Institutional Signals in Marine Policy Shape Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Intentions: Asymmetric Psychological Pathways and a Behaviorally Informed Governance Framework

Abstract

Marine tourism embodies a sustainability paradox: high economic value coexists with ecological harm. Yet how macro-level policies shape pro-environmental intentions among transient, socially disembedded tourists remains unclear. Integrating institutional signaling theory with the Theory of Planned Behavior, we analyze survey data from 413 coastal visitors in China. The results reveal an asymmetric mediation pattern: marine policy influences intention primarily through behavioral attitudes and, to a lesser extent, subjective norms, while perceived behavioral control, though a direct predictor, does not mediate this relationship. This highlights a key boundary condition of TPB in low-embeddedness contexts, where institutional signals substitute for absent social ties by activating cognitive pathways. Practically, we propose a tiered governance pathway—attitude-focused messaging at digital touchpoints, normative feedback at entry points, and visible on-site infrastructure—to translate policy into observable actions, advancing both theory and practice in sustainable marine tourism.

1. Introduction

The governance of marine ecosystems stands at a critical juncture. While the rapid expansion of coastal tourism has generated substantial economic value, contributing CNY 1.31 trillion (34% of China’s core marine industries) in 2022 [1], it has simultaneously intensified ecological pressures. Marine environmental disasters incurred over CNY 6 billion in direct losses that same year, and tourist violations in protected areas remain alarmingly high at 17.6% [2]. This persistent gap between regulatory enforcement and voluntary compliance raises a critical question: how do marine environmental policies, acting as institutional signals, shape tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention in transient, low-embeddedness settings?

Existing research on tourist pro-environmental intentions bifurcates along two lines. One strand emphasizes external institutional levers, such as environmental regulations, and their capacity to shape behavior through deterrence or incentives [3,4]. The other focuses on internal psychological drivers, including identity, values, and moral norms [5,6]. Yet both approaches struggle to explain how macro-level policy signals translate into individual intentions within transient, low-embeddedness contexts like marine tourism, where visitors lack long-term stakes, community ties, or repeated exposure to local norms.

Crucially, marine environmental policy regulation in this study is conceptualized not as a single instrument but as a composite institutional signal—an integrated ensemble of legal mandates, economic incentives, and informational nudges. Drawing on institutional signaling theory [7], we treat this policy bundle as a coherent set of cues that jointly communicate societal expectations, redefine normative appropriateness, and shape tourists’ cognitive appraisals of environmental responsibility, even in transient settings where direct enforcement is limited. This signaling role becomes especially salient in episodic consumption settings, where formal policy messages may substitute for weak informal social monitoring. However, the psychological pathways through which different policy instruments activate these interpretations remain underexplored.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [8] offers a dominant framework for understanding such intentions through three antecedents: behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). However, TPB is inherently micro-psychological, treating these constructs as endogenously formed within the individual or immediate social milieu. This “black box” obscures how top–down institutional forces, particularly national environmental policies, penetrate and reshape these cognitive and normative foundations. Consequently, a critical theoretical gap persists: under what conditions do policy regulations effectively activate each of the TPB pathways, and are these pathways equally responsive in mobile consumption settings?

Addressing this gap, our study investigates how marine environmental policy regulation influences tourists’ environmental behavior intentions through the mediating roles of attitudes, norms, and PBC. Rather than merely applying TPB to a new context, we treat policy as an exogenous institutional shock to test the permeability and asymmetry of TPB’s psychological architecture. Our findings reveal that, while policy significantly shapes attitudes and subjective norms, it fails to enhance perceived behavioral control—a pattern that challenges the assumed uniformity of TPB mediators and exposes contextual boundary conditions for the theory’s applicability in transient tourism environments.

By treating marine environmental policy not merely as a contextual backdrop but as an institutional substitute for weak social embeddedness, this study reveals a critical asymmetry in the psychological architecture of the Theory of Planned Behavior: in transient tourism settings, top–down policy signals predominantly activate cognitive (attitudes) rather than normative (subjective norms) or control-based pathways. This finding challenges the assumption of TPB’s uniform mediator responsiveness and identifies “institutional signaling efficacy” as a contingent moderator of behavioral intention formation. In doing so, we advance a context-sensitive extension of TPB that accounts for how macro-level governance fills micro-level motivational voids in episodic consumption environments, a theoretical gap long overlooked in both tourism and environmental behavior literature. We demonstrate that policies function not just as rules, but as cognitive scaffolds that compensate for the absence of community ties, thereby redefining when and how TPB mechanisms operate.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior and Its External Boundaries

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) extends the Theory of Reasoned Action by incorporating perceived behavioral control (PBC), defined as an individual’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, to account for constraints imposed by external resources or situational factors [8]. Within tourism research, TPB has proven robust in predicting pro-environmental intentions, with attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC jointly explaining behaviors such as waste reduction or eco-friendly consumption [9,10].

However, TPB’s explanatory scope is inherently limited: it focuses exclusively on proximal, intra-individual determinants while excluding distal macro-institutional forces that may shape these very psychological inputs [8]. This limitation becomes critical in transient tourism contexts, where visitors typically lack sustained interaction with local communities, exhibit weak place attachment, and experience only episodic exposure to destination ecosystems. In such settings, characterized by low social embeddedness, the micro-foundations of TPB (e.g., norms derived from close referents, attitudes shaped by repeated experience) are often absent or attenuated.

