Fragmentation of China’s Yacht Industry Policy: A Three-Dimensional Framework Based on Policy Purposes,Instruments,and Subjects

Abstract

As an emerging industry, the development of the yacht industry requires the support of relevant policies. This study constructs an analytical framework including three dimensions of policy purpose, policy instrument, and policy subject, and uses content analysis to analyze 509 yacht industry policy texts issued in China since 1999. Using a semi-structured interview method, this study further evaluates and confirms the fragmentation of China’s yacht industry policy. The study finds that the fragmentation of yacht policy is mainly manifested in policy contradictions, multiple and overlapping policy purposes, policy absence, and poor compatibility, unreasonable use of policy instruments, and poor policy coordination. Holistic governance is the theoretical approach to address the fragmentation of the yacht industry policy, focusing on the orientation of public demand, achieving an appropriate balance of policy purposes, employing multiple supporting policy instruments, and fostering coordination among policy subjects.

Plain Language Summary

This research starts with a quantitative study of the China’s policy texts of the yacht industry and identifies the phenomenon of fragmentation in the formulation of yacht policy. By constructing a three-dimensional analysis framework for the fragmentation of yacht industrial policy with policy purposes, policy instruments, and policy subjects, applying policy text analysis and social network analysis combined with semi-structured interview results, 509 policy research samples since 1999 at the central and local levels were analyzed to examine the fragmentation of industrial policy and its causes, and holistic management suggestions were proposed to provide useful guidance for promoting the sustainable development of developing countries’ yacht industry.

Keywords

yacht industry policy fragmentation policy instrument holistic governance content analysis

Introduction

The yacht is a high-end, durable consumer product designed for integrated maritime functions, combining navigation, sports, entertainment, and leisure activities on the water. Primarily serving tourism and aquatic recreation purposes, yachts provide leisure experiences through club services and multi-port cruising itineraries (Diakomihalis, 2007). The yacht industry is an important part of the marine economy and a typical industry in the integrated development of the manufacturing and service sectors (Maria et al., 2017). The global yacht industry development region is mainly divided into North America, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Eastern Europe and Russia, the Caribbean and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region, which includes nearly 70,000 related enterprises. It directly employs approximately 875,000 people, forming a huge industrial chain. North America and Europe account for over 70% of the global yacht market, with more than 150 million active yachting participants annually (ICOMIA, 2020). Mainland China’s yacht industry started late and began to intervene in modern yacht manufacturing in the 1950s. The total number of yachts in mainland China grew from 3,000 in 2012 to 25,000 in 2020, with a compound annual growth rate of 30%. There are 110 yacht marinas, 25,000 yachts, 12,000 berths, and 2,600 enterprises in related industries, forming a relatively complete yacht industry chain.

Appropriate policy intervention is important to promote the rapid development of the emerging yacht industry. Developed yacht-producing countries, such as Europe, America, and Australia, are inseparable from the vigorous promotion of policies in the early stages of industrial development to effectively guide and correct the market (Lam et al., 2015; Payeras et al., 2011; Venturini et al., 2016). The rapid development of China’s yacht industry cannot be separated from the support, guidance, and regulation of industrial policies by governments at all levels. In 2021, the “Outline of the 14th 5-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People’s Republic of China” clearly proposed to improve the development of the yacht industry. At the local level, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau-Great Bay Area is actively exploring the free flow of yachting, which is building an innovative pilot area for the reform and development of the yacht industry. Many local governments are actively planning the development of the yacht industry scientifically according to regional resource endowments.

Current research has primarily focused on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the yacht industry (Diakomihalis, 2007; Walker et al., 2023), yachting destination management (Chen et al., 2016; Dreizis & Potashova, 2018; Paker & Vural, 2016), and the key factors underlying the yacht consumption experience (Mikulić et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2023). Only a few scholars have addressed the “fragmentation” of yacht industry policies. The theory of administrative management, especially Weber’s theory of administrative organization, emphasizes the professional division of labor and hierarchical system of the government. It also states that each department acts separately for its own benefit, resulting in a lack of coordination among departments and the “fragmentation” of government management. China’s performance-oriented pressure governance system often leads to the fragmentation of government functions (Zeng, 2013). “Fragmentation” has also emerged in the yacht industry’s policy-making, with the government as the main subject of action. This phenomenon manifests through interdepartmental contradictions, overlapping policies, incomplete regulatory systems, inadequate supporting infrastructure, and inconsistent policy implementation (Yao & Liu, 2023).

The policy supply of China’s yacht industry does not match the market development demand, which has resulted to difficulties in the approval of public marina construction, a lack of yacht charter policies, and a confusion of yacht regulatory bodies that have seriously impeded the sustainable development of the industry (Yao et al., 2021). However, previous research on yacht industry policy did not examine this phenomenon but primarily focused on the special policy, emphasizing that the government should strengthen port infrastructure construction, optimize the waterway management system, improve yacht accident prevention and casualty classification statistics, conduct training for the yacht leasing industry, and enhance the tax system and environmental supervision policies (Dreizis and Potashova, 2018; Margarita et al., 2011; McKnight et al., 2007). There is a lack of systematic in-depth research on industrial policy.

The development of a scientifically-grounded and systematic policy supply system proves critical for emerging yacht markets in developing economies, as it strengthens organic policy coordination and facilitates efficient policy implementation (Aubrechtova et al., 2020; He & Qi, 2017; Kivimaa et al., 2016; Wang & Zhang, 2017). Based on the current status of China’s yacht industry policies, this study expanded the analytical framework of public policy analysis by including supply, demand, and environmental policy instruments as the main dimensions (Lv & Xu, 2022; Tian et al., 2023). The dimensions of policy purpose, policy instrument, and policy subject were used to construct a three-dimensional framework for the analysis of yacht industry policy fragmentation. This study advances the literature in three ways. First, it addresses a gap in policy studies by systematically applying the concept of fragmentation to an under-explored sector of the yacht industry. Second, it introduces a novel three-dimensional framework—combining policy purpose, instrument, and subject—that can be applied beyond this study. Third, it expands the application of holistic governance theory by offering concrete institutional insights in a non-Western, emerging market context.

In summary, this study employed content analysis of 509 central and local policy samples, combined with semi-structured interviews with yacht industry stakeholders, to examine policy fragmentation in China’s yacht industry. The research proposes a holistic governance framework to enhance the sector’s sustainable development. These findings are expected to provide theoretical insights for policymaking in emerging yacht industries across developing countries.

Literature Review

Yacht Industry Policy

Current research on the yacht industry policy mainly focuses on local industrial development issues and provides policy recommendations. Sariisik et al. (2011) examined two docks in Istanbul to conduct a SWOT analysis of their market conditions. They suggested that the government should better leverage local conditions when formulating policies for the yacht industry. They also emphasized the importance of focusing on product design innovation, marketing strategies, adapting competition methods, and expanding market share. Dreizis and Potashova (2018) established principles of coastal town planning and economic, social, and ecological policymaking for the stable development of the yacht industry in the Russian Black Sea region. Paker and Vural (2016) studied tourist destinations using the benefit-division method. They advocated for the involvement of yacht industry managers in developing yacht industry policies. They also suggested formulating relevant policies to enhance service levels and support facilities. Walker et al. (2023) underscored the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in formulating yacht industry policies. Chen et al. (2016) performed a SWOT analysis and pointed out that the recent decline in the yacht industry in Greece was mainly due to changes in the yacht tax system.

