Analyzing Provincial Imbalances in Green Innovatio

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03719-7
Analyzing provincial imbalances in green innovation

development in china: multi‑way efficiency analysis
and geodetector approach
Xin Tian1 · Qiang Mai1 · Qinan Zhang1 · Mingshu Lyu1 · Shiyao Li1
Received: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 28 July 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract
Green innovation has now become an important component of high-quality develop-
ment, but China’s provinces still face imbalances in green innovation development. Clari-
fying the current state of development and the causes of the imbalance in each province
is urgently necessary. But only a single or overall indicator cannot well reflect the struc-
tural differences within each province. We used the multi-way efficiency analysis (MEA)
method to analyze the overall and structural efficiency of green innovation in each prov-
ince of China, thus overcoming the shortcomings of comprehensive indicators. In addi-
tion, based on the decomposition of regional differences, policy factors resulting in hetero-
geneity among provinces are analyzed using Geodetector. The research results reveal the
diversity of green innovation systems, the severe symmetry in resource utilization, and the
internal and external sources of regional differences. We categorize the provinces into four
development models by combining the internal structural characteristics of green innova-
tion efficiency, as a way to propose suitable green innovation policies for each province, to
take into account, the different development environments of the provinces assessed. Our
research has significant implications for effectively improving green innovation efficiency
and guides the formulation of more precise policies.
Keywords Green innovation efficiency · MEA model · Single-indicator efficiency ·

Geodetector · Spatial effect
1 Introduction
The world’s environmental crisis has had a substantial influence, making green inno-
vation a prominent topic in both academia and politics (Akram et al., 2023; Maz-
zanti & Rizzo, 2017). Green innovation is characterized by a “double externality” that
* Qiang Mai
maiqiang@hit.edu.cn
Xin Tian
tianxin1008@outlook.com
1
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150000, China
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
X. Tian et al.
encompasses knowledge spillovers and environmental protection (Rennings, 2000). It

promotes the generation of green products, which can be applied in various fields such
as industry and agriculture. Thus, it reduces environmental and resource threats and
leads to a thriving green economy (Sun et al., 2023). Recognizing and assessing the
technological, financial, and environmental aspects of green innovation play a crucial
role in understanding it holistically. Some scholars go so far as to argue that sustainable
development is impossible without innovation and progress in green technology (Fan
et al., 2021). As a result, regions and nations are increasingly embracing green innova-
tion to gain a competitive edge. Green innovation has emerged as a fundamental prereq-
uisite for China’s pursuit of high-quality development.
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is widely recognized as imperative, yet the meth-
ods to achieve this goal remain contentious and debated (Abbasi and Ahmadi Chouk-
olaei 2023). Abbasi and Erdebilli (2023) investigated the impact of carbon taxes as well
as carbon allowances on carbon emissions through a multi-objective planning approach.
China places great significance on addressing carbon emissions. The expansive eco-
nomic expansion has led to the disproportionate utilization of nonrenewable energy
sources and other valuable resources (Wang et al., 2016). Consequently, this puts enor-
mous pressure on environmental and economic sustainability (Ma et al., 2019). The
challenge of reconciling socioeconomic progress and environmental protection remains
unresolved. As these issues persist, green innovation has emerged as an imperative
choice for addressing them in China. The Chinese government is dedicated to encour-
aging and advancing the use of eco-friendly technology. (Zhang et al., 2022). Should a
different focus be applied to each region when promoting green innovation, or should
a “blanket approach” strategy be used? Current research has thus far failed to answer
this question. In this context, it is crucial to uncover the internal structural disparities in
the performance of green innovation among provinces and understand the factors that
contribute to spatial heterogeneity in output efficiency. These insights will facilitate the
growth of effective green innovation policies.
However, the literature primarily focuses on examining green innovation efficiency at
the national (Fang, Bai, and Bilan 2019), industry (Zhu et al., 2021), and enterprise levels
(Stucki, 2019), neglecting analysis at the provincial meso level. The efficiency of green
innovation is a holistic indicator. It is used to assess the progress and accomplishments
of green innovation initiatives in a region. It reflects the overall capacity of the region for
managing the input, output, and process of green innovation (Zhou et al., 2021). But cer-
tain variables used to reflect different facets of green innovation in current research are
often consolidated into a unitary score, such as green patents and the green innovation
composite index (Zeng et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Regional heterogeneity in green
innovation is unavoidable due to the vastness of China and the variations in the availability
of natural resources, economic progress, and scientific capabilities across the country (Liu
et al., 2023). The single-indicator analysis falls short in encompassing the various aspects
of green innovation systems, the internal advantages and disadvantages, or the structural
differences among each province, thus proving insufficient to support accurate policy
implementation. Despite previous studies focusing on green innovation efficiency, there are
still lingering unresolved issues. The first is that less research on it points out the inter-
nal structural differences in green innovation efficiency across Chinese provinces and the
asymmetrical situation of resource utilization preferences and priorities. The second is how
to precisely formulate green innovation policies that apply to each province’s development.
The third is that the internal and external factors of unbalanced regional development of
green innovation need to be further explored.
13
Analyzing provincial imbalances in green innovation development…
Building upon the aforementioned rationale, we incorporated factors such as resources,

economy, and environmental pollution into a green innovation efficiency evaluation sys-
tem. Using the MEA model, we calculated the overall and structural efficiency of green
innovation across 30 Chinese provinces from 2008 to 2020. We analyzed the spatial and
time trends of each indicator by province, and the regions were divided into four patterns
based on structural efficiency characteristics. In addition, the regional disparities in over-
all efficiency are further disaggregated, specifically examining the outputs of technology,
economy, and environment are compared to determine the internal sources of these dif-
ferences. Finally, using Geodetector, the impact of the driving and cross-driving individ-
ual policy factors on the spatial heterogeneity of green innovation efficiency is evaluated.
Our contributions lie in elucidating the internal structural efficiency of green innovation in
each Chinese province. Additionally, we uncover disparities in green innovation efficiency
among provinces by considering factors such as funding, manpower, technology, govern-
ment input, environmental output, and the economy. It more finely details the reasons for
the regional development imbalance of green innovation efficiency in China. Simultane-
ously, it broadens the examination of spatial heterogeneity in green innovation efficiency
by considering external policies, providing a clearer understanding of the diverse nature
across various Chinese provinces and the underlying factors contributing to regional devel-
opment imbalances. Our study has substantial theoretical and practical significance for for-
mulating and applying relevant national policies for green innovation.
The study’s remaining sections are outlined as listed below: Sect. 2 reviews the defi-
nition of green innovation efficiency, its evaluation method, and its relevant analytical
research. Section 3 discusses green innovation efficiency indicators and data sources. Sec-
tion 4 discusses the methodologies employed in the study. Section 5 explores green inno-
vation efficiency and spatial characteristics. Section 6 presents the research outcomes and
policy recommendations.
2 Literature review
As global climate and environmental problems have become increasingly serious, balanc-
ing ecological and economic development has become a pressing issue that needs to be
addressed (Heffels et al., 2014). Finding key influences that mitigate the continued deterio-
ration of both while maintaining rapid economic growth is important (Chen et al., 2012).
Several academics have researched green innovation in search of a breakthrough in balanc-
ing the needs of the economy and environment that balances economic and environmen-
tally beneficial effects, adapts to supply side and structural reforms, and improves quality
and efficiency (Ahlvik et al., 2014). Concepts similar to green innovation include “eco-
innovation,” (Hazarika & Zhang, 2019) “environmental innovation,” (Gramkow & Anger-
Kraavi, 2017) and “sustainable innovation” (Cillo et al., 2019). Although green innovation
and these three types of innovation are different in nomenclature, they are all essentially
focused on providing resolutions to conflicts related to human society, resources, and the
environment. The three concepts can also be seen as different expressions of green innova-
tion at different times and from different disciplinary or theoretical perspectives (Bi et al.,
2014; Wang & Li, 2021).
Regarding the measurement of green innovation, current studies concentrate on devel-
oping a comprehensive index framework for green innovation and typically assess its
efficiency by analyzing the input–output ratio. In comparison to conventional innovation,
13
X. Tian et al.
green innovation is evaluated within the context of environmental and resource constraints.
The most obvious example of this is the consideration of unexpected outputs, such as envi-
ronmental pollution. Green innovation plays a crucial role in mitigating the generation
or emission of pollutants and the consumption of irreplaceable resources by introducing
advancements in green products, processes, and resource utilization. This, in turn, helps
alleviate the strain that production activities exert on ecosystems and the environment (Zhu
et al., 2021).
The comprehensive index of the environment is typically constructed using standardized
quantitative indicators or weighted methods, such as the reduction in energy input and the
generation or emission reduction of pollutants. Miao et al. (2021) evaluated the effect of
green innovation by using total energy consumption as an input indicator and the combined
emissions of three industrial wastes as an output indicator. As it possesses conventional
innovation characteristics, both technological and economic outputs need to be measured
(Long et al., 2017). Scholars typically use indicators such as new product sales revenue,
industrial value-added (TAO, ZHAO, and ZHOU 2020), and green GDP (Zeng et al.,
2021) as the economic outputs of green innovation. The quantity of green patents is com-
monly regarded as a distinctive measure of the technological output of green innovation
(Yang & Zhou, 2023). With the continuous progress of sustainable development concepts,
scholars have been constructing performance indicators for sustainable supply chains from
economic, environmental, and social aspects (Abbasi et al., 2022). And by weighing these
three aspects to optimize the supply chain’s carbon emissions (Abbasi, Daneshmand-Mehr,
and Ghane Kanafi 2021). Sustainability-related research has tended to be multi-objective,
multidimensional, and quantitative (Abbasi, Daneshmand-Mehr, and Ghane 2023). Green
innovation has become endowed with more missions and functions. Therefore, assessing
the efficiency of green innovation, which demands the use of comprehensive indicators that
consider both the innovation input elements and coordination with the ecological environ-
ment while highlighting the structural differences of green innovation systems among dif-
ferent regions.
Both parametric and nonparametric methods have been employed to evaluate the
input–output efficiency. Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) is among the main parametric
methods used (Miao et al., 2017). SFA primarily examines firm efficiency, its influenc-
ing factors, and its economic implications (Miao et al., 2018). Data envelopment analy-
sis (DEA) nonparametric methods are used to assess decision-making units’ multiple out-
puts and inputs (DMUs). Yangjun and Chuanxu (2016) utilized the slack-based measure
(SBM) to assess the degree of green innovation among Chinese industrial firms but did not
account for unintended effects in their analysis. They examined regional industrial green
innovation effectiveness. Luo et al. (2019) evaluated the progress of industry green innova-
tion through the use of the Malmquist index. Zhu et al. (2021) utilized a two-phase DEA
approach using conventional input measures to investigate the extent of efficiency in green
innovation within China’s industries with high energy consumption from 2005 to 2015.
They found disparities in levels of industry innovation. Efficiency values obtained from
both parametric and nonparametric methods are comprehensive indicators that can accu-
rately depict the attributes of green innovation activities. However, these methods fail to
represent a significant portion of the heterogeneity of green innovation systems across dif-
ferent regions.
Given China’s vast landmass, diversity in available resources, levels of economic
growth, and policy preferences among its regions have led to diversity among green
13
innovation systems (Zhao et al., 2021). Scholars, when investigating regional disparities
in the efficacy of green innovation, have employed computation and decomposition tech-
niques, revealing substantial variations in the progress across different regions in China.
For instance, Fan et al. (2021) identified substantial spatial disparities in the efficacy of
green innovation in the urban dimension that exhibits an “eastern rise, central stillness, and
western decline” trend. Using the Theil index, YANG, LIU, and SUN (2021) conducted a
study to analyze the spatial efficiency of innovation across different regions. They observed
that regional disparities were primarily attributable to factors originating within the respec-
tive regions. Xu, Liu, and Wang (2022) analyzed the spatiotemporal trends of green inno-
vation efficiency in the cities located in the Yellow River Basin. Their findings indicated
that the efficiency values were higher in the upstream region compared to the midstream
or downstream regions. Additionally, they discovered that environmental regulations dis-
played varying nonlinear correlations with green innovation efficiency across upper, mid-
dle, and lower reaches. This indicates that regional differences are widely prevalent, and
there is no consensus regarding the factors contributing to these variations. Most analyses
emphasize the overall efficiency of green innovation, revealing spatial heterogeneity but
failing to explore which factors within regional green innovation systems are responsible
for the overall heterogeneity. In addition, Xu, Liu, and Wang (2022) not only analyzed the
regional heterogeneity of green innovation efficiency across the Yellow River Basin but
also proposed that environmental policies should be tailored to the specific circumstances
of each individual region. Similarly, at the provincial level, formulating policy measures
tailored to the actual development of each province requires a more granular analysis of
the diversity of each province’s green innovation system. The spatial heterogeneity of each
green innovation input and output variable needs to be clarified, and the internal and exter-
nal factors that cause regional discrepancies in efficiency need to be identified. Policymak-
ers should examine green innovation output and the differences in different resource utili-
zation efficiencies in each region to select relevant and realistic policies and measures for
development.
Research has indicated that regional studies of green innovation efficiency have cer-
tain limitations. From a quantitative perspective, relatively few studies have been con-
ducted on the intrinsic composition. Green innovation systems in different regions are
multifaceted, with asymmetries in resource appetite and organization of priorities (Wu
et al., 2022). Hence, it is imperative to unveil the inherent structural disparities con-
cerning the efficiency of green innovation. Second, the current scholarly investigations
regarding the spatial heterogeneity of green innovation efficiency are insufficient in pin-
pointing the primary factors contributing to regional disparities in growth. The lack of
sufficient understanding in this area hinders the development of precise policies that
can effectively address the unique developmental characteristics of each region. Finally,
the lack of deep analysis of the causes of regional gaps necessitates the identification of
external factors that lead to regional development discrepancies from the standpoint of
spatial heterogeneity.
3 Indicators and data sources
The double externality characteristic of green innovation requires us to consider not just
the environmental and ecological advantages as well as the economic benefits. Conse-
quently, green innovation activities should encompass resource and energy conservation
13
X. Tian et al.
while addressing the imperative of avoiding, eliminating, or minimizing pollution and

