The Regenerative Travel Mindset: Construct Definition,Scale Development,and Validation Across Transformative Tourism Contexts

From Mitigation to Regeneration

Regenerative tourism reframes travel from a focus on harm reduction to a net-positive contribution. We define surplus-positive tourism as choices and practices that aim to leave destinations better off, ecologically, socially, and culturally, than they were before the visit (Becken & Kaur, 2021; Paddison & Hall, 2024). Within this frame, high-impact regenerative behaviors produce system-level or enduring effects, such as support for restoration levies, conservation-linked pricing, or community co-management, whereas low-impact actions focus primarily on harm mitigation (e.g., improved signage, plastic bans). This distinction operationalizes regeneration as net-positive, future-oriented, and justice-infused, addressing critiques that sustainability often stabilizes the status quo rather than advancing restorative outcomes (Bellato et al., 2024; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018).

A Priori Dimensional Structure

Consistent with established approaches to construct definition and scale development (Churchill, 1979; Hinkin, 1998; MacKenzie et al., 2011), the dimensional architecture of the RTM was formulated a priori based on theory, before empirical validation. In line with best practices in concept operationalization, the a priori specification allowed theoretical grounding to precede item generation, ensuring that construct dimensionality reflects meaningful conceptual distinctions rather than a data-driven artifact (Jarvis et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2016). This approach is consistent with other mindset and belief-oriented constructs developed in consumer and environmental psychology, such as growth mindset (Murphy & Dweck, 2015), ethical mindset (Aquino & Reed, 2002), ecological worldview (Dunlap et al., 2000), and biospheric value orientation (De Groot & Steg, 2008), where theory specifies underlying belief clusters that are later confirmed empirically.

Accordingly, RTM was conceptualized as comprising three theoretically distinct but interrelated belief clusters: positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, and long-term stewardship. Each dimension was derived from established theoretical literature that together explains how travelers internalize moral agency and ecological accountability in tourism contexts.

Regenerative Travel Mindset and the Nomological Network of Related Constructs

RTM is conceptually and empirically distinct from existing constructs that explain sustainability-related attitudes or behaviors. It differs from biospheric value orientation, which captures general concern for nature but not reciprocity or restorative justice (De Groot & Steg, 2008; Martin & Czellar, 2017); from environmental locus of control, which emphasizes self-efficacy but lacks moral duty (Cleveland et al., 2020); and from sustainable tourism attitudes, which measure support for mitigation rather than net-positive contribution (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). RTM also diverges from the growth mindset (Dweck, 2016) and dispositional optimism (Scheier et al., 1994), which are domain-general and non-moral in nature. In contrast, RTM represents a moralized, justice-infused, time-extended mindset specific to regenerative tourism, capturing how travelers integrate contribution, care, and continuity into their self-concepts. As moralized beliefs more strongly predict advocacy and prosocial action than general attitudes (Brick et al., 2017; Feinberg & Willer, 2012), RTM offers superior explanatory power for high-impact regenerative engagement. A concise comparative summary of these conceptual distinctions is presented in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Conceptual Distinctions: Regenerative Travel Mindset Versus Adjacent Constructs.

Construct	Core definition	Conceptual limitation	How RTM differs
Biospheric Value Orientation (De Groot & Steg, 2008)	Generalized concern for nature; intrinsic biospheric values	Captures concern but not reciprocity or restorative justice; abstract preference rather than action belief	RTM encodes a surplus-generation norm (active repair) and intergenerational stewardship beyond passive concern
Environmental Locus of Control (Cleveland et al., 2020)	Perceived personal efficacy over environmental outcomes	Efficacy without moral duty or relational obligation; agency without justice content	RTM embeds a deontic obligation to act regardless of perceived control, plus host-guest reciprocity
Sustainable Tourism Attitudes (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005)	Support for mitigation-oriented tourism practices	Targets harm reduction; does not articulate net-positive contribution or temporal stewardship	RTM is inherently generative, prioritizing net-positive contribution rather than reduced harm
Growth Mindset (Dweck, 2016)	Belief that personal abilities are malleable	Domain-general, non-moral; about self-improvement, not collective contribution	RTM is domain-specific (tourism), moralized, and other-regarding rather than self-focused
Dispositional Optimism (Scheier et al., 1994)	General positive expectancy about future outcomes	Affective stance, not a moral or action-oriented belief	RTM specifies moral content (reciprocity, stewardship) and is anchored in identity-relevant beliefs
Moral Identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002)	Centrality of morality to the self-concept	Self-concept measure rather than domain-specific belief system	RTM is a domain-specific interpretive framework guiding tourism choices, not self-concept centrality

Note. The three RTM dimensions (positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, long-term stewardship) jointly capture moral purpose, relational obligation, and temporal scope of responsibility, integrating concerns that adjacent constructs address only partially. RTM = Regenerative Travel Mindset.

Overview of Empirical Sequence

Building on this framework, we first establish and validate the RTM measure (Studies 1a to 1e), specifying a theory-driven, three-dimensional reflective structure and testing its reliability, validity, and temporal stability. With the measurement model secured, we advance two a priori proposition sets to guide the remainder of the research. Predictive propositions state that higher RTM will predict (a) selection of surplus-positive offerings, (b) endorsement of high-impact tourism policies (for example, restoration levies), and (c) sustained post-trip engagement (donations, advocacy, citizen-science participation). These predictions follow from RTM’s moralized content and its alignment with identity-based motivation (Reed et al., 2012; Skitka, 2010). Malleability propositions posit that exposure to identity-consistent narratives, stories of local regeneration or stewardship, can causally elevate RTM, thereby increasing willingness to pay, perceived authenticity, and policy receptivity (Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Murphy & Dweck, 2015; Winterich et al., 2012). We then map tests to propositions: Study 2 (and Study 4) evaluate predictive propositions in survey- and field-like contexts, while Study 3 provides a causal test of malleability via experimental manipulation.

