Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0348289. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348289

Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists’ travel behavioral intention

Wen Qin 1,2,¤,#, Weilong Li 2,¤,#, Yanli Peng 2,¤, Juan Su 2,*,¤
Editor: Bifeng Zhu3
PMCID: PMC13152149  PMID: 42096415

Abstract

Destination revitalization policies have been considered functional or institutional ones that would stimulate the tourism markets. This paper redefines the concept of destination revitalization policies as social cues and how they influence the social judgments and intention to travel by tourists. Based on the stereotype content model and temporal construal theory, we differentiate between two kinds of revitalization policies: flexible and rigid, and form a theoretical model to describe the differentiated psychological mechanisms of these policies and boundary conditions. Evidence from seven studies, including one semi-structured interview study and six scenario-based experiments, shows that flexible revitalization policies generally elicit stronger travel behavioral intention than rigid policies. This is brought about by differentiated social judgments: the flexible policies lead to increased perceptions of warmth, and the rigid policies to increased perceptions of competence. In addition, the effects are conditional to temporal distance. The flexible policies are more effective in case of close-term travel choices and rigid policies in case of long-term planning. By placing the destination revitalization policy in a new perspective as destination communication, the given study contributes to the existing knowledge on destination marketing and tourism policy governing and presents practical outcomes of how the policy should be designed to respond to how tourists make decisions and to ensure the sustainability of the development of a destination.

Introduction

Public policies are commonly understood as institutional instruments designed to regulate markets, allocate resources, and guide collective action [1,2]. The traditional formulation of policy interventions in tourism research involved addressing it based on its functional capacities [3,4], as is the case with infrastructural development, stimulation or regulation of the market. Destination revitalization policies, in particular, are frequently implemented when the destination is in crisis, troubled image, or increased competition, and its main focus lies on recovery of the tourism performance [5–7].

In practice, however, revitalization policies are rarely confined to administrative implementation. They are publicly publicized and marketed to external audiences, that is expressly targeted on tourists as a marker of safety, enhancement or fresh appeal. As an illustration, in 2025 the Thai government created the quality label of the brand name Trusted Thailand in reaction to the safety issues and depleting tourist trust. These practices imply that destination revitalization policies do not simply readjust institutional settings or economic incentives; but also serve as communicative practices in which destinations describe themselves to their potential tourists [8,9]. Yet how tourists interpret these policy messages remains poorly understood.

Available studies contain valuable though partial information on destination revitalization policies. Tourism policy and destination governance research has drawn a major contribution of revitalization efforts of economic [10] or institutional perspectives [11], including market recovery, investment attraction, or governance efficiency as an outcome [12]. Although these studies explain what lays policies are meant to fulfil, they are weak in highlighting the way policies are understood by tourists as external audiences.

Conversely, studies of tourist perception and destination image emphasize the role of information cues in influencing the judgments and behavioral intentions of the tourists [13,14]. Nevertheless, in these literatures, public policy is hardly considered as a focal stimulus. Collectively, these streams are loosely related, and do not provide much scope of illuminating how tourists decode policy messages regarding revitalization, and why divergent behavioral impacts can be produced by policy efforts that have a similar intent behind them.

This paper conceptualizes the policies regarding destination revitalization as rigid or flexible on the basis of already recognized differences in the context of the rule-based, enforcement-based approaches to this policy, and those focused on flexibility and adaptive coordination [15,16]. The tourist view of these policy design mechanisms is that they act as salient governance cues. To decode the understanding of such cues, we use the model of stereotype content [17]. This model assumes that assessments of social actors are organized around two basic scales perceived warmth (benevolence and trustworthiness) and perceived competence (capability and efficacy). We, therefore, hypothesize that the inflexible or soft policy construction is a vital input, which influences the warmth and competence based assessment of tourists to their destination.

Nonetheless, studies have indicated that the decision contexts among the tourists are inherent in their travel decisions [18]. The temporal construal theory [19] suggests that people perceive and give careful consideration to different information about a situation, contingent on their time horizon. The distant-future choice is made according to abstract, high-level construals which focus on long-term orientation, strategic goals in general and the stability of the institutions (e.g., in the general sense that a destination is managed in a predictable and trusted manner), whereas those of the near-future choices are based on concrete, low-level considerations with reference to immediate feasibility and convenience (e.g., whether current actions will enhance on-site experiences, alleviate immediate travel frictions or bring impressive benefits to visitors). Consequently, it becomes necessary to add the temporal distance as an essential circumstance that conditions the processing and evaluation of policy cues to explain, in detail, the functioning of the policies on tourists.

It is by combining these theoretical lenses, we come up with a theoretical model that we can then use to systematically review the ways in which the design of destination revitalization policies affect travel intentions via individual social-cognitive processes (perceived warmth and competence) and in which each of these processes is more dominant relative to the other, depending on the temporal perspective of the traveler. This study makes several contributions to the literature. Conceptually, it conceptually redefines destination revitalization policies as either functional or institutional interventions and relates them to socially meaningful cues that tend to influence tourist judgement of destinations. Theoretically, it is a combination of social judgment and temporal construal view on the issue of discovering when and how policy styles affect travel behavioral intention. In practice, the results can form a foundation of the development of revitalization policies with communicative characteristics that are relevant to tourists in the context of choice.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

The stereotype content model

The stereotype content model (SCM), developed within social psychology, provides a foundational framework for systematically understanding the content and structure of social stereotypes [17]. It answers the basic question of how people create mentally the perceptions of social groups or collective actors. According to the model, the perceptions are arranged efficiently in two universal dimensions which include perceived warmth and perceived competence [20]. Warmth includes considerations of the intentions on the part of the actor (e.g., trustworthiness, friendliness), whereas competence constitutes considerations of the capacity of the actor to carry out the intentions (e.g., capability, efficacy) [21]. These two dimensions are not descriptive but are predictive in nature in that they collectively influence the following emotional and behavioral reactions towards the perceived target. The SCM has been fruitfully generalized to explain, however, interpersonal judgment as a result of the simplicity of the model and its explanatory strength, has been generalized to other fields, a consumer behavior being one of them [22,23].

The SCM has also been used in an increasing number of tourism studies to assess the way tourists consider countries and destinations as social units. Empirical data indicate that warmth- and competence-based judgments are used by tourists in creating destination images [23], and that the two dimensions are highly predictive of attitudes and visit intentions [24]. Nonetheless, the already available tools have been mostly concerned with comparatively stable destination images that have been formed due to culture or generated reputation [25,26], and little attention has been given to the reaction of tourists in relation to interventions undertaken by policy. The destination revitalization policies are salient publicly announced signings, especially in uncertain situations or in case of being seen as risky. Instead of being considered based on their functional efficacy, these policies give governance-related indications on which a tourist base his/her interpretation on the intentions of a destination to visitors and its abilities to provide safety and quality. The implementation of the SCM in this setting thus plays a requisite theoretical role: it specifies how policy features of revitalization policies are mentally carried over into the perceptions of warmness and competency hence bridging between policy design at the macro-level with tourist judgments and travel behavioral intentions at the micro-level.

The temporal construal theory

The theory at the construal level serves as a source of interpretation of this phenomenon in that the higher the psychological distance of an event (temporal, social, spatial distance, etc.), the more abstract and high-level representations of an event or object individuals use that are focused on its most important (goal-relevant) points of it. Alternatively, smaller psychological distance results in higher levels of concreteness with low-level construal mechanisms focusing on specific and contextual information [27]. One of the most basic and most studied dimensions of psychological distance is temporal distance. It is based on this that the theory of temporal construal was developed with a specific reason of mapping how the time horizon systematically changes the cognitive processing [28,29]. The theory is that when making decisions about far future, people put the most emphasis on abstract, high level qualities (e.g., the long established image of a destination as being trustworthy, stable in an institution, having symbolic value to the person making the decision). When it comes to almost immediate decisions, the focus is on tangible and low-level feasibility issues (such as immediate promotional discounts, improved quality of services or convenient booking) [19]. As far as destination policy evaluation is concerned, it means that the salience and persuasiveness of various policy cues remain dependent upon the planning horizon of the traveler, as either the abstract or concrete capability cues.

The past research revealed that concrete information is sought more by the tourists according to the temporal distance to the trip, and thus it is predicted that concrete information becomes more important in the decision-making of tourists at the near temporal distance [30,31]. Conversely, tourists who intend to visit a destination in the temporal distant tend to have a positive attitude towards destination promotion messages when employing high language abstraction [32]. The existing literature related to the temporal construal theory has generated new understanding of cognition and behaviors such as prediction, evaluation, and decision making in the fields of psychology and consumer behavior [33]. What’s more, prior research has also examined when the characteristics of things and the information conveyed match the construal level, it is more beneficial for people’s choices and decisions [34]. Based on this, this research will focus on temporal distance to explore the relationship between the revitalization policy and tourists’ travel behavioral intentions under the context of tourism.

Revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention

Destination revitalization policies represent a multidimensional policy approach aimed at restoring, sustaining, or enhancing the competitiveness and appeal of tourism destinations facing decline, disruption, or reputational crises [35]. In contrast to traditional destination development strategies, most of the revitalisation policies have been rather reactive but, at the same time, strategic responses to certain issues like over-tourism or market stagnation, damage to the environment, or governance failures [9,36]. These policies can be in the form of regulatory restructuring, public-private joints, focal investments, or socio-cultural projects which rebrand the destination into a competitive tourism environment. It is becoming more commonly considered that destination revitalization is not merely an economic necessity, but is a kind of adaptive governance, whereby destination authorities experiment with their institution to reestablish visitor confidence, quality standards and alignment between tourism and the sustainable development agenda [37,38].

Since it is a part of the broader context of destination revitalization, it is possible to distinguish policy strategies in terms of their level of enforcement, flexibility, and target orientation [15,16]. Particularly, there is an emphasis in strict revitalization policies that are defined as rule-based, top-down governance interventions that place an emphasis on order, discipline, and regulatory control [39,40]. Such policies are usually directed to tourist businesses, traders and local operators and not necessarily to the tourists themselves, as a courtesy to correct any market malpractice and confidence among people. As an example, the campaign of iron-fist tourism governance which was initiated in Zhangjiajie, China is an inflexible attitude in which the local government installed stringent control measures against forced trading, overpricing, and unlawful activities as a means to establish a secure, dependable and transparent tourism space. These policies are indicative of institutional determination and help create institutional long term destination credibility in terms of deterring opportunistic practices in the tourism system.

Flexible revitalization policies on the other hand will have an incentive oriented, participatory approach with the aim of improving the experiences of the tourists and increasing the demand [41]. These comprise/ consist of financial subsidies and promotion and discounts of tickets and quality of services and cultural participation. Compared to the rigid ones, flexible policies can specifically address needs, preferences, and feelings of tourists and can even frame a destination as a place that is friendly, hospitable, and oriented towards its visitors [42]. It has already been emphasized by previous research studies how research-supported such strategies are effective in restoring the intention to travel, notably, during post-crisis situations, when they promote positive affective reactions and perceived reduced travel risks [43,44].

Empirical studies have revealed that service improvement and other demand-side policy instruments, including monetary incentives, promotion campaigns, and perceived cost reduction, can affect the behavioral intention of tourists and generate it in a significant positive way [31]. Remedial, incentive-based approaches tend to work best in post-crisis or recovery situations, whereby the destination insecurity and uncertainty among tourists are elevated [45]. Conversely, although the regulatory and enforcement-based policies can enhance the institutional purity of a destination, they are less prone to any immediate behavior change because of less flexibilities, slower to reflect, and poorer in communicating their value to the tourists [46]. Given this evidence, it is likely that the tongue will have a more direct and strong impact with the motivation of the tourists to travel with the implementation of flexible policies of revitalization. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Flexible revitalization policy will trigger stronger travel behavioral intention compared to rigid revitalization policy.

The mediation effect of social judgments

The considerations of the destination by the tourists are not just determined by the tourism products and services but also about the perception of the manner in which a destination is governed [47]. In the stereotype content model, governance practices are salient social signals, which trigger warmth- and competence-based evaluations of collective actors. In line with this, one can anticipate that various revitalization policy styles will result in the creation of various social judgments, which subsequently influences the travel behavioral intentions of tourists.

Rigid revitalization policies lay emphasis on compliance of rules, standardization and efficiency of the process [15,48]. These qualities are indications of great administrative ability and coordination, which is associated with the competence dimension of social judgment. According to the previous research, regulation and efficiency-based governance generally reflects on professionalism and competence [49]. Perceived destination competence lessens uncertainty, boosts belief in reliability of the services to be received and boosts expectations of competently managed tourism experience, thus boosting the movement behavior intentions of the visitor in the tourism industry.

Compared to this, flexible revitalization policy emphasises flexibility, responsiveness as well as sensitivity to stakeholder needs [15,50]. These attributes are in line with the warmth dimension because they portray benevolent overtones coupled with people-focused governance orientation. Available literature indicates that the perceived warmth is also elevated with inclusive and responsive governance practices, which indicate care, approachability and trustworthiness in the practices [51,52]. Such warmth perceptions, in tourism decision-making, create the feeling of emotional attachment and belief towards the destination, which are instrumental factors in generating positive behavioral intentions of travel.

Combined, based on the stereotype content model, this experimental proposal hypothesizes that the styles of the revitalization policy affect the intentions of tourists to travel around in an indirect manner based on the dissimilar social judgment routes. In particular, the perceived competence can be boosted by strict policies, the perceived warmth can be boosted by flexible policies, and these perceptions are dominant mediating variables between designing a policy and the intention to travel. Accordingly, we hypothesize:

H2: Social judgement mediates the relationship between revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

H2a: Perceived warmth mediates the relationship between flexible revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

H2b: Perceived competence mediates the relationship between rigid revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

The moderations effect of temporal distance

The study on travel decision-making has confirmed the central role of temporal factors, especially the planning horizon, in the acquisition, processing and evaluation of information among the tourists. The temporal construal theory is one theoretical lenses to be used to explain this influence [27,29]. It hypothesizes that cognitive construal is systematically influenced by psychological distance: a decision regarding the distant future is based on high-level, abstract characteristics (e.g., core values of a destination, institutional credibility, long-term reliability), whereas a decision regarding the near future depends on low-level, concrete characteristics (e.g., immediate convenience and situational feasibility) [19].

It follows within this point of view that the social judgment processes that are elicited by various policy styles are critically moderated by temporal distance. Interestingly, there is a difference in the nature of the policies of rigid and flexible revitalization in terms of the nature of their time orientation. Rigid policies are normally developed with the introduction of long term effects based on continued enforcement, standardization and continuity of the institution [48,53]. The characteristics are congruent with the distant-future decisions, in which the tourists form high-level construal and value enduring and long-lasting destination characteristics. Rigid policies in these situations serve as reckonings of governance and order in the processes [30,32], hence reinforcing their influence through the perceived competence route. The example of this is through the multi-year safety accreditation scheme of a destination; the scheme enhances trust in the managerial ability of the destination with regard to next year travel considerations.

On the other hand, the aim of the flexible policies is frequently to create a greater amount of short term, situational gains by focusing more on adaptability, responsiveness, and facilitation in the short term [15]. The closer the travel time, the closer to low construal tourist changes to be and to pay closer attention to the concrete experiential details they can. Limited-time offerings, flexible terms of booking, or responsive adjustments of the services are flexible policy instruments that directly adjust to these short-term needs [54]. By doing this they indicate concern and visitor orientation and intensify policy impacts in the warmth-based perceived pathway [30,52]. As an example, a discount that is given when returning to visit to a destination on a coming weekend can increase the perceptions of care and welcome of the destination. Accordingly, we hypothesize:

H3: Temporal distance moderates the mediation effect of social judgments between revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

H3a: When temporal distance is short, flexible revitalization policy will activate stronger travel behavioral intention through the mediation effect of perceived warmth.

H3b: When temporal distance is long, rigid revitalization policy will activate stronger travel behavioral intention through the mediation effect of perceived competence.

Temporal distance also primes the global preference of tourists in various policy styles using a construal fit mechanism [19,29]. According to previous studies, it is easy to make a decision when there is agreement between the rationales of an option and situational performance, coupled with the intensity of construal [34]. Such alignment helps people to have a higher cognitive fluency and evaluative consistency, leading to a heightened behavioral intention.

The flexible revitalization policies are generally context-sensitive, elaborate, and adaptive governance provisions [15,16]. They focus on short-term modulations, sensitivity to timely demands, and task-dependent modulations, which are more features related to the low-level construal [33]. Therefore, in cases where temporal distance is low and where the tourists are concerned with tangible viability and direct experience, the flexible policies are more inclined to appeal to the decision frame and evoke better intentions to travel behavior.

Rigid revitalization policies on the contrary are more abstract in nature and general and holistic [35]. They are based on regular rules, consistent structures, and structural institutional patterns and this feature corresponds with high-level construal. Tourists are prone to consider destinations in terms of their overarching structure, predictability, and reliability when making the decisions that relate to traveling in distant future. In this case, rigid policies will offer a superior construal fit and consequently resonate more in the generation of travel behavioral intentions. Accordingly, we propose that:

H4: Temporal distance moderates the relationship between destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

H4a: When temporal distance is short, tourists may have a stronger travel behavioral intention of flexible (vs. rigid) revitalization policy.

H4b: When temporal distance is long, tourists may have a stronger travel behavioral intention of rigid (vs. flexible) revitalization policy.

Building on the above literature, this study proposes a conceptual model that delineates the mediating and moderating mechanisms through which destination revitalization policies influence tourists’ behavioral intention (see Fig 1). The proposed hypotheses were tested across seven studies (see Table 1). A pilot study using semi-structured interviews explored the impacts of rigid and flexible policies and provided initial insights into the mediating role of social judgments. Study 1a, 1b employed scenario-based experiments to establish the main effect. Study 2 and Study 3 further validated the mediating roles of perceived warmth and perceived competence. Study 4 and Study 5 extended the findings by examining the moderating effect of temporal distance, thereby enriching the theoretical and empirical contributions of the model.

Fig 1. Theoretical framework.

Fig 1

Source: Author’s own work.

Table 1. Outline of studies.

