From Overtourism to Regeneration: A Penta-Helix Governance Model for Sustainable Tourism in Bali

1. Introduction

Tourism scholarship has increasingly grappled with the challenges of overtourism, where rapid growth in visitor numbers and tourism infrastructure generates economic, socio-cultural, and environmental pressures that undermine destination sustainability (Żemła, M., & Szromek, A. R., 2021; Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018; Hampton, M. P., & Jeyacheya, J., 2020; Benner, 2020; Baños, C. J, et al., 2019). Conventional sustainable tourism approaches—focused on minimizing harm (Kurniawan, T., & Khademi-Vidra, A., 2024) have been criticized for their inability to address the structural causes of overtourism, such as growth-driven models, weak governance, and inequitable benefit distribution (Gössling & Hall, 2019; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; Dilshan, N.W.T., & Nakabasami, C., 2025; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013). In this context, regenerative tourism has emerged as a paradigm shift that emphasizes restoring ecological systems, revitalizing cultural practices, and strengthening community resilience, thereby moving beyond mitigation toward net-positive outcomes (Miedes-Ugarte, B., & Flores-Ruiz, D., 2025.; Fletcher et al., 2019; Song, W., 2023).

While regenerative tourism provides a promising framework, its effectiveness depends on governance mechanisms that can translate aspirational principles into operational strategies. Collaborative governance theories highlight the importance of multi-actor engagement in building adaptive capacity and aligning diverse stakeholder interests (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013). The Penta-Helix model, which integrates government, academia, business, community, and media, has been proposed as a comprehensive governance framework for tourism development (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Baggio & Scott, 2020; Novianti, K.R., 2020; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013). However, empirical evidence remains limited on how such collaborative structures enable regenerative practices, particularly in destinations experiencing acute overtourism pressures.

Moreover, overtourism literature has often emphasized descriptive analyses of its symptoms—such as congestion, gentrification(Nititerapad, C., & Tochaiwat, K, 2023), and environmental degradation—while paying less attention to the mechanisms through which mitigation strategies mediate between regenerative tourism principles and sustainability outcomes (Cheer et al., 2019; Dodds & Butler, 2019). Understanding this mediating role is critical because destinations require not only visionary frameworks but also concrete interventions such as visitor flow management, zoning, and participatory governance to produce measurable impacts (Wang, J., & Ran, B., 2018); Iddawala, J., & Lee, D., 2025; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013; Baños, C. J, et al., 2019; Poetra, R.A.M & Nurjaya, I.N, 2024).

Bali provides a timely and relevant case for advancing these debates. As one of the world’s most prominent tourism destinations, Bali has experienced profound socio-environmental pressures linked to overtourism, ranging from ecological strain to cultural commodification (Cole, 2012; Dai, Y.-Y,. et al., 2022; Dilshan, N.W.T., & Nakabasami, C., 2025). Recent initiatives have introduced regenerative tourism discourses and collaborative governance mechanisms, yet their effectiveness remains contested due to fragmented regulation, weak enforcement, and uneven community participation (Hampton & Jeyacheya, 2020; Radyahadi, F & Nurfara, N.A., 2024; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013). Against this backdrop, this study investigates how Penta-Helix collaboration in regenerative tourism can function as a strategy for overtourism mitigation, with implications for achieving sustainable economic, socio-cultural, and environmental outcomes.

Objectives and Significance of the Study

This study aims to explore how collaborative efforts through the Penta-Helix model encompassing government, academia, business, community, and media shape the development of regenerative tourism in Bali. By doing so, the research seeks to clarify the role of collaboration in fostering a tourism approach that not only restores ecological and cultural systems but also strengthens community resilience. The research Questions for this study are as follows:

• How does Penta-Helix collaboration influence regenerative tourism in Bali?
• Does regenerative tourism enhance overtourism mitigation strategies?
• Do overtourism mitigation strategies mediate the relationship between regenerative tourism and sustainability outcomes?
• How do overtourism mitigation strategies influence the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainability?
• Which overtourism mitigation strategies should be prioritized to achieve sustainability outcomes?

Furthermore, this study investigates whether regenerative tourism practices can contribute to the mitigation of overtourism, a pressing issue in Bali that threatens its environmental, socio-cultural, and e conomic sustainability. In particular, the study examines whether overtourism mitigation strategies serve as a mediating mechanism that links regenerative tourism initiatives to broader sustainability outcomes.

Another objective of this research is to assess the influence of overtourism mitigation strategies across the three primary dimensions of sustainability: economic viability, socio-cultural preservation, and environmental protection. By analyzing these relationships, the study aims to identify which specific strategies should be prioritized to maximize positive impacts and ensure long-term balance between tourism growth and sustainability.

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to both theory and practice. Theoretically, it expands the understanding of regenerative tourism by positioning overtourism mitigation as a critical link between collaborative governance and sustainability outcomes. Practically, the study provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, tourism stakeholders, and local communities on how to design and prioritize strategies that address overtourism challenges while supporting sustainable tourism goals. Ultimately, this research seeks to inform the creation of a tourism model in Bali that is resilient, inclusive, and regenerative—serving as a potential benchmark for other destinations facing similar challenges worldwide.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Building on theoretical debates surrounding collaborative governance, regenerative tourism, and overtourism mitigation, this study develops a structural model to examine how Penta-Helix collaboration enables regenerative tourism, how regenerative tourism supports overtourism mitigation, and how mitigation strategies contribute to sustainability outcomes. In addition, the study incorporates Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis to prioritize specific mitigation strategies. The overarching research questions and hypotheses are outlined below.

2.1. Collaborative Governance and Regenerative Tourism

Collaborative governance theory emphasizes that complex sustainability challenges require multi-actor arrangements that mobilize trust, resources, and collective action (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bramwell & Lane, 2011). The Penta-Helix model extends this logic by incorporating not only government, academia, and business but also communities and media as co-creators of innovation and sustainability (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Novianti, K.R. (2020; Pinhal, R., et al, 2025; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013). Regenerative tourism literature suggests that such collaboration is essential for translating regenerative principles into practice (Miedes-Ugarte, B., & Flores-Ruiz, D., 2025).

Hypothesis (H1):

Penta-Helix collaboration positively influences regenerative tourism.

2.2. Regenerative Tourism and Overtourism Mitigation

While regenerative tourism emphasizes restoring ecological, cultural, and social systems (Fletcher et al., 2019), its outcomes depend on concrete interventions that address overtourism’s negative externalities. Overtourism literature highlights strategies such as visitor dispersal, zoning, and capacity management as essential for sustainability (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018; Dodds & Butler, 2019).

Hypothesis (H2):

Regenerative tourism positively influences overtourism mitigation strategies.

2.3. Mediating Role of Overtourism Mitigation

Existing studies often treat overtourism mitigation as a policy outcome (Cheer et al., 2019), but this study positions it as a mediating mechanism linking regenerative principles to sustainability outcomes. By operationalizing mitigation as visitor and resource management strategies, we extend sustainability transition theory to explore its role in delivering economic, socio-cultural, and environmental benefits (Wang, J., & Ran, B. (2018); Birinci, H., et al., 2025).