Study 1a: Item Generation through a Qualitative Survey

The goal of Study 1a was to inductively generate a robust set of candidate items representing the latent construct of the Regenerative Travel Mindset. According to our conceptualization, RTM is a trait-like belief system that encompasses environmental concern, agency, justice, and stewardship, a blend not fully captured by existing sustainability or pro-environmental attitude scales. Following Churchill’s (1979) framework for construct development and building on contemporary guidelines for mindset scale creation (Murphy & Dweck, 2015), we began by collecting qualitative data to surface how individuals naturally articulate their beliefs, metaphors, and motivations around regenerative travel.

We employed an asynchronous qualitative survey rather than a depth interview. Participants completed a structured, open-ended written elicitation task in Qualtrics, providing detailed narrative responses to a sequence of prompts. Following Braun et al. (2021), an online qualitative survey is a self-administered, written, open-response instrument that affords efficient breadth across a moderately sized sample, comparability of prompts and analytic units across respondents, and low researcher influence on respondents’ framing. It does not, however, afford the real-time clarification, follow-up probing, and dialogic co-construction that are constitutive of a depth interview. We therefore use the qualitative-survey framing throughout. We retained protocol design features intended to support depth and reflection without simulating live interaction: (a) a structured progression (warm-up, core, and reflective prompts) allowed participants to elaborate progressively on their beliefs; (b) prompts were deliberately open-ended and reflective (e.g., future-oriented scenarios, meaning-based questions), which prior research shows can elicit rich narrative responses; (c) participants were encouraged to provide detailed explanations and examples, and the asynchronous format allowed time to reflect without pressure, which can enhance depth in written qualitative data; and (d) the relatively large narrative corpus (n = 68) enabled systematic identification of meaning units, metaphors, and belief structures through grounded coding procedures. Consistent with recent qualitative research using asynchronous text-based elicitation, this approach is well-suited for capturing reflective belief systems while reducing interviewer bias and social-desirability effects.

Prompt Development and Validation

The protocol included six open-ended prompts (see Table 3), each crafted to elicit narrative reflections on ideal travel, ethical responsibilities, and regenerative concepts. Prompts were adapted from prior exploratory work in sustainable tourism (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005) and transformative tourism research (Pritchard et al., 2011). Importantly, although some prompts (for example, future-oriented travel scenarios) were intentionally broad, they were designed to elicit underlying belief structures rather than surface-level preferences. Prior research suggests that open-ended, future-oriented prompts can effectively surface moral reasoning, value systems, and aspirational orientations that may not emerge through direct questioning (Clarke & Braun, 2013). In our context, such prompts enabled participants to articulate implicit beliefs about responsibility, contribution, and the purpose of travel, which are central to regenerative thinking. To ensure relevance to RTM, we focused the analysis on responses that reflected themes of positive impact, reciprocity, and long-term responsibility. During coding, statements unrelated to these themes (for example, purely hedonic preferences such as luxury or convenience) were excluded from the item pool. As a result, the final set of candidate items reflects only belief structures aligned with the conceptual domain of regenerative travel. Example prompts included: “How would you describe an ideal trip in 2030?” and “What does the phrase regenerative travel mean to you?.” To ensure conceptual distinctiveness from generic “green” attitudes, we undertook two pre-field validations: (a) expert review by three tourism scholars and two sustainability practitioners verified that prompts captured regenerative reasoning (surplus creation, legacy, reciprocity) rather than mitigation alone, and (b) a small pilot (n = 6) confirmed that the “2030 ideal trip” prompt elicited future-oriented, contribution-focused narratives (e.g., “leave something behind,” “repair what was harmed”). In the live study, the explicit phrase “regenerative travel” appeared only after two neutral future-oriented prompts; respondents were reminded there were no right or wrong answers, and responses were anonymous, further mitigating social desirability. Crucially, the regenerative prompt was used to clarify participants’ lay language; the item pool was generated from the full set of responses and was not restricted to that single prompt.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Study 1a Qualitative Survey Prompts.

#	Prompt
1	Imagine your ideal trip in the year 2030. Describe what kind of travel experience you would seek and why.
2	When you travel, what kinds of impacts (positive or negative) do you think you should have on the destination, its environment, and its people?
3	Have you ever taken a trip that involved giving back to the community or environment? Please describe what you did, why, and how it felt.
4	When you visit a place, what do you owe (if anything) to the host community? What does fair exchange mean to you in travel?
5	What does the phrase “regenerative travel” mean to you? What images, ideas, or emotions does it bring up?
6	Looking 20 or 30 years into the future, what do you hope your generation of travelers will be remembered for? What do you hope to leave behind?

Note. Prompts were administered in the order shown via Qualtrics. Items 1, 2, and 6 were used in the prior pilot to verify they elicited regenerative reasoning. The explicit phrase “regenerative travel” appeared only after two neutral, future-oriented prompts.

Study 1b: Deep Meaning Refinement via Projective Collage Method

Following the belief item generation in Study 1a, Study 1b sought to enhance construct validity through a visual projective technique. While verbal elicitation captures explicit beliefs, projective visual methods effectively access subconscious associations, cultural metaphors, and emotionally embedded values that underlie consumer mindsets (Belk et al., 2003; Coulter et al., 2001; Zaltman & Coulter, 1995). Because mindsets operate as holistic belief systems, often grounded in intuitive reasoning and metaphorical schemas, this method allowed us to evaluate and refine the item pool by exploring how individuals symbolically represent regenerative travel. The primary objectives were (a) to assess whether participants’ implicit symbolic representations supported the three RTM dimensions identified in Study 1a, and (b) to detect thematic gaps or misalignments in the existing 34-item pool. Consistent with best practice for projective work, the aim was construct refinement (semantic tightening and coverage) rather than population inference; generalizability is addressed in Studies 1d to 1e.

Study 1c: Expert Evaluation and Cognitive Pretesting

We conducted a two-stage pretesting protocol combining expert judgment screening and cognitive interviews with target users to ensure that the candidate items demonstrated content validity, linguistic clarity, and cognitive usability. This procedure follows best practices for scale development by validating items through scholarly and consumer lenses before psychometric testing (DeVellis, 2016; Haynes et al., 1995).