environmental degradation(Peng and Lu 2017; Rennings, 2000). This is an inherent
attribute of green innovation. Hence, evaluation indicators are built on green innovation
elements. The system utilizes R&D input, personnel input, technology input, and gov-
ernment input indicators as input indicators.
Regarding capital investment, R&D investment can be categorized as either inter-
nal or external. However, internal investment is considered to provide a more accurate
reflection of the innovation intensity within an industry (Hong et al., 2016; Lin et al.,
2019), it is used as a measurement indicator. As personnel involved in research and
development activities constitute the most direct input (Miao et al., 2021), the input
of R&D personnel is quantified in terms of full-time equivalents. Technological input,
expenditure on technology introduction, digestion and absorption, purchase of domes-
tic technology, and technology transformation by industrial enterprises above the des-
ignated size are introduced as variables. The comprehensive index of technological
input is constructed using the entropy weight method (Yang et al., 2021). Considering
the public nature of green innovation and the policy context in China, environmen-
tal protection expenditure is designated as the chosen indicator to measure the gov-
ernment’s input in this domain. It is a market-based policy tool, mainly reflects the
investment status of regional governments in environmental pollution control (MA,
GONG, and DAI 2022). It is a crucial method for improving the environment and
promoting green innovation and reflects the behavior of local governments (Zhang &
Li, 2022).
Based on the involving green and general innovation activities, the output indi-
cators should encompass not only the general innovation output indicators but also
emphasize the environmental benefits. We divide green innovation output efficiency
into two aspects: ideal and nonideal. Ideal output is further divided into technological
output and economic output. Green technology includes seven categories: alternative
energy production technology, transportation technology, energy-saving technology,
waste treatment technology, agricultural and forestry technology, management regula-
tions and design technology, and nuclear power generation technology. The concept
of green patent cannot merely be effectively employed to identify and promote green
technological innovation activities, it can also improve its evaluation system (Qiongdi
& Yunyin, 2009). Therefore, using green patent authorization as a technical output
indicator in the evaluation system can both measure technical output more accurately
and reflect the uniqueness of green innovation activities. Regarding nonideal output,
because green innovation can decrease the generation and consumption of nonrenew-
able resources through innovation in green products, processes, or resource utiliza-
tion, environmental benefits have been considered a significant component of green
innovation by academics (Zhu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019, Xu, Liu, and Wang
2022). Based on this, industrial wastewater, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter
emissions are taken as nonideal outputs (Miao et al., 2021, Du, Liu, and Diao 2019).
The environmental influence of green innovation is assessed using the entropy weight
method. Table 1 displays the indicator system, which is objective, comprehensive, and
practical.
This study covers 30 Chinese provinces and cities (excluding Tibet, Hong Kong,
Macao, and Taiwan) between 2008 and 2020, based on data availability. The WIPO’s
“International Patent Classification Green List” classifies green invention patents. The
original data of each input–output-related variable was obtained from the China Statisti-
cal Yearbook, China Science and Technology Yearbook, China Environmental Yearbook,
13
Table 1 Index system for green innovation efficiency
Input indica- Investment in R&D Internal expenditure on R&D expenses (Lin et al., 2019) (100
tors million yuan)
R&D personnel input R&D personnel full-time equivalent (Zhao et al., 2021) (10
thousand person-year)
Technical input Comprehensive technical support index (Yang et al., 2021)
Government input Local financial expenditure on environmental protection
(García-Granero et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2022a, 2022b) (billion
yuan)
Output indica- Technical output Number of green invention patents granted (Hall & Helmers,
tors 2013, TAO, ZHAO, and ZHOU 2020) (pieces)
Economic output Sales revenue of new products of industrial enterprises above
the scale (Zhao et al., 2021) (100 million yuan)
Environmental output Comprehensive indicators of nonideal outputs (Miao et al.,
2021)
Technology Activities of Industrial Enterprises, and Statistical Yearbook on Science, and

provincial statistical yearbooks from 2009 to 2021. Missing data were processed using
linear trend and multiple interpolation methods.
4 Research methods
4.1 MEA method
MEA was used in analyzing the variable-specific properties by setting the corresponding
directional vector coefficients for the variables of interest and defining the nature and struc-
ture of the composition of the final efficiency composition (Asmild et al., 2016; Baležentis
& De Witte, 2015). Moreover, traditional DEA-like methods cannot measure single-indica-
tor efficiency and do not reflect the diversity of the efficiency system. The MEA can change
the weight vector of the method and thus determine the state and pattern of efficiency for
different regions and across regions (Gordana et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2020). Moreover,
the MEA model can assess the individual efficiency of each indicator and is more appropri-
ate for comparing the tendency of green innovation activities between different systems.
It is better suited for analyzing green innovation systems with multiple inputs and outputs
and with desirable and non-desirable outputs. In contrast to the conventional DEA model,
using the MEA method, the diversity of green innovation systems across regions can be
analyzed more effectively.
In constructing a set of production possibilities containing inputs, desired outputs, and
undesired outputs, we considered a set of n decision units DMUi (i = 1, 2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, n) containing
(non-desired outputs, where p input variable (j = 1, 2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅,(p), q1 desirable )output variable
r = 1, 2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, q1 , and q2 non-desirable output variable s = 1, 2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, q2 are used. Let
)
DMUk have a production schedule x��k⃗, y��⃗k , c��⃗k , where x��⃗i = xk,1 , xk,2 , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅xk,p ,
( ) ( )
y��⃗i = yk,1 , yk,2 , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅yk,q1 , and c��⃗i = ck,1 , ck,2 , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ck,q2 . We defined the ideal point for the kth
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
DMU, indicated as x��∗⃗, y��⃗∗ , c��⃗∗ = x∗ , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ xk,p ∗
, y∗ , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ y∗ , c∗ , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ c∗ . For the jth
k,1 k,q1 k,1
k k k k,1 k,q2
input metric efficiency of DMUk, the ideal point was calculated using Eq. (1) (Asmild &
Matthews, 2012; Tziogkidis et al., 2020).
13
X. Tian et al.
min x∗
kj
n
𝜆i xij ≤ x∗
∑
s.t.
kj
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i xi−j ≤ xk−j , −j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, j − 1, j + 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅p
i=1
n
(1)
∑
𝜆i yir ≥ ykr , r = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q1
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i cis = cks , s = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q2
i=1
𝜆i ≥ 0, j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅n
The following equation is given for the rth output of D