Hypotheses

Test
Study IV

manipulation
DV

operationalization
Samples
Main effect

(H1)
Pilot study Non Non 64 on-site tourists
Study 1a

(see Appendix in S1 File)
policy announcement

(graphics)
Measurement of TBI 100 online tourists
Study 1b

(see Appendix in S1 File)
policy news video

(video)
Receive coupons or not 87 on-site tourists
Mediate effect

(H1-H2)
Study 2 policy announcement

(graphics)
Measurement of TBI 270 online tourists
Study 3 policy news video

(video)
Receive coupons or not 265 on-site tourists
Moderated effect

(H1-H3)
Study 4 policy news video

(video)
Measurement of TBI 420 on-site tourists
Study 5

(see Appendix in S1 File)
policy announcement

(graphics)
Receive coupons or not 500 online tourists

Note: TBI = travel behavioral intention.

Pilot study

The pilot study was meant to examine the perception of destination revitalization policies by the tourists and their perception in relation to social judgment and intentions to travel. Because of the exploratory type of the stage, qualitative design exploration using semi-structured interviews was chosen to produce first approximate empirical information, and shape the design of the following scenario-oriented experiments.

Method

Research procedure and samples.

The interviews were conducted between October 6 and October 11, 2023. Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling technique, which is commonly employed in exploratory tourism research to access individuals with relevant travel experience and to enhance participants’ willingness to share detailed perceptions [55]. The first respondents were chosen on the basis of the professional and social networks of the researchers and on the node of the recommended respondents that will qualify as the study participants.

In order to achieve the relevance to the research objectives, the participants the following selection criteria were put: (1) they had already been to a destination and had at least one leisure trip in the last two years; (2) they could be conversant with specific destination revitalization policy-related information (e.g., safety and tourism recovery regulations, promotional policies) via media or through their own experience; (3) they were able to talk about their perceptions of destinations revitalization policies and related travel intentions.

There were 64 tourists that took part in the study. The interviews were carried out through telephone, and the rest of those were in person. Before the commencement of the interviews, study participants were told the purpose of research, contents of the interview and the free will to participate. All the respondents were informed verbally and provided their informed consent. In telephone interviews, the consent was audio-recorded, whereas in face-to-face interviews, it was provided orally on the presence of a research assistant.

The average duration took during the interviews was five to eight minutes and was recorded sound. The contents of all the recordings were transcribed word-to-word to be analyzed later. A description of the profiles of the interviewees is presented in Appendix E in S1 File.

Research instruments.

In advance research, there were studies on tourism policy perception and social judgment and based on this, a semi-structured interview guide was created [31]. The interview protocol addressed three thematic areas aiming to capture the perceptions of the implementation approach of the destination revitalization policies; (1) the travel behavioral intentions; (2) social judgment about the various implementation approaches of the revitalization policies. Appendix B in S1 File reports the interview plan and the coding scheme.

For data analysis, a systematic coding procedure was applied. Following established qualitative research practices [56], two doctoral students independently and blindly coded interview transcripts. Based on classifications used in prior studies [57], statements referring to revitalization policies were coded as rigid (1) or flexible (0). Perceived warmth, perceived competence, and travel behavioral intention were coded dichotomously (1 = present; 0 = absent).

Inter-coder reliability exceeded 95% [58]. For the small number of inconsistent coding cases, three postgraduate students and one professor of tourism management jointly reviewed the transcripts and reached a consensus. Examples of the coding process are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Coding examples of the original interview statements (Pilot study).
Construct Coding Interview statements (interviewee)
Destination revitalization policy Rigid policy (1) “Formation of law enforcement teams to eliminate vicious incidents in scenic spots.” (Interviewee 12, female)
Flexible policy (0) “Free admission for visitors, hotel discounts, easy parking.” (Interviewee 29, female)
Perceived competence Perceived competence (1) “This reflects local capacity and capability.” (Interviewee 16, female)
No perceived competence (0) “This is the responsibility of every scenic government.” (Interviewee 26, male)
Perceived warmth Perceived warmth (1) “The city is very welcoming and serves the people.” (Interviewee 19, male)
No perceived warmth (0) “None of these appeals to me enough. I’m more interested in the landscape.” (Interviewee 15, female)
Travel behavioral intention Generate intention (1) “If I ever get the chance, I’ll definitely travel here.” (Interviewee 21, male)
No generate intention (0) “Personally, I don’t feel it would increase my willingness to travel.” (Interviewee 09, female)

Findings

Among the 64 respondents, 36 participants referred primarily to rigid destination revitalization policies, while 28 participants referred to flexible policies. Of those discussing rigid policies, 97.22% expressed perceptions of competence, and 2.78% expressed perceptions of warmth. In contrast, among respondents referring to flexible policies, 89.29% expressed perceptions of warmth, and 10.71% expressed perceptions of competence.

Chi-square test results indicated statistically significant differences between rigid and flexible policies with respect to perceived warmth (χ²(1) = 41.94, p < 0.001), perceived competence (χ²(1) = 41.52, p < 0.001), and travel behavioral intention (χ²(1) = 4.53, p = 0.033). These results are illustrated in Fig 2.

Fig 2. The impact of implementation approach of tourism destinations’ revitalization policy on tourists perceived warmth and perceived competence (pilot study).

Fig 2

Source: Author’s own work.

Discussion

The interview results indicate that tourists form different social judgments under different destination revitalization policies, providing preliminary support for H1 and H2. Specifically, flexible policies are more frequently associated with perceived warmth, whereas rigid policies are more strongly linked to perceived competence. Moreover, flexible revitalization policies evoke a higher level of travel behavioral intention (96.43%) than rigid policies (80.56%, see Fig 2).

Study 2

Study 2 employed a scenario-based online experiment to test the main effects of destination revitalization policy style and the mediating roles of perceived warmth and perceived competence, as well as the moderating effect of temporal distance. A between-subjects experimental design (rigid vs. flexible) was adopted, in which participants were randomly assigned to one of the policy conditions.

Research procedure and samples

Study 2 employed a scenario-based online experiment to examine the effects of destination revitalization policy type (rigid vs. flexible) on tourists’ travel behavioral intentions and the mediating role of social judgments. Participants were recruited from December 9th, 2023 to January 9th, 2024 through Credamo.com, a widely used professional online survey platform in China that supports randomized assignment and participant screening [31].

Participation was entirely voluntary. Before accessing the questionnaire, all participants were provided with a detailed explanation of the research purpose, procedure, data usage, anonymity, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants could only continue with the study after giving an informed consent. No other data that entailed personal privacy or information that can be identified as belonging to particular individuals were collected other than basic demographic data (e.g., age and gender).

The Ethics Committee of the School of Tourism and Urban Rural Planning, Jishou University revised and approved the study protocol, which included the participant recruitment, consent protocol, and experimental materials. Participation was done with informed consent which was obtained electronically.

There were 270 valid responses (Nrigid = 135; Nflexible = 135). The participants were selected randomly to take part in either of the two experimental conditions. The sample consisted of 67% female and 33% male respondents, with the largest age group being 26–35 years (44.4%). Detailed demographic information is reported in Table 2.

Research instruments

The experimental stimuli described a fictitious destination (“City A”) and a hypothetical traveler (“Xiaoli”) to avoid confounding effects of prior destination familiarity or real-world experiences [59]. Participants were instructed to imagine that Xiaoli had learned about City A’s destination revitalization policy through online information prior to making a travel decision.

Two versions of destination revitalization policy were designed to reflect rigid and flexible policy styles, respectively. Both versions shared the same structure, layout, and policy domains (tourism order, marketing order, and tourism safety) but differed systematically in policy tone and implementation approach.

In the rigid policy condition, the policy emphasized rule enforcement, standardization, and formal regulation (e.g., strengthening law enforcement teams, cracking down on illegal operations, and strictly regulating market order). In the flexible policy condition, the policy emphasized guidance, service facilitation, and adaptive support (e.g., establishing tourist service desks, expanding volunteer service teams, and promoting honest business practices and positive incentives). These materials were presented visually in the form of policy posters to enhance realism and consistency across conditions (see Appendix C in S1 File).

Participants were asked to read and imagine according to the scenarios and complete a four-part questionnaire. In order to ensure participants could accurately understand all scales, we used a formal backtranslation process [60]. Then they answered questions about scenario authenticity and evaluated scales of key variables (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Questions about the scenario authenticity were adapted from Yi et al. [61], including “1. For me, there is no difficulty in understanding the given situation of the material” and “2. In real life such a scene could happen”. For manipulation checks, participants were first informed of the definitions of rigid versus flexible policy and were asked to evaluate to what extent they agree with two statements: “I believe that the policies enacted by the city are rigid/flexible”. Third, travel behavioral intention was measured by a 5-item scale (e.g., “I expect to travel to the destination in the future”; Cronbach’s α = 0.90) adapted from Su et al. [62]. After measuring the independent variables, six items (adapted from Chang & Kim [63]) were used to measure the perceived warmth (I feel that destination A is “warmth”, “friendly” and “kind”; Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and perceived competence (I feel that destination A is “competence”, “capable” and “efficient”; Cronbach’s α = 0.94). Then, participants were asked to answer basic demographic questions. Finally, participants who completed the questionnaire received a small compensation through Credamo. Full measurement items are listed in Appendix D in S1 File.

Results.