First, we assessed the content validity of the 31 items using ratings from a panel of 12 academic experts in marketing, sustainability, and consumer psychology (five in marketing or consumer behavior, four in tourism or sustainability, three in environmental psychology; average years since PhD = 8.6). Each item was rated independently on two 4-point dimensions: construct relevance (1 = not at all relevant, 4 = highly relevant) and wording clarity (1 = unclear or confusing, 4 = completely clear). Content validity indices (CVIs) were calculated for each criterion (Haynes et al., 1995). To retain conceptual rigor and clarity, we applied a dual retention threshold: items had to score relevance CVI of at least .80 and clarity CVI of at least .75. Twenty-three items met both criteria and were retained. Eight items were dropped, primarily for redundancy with higher-rated items or for low clarity (e.g., language requiring specialized knowledge or producing inconsistent interpretations across raters). Six retained items were reverse-coded to reduce acquiescence bias. Panel agreement using Krippendorff’s alpha for multi-rater judgments was alpha_relevance = .81 and alpha_clarity = .79, indicating strong inter-expert consistency.

Second, to complement expert review with user feedback and detect latent issues in phrasing, we conducted think-aloud cognitive interviews with eight adult travelers (balanced by gender; ages 25 to 48; 62% with international travel experience; Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Participants verbalized their interpretations and reasoning while completing the 31-item draft scale on screen. Sessions lasted 35 to 55 min (M = 42.7), were audio-recorded with consent, and followed a standard probe set (comprehension, paraphrase, confidence, retrieval difficulty). Three items triggered recurrent issues across participants and were reworded for plain language (e.g., “ecological surplus logic" was simplified to “helping nature thrive more than before," increasing user resonance without diluting conceptual meaning). A post-edit read-aloud pass confirmed resolution. A brief readability check on the full pool yielded a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of approximately 8.7 after edits, balancing accessibility and conceptual specificity. The resulting 23-item pool, including six reverse-coded statements, was advanced to Study 1d for large-sample psychometric testing.

Study 1d: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Purification

Study 1e: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Following the exploratory factor analysis in Study 1d, Study 1e was conducted to validate the three-factor structure of the RTM scale in an independent sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This step served as a critical bridge between scale construction and predictive validation by testing the model’s stability and psychometric soundness in a holdout sample.

A new sample of 402 U.S. adults was recruited via Prolific. Demographics were comparable to those in Study 1d, with participants ranging in age from 21 to 65 years (51% male; 55% holding a bachelor’s degree or higher; 44% married). The 18 RTM items were administered in randomized order using seven-point Likert-type response scales.

A three-factor CFA model was estimated. The model demonstrated excellent fit: chi-square(132) = 125.17, chi-square/df = 0.95, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA = 0.000 [90% CI: 0.000, 0.017]. All standardized factor loadings exceeded the .70 threshold (see Table 4), providing strong evidence for item reliability. Composite reliability (CR) values for all three factors were PII = .95, CR = .91, LTS = .94, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were PII = .66, CR = .66, LTS = .78, meeting established benchmarks for convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Study 1e Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Standardized Loadings, Composite Reliability, and AVE (n = 402).

Item	Dimension	Loading	Reverse-coded
PII_1: I want my travel to actively improve the places I visit.	PII	.83
PII_2: I feel a responsibility to leave destinations better than I found them.	PII	.81
PII_3: Travel should help, not just enjoy, host communities.	PII	.82
PII_4: I look for opportunities to contribute positively when I travel.	PII	.82
PII_5: A good trip is one that gives back, not just one that takes.	PII	.80
PII_6: I want my visits to repair, not deplete, the places I see.	PII	.83
PII_7: I think of myself as a contributor when I travel.	PII	.82
PII_8: Travel is mainly about my own enjoyment.	PII	.79	(R)
PII_9: Tourists rarely owe anything to destinations.	PII	.82	(R)
CR_1: Travelers owe something back to the communities that host them.	CR	.83
CR_2: A genuine trip requires fair exchange between visitor and host.	CR	.82
CR_3: I respect that destinations belong first to the people who live there.	CR	.79
CR_4: I want my spending to flow to local hosts, not just chains.	CR	.83
CR_5: I look to learn from, not just consume, host culture.	CR	.81
LTS_1: My travel should safeguard destinations for future generations.	LTS	.89
LTS_2: I think about destinations in 20- and 30-year horizons, not just my trip.	LTS	.86
LTS_3: Stewardship of a place is a long-term obligation, not a one-week task.	LTS	.89
LTS_4: Once I leave a destination, what happens there is not my concern.	LTS	.89	(R)
Composite Reliability	PII = .95	CR = .91	LTS = .94
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	PII = .66	CR = .66	LTS = .78

Note. Standardized loadings estimated by maximum likelihood CFA (semopy). All loadings significant at p < .001. (R) = reverse-coded item. CFA fit: χ²(132) = 125.17, χ²/df = .95, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.000 [90% CI: 0.000, 0.017], SRMR = .041. PII = Positive Impact Intentionality; CR = Community Reciprocity; LTS = Long-Term Stewardship.

Discussion of Study 1 (1a–1e)

Studies 1a through 1e followed best-in-class procedures for multidimensional scale development, generating and validating a robust measure of the Regenerative Travel Mindset. Study 1a used a qualitative survey to elicit belief statements grounded in travelers’ lived experiences. The use of a projective collage in Study 1b added symbolic and emotional depth to the construct, aligning with prior mindset research that emphasizes metaphorical reasoning and intuitive structures. Through iterative expert review and cognitive pretesting, Study 1c ensured item clarity and content validity. Studies 1d and 1e established the RTM scale’s dimensional structure, positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, and long-term stewardship, through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The final 18-item scale demonstrated excellent reliability, discriminant validity, and conceptual precision. Importantly, the scale resists unidimensional simplification, with each dimension capturing distinct psychological and ethical elements relevant to regenerative tourism. Across Studies 1d-1e, we incorporated multiple safeguards (careless-response screening, parallel analysis and MAP, strict cross-loading rules, omega reliability, HTMT, alternative-model tests, limited theory-guided residual covariances, and gender-invariance checks), increasing confidence that the retained items represent a coherent, domain-specific mindset rather than a diffuse aggregation of “green” attitudes. These findings position RTM as a theoretically grounded and psychometrically sound framework for understanding how travelers perceive, evaluate, and engage in sustainable transformation.