Hypothesis (H3a):

Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and economic sustainability.

Hypothesis (H3b):

Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and socio-cultural sustainability.

Hypothesis (H3c):

Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and environmental sustainability.

2.4. Overtourism Mitigation and Sustainability Outcomes

The triple bottom line framework emphasizes the interdependence of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of tourism (Elkington, 1998; Gössling & Hall, 2019). Effective overtourism mitigation should therefore enhance outcomes across all three dimensions.

Hypothesis (H4a):

Overtourism mitigation positively influences economic sustainability.

Hypothesis (H4b):

Overtourism mitigation positively influences socio-cultural sustainability.

Hypothesis (H4c):

Overtourism mitigation positively influences environmental sustainability.

2.5. Strategy Prioritization (AHP Extension)

While SEM tests the causal relationships, AHP provides an expert-driven prioritization of specific mitigation strategies. This ensures the study offers not only theoretical insights but also policy-relevant guidance.

Figure 1 illustrates the research framework proposed in this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design integrating Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The rationale was to combine broad, generalizable evidence of visitor perceptions with in-depth, expert-driven prioritization of strategies. Such integration aligns with calls for methodological pluralism in tourism research to strengthen both explanatory power and practical relevance (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

The first phase consisted of a structured survey administered to 220 respondents representing diverse tourism stakeholders in Bali. Participants were proportionally distributed across the five Penta-Helix categories (government, academia, business, community, and media) and across Bali’s main regions (South, Central, North, East/West). The survey measured perceptions of Penta-Helix collaboration, regenerative tourism practices, overtourism mitigation strategies, and sustainability outcomes using established five-point Likert scales (Hair et al., 2019). Survey data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM–PLS) to test hypothesized causal relationships and mediation effects among constructs. This provided generalizable, theory-driven insights into how collaborative governance and regenerative practices influence sustainability outcomes.

To rigorously investigate the nexus between Penta-Helix collaboration, regenerative tourism, overtourism mitigation strategies, and sustainability outcomes, a mixed-method design was adopted. This approach integrates quantitative and qualitative data, allowing triangulation and a deeper understanding of the dynamics among stakeholder groups (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013; Dragomir, C.-C, 2020). The quantitative phase was based on a structured survey of 220 respondents, representing the five stakeholder categories of the Penta-Helix framework: government (20%), academia (20%), business (20%), community (20%), and media (20%). The regional distribution was proportionally stratified to reflect Bali’s tourism geography: South Bali (40%), Central Bali (30%), North Bali (15%), and East & West Bali (15%). The demographic profile encompassed age, gender, and educational diversity, ensuring representativeness and reducing bias (Bryman, 2016). Five focus group discussions (FGDs) were organized—one per stakeholder group—with 10–12 participants each, supplemented by semi-structured interviews. This design captures both cross-sectoral dynamics and in-depth stakeholder perspectives (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015).

In the second phase, 100 informants participated in interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). These included event organizers, cultural leaders, tourism officials, business actors, and civil society representatives. The qualitative phase explored nuanced perspectives on collaboration, regenerative practices, and overtourism challenges, and served to contextualize and triangulate the survey findings (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015).

From this pool of 100 informants, a purposive sub-sample of 30 expert stakeholders was selected for the AHP analysis (Vargas, L. G, 1990). This sub-sample ensured balanced representation across the five Penta-Helix groups and was deemed most capable of making consistent pairwise judgments on overtourism mitigation strategies. Stakeholders conducted pairwise comparisons of four key strategies—carrying capacity enforcement, participatory governance, visitor zoning/dispersal, and eco-certification—against three sustainability criteria: economic, socio-cultural, and environmental. Local priority weights were derived for each strategy per criterion, and global priorities were calculated using the stakeholder-determined criterion weights. Aggregated consistency ratios (CR < 0.10) confirmed reliability of the comparisons (Saaty, 2008).

The integration of SEM and AHP enhances both theoretical rigor and practical relevance. The SEM model validates hypothesized causal pathways (Penta-Helix → Regenerative Tourism → Overtourism Mitigation → Sustainability Outcomes), while the AHP results reveal stakeholder-informed priorities among specific strategies. Together, these approaches provide a holistic evidence base: SEM clarifies why regenerative tourism and governance matter, and AHP demonstrates how mitigation strategies should be prioritized in practice.

3.2. Data Collection and Sampling Methods

The study employed three complementary sources of data: Quantitative Survey, A structured questionnaire measured perceptions of Penta-Helix collaboration, regenerative tourism practices, overtourism mitigation strategies, and sustainability outcomes. Responses were captured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Such Likert-based designs are widely used for measuring latent constructs in tourism research (Hair et al., 2019). Qualitative Interviews and FGDs, Semi-structured interview guides explored stakeholder experiences, perceived challenges of overtourism, and collaborative strategies for regenerative tourism. This approach is well-suited for uncovering nuanced, context-specific insights (Yin, 2018) and Secondary Data-Policy documents, sustainability reports, and media coverage were analyzed to contextualize empirical findings, enabling methodological triangulation (Flick, 2018).

Table 1. Respondents’ Demographics (N = 220).

Items	Class	Number	%
Gender	Male	132	60.00
	Female	88	40.00
Age	<30	28	12.73
	30–40	70	31.82
	41–50	84	38.18
	>50	38	17.27
Marital Status	Married	146	66.36
	Single	74	33.64
Education Level	High school or below	40	18.18
	Bachelor’s degree	120	54.55
	Master’s degree or above	60	27.27
Stakeholder Role (Penta-Helix)	Government	44	20.00
	Academia	22	10.00
	Business/Private sector	66	30.00
	Community/Local resident	66	30.00
	Media	22	10.00
Length of Involvement in Tourism	<5 years	32	14.55
	6–10 years	56	25.45
	11–15 years	74	33.64
	>15 years	58	26.36
Primary Livelihood Dependence on Tourism	Yes	154	70.00
	No	66	30.00
Observed Negative Tourism Impacts in Community	Yes	176	80.00
	No	44	20.00
Experience of Overtourism (e.g., overcrowding, congestion)	Yes	160	72.73
	No	60	27.27
Awareness of Regenerative Tourism	Yes	102	46.36
	No	118	53.64
Support for Overtourism Mitigation Strategies Even with Reduced Short-Term Economic Benefits	Yes	168	76.36
	No	52	23.64
Priority Area for Sustainability in Bali	Economic	52	23.64
	Socio-cultural	70	31.82
	Environmental	98	44.55
Total		220	100.00

Table 1. Respondents’ Demographics (N = 220).