Some scholars have also evaluated the specific yacht industry policy. Wang (2000) identified specific laws and regulations on the safety management of leisure yachts and used multivariate analysis to evaluate the effective impact of leisure vessel policies and regulations on yacht accidents. Xu et al. (2023) demonstrated that a unified law enforcement policy for yacht safety management can prevent multiple boat safety incidents. Yao et al. (2023) underscored the importance of maintaining regional yacht economic development by increasing yacht marinas and building sufficient infrastructure. Grant-Smith and Mayes (2017) studied the resistance of yacht users to policies aimed at preventing boat pollution. Through the case study of Queensland, they illustrated the challenges in policy formulation and implementation involving law enforcement agencies, yacht users, and pirates. They highlighted the necessity for policy objectives to account for the underlying decision-making processes of yacht users navigating the seas.

Although scholars emphasized the defects of the policy and the direction of future improvement, they did not deeply study the disorganized and fragmented characteristics of the yacht industrial policy. This gap in research fails to offer a solution to the complex problem of policy element interaction aimed at achieving multiple policy objectives, utilizing multiple policy tools across different policy domains and government levels (Flanagan et al., 2011; Kivimaa & Kern, 2016; Scott et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). The ambiguous definition of the yacht industry policy portfolio and the lack of consensus on the composition of key elements (Ossenbrink et al., 2019) may result in the ineffective design of policy portfolios by local governments for developing the yacht industry. For example, in shaping the environment for this niche market development, China’s yacht industry policy simultaneously encourages the growth of a thriving yacht tourism market while imposing restrictions on charter yachting. The resultant market ambiguity stemming from unclear policies creates “gray areas” in leasing operations. Therefore, this study explores the tools, purposes, and subjects involved in yacht industry policy formulation to promote the scientific and collaborative nature of policy development (Li & Gao, 2016; Wang & Zhang, 2017).

Policy Fragmentation

In the 1980s, the term “fragmentation” was first used in communication studies, and later spread widely to sociology, political science, economics, and other disciplines. It originally referred to the phenomenon of scattered problems, ineffective governance, and disunity in a field of study. Later, Lieberthal and David (1992) used the term to describe the decision-making system in China. Policy fragmentation refers to the division and fragmentation of the original unified and coordinated policy objectives, contents and processes, leading to the emergence of independent policies, contradictions and even conflicts between policies. The fragmentation is characterized by incoherent or conflicting sector goals, imbalanced power dynamics between actors, and so on (Hogl et al., 2016; Winkel & Sotirov, 2016; He & Chen, 2017). The diverse and multi-scalar stakeholder composition and power relations combine to lead to “blurry” and aggregated datasets (Stoffelen, 2019). Policy fragmentation affects policy functions and implementation effects, hinders the development of policy objectives, increases administrative costs, and impacts administrative efficiency and benefits.

Many scholars have studied the issue of policy fragmentation, especially in the field of public services (Grossman et al., 2017; Lewis, 2017) and strategic emerging industries, such as new energy vehicles and other scientific and technological fields (Duan & Zhan, 2018; Wang & Zhang, 2017; Yang et al., 2020; Zhang & Liu, 2016). Gabrielle et al. (2021) investigated policy fragmentation of forestry policy and its integration through the NRAP process in Vietnam. Wei et al. (2017) emphasized that in China’s strategic emerging industries, including energy conservation, environmental protection, and new generation information technology, the current regulatory system cannot meet the development needs of new business forms, leading to fragmentation problems such as policy contradictions, overlapping, lack of support, and discontinuity.

The fragmented operation intensifies the unreasonable decisions of policy subjects, and the key to breaking policy fragments and conflicts is to enhance the overall cognition and strengthen the service concept of decision-makers. Holistic governance is a reflection of the competition mechanism and decentralization of new public management, aiming to construct a new government governance model with integration as the core, which aims to solve sectarianism and fragmentation and build a “seamless” government (Hoppe, 2011). The holistic government-oriented government organizations carry out inter-departmental coordination and cooperation on the premise of not abolishing the division of specialization among departments (Yang, 2021). This reduces the decision-making cost of the government through coordination, simplifies the administrative process, and orients public services towards public interests and a sense of responsibility (Li & Ding, 2020; Xing, 2022). Holistic governance is a new governance philosophy to resolve the fragmentation of services and the complexity stemming from intricate policy challenges such as poverty alleviation, trans-boundary environmental pollution, industrial transformation, e-waste recycling (Kirk, 2015; Hua et al., 2021; Yang, 2021). For example, in urban traffic management, many cities adopt the concept of holistic governance, through the establishment of traffic command center, to achieve multi-sectoral information sharing and collaborative command, effectively alleviate traffic congestion (Thiago et al., 2022). In the field of environmental protection, holistic governance emphasizes cross-regional and cross-sectoral collaboration. Some regions jointly control cross-border pollution by establishing cross-regional environmental monitoring and law enforcement mechanisms (Yu et al., 2024).

Unlike standardized manufacturing sectors, yacht operations involve complex, dynamic interactions with coastal ecosystems. While yachts typically do not engage in large-scale ballast water operations, they remain subject to multiple regulatory requirements including compliance with domestic sewage and garbage management regulations. Maritime department oversight of crew qualifications and onboard safety equipment; tourism bureau approvals for passenger activities; and coast guard monitoring of potential criminal activities such as illegal immigration. This multifaceted governance framework highlights the critical need for integrated policy approaches. The yacht industry can learn from the governance experience of urban transportation and environmental protection industries, establish cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms, break sectoral barriers, and achieve information sharing and resource integration. In conclusion, this study explores the fragmentation of yacht industry policy. It broadens the application of holistic governance theory by emphasizing the pursuit of public ethics and value, integrated government operation, and policy integration, thereby providing a solution to the fragmentation of yacht industry policy.

Three-Dimensional Analysis Framework of Yacht Industry Policy

At present, scholars have put forward many mature and representative three-dimensional analysis frameworks in policy analysis. Li et al. (2022) proposed a three-dimensional analysis framework of policy instrument-policy formulation-TOE Scenario Feature when evaluating the online car-hailing policy. Jiang et al. (2023) studied and constructed a three-dimensional policy analysis framework of “policy instrument-innovation value chain-policy level” through the policies of the Chinese and American governments on energy blockchain. This shows that policy instruments have become one of the classic and necessary dimensions for building a policy analysis framework, and that a policy instrument is effective only when it is matched between the characteristics of the policy instrument as one side and the policy environment, goals and target audiences as the other side.