MUk:
max y∗
kr
n
𝜆i yir ≥ y∗
∑
s.t.
kr
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i yi−r ≥ yk−r , −r = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, r − 1, r + 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q1
i=1
n (2)
∑
𝜆i xij ≤ xkj , j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅p
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i cis = cks , s = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q2
i=1
𝜆i ≥ 0, j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅n
And for the sth output of DMUk, we have the following:

min c∗
ks
n
𝜆i cis = c∗
∑
s.t.
ks
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i ci−s = ck−s , −s = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅, s − 1, s + 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q2
i=1
n (3)
∑
𝜆i xij ≤ xkj , j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅p
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i yir ≥ ykr , r = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q1
i=1
𝜆i ≥ 0, j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅n
By solving the (optimal solutions

) of models (1), (2), and (3), we can obtain the ideal
point of reference x , y , c for the evaluation cell x��k⃗, y��⃗k , c��⃗k . Using the ideal refer-
��
⃗ ��
⃗ ��
⃗
∗ ∗ ∗
( )
k k k
ence point and the corresponding observation, the jth input, the rth ideal output, and the sth
nonideal output can be found as dkj = xkj − x∗, dkr = ykr − y∗ , and dks = cks − c∗ ,
kj kr ks
respectively.
13
max 𝛽
n
∑
s.t. 𝜆i xij ≤ xkj − 𝛽dkj j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅p
i=1
n
(4)
∑
𝜆i yir ≥ ykr + 𝛽dkr , r = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q1
i=1
n
∑
𝜆i cis = cks − 𝛽dks , s = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅q2
i=1
𝜆i ≥ 0, j = 1, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅n
The solution calculated by the formula (4) is 𝛽 ∗.

The efficiency value for each input variable xkj is:
xkj − 𝛽 ∗ dkj
𝜃j = (5)
xkj
The efficiency value for each ideal output variable ykr is:
ykr − 𝛽 ∗ dkr
𝜃r = (6)
ykr
The efficiency value for each nonideal output variable cks is:
cks − 𝛽 ∗ dks
𝜃s = (7)
cks
This study constructed an integrated efficiency with all variables by referring to the
SBM model having no angular and none radial dominance (Du et al., 2010). Then, one
integrated MEA efficiency calculation for the kth evaluation unit DMUk is publicly shown
as follows:
p 𝛽 ∗ dkj
1− p1
∑
xkj
j=1
xkj
𝜃k = �q q2 � (8)
1 ∑1 𝛽 ∗ dkr ∑ 𝛽 ∗ dks
1+ q1 +q2 ykr
+ cks
r=1 s=1
4.2 A method for measuring regional differences based on the Theil index
The Theil index compares regional differences in green innovation efficiency. It was later
widely used to calculate differences between regions. It can decompose the overall differ-
ences between regions and is useful in calculating the trend and scope of change. In addi-
tion to determining the differences between and within regions, it can expose the primary
origins of regional disparities. Theil index and its breakdown process are shown below.
1 ∑ ∑ Eab E
T= log ab (9)
H a b 𝜇 𝜇
13
X. Tian et al.
1 ∑ Eab E
Ta = log ab (10)
Ha b 𝜇a 𝜇a
∑ Ha 𝜇a 1 ∑ 𝜇a 𝜇
T = TWR + TBR = Ha + Ha log a (11)
a
H𝜇 H a 𝜇 𝜇
where T is the Theil index a and b denote regions (a = 1, 2, ⋯) and provinces (b = 1, 2, ⋯).
Eab is the green innovation efficiency, and 𝜇 is the mean.Ha is the number of provinces in
region A; U is its green innovation efficiency. Equations (11) measure regional differences.
TWR is the intraregional difference, and TBR is the interregional difference.
4.3 Geodetector
Geodetector is a statistical spatial analysis tool. Meteorology, regional planning, and pub-
lic health use it extensively (Liu et al., 2022). Geodetector uses the q-value statistics and
direction to calculate. It assesses if the observed explanatory factor drives geographic
heterogeneity of explanatory variables and to what extent (Liu et al., 2021). Multi-spatial
overlay analysis can also be performed for various explanatory factors. The results of the
interaction factor q-statistic are applied to discover key interaction factors that explain the
space heterogeneity of the variables. Based on the expression of WANG and XU (2017), a
detailed expression of the q-statistic is presented below.
L
Nh 𝜎h2
∑
h=1 SSW (12)
q=1− =1−
N𝜎 2 SST
L
∑
SSW = Nh 𝜎h2 , SST = N𝜎 2 (13)
h=1
SSW and SST denote within and the total sum of squares. Nh and N are the layer h and
zone cell counts. 𝜎h2 and 𝜎 2 indicates y value variance for the layer h and the entire region.
The scope of q values is 0 to 1. A higher q-statistic indicates X’s ability to explain Y, and
vice versa if X causes stratification. When q = 0, factors X and Y do not interact. If q = 1,
factor X can explain Y’s spatial distribution completely.
5 Efficiency analysis
5.1 Evolution trend analysis of the overall green innovation efficiency
The overall efficacy of green innovation was evaluated in 30 provinces from 2008 to 2020
using the MEA model, based on a nonideal evaluation system. To examine temporal and
spatial aspects of evolution trends, China’s overall efficiency was measured. We divided
the four major economic zones based on the opinions of the State Council of the CPC Cen-
tral Committee on Promoting the Rise of the Central Region. Figure 1 shows the regional
division and overall efficiency measurement results for the 30 provinces.
13
Green innovation is found to be more efficient in the eastern region compared to other
regions. Northeast innovation efficiency is below the average. The central region is on par
with overall national efficiency, while the east leads in development. The eastern region
is generally more advanced in economic development and science and technology. It has
created a good policy environment, economic environment, and cultural environment for
green innovation. The trend in terms of temporal evolution, although the eastern region
is in the fluctuating upward phase, the increase was insignificant during the observation
period, with an overall change of 2.6%. 2011 was the peak of overall green innovation effi-
ciency in the eastern, with a 6.9% increase from the first year. From the above analysis, the
eastern region is the most efficient, but there’s room for improvement.
An “M” trend is observed in the efficiency of green innovation over time. The cen-
tral and western regions peaked in 2011 and 2014, respectively, the central saw a decline
between 2012 and 2016, with overall efficiency increasing. Central and western regions are
slow to develop modern industries and have fewer innovation resources than the eastern.
Some central and western provinces had policy advantages (Wang & Li, 2021) and emerg-
ing industries to drive their development. So, its level is approaching the overall average.
The green innovation overall efficiency in northeast experienced fluctuation between
2008 to 2015; however, it soared in 2017 and 2018. The development of the northeast
region was more dependent on resources and the environment, particularly in heavy indus-
try. The region was rich in universities and talent resources. Although government spend-
ing on research and technology is rising, the spatial allocation is extremely unbalanced, the
development system of industry–university–research has not been effectively established
(Sheng & Ma, 2016), and the innovation power is still insufficient (Carmen & Yanji, 2018).
With socialist modernization and new development concepts, the northeast has reached
a new stage and pattern of development, and green innovation’s strategic position has
improved (Zhou, 2018). As a result, it has seen a tremendous period of growth in overall
efficiency.
Each province’s green innovation efficiency is graded and visually represented with
ArcGIS software to identify unbalanced green innovation development and spatial hetero-
geneity (Fig. 2). The level of green innovation efficiency varies widely across space. Most
high-efficiency regions are along the southeast coast. The region is blessed with its unique
location and resource characteristics. To reduce the pressure on the environment and
resources while assuring superior economic growth, a breakthrough is sought to maintain
the balance through the innovation and spillover of green technology. The virtuous cycle
formed in this way continuously drives further development of overall green innovation,
thereby maintaining a high overall green innovation efficiency. A general look at the prov-
inces shows that the regions that have low and medium–low overall green innovation effi-
ciency continue to decline. Although the gap between the four regions’ overall efficiency
is narrowing, the intra-regional gap is widening due to unbalanced resource utilization and
different policy inclinations of each province.
5.2 Analysis of uneven patterns of green innovation by province
5.2.1 Green innovation efficiency deconstruction
According to the analysis’s findings, China’s eastern area has a better average efficiency
rating for green innovation than its central, western, and northeast regions. Green inno-
vation efficiency values show a “polarization” phenomenon over time. Overall efficiency
13
X. Tian et al.
Fig. 1 Overall efficiency of green innovation in the four regions 2008–2020
scores do not explain the imbalance between provinces. Using the MEA model, we exam-
ined the causes of variance in green innovation efficiency across provinces. Examining the
asymmetric pattern of innovation efficiency in each province. This asymmetrical pattern
can represent innovation systems and provincial priorities in the green innovation course,
which policymakers prefer.
Table 2 presents the efficiency values of each input and output indicator of green inno-
vation, along with the average efficiency value during the period of 2008–2020. The table
colors represent the quartiles of the efficiency value of each indicator, and the darker color
means the box is in the high quartile of efficiency values for each regional indicator. In this
way, it is easier to visualize the unbalanced development of each indicator in each region.
By applying the coloring code, we can identify the unbalanced characteristics of green
innovation efficiency across provinces. These characteristics can be used to develop pre-
cise policy measures that match the development characteristics of different provinces.
In this study, we categorize provinces into four types based on their structural efficiency
characteristics. The first type includes provinces whose overall efficiency is in the lowest
quartile, such as Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Inner Mongolia. Such regions exhibit lower effi-
ciency in their green innovation systems, indicating a potential for resource misallocation.
To address this issue, policymakers should design policies that improve green innovation
efficiency in these areas.
The second is provinces in the top quartile of overall efficiency, such as Beijing, Shang-
hai, and Jiangsu. Their resource utilization is high and their output is equally efficient,
and these provinces could profit from promoting policies for green innovation-related
investments.
The third type of province is those with overall efficiency in the middle quartile and
more balanced efficiency values for each indicator, such as Shaanxi and Sichuan Guizhou.
The development of green innovation systems in such regions is more uniform, as is the
efficiency with which different resources are utilized, and the output efficiency has no
biased characteristics. Therefore, if this category of regions improves the overall efficiency
13
Fig. 2 Spatial–temporal evolution of efficiency of Green Innovation
of green innovation, it can be considered from a balanced perspective and applied to the
green innovation policy mix.
The fourth type is the provinces whose overall efficiency is in the middle quartile, but
the efficiency value of each indicator varies widely. Such areas may benefit from the influ-
ence of policy tendencies or some areas are better developed, and the better developed
technologies or industries can be used to drive the overall development of the region. Pol-
icy adjustments can be targeted at low-efficiency indicators, and the overall green innova-
tion efficiency of the region can be enhanced through a combination of policies.
5.2.2 Trend analysis of the evolution of each indicator
Given the above structural efficiency mapping, we can develop policy measures that match
the features of green innovation in each province according to the characteristic catego-
ries in which they are located. To clarify the development status of different indicators in
each province, we plotted the time trend of the efficiency of each indicator, as shown in
Fig. 3. The efficiency scores of investments in R&D indicators are stable, balanced, and
slowly increasing over time in all regions. This efficiency score is the highest among the
13
X. Tian et al.
Table 2 Green innovation efficiency color map