Manipulation Check. Independent-sample t-tests confirmed that participants clearly distinguished between the two policy conditions based on the experimental stimuli. Specifically, the rigid revitalization policy was perceived as significantly more rigid than the flexible policy (Mrigid = 5.61 vs. Mflexible = 2.08, t = 21.17, p < 0.001), whereas the flexible revitalization policy was perceived as significantly more flexible than the rigid policy (Mflexible = 6.20 vs. Mrigid = 2.49, t = −23.09, p < 0.001).

Main Effects of Policy Type. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test Hypotheses H1–H3. The results revealed significant differences between policy types in perceived warmth (F(1, 268) = 152.70, p < 0.001, η² = 0.36), perceived competence (F(1, 268) = 63.02, p < 0.001, η² = 0.19), and travel behavioral intention (F(1, 268) = 7.80, p < 0.01, η² = 0.28). Compared with rigid policies, flexible policies elicited higher travel behavioral intention (Mflexible = 5.80, SD = 0.81; Mrigid = 5.47, SD = 1.10) and stronger perceived warmth (Mflexible = 6.00, SD = 0.77; Mrigid = 4.03, SD = 1.69). In contrast, rigid policies generated higher perceived competence than flexible policies (Mrigid = 5.97, SD = 0.88; Mflexible = 4.60, SD = 1.80). These results support H1 and provide preliminary evidence for H2a and H2b.

Mediation Analysis. To further examine the mediating effects, a mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS Model 4 [64]. The independent variable of the policy type (rigid = 1, flexible = 0), perceived warmth and perceived competence as parallel mediators, and travel behavioral intention as the dependent variable were identified. The direct effect of policy type on travel behavioral intention was significant (b = −0.33, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [−0.56, −0.11]). Both indirect effects were also significant: perceived warmth (b = −0.29, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.49, −0.11]) and perceived competence (b = 0.17, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27]). These results suggest that the perceived warm and perceived competence mediate to some extent the relationship between the type of destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention which supports H2 (see Fig 3).

Fig 3. Mediating effects of perceived warmth and perceived competence.

Fig 3

Source: Author’s own work.

Control variable and alternative explanation.

Given that traveler knowledge contributes to lessening the uncertainty in travel, and that consumer tastes and actions are determined by tourist knowledge [65], and since age-related variations can possibly influence consumer attitudes and behaviors [66], both age and tourist knowledge were incorporated as the control variables. Tourist knowledge was measured using a three-item scale adapted from Wong and Yeh [66] (Cronbach’s α = 0.84).

After controlling for these variables, the influence of destination revitalization policy type on perceived warmth, perceived competence and travel behavioral intention were still significant (perceived warmth: F(1, 266) = 154.87, p < 0.001; perceived competence: F(1, 266) = 60.75, p < 0.001; travel behavioral intention: F(1, 266) = 5.89, p = 0.02). Further mediating the process analyses based on PROCESS Model 4 showed that neither tourist knowledge (b = −0.07, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.18, 0.03]) nor the age (b = −0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.04]) has a significant mediating effect in terms of the relationship between destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

Discussion.

Study 2 validated the main effects and showed that flexible (vs. rigid) policies enhanced perceived warmth, whereas rigid (vs. flexible) policies enhanced perceived competence, both of which partially mediated their respective effects on travel behavioral intention. The results supporting H1 and H2.

Study 3

To enhance the external validity of the findings and address the limitations of prior scenario-based online experiments, Study 3 adopted a field-based experimental design using video stimuli and a behavioral outcome measure.

Research procedure and samples

Data were collected on site in the core scenic area of Zhangjiajie from 09/01/2024 to 18/01/2024. A field intercept sampling technique was employed to recruit tourists who were actively visiting the destination. Potential participants were approached by trained research assistants in various times of the time of the day at predetermined points (e.g., at the entrances of the scenic areas, at rest spots and waiting zones). Screening of the participants was done on the following criteria: (1) age, i.e., they had to be at least 18 years; (2) visiting the destination in leisure; (3) the participant had to be in a position to watch a short video and answer the questionnaire on their own.

Before the respondents participated, they were made aware of the scholarly intention of the research, voluntariness of the proposed study and how they could voluntarily pull out anytime without any form of penalty. Data collection was started through informed consent which was informed verbally. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Tourism and Urban Rural Planning, Jishou University. No personal privacy information was collected beyond necessary demographic variables.

Once the consent was obtained, the participants were assigned, randomly, to either one of two experimental conditions (rigid revitalization policy and flexible revitalization policy). They were exposed to the specified video stimulus on a tablet with headphones and then were asked to fill in a short questionnaire. In order to obtain the travel behavioral intention with the help of the behavioral indicator instead of self-report alone, the participants could be provided with a hotel accommodation voucher of RMB 50 and inquired whether they expect to accept it [67]. The behavioral outcome was the development of an acceptance of the coupon.

A total of 265 valid responses were received (53.6% female; 40.8% aged 36–45), with 129 participants assigned to the rigid-policy condition and 136 to the flexible-policy condition.

Research instruments

Two video stimulus materials were constructed to depict the direct policies of revitalizing destinations which are rigid and flexible. The rigid-policy video rested on the put-principle-based tourism governance practices of Zhangjiajie which focus on strict control, uniform action and following of rules and regulations. The flexible-policy video was based on how Zibo governs its tourism services when it experienced a boom of barbecue tourism, which emphasized on friendliness, adaptability, and visitor-oriented services. The two videos were balanced against length, narrative form, presentation style and density of information in order to control extraneous variation (see Appendix C in S1 File).

After the video exposure, the participants filled out measurement scales in terms of perceived warmth, perceived competence, and control variables. The behavioral intention of travel was defined as a real choice behavior, which was represented by the uptake of hotel accommodation coupon.

The items of the questionnaires were formally back-translated into a different language to have linguistic equivalence and meaning. At the final of the questionnaire, demographic variables such as age and gender were gathered.

Results.

Manipulation Check. An independent samples t-test tested the effectiveness of the policy manipulation. The subjects in the rigid policy condition felt that the policy is much more rigid compared to the individuals in the flexible policy condition (Mrigid = 5.68, Mflexible = 2.31; t = 25.53, p < 0.001) which indicated that there was successful differentiation between the rigid and flexible policy environment.

Main Effects of Policy Type. The results of one-way ANOVA showed significant difference among the participants in terms of social judgments among different policy conditions. Participants in the flexible policy condition reported significantly higher perceived warmth (M = 5.33, SD = 1.48) than those in the rigid policy condition (M = 2.84, SD = 1.51; F(1, 268) = 152.70, p < 0.001, η² = 0.36). Conversely, participants exposed to the rigid policy condition reported higher perceived competence (M = 5.84, SD = 0.91) than those exposed to the flexible policy condition (M = 3.13, SD = 1.50; F(1, 268) = 63.02, p < 0.001, η² = 0.19).

Behavioral Outcome. To assess travel behavioral intention using a behavioral indicator, a binary logistic regression was conducted with coupon acceptance as the dependent variable. Results showed that policy type significantly predicted participants’ willingness to accept the coupon (B = 0.69, Wald = 4.00, p = 0.046 < 0.05). Specifically, participants in the flexible policy condition exhibited a higher acceptance rate (86.96%) than those in the rigid policy condition (80.31%), providing further support for H1.

Mediation Analysis. The mediating roles of perceived warmth and perceived competence were examined using PROCESS macro Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrap samples. The results indicated a significant direct effect of policy type on behavioral intention (β = −0.49, SE = 0.12; 95% CI [−0.72, −0.25]). In addition, both perceived warmth (β = −0.29, SE = 0.10; 95% CI [−0.50, −0.12]) and perceived competence (β = −0.48, SE = 0.13; 95% CI [−0.74, −0.24]) exhibited significant indirect effects. These findings support H2a and H2b (see Table 3).

Table 3. Mediation analysis results (Study 3).
M1(PW) M2(PC) Y(TBI)
β SE LLCI ULCI β SE LLCI ULCI β SE LLCI ULCI
Constant 5.33 0.13 5.08 5.58 3.13 0.11 2.92 3.34 5.87 0.08 5.71 6.03
X(RP) −2.49 0.18 −2.85 −2.13 2.71 0.15 2.41 3.01 −0.49 0.12 −0.72 −0.25
M1(PW) – – – – – – – – 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.19
M2(PC) – – – – – – – – −0.18 0.05 −0.27 −0.09
R2 = 0.41, F (1, 263) = 183.18,

p < .001
R2 = 0.54, F (1, 263) = 311.05,

p < .001
R2 = 0.06, F (1, 263) = 16.98,

p < .001
Indirect effect Effect SE LLCI ULCI
PR → PW → TI −0.29 0.10 −0.50 −0.12
PR → PC → TI −0.48 0.13 −0.74 −0.24

Note: RP = revitalization policy; PW = perceived warmth; PC = perceived competence; TBI = travel behavioral intention; LLCI = lower limit of confident interval; ULCI = upper limit of confident interval.

Control variable and alternative explanation.

Given the use of video-based stimuli, two media-related factors that may influence tourists’ attitudes and behavioral responses were controlled: sense of presence and emotional arousal. Sense of presence has been shown to shape users’ perceptions and behaviors in virtual environments and to enhance destination image and visit likelihood in destination marketing contexts [68]. It was measured using four items adapted from Verhagen et al. [69] (Cronbach’s α = 0.82). Emotional arousal, which plays an important role in decision-making and is commonly elicited in tourism marketing communications, was measured using five items adapted from Jiang et al. [70] (Cronbach’s α = 0.86).