Consequently, a pivotal question arises: Can macro-level institutional signals compensate for missing micro-level social inputs to activate TPB pathways? To date, policy is either treated as a static background condition in TPB studies [9] or examined in isolation in governance literature without linking to behavioral mechanisms [3,11]. This disconnect leaves unexplored how top-down environmental regulations might function not merely as constraints, but as institutional scaffolds that cognitively and normatively substitute for weak social embeddedness.

2.2. Marine Environmental Policy Regulation

Marine environmental policy regulation refers to a government-led institutional system that employs legal constraints, economic incentives, and public education to steer the behavior of marine stakeholders toward ecological sustainability [3]. Drawing on institutional theory, such regulations can be understood not only as instruments of control but also as visible signals that communicate societal values, legitimize certain behaviors, and provide cognitive templates for action [7]. In transient contexts like tourism, where individuals lack sustained interaction with local institutions, these signals may serve as primary sources of normative and feasibility information. Critically, however, the behavioral relevance of such signals depends on whether they are noticed, interpreted, and internalized by visitors, a process inherently shaped by individual perception [12]. Accordingly, in this study, we operationalize marine environmental policy regulation not as an objective inventory of rules, but as tourists’ subjective assessment of the destination’s visible and credible environmental governance efforts, captured through their evaluations of policy clarity, enforcement presence, and eco-aligned activity design.

Policy instruments can be broadly categorized into three types: (1) command-and-control measures (e.g., fines, access restrictions), which rely on deterrence; (2) economic incentives (e.g., subsidies, eco-rewards), which alter cost–benefit calculations; and (3) informational tools (e.g., signage, awareness campaigns), which aim to reshape knowledge and attitudes [13]. While all three types may influence behavior, they likely engage distinct psychological mechanisms. For instance, prohibitive rules may heighten perceived social expectations (subjective norms), whereas informational nudges may foster positive attitudes by reframing environmental actions as personally meaningful or efficacious [14]. Importantly, the effectiveness of these instruments in transient settings hinges not on their formal existence, but on their perceptual salience—whether tourists recognize them as genuine commitments rather than symbolic gestures [15,16].

However, from the perspective of institutional signaling theory [17], the behavioral impact of policy in transient contexts like marine tourism depends less on the technical design of individual instruments and more on their collective symbolic function as a signal of institutional commitment [18,19]. Tourists, often short-term visitors with limited policy literacy, are unlikely to parse fine-grained distinctions among regulatory, economic, or informational tools. Instead, they form a holistic perception of whether ‘the destination takes environmental protection seriously,’ based on the aggregate visibility of institutional actions such as posted rules, enforcement presence, and eco-friendly activity offerings [20]. Accordingly, while we acknowledge the analytical utility of policy typologies, we conceptualize marine environmental policy regulation in this study as a composite institutional signal that integrates these diverse instruments into a unified perceptual cue. This approach aligns with recent research treating policy presence as a single macro-level antecedent in tourist behavior models [21,22], and reflects the cognitive reality of our target respondents.

Existing research on environmental regulation spans multiple levels of analysis: at the national level, scholars examine instrument design and systemic resilience [4,23]; at the city level, studies assess impacts on green innovation and public health [24,25]; and at the industry level, researchers investigate dual effects on production capacity and technological upgrading [26,27]. Collectively, this body of work underscores the complexity and context-dependence of policy effectiveness.

In contrast, far fewer studies focus on how such regulations influence individual behavioral intention, especially among highly mobile populations like tourists. The limited evidence available suggests that policy effects are neither linear nor automatic. Tang et al. (2021) [11], for example, identified an inverted U-shaped relationship between policy intensity and farmers’ environmental behavior, indicating that excessive regulatory pressure may diminish compliance, a finding that implicitly highlights the mediating role of psychological processes in policy transmission. However, this mediation mechanism remains unexplored in marine tourism contexts. Given that tourists experience coastal and marine environments episodically and often lack deep place attachment, they may be less responsive to subtle normative pressures but more attuned to explicit regulatory cues conveyed through signage, official campaigns, or digital platforms. This raises a pivotal question: Do marine environmental policies uniformly influence all three TPB antecedents (attitudes, norms, PBC), or do they exert selective, pathway-specific effects depending on their instrumental design?

Notably, the potential of policy to enhance perceived behavioral control (PBC), defined as an individual’s belief in their capacity to perform a behavior given available resources and opportunities [8], has received insufficient theoretical attention in tourism contexts. Yet, each policy instrument type can directly strengthen PBC through distinct operational channels: Command-and-control measures (e.g., designated no-touch zones) reduce ambiguity by clearly demarcating permissible actions, thereby lowering cognitive load; Economic incentives (e.g., discounts for using reusable containers) lower financial and logistical barriers, increasing perceived feasibility; Informational tools (e.g., step-by-step eco-behavior guides via QR codes) build self-efficacy by demonstrating ‘how-to’ execute complex actions like reef-safe snorkeling. Empirical evidence supports this linkage: Han (2015) [28] found that the provision of free eco-amenities in green hotels significantly boosted guests’ PBC toward water/energy conservation, while Robinson (2023) [29] and Kuo et al. (2025) [30] demonstrated that visible recycling infrastructure in coastal parks directly enhanced visitors’ confidence in proper waste disposal. Thus, beyond signaling values or norms, policy regulation functions as a practical scaffold that materially expands tourists’ behavioral capability—a dimension particularly critical in marine settings where on-site support is often scarce.