Overall
Investment in R&D Technical Government Technical Economic Environmental
Region Efficie
R&D personnel input input input Output Output Output
ncy
L
0.891 0.492 0.931 0.916 0.922 0.831 0.907 0.735
N
Northeast
JL 0.832 0.386 0.924 0.882 0.911 0.694 0.887 0.615
Region
H
0.850 0.344 0.921 0.924 0.896 0.464 0.862 0.520
L
BJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TJ 0.978 0.945 0.996 0.974 0.995 0.981 0.994 0.960
H
0.933 0.509 0.915 0.922 0.935 0.875 0.916 0.743
E
S
Eastern 0.987 0.940 0.997 0.946 0.992 0.983 0.991 0.974
H
Region
JS 0.993 0.952 0.987 0.932 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.976
ZJ 0.977 0.904 0.995 0.964 0.994 0.966 0.993 0.943
FJ 0.929 0.605 0.957 0.921 0.960 0.882 0.939 0.792
S
0.960 0.848 0.988 0.919 0.994 0.949 0.993 0.929
D
G
0.986 0.967 0.994 0.937 0.998 0.991 0.998 0.984
D
HI 0.907 0.771 0.971 0.956 0.973 0.797 0.967 0.806
S
0.936 0.550 0.950 0.964 0.913 0.826 0.901 0.755
X
A
0.931 0.787 0.989 0.944 0.985 0.988 0.981 0.911
H
JX 0.882 0.521 0.958 0.955 0.955 0.836 0.948 0.754

Central
Region H
0.930 0.672 0.960 0.894 0.949 0.892 0.939 0.829
A
H
0.944 0.754 0.972 0.957 0.987 0.969 0.984 0.889
B
H
0.955 0.768 0.992 0.943 0.985 0.921 0.982 0.899
N
N
0.850 0.416 0.938 0.929 0.936 0.675 0.916 0.655
M
G
0.948 0.773 0.963 0.933 0.951 0.805 0.939 0.805
X
C
0.926 0.488 0.946 0.925 0.927 0.747 0.910 0.684
Q
S
0.915 0.557 0.953 0.919 0.953 0.782 0.942 0.753
C
G
0.909 0.432 0.949 0.915 0.898 0.598 0.872 0.601
Z
Western Y
0.948 0.396 0.907 0.877 0.836 0.530 0.777 0.547
Region N
S
0.944 0.738 0.964 0.931 0.961 0.891 0.950 0.845
N
G
0.883 0.406 0.947 0.888 0.906 0.650 0.879 0.640
S
Q
0.994 0.969 0.996 0.962 0.997 0.999 0.996 0.981
H
N
0.913 0.422 0.928 0.910 0.907 0.517 0.878 0.587
X
XJ 0.930 0.605 0.957 0.916 0.950 0.794 0.944 0.767
13
indicators. R&D spending can drive green innovation. R&D staff efficiency is highest in
the eastern, followed by the central, western, and northeast regions. Considering the effi-
ciency of each indicator, R&D personnel input has the lowest efficiency score. Thus, all
regions should accentuate the essential significance of scientific and technological talents
in green innovation activities.
The differences between the technical input efficiency scores across regions are not
significant and experience fluctuations in the measured period. The northeast has more
fluctuations and a decreasing trend in technical input efficiency, which should focus on
resource utilization. Northeast industries are heavy and resource-based. The investment-
related technical indicators have brought technological progress in heavy industry, miner-
als, and agricultural science; the green innovation sector can yet be improved. The eastern
region has seen rapid growth in prior government input indicators. The efficiency scores
of indicator government inputs are more consistent in the east and central regions after
2010. Western and Northeastern regions have relatively low-efficiency values. There is also
a high rate of fluctuation in the efficiency value of the northeast region, showing a slightly
increasing trend. This produces an unstable effect in the northeast region, which is related
to the government’s innovation policy tendency.
From an output perspective, the research and technology level is greater in the eastern
area, and the high-tech and new energy sectors are developing quickly; therefore, the out-
put of green innovation technology is also higher. Some provinces in the western and cen-
tral also have leading advanced technology or new energy companies and can also actively
develop clean energy due to their geographical advantages. For example, Qinghai Prov-
ince has long hours of daylight due to its latitudinal position. It also has more solar radia-
tion. Additionally, its solar energy industry is rapidly developing (Mao et al., 2021). The
development of this type of industry continues to drive the development of clean technolo-
gies. This contributes to the generation of a high output of green innovation technology.
The northeast region is still dominated by traditional industries, and despite the technol-
ogy continuing to evolve in recent years, its green innovation technology still needs to be
enhanced.
The eastern region leads in economic output indices, which is consistent with green
innovation’s overall efficiency. Over the research years, green innovation’s economic effi-
ciency in the east, center, and west was relatively flat. However, the northeast region began
to improve its efficiency value in 2015 and surpassed the western region in 2019. In recent
years, the northeast region has benefited from a new round of optimization of its busi-
ness environment. Economic development has shown a substantial upward trend. In the
efficiency curve of environmental output, central and eastern regions have a higher envi-
ronmental output efficiency rating than the west and northeast. Eastern and central regions
have less industrial pollution than the west and northeast. And the western and north-
east have some resource-based cities, some of which are in transition or still in resource-
dependent development, constraining the optimization of nonideal outputs.
To find out the development obstacles in each Chinese region, we analyzed each indi-
cator in the four major economic regions (Fig. 4). Western and northeastern green inno-
vation efficiency is constrained by R&D personnel input and economic output efficiency,
which is still lower than the efficiency of the remaining indicators despite a rapid rise in
economic output. The region should introduce and cultivate innovative talents to improve
green innovation and drive science and technology. These regions should also be aware of
the transformation of green innovations and make full play of them to bring greater eco-
nomic benefits.
13
X. Tian et al.
5.3 Measurement of regional differences in green innovation efficiency
We quantified regional disparities using the Theil index. It also calculated intra- and inter-
regional differences among the four major economic regions to explain regional heteroge-
neity in China.
5.3.1 Regional variation analysis
This section is based on Eqs. (9), (10), and (11). The Thiel index and contribution ratio
were calculated using Stata. The values in the table represent the overall, intra-regional,
interregional, and four major economies of the green innovation efficiency Thiel index,
from left to right, respectively. The contribution margins are represented by the values in
parentheses. The larger the Thiel index, the greater the variability between regions. Where
the values in parentheses are the contribution and their values can determine the main
source of variation. Table 3 illustrates the overall differences and decomposition from 2008
to 2020 by Thiel index and contribution rate. The overall Theil index demonstrates a fluc-
tuating downward tendency of geographical variations in green innovation efficiency. The
changes in the Theil index within regions are similar to the overall variations in contri-
bution rate. In years except 2015, intraregional differences contributed more than interre-
gional differences. Intraregional differences account for 66.9% of the variation. Therefore,
the key to addressing the uneven spatial development imbalance is to reduce intra-regional
differences.
Observed trends in the Theil index’s fluctuation within the four economic zones, the
western region has a significantly higher Theil index than the other regions, while the cen-
tral region has relatively small regional differences and shows a downward tendency. In the
eastern and northeast regions, there were more fluctuations in the Theil index, and the east-
ern region experienced more volatility between 2012 and 2014. It subsequently decreased
and gradually showed a stable trend. The northeast region initially had a small Theil index,
but after 2013 the Theil index experienced a significant yearly increase, and in 2016 and
2017, it was considerably higher than in other areas and was at the highest value of the
contribution. The western had the maximum contribution rate, and next is the east. The
northeast and central had low rates but have been rising. Currently, pay close attention
to green innovation efficiency differences between China’s four main economic regions
to promote coordinated regional development and improve overall green innovation level.
Focus on the causes of the western region’s inefficiency. Western provinces’ green innova-
tion resource fault should be balanced, and regional variations should be reduced.
5.3.2 Measurement and analysis of regional differences in indicator efficiency
This study decomposes regional disparities for each output to explore the underlying mech-
anism (Appendix II). Green innovation economic output efficiency has a Theil index that
far exceeds technical and environmental output efficiency. Interregional variation in the
overall effectiveness of green innovation is caused by uneven economic output efficiency.
The intraregional Theil index is higher than the interregional one, and intraregional differ-
ences contributed an average of 71.3% during the examined years. This shows the intrare-
gional variation of the four primary economic zones, which impacts the regional output
efficiency of the green innovation economy. Intraregional variation is highest in the north-
east and west. The Theil index for the northeast matches its efficiency trend.
13
Fig. 3 Trends in the efficiency of each indicator in the four regions
13
X. Tian et al.
The average Theil index of environment output is 0.0025, higher than the mean index of
green innovation technology output (0.0013). They all have higher intra-regional variation
than the interregional variations within the overall Theil index variation. This Theil index
of economic output efficiency is consistent with the Theil result of green innovation effi-
ciency. The main goal of enhancing green innovation in China is to address regional dis-
parities in the effectiveness of innovation. To promote green innovation economic output,
coordinate intraregional development between the northeast and west.
5.4 Drivers of green innovation efficiency analysis
5.4.1 Drivers selection
Innovation is usually characterized by significant externalities, while green technology