The fragmentation of the yacht industry policy is a systematic problem that includes multiple elements, and only by combining objective links can policy subjects form a joint force and exert policy effects. The use of policy instruments covers the matching problem of policy applications in supply, demand, and the environment. The relationship between the policy objects, as well as the relationship between the policy subjects, constitutes the system of yacht industrial policymaking (Li & Gao, 2016; Wang & Zhang, 2017). Therefore, the analysis of the fragmentation problem is suitable to start by understanding the purpose setting, instrument selection, and subject coordination of yacht industrial policy. We chose the three dimensions of policy purpose, policy instrument, and policy subject to form the analysis framework of yacht industrial policy. The framework can comprehensively and systematically analyze the performance, causes and solutions of yacht policy fragmentation, and provide a scientific basis for policy optimization.

X-Dimensions: Policy Purposes

According to the current situation of promulgating yacht industry policies at the central and local levels in China, with the upstream and downstream of the yacht industry chain as the main sorting basis (Li et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2020; Sun & Lin, 2021; Yao & Liu, 2023), and combined with the results of previous studies on the purpose and classification of industrial policy (Li & Gao, 2016; Li et al., 2022; Wang & Zhang, 2017), the purpose includes five categories respectively: “Design, manufacturing, and technological innovation” refers to the promotion of yacht design and manufacturing, emphasizing the relevant purposes of innovation in the manufacturing process. “Market development support” refers to the purposes related to the cultivation of the yacht consumer market, the development of the yacht tourism industry, city pilot, talent training, and other support for market development. “Regulation and supervision” refer to the purposes related to safety, infrastructure construction, finance and taxation, pollution prevention, inspection and quarantine and other regulations of the yacht industry’s operational process. “Industrial environment cultivation” refers to the purposes related to the planning and layout of the overall industrial environment, the improvement of policies, investment promotion, and the development of industry associations. “Institutional reform” refers to purposes related to the decentralization of the yacht industry.

Y-Dimension: Policy Instruments

By referring to Rothwell and Zegveld’s classification of technological innovation policy instruments, policy instruments are divided into three categories: supply-, demand-, and environment-related instruments (Li & Gao, 2016; Rothwell & Zegveld, 1981; Tan et al., 2021). Among them, supply-side policy instruments refer to the government’s direct and indirect investment in talent, capital, technology, infrastructure, and other aspects to promote the development of the emerging yacht industry and ensure the supply of basic elements of the industry. Demand-side policy instruments refer to the government’s efforts to reduce the uncertainty of market development by regulating and cultivating the market, outsourcing services, setting standards, and other means to promote the healthy development of the yacht industry. Environment-side policy instruments refer to the government’s relatively indirect influence on the development environment of the yacht industry through regulations and control, taxation systems, target planning, administrative supervision, and other means to promote projects, product development, and market expansion.

Z-Dimension: Policy Subjects

There are numerous regulatory departments related to the emerging yacht industry at the central level. These departments include, but are not limited to, the Ministry of Transport, Maritime Safety Administration, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Administration of Customs, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Education. The aforementioned central departments, together with local departments, constitute the analysis content of the policy–subject dimension. In analyzing this dimension, joint action between departments is of great significance for the systematic supply of yacht industry policies (Payeras et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2023). We summarize the main body of the policy as a single department to introduce a policy or a multi-departmental policy.

The fragmentation of yacht industrial policy is reflected in the above three dimensions. The interaction of the three dimensions will further reflect the fragmentation of policy formulation (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Three-dimensional analysis framework of yacht industry policy fragmentation.

Methods and Data

This study employs an exploratory research design for three key reasons: First, the research objectives aim to uncover previously unknown manifestations of policy fragmentation in the yacht industry (such as policy contradictions and inappropriate instrument usage) and their underlying causes. These issues have not been systematically examined in existing literature, aligning with exploratory research’s focus on “discovery” and “description” of phenomena (Stebbins, 2001). Second, regarding methodological choices, content analysis and social network analysis were employed to objectively quantify policy text characteristics, while semi-structured interviews were conducted to extract stakeholder perspectives. Third, the holistic governance theory was inductively proposed as an integrative pathway based on analytical findings, rather than serving as a predetermined subject for verification.

Content Analysis

The content analysis method is one of the research methods used in the quantitative analysis of policy documents and was used by the U.S. Office of General Assessment (Huan et al., 2024). It involves extracting, reproducing, and drawing inferences from text materials (Garry, 2003). It also refers to the conversion of textual content into digitally expressed data, which is used to scientifically describe policy characteristics. The operational steps of the content analysis method are policy analysis framework construction, policy sample selection, analysis category setting, text coding, analysis, and interpretation. In this study, the three aspects of policy purposes, instruments, and subjects were coded to convert the text content of yacht industrial policy into data expressed in quantitative terms.

Data Sources

First, to ensure the integrity and coherence of policy research, the sample selection range included the start of government regulation of the yacht industry to the present, including laws, regulations, regulatory documents, and working documents at both the central and local levels. To ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the policy sample data, a search was conducted in the Beida Law Treasure database (https://www.pkulaw.com/) with “yacht” as the title and full-text content keywords, and the collection was further supplemented by the websites of the State Council, ministries, and local governments. The selected documents were cross-checked by two researchers, the final dataset consisted of 509 yacht industry-related policy documents (1999–May 2022), with 217 issued at the central level and 292 at local levels (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The number of publications from 1999 to 2022.

The policy corpus comprises 509 documents spanning regulatory instruments (e.g., measures, regulations) with legal force and administrative documents (e.g., notices, replies) with operational functions, with notice (23%), guideline (16%), implementation plan (10%) and administrative measure (9%) constituting the predominant formats.

Analysis Units and Categories

The analysis unit of policy text is the most important and smallest element of the content analysis, which generally consists of words, sentences, or paragraphs. According to the basic operation requirements of content analysis, this study defines the analysis unit as the specific terms of the policy text and uses text mining techniques and word frequency analysis to determine the main purpose, instruments, and subjects of the policy documents.

Policy Purposes

By extracting the key words of the policy text, we found that the current 509 yacht industrial policies contained 19 specific policy purposes. The first level category, “Design, manufacturing, and technological innovation” (A) includes “design and manufacture” and “scientific and technological innovation”; “Market development support” (B) consists of the “cultivation of consumer market,”“tourism development,”“preferential pilot policies,” and “personnel training”; the “Regulation and supervision” (C) covers the “marina construction and management,”“operation supervision,”“safety supervision,”“market regulation,”“fiscal and taxation management,” and “inspection and quarantine”; “Industrial environment cultivation” (D) comprises “industrial planning and distribution,”“formulation and improvement of policies and regulations,”“capital investment,”“industry association development,”“trade and investment,”“financial insurance”; and “Institutional reform” (E) covers the “reform of regulatory services.”