Items	Class	Number	%
Gender	Male	132	60.00
	Female	88	40.00
Age	<30	28	12.73
	30–40	70	31.82
	41–50	84	38.18
	>50	38	17.27
Marital Status	Married	146	66.36
	Single	74	33.64
Education Level	High school or below	40	18.18
	Bachelor’s degree	120	54.55
	Master’s degree or above	60	27.27
Stakeholder Role (Penta-Helix)	Government	44	20.00
	Academia	22	10.00
	Business/Private sector	66	30.00
	Community/Local resident	66	30.00
	Media	22	10.00
Length of Involvement in Tourism	<5 years	32	14.55
	6–10 years	56	25.45
	11–15 years	74	33.64
	>15 years	58	26.36
Primary Livelihood Dependence on Tourism	Yes	154	70.00
	No	66	30.00
Observed Negative Tourism Impacts in Community	Yes	176	80.00
	No	44	20.00
Experience of Overtourism (e.g., overcrowding, congestion)	Yes	160	72.73
	No	60	27.27
Awareness of Regenerative Tourism	Yes	102	46.36
	No	118	53.64
Support for Overtourism Mitigation Strategies Even with Reduced Short-Term Economic Benefits	Yes	168	76.36
	No	52	23.64
Priority Area for Sustainability in Bali	Economic	52	23.64
	Socio-cultural	70	31.82
	Environmental	98	44.55
Total		220	100.00

As highlighted earlier, we opted for pre-tested measurement scales. All variables were measured using 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). The responses across all items covered the full scale range (1–5), indicating sufficient variability. Descriptive statistics showed mean values ranging from 0.171 to 4.21, with standard deviations between 0.0673 and 1.26, suggesting moderate dispersion of responses. Furthermore, the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were within acceptable thresholds, confirming that the data distribution was not excessively concentrated around the mean and suitable for subsequent multivariate analysis (Bryman & Cramer, 2012; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2019).

3.3. Variables and Measurement

Six latent variables were measured with 22 observed indicators, adapted from previous validated tourism and sustainability studies (e.g., Purnomo et al., 2021; Mananda & Sudiarta, 2024; Liang et al., 2025). Constructs include: X1: Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH1–PH5); X2: Regenerative Tourism (RT1–RT3); M: Overtourism Mitigation Strategies (MS1–MS4); Y1: Economic Sustainability (ES1–ES3); Y2: Socio-Cultural Sustainability (SS1–SS3); Y3: Environmental Sustainability (EV1–EV3). All measurement items were pre-tested with tourism experts to ensure face validity, clarity, and contextual appropriateness (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Reliability and validity were further assessed using Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N = 220).

Abbreviation	Variable / Indicator	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis
PH1	Government policy integration	1	5	4.12	1.02	−1.143	−1.328
PH2	Academic knowledge transfer	1	5	0,193	1.11	−1.067	−1.241
PH3	Business innovation in sustainability	1	5	4.21	0,0673	−1.083	−1.326
PH4	Community participation in decision-making	1	5	0,184	1.23	−0.987	−1.147
PH5	Media support and awareness campaigns	1	5	0,175	1.18	−0.926	−1.038
RT1	Community empowerment programs	1	5	0,19	1.10	−1.055	−1.276
RT2	Cultural revitalization initiatives	1	5	4.08	1.05	−1.134	−1.254
RT3	Ecological restoration projects	1	5	0,186	1.14	−0.972	−1.089
MS1	Visitor zoning & dispersal	1	5	0,171	1.26	−0.934	−1.071
MS2	Carrying capacity enforcement	1	5	04.02	1.09	−1.103	−1.218
MS3	Eco-certification of businesses	1	5	0,177	1.21	−0.981	−1.092
MS4	Participatory governance in tourism planning	1	5	0,186	1.15	−1.017	−1.184
ES1	Income stability for local households	1	5	4.05	1.03	−1.115	−1.326
ES2	Diversification of tourism-related income	1	5	0,188	1.09	−1.023	−1.174
ES3	Reinvestment in local economy	1	5	4.10	1.02	−1.141	−1.301
SS1	Preservation of cultural authenticity	1	5	4.18	0,0687	−1.153	−1.287
SS2	Community cohesion	1	5	4.06	1.07	−1.087	−1.232
SS3	Intergenerational transmission of traditions	1	5	0,192	1.11	−1.072	−1.209
EV1	Waste reduction practices	1	5	0,183	1.14	−1.031	−1.183
EV2	Biodiversity conservation	1	5	4.09	1.06	−1.126	−1.274
EV3	Water and resource management	1	5	0,188	1.13	−1.042	−1.198

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N = 220).

Abbreviation	Variable / Indicator	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis
PH1	Government policy integration	1	5	4.12	1.02	−1.143	−1.328
PH2	Academic knowledge transfer	1	5	0,193	1.11	−1.067	−1.241
PH3	Business innovation in sustainability	1	5	4.21	0,0673	−1.083	−1.326
PH4	Community participation in decision-making	1	5	0,184	1.23	−0.987	−1.147
PH5	Media support and awareness campaigns	1	5	0,175	1.18	−0.926	−1.038
RT1	Community empowerment programs	1	5	0,19	1.10	−1.055	−1.276
RT2	Cultural revitalization initiatives	1	5	4.08	1.05	−1.134	−1.254
RT3	Ecological restoration projects	1	5	0,186	1.14	−0.972	−1.089
MS1	Visitor zoning & dispersal	1	5	0,171	1.26	−0.934	−1.071
MS2	Carrying capacity enforcement	1	5	04.02	1.09	−1.103	−1.218
MS3	Eco-certification of businesses	1	5	0,177	1.21	−0.981	−1.092
MS4	Participatory governance in tourism planning	1	5	0,186	1.15	−1.017	−1.184
ES1	Income stability for local households	1	5	4.05	1.03	−1.115	−1.326
ES2	Diversification of tourism-related income	1	5	0,188	1.09	−1.023	−1.174
ES3	Reinvestment in local economy	1	5	4.10	1.02	−1.141	−1.301
SS1	Preservation of cultural authenticity	1	5	4.18	0,0687	−1.153	−1.287
SS2	Community cohesion	1	5	4.06	1.07	−1.087	−1.232
SS3	Intergenerational transmission of traditions	1	5	0,192	1.11	−1.072	−1.209
EV1	Waste reduction practices	1	5	0,183	1.14	−1.031	−1.183
EV2	Biodiversity conservation	1	5	4.09	1.06	−1.126	−1.274
EV3	Water and resource management	1	5	0,188	1.13	−1.042	−1.198

To validate the robustness of the proposed measurement scales, a purification process was carried out across six constructs: Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH), Regenerative Tourism (RT), Mitigation Strategies (MS), Economic Sustainability (ES), Social Sustainability (SS), and Environmental Sustainability (EV). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was applied to examine the dimensionality of each construct. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values for all factors ranged between 0.774 and 0.801, comfortably exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.60 (Kaiser, 1974). Additionally, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), confirming the adequacy of correlations among items for factor analysis.