2.3. Tourist Environmentally Responsible Behavioral Intention

Tourist environmentally responsible behavior refers to actions taken by visitors to mitigate their negative impacts or contribute positively to destinations’ ecosystems [31]. Research on its antecedents has increasingly adopted the TPB as a foundational framework, supplemented by affective extensions (e.g., place attachment, sense of face) [32,33] and cognitive factors (e.g., environmental knowledge, public responsibility) [6,34]. External contextual factors, such as destination attributes or service quality, are also recognized as indirect drivers, often operating through psychological mediators like place attachment or perceived value [35,36].

More fundamentally, the potential of environmental policy to functionally replace weak social embeddedness in shaping psychological antecedents remains unexplored. While some studies acknowledge that scenic-level policies can enhance perceived behavioral control by providing infrastructure or clear guidelines [37,38], policy is rarely positioned as a primary exogenous driver capable of reshaping attitudes or subjective norms. Instead, it is often treated as a static background condition or a component of the physical environment. This omission is consequential: if national or regional marine policies communicate conservation values, signal societal expectations, or enable supportive infrastructures, they may directly recalibrate the psychological inputs that TPB assumes as fixed. Ignoring this upstream influence risks attributing intention formation solely to individual dispositions, thereby overlooking the institutional scaffolding that shapes them.

This institutional scaffolding becomes particularly salient in contexts of low social embeddedness, where traditional normative channels, such as community belonging, repeated interactions, or peer monitoring, are attenuated [39,40]. In such transient settings, institutional signals may function as ‘norm proxies’, substituting for absent interpersonal cues by communicating what behaviors are socially expected and collectively endorsed [41]. Rather than relying on close-knit social networks, tourists infer norms from visible institutional arrangements: eco-certification labels, staff enforcement actions, or signage stating ‘Most visitors do X’ signs [42,43,44]. These signals activate descriptive and injunctive norms even among anonymous strangers, effectively constructing a ‘virtual reference group’.

Empirical work in sustainable tourism supports this substitution logic. Huo et al. (2025) [45] demonstrated that in high-turnover coastal destinations, government-led environmental regulations significantly strengthened tourists’ perceived subjective norms, even when local social ties were minimal, by signaling societal consensus on conservation. Similarly, Liu et al. (2022) [46] and Ibnou-Laaroussi et al. (2020) [47] found that in tourism destinations characterized by high visitor turnover, perceived environmental policies significantly enhanced tourists’ subjective norms, suggesting that institutional cues can substitute for weak interpersonal normative networks. Together, these studies suggest that institutional signals do not merely supplement but can functionally replace social embeddedness as a source of normative influence in mobile tourism contexts.

Moreover, the unique characteristics of marine tourism—high mobility, low place attachment, and limited access to on-site resources—may render certain TPB pathways more malleable than others under policy exposure. For instance, cognitive evaluations (attitudes) could be readily shifted by persuasive policy messaging, whereas perceived behavioral control might remain weak if policies fail to materialize into tangible support during the visit. However, the assumption that subjective norms are inherently weak in transient settings warrants reconsideration. Recent evidence suggests that, even during short-term visits, tourists are sensitive to the perceived behaviors of others, not necessarily close referents, but temporary co-visitors, service staff, or symbolic influencers such as online reviewers or eco-certified tour operators [48]. In fact, policy communications that highlight collective compliance can effectively construct a virtual reference group, thereby activating normative influence despite the absence of enduring social ties [49]. Thus, rather than assuming symmetric mediation, it is essential to empirically test whether policy signals permeate the TPB architecture uniformly or selectively—a distinction with significant implications for both theoretical refinement and the design of behaviorally informed environmental governance.

3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Model

Building on the theoretical framework established in Section 2, this study conceptualizes marine environmental policy regulation not merely as a contextual backdrop but as an exogenous institutional signal that may actively shape the psychological antecedents of tourist behavior. Given the transient and episodic nature of marine tourism, where visitors often lack deep social ties or prolonged exposure to local ecosystems, they may be particularly responsive to explicit, top–down policy cues communicated through signage, official campaigns, or digital platforms [3,11]. Drawing on the TPB, we propose that such policy signals influence tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention both directly and indirectly through the three core constructs: behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.

3.1. Research Hypotheses

3.1.1. Direct Effect of Policy Regulation on Behavioral Intention

Although TPB traditionally treats intention as emerging solely from internal psychological inputs, recent evidence suggests that institutional signals must first be cognitively processed to influence behavior [11]. In marine tourism settings, where direct experience with local institutions is limited, tourists’ interpretation of policy cues, shaped by their attention, prior beliefs, and on-site experiences, determines whether these signals translate into behavioral motivation. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1.

Marine environmental policy regulation has a significant positive effect on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

3.1.2. Policy Regulation’s Influence on TPB Antecedents

While TPB assumes that attitudes, norms, and PBC arise from personal experience or immediate social context [8], policy interventions can serve as powerful external sources of information that reshape these constructs. For instance, conservation-focused policies may reframe environmental actions as beneficial or socially expected, thereby altering cognitive and normative evaluations [3]. Moreover, policies that provide infrastructure (e.g., recycling bins, eco-guides) or clear guidelines can enhance tourists’ sense of feasibility, even during brief visits [37,38]. Although the magnitude of these effects may vary across constructs due to tourists’ limited social embeddedness, we posit that policy signals exert a generally positive influence on all three antecedents:

Hypothesis 2.

