby improving the conversion efficiency of ecological product value.

These cases concretely illustrate the mechanisms we propose and provide real-world evidence of how digital finance enhances CEEPV. The revisions can be found in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the manuscript.

4. The subheadings and the structure of the article need to be adjusted. It is suggested to group the methods, framework, and data together, and the parts involving specific data results should all be placed in the results section. For example, in 3.1. Variables, the authors expected to introduce the relevant variables in this subsection, but actually also introduced some calculated data. It might be more appropriate to adjust the content related to the results to section.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation and fully agree with the suggestion regarding the structure. In the revised manuscript, we have reorganized the structure as follows:

Section 3: Research Design

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Conversion efficiency of ecological products value.

3.1.2 Model Specification

3.2 Variables

3.2.1 Digital finance

3.2.2 Mechanism variables

3.2.3 Control variable

3.3 Data Source

Section 4: Results and Analysis

4.1 Spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of CEEPV and digital finance level

4.2 Benchmark Regression

4.3 Dimensional Regression

4.4 Endogeneity and Robust Test

4.4.1 Endogeneity Test

4.4.2 Robustness Test

5.In the figures, a corresponding scale should be added to each small map. Also, why are the scale of Figure 4 and Figure 5 so different? Additionally, the attached map of the South China Sea Islands should follow the national standard map format (it should only show 9 lines instead of 10 lines).

Authors’ reply:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for carefully checking the figures and raising these important points. We have made the following revisions accordingly:

Scale bars have been added to each sub-map to ensure that readers can easily interpret distances and spatial relationships. The scales of Figures 4 and 5 have been unified. In the revised version, we have standardized the scale across these figures to maintain consistency and comparability.

We would like to clarify that the version of the map used in our manuscript strictly follows the official standard map published by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China. According to the Ministry’s official standard map service platform, the South China Sea Islands are delineated using a “ten-dash line” format rather than nine (see official reference: Ministry of Natural Resources Standard Map Service, http://bzdt.ch.mnr.gov.cn/browse.html?picId=%224o28b0625501ad13015501ad2bfc2192%22). Therefore, our map complies with the nationally recognized and legally valid standard.

These revisions ensure that all maps now meet cartographic standards and enhance the clarity and professionalism of figure presentation. The corrected figures are included in the revised manuscript.

6.In the result section, the R2 values in multiple tables are generally low. This is most likely due to the insufficient explanatory power of the model framework and problems with the model design. Based on Table 1, some of the indicators have a minimum value of 0 and a relatively low mean value. This indicates that the data has a high degree of dispersion, and the regression analysis results will have certain fluctuations. Additionally, in Table 2, most models are not significant, suggesting that the indicators and the model may need further optimization to enhance their significance. The authors seem not to have completed the endogeneity test of the indicators. It is recommended to add this part of the content.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point.

Clarification of R² values: We acknowledge that the reported R² values are modest. However, this does not necessarily undermine the validity of the results for several reasons: First, in two-way fixed-effects models, much of the cross-sectional variance is absorbed by unit and time dummies, which naturally lowers the reported R² (Wooldridge, 2010; Greene, 2012). What matters more is whether the estimated coefficients are statistically significant, theoretically consistent, and robust across specifications. Second, the dependent variable in this study (CEEPV) is a constructed efficiency indicator, which inherently exhibits high dispersion and is influenced by many unobservable institutional and ecological factors. Similar studies in environmental economics also report relatively low R² values but provide important insights (Stern, 2004). Third, to strengthen confidence in our results, we conducted a series of robustness checks: (i) winsorizing the digital finance index at the 0.1 and 99.9 percentiles to remove extreme values, (ii) adding omitted controls such as transportation infrastructure (per capita rural road mileage) and regional consumption level (CPI), and (iii) lagging explanatory variables by one period to account for delayed effects. Across all these tests, the coefficients of the core explanatory variables remained stable in both sign and significance, confirming the robustness of our conclusions. Finally, we note that low R² values are not unusual in empirical economics. For example, Adams-Prassl et al. (2020), using survey data to study the labor market impacts of Covid-19, report adjusted R² values below 0.02, yet their findings are considered robust and policy-relevant. This demonstrates that the explanatory power of coefficients, rather than the absolute R², is the key criterion for evaluating econometric results.

Addressing data dispersion: As shown in Table 1, some indicators display a minimum value of zero and relatively low mean values, indicating high dispersion in the data. This reflects the heterogeneity across provinces in terms of ecological resources, financial development, and socio-economic conditions. Such dispersion is common in cross-regional panel studies and may introduce fluctuations in regression outcomes. To address this, we conducted robustness test, including remove of extreme values and alternative model specifications. The results remained consistent, suggesting that the core findings are not driven by data outliers or dispersion.