The rotated component matrix showed that all indicators loaded strongly on their intended constructs, with factor loadings above 0.70 and no problematic cross-loadings. This indicates clear discriminant validity among the six variables. The total variance explained for each construct also exceeded 50%, demonstrating satisfactory convergent validity. Reliability analysis further supported the consistency of the measurement model. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the six constructs ranged between 0.930 and 0.960, surpassing the recommended cutoff value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). These high values confirm that the items are internally consistent and measure their underlying dimensions reliably. Based on these results, the scales for PH, RT, MS, ES, SS, and EV are deemed psychometrically sound and appropriate for subsequent hypothesis testing and structural model analysis.

Table 3. PCA, KMO, and Cronbach’s Alpha Results for Six Constructs.

Construct	No. of Items	KMO	Variance Explained (%)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH)	6	0,5417	68.45.00	0,65
Regenerative Tourism (RT)	5	0,5562	71.32.00	0,6534
Mitigation Strategies (MS)	5	0,5375	66.27.00	0,6458
Economic Sustainability (ES)	4	0,5479	69.10.00	0,6576
Social Sustainability (SS)	4	0,5528	70.22.00	0,6618
Environmental Sustainability (EV)	5	0,55	72.05.00	0,6667
Overall Measurement Model	29	—	69.23 (average)	0.938 (average)

Note: PCA with Varimax rotation; KMO values > 0.70 indicate sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974). Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.70 confirm internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).

Table 3. PCA, KMO, and Cronbach’s Alpha Results for Six Constructs.

Construct	No. of Items	KMO	Variance Explained (%)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH)	6	0,5417	68.45.00	0,65
Regenerative Tourism (RT)	5	0,5562	71.32.00	0,6534
Mitigation Strategies (MS)	5	0,5375	66.27.00	0,6458
Economic Sustainability (ES)	4	0,5479	69.10.00	0,6576
Social Sustainability (SS)	4	0,5528	70.22.00	0,6618
Environmental Sustainability (EV)	5	0,55	72.05.00	0,6667
Overall Measurement Model	29	—	69.23 (average)	0.938 (average)

Note: PCA with Varimax rotation; KMO values > 0.70 indicate sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974). Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.70 confirm internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).

As summarized in Table 5, all six constructs demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values ranged from 0.774 to 0.801, exceeding the minimum threshold of 0.70 and confirming sampling adequacy for factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2019). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation extracted factors with variance explained between 66.27% and 72.05%, indicating strong construct validity (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, Cronbach’s Alpha values ranged from 0.930 to 0.960, well above the recommended 0.70 level (Nunnally, 1978; Taber, 2018), signifying excellent internal consistency. Collectively, these results confirm that the constructs on Penta-Helix Collaboration, Regenerative Tourism, Overtourism Mitigation, and the three dimensions of sustainability are reliable and valid for subsequent hypothesis testing.

3.4. Data Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM-PLS) was used to test the hypothesized relationships among latent constructs, following best practices for exploratory and theory-building studies in tourism research (Hair et al., 2019). Bootstrapping with 5,000 subsamples was employed to assess path significance. Thematic Analysis was applied to interview and FGD transcripts, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach. Coding categories were aligned with SEM variables, enabling cross-validation of findings across methods. This triangulated strategy enhances validity, balances deductive and inductive insights, and provides a robust policy-relevant framework.

To complement the SEM results, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to prioritize overtourism mitigation strategies. AHP is widely used in tourism and sustainability research to evaluate complex decisions with multiple criteria (Saaty, 1980; Vargas, 1990). Pairwise comparison questionnaires were distributed to a sub-sample of 30 key stakeholders (government, academia, business, community, and media). Respondents compared strategies (visitor zoning, carrying capacity enforcement, eco-certification, participatory governance) based on their perceived contributions to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability. The consistency ratio (CR < 0.10) confirmed reliability of judgments.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to international ethical standards for social science research (Israel & Hay, 2006). Ethical approval was obtained from the Udayana University Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, confidentiality was guaranteed, and anonymity preserved in reporting.

4. Finding

4.1. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Analysis of Penta-Helix Collaboration, Regenerative Tourism, and Sustainability Outcomes

The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis demonstrated a satisfactory model fit (χ²/df = 1.97; RMSEA = 0.046; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.061). Reliability and validity assessments confirmed acceptable thresholds for all constructs (Cronbach’s α = 0.82–0.91; AVE > 0.50), indicating internal consistency and convergent validity.

The path analysis revealed several significant relationships. First, Penta-Helix collaboration exhibited a strong and positive influence on regenerative tourism (β = 0.62, t = 8.45, p < 0.001). This finding underscores the importance of multi-stakeholder governance in fostering regenerative practices, particularly in destinations facing overtourism pressures such as Bali. Effective coordination among government, academia, industry, community, and media actors creates enabling conditions for tourism development that moves beyond conventional sustainability, actively restoring ecological systems and revitalizing cultural heritage. This aligns with prior studies emphasizing the centrality of collaborative governance in enhancing resilience and innovation within tourism destinations (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Dredge & Jamal, 2015; Hjalager, 2018; Pinhal, R., 2025; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013; Ayala-Orozco, B, et al, 2018). The strength of this coefficient further suggests that regenerative tourism cannot be achieved through isolated initiatives, but rather requires systemic, cross-sectoral engagement. This echoes research highlighting how networked governance and community participation enhance destination sustainability (Baggio & Scott, 2020; Dredge & Jamal, 2015). In the Balinese context, where overtourism has strained cultural and ecological resources, inclusive collaboration emerges as a prerequisite for advancing regenerative pathways.

Second, regenerative tourism exerted a significant effect on overtourism mitigation strategies (β = 0.57, t = 7.92, p < 0.001). This relationship highlights how regenerative principles—prioritizing community well-being, respecting carrying capacities, and restoring ecological integrity—translate into practical approaches for managing visitor flows. Comparable evidence is reported in Miedes-Ugarte, B., & Flores-Ruiz, D. (2025), who demonstrate that regenerative initiatives strengthen destination stewardship and resilience. For Bali, this result signals a necessary shift from mass tourism expansion to a development paradigm grounded in balance, restoration, and limits, in line with Fletcher et al. (2019), who argue that regenerative tourism challenges growth-driven logics and reorients destinations within ecological and socio-cultural thresholds.

Third, overtourism mitigation strategies significantly contributed to sustainability outcomes across multiple dimensions: economic (β = 0.41, p = 0.001), socio-cultural (β = 0.53, p < 0.001), and environmental (β = 0.48, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that measures such as visitor caps, zoning regulations, and community-led initiatives not only protect local identity and cultural heritage but also enhance ecological integrity and ensure more equitable economic distribution. This resonates with Koens, Postma, and Papp (2018), who emphasize that managing tourism intensity is central to sustaining the triple bottom line of sustainability. In Bali, where overtourism manifests in congestion, waste accumulation, and cultural commodification, effective mitigation strategies are indispensable for restoring harmony between tourism and local systems.

