PONE-D-23-37873Does Technological Innovation in National Sustainable Development Agenda Innovation Demonstration Zones Promote Green Development? --The Case from Chengde City, ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fuyou Guo, (Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

   "This study was supported by the Key Public Project of Humanity and Social Sciences Research of Hebei Education Department (No. ZD202311), General Project of Soft Science Research of Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology (No.225576117D), Graduate Student Innovation Funding Project of Hebei Province (No. CXZZSS2023137)"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

    "the Key Public Project of Humanity and Social Sciences Research of Hebei Education Department (No. ZD202311); General Project of Soft Science Research of Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology (No.225576117D); Graduate Student Innovation Funding Project of Hebei Province (No. CXZZSS2023137)"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "the Key Public Project of Humanity and Social Sciences Research of Hebei Education Department (No. ZD202311); General Project of Soft Science Research of Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology (No.225576117D); Graduate Student Innovation Funding Project of Hebei Province (No. CXZZSS2023137)"  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1 Comments:

1. The introduction section is too long and needs to be presented more in terms of scholarly contributions.

2. The chapter numbering in the whole text needs to be carefully proofread, especially in Mechanism and research hypotheses.

3. Compared with Eq. (1), TI in Eq. (2) is not subscripted, and the squared term is incorrectly written as X.

4. The selection of indicators needs to be clarified and a valid literature base needs to be added.

5. The selection of instrumental variables needs to be explained appropriately.

6. The empirical results need to be compared with similar studies.

7. the conclusion section should be supplemented with the implications of this paper in terms of academic research

Reviewer 2 Comments:

Some issues that should be seriously considered before acceptance:

1. Regression Model Specification:

Authors should clearly explain why square terms are introduced and elaborate on their theoretical basis in addressing the research question. The use of square terms should align with the theoretical framework in the research area. Otherwise, besides simply adding square terms, consider other more flexible nonlinear modeling methods such as spline regression, nonparametric estimation, or polynomial regression. Additionally, the use of square terms introduces challenges in interpreting nonlinear effects. The authors should provide more detailed explanations to ensure readers understand how square terms affect the dependent variable.

2. Endogeneity Issues:

I am concerned about the endogeneity issues in this article, such as

a) Omitted Variables:

Problem: e.g. The model may not have considered the impact of urban planning policies, which could be a crucial omitted variable.

Explanation: If urban planning policies affect both technological innovation and urban green development and are not considered in the model, the model might underestimate the actual impact of technological innovation on urban development.

b) Bidirectional Causation:

Problem: The model may not have considered the feedback effects of technological innovation on green development.

Explanation: If an increase in technological innovation leads to more green development, and higher levels of green development, in turn, encourage more technological innovation, the model might underestimate the true relationship between technological innovation and green development. In this case, the model might need to more comprehensively consider this mutual influence to accurately capture the causation between the two.

3. Instrumental Variable Issues:

If the lagged one-period variables used as instrumental variables are endogenous (i.e., influenced by common unobserved factors), the instrumental variable may still be subject to endogeneity issues, rendering it ineffective in addressing endogeneity. Additionally, lagged variables may be unstable, especially in the presence of external shocks or structural changes. This may cause the instrumental variable's effects to vary over time, making it ineffective during different time periods, and you assume structural changes indeed exist. Besides the instrumental variable method, have you considered other methods to address endogeneity? Please discuss the reasons for choosing the instrumental variable method and, where possible, consider comparing it with other endogeneity handling methods.

4. Threshold Effects:

In the manuscript, there needs to be a clearer expression of the theoretical basis for threshold effects. Explain why the study assumes the existence of threshold effects and their rationale in addressing the research question. Although threshold values are mentioned in the text, there seems to be no detailed discussion on how this threshold value is chosen. In threshold effect studies, the choice of the threshold is crucial as it directly influences the interpretation of study results. A thorough theoretical and empirical argumentation is needed for the selection of the threshold value, and consideration should be given to whether there are multiple potential threshold values. When explaining threshold effects, ensure that the results are interpretable to readers. Clearly state the significance of threshold effects for the research question and why threshold effects make theoretical sense. While statistical significance is important, also pay attention to substantive significance. In threshold effect studies, ensure that the threshold effects are not only statistically significant but also substantively meaningful in practice.