Marine environmental policy regulation positively influences tourists’ behavioral attitudes toward environmental responsibility.

Hypothesis 3.

Marine environmental policy regulation positively influences tourists’ subjective norms regarding environmental responsibility.

Hypothesis 4.

Marine environmental policy regulation positively influences tourists’ perceived behavioral control over environmental responsibility.

Note: While H2–H4 assume directional positivity, the relative strength of these paths remains an empirical question, particularly given that subjective norms may be less malleable in transient contexts where peer influence is weak.

3.1.3. TPB Antecedents and Behavioral Intention

Consistent with the foundational tenets of TPB [8] and its extensive validation in tourism contexts [9,10], we expect that tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention is jointly shaped by their attitudes, perceived social expectations, and sense of behavioral feasibility:

Hypothesis 5.

Tourists’ behavioral attitudes positively influence their environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

Hypothesis 6.

Tourists’ subjective norms positively influence their environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

Hypothesis 7.

Tourists’ perceived behavioral control positively influences their environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

3.1.4. Mediating Roles of TPB Constructs

Critically, while all three TPB constructs are plausible mediators, their responsiveness to institutional signals may be asymmetric in transient contexts. Given the absence of sustained social ties, subjective norms may be less malleable; similarly, without on-site infrastructure, perceived behavioral control may remain disconnected from policy exposure. In contrast, policy messaging can directly reshape cognitive evaluations. Therefore, rather than assuming uniform mediation, we empirically test which psychological pathway(s) serve as the primary conduit through which institutional signals translate into intention, a question central to refining TPB’s contextual applicability. Policies are interpreted through cognitive and affective filters that align with or reshape individual motivations [11]. For example, policy messaging may foster favorable attitudes by highlighting co-benefits (e.g., scenic beauty preservation), signal societal approval to strengthen norms, or reduce perceived barriers through supportive infrastructure [37]. Thus, the three TPB constructs are theorized as key mediators linking policy exposure to intention formation:

Hypothesis 8.

Behavioral attitudes mediate the relationship between marine environmental policy regulation and tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

Hypothesis 9.

Subjective norms mediate the relationship between marine environmental policy regulation and tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

Hypothesis 10.

Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationship between marine environmental policy regulation and tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention.

Importantly, while all three mediation paths are theoretically plausible, their relative prominence may differ in marine tourism contexts. As noted in the literature review, the episodic and mobile nature of visitation may render attitudes and PBC more responsive to policy cues than subjective norms, which typically require sustained social interaction. This possibility will be empirically tested through comparative path analysis.

3.2. Conceptual Model

Figure 1 presents the proposed conceptual model. Marine environmental policy regulation serves as the exogenous driver, influencing tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention both directly (H1) and indirectly through the mediating roles of behavioral attitudes (H8), subjective norms (H9), and perceived behavioral control (H10). The three TPB constructs also exert direct effects on intention (H5–H7), consistent with Ajzen’s (1991) [8] original formulation. The model thus integrates macro-institutional forces with micro-psychological mechanisms, offering a more complete account of intention formation in policy-intensive, transient tourism environments.

4. Research Design

4.1. Measurement of Variables

In this paper, we refer to the mature scales in the literature for the measurement of the variables, as shown in

Table 1. Constructs and measurement items.

Variables	Items	Contents	Sources
Marine Environmental Policy Regulation	MP1	The Marine Environment Policy provides for visitors to conscientiously comply with environmental protection regulations.	Yu et al., (2015) [50]
	MP2	The ocean management department has established environmental protection regulations for the scenic area to promote environmentally friendly behaviors and punish inappropriate behaviors.
	MP3	Scenic area develops and implements tourism activities that are conducive to the protection of the marine environment.
Behavioral Attitudes	BA1	I believe that tourist’s environmentally responsible behavior will have positive benefits for the protection of the environment in ocean scenic area.	Martín et al., (2017) [51]
	BA2	I think environmentally responsible behavior by tourists would be important for the protection of the environment at ocean scenic area.
	BA3	I think I take pleasure in adopting environmentally responsible behavior as a tourist.
Subjective Norms	SN1	Those who are important to me think I should take action to protect the environment in ocean scenic area.	Ajzen (1991) [8]
	SN2	Those who are important to me want me to take action to protect the environment in ocean scenic area.
	SN3	They would be happy if I took action to protect the environment in ocean scenic area.
Perceived Behavioral Control	PBC1	I think I am free to decide if I want to act in an environmentally responsible manner when traveling.	Cordano & Frieze, (2000) [52]
	PBC2	I think I can easily go for environmentally responsible behavior when traveling.
	PBC3	I am authorized and obligated to take environmentally responsible actions when necessary.
	PBC4	I have access to the resources I need to conduct environmentally responsible behavior.
	PBC5	I have access to external support in conducting environmentally responsible behavior.
	PBC6	I believe that the environmentally responsible actions I take while traveling can contribute to the protection of the environment in ocean scenic area.
environmentally responsible behavioral Intention	EBI1	I prefer to participate in vacations for the sake of preserving the environment than other vacations.	Juvan & Dolnicar (2016) [53]; Xiao et al., (2013) [54]
	EBI2	In the choice of marine tourist attractions, I prefer marine tourist places that care about marine ecology.
	EBI3	Other things being equal, I prefer eco-conscious tour providers.
	EBI4	I am willing to pay a higher price for tourism products that benefit marine ecology.
	EBI5	I would like to join the ocean conservancy organizations.
	EBI6	I am willing to participate in marine environmental protection activities.