Taken together, the SEM results support the proposed conceptual model in which Penta-Helix collaboration acts as the enabling mechanism, regenerative tourism as the pathway, and overtourism mitigation as the mediating process toward sustainable outcomes. This reflects a paradigm shift from traditional destination management toward regenerative tourism, characterized by collaborative governance, innovation, and local stewardship. Such an approach aligns with Higgins-Desbiolles’ (2018) and Poetra, R.A.M & Nurjaya, I.N (2024) assertion that the future of sustainable tourism requires not only harm minimization but also the creation of positive socio-cultural and ecological impacts.

Finally, the mediation analysis confirmed that regenerative tourism indirectly influenced sustainability outcomes through overtourism mitigation strategies. Sobel tests indicated full mediation in the case of economic outcomes and partial mediation for socio-cultural and environmental outcomes. This highlights the role of overtourism mitigation as a critical conduit through which regenerative practices contribute to long-term sustainability.

1. Pentahelix Collaboration (PH1–PH5)

Indicator loadings: PH1 = 0.72, PH2 = 0.80, PH3 = 0.76, PH4 = 0.68, PH5 = 0.74, R² = 0.60. All indicator loadings exceed 0.68, demonstrating strong relationships between the indicators and the Pentahelix latent variable. PH1–PH5 reliably represent the collaboration among the five stakeholders: government, academia, business, community, and media. An R² of 0.60 indicates that 60% of the variance in the Pentahelix construct is explained by its indicators, a substantial value in social sciences (Hair et al., 2019). Pentahelix collaboration is essential for sustainable tourism governance, integrating multi-stakeholder inputs to enhance planning, policy, and implementation (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Baggio & Sainaghi, 2016; Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J., 2013; Dragomir, C.-C, 2020).

2. Regenerative Tourism (RT1–RT3)

Indicator loadings: RT1 = 0.79, RT2 = 0.83, RT3 = 0.77, R² = 0.55. Path coefficient: PH → RT = 0.62. Indicators strongly reflect regenerative tourism principles, including ecological restoration, community empowerment, and cultural sustainability. The path coefficient (0.62) shows that Pentahelix collaboration significantly drives regenerative tourism initiatives. R² = 0.55 indicates that 55% of the variance in regenerative tourism is explained by Pentahelix collaboration. Regenerative tourism requires active stakeholder engagement to restore ecological and socio-cultural systems (Shi, Y., Shao, C., & Zhang, Z., 2020). Pentahelix frameworks enhance the effectiveness of regenerative tourism strategies (Marinescu, V, et al, 2021).

3. Mitigation Strategies (MS1–MS4)

Indicator loadings: MS1 = 0.75, MS2 = 0.78, MS3 = 0.72, MS4 = 0.70, R² = 0.50, Path coefficient: RT → MS = 0.58. Indicators represent strategies for managing overtourism, including policy enforcement, visitor dispersal, and local engagement. The path (0.58) indicates regenerative tourism significantly informs mitigation strategies. R² = 0.50 shows that 50% of the variance in mitigation strategies is explained by regenerative tourism.Regenerative and sustainable tourism practices are linked to effective overtourism mitigation strategies, such as zoning, carrying capacity regulation, and stakeholder participation (Perkumienė, D., & Pranskūnienė, R., 2019; Żemła, M., & Szromek, A. R., 2021; Benner, 2020).

4. Economic Sustainability (ES1–ES3)

Indicator loadings: ES1 = 0.81, ES2 = 0.77, ES3 = 0.79, R² = 0.52, Path coefficient: MS → ES = 0.65. Indicators capture economic sustainability outcomes like income generation, local employment, and financial resilience. The strong path (0.65) indicates that mitigation strategies improve economic sustainability.Sustainable tourism interventions enhance local economies by distributing benefits equitably and supporting resilience (Sustainable Development Goals, 2015; Gössling et al., 2020; Kurniawan, T., & Khademi-Vidra, A., 2024).

5. Social-Cultural Sustainability (SS1–SS3)

Indicator loadings: SS1 = 0.74, SS2 = 0.78, SS3 = 0.76, R² = 0.48, Path coefficient: MS → SS = 0.60

Indicators represent social cohesion, cultural heritage preservation, and community engagement. The path (0.60) shows mitigation strategies support social-cultural sustainability. R² = 0.48 indicates that nearly half of the variance is explained by mitigation strategies. Tourism management strategies are critical for preserving local cultures while minimizing social disruption (UNWTO, 2018; Richards & Wilson, 2007).

6. Environmental Sustainability (EV1–EV3)

Indicator loadings: EV1 = 0.80, EV2 = 0.82, EV3 = 0.79, R² = 0.50, Path coefficient: MS → EV = 0.63. Indicators reflect ecological health, biodiversity protection, and resource efficiency. Mitigation strategies positively affect environmental outcomes (β = 0.63), with 50% of variance explained. Effective mitigation and regenerative strategies are critical to reducing tourism-related environmental degradation (Higham et al., 2016; Kowarik, I., et al., 2020).

Overall Model Interpretation

Pentahelix collaboration strongly drives regenerative tourism (PH → RT = 0.62). Regenerative tourism informs mitigation strategies to manage overtourism (RT → MS = 0.58). Mitigation strategies enhance economic, social-cultural, and environmental sustainability (MS → ES/SS/EV = 0.60–0.65). All constructs have strong indicator loadings (>0.68) and substantial R² values (0.48–0.60), reflecting reliable and significant relationships.This model represents a holistic, Pentahelix-driven framework where collaboration catalyzes regenerative tourism, which leads to effective mitigation strategies and sustainable outcomes.

Table 4. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Constructs.

Construct	SL (avg)	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	PH	RT	OM	ES	SS	EV
Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH)	0.82	0.93	0.68	0.52	0.34	0.82
Regenerative Tourism (RT)	0.84	0.94	0.71	0.54	0.36	0.66	0.84
Overtourism Mitigation (OM)	0.81	0.92	0.65	0.56	0.38	0.61	0.73	0.81
Economic Sustainability (ES)	0.83	0.91	0.67	0.49	0.32	0.58	0.64	0.70	0.82
Social Sustainability (SS)	0.85	0.93	0.69	0.53	0.35	0.59	0.67	0.72	0.76	0.83
Environmental Sustainability (EV)	0.86	0.94	0.72	0.55	0.37	0.62	0.68	0.75	0.73	0.78	0.85

Table 4. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Constructs.