Policy Instruments

The first-level category, “supply-side policy instruments,” (A) includes the second-level categories “personnel training,”“capital investment,”“technical support,”“infrastructure construction,”“pilot construction,” and “public service”; the “demand-side policy instruments” (B) covers the second-level categories “consumer market,”“service outsourcing,”“external communication,”“technical standard,” and “cultural propaganda”; the “environmental-side policy instruments” (C) includes the second-level categories “regulatory control,”“financial support,”“goal programming,”“industrial integration and development,”“administrative supervision,”“preferential policy,”“tax control,”“encourage innovation,” and “simplify formalities.”

Policy Subjects

This study focuses on whether the form of policy publication is single department or multi-department.

Policy Text Data Coding

The text data are converted into semi-structured data through manual encoding, and the encoding process is as follows: (1) The central and local policies are divided into two independent parts owing to the large number of policy texts; (2) both central and local policy texts follow the coding principles: according to the constructed X-Y-Z three-dimensional analysis framework, they are coded in serial numbers ordered as follows: X-dimension policy purpose, Y-dimension policy instrument, and Z-dimension policy subject.

X-dimension: The five first-level categories are labeled A to E, and the second-level categories are then arranged in order, for example, “design and manufacture” (A1), “scientific and technological innovation” (A2), and “cultivation of consumer market” (B1); Y-dimension: Supply-, demand-, and environment- policy instruments are classified as A to C, and categories under different types of tools are listed in order. For example, “personnel training” (A1), “capital investment” (A2), “technical support” (A3) … and so on; Z-dimension: the value is 1 for a single department and 2 for multiple departments; see Table 1 for an example of the specific coding process.

Table 1.

Policy Coding Examples.

Serial number	Policy name	Policy content unit	Policy purpose coding	Policy instrument coding	Policy subject coding	Coding number
1	Notice of the Ministry of Finance, the general administration of customs and the state administration of taxation on the “zero tariff” policy for vehicles and yachts in Hainan free trade port	“Zero Tariff” vehicles and yachts should be registered and naturalized in Hainan Free Trade Port, and operated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the competent authorities such as transportation, civil aviation and maritime affairs, and be supervised…	B3	A5	2	1-B3-A5-2
68	Guiding opinions of the state tourism administration and the state sports general administration on vigorously developing sports tourism	Fourth, improve the level of sports tourism equipment manufacturing… Encourage the development of cruise ships, yachts, motorhomes and other supporting materials, equipment and parts manufacturing, the formation of a more complete supporting industrial system	D1	A6	2	68-D1-A6-2
249	Circular of the General Office of the People’s Government of Hainan Province on printing and issuing the measures for administration of yacht rental in Hainan province (trial)	Article 13 charter yacht crew quota management, approved crew quota including yacht operators and passengers, indicated in the yacht airworthiness certificate (maximum 30 people)	B2	C1	1	249-B2-C1-1

The policy instrument categorization in this study adopted Rothwell and Zegveld’s (1981) industrial policy instrument classification framework, which mitigates subjective bias in category construction and ensures high reliability and validity. As Kassarjian (1997) established, inter-coder reliability serves as a critical validity indicator in content analysis, reflecting the consistency among multiple coders’ interpretations of identical texts. To guarantee reliability testing validity, the coding team met three fundamental requirements: first, demonstrated precise policy text analytical capability; second, shared convergent evaluation criteria; third, completed systematic training to establish standardized operational protocols. This multidimensional verification mechanism not only effectively controls subjective judgment bias but also continuously optimizes the coding framework’s scientific rigor through procedural feedback.

Based on the detailed description of the three-dimensional analytical framework and coding rules established in this study, a coding manual was developed to facilitate manual coding by coders. The specific coding procedure was implemented as follows: (1) Four graduate student coders underwent a 1-week training program to ensure intrinsic consistency in coding comprehension; (2) The coders were divided into two groups with two members each; (3) Prior to formal coding, each group was assigned three identical policy documents for trial coding, followed by analytical discussion of results—this iterative process continued until coding consistency was achieved across all groups; (4) During formal coding, one independent coder performed the initial coding which was then reviewed by a second coder, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion.

Semi-Structured Interview

Through the outline of semi-structured interviews, researchers had gradual and in-depth conversations with the research objects to form comprehensive first-hand textual data and comprehensively and rigorously analyze and confirm the actual phenomenon and causes of policy fragmentation. Adopting Patton’s (2002) purposive sampling methodology, this investigation consciously selected the most information-rich participants according to the study’s objectives and theoretical framework, deliberately avoiding random selection to facilitate exploratory inquiry. The interviewees came from the relevant personnel of field research and academic seminar follow-ups in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dalian, and Xiamen, including the public sector such as the Maritime Bureau (5 interviewees), the private sector such as yacht clubs (7 interviewees), the yacht industry association (5 interviewees), and yacht consumers (20 interviewees). The interviews lasted for half an hour to 1 hr. The interview questions mainly included the performance, causes, and countermeasures for the fragmentation of China’s yacht industry policy. To minimize potential biases in the semi-structured interviews, this study implemented the participant verification, all interview transcripts were reviewed and verified by participants to ensure accuracy in representation. Structured feedback sessions were conducted to verify factual accuracy and contextual appropriateness (Lindheim, 2022).

Results

Policy Purpose Dimensions

From the perspective of the 19 subcategories of policy purposes (Figure 3), policy purposes are more inclined towards consumer market cultivation (11.65%), marina construction and management (10.03%), tourism development (10.03%), and operation supervision (10.03%), while the proportion of inspection and quarantine (1.03%) and financial insurance (0.74%) is relatively small. From the perspective of setting the five major policy purposes, the emphasis is on regulation and supervision (36.51%) and market development support (32.49%); the support for the design, manufacturing, and technological innovation of the yacht industry (11.62%) is weak, and the support for the reform of the yacht regulatory system (5.22%) is also weak.

Figure 3.

Dimension of yacht industry policy purpose.

The policy purposes were diverse and overlapping. In the development stage of the emerging yacht industry, functional departments should not only pursue the rapid growth of the industry but also regulate various types of non-standard behaviors generated in the early stages of the industry. Therefore, the policy objectives are diversified. Relevant personnel from the industry association pointed out the following in the interviews: “The economic benefit goal pursued by the development of the industry occupies a dominant position, but the coordination and integration between a series of multiple goals such as yacht safety supervision, standard management of infrastructure, and environmental and ecological supervision of yacht activities are not in place, and diversified policy value goals are difficult to be fully realized in the initial process of industrial development.” (Interviewee 35)

In addition, there are also policy deficiencies and mismatches. For example, upper-level laws and regulations are absent. “China currently lacks comprehensive regulatory frameworks for yacht management. For instance, there are no formal oversight measures governing yacht clubs, leading to irregular development practices across regions. Many clubs operate in regulatory gray areas by offering unauthorized charter services.” (Interviewee 31) There is a lack of policy in addressing industrial pain points. Even if there is a policy, its content, use of instruments, and market matching cannot meet the industry’s requirements. For example, “Except for the ‘Yacht Marina Design Code’ issued by the Ministry of Transport in 2014,there is no supreme law to support a series of issues related to shoreline approval and operation management of marinas, and the management of marinas still needs to be regulated according to the Port Law, which is not applicable to marinas with leisure and entertainment attributes.” (Interviewee 8)

Policy Instrument Dimensions

There are large differences in the utilization rates of policy instruments in the yacht industry (Figure 4). Environmental instruments are the most widely used (54.61%), while supply- and demand-side instruments account for 27.23% and 18.15%, respectively. This indicates that the government’s industrial policies are more focused on indirectly affecting the development of the industry from the perspective of environmental construction, whereas the push and pull power for industrial development is insufficient. Therefore, the rationality of policy instrument use must be improved.