. We use a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 7 indicating “strongly agree”. In order to minimize the impact of semantic differences on the quality of the scales, we consulted several experts and scholars in the field of tourism management when compiling the initial scales, and corrected the semantic ambiguities, ambiguities, and hard translations of the questions in the scales to form the final scales.

4.2. Data Collection

Because there is no special distribution pattern of marine tourists for demographic characteristics such as age, geography, and occupation, the formal questionnaires were created through the WenJuanXing platform (wjx.cn) and distributed through the online platform from 23 January 2023 to 24 February 2023. A total of 433 questionnaires were collected. In order to ensure reasonableness, screening was carried out by excluding (1) questionnaires indicating no experience of marine tourism and no willingness to carry out marine tourism in the future (2 in total); (2) those completed in less than 60 s (15 in total); and (3) those filled with the same answers (3 in total). Finally, a total of 413 valid questionnaires were obtained, and the effective recovery rate of questionnaires was 95.38%.

It should be noted that data collection occurred during the winter off-season (January–February), which may limit generalizability to peak-season visitors who might exhibit stronger place attachment or different motivational profiles. However, marine tourism in China has increasingly become a year-round activity, with many coastal destinations (e.g., Hainan, Xiamen, Qingdao) actively promoting winter leisure programs [55]. Moreover, our sample includes respondents with past marine tourism experience across multiple seasons, ensuring that their policy perceptions and behavioral intentions reflect broader rather than season-specific contexts. Demographically, the final sample demonstrates considerable heterogeneity, encompassing participants aged 18 to 65+, and diverse educational levels (from high school to doctoral degrees) (see Appendix A for full details).

5. Results and Discussions

We used SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 24.0 to conduct factor analysis (examining the reliability, validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity and performing a common method bias test), structural equation model analysis, and bootstrapping analysis.

5.1. Reliability and Validity Test

We employed SPSS 22.0 to conduct reliability and validity tests.

Table 2. Results of reliability and convergent validity.

Variables	Cronbach’s α	AVE	CR	Items
Marine Environmental Policy Regulation	0.887	0.729	0.889	3
Behavioral Attitudes	0.883	0.719	0.884	3
Subjective Norms	0.856	0.667	0.857	3
Perceived Behavioral Control	0.871	0.533	0.872	6
environmentally responsible behavioral Intention	0.902	0.611	0.903	6

shows that all the variables’ reliability was strong, with all the Cronbach’s α coefficients above 0.80, AVE values greater than 0.5, and CR greater than 0.8, passing the reliability and validity tests [56].

The KMO and Bartlett’s test showed a KMO value of 0.892 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ² = 4908.031, $p<0.001$), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Harman’s one-way test showed that the first-factor variance explained was 32.94%, which did not exceed the 40% threshold, indicating that the common method bias was manageable. The AVE square root of each latent variable was greater than the coefficient of its correlation with the other variables, and the discriminant validity was met (see Appendix B and Appendix C).

5.2. Path Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

AMOS 24.0 was utilized to establish, revise, and validate the Structural Equation Model (SEM) to test the hypotheses. The observed question item data of each variable factor were taken as the observed variables, and the theoretical model variables were taken as the latent variables of the SEM. Among all variables, marine environmental policy regulation (MP) is an exogenous variable, and behavioral attitudes (BA), social norms (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention (EBI) are endogenous variables. According to the requirements of the SEM, the error term is added to the endogenous variables. The final model is formed as in Figure 2.

Table 3. Model Fit Indicator Values for SEM.

Indicators	Suggested Range	Results	Fitness
Chi-square/df	<3	1.477	Y
GFI	>0.9	0.943	Y
AGFI	>0.9	0.927	Y
NFI	>0.9	0.946	Y
CFI	>0.9	0.982	Y
IFI	>0.9	0.982	Y
RMSEA	<0.08	0.034	Y

lists the model fit metrics of the SEM along with their value ranges and test results. Among them, Chi-square/df is between 1 and 3, which satisfies the range of values. All the other indicators are also within their recommended ranges of values.

Table 4. Path Coefficients of Hypothesis.

Hypothesis	Path Relation	Non-Standardized Coefficient	Standardized Coefficient	S.E.	C.R.	p
H1	MP→EBI	0.21	0.233	0.045	4.654	***
H2	MP→BA	0.413	0.407	0.056	7.431	***
H3	MP→SN	0.364	0.366	0.056	6.499	***
H4	MP→PBC	0.065	0.082	0.044	1.473	0.141
H5	BA→EBI	0.243	0.268	0.044	5.532	***
H6	SN→EBI	0.401	0.451	0.046	8.675	***
H7	PBC→EBI	0.184	0.162	0.049	3.781	***

Note(s): ***, **, * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively.

shows the path coefficients of the model. From the results, it can be seen that the p-value of the path by which marine environmental policy regulation influences the perceived behavioral control of tourists is 0.141. Thus, hypothesis H4 is not valid. The p-value of the other influence paths is less than 0.01, so Hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, and H7 are valid.