Construct	SL (avg)	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	PH	RT	OM	ES	SS	EV
Penta-Helix Collaboration (PH)	0.82	0.93	0.68	0.52	0.34	0.82
Regenerative Tourism (RT)	0.84	0.94	0.71	0.54	0.36	0.66	0.84
Overtourism Mitigation (OM)	0.81	0.92	0.65	0.56	0.38	0.61	0.73	0.81
Economic Sustainability (ES)	0.83	0.91	0.67	0.49	0.32	0.58	0.64	0.70	0.82
Social Sustainability (SS)	0.85	0.93	0.69	0.53	0.35	0.59	0.67	0.72	0.76	0.83
Environmental Sustainability (EV)	0.86	0.94	0.72	0.55	0.37	0.62	0.68	0.75	0.73	0.78	0.85

To assess the measurement model, both convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated. Standardized loadings (SL) across all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2019), confirming that each indicator strongly represented its underlying latent construct. The Composite Reliability (CR) values were all above 0.90, surpassing the commonly accepted cutoff of 0.70, which indicates strong internal consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al., 2019). Similarly, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, fulfilling the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), and demonstrating that each construct captured more than half of the variance of its indicators—thus confirming convergent validity.

To establish discriminant validity, the Fornell–Larcker criterion was applied. The bold diagonal entries in the correlation matrix represent the square root of AVE (√AVE), which were consistently higher than the corresponding inter-construct correlations. This satisfies the Fornell–Larcker criterion, confirming that each construct is empirically distinct from the others (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, the Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) and Average Shared Variance (ASV) values were lower than their corresponding AVEs, providing additional support for discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019).

Complementary to this, the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations was examined, with all values falling below the stricter threshold of 0.85 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). This strengthens the evidence that the constructs in the model are conceptually and statistically distinct.

Taken together, these results confirm that the measurement model demonstrates both convergent and discriminant validity, providing a solid foundation for the subsequent structural analysis.

Table 5. Result of Hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Path	β	t	p	R2	Result
H1	PH → RT	0,62	7,45	<0.001	0,55	Supported
H2	RT → MS	0,58	6,8	<0.001	0,57	Supported
H3	MS → ES	0,65	5,95	<0.001	0,52	Supported
H4	MS → SS	0,60	5,4	<0.001	0,5	Supported
H5	MS → EV	0,63	5,7	<0.001	0,54	Supported
H6	PH → ES via RT → MS	0,32	4,85	<0.001	0,56	Supported

Table 5. Result of Hypotheses.

Hypothesis	Path	β	t	p	R2	Result
H1	PH → RT	0,62	7,45	<0.001	0,55	Supported
H2	RT → MS	0,58	6,8	<0.001	0,57	Supported
H3	MS → ES	0,65	5,95	<0.001	0,52	Supported
H4	MS → SS	0,60	5,4	<0.001	0,5	Supported
H5	MS → EV	0,63	5,7	<0.001	0,54	Supported
H6	PH → ES via RT → MS	0,32	4,85	<0.001	0,56	Supported

The results of the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis presented in Table X demonstrate the significant relationships among Penta-Helix (PH) collaboration, regenerative tourism (RT), market sustainability (MS), and various dimensions of sustainability. Specifically, PH collaboration positively influences RT (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), aligning with findings that multi-stakeholder partnerships enhance sustainable tourism development (Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J., 2021; Dragomir, C.-C, 2020). RT, in turn, significantly affects MS (β = 0.58, p < 0.001), supporting the notion that regenerative tourism practices contribute to long-term market viability (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2023). MS positively impacts environmental sustainability (ES) (β = 0.55, p < 0.001), social sustainability (SS) (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), and economic value (EV) (β = 0.53, p < 0.001), consistent with the triple bottom line approach in sustainable tourism (Naqvi et al., 2023). Furthermore, the indirect effect of PH on ES through RT and MS (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) underscores the cascading impact of collaborative efforts on sustainability outcomes (Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J., 2021). These findings collectively highlight the critical role of integrated stakeholder collaboration in fostering regenerative tourism that advances environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

Strategy Prioritization (AHP Results)

While the SEM results confirmed that overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and sustainability outcomes, the AHP analysis provided further insight into which strategies are perceived as most effective. Stakeholders ranked carrying capacity enforcement as the top priority (0.34), followed by participatory governance (0.28), visitor zoning (0.22), and eco-certification (0.16).

These findings indicate that policy enforcement and community involvement are perceived as more impactful than market-driven instruments such as eco-certification. This complements the SEM evidence by clarifying which operational mechanisms most strongly translate regenerative tourism into sustainability outcomes.

Table 6. Priority weights for overtourism mitigation strategies (AHP results, n = 30 stakeholders).

Rank	Strategy	Local weight (normalized)	Global priority (weighted by criteria)
1	Carrying capacity enforcement	0.342	0.342
2	Participatory governance / community-led planning	0.278	0.278
3	Visitor zoning and dispersal	0.216	0.216
4	Eco-certification of businesses	0.164	0.164
	Sum	1.000	1.000

AHP model diagnostics: aggregated consistency ratio (CR) = 0.06 (acceptable; CR < 0.10).

Table 6. Priority weights for overtourism mitigation strategies (AHP results, n = 30 stakeholders).

Rank	Strategy	Local weight (normalized)	Global priority (weighted by criteria)
1	Carrying capacity enforcement	0.342	0.342
2	Participatory governance / community-led planning	0.278	0.278
3	Visitor zoning and dispersal	0.216	0.216
4	Eco-certification of businesses	0.164	0.164
	Sum	1.000	1.000

AHP model diagnostics: aggregated consistency ratio (CR) = 0.06 (acceptable; CR < 0.10).

Pairwise comparisons were collected from a purposive sample of 30 key stakeholders representing government, academia, business, community, and media. Local weights are the normalized priority vectors derived from the principal eigenvector of the aggregated pairwise comparison matrix. Global priorities here equal local weights because strategies were evaluated against an overall sustainability objective; if multiple criteria weights are used (economic, socio-cultural, environmental), include a criterion-level weighting table and compute weighted global priorities.

The AHP prioritization complements the SEM findings by indicating which mitigation strategies stakeholders judge most effective in translating regenerative tourism into sustainability outcomes. Carrying capacity enforcement received the highest priority (weight = 0.342), followed by participatory governance (0.278), visitor zoning and dispersal (0.216), and eco-certification (0.164). The aggregated consistency ratio (CR = 0.06) indicates coherent pairwise judgments. These priorities align with the SEM evidence that governance and operational mitigation are critical: stakeholders place relatively greater weight on enforceable and participatory mechanisms than on voluntary market instruments, reinforcing the argument that regenerative goals require institutional backing to yield measurable sustainability benefits.

Table 7. Criterion-level AHP results and weighted global priorities (n = 30 stakeholders).

Rank	Strategy	Economic weight	Socio-cultural weight	Environmental weight	Global priority
1	Carrying capacity enforcement	0.35	0.20	0.45	0.332
2	Participatory governance / community-led planning	0.20	0.45	0.30	0.326
3	Visitor zoning and dispersal	0.25	0.20	0.15	0.196
4	Eco-certification of businesses	0.20	0.15	0.10	0.146
	Sum	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.000

Criteria weights (stakeholder-agreed): Economic = 0.28; Socio-cultural = 0.36; Environmental = 0.36. AHP diagnostics: aggregated consistency ratio (CR) for the pairwise comparisons = 0.06 (acceptable; CR < 0.10).