Study 2a: Construct Validation and Predictive Utility

Measurement Model and Discriminant Validity

The seven-factor model demonstrated excellent fit, all exceeding conventional thresholds for model adequacy. Standardized item loadings exceeded the recommended thresholds for all constructs. Scale reliabilities and validity coefficients are reported in Table 5: composite reliability ranged from .724 (DO, slightly below conventional thresholds in this sample) to .974 (PII); average variance extracted ranged from .340 (DO) to .857 (LTS); HTMT ratios were below .85 for all pairs. The square roots of AVEs (diagonal of Table 5) exceeded inter-construct correlations, meeting the Fornell-Larcker criterion. HTMT values, which provide a more conservative test of discriminant validity, were all well below the .85 cut-off, further reinforcing construct distinctiveness. Notably, DO’s properties were slightly weaker than the focal RTM dimensions in this sample, consistent with DO’s role here as a discriminant comparator rather than as a focal RTM dimension; its weaker measurement properties further reinforce the empirical distinction between RTM and a general positive-expectancy disposition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Study 2a Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Inter-Construct Correlations (n = 500).

Construct	M	SD	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4–7
1. PII	5.40	1.05	.97	.81	.90
2. CR	5.20	1.10	.96	.84	.448	.92
3. LTS	4.85	1.20	.96	.86	.228	.375	.93
4. ELOC	5.10	1.00	.94	.68	.439	.457	.435	.83
5. BVO	5.00	1.10	-	-	.274	.290	.285	.283
6. GM	4.90	1.00	.90	.60	.391	.429	.428	.360
7. DO	5.00	1.10	.72	.34	.311	.331	.291	.277

Note. Values on the diagonal (1.0) are the square roots of the AVE for each focal construct (where available). Off-diagonal cells show Pearson correlations between scale means. BVO was measured with a single composite item. All correlations p < .001 except where noted. HTMT ratios were below .85 for all pairs. PII = Positive Impact Intentionality; CR = Community Reciprocity; LTS = Long-Term Stewardship; ELOC = Environmental Locus of Control; BVO = Biospheric Value Orientation; GM = Growth Mindset; DO = Dispositional Optimism. M = mean (1–7 scale; DO on 1–5 scale rescaled); SD = standard deviation; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Contextual Moderation: EPI by TES

As an exploratory extension of construct validation, we also examined whether RTM aligns with broader socio-ecological conditions. To explore how place-based ecological context shapes RTM, we geocoded respondents’ U.S. ZIP codes and linked them to county-level indicators. Specifically, we extracted two contextual variables: the Tourism Employment Share (TES), which represents the percentage of county jobs in tourism-related sectors, and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a composite measure of local ecological quality. While all participants resided in the United States, this context-based approach enabled us to understand how individuals’ regenerative beliefs align with the environmental and economic features of their immediate surroundings. The moderation hypothesis is grounded in place-dependence and socio-ecological salience: when local livelihoods rely more on tourism, environmental quality becomes more instrumentally tied to community welfare and identity, heightening the motivational relevance of regeneration (cf. Raymond et al., 2010; Stedman, 2002). Thus, higher TES should amplify the extent to which better ecological conditions (EPI) translate into stronger RTM.

Using PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2018), we conducted three moderated regressions treating EPI as the focal predictor, TES as the moderator, and each RTM dimension as the dependent variable (see Table 6). The interaction term (EPI by TES) was statistically significant across all models: for positive impact intentionality (b_int = .0039, t = 4.99, p < .001, delta_R-squared = .049); for community reciprocity (b_int = .0059, t = 7.31, p < .001, delta_R-squared = .097); for long-term stewardship (b_int = .0039, t = 4.37, p < .001, delta_R-squared = .037). These results suggest that the positive impact of local environmental quality on regenerative beliefs is more pronounced in contexts with higher economic dependence on tourism. Control variables (age, gender, education, income, marital status, and religiosity) were included, and the interaction effects remained robust. Johnson-Neyman (J-N) analyses clarified the regions of significance for the simple slope of EPI at specific TES values. For PII, the EPI to PII slope became positive and significant when TES was at least 6.97%. For CR, the corresponding J-N threshold was TES at least 8.02%. For LTS, TES at least 8.63%. These thresholds are now reported consistently in the text and Table 6 (the previously reported single threshold of 8.70%, with Table 6 noting 8.74%, reflected an inconsistent rounding across an earlier draft). Together, these tests indicate that ecological quality predicts stronger regenerative mindsets only once tourism intensity reaches economically meaningful thresholds, consistent with the theorized amplification mechanism whereby tourism dependence renders environmental conditions more behaviorally and morally salient to residents and travelers alike.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Study 2a Moderated Regression of EPI on RTM Dimensions, Moderated by Tourism Employment Share (TES).

Predictor	PII (DV)	CR (DV)	LTS (DV)
Intercept	7.360***	8.221***	7.036***
EPI (centered)	−.035***	−.055***	−.042***
TES (centered)	−.225***	−.332***	−.202***
EPI × TES	.0039***	.0059***	.0039***
R²	.049	.098	.047
ΔR² (interaction)	.049***	.097***	.037***
Johnson-Neyman threshold (TES, %)	6.97	8.02	8.63

Note. EPI × TES = product term. Coefficients are unstandardized OLS estimates (PROCESS Model 1; n = 500). EPI = Environmental Performance Index (country-level, mean-centered); TES = Tourism Employment Share (country-level percent, mean-centered).

Significance: ***p < .001. The Johnson-Neyman threshold gives the TES value at which the simple slope of EPI on the RTM dimension becomes statistically significant at the .05 level.

Study 2b: Four-Month Test-Retest Reliability

To assess the temporal stability of the RTM scale, we conducted a 4-month follow-up with a subset of participants from Study 2a. Establishing longitudinal reliability is crucial for any trait-like construct, particularly one characterized as a stable mindset that informs travel-related decision-making over time. The four-month interval balances theoretical appropriateness with panel feasibility; multi-month intervals (approximately 3−6 months) are commonly used to assess temporal stability of trait-like constructs while minimizing short-term state fluctuations (Cheng et al., 2021; Dholakia et al., 2016; Wilson & Bellezza, 2021). Conceptually, RTM is positioned alongside durable belief systems in the mindset and moral conviction literatures (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Murphy & Dweck, 2015; Skitka, 2010).