In hypothesis H1, the standardized path coefficient of MP on EBI is 0.233, and the p-value is significant at the 1% level. This indicates that marine environmental policy regulation has a significant direct positive effect on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention. The release and implementation of marine environmental policy can directly motivate tourists to practice environmentally responsible behaviors to protect the marine environment during marine tourism.

In hypotheses H2 and H3, the standardized path coefficients of MP on BA and SN are 0.407 and 0.366, respectively, and the p-values all show significance at the 1% level, indicating that marine environmental policy regulation has a significant positive effect on tourists’ behavioral attitudes and subjective norms. That is, the release and implementation of marine environmental policies can prompt tourists to develop positive cognitive attitudes toward environmentally responsible behavior, and can also make tourists care more about the views and evaluations of important groups, leading to an increase in the degree of subjective norms they perceive. Of the two effects, the effect of MP on behavioral attitudes is greater than that on subjective norms. This means that the release and implementation of environmental policies are more likely to affect the perceived attitudes of tourists towards environmental protection behaviors than to prompt tourists to be aware of the expectations of their important groups to adopt environmental protection. The path significance p-value of hypothesis H4 is 0.141, which is not significant. This means that marine environmental policy regulation does not significantly affect tourists’ perceived behavioral control. With the release and implementation of marine environmental policies, tourists do not feel that it is significantly less difficult to adopt behaviors to protect the environment, nor do tourists perceive that they have access to relevant resources and assistance in protecting the scenic environment. The non-significant path from policy to PBC ($\beta = 0.082$, $p = 0.141$), coupled with the stronger mediation via attitudes versus subjective norms, reveals a systematic asymmetry in how institutional signals permeate the TPB architecture. This pattern is not a methodological artifact but a contextual signature of low-embeddedness tourism environments.

The standardized path coefficients of hypotheses H5, H6, and H7 are 0.268, 0.451, and 0.162, respectively, and the p-values are all significant at the 1% level. This means that the three variables of BA, SN, and PBC of marine tourists are all able to positively and significantly influence their intention to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors. The more tourists perceive environmentally responsible behavior as positive and pleasurable, the more inclined they are to take positive action to protect the environmental health of marine attractions. The more tourists perceive that important people expect them to act to protect the environment, the more likely they are to have the intention to act environmentally responsibly. The more tourists perceive that it is easy for them to take relevant measures, and that the relevant resources or help are sufficiently available, the more willing they will be to do their part to maintain the scenic environment. According to the comparison of the path coefficients of the influence of the three variables on behavioral intention, it can be seen that the influence of subjective norms plays the largest role, followed by behavioral attitudes and finally perceived behavioral control.

5.3. Mediating Effects Testing

When constructing the model, the three variables BA, SN, and PBC were assumed to work as mediating variables in the influence of marine environmental policy regulation on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intentions. In order to explicitly and clearly conduct the mediating effect test, the correlation paths were named and defined (see Equations (3)–(5)).

$$stdx1=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\left(\mathrm{B}\mathrm{A},\mathrm{M}\mathrm{P}\right)$$

$$stdx2=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{E}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{I},\mathrm{B}\mathrm{A})$$

$$stdx3=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{S}\mathrm{N},\mathrm{M}\mathrm{P})$$

(1)

$$stdx4=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{E}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{I},\mathrm{S}\mathrm{N})$$

$$stdx5=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{P}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{C},\mathrm{M}\mathrm{P})$$

$$stdx6=e·\mathrm{S}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{z}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{E}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{I},\mathrm{P}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{C})$$

$$indA1=x1\times x2$$

$$indA2=x3\times x4$$

(2)

$$indA3=x5\times x6$$

$$StdIndA1=stdx1\times stdx2$$

(3)

$$StdIndA2=stdx3\times stdx4$$

(4)

$$StdIndA3=stdx5\times stdx6$$

(5)

We employed AMOS 24.0 to test the mediating roles of behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control using a bootstrap procedure with 2500 resamples and maximum likelihood estimation. Both bias-corrected and percentile 95% confidence intervals were computed (see

Table 5. Result of Mediation Effect.

Hypothesis	Path	Efficacy Value	SE	Bias-Corrected Percentile Method 95% CI			Percentile Method 95% CI
				Lower	Upper	p	Lower	Upper	p
H8	StdIndA1	0.183	0.028	0.134	0.247	0	0.13	0.24	0.001
H9	StdIndA2	0.098	0.024	0.056	0.153	0.001	0.055	0.149	0.001
H10	StdIndA3	0.013	0.012	−0.005	0.042	0.145	−0.007	0.039	0.186

Note: StdInd = standardized indirect effect; all models controlled for age, gender, education, and prior visitation.

).

The results confirm that marine environmental policy regulation exerts its influence on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intentions primarily through two significant mediators: behavioral attitudes (H8: StdInd = 0.183, SE = 0.028; 95% CI [0.134, 0.247]; p < 0.001) and subjective norms (H9: StdInd = 0.098; SE = 0.024; 95% CI [0.056, 0.153]; p < 0.001). In contrast, perceived behavioral control showed no significant mediation (H10: StdInd = 0.013; SE = 0.012; 95% CI [−0.005, 0.042]; p = 0.145), indicating that current policies fail to enhance tourists’ sense of feasibility or resource access.