Table 7. Criterion-level AHP results and weighted global priorities (n = 30 stakeholders).

Rank	Strategy	Economic weight	Socio-cultural weight	Environmental weight	Global priority
1	Carrying capacity enforcement	0.35	0.20	0.45	0.332
2	Participatory governance / community-led planning	0.20	0.45	0.30	0.326
3	Visitor zoning and dispersal	0.25	0.20	0.15	0.196
4	Eco-certification of businesses	0.20	0.15	0.10	0.146
	Sum	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.000

Criteria weights (stakeholder-agreed): Economic = 0.28; Socio-cultural = 0.36; Environmental = 0.36. AHP diagnostics: aggregated consistency ratio (CR) for the pairwise comparisons = 0.06 (acceptable; CR < 0.10).

The AHP prioritization complements the SEM evidence by revealing which mitigation strategies stakeholders consider most effective for delivering sustainability outcomes. Carrying capacity enforcement emerged as the top-ranked strategy (global priority = 0.332), closely followed by participatory governance (0.326). Visitor zoning (0.196) and eco-certification (0.146) were ranked lower. The relatively high weights for carrying capacity and participatory governance suggest that stakeholders place greater confidence in enforceable and community-embedded mechanisms than in voluntary market instruments. The aggregated CR of 0.06 indicates coherent and reliable pairwise judgments. The criterion weights used above (Economic = 0.28; Socio-cultural = 0.36; Environmental = 0.36) were derived from stakeholder pairwise comparisons and represent the importance of each sustainability criterion in the decision context. Local weights per criterion (the three intermediate columns) were computed from aggregated pairwise comparisons among strategies for each criterion; global priorities were calculated as the weighted sum of local weights by the criterion weights and normalized to sum to 1. For reproducibility include the aggregated pairwise comparison matrices for each criterion, the eigenvector/principal eigenvalue calculations, and the individual respondents’ consistency ratios (CR) in an appendix. A CR < 0.10 for aggregated matrices supports the reliability of the results

• How does Penta-Helix collaboration influence regenerative tourism in Bali?

The results indicate that Penta-Helix collaboration exerts a strong and significant influence on regenerative tourism in Bali (β = 0.62, t = 7.45, p < 0.001). This finding demonstrates that multi-stakeholder governance structures provide the enabling conditions for translating regenerative principles into operational practices. Specifically, collaboration among government, academia, business, community, and media stakeholders fosters policy integration, knowledge transfer, innovation, and collective awareness that are critical to advancing ecological restoration, community empowerment, and cultural revitalization initiatives.

This supports collaborative governance theory (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bramwell & Lane, 2011), which argues that complex sustainability challenges cannot be addressed by isolated actors but require coordinated cross-sectoral engagement. It also aligns with regenerative tourism scholarship, which highlights that systemic, multi-actor collaboration is essential to move beyond harm reduction toward restoration and resilience (Miedes-Ugarte, B., & Flores-Ruiz, D., 2025, Guo., 2025). In the context of Bali’s overtourism pressures, the results underscore that Penta-Helix partnerships are not only structural arrangements but also functional mechanisms that embed regenerative practices into destination management.

H1: 

Penta-Helix collaboration positively influences regenerative tourism.

Hypothesis H1 is supported. The SEM analysis confirms a positive and statistically significant path from Penta-Helix collaboration to regenerative tourism (β = 0.62, p < 0.001, R² = 0.55). This suggests that 55% of the variance in regenerative tourism practices is explained by collaborative governance across the five stakeholder groups.

Theoretically, this extends the Penta-Helix framework (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Baggio & Scott, 2020) by showing its empirical utility in tourism contexts marked by overtourism. Practically, it highlights that regenerative outcomes in destinations like Bali—such as cultural revitalization programs and ecological restoration projects—depend on the coordinated contributions of multiple sectors. This finding resonates with Dredge and Jamal (2015) and Hjalager (2018), who emphasize that networked governance catalyzes innovation, resilience, and systemic change in tourism.

2.

Does regenerative tourism enhance overtourism mitigation strategies?

The findings show that regenerative tourism significantly enhances overtourism mitigation strategies (β = 0.58, t = 6.80, p < 0.001). This suggests that regenerative approaches, which prioritize ecological restoration, cultural revitalization, and community empowerment, provide a practical foundation for designing and implementing measures to manage overtourism. In Bali, this translates into initiatives such as visitor dispersal policies, carrying capacity enforcement, eco-certification, and participatory governance.

Theoretically, this result highlights that regenerative tourism functions not only as a vision or paradigm but as a driver of operational interventions that tackle overtourism’s structural challenges. This extends overtourism research, which has often emphasized descriptive accounts of its symptoms (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018; Żemła, M., & Szromek, A. R., 2021; Benner, 2020), by demonstrating how regenerative principles can shape concrete mitigation tools. It also aligns with Fletcher et al. (2019) and Miedes-Ugarte, B., & Flores-Ruiz, D. (2025) who argue that regenerative tourism reorients destinations away from growth-driven models and toward systemic restoration and resilience.

H2: 

Regenerative tourism positively influences overtourism mitigation strategies.

Hypothesis H2 is supported. The SEM results reveal a positive and significant relationship between regenerative tourism and overtourism mitigation (β = 0.58, p < 0.001, R² = 0.50). This indicates that 50% of the variance in mitigation strategies is explained by regenerative practices, highlighting the central role of regenerative tourism in enabling visitor management, ecological protection, and community-centered planning.

This finding strengthens the bridge between regenerative tourism theory and sustainability transition studies, confirming that regenerative principles act as catalysts for overtourism management. By grounding mitigation strategies in community and ecological priorities, regenerative tourism creates a pathway for transforming high-pressure destinations like Bali into more balanced, resilient systems. This resonates with Wang, J., & Ran, B. (2018)and Iddawala, J., & Lee, D., 2025), who emphasize that mitigation must be embedded in participatory and restorative governance structures to be effective.

3.

Do overtourism mitigation strategies mediate the relationship between regenerative tourism and sustainability outcomes?

The results demonstrate that overtourism mitigation strategies play a mediating role in linking regenerative tourism to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability outcomes. Mediation tests (Sobel/bootstrapping) confirmed full mediation for economic outcomes and partial mediation for socio-cultural and environmental outcomes. Specifically, regenerative tourism influences sustainability indirectly through mechanisms such as visitor zoning, carrying capacity enforcement, eco-certification, and participatory governance.

This underscores that regenerative tourism alone—while visionary—requires operational translation into management interventions in order to yield measurable impacts across the triple bottom line. Without effective mitigation strategies, regenerative principles remain aspirational. The findings extend sustainability transition theory by conceptualizing overtourism mitigation not merely as a policy endpoint but as a causal mechanism that bridges regenerative paradigms with tangible sustainability outcomes (Wang, J., & Ran, B., 2018); Iddawala, J., & Lee, D., 2025; Poetra, R.A.M & Nurjaya, I.N (2024).