Figure 4.

Dimension of yacht industry policy instrument.

First, among the supply-side instruments, the government focuses more on infrastructure construction (29.01%) and public service (31.08%), which play a direct and essential role in promoting industrial development; however, the use of instruments such as personnel training (10.88%) and capital investment (0.02%) is relatively small. China introduced yacht courses in higher vocational colleges in 2013. The industry insiders reported a serious shortage of talents: “There is a shortage of professional and technical talents in yacht industry, especially in yacht design and manufacturing, marketing, maintenance, club management, and training and education. Yacht industry talents are basically discovered and transferred in from other industries.” (Interviewee 17).

Second, among the demand-side instruments, government departments mainly use regulation and cultivation of the consumer market (38.30%) to stimulate industrial development. However, the single use of policy instruments is not conducive to industrial development. As the president of Hainan Yacht Industry Association stated, “The current yacht manufacturing industry is developing slowly due to insufficient demand, and the manufacturing industry in Hainan Province has just started. The industry lacks technological innovation, design capabilities, and market orders.” (Interviewee 26).

Third, the most frequently used instrument is the environmental-side instruments, with regulatory control and administrative supervision instruments accounting for 19.35% and 31.34% of the total. This shows that government departments focus on tools such as regulatory supervision to regulate the development environment of the emerging yacht industry.

Policy Subject Dimensions

In terms of issuing agencies, the yacht industry policy documents involve a total of 270 central issuing agencies and 338 local issuing agencies.

First, from the perspective of the central government, 43 functional types of issuing agencies exist. In addition to the Ministry of Transport (17.94%), Maritime Safety Administration (13.33%), National Development and Reform Commission (10.37%), and Ministry of Culture and Tourism (National Tourism Administration; 7.04%), which are closely related to the supervision of the yacht industry, many other management departments with marginal and ambiguous responsibilities have also issued policies for the yacht industry, but the number of documents issued is very low.

Second, local government agencies have the problem of fragmentary subjects, among which local people’s governments have the largest number of documents, accounting for 38.66%. Subsequently, the development and reform departments, transportation departments, and marine fisheries departments issued a large number of documents on policy regulation and support for the local yacht industry, and more than 30 departments issued documents.

Third, considering the differences between single- and multi-department documents (Table 2), combined with central and local governments, single-department documents are a common phenomenon, and only 60 policy documents are jointly issued by two or more departments, accounting for 9.82%, indicating that although there is a certain degree of synergy in the formulation of yacht industry policies, the sense of synergy is not strong. In terms of the difference between the central and local levels, the proportion of joint publications at the local level (8.56%) is lower than that at the central level (16.13%), which is related to the further obstruction of communication and coordination between local departments due to the fragmentation of the administrative organization system.

Table 2.

Statistics of Documents Issued by Single Departments and Multiple Departments of the Central and Local Governments.

Type of issuance	Central government	Local governments	Subtotal
Single department independently issued a document	181	268	449
Multiple departments jointly issued a document	36	24	60

Contradictory policy content between the central and local governments also poses some problems. A local maritime bureau official said, “At present, with the continuous exploration of local policies for the yacht industry, contradictions between central and local policies have also emerged. For example, in order to develop the yacht industry in Hainan Free Trade Port, the ‘Hainan Yacht Charter Measures’ issued by the Hainan Provincial government in 2021 and the ‘Hainan Free Trade Port Yacht Industry Promotion Regulations’ passed by the Hainan Provincial People’s Congress in 2022 both stipulate that the yacht crew quota does not exceed 29 people, which contradicts the figure of 12 people stipulated by the Central Ministry of Transport. As local governments break regulations and innovate policies to develop industries, central and local policies are contradictory, making it difficult for policies to form synergy.” (Interviewee 5)

Three-Dimensional Cross Analysis

According to the cross-analysis results of the three dimensions of policy purpose, policy instrument, and policy subject (Figure 5), first, compared with supply- and demand-side instruments, each policymaking subject tends to use environment-side instruments independently. Among the five different purpose dimensions, the proportions of single and multiple departments using environmental policy instruments are different (77:9, 77:12, 130:7, 17:1, and 10:1, respectively). This shows that the main body of the document has a tendency to use policy instruments, when regulating the yacht industry and cultivating the industrial environment, it mainly starts from the purpose itself and independently regulates the industrial environment, without considering the combination of other instruments and coordinating with multiple departments to introduce a series of complete policies.

Figure 5.

Three-dimensional cross-sectional analysis of policy purposes—policy instruments—policy subjects.

Second, multi-agent joint documents and demand-side instruments were used more frequently in the formulation of market development support purposes (19.92% and 29.17%, respectively). However, for the rest of the purposes, regardless of whether the multi-department or single-department document did not make good use of demand-side instruments to stimulate industrial demand and regulate market order. This resulted in practical problems in the yacht industry’s market operation, such as uneven tourism service quality, irregular operation behavior, and fuzzy approval and acceptance of the construction of yacht marinas.

Third, the current functional departments have an insufficient understanding of pain points, such as design, manufacturing, innovation, and regulatory system reform, and the number of documents is low (5.22%). Poor coordination stands out as an important manifestation of policy fragmentation. For example, a staff member of a local oceanic bureau stated, “There are many yacht supervision departments at present, including maritime, marine, border, customs, tourism, transportation, etc., all operating independently with poor comprehensive coordination.” (Interviewee 27). This highlights the proliferation of departments involved in yacht industry policymaking, necessitating the rational allocation of functions and powers, along with refining the operational power structure. Furthermore, staff at a local yacht club pinpointed an instance: “The border defense department of Dalian Public Security Bureau has issued the ‘Yacht safety regulations’, which replicates the work of the maritime bureau. From buying a new boat to every departure from the port, it has implemented a facial recognition system in the yacht marina to prevent smuggling and terrorism. Driver travel must be reported to the public security and the maritime authorities, resulting in redundant reporting!” (Interviewee 39). This illustrates the independent operation of various functional departments without collaborative efforts in policy issuance.