Reviewer 3 Comments:

The authors take Chengde City as the case study to investigate the impact of technological innovation on green development, additionally, taking the Research and development investments as the threshold variable. Overall, the topic is interesting. However, there are some issues, from my point of view, deserve to be treated before publication.

1.I would suggest a bit rework of the paper in the introduction. In its current version, the paper spends too much ink on the description of national policies, but the elaboration of the relationship between technological innovation, green development, R&D investment, and industrial structure upgrading is a bit abrupt and lacks corresponding references, which needs to be further improved.

2.The research framework, including R&D investments, industrial structure, technological innovation and green development, needs to be further clarified. Technological innovation and R&D investment are very broad concepts that involve various industries, and probably only some of them are related to green development. Therefore, I am wondering whether it is possible to change these variables to be more relevant to green development.

3. The authors argue that the work is novel because it uses Chengde City, the NSDAIDZs, as a case study to investigate the impact of technological innovation on green development, which has previously been overlooked. I have two questions about this. First, Chengde City was identified as the NSDAIDZs in May 2019, but the panel data in this paper is selected from 2014 to 2020. It would be better if the study period could be extended to compare the changes in this effect before and after the establishment of the NSDAIDZs. Second, the theme of Chengde being identified as the NSDAIDZs is closely related to its water resources, and these can be discussed. Third, is it possible to have a map to illustrate the location of Chengde in China?

Reviewer 4 Comments:

This article takes Chengde city as an example to examine the quantitative impact of technological innovation on green development in the National Sustainable Development Agenda Innovation Demonstration Zones (NSDAIDZs), and the topic has certain practical significance. However, the article has the following obvious problems: (1) The innovation is not obvious, and there is already a lot of research on the impact of technological innovation on green development, and the difference between this article and existing research is not significant. (2) The conclusion of the article can only indicate that technological innovation in Chengde has promoted green development, but cannot indicate that this impact is caused by NSDAIDZs policy. In fact, the empirical research in this article cannot exclude the influence of other policies or factors. (3) The theoretical mechanism is too generalized. Even without NSDAIDZs policies, technological innovation can still promote green development, and the conclusion is obvious. The article lacks in-depth analysis of the specific implementation content and characteristics of China's NSDAIDZs policy. (4) The article only uses data from 11 districts in Chengde City from 2014 to 2020, with a small sample size. The empirical research methods and robustness tests are too simple, and the basis is insufficient, which will affect the reliability of the conclusions. (5) The conclusions obtained have no effect on how to further improve NSDAIDZs, and the targeted and actionable policy recommendations are not strong.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The introduction section is too long and needs to be presented more in terms of scholarly contributions.

2. The chapter numbering in the whole text needs to be carefully proofread, especially in Mechanism and research hypotheses.

3. Compared with Eq. (1), TI in Eq. (2) is not subscripted, and the squared term is incorrectly written as X.

4. The selection of indicators needs to be clarified and a valid literature base needs to be added.

5. The selection of instrumental variables needs to be explained appropriately.

6. The empirical results need to be compared with similar studies.

7. the conclusion section should be supplemented with the implications of this paper in terms of academic research

Reviewer #2: Some issues that should be seriously considered before acceptance:

1. Regression Model Specification:

Authors should clearly explain why square terms are introduced and elaborate on their theoretical basis in addressing the research question. The use of square terms should align with the theoretical framework in the research area. Otherwise, besides simply adding square terms, consider other more flexible nonlinear modeling methods such as spline regression, nonparametric estimation, or polynomial regression. Additionally, the use of square terms introduces challenges in interpreting nonlinear effects. The authors should provide more detailed explanations to ensure readers understand how square terms affect the dependent variable.

2. Endogeneity Issues:

I am concerned about the endogeneity issues in this article, such as

a) Omitted Variables:

Problem: e.g. The model may not have considered the impact of urban planning policies, which could be a crucial omitted variable.

Explanation: If urban planning policies affect both technological innovation and urban green development and are not considered in the model, the model might underestimate the actual impact of technological innovation on urban development.

b) Bidirectional Causation:

Problem: The model may not have considered the feedback effects of technological innovation on green development.

Explanation: If an increase in technological innovation leads to more green development, and higher levels of green development, in turn, encourage more technological innovation, the model might underestimate the true relationship between technological innovation and green development. In this case, the model might need to more comprehensively consider this mutual influence to accurately capture the causation between the two.