does include not only knowledge externalities but also environmental externalities. The
market cannot provide enough incentives for green innovation, and its well below the
optimal level of social welfare (Wang, Li, and Wang 2021). Therefore, the government
must encourage green innovation. We consider the regional economic environment and
Fig. 4 Efficiency of each indicator in the four regions
13
industrial development factors along with the effects of environmental protection, indus-
trial pollution control, and technology policies on green innovation efficiency. The five
main indicators are examined as follows.
Industrial pollution control (X1) can reflect pollution funds. In this study, investment in
industrial pollution control is used to measure regional environment investment. Investment
in industrial pollution control helps firms offset negative environmental externalities. Gov-
ernment environmental laws raise the cost of pollution management for businesses, forc-
ing them to undertake technological innovation activities aimed at reducing costs (Shuai
& Fan, 2020). Another aspect, CAO and YU (2019) discovered a U-shaped relationship
between pollution control investment and green innovation efficiency, necessitating further
investigation into the impact of industrial pollution control investment on green innovation
efficiency in China.
Economic development level (X2) measures a region’s economic development. For-
eign direct investment, GDP per capita, and disposable income were used to calculate the
composite economic development index by the entropy weight method. A favorable level
of economic development can encourage green innovation activities. Economic develop-
ment provides a good financial and environmental basis for innovation, and foreign direct
investment promotes innovation by increasing the stock of human capital and improving
Table 3 Theil index and disaggregation of the overall efficiency of green innovation
Year Overall Intra-regional Inter Northeast Eastern Central Western
differences regional dif- region region region region
ferences
2008 0.032 0.018 0.012 0.004 0.013 0.008 0.036

(0.595) (0.394) (0.005) (0.095) (0.035) (0.214)
2009 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.022
(0.683) (0.317) (0.022) (0.124) (0.057) (0.261)
2010 0.019 0.014 0.005 0.012 0.011 0.016 0.017
(0.728) (0.272) (0.033) (0.129) (0.108) (0.192)
2011 0.023 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.007 0.011 0.014
(0.433) (0.369) (0.007) (0.079) (0.070) (0.137)
2012 0.036 0.027 0.009 0.008 0.032 0.016 0.035
(0.727) (0.252) (0.011) (0.205) (0.061) (0.189)
2013 0.025 0.015 0.010 0.001 0.005 0.016 0.029
(0.600) (0.400) (0.003) (0.050) (0.089) (0.247)
2014 0.028 0.022 0.006 0.009 0.025 0.011 0.029
(0.797) (0.203) (0.014) (0.206) (0.050) (0.229)
2015 0.028 0.014 0.014 0.022 0.006 0.007 0.027
(0.499) (0.501) (0.034) (0.055) (0.032) (0.184)
2016 0.031 0.020 0.011 0.028 0.011 0.006 0.037
(0.649) (0.351) (0.038) (0.086) (0.026) (0.237)
2017 0.029 0.019 0.010 0.044 0.010 0.008 0.032
(0.663) (0.337) (0.076) (0.080) (0.036) (0.224)
2018 0.021 0.015 0.006 0.023 0.005 0.010 0.028
(0.703) (0.297) (0.062) (0.062) (0.067) (0.293)
2019 0.029 0.022 0.008 0.024 0.011 0.007 0.042
(0.734) (0.266) (0.043) (0.093) (0.030) (0.292)
2020 0.028 0.021 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.018 0.034
(0.747) (0.253) (0.052) (0.085) (0.086) (0.281)
13
X. Tian et al.
technological capabilities. Moreover, the openness of the economy improves the develop-
ment of innovative technology (Fassio et al., 2019). Green innovation also has the same
characteristics. However, green innovation externalities may impose higher R&D costs and
risks on enterprises. To survive, corporate entities are more willing to choose high-end
technology and science that are more suitable for development.
Environmental protection intensity (X3) reflects the regional government’s efforts
in controlling environmental pollution. It can affect the cost structure of regional green
technology R&D. It reduces R&D risks associated with green innovation’s “externalities.”
Appropriate government intervention may compensate. Over-intervention could have a
“crowding-out effect” on green business innovation (Fang, Bai, and Bilan 2019).
Government R&D funding (X4) is a basic requirement for technical advancement and
can boost enterprise innovation and productivity. Government support for science and
technology innovation directly affects regional innovation. Government support would pro-
vide the necessary finance for innovation and also establish a positive policy environment
for enterprise innovation. Therefore, the level of government funding in R&D is also an
important factor for consideration.
Industrial value-added (X5) measures real economic performance. This study uses the
industrial value-added index. Regions with a strong industrial base can afford green inno-
vation for pollution control and resource efficiency. These regions will be more active and
capable of innovations in green technology, thus promoting its development.
5.4.2 Analysis of geodetector ãs
This section analyzes green innovation’s overall output efficiency from 2008 to 2020. The
ArcGIS software was used to classify each driver by the natural endpoint method. They
were classified into five categories from high to low, and each driver was converted into
a type quantity, and the efficiency values were spatially matched to each factor in the Arc-
GIS. Table 4 shows the influence value of each factor on each efficiency calculated using
the Geodetector for 2008 and 2020. The complete table is shown in Appendix III.
Our findings show that for green innovation overall efficiency, government funding
for R&D in 2008 had the biggest impact (0.166), followed by environmental protection
intensity (0.121). In 2020, industrial pollution control projects for completing investments
(0.221) were the first ranking factor driver. The second-ranked factor was the comprehen-
sive indicator of economic input (0.208). The environmental protection intensity (0.193)
also had a significant influence. The primary force behind the initial growth of green inno-
vation is the financial support of local governments for regional technology innovation.
As China’s environmental policies and philosophy are being actively promoted, industrial
enterprises’ pollution problems gradually became the focus of attention. Companies broke
the dilemma between industrial development, resources, and the environment through
green innovation and technological achievements have sharply increased. This gives them
long-term competitiveness on environmental issues and development. To enhance green
innovation efficiency, investments made in industrial pollution control projects are crucial.
As China’s economy continues to develop, regional economic disparities are increasingly
becoming an important manifestation of uneven development (Lee et al., 2012). However,
the atmosphere for green innovation is influenced by economic development. A good inno-
vation environment attracts high-end technology companies and technical talents. Knowl-
edge spillover is also possible with the regional economy’s ongoing growth, which sig-
nificantly boosts the region’s capacity for technological innovation and is one of the major
13
influences on green innovation. It can also be found that investment in environmental pro-
tection has been one of the main factors affecting the effectiveness of green innovation,
both in 2008 and 2020. Investment in environmental protection is different from general
industrial investment, which is specifically for fighting environmental pollution; it is easy
to build consensus in fighting environmental pollution. Thus, from the viewpoint of techni-
cal output efficiency in green innovation, the most critical factor affecting technical output
efficiency in both 2008 and 2020 was also investment in environmental protection.
In 2008, government funding for R&D was the main driver of economic output effi-
ciency. This changes to industrial value-added in 2020. Technological innovation was the
first productive force, and green innovation developed by relying on government support
in the early stage; it brought economic benefits to the region. With the continuous devel-
opment of the concept of harmonious coexistence between the economy and ecological
environment, highly technologically developed municipalities focus more on green inno-
vation. Green innovation gives these regions new development momentum and improves
their economic efficiency. Thus, industrial value-added is a key factor in green innovation’s
economic efficiency.
Investment in environmental protection has the maximum environmental output effi-
ciency in 2008 and 2020. It can contribute to improvements in environmental quality, and
such improvements have long-term effects. Zhang, Zhu, and Zhu (2012) found that envi-
ronmental investment provides a significant spillover benefit to enterprises’ green technol-
ogy advancement, which can improve their production and the source of environmental
problems.
5.4.3 Analysis of the results of the interaction of drivers
The interaction detector can identify called interactions between different factors. This
means that it is possible to assess whether the two factors add or reduce the explaining
power of dependent variables when used interactively or whether their influence on the
explanatory variables is independent (WANG and XU 2017). The interaction analysis is
performed for 2020, and the results of the detection are presented in Appendix IV.
Interactions between factors have more impact than individual factors. Nonlinear and
dual-factor enhancements interact when influencing factors interact with each other,
green innovation’s overall and each output’s efficiency can be significantly improved. For
instance, the impact value of the investment in industrial pollution control projects and
industrial value-added completed in the current year under the interaction is 0.243, which
is greater than the impact of both when acting alone. The interaction term between gov-
ernment funding and industrial pollution control investment in R&D for green innovation
technology efficiency (0.318) is greater than the sum of the two actings separately. Thus,
this type of interaction is nonlinearly enhanced. Improving the efficiency of green innova-
tion requires implementing policy mix initiatives based on the interaction of the drivers so
that they can perform better.
6 Conclusion
The overall efficiency and individual indicator efficiency of green innovation are meas-
ured in each province of China for this study, revealing the structural differences among
provinces and assessing the main reasons for the regional differences in green innovation
13
X. Tian et al.
Table 4 Results for major years Year Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

from drive factor detector
2008 Overall efficiency 0.046 0.045 0.121 0.166 0.048
Technical output 0.079 0.018 0.293 0.184 0.151
Economic output 0.046 0.039 0.126 0.150 0.066
Environmental output 0.073 0.008 0.272 0.191 0.142
2020 Overall efficiency 0.221 0.208 0.193 0.075 0.113
Technical output 0.073 0.037 0.106 0.062* 0.102
Economic output 0.177 0.121 0.178 0.043 0.186
Environmental output 0.085 0.051 0.118 0.043* 0.111
Other values are significant at the 1% level; the symbols * and **