The specialization inherent in bureaucratic systems fosters fragmented administration, leading to disjointed decision-making and policy fragmentation. Zhang (2001) argues that bureaucratic compartmentalization—with departments operating in silos, lacking coordination—breeds risk-averse behaviors among officials, creating inefficient governance that fundamentally undermines policy effectiveness. As an industry with an extended supply chain, yacht regulation involves multiple agencies that often shift responsibilities in jurisdictional gray areas, neglecting consumer and market demands. Given yachts’ dual nature (recreational/transport), they should be regulated as a distinct vessel category. However, the current maritime, border public security, port management departments are part of the yacht supervision functions, resulting in overlapping and even contradictory policy objectives, but also caused a regulatory vacancy.

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion

The fragmented policy sphere is characterized by decentralized, multi-level governance (Howlett & Del Rio, 2015; Howlett et al., 2017). When the issues of the yacht industry development are translated into the concerns of relevant ministries and departments, such as tourism, maritime, environment, and industrial planning, the problem of policy fragmentation arises. However, the strategies adopted by policymakers to overcome the negative consequences of fragmented policy areas have generated considerable debate. On the one hand, policy complexity and fragmentation are given, and the effectiveness of any policy integration strategy needs to be questioned (Cejudo & Michel, 2017; Van Asselt & Zelli, 2014). On the other hand, negotiations with more coherent and effective coordination of policy objectives, actors, and processes can better address the problems of industrial development (Gabrielle et al., 2021; Howlett & Del Rio, 2015). In the face of the fragmentation of industrial policy, it is necessary to think from the perspective of overall governance and find a new path to optimize the policymaking structure, improve policy supply capacity, and reconstruct the policy supply process (Hua et al., 2021). Therefore, combined with the idea of holistic governance, the key to the rationality of China’s yacht industry policy lies in an appropriate balance of policy purposes, support from multiple policy instruments, and joint coordination of policy subjects.

First, it is important to cultivate a holistic governance philosophy and culture. The yacht industry policy formulation should pursue the public value of industry demand-oriented because demand determines the policy supply, ensuring the effectiveness of the policy’s purpose. On the one hand, policymakers should effectively and closely engage with the public. To understand the real concerns, we need to listen to the public’s opinions on the state and needs of the industry. Using various communication channels, we can reach out to community organizations, such as yacht industry associations and consumer associations. Avoiding formulating unrealistic industrial policies based on sectoral preconceptions, repeatedly set policy objectives, and hinder the rapid development of the industry (Brendehaug et al., 2017; Stevenson et al., 2008).

Second, the policy purpose should be appropriate and balanced across five aspects: market development support, regulation and supervision, institutional reform, design and manufacturing, scientific and technological innovation, and industrial environment cultivation. This balanced approach is necessary to appropriately strengthen the formulation of current “weak” policies, such as finance and insurance, inspection and quarantine, and scientific and technological innovation. China’s current financial insurance policy for the yacht industry is insufficient (0.74%; see section “Policy Purpose Dimensions”). Lessons can be learned from housing and automobile mortgage practices to address this shortfall. Opportunities should be explored to develop mortgage products for yacht purchases and to formulate mortgage procedures and terms related to the yachting industry. A sensible tax policy should also be implemented that would exclude yachts intended for wider use from the luxury yacht category. The yachting industry would be facilitated by established cooperation between banks, insurance, and other financial institutions.

Third, policy instruments must be diverse and complementary. The research shows that China is still in the initial stage of yacht industry development, and the use of demand-side policy instruments by central and local governments is insufficient (see Figure 3). For example, in the yacht design and manufacturing stage, China’s domestic yacht design team mainly use imported items. More than 80% of the core parts, accessories, and materials are imported. That requires financial support, yacht manufacturing personnel training and foreign trade agreements. Vulnerability to tariff changes requires demand policy tools to keep product sales prices reasonable. China should encourage qualified shipbuilding and maritime colleges and universities to organize professional courses such as yacht design, marina planning and club management. Greater emphasis should be placed on job training and vocational education. In order to attract talents to the yacht industry, relevant enterprises should create the necessary conditions that promote outstanding scientific, technological and business management.

In addition, the yacht industry chain is extensive, involving many government management departments such as land planning, maritime affairs, port affairs, tourism, public security border defense, industry, and commerce (see section “Policy Subject Dimensions”). Therefore, the top-level design is very important. The separate management system of maritime, port, tourism, sports, public security frontier, and fishery systems should be rationalized from a macro perspective. Furthermore, the yacht management department should be unified, with yachts as a separate management object. Targeted industrial policies, development plans, and various laws and regulations must also be implemented. We should gradually improve the new yacht safety management regulations, reinforce the responsibilities of yacht owners, and build a yacht industry management pattern with the joint participation, coordination, and promotion of multiple parties.

This study also found that local governments were more likely to publish policies in a single department (see Table 2). The yacht industry is a new growth point for the regional economy. The need to compete with other rapidly developing industries can easily lead to unnecessary investments, for example, in the development of duplicative production capabilities. This suggests that local governments may be prone to deviate from policy proposals (Wei et al., 2017), and calls for central and local policy settings to be consistent and coordinated. Here, the central yacht industry policy should play a regulatory and leading role. Its task should be to actively adopt local policies, improve laws governing the yacht industry, and put forward proposals to simplify yacht procedures, yacht tax incentives, and consumption operations. Attention should also be paid to horizontal coordination of policy making and policy fragments. Central government supervision over local policy makers should be strengthened to ensure that local industrial policies do not conflict with those of the central government. It is important to ensure smooth communication between central and local policy makers at all levels on related policy issues and to establish effective feedback channels.

Policy fragmentation has emerged as a critical challenge in international ocean governance, particularly affecting the sustainable use of marine resources (Adewumi, 2021; Cejudo & Michel, 2017). The international yacht industry involves multiple policy stakeholders, including central and local governments, regulatory agencies, and industry associations. However, the lack of an effective coordination mechanism often results in misaligned or even conflicting policies among these entities. For instance, institutional fragmentation in port governance has led to inefficiencies in management, negatively impacting the yacht industry’s operations and growth (Wilmsmeier et al., 2024). The existence of policy fragmentation has prompted governments to pay more attention to cooperation and coordination (Hojnik et al., 2019).

Three theoretical contributions deserve to be highlighted. First, previous studies used qualitative methods to analyze regional yacht industry problems and suggest policy recommendations. Through the content analysis method, this study conducts a quantitative analysis of the yacht industrial policy, reflecting the fragmentation of the policy from an objective perspective, seeking measures to neutralize it, and avoiding the subjective bias caused by qualitative research. Second, previous studies on policy fragmentation mainly focused on science and technology innovation, energy policy, and other fields, highlighting only three types of policy instruments: supply, demand, and environment. This study is the first to systematically analyze yacht industry policies in emerging markets using the fragmentation analysis framework applied to Chinese policies. Finally, it aims to optimize the policy making structure, improve the policy supply capacity, and reconstruct the policy supply process from the perspective of holistic governance, which expands the application of holistic governance theory by offering concrete institutional insights in a non-Western, emerging market context (Hua et al., 2021).