Approximately four months after Study 2a, a random sample of 240 participants was recontacted. Of these, 186 individuals responded (response rate = 77.5%). After removing 12 cases due to failed Wave-2 attention checks, the final retest sample comprised n = 174 paired observations.

Mean RTM scores showed no significant change across waves: M(Wave 1) = 5.15, SD = 0.81; M(Wave 2) = 5.12, SD = 0.75; paired t(173) = 0.69, p = .489. To assess individual-level consistency, we computed a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1), appropriate for evaluating absolute agreement across time points (Dholakia et al., 2016). The resulting ICC = .856 [95% CI: 0.776, 0.916] indicates very strong test-retest reliability, well above conventional benchmarks for psychological constructs interpreted as dispositions or belief systems. These findings support the trait-like temporal stability of RTM and justify its theoretical positioning as a durable belief system akin to moralized values (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Skitka, 2010).

Discussion of Studies 2a and 2b

Study 2a confirms that the RTM is a psychometrically sound and conceptually distinct construct. RTM demonstrated strong internal consistency, discriminant validity, and predictive utility, uniquely forecasting both self-directed regenerative behaviors and support for tourism reforms. Notably, long-term stewardship robustly predicted backing for high-impact, systemic policies, extending prior insights on value-driven environmental action (Stern, 2000). Contextual moderation by tourism dependence and environmental quality aligns with place-based models of sustainability mindsets (Raymond et al., 2010). Study 2b established the trait-like temporal stability of RTM, supporting its theoretical positioning as a durable belief system akin to moralized values (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Skitka, 2010). Together, these studies validate RTM as a reliable and behaviorally meaningful construct, well-suited for segmentation, longitudinal research, and intervention design in regenerative tourism.

Participants and Procedure

A sample of 469 U.S. adults was recruited through Prolific. After removing 19 participants who failed attention checks, 450 valid responses (M_age = 38.5, SD = 10.3; 50.0% female; 56.2% with a bachelor’s degree) remained. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Those in the “Regeneration Is Achievable” group (n = 149) read a short article describing real-world success stories of regenerative tourism (e.g., coral planting, local community benefits). Those in the “Regeneration Is Unrealistic” group (n = 149) read about tourism’s environmental shortcomings and instances of greenwashing. A control group (n = 152) read a logistically focused article on travel planning. The articles were inspired by real media sources and timed to five minutes. All participants then completed the 18-item RTM scale, along with measures of growth mindset, personal capacity for change, consumer variety seeking, internal locus of control, and need for cognition (see Supplemental Appendix B for detailed measurement and Supplemental Appendix C for experimental stimuli).

Analysis and Results

All multi-item constructs in Study 3 demonstrated strong psychometric properties. CFA of the six-factor model (RTM, growth mindset, personal capacity for change, internal locus of control, variety seeking, and need for cognition) showed excellent fit. Standardized loadings exceeded 0.70 for all items, and composite reliabilities and average variance extracted met the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019). Discriminant validity was confirmed using both the Fornell-Larcker criterion and HTMT ratios (all below .70), establishing that RTM and related traits capture distinct psychological domains while retaining convergent coherence within each construct.

Nomological Positioning

The first objective was to position RTM within a broader psychological network. Correlation analysis revealed that RTM was associated with personal capacity for change (r = .265, p < .001) and with internal locus of control (r = .208, p < .001), consistent with theoretical expectations. RTM did not correlate significantly with variety seeking (r = .08, ns), with need for cognition (r = −.04, ns), or with growth mindset in this sample (r = −.04, ns), reinforcing the view that RTM reflects a motivational and value-laden belief system rather than a generic mindset, a preference for novelty per se, or a thinking-style trait. This pattern supports the theoretical distinctiveness of RTM as a moralized, agency-oriented belief system, grounded more in motivational adaptability than in cognitive style, underscoring its relevance for predicting value-driven tourism behaviors.

Manipulation Check and RTM Main Effect

The second objective was to examine whether RTM could be experimentally influenced through brief mindset interventions. The manipulation check confirmed strong condition differences, F(2, 447) = 332.20, p < .001. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on RTM scores, F(2, 447) = 1,667.54, p < .001. Participants exposed to the “Achievable” article reported significantly higher RTM levels (M = 5.94, SD = 0.20) than both the control group (M = 5.02, SD = 0.20) and the “Unrealistic” condition (M = 4.15, SD = 0.37). Tukey HSD confirmed all pairwise differences were statistically significant at p < .001, with the largest gap between the Achievable and Unrealistic groups (delta_M = 1.80). These results demonstrate that RTM is malleable and can be elevated or dampened through ecologically grounded narrative framing.

Mediation

The third objective was to test whether both the manipulated and measured RTM would predict regenerative travel intentions and behaviors. Using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2018) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples, we estimated a parallel set of mediation models with article condition as the independent variable, RTM as the mediator, and four regenerative consumption outcomes as dependent variables: ad evaluation, purchase likelihood, willingness to pay, and donation preference. First, article condition significantly predicted RTM (a path = .90, p < .001), confirming that the mindset intervention effectively influenced regenerative travel mindset. In turn, RTM significantly predicted three of the four outcomes after adjusting for direct effects of condition: ad evaluation (b = .67, p < .001), purchase likelihood (b = .72, p < .001), and willingness to pay (b = $13.38, p = .004). RTM marginally predicted donation preference (b = .33, p = .062). The direct effect of article condition on each outcome was non-significant (all p-values > .05), indicating full mediation through RTM. Indirect effects were robust and statistically significant for three of four outcomes, with the fourth marginal: ad evaluation, ab = .60 [0.34, 0.85]; purchase likelihood, ab = .65 [0.36, 0.96]; willingness to pay, ab = $12.02 [$3.79, $20.57]; donation preference, ab = .30 [−0.03, 0.64]. Importantly, growth mindset, tested as an alternative mediator, did not significantly predict any outcome, thereby reinforcing the unique explanatory power and behavioral relevance of RTM in shaping regenerative travel behavior (see Table 7 for mediation results).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

Study 3 Mediation of Mindset Manipulation on Consumer Outcomes through RTM (n = 450; 5,000 Bootstrap Resamples).