3. Instrumental Variable Issues:

If the lagged one-period variables used as instrumental variables are endogenous (i.e., influenced by common unobserved factors), the instrumental variable may still be subject to endogeneity issues, rendering it ineffective in addressing endogeneity. Additionally, lagged variables may be unstable, especially in the presence of external shocks or structural changes. This may cause the instrumental variable's effects to vary over time, making it ineffective during different time periods, and you assume structural changes indeed exist. Besides the instrumental variable method, have you considered other methods to address endogeneity? Please discuss the reasons for choosing the instrumental variable method and, where possible, consider comparing it with other endogeneity handling methods.

4. Threshold Effects:

In the manuscript, there needs to be a clearer expression of the theoretical basis for threshold effects. Explain why the study assumes the existence of threshold effects and their rationale in addressing the research question. Although threshold values are mentioned in the text, there seems to be no detailed discussion on how this threshold value is chosen. In threshold effect studies, the choice of the threshold is crucial as it directly influences the interpretation of study results. A thorough theoretical and empirical argumentation is needed for the selection of the threshold value, and consideration should be given to whether there are multiple potential threshold values. When explaining threshold effects, ensure that the results are interpretable to readers. Clearly state the significance of threshold effects for the research question and why threshold effects make theoretical sense. While statistical significance is important, also pay attention to substantive significance. In threshold effect studies, ensure that the threshold effects are not only statistically significant but also substantively meaningful in practice.

Reviewer #3: The authors take Chengde City as the case study to investigate the impact of technological innovation on green development, additionally, taking the Research and development investments as the threshold variable. Overall, the topic is interesting. However, there are some issues, from my point of view, deserve to be treated before publication.

1.I would suggest a bit rework of the paper in the introduction. In its current version, the paper spends too much ink on the description of national policies, but the elaboration of the relationship between technological innovation, green development, R&D investment, and industrial structure upgrading is a bit abrupt and lacks corresponding references, which needs to be further improved.

2.The research framework, including R&D investments, industrial structure, technological innovation and green development, needs to be further clarified. Technological innovation and R&D investment are very broad concepts that involve various industries, and probably only some of them are related to green development. Therefore, I am wondering whether it is possible to change these variables to be more relevant to green development.

3. The authors argue that the work is novel because it uses Chengde City, the NSDAIDZs, as a case study to investigate the impact of technological innovation on green development, which has previously been overlooked. I have two questions about this. First, Chengde City was identified as the NSDAIDZs in May 2019, but the panel data in this paper is selected from 2014 to 2020. It would be better if the study period could be extended to compare the changes in this effect before and after the establishment of the NSDAIDZs. Second, the theme of Chengde being identified as the NSDAIDZs is closely related to its water resources, and these can be discussed. Third, is it possible to have a map to illustrate the location of Chengde in China?

Reviewer #4: This article takes Chengde city as an example to examine the quantitative impact of technological innovation on green development in the National Sustainable Development Agenda Innovation Demonstration Zones (NSDAIDZs), and the topic has certain practical significance. However, the article has the following obvious problems: (1) The innovation is not obvious, and there is already a lot of research on the impact of technological innovation on green development, and the difference between this article and existing research is not significant. (2) The conclusion of the article can only indicate that technological innovation in Chengde has promoted green development, but cannot indicate that this impact is caused by NSDAIDZs policy. In fact, the empirical research in this article cannot exclude the influence of other policies or factors. (3) The theoretical mechanism is too generalized. Even without NSDAIDZs policies, technological innovation can still promote green development, and the conclusion is obvious. The article lacks in-depth analysis of the specific implementation content and characteristics of China's NSDAIDZs policy. (4) The article only uses data from 11 districts in Chengde City from 2014 to 2020, with a small sample size. The empirical research methods and robustness tests are too simple, and the basis is insufficient, which will affect the reliability of the conclusions. (5) The conclusions obtained have no effect on how to further improve NSDAIDZs, and the targeted and actionable policy recommendations are not strong.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yifu Yang

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Does Technological Innovation in National Sustainable Development Agenda Innovation Demonstration Zones Promote Green Development? --The Case from Chengde City, China

PONE-D-23-37873R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fuyou Guo, (Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********