denote significance at levels of 10% and 5%, respectively
efficiency. The contributions made by this study are as follows: first, the MEA model is
used to measure the overall efficiency and single-indicator efficiency of each province, and
a color-coded map of indicator efficiency for each province is drawn, which complements
the shortcomings of composite indicators and reveals the asymmetric pattern of green
innovation efficiency. Second, this study emphasizes the diversity and internal structural
differences of green innovation systems in each province and proposes tailored green inno-
vation policies specifically based on the different characteristics of each province. Finally,
this study analyzes the reasons for the uneven development of green innovation from the
perspective of spatial heterogeneity and based on measurements of structural efficiency.
Compared with current practices, this study provides a method for analyzing the internal
structural characteristics of composite indicators, enriches the research on efficiency meas-
urement and diversity of green innovation efficiency, and can more accurately identify the
demands and comparative advantages of the various regions in China.
This paper’s research supports the following conclusions: (1) From 2008 to 2020, Chi-
na’s green innovation efficiency has increased. The east excels in green innovation effi-
ciency, the central and west perform average, but the northeast lags. While overall green
innovation efficiency has been improving annually, the provincial efficiency gap has wid-
ened. (2) Based on the analysis of green innovation structural efficiency, we grouped the
provinces into four categories: high-efficiency provinces, low-efficiency provinces, uneven
medium-efficiency provinces, and average medium-efficiency provinces. Based on vari-
ations in resource utilization among different province types, we suggest specific policy
measures, including promoting green innovation, restructuring policy systems, integrating
policies, and implementing targeted policies. (3) According to the Theil index, significant
regional disparities can be observed in China’s green innovation, particularly concerning
technical, economic, and environmental efficiency. Regional disparities are the primary
drivers of uneven green innovation development in China, with the central and western
regions making the greatest contribution. The Theil index of economic efficiency reveals
the highest contribution rate within the region. Hence, to foster green innovation, priority
should be given to promoting coordinated development in the central and western regions.
(4) Geodetector findings indicate that industrial pollution control investment boosts over-
all efficiency, environmental protection investment enhances technical and environmental
efficiency, and industrial value-added drives economic efficiency. The interaction of factors
has a greater impact than individual actions, which further confirms the fact that policy
combinations can be used to improve performance.
13
Our research findings have important consequences for policymakers. Green innovation
policies should be customized to local conditions instead of employing a uniform approach
based on comprehensive indicators. This study combines the advantages of composite
indicators, expands the benefit attributes of green innovation, and overcomes the struc-
tural ambiguity of composite indicators, unlocking the black box. This research has certain
management insights, it provided methodological references to study the deconstructive
analysis of comprehensive indicators and efficiency and provided new analytical ideas for
the temporal and spatial difference analysis. It also broadens the comprehensive concept
of green innovation efficiency and expands the wide scope of green governance. However,
due to spatial and data collection limitations, this study measures the green innovation out-
put efficiency in different provinces based on technological, economic, and environmental
outputs. Future research can quantify green innovation efficiency through energy consump-
tion rates or carbon sequestration to expand its accuracy.
Appendix I
Different regional green innovation overall efficiency in China.
Region 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Northeast LN 0.60 0.78 0.77 0.65 0.76 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.82 0.84 0.79 0.76
region JL 0.59 0.66 0.62 0.55 0.56 0.59 0.50 0.46 0.53 0.67 0.76 0.75 0.75
HL 0.49 0.58 0.53 0.65 0.66 0.59 0.59 0.46 0.50 0.38 0.50 0.47 0.45
Northeast region 0.56 0.67 0.64 0.62 0.66 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.70 0.67 0.65
mean
Eastern BJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
region TJ 0.78 1.00 0.84 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00
HE 0.69 0.80 0.74 0.73 0.81 0.93 0.61 0.69 0.67 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.60
SH 0.86 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
JS 1.00 0.94 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
ZJ 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.76 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.94
FJ 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.73 0.82 0.70 0.47 0.88 0.78 0.88 0.73 0.59 0.88
SD 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.66 1.00 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.67 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00
GD 0.96 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00
HI 0.62 0.63 0.61 0.84 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eastern region 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.94
mean
Central SX 0.77 0.77 0.60 0.66 0.58 0.77 0.74 0.72 0.75 0.84 0.82 0.80 1.00
region AH 0.71 0.98 0.86 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.84 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
JX 0.78 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.84 0.63 0.80 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.60
HA 0.84 0.83 0.74 0.93 0.82 0.71 0.62 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.89
HB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.74 0.82 0.71 0.80 0.74
HN 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.85 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.69
Central region 0.85 0.89 0.82 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.83 0.80 0.82
mean
13
X. Tian et al.
Region 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Western NM 0.66 0.68 0.83 0.65 0.66 0.71 0.67 0.57 0.52 0.53 0.76 0.66 0.64
region GX 0.45 0.80 0.53 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.61 1.00
CQ 0.76 0.84 0.81 0.82 0.60 0.76 0.74 0.51 0.54 0.40 0.59 0.71 0.81
SC 0.63 0.77 0.72 0.73 0.63 0.75 0.68 0.73 0.78 0.76 0.78 1.00 0.85
GZ 0.69 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.63 0.60 0.76 0.45 0.38 0.52 0.66 0.35 0.77
YN 0.55 0.60 0.48 0.53 0.39 0.44 0.45 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.52 0.58 0.75
SN 0.51 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.64 1.00 0.87 0.84 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
GS 0.58 0.65 0.69 0.67 0.54 0.59 0.60 0.70 0.78 0.70 0.75 0.62 0.48
QH 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
NX 0.47 0.48 0.77 0.59 0.54 0.62 0.56 0.68 0.55 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.44
XJ 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.83 0.84 0.53 1.00 0.83 0.73 0.69 0.52 0.54 0.58
Western region 0.66 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.76 0.68 0.70 0.69 0.75 0.70 0.76
means
Appendix II
Decomposition of regional differences in output efficiency.
Year Index Overall Intra- Inter- Northeast Eastern Central Western

Regional Regional Region Region Region Region
differ- differ-
ences ences
2008 Y1 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.003 0.013 0.009 0.034

0.595 0.405 0.010 0.132 0.051 0.361
Y2 0.035 0.020 0.015 0.029 0.009 0.002 0.045
0.572 0.428 0.038 0.063 0.007 0.261
C 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.003
0.640 0.360 0.005 0.173 0.033 0.347
2009 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.003
0.880 0.120 0.007 0.027 0.015 0.491
Y2 0.027 0.018 0.008 0.034 0.007 0.005 0.035
0.689 0.311 0.069 0.071 0.031 0.319
C 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.669 0.331 0.012 0.063 0.035 0.493
2010 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
0.807 0.193 0.056 0.179 0.069 0.421
Y2 0.028 0.022 0.006 0.023 0.012 0.009 0.039
0.780 0.220 0.045 0.112 0.051 0.314
C 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.004
0.808 0.188 0.073 0.150 0.054 0.430
13

differ- differ-
ences ences
2011 Y1 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002
0.699 0.301 0.017 0.056 0.201 0.368
Y2 0.029 0.016 0.013 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.042
0.561 0.440 0.001 0.038 0.033 0.321
C 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.004
0.730 0.270 0.018 0.042 0.190 0.404
2012 Y1 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003
0.769 0.232 0.002 0.046 0.242 0.401
Y2 0.054 0.041 0.013 0.025 0.051 0.006 0.061
0.760 0.240 0.023 0.222 0.017 0.213
C 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.006
0.788 0.215 0.002 0.031 0.235 0.419
2013 Y1 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002
0.649 0.345 0.004 0.015 0.140 0.430
Y2 0.031 0.019 0.011 0.016 0.000 0.011 0.047
0.626 0.374 0.030 0.008 0.052 0.340
C 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004
0.671 0.332 0.004 0.010 0.102 0.471
2014 Y1 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002
0.796 0.204 0.002 0.075 0.248 0.382
Y2 0.036 0.029 0.007 0.046 0.023 0.011 0.040
0.795 0.205 0.061 0.162 0.045 0.267
C 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.006
0.835 0.165 0.003 0.179 0.110 0.427
2015 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001
0.766 0.234 0.010 0.237 0.133 0.308
Y2 0.043 0.025 0.018 0.077 0.001 0.008 0.057
0.582 0.418 0.078 0.007 0.026 0.260
C 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.002
0.773 0.228 0.014 0.244 0.112 0.311
2016 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.574 0.426 0.069 0.044 0.050 0.362
Y2 0.047 0.036 0.011 0.126 0.007 0.004 0.070
0.765 0.235 0.137 0.040 0.013 0.320
C 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002
0.720 0.280 0.087 0.195 0.039 0.315
2017 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.517 0.483 0.028 0.046 0.056 0.343
Y2 0.043 0.033 0.010 0.119 0.010 0.004 0.057
0.773 0.227 0.158 0.064 0.015 0.285
C 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
0.507 0.493 0.050 0.037 0.044 0.326
13
X. Tian et al.

differ- differ-
ences ences
2018 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
0.615 0.385 0.009 0.048 0.041 0.471
Y2 0.022 0.015 0.008 0.059 0.000 0.001 0.027
0.654 0.346 0.180 0.004 0.010 0.302
C 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.633 0.367 0.015 0.041 0.031 0.487
2019 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
0.680 0.320 0.014 0.100 0.076 0.424
Y2 0.033 0.028 0.005 0.016 0.018 0.002 0.059
0.850 0.150 0.035 0.147 0.011 0.424
C 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003
0.670 0.326 0.033 0.087 0.057 0.415
2020 Y1 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
0.794 0.216 0.043 0.068 0.117 0.496
Y2 0.032 0.028 0.004 0.018 0.001 0.019 0.066
0.878 0.122 0.041 0.014 0.091 0.519
C 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.003
0.797 0.198 0.043 0.050 0.111 0.523
Appendix III
Driver detector results for 2008–2020.
Year Index Statistics X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
2008 Overall efficiency q-statistic 0.046 0.045 0.121 0.166 0.048