Outcome (DV)	a (IV → RTM)	b (RTM → DV)	c’ (direct)	ab (indirect)	95% CI of ab
Ad evaluation	.90***	.67***	−.25 (ns)	.60	[0.34, 0.85]
Purchase likelihood	.90***	.72***	−.13 (ns)	.65	[0.36, 0.96]
Willingness to pay ($)	.90***	13.38**	−.40 (ns)	12.02	[3.79, 20.57]
Donation preference	.90***	.33*	.02 (ns)	.30	[−0.03, 0.64]

Note. IV = mindset condition coded -1 (Unrealistic), 0 (Control), +1 (Achievable). RTM is the 18-item mindset score (mean across reverse-coded items). a = effect of IV on RTM; b = effect of RTM on DV adjusting for IV; c’ = direct effect of IV on DV adjusting for RTM; ab = indirect effect (a multiplied by b).

Significance: ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .10; (ns) p > .10. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) percentile intervals from 5,000 bootstrap resamples. Direct effects of condition on all outcomes were nonsignificant, consistent with full mediation through RTM. Growth mindset was tested as an alternative mediator and did not significantly predict any outcome.

Study 4a: RTM and Choice of Regenerative Travel Packages

Study 4a assessed whether RTM predicts a preference for regenerative travel products over conventional ones. A sample of 312 adult attendees at a regional travel expo (M_age = 38.7, SD = 11.3; 52.2% female) completed a kiosk-based survey in exchange for a promotional gift. After completing the 18-item RTM scale (alpha = .91), participants reviewed descriptions of two 7-day coastal vacation packages. The conventional package featured a luxury seaside resort with standard tours and beachfront dining, while the regenerative package emphasized an eco-boutique lodge where the stay funded local mangrove restoration and included hands-on replanting activities (see Supplemental Appendix D for full package descriptions). The package presentation was counterbalanced to avoid order effects. Participants were asked to indicate which package they would book, assuming equal price (coded 0 = conventional, 1 = regenerative), how much more they would be willing to pay for the regenerative option, and how authentic they perceived the regenerative claim to be (1 = not at all authentic; 7 = very authentic). See Supplemental Appendix E for measurement items. As a brief theoretical rationale, RTM is a moralized, identity-relevant mindset; thus, higher RTM should increase preference for offerings that enable surplus-positive impact, willingness to incur private costs (WTP), and authenticity appraisals when claims cohere with one’s ethical self-standards (Ajzen, 1991; White et al., 2019).

Study 4b: RTM and Support for Community-Led Regenerative Tourism Projects

To further assess the behavioral impact of the RTM, Study 4b examined how RTM influences individuals’ allocation of tourism-related donations in a realistic yet hypothetical funding scenario. A separate sample of 220 U.S. adults (M_age = 36.2, SD = 11.1; 47.7% female), recruited through a tourism-focused online panel, participated in exchange for $2.00. Participants first completed the 18-item RTM scale, which demonstrated strong internal consistency (alpha = .91), and were then introduced to two donation opportunities supporting marine ecosystem regeneration in a coastal village. The first option, a Beach Clean-Up Program, was framed as a low-impact, volunteer-driven initiative focused on short-term litter removal. The second option, a Community Coral Nursery, was described as a high-impact, youth-led project that enabled ongoing visitor participation and emphasized long-term ecological restoration (see Supplemental Appendix F). Participants were asked to allocate a hypothetical $100 donation between the two initiatives and to rate both their perceived social impact of the options (three items; alpha = .89) and their emotional connection to the destination (three items; alpha = .91). See Supplemental Appendix G for the complete list of measurement items. Theoretically, RTM should prioritize initiatives with durable, system-level effects and host co-agency; thus, higher RTM is expected to shift funds toward community-anchored, long-horizon projects, with perceived social impact and emotional connection acting as proximal appraisals through which moralized beliefs guide giving (White et al., 2019).

Discussion of Study 4

Together, Studies 4a and 4b provide compelling evidence that RTM predicts real-world, value-aligned travel behavior. In a live consumer setting, individuals higher in RTM were more likely to select regenerative travel packages, perceive them as more authentic, and pay a premium for them. In a donation simulation, those high in RTM directed more funding to transformative, community-anchored tourism initiatives. Importantly, these effects were not explained by general motivational traits such as growth mindset, but rather by RTM’s specific emphasis on surplus impact, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship. Moreover, the mediation findings in Study 4b suggest that RTM’s influence operates through heightened perceptions of social relevance and emotional engagement, two psychological channels critical for fostering sustained pro-regenerative action. These insights highlight the utility of RTM not only as a theoretical construct but also as a managerial tool for segmentation, targeting, and message framing in tourism marketing and sustainability planning.

Theoretical Implications

This research extends mindset theory by specifying a moralized, domain-specific mindset that organizes meaning and action in tourism contexts. Classic mindset work (e.g., growth mindset) centers on beliefs about the malleability of personal abilities and their downstream effects on effort and achievement (Dweck, 2016; Murphy & Dweck, 2015). The RTM instead captures deontic beliefs about how one ought to travel, integrating obligation to “leave places better," reciprocity with host communities, and time-extended responsibility. In doing so, RTM broadens mindset theory beyond intrapersonal competence to include collective, other-regarding goals, demonstrating that mindsets can be organized around moral duties and stewardship rather than self-improvement alone. This positions mindsets as scaffolds for pursuing ethical goals in consumption domains where choices implicate identity, agency, and justice. Importantly, RTM is better conceptualized as a mindset rather than a moral identity, value orientation, or injunctive norm. Unlike moral identity, which reflects the centrality of morality to the self-concept (Aquino & Reed, 2002), RTM functions as an interpretive framework that shapes how individuals construe situations and evaluate appropriate action in a specific domain. Unlike value orientations, which represent abstract guiding principles (Schwartz, 1992), RTM organizes domain-specific beliefs about purpose, obligation, and responsibility into a coherent system that directs behavior. Further, unlike injunctive norms, which capture perceived social expectations, RTM reflects internally endorsed, self-regulatory beliefs that guide action independent of external pressure. This distinction reinforces RTM’s alignment with mindset theory as a cognitive-motivational framework that structures meaning and action within a defined context.