Conclusions

Enhancing the industrial policy system can prevent market failures, compensate for market defects, and correct ethical anomies. In this study, we analyzed 509 central and local government policies since 1999 through a three-dimensional analytical framework (addressing policy purpose, policy instrument, and policy subject). We focused on the current fragmentation problems of China’s yacht industry, such as policy contradictions, diverse and overlapping policy objectives, policy scarcity, uneven policy implementation, and inappropriate policy coordination. Content analysis and semi-structured interviews were used as research methods. At the moment when China’s yacht industry is taking shape, the contradiction between the demand of market players and the supply of government policies hinders further development of the industry. On the one hand, this requires coordination and integration among policy subjects to form a scientific and systematic policy supply system. On the other hand, it also requires multiple stakeholders in the yacht industry to form synergy, aggregate capacity and resources, optimize and update policy supply methods, and promote yacht industry policy from fragmentation to integration.

In this study, we developed an analytical framework to address the fragmentation of yacht industry policy and thereby made a theoretical contribution to empirical research in the field. Our study has some limitations that we consider important to point out. First, while this article successfully diagnoses the macro-level phenomenon of industrial policy fragmentation, it inadequately explores its micro-level manifestations. A case in point is the yacht taxation framework, which demonstrably fails to align with evolving mass-market dynamics, yet the study offers no substantive policy remedies for this critical misalignment. Second, the study points out that the fragmentation of the yacht industry policy is mainly rooted in the fragmentation of government operations. However, there are also other reasons for the fragmentation of industrial policies, such as industrial characteristics and the industrial development environment. Future research needs to continue to analyze industrial economics theory in depth. Third, although four researchers participated in the coding process, it is still difficult to achieve full objectivity due to the limitations of content analysis. Local-density approximation (LDA) topic modelling techniques, lexical similarity calculations, and semantic relevance measures of word embeddings applied to key phrase extraction could be used in future research on yacht policies.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Yunhao Yao

Ethical Considerations

The present study was non-interventional in nature, did not involve deception of participants or the participation of vulnerable groups, and therefore did not require institutional review board approval in accordance with national laws. The ethical considerations of survey study were followed throughout the study, the purpose of the study was explained to the participants, the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed and the data was stored securely.

Author Contributions

Yunhao Yao: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Chen Li: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Yujie Zhao: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Visualization. Ruoquan Zheng: Writing – original draft, Validation, Formal analysis. Merle Parmak: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by the National Social Science Found of China (No. 18CJY050), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 3132025339), and the 2025 Commissioned Research Projects of Liaoning Province on Policy Consultation and New-Type Think Tanks.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Adewumi

(2021). Exploring the nexus and utilities between regional and global ocean governance architecture. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, Article 645557.

Aubrechtova

Semančíková

Raška

(2020). Formulation matters! The failure of integrating landscape fragmentation policy. Sustainability, 12(10), Article 3962.

Brendehaug

Aall

Dodds

(2017). Environmental policy integration as a strategy for sustainable tourism planning: Issues in implementation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(9), 1257–1274.

Cejudo

G. M.

Michel

C. L.

(2017). Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 1–23.

Chen

Balomenou

Nijkamp

Poulaki

Lagos

(2016). The sustainability of yachting tourism: A case study on Greece. International Journal of Research in Tourism and Hospitality, 2(2), 42–49.

Diakomihalis

M. N.

(2007). Chapter 13 Greek maritime tourism: Evolution, structures and prospects. Research in Transportation Economics, 21, 419–455.

Dreizis

Potashova

(2018). Yachting and coastal marine transport development in Black Sea coast of Russia. In MATEC web of conferences (Vol. 170, p. 05007). EDP Sciences.

Duan

Z. X.

Zhan

Z. R.

(2018). Fragmentation phenomenon and governance mechanism of science and technology policy. Research on Science and Technology Management, 38(11), 21–25.

Flanagan

Uyarra

Laranja

(2011). Reconceptualising the “policy mix” for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.

10.

Gabrielle

Maria

Simon

R. B.

(2021). Policy integration as a means to address policy fragmentation: Assessing the role of Vietnam’s national REDD+ action plan in the central highlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 119, 85–92.

11.

Garry

H. T.

(2003). An overview view of content analysis. The Marketing Review, 3(4), 479–498.

12.

Grant-Smith

Mayes

(2017). Freedom, part-time pirates, and poo police: Regulating the heterotopic space of the recreational boat. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(6), 1379–1395.

13.

Grossman

Pierskalla

J. H.

Boswell Dean

(2017). Government fragmentation and public goods provision. The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 823–840.

14.

Z. M.

Chen

Q. M.

(2017). Fragmentation and integration of precision poverty reduction: A holistic governance perspective. China Administrative Management, 17(5), 87–91.

15.

Hogl

Kleinschmit

Rayner

(2016). Achieving policy integration across fragmented policy domains: Forests, agriculture, climate and energy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), 399–414.

16.

Hojnik

Biloslavo

Cicero

Cagnina

M. R.

(2019). Sustainability indicators for the yachting industry: Empirical conceptualization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, Article 119368.

17.

Hoppe

D. R.

(2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, and participation. Public Administration, 89(4), 1686–1687.

18.

Howlett

Del Rio

(2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233–1245.

19.

Howlett

Vince

Río González

P. D.

(2017). Policy integration and multi-level governance: Dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 69.

20.

Hua

Yan

Wang

(2021). Study of the transformation of industrial heritage from the perspective of holistic governance. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 17(62), 81–93.

21.

Huan

Shan

Han

Song

(2024). Research on the efficacy and effect assessment of deep-sea aquaculture policies in China: Quantitative analysis of policy texts based on the period 2004–2022. Marine Policy, 160, Article 105963.

22.

International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA). (2020). Recreational Boating Industry Statistics [E-book]. International Council of Marine Industry Associations. Retrieved from ICOMIA Library.

23.

Jiang

Han

Zhu

(2023). A three-dimensional analytical framework: Textual analysis and comparison of Chinese and US energy blockchain policies. Sustainability, 15(6), Article 5192.

24.

Kassarjian

H. H.

(1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8–18.

25.

Kirk

E. A.

(2015). The ecosystem approach and the search for an objective and content for the concept of holistic ocean governance. Ocean Development & International Law, 46(1), 33–49.

26.

Kivimaa

Kern

(2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217.

27.

Lam

G. Y. E.

Leon

G. C. J.

Leon

L. J. D.

(2015). Highlights of consumption and satisfaction in nautical tourism: A comparative study of visitors to the Canary Islands and Morocco. GestiÓN Y Ambiente, 18(1), 129–145.

28.

Lewis

B. D.

(2017). Does local government proliferation improve public service delivery? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(8), 1047–1065.

29.

L. C.

Gao

(2016). Research on policy synergy of strategic emerging industries in Guangdong Province based on content analysis. Science and Technology Management Research, 36(14), 24–30.

30.

Ding

(2020). Holistic governance for sustainable public services: Reshaping government–enterprise relationships in China’s digital government context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), 17, Article 1778.