The significance of control variables: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We acknowledge that in Table 2, some of the control variables are not statistically significant. This outcome reflects two factors. First, given the heterogeneity across provinces, the influence of certain controls may vary substantially across regions, resulting in insignificant coefficients in the full-sample estimation. Second, the two-way fixed-effects model specification absorbs much of the cross-sectional and temporal variation, which often reduces the significance of ancillary variables. We incorporated additional controls—such as transportation infrastructure and social consumption level—to better capture determinants of CEEPV in robust test. We also conducted heterogeneity analyses by stratifying provinces according to marketization, urbanization, and development level. The results show that while some control variables remain insignificant at the national level, they gain explanatory power within subsample regressions, suggesting their effects are context-specific rather than universally absent. The control variables in our model serve primarily to reduce omitted variable bias and to ensure the robustness of the estimated coefficients of the core explanatory variable (digital finance). Their statistical significance is not the main focus of this study. This modeling approach is consistent with the econometric literature, where control variables are included to hold constant potential confounding factors, even if their coefficients are not significant (Wooldridge, 2010).

Endogeneity Test: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We would like to clarify that an endogeneity test has already been conducted and included in the submitted manuscript (see Section 4.4.1 and Table 4). In this part, we employed an instrumental variable (IV) approach using distance to Hangzhou, historical postal and telecommunication volume, and lagged digital finance as instruments. The first-stage results confirm the strength and validity of the instruments (p < 0.01, Kleibergen–Paap Wald rk F > 16.38), and the second-stage estimates remain consistent with the baseline regression, showing that digital finance significantly enhances CEEPV.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your research article entitled "Enhancing the Efficiency of Environmental Product Value Transformation through Digital Finance: Measurement and Mechanism Analysis" for publication. After careful review, several key points were identified that required improvement before the article could be eligible for publication.
Objectives and methodology:

The authors should reformulate the objectives of the study to be clearer and more specific.
You are asked to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology, emphasizing how the research objectives were achieved.

Results:

The results should be presented in a more organized and focused manner.Example: Evaluation of ecological products value and digital inclusive finance indicator system. Entering it into the text is better than writing it in Appendix A and Appendix B 
The "Summary" section should be rephrased to be more focused and clear.

Discussion and conclusions:

The discussion should relate directly to the results, emphasizing the importance of the results to the overall topic.
Conclusions should be short and specific, summarizing the most important contributions made by the study.

Form and content:

A comprehensive review of all sections of the article (introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusions) is needed to improve its language, wording, and coherence.
The introduction needs to be rewritten to be more comprehensive and relevant.
Figures and tables should be checked to ensure they are clear and easy to understand.
Some paragraphs are very long and need to be divided into shorter paragraphs.
References must be formatted correctly, and naming errors (such as "Figure 1", "Figure 2") must be fixed
To summarize, the evaluation indicates that the article contains valuable information, but needs comprehensive review and improvement in organization, wording, clarity, and proofreading to be ready for publication.
We believe that your article contains valuable information, and that making these changes will contribute significantly to enhancing its quality and preparing it for publication. 

Author Response

1. The authors should reformulate the objectives of the study to be clearer and more specific.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The study objectives have been reformulated into four clear and specific aims: (1) measuring provincial-level CEEPV across 2011–2020; (2) examining the impact of digital finance, with attention to its three dimensions (coverage breadth, usage depth, and digitalization level); (3) testing key mechanisms such as rural financing, entrepreneurship, agricultural green innovation, socialized services, and rural e-commerce; and (4) analyzing synergy effects and heterogeneity with traditional finance, regulatory frameworks, and regional development. This revision is presented in the penultimate paragraph of the Introduction.

2. You are asked to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology, emphasizing how the research objectives were achieved.

Authors’ reply:

 We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded Section 3.1.2 to provide a clearer explanation of the methodological framework and its relevance to our research objectives. Specifically, we now highlight the advantages of the two-way fixed-effects model in controlling for unobservable regional and temporal heterogeneity, thereby reducing omitted variable bias and improving causal inference. We also clarify how the model directly links to the study’s objectives: the baseline specification measures the overall impact of digital finance on CEEPV, while its extensions allow us to test the indirect mechanisms (e.g., rural financing, entrepreneurship, green innovation) and explore heterogeneity under different socio-economic and institutional conditions. These revisions make the methodological section more comprehensive and directly aligned with the research objectives.