Technical output q-statistic 0.079 0.018 0.293 0.184 0.151
Economic output q-statistic 0.046 0.039 0.126 0.150 0.066
Environmental output q-statistic 0.073 0.008 0.272 0.191 0.142
Technical output q-statistic 0.057 0.006** 0.048 0.125 0.194
2011 Overall efficiency q-statistic 0.049 0.024 0.221* 0.321 0.048
Technical Output q-statistic 0.091 0.038 0.321** 0.194 0.151
13
Year Index Statistics X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

Environmental output q-statistic 0.092 0.057 0.287 0.235* 0.204
Technical output q-statistic 0.085 0.023 0.313 0.203* 0.149
Economic output q-statistic 0.059 0.104* 0.113 0.155 0.188
Environmental output q-statistic 0.071 0.013 0.321** 0.084 0.025
Technical output q-statistic 0.089 0.137 0.178** 0.193 0.094
Technical output q-statistic 0.081 0.033* 0.115 0.132 0.116
Economic output q-statistic 0.096 0.09 0.142 0.099** 0.19
2017 Overall efficiency q-statistic 0.168 0.122* 0.141 0.140 0.121
Technical output q-statistic 0.068* 0.022 0.214* 0.201 0.098
2018 Overall efficiency q-statistic 0.189 0.167 0.174 0.142* 0.086
Technical output q-statistic 0.065 0.031 0.134* 0.156 0.124
Economic output q-statistic 0.163 0.094 0.118* 0.062** 0.156
Technical output q-statistic 0.073 0.037 0.106 0.062* 0.102
Environmental output q-statistic 0.085 0.051 0.118 0.043* 0.111
13
X. Tian et al.
Appendix IV
Interaction detector results for Green Innovation Efficiency.
Interaction vari- Overall efficiency cross-tabulation Technical output efficiency cross-tabula-

ables analysis tion analysis
q-statistic Interaction type q-statistic Interaction type
LX2 ∩ LX1 0.223 Nonlinear enhance- 0.127 Nonlinear enhance-

ment ment
LX3 ∩ LX1 0.284 Dual-factor 0.168 Dual-factor enhance-
enhancement ment
LX3 ∩ LX2 0.231 Dual-factor 0.182 Nonlinear enhance-
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
Interaction vari- Economic output efficiency cross-tabula- Environmental output efficiency cross-
ables tion analysis tabulation analysis
q-statistic Interaction type q-statistic Interaction type
ment ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
ment ment
ment ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
ment ment
enhancement ment
enhancement ment
13
Acknowledgements The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
General Program (Grant numbers71974045) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universi-
ties (Grant numbers. HIT.HSS.DZ201906).
Author contributions XT performed conceptualization, methodology, project administration, writing—

review & editing. QM provided resources, writing—review & editing, supervision. QZ did writing—review
and editing, ML and SL did writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to thepublished
version of the manuscript.
Data availability The raw data that support the findings of this study are available in China Statistical Year-
book with the identifier http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/.
Declarations
Conflict of interest All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization
or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in
this manuscript.
References
Abbasi, S., & Choukolaei, H. A. (2023). A systematic review of green supply chain network design
literature focusing on carbon policy. Decision Analytics Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.
2023.100189
Abbasi, S., & Erdebilli, B. (2023). Green closed-loop supply chain networks’ response to various carbon
policies during COVID-19. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043677
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Kanafi, A. G. (2021). The sustainable supply chain of CO2 emis-
sions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Journal of Industrial Engineering
International, 17(4), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.30495/jiei.2022.1942784.1169
Abbasi, S., Khalili, H. A., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2022). Performance
measurement of the sustainable supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A real-life case
study. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 47(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.2478/
fcds-2022-0018
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Ghane, K. (2023). Designing a tri-objective, sustainable, closed-loop,
and multi-echelon supply chain during the COVID-19 and lockdowns. Foundations of Computing and
Decision Sciences, 48(1).
Ahlvik, L., Ekholm, P., Hyytiäinen, K., & Pitkänen, H. (2014). An economic–ecological model to evaluate
impacts of nutrient abatement in the Baltic Sea. Environmental Modelling & Software, 55, 164–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.027
Akram, R., Ibrahim, R. L., Wang, Z., Adebayo, T. S., & Irfan, M. (2023). Neutralizing the surging emissions
amidst natural resource dependence, eco-innovation, and green energy in G7 countries: Insights for
global environmental sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118560. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118560
Asmild, M., & Matthews, K. (2012). Multi-directional efficiency analysis of efficiency patterns in Chinese
banks 1997–2008. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(2), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ejor.2012.01.001
Asmild, M., Kronborg, D., & Matthews, K. (2016). Introducing and modeling inefficiency contributions.
European Journal of Operational Research, 248(2), 725–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.
060
Baležentis, T., & De Witte, K. (2015). One- and multi-directional conditional efficiency measurement–
Efficiency in Lithuanian family farms. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(2), 612–622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.01.050
Bi, K., Wang, Y., & Yang, C. (2014). Effect of innovation resources input on green innovation capability of
green innovation system: empirical research from the perspective of manufacturing FDI inflows. China
Soft Science, 03, 153–166.
Cao, X., & Yu, J. (2015). Regional innovation efficiency in China from the green low-carbon perspective.
China Population Resources and Environment, 25, 10–19.
13
X. Tian et al.
Carmen, R., & Yanji, Ma. (2018). Green development level and the obstacle factors of old industrial base in
Northeast China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 38(07), 1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.
2018.07.005
Chen, Y., Jayaprakash, C., & Irwin, E. (2012). Threshold management in a coupled economic–ecological
system. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 64(3), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jeem.2012.04.003
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A. M., Ardito, L., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Understanding sustainable innovation: A
systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(5),
1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1783
Du, J., Liang, L., & Zhu, J. (2010). A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analy-
sis: A comment. European Journal of Operational Research, 204(3), 694–697. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ejor.2009.12.007
Du, J. L., Liu, Y., & Diao, W. X. (2019). Assessing regional differences in green innovation efficiency of
industrial enterprises in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060940
Fan, F., Lian, H., Liu, X., & Wang, X. (2021). Can environmental regulation promote urban green innova-
tion efficiency? An empirical study based on Chinese cities. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125060
Fang, Z., Bai, H., & Bilan, Y. (2019). Evaluation research of green innovation efficiency in China’s heavy
polluting industries. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010146
Fassio, C., Montobbio, F., & Venturini, A. (2019). Skilled migration and innovation in European industries.
Research Policy, 48(3), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.002
García-Granero, E. M., Piedra-Muñoz, L., & Galdeano-Gómez, E. (2018). Eco-innovation measurement: A
review of firm performance indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191, 304–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.215
Gordana, M.-T., Hansson, H., Asmild, M., & Surry, Y. (2021). Exploring the regional efficiency of the
Swedish agricultural sector during the CAP reforms-multi-directional efficiency analysis approach.
Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104897
Gramkow, C., & Anger-Kraavi, A. (2017). Could fiscal policies induce green innovation in developing
countries? The case of Brazilian manufacturing sectors. Climate Policy, 18(2), 246–257. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1277683
Hall, B. H., & Helmers, C. (2013). Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent com-
mons help? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jeem.2012.12.008
Hazarika, N., & Zhang, X. (2019). Evolving theories of eco-innovation: A systematic review. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 19, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.03.002
Heffels, T., McKenna, R., & Fichtner, W. (2014). An ecological and economic assessment of absorption-
enhanced-reforming (AER) biomass gasification. Energy Conversion and Management, 77, 535–544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.09.007
Hong, J., Feng, B., Yanrui, Wu., & Wang, L. (2016). Do government grants promote innovation efficiency in
China’s high-tech industries? Technovation, 57–58, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.
06.001
Jinfeng, W., & Chengdong, X. (2017). Geodetector: Principle and prospective. Acta Geographica Sinica,
72(1), 116–134.
Lee, B.-S., Peng, J., Li, G., & He, J. (2012). Regional economic disparity, financial disparity, and national
economic growth: Evidence from China. Review of Development Economics, 16(2), 342–358. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2012.00666.x
Lin, S., Sun, Ji., & Wang, S. (2019). Dynamic evaluation of the technological innovation efficiency of Chi-
na’s industrial enterprises. Science and Public Policy, 46(2), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/
scy053
Liu, J., Wei, D., Tian, Y., & Li, Q. (2021). Evolution and policy effect assessment for the spatial heterogene-
ity pattern of regional energy efficiency in China. Energy Efficiency, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12053-021-09996-3
Liu, K., Wang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Assessing urban atmospheric environmental efficiency and factors
influencing it in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(1), 594–608.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15692-7
Liu, K., Xue, Y., Chen, Z., & Miao, Y. (2023). The spatiotemporal evolution and influencing factors of
urban green innovation in China. Science of the Total Environment, 857(Pt 1), 159426. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159426
13
Long, X., Chen, Y., Jianguo, Du., Keunyeob, Oh., & Han, I. (2017). Environmental innovation and its
impact on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Korean-owned firms in China.
Energy Policy, 107, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.044
Luo, Q., Miao, C., Sun, L., Meng, X., & Mengmeng, D. (2019). Efficiency evaluation of green technology
innovation of China’s strategic emerging industries: An empirical analysis based on Malmquist-data
envelopment analysis index. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
117782
Ma, X., Wang, C., Dong, B., Gu, G., Chen, R., Li, Y., Zou, H., Zhang, W., & Li, Q. (2019). Carbon emis-
sions from energy consumption in China: Its measurement and driving factors. Science of the Total
Environment, 648, 1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.183
Mao, A., Li, F., Yang, S., Huang, T., Hao, R., Li, S., & Deyong, Yu. (2021). Clean energy power generation
potential and value in Qinghai Province. Resources Science, 43(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.18402/
resci.2021.01.09
Mazzanti, M., & Rizzo, U. (2017). Diversely moving towards a green economy: Techno-organisational
decarbonisation trajectories and environmental policy in EU sectors. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 115, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.026
Miao, C., Fang, D., Sun, L., & Luo, Q. (2017). Natural resources utilization efficiency under the influence of
green technological innovation. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 126, 153–161. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.019
Miao, C., Fang, D., Sun, L., Luo, Q., & Qian, Yu. (2018). Driving effect of technology innovation on energy
utilization efficiency in strategic emerging industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1177–1184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.225
Miao, C., Duan, M., Zuo, Y., & Xin-yu, W. (2021). Spatial heterogeneity and evolution trend of regional
green innovation efficiency–an empirical study based on panel data of industrial enterprises in Chi-
na’s provinces*. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112370
Peng, W., & Jiangli, Lu. (2017). Environmental regulation and green innovation policy: Theoretical
logic based on externalities. Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.13644/j.cnki.
cn31-1112.2017.10.007
Qiongdi, C., & Yunyin, Hu. (2009). Design of green patent system. Forum on Science and Technology in
China, 03(155), 5. https://doi.org/10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2009.03.027
Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation–eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecologi-
cal economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)
00112-3
Sheng, Y., & Ma, Y. (2016). Output efficiency and economic contribution of scientific and technologi-
cal resources in the three provinces of Northeast China based on panel data of 34 prefectural cities.
Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 33(05), 632–640.
Shuai, S., & Fan, Z. (2020). Modeling the role of environmental regulations in regional green economy
efficiency of China: Empirical evidence from super efficiency DEA-Tobit model. Journal Environ-
ment Management, 261, 110227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110227
Stucki, T. (2019). Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies?–The effect of
energy costs. Research Policy, 48(3), 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.010
Sun, Y., Gao, P., Tian, W., & Guan, W. (2023). Green innovation for resource efficiency and sustain-
ability: Empirical analysis and policy. Resources Policy, 81, 103369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resou
rpol.2023.103369
Tao, F., Zhao, J., & Zhou, H. (2021). Does environmental regulation improve the quantity and quality
of green innovation: Evidence from the target responsibility system of environmental protection.
China Industrial Economics, 2, 136–154.
Tziogkidis, P., Philippas, D., Leontitsis, A., & Sickles, R. C. (2020). A data envelopment analysis and local
partial least squares approach for identifying the optimal innovation policy direction. European Jour-
nal of Operational Research, 285(3), 1011–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.023
Wang, C., & Li, J. (2021). An evaluation of regional green innovation performance in China and its
spatial-temporal differences based on the panel data of inter-provincial industrial enterprises from
2005 to 2015. Research Management, 40(06), 29–42.
Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., & Zhou, C. (2016). The relationship between economic growth, energy con-
sumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment,
542(Pt A), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.027
Wang, Q., Qu, J., Wang, B., Wang, P., & Yang, T. (2019). Green technology innovation development in
China in 1990–2015. Science of the Total Environment, 696, 134008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito
tenv.2019.134008
13
X. Tian et al.
Wang, M., Li, X., & Wang, S. (2021). Discovering research trends and opportunities of green finance
and energy policy: A data-driven scientometric analysis. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2021.112295
Wei, M., Min, G., & Aiming, D. (2022). Research on the dynamic evaluation of regional green technol-
ogy innovation capability from the perspective of multi-participants. Journal of Nanchang Univer-
sity, 53(5), 11.
Wu, G., Qian, X., Niu, X., & Tao, L. (2022). How does government policy improve green technology
innovation: An empirical study in China. Frontiers in Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fenvs.2021.799794
Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., Lu, Y., & Chen, J. (2022a). The evolution rule of green innovation efficiency and
its convergence of industrial enterprises in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
International, 29(2), 2894–2910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15885-0
Xu, Y., Liu, S., & Wang, J. (2022b). Impact of environmental regulation intensity on green innova-
tion efficiency in the Yellow River Basin, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2022.133789
Yang, C., Wang, D. Y., & Bi, K. (2021). A researchon the spatial effect of institutional environment on
industrial green innovation. Science Research Management, 42(12), 108–115.
Yang, T., & Zhou, K. (2023). Green development evaluation of China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt
based on hierarchical clustering and composite ecosystem index system. Environment, Develop-
ment and Sustainability, pp. 1-20.
Yang Q., Xin-peng L., and Shu-hui S. (2021). The regional differences and causes of the efficiency of
science and technological innovation in China: Based on major national and regional development
strategies. Studies in Science of Science https://doi.org/10.16192/j.cnki.1003-2053.20210930.001.
Yangjun, R., & Chuanxu, W. (2016). Research on the regional difference and spatial effect of green innova-
tion efficiency of industrial enterprises in China. RISTI, E10, 373.
Yuan, Q., Charles, F. C. C., Wang, J., Zhu, T.-T., & Wang, K. (2020). Inclusive and sustainable indus-
trial development in China: An efficiency-based analysis for current status and improving potentials.
Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114876
Zeng, J., Škare, M., & Lafont, J. (2021). The co-integration identification of green innovation efficiency in
Yangtze River Delta region. Journal of Business Research, 134, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2021.04.023
Zhang, W., & Li, G. (2022). Environmental decentralization, environmental protection investment, and
green technology innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(9),
12740–12755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09849-z
Zhang, P., Zhu, S., & Zhu, Y. (2012). Spillover Effect of Environmental Investment. Journal of Beijing Nor-
mal University (social Sciences), 3, 126–133.
Zhang, X., Huang, X., Zhang, D., Geng, Y., Tian, L., Fan, Y., & Chen, W. (2022). Research on the pathway
and policies for China’s energy and economy transformation toward carbon neutrality. Journal Man-
agement World, 38, 35–66.
Zhao, N., Liu, X., Pan, C., & Wang, C. (2021). The performance of green innovation: From an efficiency
perspective. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101062
Zhou, H. (2018). Discussion on the green development path of revitalizing Northeast China in the New Era.
Economic Review Journal, 09, 64–72.
Zhou, X., Yu, Y., Yang, F., & Shi, Q. (2021). Spatial-temporal heterogeneity of green innovation in China.
Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124464
Zhu, L., Luo, J., Dong, Q., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Green technology innovation efficiency
of energy-intensive industries in China from the perspective of shared resources: Dynamic change and
improvement path. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2021.120890
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com