When these variables were included as covariates, ANCOVA results indicated that the effects of policy type on perceived warmth (F(1, 261) = 188.75, p < 0.001, η² = 0.42), perceived competence (F(1, 261) = 307.87, p < 0.001, η² = 0.54), and travel behavioral intention (F(1, 261) = 17.26, p < 0.001, η² = 0.06) remained significant. Additional mediation analyses using PROCESS Model 4 further showed that neither sense of presence (b = −0.0003, SE = 0.01; 95% CI [−0.01, 0.03]) nor arousal (b = −0.003, SE = 0.01; 95% CI [−0.03, 0.02]) significantly mediated the relationship between destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention.

Discussion.

Building on the limitations of Study 2, Study 3 employed a field experiment with actual tourists to improve external and ecological validity. To mitigate the intention–behavior gap, a hotel accommodation coupon was used as a behavioral proxy for travel intention. Together, these design choices enhance the real-world relevance of the findings and offer stronger behavioral support for the effects of destination revitalization policy.

Study 4

Study 4 was conducted to examine whether temporal distance moderates the effect of destination revitalization policy type on tourists’ behavioral responses. To gain external validity and achieve behaviorally based results, the present paper used a field experiment on real tourists and the admission of a scenic spot on a coupon of discounted travel ticket as an approximation of actual world travel behavioral intention.

Research procedure and samples

Study 4 adopted a 2 (policy type: rigid vs. flexible) × 2 (temporal distance: short vs. long) between-subjects experimental design. Data were collected from 28 January 2024 to 16 February 2024 in the core scenic area of Zhangjiajie. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Tourism and Urban Rural Planning, Jishou University.

Tourists visiting the destination during the data collection period were approached on-site by trained research assistants and invited to participate in the study. Participation was entirely voluntary. Before the experiment began, all potential participants were informed of the academic purpose of the study, the anonymous nature of the data collection, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to participation.

A total of 420 tourists completed the experiment (66.7% male; 51.4% aged 36–45). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. To capture behavioral intention in a realistic manner, a scenic spot admission discount coupon valued at RMB 100 was offered, and participants’ travel behavioral intention was operationalized as their decision to accept or decline the coupon.

Research instruments

Policy type was manipulated using the same video-based stimulus materials developed and validated in Study 3, representing rigid versus flexible destination revitalization policies. The two videos were matched in length, presentation style, and informational structure to control for extraneous variation.

Temporal distance was manipulated by explicitly specifying the timing of the hypothetical trip in the experimental scenario. Participants in the short temporal distance condition were instructed to imagine visiting the destination in the following week, whereas those in the long temporal distance condition were asked to imagine the trip occurring 12 months later, following established operationalizations in prior research (e.g., Sano et al. [30]).

Following the watching of the allocated video and the reading of the temporal framing, the subjects stated the willingness to accept the discount coupon of scenic spot admission. This dichotomous option was used as the behavioral variable of the purpose of traveling. The nearly final part of the questionnaire was used to gather demographic data.

Results.

Manipulation checks. The power analysis, with G*Power 3.1, before the hypothesis testing showed that the minimum sample size was 111 participants in a two-way ANCOVA (f = 0.40, α = 0.05, power = 0.80, four groups) [71]. The size of the final sample was beyond this value and thus sufficient statistical power. Independent-samples t-tests confirmed the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations. Participants clearly distinguished between rigid and flexible policies (Mrigid = 5.31, SD = 1.41; Mflexible = 2.15, SD = 0.73; t = 29.00, p < 0.001), as well as between short and long temporal distance conditions (Mshort = 2.23, SD = 0.97; Mlong = 5.99, SD = 0.72; t = 45.26, p < 0.001).

Interaction effects of policy type and temporal distance. A 2 × 2 ANCOVA was conducted with policy type and temporal distance as independent variables, monthly income and education as covariates, and tourists’ social judgments and behavioral responses as dependent variables. The results revealed significant interaction effects between policy type and temporal distance (see Figs 4 and 5).

Fig 4. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention (Study 4).

Fig 4

Source: Author’s own work.

Fig 5. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of social judgements and travel behavioral intention (Study 4).

Fig 5

Source: Author’s own work.

Under short temporal distance, flexible policies generated significantly higher perceived warmth (M = 5.70, SD = 0.69) than rigid policies (M = 4.05, SD = 1.45; F(1, 416) = 35.58, p < 0.001, η² = 0.08). Consistently, binary logistic regression analysis showed that participants exposed to flexible policies were more likely to accept the discount coupon (74.80%) than those exposed to rigid policies (63.80%) (B = 1.09, Wald = 22.91, p < 0.001).

In contrast, under long temporal distance, rigid policies elicited significantly higher perceived competence (M = 5.30, SD = 1.12) than flexible policies (M = 3.95, SD = 1.52; F(1, 416) = 29.35, p < 0.001, η² = 0.07). Similarly, participants in the rigid policy condition exhibited a higher coupon acceptance rate (81.00%) than those in the flexible condition (70.50%) (B = 0.80, Wald = 13.69, p < 0.001). These results provide empirical support for the moderating role of temporal distance.

Moderated mediation analysis. To further examine the proposed moderated mediation effects, PROCESS Model 7 with 5,000 bootstrap samples was employed. The results showed that the indirect effect of perceived warmth was significant under short temporal distance (β = −0.47, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [−0.64, −0.31]) but not under long temporal distance (β = −0.03, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.09]). The index of moderated mediation was significant (β = 0.43, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.24, 0.66]).

Conversely, the indirect effect of perceived competence was significant under long temporal distance (β = 0.61, SE = 0.12, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86]) but not under short temporal distance (β = 0.09, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.18]). The corresponding index of moderated mediation was also significant (β = 0.52, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.30, 0.79]), providing further support for the proposed moderated mediation hypotheses.

Control variable and alternative explanation.

Monthly income and education level were controlled for to account for potential demographic influences on travel-related decision-making. A 2 × 2 ANCOVA was conducted with policy type and temporal distance as independent variables, and monthly income and education level as covariates. The interaction effects between policy type and temporal distance remained significant for perceived warmth (F(1, 414) = 37.53, p < 0.001, η² = 0.08), perceived competence (F(1, 414) = 27.90, p < 0.001, η² = 0.06), and travel behavioral intention (F(1, 414) = 277.34, p < 0.001, η² = 0.40).

Conclusions and implications

Overall discussion

This study adopts a multi method design to test the effectiveness of destination revitalization policies. This pilot study conducted in-depth interviews with 64 tourists to determine different social judgments related to rigid and flexible policies. Study 2 conducted an online scenario based experiment on 270 potential tourists to determine the main policy effects. Study 3 further validated the mediating effect of perceived warmth and ability using a large-scale experimental sample of 265 participants. Based on these findings, Study 4 conducted field experiments on 420 on-site tourists, demonstrating that time distance moderates the impact of policies on behavioral intentions.

Theoretical implications

This study makes three primary theoretical contributions by clarifying how destination revitalization policies operate as psychological signals, identifying the underlying social judgment mechanisms, and specifying the temporal conditions under which these mechanisms are most influential.

First, the available literature has mainly focused on revitalization policies as a tool of an institution to post-crisis recovery [11,12], to achieve competitiveness [36,37], or to have governance restructured [72–74]. Although knowledgeable, this line of studies has actually accounted except in small part, on the fact that policy effectiveness is attributable to structural or functional form, given little consideration as to how tourists think and feel about policy signals. Conceptualizing the revitalization polices as a symbolic, governing, signal and empirically differentiating between rigid and flexible policy styles [15,16], the paper proves that two policy styles of more or less similar objectives can have different behavioral effects since they trigger different social meanings. The discovery enhances the current policy frameworks by providing a behavioral and perceptions explainable finding, and thus, the research that is a destination governance and the tourist decision-making theory converge together.

Second, in pre-SCM studies, judgment about warmth and competence has mostly been induced when social groups [75], social groups [76], or organizational actors [20,77] are involved as readily recognizable social targets. On the contrary, the formation of these basic social judgments in situations where evaluative targets are in the form of impersonal but authoritative public policy is theoretically poorly articulated. The SCM applications in tourism have also focused on comparatively steady destination images instead of the dynamic interventions of policy. This research article demonstrates that warmth and competence judgments are systematically used by tourists in order to decode revitalization policies and that flexible policies induce warmth perceptions and rigid induce competence perceptions. Noteworthy, these dimensions serve as independent mediating variables between the policy design and the travel behavioral intention. This study takes SCM out of that domain by exposing how tourists anthropomorphize the styles of governance and analyze them using the key dimensions of essential social judgment and clarifying the explanatory effects it has on institutions and its practices in policy settings.