3. The results should be presented in a more organized and focused manner. Example: Evaluation of ecological products value and digital inclusive finance indicator system. Entering it into the text is better than writing it in Appendix A and Appendix

Authors’ reply:

 We sincerely thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that presenting the evaluation results of the ecological products value and the digital inclusive finance indicator system in the main text makes the results clearer and more focused. In the revised manuscript, we have reorganized the results section and moved the evaluation outcomes of these indicator systems from Appendix A and Appendix B into the main text (see Section 4.1).

4. The "Summary" section should be rephrased to be more focused and clearer.

Authors’ reply:

 We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully rephrased the Summary section to make it more focused and clearer. The revised version highlights the key findings in a concise manner, following a logical structure from overall impact, to mechanisms, heterogeneity, and policy implications.

The conversion of ecological product value is vital for reconciling economic growth with environmental sustainability. As a financial innovation that combines digital technology with inclusive finance, digital finance has emerged as a key driver of this process. Drawing on Chinese provincial panel data from 2011 to 2020, this study shows that digital finance significantly enhances the conversion efficiency of ecological product value (CEEPV), and the results remain robust after addressing endogeneity and sensitivity concerns. The analysis reveals that the depth of use and the level of digitalization of digital finance strongly promote CEEPV, while coverage breadth has no significant effect. Mechanism tests indicate that digital finance improves CEEPV mainly through alleviating rural financing constraints, fostering entrepreneurship, encouraging green innovation, enhancing agricultural social services, and supporting rural e-commerce. In addition, traditional finance and financial regulation complement digital finance in strengthening CEEPV. Heterogeneity analysis further shows that the positive effect of digital finance is concentrated in provinces with higher levels of marketization and urbanization. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of accelerating digital finance development and implementing region-specific policies to maximize its potential in advancing ecological product value realization.

5. The discussion should relate directly to the results, emphasizing the importance of the results to the overall topic.

Authors’ reply:

 We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have reorganized the discussion section to ensure that it directly relates to the empirical results and clearly emphasizes their importance to the overall research topic. Specifically, for each set of findings—baseline effect, dimensional analysis, mechanism tests, synergistic effects, and heterogeneity—we now explain not only whether the results validate the hypotheses but also how they contribute to understanding the role of digital finance in enhancing the CEEPV. By linking each result back to the broader theme of ecological product value realization and sustainable development, the discussion is now more focused, coherent, and policy-relevant (see Section 6.1).

6.1 Interpretation of our findings

The empirical results provide strong evidence that digital finance significantly enhances the conversion efficiency of ecological product value (CEEPV). This finding supports Hypothesis 1 and aligns with prior studies that emphasize the positive role of digital finance in promoting green growth and resource efficiency (Razzaq & Yang, 2023; Gao et al., 2022). By improving access to financial services, reducing transaction costs, and enabling new market connections, digital finance contributes to translating ecological resources into tangible economic and ecological benefits.

The dimensional analysis further reveals that usage depth and digitalization level are the primary drivers of this effect, while coverage breadth is not statistically significant. This partially validates the expectation that broader access to financial services would matter for ecological outcomes, but also suggests that simply expanding cover-age without improving service quality or digital intensity is insufficient. This nuance is consistent with evidence from rural financial studies, where accessibility alone does not guarantee efficiency gains unless accompanied by depth and innovation in financial services (Xu et al., 2022).

The mechanism analysis confirms Hypotheses H2a–H2e, showing that rural financing, entrepreneurship, green innovation, agricultural socialization services, and rural e-commerce are crucial channels linking digital finance to CEEPV. These results echo existing research that highlights digital finance’s role in alleviating financing constraints (Song & Du, 2024), fostering rural entrepreneurship (Xie et al., 2020), and supporting agricultural modernization (Liang et al., 2022). At the same time, the evidence from this study adds nuance by quantifying their relative contributions to eco-logical value realization, thus bridging the gap between theoretical claims and empirical validation.

The synergistic role of traditional finance and regulatory frameworks further strengthens the case for an integrated financial ecosystem. This supports findings by Li and Huang (2020) and Wang et al. (2021a) that traditional and digital financial systems are not substitutes but complements, with regulation providing stability and tradition-al finance offering credibility to digital innovations. The implication is that policy de-sign should not treat digital finance in isolation but embed it within a coordinated financial and regulatory environment.