Analyzing Provincial Imbalances in Green Innovatio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyzing Provincial Imbalances in Green Innovatio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Analyzing provincial imbalances in green innovation

Received: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 28 July 2023

Keywords Green innovation efficiency · MEA model · Single-indicator efficiency ·

encompasses knowledge spillovers and environmental protection (Rennings, 2000). It

Building upon the aforementioned rationale, we incorporated factors such as resources,

3 Indicators and data sources

while addressing the imperative of avoiding, eliminating, or minimizing pollution and

Table 1 Index system for green innovation efficiency

Technology Activities of Industrial Enterprises, and Statistical Yearbook on Science, and

The following equation is given for the rth output of D

And for the sth output of ­DMUk, we have the following:

By solving the (optimal solutions

The solution calculated by the formula (4) is 𝛽 ∗.

5.1 Evolution trend analysis of the overall green innovation efficiency

5.2 Analysis of uneven patterns of green innovation by province

5.2.1 Green innovation efficiency deconstruction

Fig. 1 Overall efficiency of green innovation in the four regions 2008–2020

Fig. 2 Spatial–temporal evolution of efficiency of Green Innovation

5.2.2 Trend analysis of the evolution of each indicator

Table 2 Green innovation efficiency color map

TJ 0.978 0.945 0.996 0.974 0.995 0.981 0.994 0.960

JS 0.993 0.952 0.987 0.932 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.976

ZJ 0.977 0.904 0.995 0.964 0.994 0.966 0.993 0.943

FJ 0.929 0.605 0.957 0.921 0.960 0.882 0.939 0.792

HI 0.907 0.771 0.971 0.956 0.973 0.797 0.967 0.806

JX 0.882 0.521 0.958 0.955 0.955 0.836 0.948 0.754

XJ 0.930 0.605 0.957 0.916 0.950 0.794 0.944 0.767

5.3 Measurement of regional differences in green innovation efficiency

5.3.1 Regional variation analysis

5.3.2 Measurement and analysis of regional differences in indicator efficiency

Fig. 3 Trends in the efficiency of each indicator in the four regions

5.4 Drivers of green innovation efficiency analysis

Innovation is usually characterized by significant externalities, while green technology

Fig. 4 Efficiency of each indicator in the four regions

2008 0.032 0.018 0.012 0.004 0.013 0.008 0.036

5.4.3 Analysis of the results of the interaction of drivers

Table 4 Results for major years Year Index X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

Other values are significant at the 1% level; the symbols * and **

Different regional green innovation overall efficiency in China.

Decomposition of regional differences in output efficiency.

Year Index Overall Intra- Inter- Northeast Eastern Central Western

2008 Y1 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.003 0.013 0.009 0.034

Year Index Overall Intra- Inter- Northeast Eastern Central Western

Year Index Overall Intra- Inter- Northeast Eastern Central Western

Driver detector results for 2008–2020.

Year Index Statistics X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

2008 Overall efficiency q-statistic 0.046 0.045 0.121 0.166 0.048

Year Index Statistics X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

Interaction detector results for Green Innovation Efficiency.

Interaction vari- Overall efficiency cross-tabulation Technical output efficiency cross-tabula-

LX2 ∩ LX1 0.223 Nonlinear enhance- 0.127 Nonlinear enhance-

Author contributions XT performed conceptualization, methodology, project administration, writing—

You might also like

3 Indicators and data sources

And for the sth output of DMUk, we have the following:

5.1 Evolution trend analysis of the overall green innovation efficiency

5.2 Analysis of uneven patterns of green innovation by province

5.2.1 Green innovation efficiency deconstruction

5.2.2 Trend analysis of the evolution of each indicator

5.3 Measurement of regional differences in green innovation efficiency

5.3.1 Regional variation analysis

5.3.2 Measurement and analysis of regional differences in indicator efficiency

5.4 Drivers of green innovation efficiency analysis

5.4.3 Analysis of the results of the interaction of drivers