Third, research into policy evaluation has also focused, mainly, on policy content, instruments, or outcome indicators of governance [78,79], and typically, policy effects are assumed to be constant between the different decision stages. Policies judgments in the context of tourism have also been concerned with instantaneous attitudes or aggregate behavioral reactions but there has been little theoretical consideration of how time constraint of decision making affects the inherent interpretation of policy cues. Using the temporal construal theory, this research proves that the temporal distance conditionally stimulates the manner in which tourists assess governance styles implicated in revitalization policies. Temporally adjacent travel decisions lead tourists to use more affective, experience-related cues related to warmth; temporally distant travel decisions lead to the increasing significance of abstract and capability related decision making cues. This research contributes to a more dynamic conception of policy appraisal in the tourism industry by demonstrating that effectiveness of governance styles is not only a factor of policy formulation, but also temporal orientations of tourists.

Practical implications

This research shows that flexible revitalization policies were better in temporally close decision making situations since they mainly trigger a sense of warmth and immediacy. The case of Zibo is such an example, with people-focused and highly dynamic responses, including a tolerant regulation of street vendors and responsive services to the visitors, initiating a massive rise in the number of visitors in this span of two months in early 2023, attracting over 5 million visitors. In line with our results, policies that imply warmth are proven to be an effective way to spur the demand on short-term travel, but their effects were challenging to maintain as the news of the significance of this policy started to lose its popularity in the public.

In comparison, the example of rigid tourism governance in Zhangjiajie depicts how rigid revitalization policies have their strategic position in the development of the long-term destination. The destination gained considerable competence, safety, and institutional reliability perceptions by keeping tourist complaints down (by over 60%) through long-term enforcement of the regulations, market standardization and protection of visitors, as well as, keeping the satisfaction high levels. As postulated by our findings, the competence-signaling policies have a stronger effect in decision situations that are more temporally remote, with tourists depriving themselves to more abstract measures of the quality of governance.

The flexible and rigid revitalization policies, however, play a complementary strategic role in the implementation process and do not represent a simple dichotomous decision. One can use flexible and warmth-focused policies to help new destinations with less brand recognition gain market share as quickly as possible and to help smaller-known destinations activate demand on a short-term basis.

Compared to that, in the mature destinations or a destination which places more emphasis on long-term sustainability, competence-oriented policies which are rigid offer a stronger base. In the end, both need to rely on efficient destination governance; their strict combination must be established as a base of the long-term planning and institutional responsibility whereas the loose policies may be selectively used as short-term tools to react to the market environment and provoke the immediate interest of tourists.

Research limitations and future research directions

This research has various limitations that are subject to additional research. First, the entire sample data were gathered in China, where the cultural aspects could have affected the responsiveness of the respondents to the nature of revitalization policies. In the future, the samples used in our study should encompass different cultural settings to determine the generalizability of our results. Second, even though the conditions associated with this study were founded on real-life experiences and provided a behavioral test of the intentions to travel, the findings represent the subjective assessment of the participants according to the available materials. These results can be confirmed by future research based on big data analysis or case studies since more objective results would be obtained. Lastly, the current research identified temporal distance as the moderator between revitalization policies and the effects in the social judgments and travel intentions. Other possible moderators, though, which were not studied included destination reputation [25], perceived familiarity [80], and destination attractiveness [81]. Future studies can be conducted on the interaction of these factors with revitalization policies to determine the effects on travel behavior in various situations.

Conclusion

Based on the stereotype content model, this paper contributes to the systematic investigation of the influencing role of destination revitalization policy types on the travel behavioral intentions of tourists. Across multiple studies, results indicate that, in all cases, flexible revitalization policy sounds greater than strict policy in creation of travel intentions. This effect operates through distinct social judgment pathways: flexible policies primarily enhance perceived warmth, whereas rigid policies strengthen perceived competence. Besides, temporal distance is a boundary condition that is critical. When travel decisions are temporally proximal, tourists rely more on warmth-based judgments, amplifying the positive impact of flexible policies. In contrast, under greater temporal distance, competence-based judgments become more salient, increasing the effectiveness of rigid policies. By integrating social judgment mechanisms with temporal construal, this research advances understanding of how governance-related policy signals influence tourist decision-making. The results offer actionable implications for destination management organizations in designing context-sensitive revitalization strategies that align with tourists’ psychological evaluation processes.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Rigid policy condition stimuli of Studies 1a, 2, 5.

(TIF)

pone.0348289.s001.tif (350.7KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Flexible policy condition stimuli of Studies 1a, 2, 5.

(TIF)

pone.0348289.s002.tif (311.8KB, tif)
S3 Fig. The influence of group type of revitalization policy on tourists’ travel behavioral intention (Study 1a).

(TIF)

pone.0348289.s003.tif (418.6KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention (Study 5).

(TIF)

pone.0348289.s004.tif (177.4KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of social judgements and travel behavioral intention (Study 5).

(TIF)

pone.0348289.s005.tif (211.5KB, tif)
S1 File. Appendix.

This appendix contains summary information of Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Appendix A), interview outline for pilot study (Appendix B), experimental stimuli of destination revitalization policy (Appendix C), manipulation check questions and measurement items (Appendix D), summary tables of sample statistics across of Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Appendix E), and the data analysis of Study 1a, 1b, and 5 (Appendix F).

(DOCX)

pone.0348289.s006.docx (37.3KB, docx)