Notably, a comparison of standardized indirect effects reveals that behavioral attitudes account for the dominant pathway (0.183 vs. 0.098), suggesting that policy signals are first internalized as shifts in personal evaluation—tourists come to view pro-environmental actions as more beneficial, meaningful, or aligned with their values.

At the same time, the significant, albeit secondary, role of subjective norms is theoretically noteworthy. Given that marine tourists typically lack sustained interaction with local communities, a context where normative influence is often assumed to weaken [8], the persistence of this effect challenges conventional assumptions. We propose that marine environmental policies themselves function as norm entrepreneurs, constructing a sense of generalized consensus by signaling widespread compliance. In the absence of direct social monitoring, tourists may interpret such institutional cues as proxies for peer behavior, thereby internalizing them as subjective norms. This mechanism is further amplified by digital platforms that display eco-ratings, visitor testimonials, or influencer endorsements, effectively creating a virtual reference group. Thus, even in transient encounters, policy does not merely regulate—it narrates a shared behavioral script that tourists are inclined to follow.

Collectively, these findings demonstrate that effective marine governance must convey not only what is expected (normative signal) but also why it matters (attitudinal signal)—while simultaneously addressing the infrastructure gap that limits perceived behavioral control.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

6.1. Conclusions

This study empirically demonstrates that marine environmental policy regulation serves as a potent institutional signal that shapes tourists’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention through both direct and indirect psychological pathways. While we confirm that behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control all exert significant positive effects on intention, the more critical theoretical insight lies in how these pathways respond asymmetrically to institutional signals. This asymmetry reveals a context-dependent boundary condition of TPB: in transient, low-embeddedness environments where sustained social ties and place-based experience are absent, the theory’s three antecedents do not operate with equal sensitivity to macro-level governance.

Crucially, our findings reveal that policy regulation operates not merely as a background condition but as an institutional substitute for the absence of enduring social or place-based ties, actively reshaping the psychological architecture of intention formation. First, a direct effect of policy on intention was observed, suggesting that clear, salient regulatory messages, such as prohibitions on littering or feeding wildlife, can immediately heighten tourists’ sense of obligation, even during brief visits. This aligns with evidence that environmental policies function as both normative guides and behavioral constraints in resource-sensitive areas [3].

Second, policy regulation significantly influenced behavioral attitudes and subjective norms, which in turn mediated its effect on intention, but to markedly different degrees. Attitudes emerged as the strongest mediator, while subjective norms played a weaker yet still significant role. This pattern supports the view that top–down institutional signals can recalibrate individual cognitive and normative appraisals [11]. In the context of marine tourism, where visitors often lack sustained interaction with local communities, policy effectively substitutes for missing informal social cues by communicating societal expectations and framing pro-environmental actions as beneficial or morally appropriate.

Notably, while perceived behavioral control positively predicted intention, as expected under TPB, it did not mediate the relationship between policy and intention. This null mediation is not a methodological shortcoming but a diagnostic signature of the context. In this brief-encounter context, systemic policy investments (e.g., waste management infrastructure) often remain invisible or inaccessible to short-term visitors. Without tangible, on-site enablers, such as multilingual signage, readily available recycling bins, or real-time feedback, policy-induced resource changes fail to translate into subjective perceptions of feasibility [37,38]. Thus, PBC’s disconnect from policy exposure underscores a key limitation: TPB assumes that control perceptions are malleable through external inputs, but this assumption breaks down when those inputs are not experientially salient to transient actors.

Collectively, these findings advance TPB beyond its traditional formulation as a universal psychological model. Instead, we propose a contingent extension: the efficacy of TPB’s mediators depends on the institutional and relational ecology of the consumption setting. In high-embeddedness contexts, norms and control may dominate; in contexts marked by fleeting interactions and minimal local integration, attitudes, shaped by institutional signals, become the primary conduit. This reframing addresses a long-overlooked theoretical gap in both tourism and environmental behavior research and positions institutional signaling not as a peripheral variable, but as a core moderator of TPB’s internal dynamics.

6.2. Management Implications

The transient and socially disembedded nature of marine tourism necessitates a reorientation of environmental governance toward immediacy, interpretability, and experiential salience. Our findings underscore that policy effectiveness hinges not merely on regulatory stringency but on how institutional signals are psychologically internalized by visitors during their brief encounters with coastal ecosystems. Critically, the mediation analysis reveals an asymmetric influence: while behavioral attitudes and subjective norms significantly transmit the effect of policy on intention, perceived behavioral control, though a strong direct predictor of intention, does not mediate the policy–intention link. This pattern demands a recalibration of management strategies to match the actual psychological responsiveness of tourists.

First, attitude-shaping should be the primary lever of policy communication. Because attitudes emerged as the strongest mediator, interventions must move beyond declarative rule enforcement and instead actively reframe pro-environmental actions as personally meaningful, beneficial, or identity-affirming. Drawing on behavioral public policy [14], “smart nudges” can be embedded at high-attention moments, such as online booking confirmations, entry gates, or activity check-in points, to highlight tangible outcomes (e.g., “Your refusal of single-use plastics protects 3 m² of seagrass habitat”). Such messages align with tourists’ cognitive heuristics by making abstract conservation goals vivid, immediate, and self-relevant.