The findings also clarify the multidimensional architecture of moralized mindsets. RTM’s three correlated yet distinct dimensions, positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, and long-term stewardship, demonstrate that a regenerative orientation is not a unitary attitude but a coordinated set of belief clusters with separable predictive pathways. This advances theory beyond omnibus “sustainability attitudes” by identifying which belief element moves which outcome (e.g., stewardship and support for high-impact policies), and it supports a correlated reflective specification rather than a higher-order or formative composite when inter-factor correlations are modest, and indicators share common meaning within factors. More broadly, RTM also clarifies the conceptual boundary of moralized mindsets in tourism contexts. While many tourism-related beliefs may carry moral content (e.g., sustainability attitudes or ethical consumption preferences), not all constitute a mindset. Moralized mindsets are distinguished by their role as organizing belief systems that integrate multiple dimensions, such as purpose, relational obligation, and temporal responsibility, into a coherent framework that guides interpretation and action. In contrast, isolated moral beliefs or attitudes may indicate what individuals value but do not necessarily structure how they make decisions across situations. RTM therefore represents a specific class of moralized mindset, defined by its domain-specificity, multidimensional structure, and action-guiding function, distinguishing it from broader, less integrated moral belief systems in tourism. Conceptually, this means interventions can be targeted to the mechanism most likely to matter (e.g., reciprocity cues for community co-agency vs. stewardship cues for long-horizon instruments).

A third implication is the theoretical demarcation from adjacent constructs commonly invoked in environmental psychology. Biospheric value orientation captures intrinsic concern for nature (De Groot & Steg, 2008), and environmental locus of control indexes perceived personal efficacy (Cleveland et al., 2020). RTM is distinct in encoding a surplus-generation norm (active repair and renewal), justice-infused reciprocity with hosts, and intergenerational stewardship, features not inherent to values or efficacy alone. By demonstrating discriminant validity from these constructs, the results indicate that ethical obligation and time-extended responsibility are necessary elements to explain willingness to endorse costly, net-positive tourism actions beyond what concern or control beliefs can account for.

Fourth, the work integrates temporality into consumer ethics by showing that long-term stewardship is a disproportionate driver of support for system-level, delayed-benefit policies (e.g., restoration levies). Environmental psychology has linked future orientation and perceived efficacy to pro-environmental action (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014); however, these facets are rarely formalized within a mindset architecture. RTM provides that structure and highlights intertemporal moral reasoning as a central mechanism through which consumers endorse collective, high-impact interventions, connecting sustainability choice to time-extended identity and responsibility rather than to immediate hedonic outcomes (cf. Stern, 2000).

Fifth, the research clarifies how moralized mindsets change: RTM exhibits trait-like stability yet is selectively malleable via identity-congruent narratives. Identity-based storytelling is known to shape self-standards and prosocial choice (Escalas & Bettman, 2005), and moral framing can mobilize collective action (Feinberg & Willer, 2012). Consistent with this literature, and with the idea that mindsets can be shifted when new interpretations of agency become salient (Murphy & Dweck, 2015), RTM increases following narratives that render regeneration achievable and self-diagnostic. This dual property (stability with bounded malleability) refines theory on when moralized beliefs move: not via generic information, but via stories that align stewardship and reciprocity with one’s moral identity (White et al., 2019).

Finally, the results situate mindsets within a socio-ecological context. The stronger translation of ecological quality into RTM under higher tourism dependence indicates that mindset expression is place-embedded: where livelihoods hinge on tourism, environmental conditions become more instrumentally and symbolically salient, amplifying stewardship-consistent beliefs. This aligns with research on place dependence and attachment as drivers of environmental meaning (Stedman, 2002) and underscores that moralized consumption mindsets are context-conditioned; their predictive force is heightened when ecological and economic stakes are locally legible. Together, these implications reposition tourism mindsets as multidimensional, moralized, time-extended, narratively mobilizable, and context-embedded belief systems that better explain when and why travelers support net-positive social-ecological outcomes.

Practical Implications

This research offers actionable, context-rich insights for tourism marketers, policymakers, destination management organizations (DMOs), and hospitality practitioners seeking to integrate regenerative principles into their travel strategies and operations. By developing and validating the RTM as a measurable, multidimensional belief system, this work advances beyond aspirational sustainability rhetoric to provide a diagnostic and intervention-ready tool for guiding behavioral, communicational, and policy-level transformations in tourism systems.

The RTM scale can function as a psychographic segmentation instrument to identify, understand, and engage traveler segments predisposed toward regenerative consumption. Unlike demographic targeting, which often misses psychological readiness, RTM enables precision marketing by mapping predispositions to positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, and long-term stewardship. In practice, DMOs or operators can deploy a brief RTM screener (comprising 6 to 9 items from the validated 18) at opt-in touchpoints (such as pre-trip surveys, loyalty programs, and booking flows) to generate aggregate market-readiness heatmaps. These profiles guide the development of premium regenerative packages or conservation-linked pricing and help anticipate behavioral elasticity (e.g., willingness to pay, levy support). Used ethically at the segment level, not the individual level, RTM replaces intuition with evidence-based targeting while preserving privacy and autonomy.

The study results show RTM can be causally elevated through narrative interventions, offering a blueprint for message design. Communications should match RTM dimensions with tailored story arcs: for positive impact intentionality, emphasize tangible outcomes (“each booking restores 10 square meters of reef”) to activate efficacy-based moral motivation; for community reciprocity, foreground shared benefits and local co-agency through vignettes of youth cooperatives or artisan partnerships; for long-term stewardship, invoke legacy and continuity (“travel that lasts beyond your visit”) to connect choices to intergenerational responsibility. These frames can be embedded across destination microsites, booking confirmations, in-flight content, and post-trip updates that report back on impacts achieved, turning communication into ongoing stewardship activation rather than one-off persuasion.