Data Availability

We have publicly uploaded the dataset related to this study to the OpenICPSR repository. All data files required to replicate the findings of this study are available via the following link: OpenICPSR database (https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/) and DOI: https://doi.org/10.3886/E244396V1.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72362018; 42261042), and Key Project of Research on Teaching Reform in Ordinary Higher Education Institutions in Hunan Province (HNJG-20230688). Specifically, National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72362018; 42261042) provided funding support for the overall research project, including resources necessary for study implementation and data analysis. The Key Project of Research on Teaching Reform in Ordinary Higher Education Institutions in Hunan Province, China (No. HNJG-20230688) supported academic exchange and dissemination related to this research. The funding institution had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jamal T, Camargo BA. Tourism governance and policy: Whither justice?. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2018;25:205–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang F, Lv Y, Sarker MNI. Resilience and recovery: A systematic review of tourism governance strategies in disaster-affected regions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2024;103:104350. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fyall A. Tourism destination re-positioning and strategies//The future of tourism: Innovation and sustainability. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 271–83. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-89941-1_14 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Higham J, Loehr J, Hopkins D, Becken S, Stovall W. Climate science and tourism policy in Australasia: deficiencies in science-policy translation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2022;32(9):1849–75. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2022.2134882 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Estol J, Font X. European tourism policy: Its evolution and structure. Tourism Management. 2016;52:230–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Deng T, Hu Y, Ma M. Regional policy and tourism: A quasi-natural experiment. Annals of Tourism Research. 2019;74:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2018.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li W, Jin Z, Liu X, Li G, Wang L. The impact of mandatory policies on residents’ willingness to separate household waste: A moderated mediation model. J Environ Manage. 2020;275:111226. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zehrer A, Hallmann K. A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of destination competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2015;4(2):120–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brandano MG, Crociata A. Cohesion Policy, tourism and culture in Italy: a regional policy evaluation. Regional Studies. 2022;57(4):763–79. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2022.2106365 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Alavi J, Yasin MM. A Systematic Approach to Tourism Policy. Journal of Business Research. 2000;48(2):147–56. doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(98)00096-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Solarin SA, Bello MO. Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: The case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological Indicators. 2018;89:35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dani A, de Haan A. (Eds.). Inclusive states: Social policy and structural inequalities. World Bank Publications, 2008. p. 30–36. doi: 10.1002/jid.1602 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li C, Liu H, Li L. How to Establish Credibility? The Influence of Expression Manner on Tourist Information Adoption. Journal of Travel Research. 2024;64(7):1739–65. doi: 10.1177/00472875241261607 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Luna-Cortes G, López-Bonilla LM, López-Bonilla JM. Examining tourists’ perception of changes in contextual cues at the destination and the effect on automatic sustainable eating behavior. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 2024;28(4):855–79. doi: 10.1080/15378020.2024.2391167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ehnes D, Schweizer L, Storz C. Labour-cost retrenchment strategies in times of crisis: Comparing market reactions to flexible and rigid strategies. Long Range Planning. 2025;58(3):102509. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102509 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Arslan M. Policy paradigm modes: explaining USA antitrust law changes in the 1970s. J Pub Pol. 2023;43(4):681–703. doi: 10.1017/s0143814x23000193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82(6):878–902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Verplanken B, Walker I, Davis A, Jurasek M. Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2008;28(2):121–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(3):403–21. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Motro D, Evans JB, Ellis APJ, Benson L. Race and reactions to women’s expressions of anger at work: Examining the effects of the “angry Black woman” stereotype. J Appl Psychol. 2022;107(1):142–52. doi: 10.1037/apl0000884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sherman JW. Development and mental representation of stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(6):1126–41. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.6.1126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fiske ST. Intergroup biases: A focus on stereotype content. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2015;3(1):45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.01.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tong Z, Yu R, Xiao H. How should cities communicate? The interaction effect of city stereotypes and advertising language on travel intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2023;27:100755. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100755 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Feng W, Liu Y, Li D. Emotional or rational? The congruence effect of message appeals and country stereotype on tourists’ international travel intentions. Annals of Tourism Research. 2022;95:103423. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2022.103423 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Loureiro SMC, Kastenholz E. Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty towards rural lodging units in Portugal. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2011;30(3):575–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.10.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Su L, Lian Q, Huang Y. How do tourists’ attribution of destination social responsibility motives impact trust and intention to visit? The moderating role of destination reputation. Tourism Management. 2020;77:103970. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103970 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fujita K, Henderson MD, Eng J, Trope Y, Liberman N. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(4):278–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chang Y-T, Yu H, Lu H-P. Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of Business Research. 2015;68(4):777–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liberman N, Sagristano MD, Trope Y. The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2002;38(6):523–34. doi: 10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00535-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sano K, Sano H, Yashima Y, Takebayashi H. The effects of temporal distance and post type on tourists’ responses to destination marketing organizations’ social media marketing. Tourism Management. 2024;101:104844. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Su L, Chen H, Huang Y. The influence of tourists’ monetary and temporal sunk costs on destination trust and visit intention. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2022;42:100968. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100968 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang S, Lehto X. The Interplay of Travelers’ Psychological Distance, Language Abstraction, and Message Appeal Type in Social Media Advertising. Journal of Travel Research. 2019;59(8):1430–46. doi: 10.1177/0047287519880000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Liberman N, Trope Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;75(1):5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liberman N, Trope Y, Wakslak C. Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior. J Consum Psychol. 2007;17(2):113–7. doi: 10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70017-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hu H, Liu D, Yang Y. Can regional revitalization policies boost tourism growth in underdeveloped areas? Evidence from China’s revolutionary base areas. Tourism Economics. 2024;31(8):1551–71. doi: 10.1177/13548166241304816 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nepal R, Nepal SK. Managing overtourism through economic taxation: policy lessons from five countries. Tourism Geographies. 2019;23(5–6):1094–115. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2019.1669070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Weir D. Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: a strategic marketing approach. Tourism Management. 2005;26(3):475–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.02.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wong JWC, Lai IKW. The mechanism influencing the residents’ support of the government policy for accelerating tourism recovery under COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2022;52:219–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.06.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhou T, Tan R, Shu X. Rigidity with partial elasticity: Local government adaptation under the centralized land quota system in China. Land Use Policy. 2022;118:106138. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106138 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ma X, Su W. Local government intervention in tourism-driven rural gentrification: Types and interpretative framework. Tourism Management. 2024;100:104828. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104828 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Weaver D, Moyle BD, Casali L, McLennan C. Pragmatic engagement with the wicked tourism problem of climate change through ‘soft’ transformative governance. Tourism Management. 2022;93:104573. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104573 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Paulino I, Prats L, Schofield P. Tourist hub consumption systems: Convenient flexibility versus administrative constraint. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2019;41:69–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.09.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Xu Y, Ma W, Xu X, Xie Y. How Duty-Free Policy Influences Travel Intention: Mediating Role of Perceived Value and Moderating Roles of COVID-19 Severity and Counterfactual Thinking. Front Psychol. 2022;13:908736. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.908736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Volgger M, Taplin R, Aebli A. Recovery of domestic tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic: An experimental comparison of interventions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2021;48:428–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zenker S, Kock F. The coronavirus pandemic - A critical discussion of a tourism research agenda. Tour Manag. 2020;81:104164. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jenkins J, Dredge D, Taplin J. Destination planning and policy: process and practice. Destination marketing and management: theories and applications. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2011. p. 21–38. doi: 10.1079/9781845937621.0021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wijen F. Means versus Ends in Opaque Institutional Fields: Trading off Compliance and Achievement in Sustainability Standard Adoption. AMR. 2014;39(3):302–23. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Shadrina EV, Vinogradov DV, Kashin DV. Implicit incentives in green public procurement: Good intentions versus rigid regulations. Ecological Economics. 2022;198:107458. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107458 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Abubakar AM, Ilkan M, Meshall Al-Tal R, Eluwole KK. eWOM, revisit intention, destination trust and gender. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 2017;31:220–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.12.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Thomas LT, Ganster DC. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1995;80(1):6–15. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Skinner J, Zakus DH, Cowell J. Development through Sport: Building Social Capital in Disadvantaged Communities. Sport Management Review. 2008;11(3):253–75. doi: 10.1016/s1441-3523(08)70112-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ab. Rahman FA, Mohd Suki N, Mohd Yusof MI, Yusof R. Residents’ trust in local government councils in an emerging nation: effect of political efficacy, good governance and performance. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 2022;17(1):39–53. doi: 10.1108/tg-02-2022-0015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Benz A. Balancing Rigidity and Flexibility: Constitutional Dynamics in Federal Systems. West European Politics. 2013;36(4):726–49. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2013.783346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Magee JC, Smith PK. The social distance theory of power. Personality and social psychology review. 2013;17(2):158–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hung K. Understanding the cruising experience of Chinese travelers through photo-interviewing technique and hierarchical experience model. Tourism Management. 2018;69:88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.05.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ying T, Tan X, Wei W, Zheng Y, Ye S, Wu M. “I have to watch my back”: Exploring Chinese hotel guests’ generalized distrust and coping behavior. Tourism Management. 2021;86:104355. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104355 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li F, Ma J. The effectiveness of the destination logo: Congruity effect between logo typeface and destination stereotypes. Tourism Management. 2023;98:104772. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Perreault WD Jr, Leigh LE. Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments. Journal of Marketing Research. 1989;26(2):135. doi: 10.2307/3172601 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Su L, Ye C, Huang Y. Does destination nostalgic advertising enhance tourists’ intentions to visit? The moderating role of destination type. Tourism Management. 2024;100:104810. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104810 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kummer T-F, Recker J, Mendling J. Enhancing understandability of process models through cultural-dependent color adjustments. Decision Support Systems. 2016;87:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yi Y, Gong T, Lee H. The Impact of Other Customers on Customer Citizenship Behavior. Psychology and Marketing. 2013;30(4):341–56. doi: 10.1002/mar.20610 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Su L, Chen H, Huang Y, Chen X. In-group favoritism or black sheep effect? The moderating role of norm strength on destination residents’ responses towards deviant behaviors. Tourism Management. 2023;98:104773. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chang W, Kim KK. Appropriate service robots in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Business Research. 2022;141:462–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications; 2017. p. 45–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Gursoy D, McCleary KW. An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research. 2004;31(2):353–73. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Wong J-Y, Yeh C. Tourist hesitation in destination decision making. Annals of Tourism Research. 2009;36(1):6–23. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2008.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jia H, Yang S, Lu X, Park CW. Do Consumers Always Spend more when Coupon Face Value is Larger? The Inverted U-Shaped Effect of Coupon Face Value on Consumer Spending Level. Journal of Marketing. 2018;82(4):70–85. doi: 10.1509/jm.14.0510 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bogicevic V, Seo S, Kandampully JA, Liu SQ, Rudd NA. Virtual reality presence as a preamble of tourism experience: The role of mental imagery. Tourism Management. 2019;74:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Verhagen T, Vonkeman C, Feldberg F, Verhagen P. Present it like it is here: Creating local presence to improve online product experiences. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;39:270–80. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jiang H, Tan H, Liu Y, Wan F, Gursoy D. The impact of power on destination advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of arousal in advertising. Annals of Tourism Research. 2020;83:102926. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102926 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.McLennan CJ, Ritchie BW, Ruhanen LM, Moyle BD. An institutional assessment of three local government-level tourism destinations at different stages of the transformation process. Tourism Management. 2014;41:107–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Minnaert L, Maitland R, Miller G. Tourism and social policy: The value of social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 2009;36(2):316–34. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.01.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Haigh M. Cultural tourism policy in developing regions: The case of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tourism Management. 2020;81:104166. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Omrani A, Salkhordeh_Ziabari A, Yu C, Golazizian P, Kennedy B, Atari M et al. Social-group-agnostic bias mitigation via the stereotype content model. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2023;61(1):4123–39. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.227 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.He JC, Kang SK, Tse K, Toh SM. Stereotypes at work: Occupational stereotypes predict race and gender segregation in the workforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2019;115:103318. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Nicolas G, Bai X, Fiske ST. A spontaneous stereotype content model: Taxonomy, properties, and prediction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2022;123(6):1243–63. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Jeong JY, Crompton JL, Hyun SS. The influence of the compromise and travel temporal construal heuristics on a purchase decision. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2020;33:100583. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100583 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Luan J, Filieri R, Xiao J, Han Q, Zhu B, Wang T. Product information and green consumption: An integrated perspective of regulatory focus, self-construal, and temporal distance. Information & Management. 2023;60(2):103746. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2022.103746 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Andsager JL, Drzewiecka JA. Desirability of differences in destinations. Annals of Tourism Research. 2002;29(2):401–21. doi: 10.1016/s0160-7383(01)00064-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Reitsamer BF, Brunner-Sperdin A, Stokburger-Sauer NE. Destination attractiveness and destination attachment: The mediating role of tourists’ attitude. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2016;19:93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2016.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bifeng Zhu

8 Dec 2025

-->PONE-D-25-40512-->-->Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Su,

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

Authors are recommended to make a more clear presentation and deep explanation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bifeng Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72362018; 42261042), General Project of Hunan Education Department, China (No. 21C0387), and Key Project of Research project on teaching reform in ordinary higher edu-cation institutions in Hunan Province, China (No. HNJG-20230688 ).”