Finally, the heterogeneity analysis reveals that digital finance promotes CEEPV predominantly in provinces with higher levels of marketization and urbanization. This suggests that a conducive institutional and infrastructural environment is a prerequisite for digital finance to translate into ecological efficiency gains. The finding partially contrasts with studies that emphasize the universal benefits of digital finance, but it resonates with evidence that institution-al quality and infrastructure are critical moderators in sustainable finance outcomes (Cheng et al., 2022). From a regional perspective, this highlights the importance of tailoring digital finance policies: while developed regions can focus on deepening digitalization and service quality, less-developed areas may require simultaneous improvements in infrastructure, governance, and market institutions to fully leverage the ecological benefits of digital finance.

In summary, digital finance is shown not only to enhance CEEPV but also to rely on specific mechanisms and enabling conditions. This underscores the need for differentiated, context-sensitive policies to maximize the ecological and economic value of digital finance.

6. Conclusions should be short and specific, summarizing the most important contributions made by the study.

Authors’ reply:

 We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have shortened and refocused the Conclusions section to avoid unnecessary repetition and to highlight only the most important contributions of the study.

This study demonstrates that digital finance significantly improves the CEEPV in China. The effect is primarily driven by usage depth and digitalization level, while coverage breadth shows no significant impact. Mechanism tests reveal that digital fi-nance enhances CEEPV by alleviating rural financing constraints, promoting entrepreneurship, fostering green innovation, strengthening agricultural services, and sup-porting rural e-commerce. In addition, digital and traditional finance, together with financial regulation, play complementary roles. The positive impact is most evident in provinces with higher marketization and greater urbanization, underscoring the im-portance of institutional and infrastructural conditions. These findings contribute to understanding how digital finance can be leveraged to advance the realization of EPV and guide region-specific policy design for sustainable development.

7. A comprehensive review of all sections of the article (introduction, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusions) is needed to improve its language, wording, and coherence.

Authors’ reply:

 We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. In the revised version, we have undertaken a comprehensive language and coherence review across all sections of the manuscript. Specifically:

Introduction: Rewritten to be more focused, with clearer segmentation of ecological product value, improved motivation, and better integration of the study’s objectives.

Methodology: Revised for clarity and conciseness, with additional explanations on model specification and its alignment with research objectives.

Findings and Results: Expanded with more organized presentation of tables and explanatory text to ensure coherence between empirical evidence and narrative.

Discussion: Reorganized to directly relate to the results, clearly stating whether each hypothesis was validated, and connecting findings with existing literature and regional implications.

Conclusions: Shortened and made more specific, emphasizing the main contributions without repeating details from earlier sections.

In addition, the entire manuscript has been carefully proofread and polished to improve readability, precision of wording, and logical flow. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the overall coherence and presentation of the article (see revised manuscript).

8. The introduction needs to be rewritten to be more comprehensive and relevant.

Authors’ reply:

 We appreciate this important recommendation. The Introduction has been thoroughly revised for greater comprehensiveness and relevance. It now begins with the UNEP definition of ecological products and situates EPV within global sustainable development debates. It then narrows the scope to CEEPV, explains its theoretical significance, and highlights why China provides a compelling regional context. The introduction of digital finance is framed as a practical response to the barriers of EPV realization, and the revised objectives clearly set the scope of this study. These changes ensure that the Introduction is more logically structured, relevant, and aligned with the paper’s contributions.

9. Figures and tables should be checked to ensure they are clear and easy to understand.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for this practical suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully checked all figures and tables to ensure clarity, readability, and consistency. Specifically, we have improved the resolution and formatting of figures, standardized legends, scales, and color schemes, and adjusted captions for greater precision. For tables, we have reformatted variable definitions, added notes where necessary, and ensured consistent use of abbreviations. These revisions make the visual presentation of results clearer and more accessible for readers.

10. Some paragraphs are very long and need to be divided into shorter paragraphs.

Authors’ reply:

 We thank the reviewer for this helpful remark. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed all sections and divided overly long paragraphs into shorter, more focused ones. This restructuring improves readability, emphasizes key arguments more clearly, and ensures smoother transitions between ideas.

11. References must be formatted correctly, and naming errors (such as "Figure 1", "Figure 2") must be fixed.

Authors’ reply:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these important issues. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully checked and corrected all reference entries to ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines (including author names, year, titles, and citation style). In addition, we have systematically reviewed all figures and tables, correcting numbering errors and ensuring consistency between in-text citations, captions, and the reference list. These revisions improve the overall accuracy and professionalism of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tha authors revised the paper and modified its content according to previous recommendations and suggestions.

Author Response

Thanks for your careful review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to my comments in detail and I have no further questions.

Author Response

Thanks for your careful review.