RTM also guides experience innovation and co-design. Because high-RTM travelers show stronger authenticity judgments and willingness to pay, products should operationalize regeneration through participatory modules: “impact tracks” (reef restoration, biodiversity mapping, agroforestry workshops) for impact intentionality; “reciprocity touchpoints” (community-led classes, cooperative homestays, shared governance briefings) for community reciprocity; and “stewardship extensions” (post-visit restoration updates, citizen-science subscriptions, conservation membership options) for long-term stewardship. These features translate ethical commitments into measurable contributions from visitors that guests can see and feel, while supporting value-aligned pricing and margins that enable operators to transition from low-cost, high-volume models to regenerative, high-engagement models.

At the policy interface, RTM offers leverage for governance instruments such as conservation levies, restoration surcharges, or certification-linked pricing. Rather than presenting fees as compliance, authorities can frame them as voluntary regenerative contributions with visible outcomes, aligning moral motivation with perceived efficacy (Steg et al., 2014). Destinations can bundle “Stay + Restore” offerings, allocating a transparent share of funds to mangrove or reef projects, and use aggregate RTM profiles to sequence policy rollouts where stewardship receptivity is highest. This shift in tourism management from command-and-control to co-creation and commitment enhances the acceptance and legitimacy of high-impact measures.

A persistent gap in regenerative programs is the lack of demand-side metrics that complement supply-side certification. RTM provides a traveler-centered KPI: destinations and certification bodies (e.g., Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2024) can integrate longitudinal RTM tracking to evaluate whether storytelling, product changes, or policy shifts are cultivating regenerative mindsets. Pre/post campaign RTM measures indicate whether communications foster moral engagement or merely surface “green” compliance. By coupling RTM trajectories with ecological indicators (e.g., restored hectares, biodiversity scores), managers can demonstrate joined-up impact, psychological readiness, and ecological recovery, thereby closing the loop between intention, action, and system outcomes.

Embedding RTM into managerial training and frontline service ensures regeneration is practiced, not just promised. Guides, concierge teams, and hosts can be trained to create micro-moments that enact each RTM dimension: inviting guests to morning planting (impact), facilitating introductions to local stewards (reciprocity), and sharing post-departure progress updates (stewardship). These interactions enhance perceived authenticity, satisfaction, and loyalty, while aligning back-of-house operations (sustainability teams, product, marketing) around a shared moral vocabulary of regeneration. The result is organization-wide coherence between the message and the experience.

Finally, because RTM captures moral and ethical beliefs, the application must be responsible and transparent. Assessments should be opt-in, minimally intrusive, and analyzed at the aggregate to avoid individual profiling. Messaging should remain inclusive, inviting all visitors, regardless of baseline RTM, into meaningful participation and avoiding moralizing or shaming. Aligning the use of RTM with ethical marketing principles protects consumer autonomy and community dignity, ensuring that regeneration remains restorative in both its means and its ends.

Taken together, these practice pathways position RTM as a strategic compass for regenerative transformation: segmenting markets by readiness, activating mindsets through targeted narratives, designing participatory products that deliver measurable impact, building policy acceptance via stewardship framing, measuring psychological change alongside ecological outcomes, and professionalizing frontline delivery. RTM thus equips practitioners with a scalable, empirically grounded, and ethically sound framework to move from sustainability as compliance to regeneration as co-created value and collective legacy.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While this research offers a theoretically grounded and empirically robust account of the RTM, it is not without limitations. First, although the RTM construct was validated across multiple samples, most participants were based in the United States and recruited via online panels such as Prolific. This raises concerns about cultural generalizability. Regenerative values and perceptions of moral responsibility may differ substantially across collectivist vs. individualist cultures (Schwartz, 1992) or between Global North and South contexts. Future research should test the cross-cultural validity of the RTM scale through measurement invariance testing across diverse international populations.

Second, the studies primarily relied on self-reported behavioral intentions and hypothetical scenarios (e.g., package selection, donation allocation), which may not fully capture actual behavior in real-world settings. Despite efforts to enhance realism, such as field-based data collection at a travel expo and a simulation of donation choices, social desirability and hypothetical bias may still affect responses (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future work could incorporate behavioral tracking methods, such as digital travel booking data, GPS-based mobility logs, or real donation records, to validate whether RTM scores predict observed behavior over time.

Third, although RTM has been shown to be malleable through narrative-based interventions, the longevity and durability of these effects remain unclear. The manipulation in Study 3 involved a brief exposure to a written stimulus, and while immediate post-exposure effects were significant, the persistence of mindset change over time was not assessed. Future research could investigate the duration and decay of induced RTM activation using longitudinal experimental designs and assess the effectiveness of various media formats (e.g., immersive video, social media campaigns, VR-based storytelling) in promoting sustained regenerative beliefs.

Fourth, to situate the present measure within a broader measurement ecosystem, we emphasize that the RTM scale is intentionally core and parsimonious, capturing the three belief clusters that most consistently defined a regenerative orientation across our multi-method program (positive impact intentionality, community reciprocity, long-term stewardship). The full item-pool history is provided in Supplemental Appendix H. At the same time, we see clear room for complementary yet distinct “sibling” scales that target adjacent rather than identical construct spaces (e.g., spiritual connectedness to nature, perceived systemic efficacy, identity-based stewardship). Such instruments could be developed as stand-alone reflective measures for those specific domains or as modular extensions that researchers can append when their questions require that added granularity. In other words, RTM provides a stable, foundational metric for mindset, while future work can develop related but distinct scales to probe specialized facets beyond the scope of a general regenerative travel mindset. This modular approach preserves conceptual clarity, avoids construct bloat, and enables researchers and practitioners to mix and match the most relevant tools for a given theoretical or applied context.

Fifth, the current studies focused predominantly on individual-level beliefs and behaviors. However, tourism decisions often involve dyads, families, or peer groups, especially for long-distance or high-cost trips. Future research could examine how RTM operates in group dynamics, whether regenerative mindsets diffuse socially, face resistance, or get negotiated within collective decision-making settings.

Lastly, while RTM has shown relevance for travel-related behavior, its utility beyond tourism remains an open question. Future research could examine the generalizability of RTM to other domains of regenerative or prosocial consumption, such as ethical fashion, sustainable housing, or community-supported agriculture, to explore whether RTM functions as a domain-specific or cross-domain mindset. By addressing these limitations, future research can further strengthen the theoretical precision, cross-contextual relevance, and applied utility of the RTM construct within and beyond tourism studies.