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

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

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

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the paper entitled “Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1. The current form of the abstract is not well written. Author should highlight the novelty and main aim of the study. Make sure it commences with a succinct statement of the primary aim of the study, highlighting the novelty it brings to the field. This should be followed by a concise description of the research methodology employed, including the analysis techniques utilized and details regarding the sample collection process. Finally, it should conclude with a brief summary of the key findings and the implications derived from them. It is essential to emphasize the unique contributions of this study. Only highlight the most significant findings and implications to maintain focus.

2. The introduction lacks a clear structure and focus. Please follow this suggested structure: (1) Summarize the existing issue together with its importance. (2) Explain how researchers should address the discovered areas that need further investigation. (3) The research gap must clearly relate to the existing issue. (4) The research benefits from critiquing these aspects that previous academic studies avoid. (5) Review relevant past studies. (6) Draw a contrast between this study and all related past research. (7) Clearly state the research objectives. (8) The paper details how it introduces beneficial concepts to academic literature. A properly organized introduction creates better clarity by establishing solid groundwork for the overall paper.

3. The issue is not explicitly explained and support with recent citations.

4. The authors fail to define their research gap with clarity and supporting evidence. The authors need to present a precise identification of the unaddressed areas in past research. All necessary arguments should be presented to validate the immediate need for addressing this gap. Provide a clear reasoning that demonstrates the study’s connection to contemporary conditions.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

5. Should have a standalone section for underpinning theory. This is to explain how the theory supporting the proposed paths and model. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the research, I recommend the authors thoroughly explain how or any theory support the current study and each path. By elaborating on the theory's key concepts and demonstrating its relevance to the research topic, the authors can establish a stronger connection between the theoretical foundation and the study's objectives.

6. Author does not explain how the theory supporting the mediation paths and moderation paths. Please include this justification in the underpinning theory section.

7. A proper flow for literature review as follows: (1) underpinning theory, (2) hypotheses development and (3) proposed research model.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

8. The research methodology is not well written. Should have two sub-sections: (1) Research procedure and samples and (2) research instruments.

9. Why there is a need to slit the study into five studies?

10. How do you test cause and effect relationship?

11. The authors should discuss the generalizability and representativeness of their sample in relation to the target population. Authors need to clearly explain how the chosen sample is intended to be representative of and reflective of the larger population. Any strategies employed to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample should also be highlighted. This will increase the credibility of the research findings and help readers understand the extent to which the results can be generalized to the broader population.

12. It is essential to provide a clear explanation of a sampling technique used in the study, along with the rationale for its selection. Why these techniques? The authors should describe how they utilized this sampling technique to select respondents for the survey, ensuring generalizability and representativeness towards the targeted population. By doing so, readers can better understand the methodological approach and the potential limitations associated with the sample selection.

13. Any selection criteria?

14. Any control variable included in this study? Why not as it could be one of the confounding variables?

15. The procedure of data collection needs to be elaborated further. The authors should explain in more detail how they collected the data, how they approached the respondents, and how they identified participants for the survey study. This explanation should be reasonable and logical, avoiding exaggerations and providing a clear account of the steps taken in the data collection process.

16. Did you translate the questionnaire to local language? If yes, please explain how it was done.

17. The research instrument section is not well written. Should refer to quality paper published in high impact journal on how to report the research instruments.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

18. The reporting is confusing.

19. For common method bias, I suggest using a full collinearity test.

20. The analysis results reporting is not clear. Author should report the preliminary analysis result (common method bias test, descriptive analysis results, and respondents profile characteristics), measurement model analysis (reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity), and structural model analysis (path result)

5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the

21. The structure of the conclusion part should be as follows: (1) Discussion, (2) Theoretical Implications, (3) Practical Implications, (4) Limitations and Future Research Recommendations, and (5) Conclusion.

22. Should have a overall discussion section.

23. For theoretical implication, it is too shallow. This section should discuss the implications of the study's findings and how they contribute to the existing theoretical knowledge. Summarize the key findings and their relevance to the existing theoretical frameworks or models. Analyze how the findings align with or challenge current theoretical perspectives and concepts related to all the key concepts of this study. Discuss any theoretical insights or advancements that the study provides and highlight how the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the research area.

24. For practical implications, it is not well written. The authors should provide valuable insights based on current practices and policies, supported by evidence from their research. To strengthen the practical implications, it is crucial to reference specific findings, data, or examples that demonstrate the validity and reliability of the recommendations. By incorporating this approach, the authors can offer concrete and actionable suggestions that have a solid grounding in their research findings.

25. A conclusion section with not more than 150 words is required.

26. Proofread the manuscript, Clarity is required, and cite more recent relevant studies. Please also check citation format and referencing style.

Reviewer #2: I don’t see it as mandatory because it is already a complete piece of work, but I think that the methodological section could be strengthened if some key aspects related to the internal validity of the experimental designs were described in more detail:

(1) Extraneous or confounding variables: It would be helpful to identify which variables could influence the results and to explain clearly how they are controlled (for example, randomization, counterbalancing, standardized instructions, or environmental control). In the last studies, this would be especially important because the designs are becoming more complex.

(2) Controls used to address threats to internal validity: such as history, maturation, selection, and experimenter effects. It would be useful to indicate which procedures were used to reduce these threats.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Cristian O. Beltran-Oicata

**********

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

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0348289. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Zhu and the Reviewers,

We sincerely thank you and the editorial team for the careful handling of our manuscript and for the time and effort devoted to its evaluation. We are also grateful to the two reviewers for their constructive, detailed, and insightful comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

In response to the editor’s guidance and all reviewer comments, we have conducted a thorough and careful revision of the manuscript. Given the scope and depth of the revisions, we have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached file entitled “Response to Reviewers.docx.” In this document, we address each comment individually and clearly indicate where the corresponding changes can be found in the revised manuscript, with specific line numbers referring to the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx.”

Overall, the revision focused on four main aspects. First, we substantially improved the clarity and coherence of the manuscript by reorganizing the logical structure of the theoretical framework, methods, results, discussion, and implications. Second, we strengthened the methodological reporting by providing more explicit descriptions of experimental procedures, internal validity considerations, and ethical approvals. Third, we deepened the theoretical discussion by rearticulating the core theoretical contributions and clarifying how the findings address specific gaps in the existing literature. Finally, we revised the practical implications to ensure that they are clearly grounded in the empirical findings and offer concrete, evidence-based guidance for policy and practice.

We hope these revisions have significantly improved the rigor, transparency, and overall contribution of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the editor’s and reviewers’ valuable feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s expectations. We would be grateful for your further consideration of our manuscript.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Kind regards,

Juan Su

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0348289.s008.docx (90.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bifeng Zhu

26 Feb 2026

-->PONE-D-25-40512R1-->-->Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Su,

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

  • Please check the reference and figures.

-->-->Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bifeng Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with the revised manuscript. All my comments are addressed sufficiently. Thus, I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: Dear author

Congratulations on the rigor of your research

Please, in terms of style, correct the reference error on line 203 and label the figures as "Author's own work".

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Cristian Oswaldo Beltrán-Oicatá

**********

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

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0348289. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Apr 2026

Dear Editor and reviewers ,

We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for your valuable comments.

In this revision, we have carefully addressed all comments raised by the editorial office and the reviewers. Specifically, we have reviewed the reference list to ensure completeness and accuracy, corrected formatting and citation issues, and revised the identified reference error. In addition, we have updated all figure captions to include “Author’s own work,” as suggested.

All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. For clarity, the revised content is highlighted in red in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx.” A detailed, point-by-point response to each comment is provided in the attached file “Response to Reviewers.docx.”

We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback and the positive evaluation of our work. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

Juan Su

On behalf of the authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0348289.s009.docx (49KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Bifeng Zhu

14 Apr 2026

Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention

PONE-D-25-40512R2

Dear Dr. Su,

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

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

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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

Kind regards,

Bifeng Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Bifeng Zhu

PONE-D-25-40512R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Su,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bifeng Zhu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Rigid policy condition stimuli of Studies 1a, 2, 5.

    (TIF)

    pone.0348289.s001.tif (350.7KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Flexible policy condition stimuli of Studies 1a, 2, 5.

    (TIF)

    pone.0348289.s002.tif (311.8KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. The influence of group type of revitalization policy on tourists’ travel behavioral intention (Study 1a).

    (TIF)

    pone.0348289.s003.tif (418.6KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of destination revitalization policy and travel behavioral intention (Study 5).

    (TIF)

    pone.0348289.s004.tif (177.4KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Moderating effect of temporal distance between types of social judgements and travel behavioral intention (Study 5).

    (TIF)

    pone.0348289.s005.tif (211.5KB, tif)
    S1 File. Appendix.

    This appendix contains summary information of Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Appendix A), interview outline for pilot study (Appendix B), experimental stimuli of destination revitalization policy (Appendix C), manipulation check questions and measurement items (Appendix D), summary tables of sample statistics across of Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Appendix E), and the data analysis of Study 1a, 1b, and 5 (Appendix F).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0348289.s006.docx (37.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0348289.s008.docx (90.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0348289.s009.docx (49KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    We have publicly uploaded the dataset related to this study to the OpenICPSR repository. All data files required to replicate the findings of this study are available via the following link: OpenICPSR database (https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/) and DOI: https://doi.org/10.3886/E244396V1.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES