Abstract
Could conservation management be prioritised during captive wildlife experiences?
Highlights
Private initiatives and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as wildlife rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries are often overlooked for the contributions made towards conservation, albeit the impact of human–wildlife interaction (European Alliance of Rescue Centres and Sanctuaries [EARS] 2019)
The positive beta coefficient indicates that this factor can enhance conservation management. This novel research identified the factors related to visitor experience management, visitor motivation and visitor interpretation needs within a captive wildlife experience setting, sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres in South Africa
The combination of visitor experience management factors differs compared to those identified in the literature review except for accessibility management, which was identified by Montag et al (2005), DeBruyn and Smith (2009) and Knight (2010); visitor management, which is similar to the good practice guideline developed by the FTT (2018); and human safety
Summary
Private initiatives and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as wildlife rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries are often overlooked for the contributions made towards conservation, albeit the impact of human–wildlife interaction (European Alliance of Rescue Centres and Sanctuaries [EARS] 2019). Three variables (H1–3) were tested in the research: the visitor management aspects they regard as necessary for a satisfying experience (H1), visitors’ motives to captive wildlife establishments (H2) and their interpretation needs and preferences (H3). Because the low-consumptive use of tourist visitation is a driver that influences the tourism experience at captive wildlife establishments, visitor experiences need to be managed, especially with conservation in mind. Stewart et al (1998) distinguish between three types of interpretation: primary interpretation (visitor centres, displays, audio-visual, staff assistance, models, on-site panels, an interpretive shelter, leaflets, guidebooks), secondary interpretation (verbal and written commentary offered on concessionaire activities, commentary offered on transport to and from the site) and tertiary interpretation (advertising on posters on- and off-site, TV, radio, merchandise, pictorial books, informal conversation with park staff, other visitors or accompanying friends and family) This distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary interpretation correlates well with Kuo’s (2002) soft interpretation aimed at educational management (Stewart et al.’s primary interpretation), supported by hard interpretation (Stewart et al.’s secondary and tertiary interpretation) that focuses on physical, regulatory and economic management aspects. The hypotheses mentioned above were tested to determine which set of factors has the most significant influence on enhancing conservation management in a captive wildlife setting
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