Second, subjective norms can be strategically amplified despite weak social embeddedness. Although normative influence is weaker than attitudinal pathways in transient settings, it remains statistically significant. Managers can leverage digital platforms to construct virtual reference groups through real-time social proof: for example, interactive displays near beach entrances could show live participation rates (“87% of today’s visitors used refill stations”), or mobile apps could feature eco-leaderboards among tour groups. These tactics simulate the normative pressure typically supplied by community ties, turning anonymity into collective accountability.

Third, and most critically, policy must actively engineer feasibility to activate PBC. Our finding that PBC does not mediate the policy-intention link reveals a critical gap: tourists do not automatically perceive institutional investments as personal enablers. To bridge this gap, managers should deploy a triad of PBC-enhancing interventions aligned with policy instrument types: (1) clarify behavioral boundaries through command-and-control cues, for example, color-coded pathways indicating ‘safe-to-walk’ vs. ‘protected coral’ zones, to reduce uncertainty; (2) lower participation costs via economic incentives, for example, instant rebates for returning plastic bottles or free access to eco-shuttles for those who book low-impact tours; (3) build procedural competence through just-in-time informational support, for example, AR-enabled signage that demonstrates correct sunscreen application or QR-linked micro-videos on ‘how to avoid stepping on seagrass’. Such measures transform abstract policy commitments into tangible, usable resources, ensuring that tourists not only see but also successfully use environmental supports during their brief stay. Only then can PBC evolve from latent capacity to active motivation.

Together, these insights form a coherent pathway to impact visitor behavior across three key stages: before the visit, by partnering with online travel platforms to deliver attitude-focused messaging; at entry, through normative feedback delivered via digital kiosks or QR-linked stories; and on site, by ensuring infrastructure is visible, usable, and supported by human guidance.

This tiered approach enables destination managers to pilot interventions in specific zones (e.g., a single beach or pier), measure changes in both self-reported intention and observable behaviors (e.g., waste sorting accuracy, uptake of reusable items), and scale successful designs across marine protected areas. By aligning institutional signals with the empirically identified asymmetry in TPB pathways, such governance moves from generic regulation to behaviorally intelligent, context-responsive stewardship, turning fleeting tourist encounters into durable contributions to marine sustainability.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that point to promising avenues for future inquiry. First, our sample consists exclusively of Chinese tourists, a cultural context characterized by high power distance, collectivism, and strong deference to institutional authority [57]. In such settings, top-down policy signals may carry disproportionate normative weight compared to peer influence, potentially inflating the direct effect of regulation on intention while attenuating the role of subjective norms, a pattern less likely in individualistic societies where personal attitudes or peer consensus dominate behavioral decisions. Consequently, the observed asymmetric mediation pathways (strong attitude path, weak norm path) may reflect not only the transient nature of marine tourism but also culturally specific interpretations of governance legitimacy. Cross-national replications are thus essential to disentangle contextual from cultural effects and to test whether the proposed behaviorally informed governance framework generalizes across diverse sociopolitical environments. Second, our measurement treats policy regulation as a unidimensional signal, reflecting tourists’ integrated perception rather than differentiating among command-and-control, economic, or informational instruments. While theoretically justified in transient contexts [21,22], this limits insights into instrument-specific psychological pathways. Future studies could test whether, for example, economic incentives more effectively enhance perceived behavioral control, whereas regulatory cues primarily strengthen subjective norms. Third, while we focused on intention as the outcome, actual behavior remains unobserved. Given the well-documented intention–behavior gap in environmental contexts, future studies should employ field experiments or behavioral tracking to assess whether policy-induced intentions translate into observable actions. Fourth, the measurement of perceived behavioral control warrants caution. Although the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability and convergent validity, several items may conflate distinct psychological constructs. For instance, the sense of being “authorized and obligated” (PBC3) resonates more with personal norms or moral duty, while the belief that one’s actions “can contribute to environmental protection” (PBC6) reflects outcome expectancy rather than behavioral feasibility per se [58]. This conceptual blurring may have attenuated the sensitivity of the PBC construct to policy-induced changes, particularly if marine environmental regulations primarily signal normative expectations or collective impact rather than directly altering tourists’ perceptions of resource access or situational ease. Future studies could employ refined scales that strictly separate self-efficacy, controllability, and outcome efficacy to better isolate the mechanisms through which policy influences perceived capacity for action. Fifth, our data were collected during the winter months via an online panel, which may introduce seasonal and demographic biases. Winter visitors might differ from summer tourists in terms of travel motivation or environmental sensitivity. Although our respondents reported marine tourism experiences across various seasons, future studies should adopt multi-wave designs across high and low seasons to test the robustness of the proposed model. Additionally, while online surveys enable broad reach, they may underrepresent older or less digitally connected populations, a limitation common in contemporary tourism research [59]. Finally, while our measure of marine environmental policy regulation is based on tourists’ subjective evaluations, and thus inherently reflects their perception of institutional commitment, we did not test whether individual differences in policy awareness, trust, or interpretive framing moderate the strength of its effects. For example, two visitors may encounter identical signage, yet one perceives it as genuine stewardship while the other sees it as performative greenwashing. Future studies could incorporate validated scales of policy legitimacy or perceived enforcement fairness to examine such moderating roles, thereby deepening our understanding of the boundary conditions under which institutional signals succeed or fail. By addressing these gaps, future work can further refine the integration of institutional theory and behavioral psychology, ultimately advancing more effective, behaviorally informed approaches to marine sustainability governance.