31.

Zhang

Liu

Cheng

Zhang

(2022). Policy evaluation and policy style analysis of ride-hailing in China from the perspective of policy instruments: The introduction of a TOE three-dimensional framework. Processes, 10(10), Article 2035.

32.

Lieberthal

K. G.

Lampton

D. M.

(1992). Bureaucracy, politics, and decision making in Post-Mao China. University of California Press.

33.

Lindheim

(2022). Participant validation: A strategy to strengthen the trustworthiness of your study and address ethical concerns. Springer Books.

34.

J. R.

(2022). Public sports services in the new era: Fragmented provision and holistic governance. Journal of Guangzhou Sports Institute, 42(02), 121–128.

35.

X. B.

Qing

C. X.

Liu

H. L.

X. J.

(2020). Research on open policy system of public information resources based on three-dimensional analysis framework. Management Review, 32(8), 12.

36.

Maria

Evangelia

Eleni

Antigoni

(2017). Maritime tourism development and prospects in coastal cities: The case of Heraklion, Chania and Limassol (pp. 245–269). Springer International Publishing.

37.

McKnight

A. J.

Becker

W. W.

Pettit

A. J.

McKnight

A. S.

(2007). Human error in recreational boating. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(2), 398–405.

38.

Mikulić

Krešić

Kožić

(2015). Critical factors of the maritime yachting tourism experience: An impact-asymmetry analysis of principal components. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(Suppl 1), S30–S41.

39.

Ossenbrink

Finnsson

Bening

C. R.

Hoffmann

V. H.

(2019). Delineating policy mixes: Contrasting top-down and bottom-up approaches to the case of energy-storage policy in California. Research Policy, 48(10), Article 103582.

40.

Paker

Vural

C. A.

(2016). Customer segmentation for marinas: evaluating marinas as destinations. Tourism Management, 56(1), 156–171.

41.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (p. 230). Sage.

42.

Payeras

Jacob

García

M. A.

Alemany

Alcover

Martínez-Ribes

(2011). The yachting charter tourism SWOT: A basic analysis to design marketing strategies. Tourismos An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 6(3), 111–134.

43.

Rothwell

Zegveld

(1981). Industrial innovation and public policy: Preparing for the 1980s and the 1990. Frances Printer.

44.

Sariisik

Turkay

Akova

(2011). How to manage yacht tourism in turkey: A SWOT analysis and related strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24(1), 1014–1025.

45.

Scott

Larson

Buckingham

Maton

Crowley

(2019). Bridging the research-policy divide: Pathways to engagement and skill development. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(4), 434–441.

46.

Stebbins

R. A.

(2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage Publications.

47.

Stevenson

Airey

Miller

(2008). Tourism policy making: The policymakers’ perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732–750.

48.

Stoffelen

(2019). Disentangling the tourism sector’s fragmentation: A hands-on coding/post-coding guide for interview and policy document analysis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(18), 2197–2210.

49.

Tan

H. B.

Zheng

Q. Q.

Wang

H. H.

(2021). Local government big data industry policy: Tool preference and its matching - analysis based on Guizhou province policy text. Administration of China, 21(01), 52–58.

50.

Thiago

De Robson

Meneguette

R. I.

de Souza

F. S. H.

Guidoni

D. L.

(2022). Predictive congestion control based on collaborative information sharing for vehicular ad hoc networks. Computer Networks, 211, Article 108955.

51.

Tian

S. H.

Zhang

K. C.

Wang

Q. B.

Zhou

B.-B.

Chen

Jattak

Z. U.

(2023). Three-dimensional analyses of China’s marine disaster management policies (1990–2022): With implications for carbon neutrality. Ocean and Coastal Management, 246, Article 106884.

52.

Van Asselt

Zelli

. (2014). Connect the dots: Managing the fragmentation of global climate governance. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 16, 137–155.

53.

Venturini

Massa

Castellano

Costa

Lavarello

Olivari

Povero

(2016). Recreational boating in ligurian marine protected areas (Italy): A quantitative evaluation for a sustainable management. Environmental Management, 57(1), 163–75.

54.

Walker

T. B.

Rolle

McLeod

(2023). Yachting tourism’s contribution to the Caribbean’s social economy and environmental stewardship. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 15(4), 422–430.

55.

Wang

F. H.

Zuo

L. S.

Sun

(2020). A study on the policy portfolio of local governments in developing strategic emerging industries. Research in Science, 38(6), 8.

56.

Wang

L. Z.

Zhang

Y. J.

(2017). Research on the synergistic issues of new energy vehicle industry policies in China - A three-dimensional framework based on structure, process and content. China Admin, 21(3), 7.

57.

Wang

(2000). The effects of state regulations on boating accidents and fatalities. Applied Economics Letters, 7(6), 373–378.

58.

Wei

J. Y.

Xue

Zhou

, et al. (2017). Analysis of the causes and countermeasures of ‘policy fragmentation’ of strategic emerging industries in China. Science and Technology Management Research, 37(12), 42–46.

59.

Wilmsmeier

Pallis

A. A.

Schorch

S. L.

Trujillo

D. L.

(2024). Port governance and the implications of institutional fragmentation: Lessons from Colombia. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 56, Article 101179.

60.

Winkel

Sotirov

(2016). Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environment & Planning C Government & Policy, 34(3), 496–514.

61.

Xing

(2022). Assessment on the innovative development of an ancient village from the perspective of holistic governance: A case study of six ancient villages in China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, Article 949175.

62.

Zhao

Qiao

(2023). A systematic literature review of maritime transportation safety management. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(12), Article 2311.

63.

Yang

(Ed.) (2021). Holistic governance: An explanatory framework. In: Urban Governance in Transition. Understanding China. Springer.

64.

Yang

Miao

Duan

Yang

Tang

(2020). Towards holistic governance of China’s e-waste recycling: Evolution of networked policies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), Article 7407.

65.

Yao

Zhou

Parmak

(2023). Yachting tourism consumption potential and its influencing factors: Considering 12 coastal cities in China as examples. Sustainability, 15(16), Article 12490.

66.

Yao

Y. H.

Liu

Y. X.

(2023). An evaluation study of policy tools for China’s yacht industry based on content analysis. Journal of Ocean University of China (Social Science Edition), 21(01), 12–21.

67.

Yao

Y. H.

Zheng

R. Q.

Parmak

(2021). Examining the constraints on yachting tourism development in China: A qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 13178.

68.

(2024). Research on transboundary air pollution control and cooperative strategies based on differential game. Atmosphere, 15(12), Article 1528.

69.

Zeng

F. J.

(2013). Functional fragmentation of government organizations and holistic governance. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 26(02), 235–240.

70.

Zhang

K. Z.

(2001). Beyond bureaucracy: The direction of administrative reform. Qiusuo, 21(3), 32–36.

71.

Zhang

Liu

(2016). Analysis of new energy vehicles industry policy in China’s cities from the perspective of policy instruments. Energy Procedia, 104, 437–442.