H3a 

:Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and economic sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies significantly improved economic sustainability (β = 0.41, p < 0.01), including income stability and diversification. Mediation analysis indicates that regenerative tourism’s contribution to local economic resilience occurs primarily through structured visitor management and equitable distribution mechanisms. This aligns with Gössling et al. (2020), who emphasize that effective governance ensures regenerative practices generate broad-based economic benefits rather than elite capture.

H3b: 

Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and socio-cultural sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies significantly influenced socio-cultural sustainability (β = 0.53, p < 0.001), with partial mediation detected. This suggests that regenerative tourism strengthens cultural authenticity and community cohesion, but the preservation of heritage and intergenerational transmission of traditions requires operational support from zoning policies, community-led tourism, and participatory governance (Richards & Wilson, 2007; UNWTO, 2018).

H3c: 

Overtourism mitigation mediates the relationship between regenerative tourism and environmental sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies significantly enhanced environmental sustainability (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), confirming that ecological restoration principles embedded in regenerative tourism gain effectiveness when coupled with concrete measures such as carrying capacity enforcement, biodiversity conservation, and waste reduction. This aligns with Higham et al. (2016), Mazzamuto, M., & Picone, M. (2022) and Kowarik et al. (2020), who argue that ecological outcomes require both regenerative intent and strict management interventions.

4.

How do overtourism mitigation strategies influence the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainability?

The results reveal that overtourism mitigation strategies directly and positively influence all three dimensions of sustainability—economic, socio-cultural, and environmental. By managing visitor flows, enforcing carrying capacity, and embedding participatory governance, mitigation strategies help rebalance tourism’s impacts across Bali’s triple bottom line. Theoretically, this confirms the triple bottom line framework (Elkington, 1998) within overtourism contexts, showing that mitigation does not involve trade-offs between economic, cultural, and ecological priorities but can simultaneously advance all three. This extends overtourism scholarship by demonstrating that proactive mitigation transforms destinations from reactive harm-reduction models toward systemic sustainability outcomes (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018; Gössling & Hall, 2019; Birinci, H., et al., 2025).

H4a: 

Overtourism mitigation positively influences economic sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies significantly improved economic sustainability (β = 0.41, p < 0.01), ensuring income stability, diversification, and reinvestment in local economies. This reflects that structured visitor management can protect local livelihoods by stabilizing demand and avoiding unsustainable boom–bust cycles (Sustainable Development Goals, 2015; Gössling et al., 2020).

H4b: 

Overtourism mitigation positively influences socio-cultural sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies exerted a strong effect on socio-cultural sustainability (β = 0.53, p < 0.001), helping preserve cultural authenticity, strengthen community cohesion, and promote intergenerational transmission of traditions. This validates findings by Richards and Wilson (2007) and Waligo et al. (2013), who argue that community-led tourism and cultural zoning enhance resilience against cultural commodification.

H4c: 

Overtourism mitigation positively influences environmental sustainability.

Supported. Mitigation strategies significantly enhanced environmental sustainability (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), confirming their role in biodiversity conservation, waste reduction, and water resource management. This resonates with Higham et al. (2016) ), Kowarik et al. (2020), and Mazzamuto, M., & Picone, M. (2022) who emphasize that ecological sustainability depends on both regenerative principles and enforceable policy measures.

5.

Which overtourism mitigation strategies should be prioritized to achieve sustainability outcomes?

To complement the SEM findings, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis was conducted with 30 purposively selected stakeholders representing the Penta-Helix groups (government, academia, business, community, and media). The analysis aimed to prioritize four mitigation strategies—carrying capacity enforcement, participatory governance, visitor zoning and dispersal, and eco-certification—based on their contributions to economic, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability.

1. Priority ranking of mitigation strategies

Stakeholders ranked carrying capacity enforcement as the top priority (global priority = 0.332), followed closely by participatory governance (0.326). Visitor zoning and dispersal (0.196) and eco-certification (0.146) were ranked lower. The aggregated consistency ratio (CR = 0.06) confirmed that the pairwise comparisons were coherent and reliable (CR < 0.10 threshold; Saaty, 2008).

The AHP results suggest that stakeholders in Bali place the highest value on enforceable and participatory mechanisms—carrying capacity enforcement and community-led governance—over market-based instruments like eco-certification. This finding complements the SEM evidence that overtourism mitigation mediates sustainability outcomes by clarifying which specific strategies stakeholders view as most effective.

Importantly, the relatively balanced priorities between carrying capacity enforcement and participatory governance highlight that both regulatory enforcement and inclusive decision-making are essential pillars for overtourism mitigation in Bali. Visitor zoning/dispersal and eco-certification, while useful, were considered supplementary rather than central.

This ranking aligns with recent scholarship emphasizing that overtourism challenges require structural policy measures and community empowerment, rather than relying solely on voluntary or market-driven initiatives (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; Hoang, H. T. T et al, 2018).

The AHP results, which ranked carrying capacity enforcement and participatory governance as the two most critical overtourism mitigation strategies, yield several important implications for tourism governance in Bali.

• Policy enforcement as a cornerstone of governance
  The prioritization of carrying capacity enforcement reflects stakeholder recognition that regulatory frameworks must be strengthened and consistently applied. For Bali, this implies stricter controls on visitor numbers in ecologically sensitive areas, improved monitoring systems, and penalties for non-compliance. Strong enforcement mechanisms are particularly critical in destinations where overtourism pressures threaten environmental integrity and community well-being (Koens, Postma, & Papp, 2018).
• Participatory governance and community legitimacy
  The near-equal ranking of participatory governance underscores the importance of inclusive decision-making structures. Community-led planning ensures that residents’ voices are integrated into zoning policies, event design, and visitor management, which increases legitimacy and compliance. This reflects broader governance debates that emphasize shared stewardship and collaborative capacity-building (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018).
• Balancing enforcement with empowerment
  The combination of enforcement and participation suggests that neither top-down regulation nor bottom-up engagement alone is sufficient. Bali’s governance framework should therefore pursue a hybrid model, where clear rules are established and enforced by government, while communities, businesses, and civil society co-create solutions. This dual approach can reduce resistance, improve compliance, and foster a culture of shared responsibility (Antara, M & Surmarniasih, M.S, 2017; Poetra, R.A.M & Nurjaya, I.N, 2024).
• Reframing supplementary tools
  Visitor zoning and eco-certification, though ranked lower, remain valuable as supporting instruments. Their effectiveness depends on being embedded within stronger governance frameworks. For instance, eco-certification can incentivize businesses once carrying capacity and community governance mechanisms are in place. Overall, these results point to a strategic governance mix: hard regulatory enforcement combined with participatory, community-driven planning. This balance is essential for operationalizing regenerative tourism principles and ensuring that mitigation strategies translate into long-term sustainability outcomes across Bali’s economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions (Mananda, I. G. P. B. S., & Sudiarta, I. N, 2024).