Bai, W.; Wang, J. and Yu, X. (2026) Spatiotemporal characteristics and obstacle factors of coupling coordination degree between the digital economy and the high-quality development of the construction industry: Evidence from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(7), pp. 5125-5154. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – The deep integration of the digital economy and the construction industry is a crucial pathway for promoting the green transformation and high-quality development of the construction sector. This study investigates the spatiotemporal evolution of the coupling coordination degree (CCD) between the digital economy (DE) and the high-quality development in the construction industry (HQDCI) across different provinces in China. It also identifies key obstacle factors, aiming to provide theoretical support and practical guidance for the high-quality development of the construction industry in the context of the digital economy. Design/methodology/approach – Utilizing panel data from 30 provinces in China from 2013 to 2022, this study constructs a comprehensive evaluation index system for the DE and the HQDCI. The entropy weight TOPSIS method is employed to measure the development levels of the two systems. The study further applies a coupling coordination degree model, a Dagum Gini coefficient and an obstacle degree model to analyze the spatiotemporal differentiation characteristics, regional disparity sources and obstacle factors of their CCD. Findings – The development levels of the DE and the HQDCI both exhibit an "east-high, west-low" gradient. The CCD increased from 0.334 in 2013 to 0.445 in 2022, although it remains at an elementary coordination stage. The spatial pattern reveals a multi-layered structure characterized by "eastern leadership, central catch-up, and western differentiation, " with inter-regional disparity contributions exceeding 70% and a particularly pronounced east-west gap. Furthermore, core obstacle factors show regional heterogeneity: the DE is primarily constrained by a shortage of IT talent and imbalances in the technology market, while the construction industry is limited by redundant infrastructure and mismatches in talent supply and demand. Originality/value – This study is the first to integrate the DE and the HQDCI within a unified framework, thereby unveiling their co-evolutionary mechanisms. Quantifying the CCD and regional disparity contributions provides empirical evidence for precise policymaking. Moreover, identifying region-specific obstacle factors offers targeted solutions for overcoming the "digital–construction" coordination bottleneck, yielding insights that have reference value for the digital transformation of the construction industry in China and the rest of the world.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; couping coordination; digital economy; obstacle degree; regional differences |
| Index terms: | disparity, entropy, transformation, evolution, methodology, coupling, evidence, topsis, supply and demand, mismatch, China, construction sector, coordination, construction industry, integration, differentiation |
| Subjects: | environmental science, business, organization, decision-making and optimization, systems engineering, social justice, engineering problems, Geography, organizational analysis, industry analysis, management, research methods, evaluation and assessment methods, market analysis, thermal systems |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Ethics |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here