Content uploaded by Leanard Otwori Juma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leanard Otwori Juma on Mar 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052935 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Nature Interpretation as an Environmental Educational
Approach in Visitor Management; The Application
Dilemma for Different Target Groups at Masai Mara
National Reserve, Kenya
Leanard Otwori Juma 1 and Anikó Khademi-Vidra 2,*
1 Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology,
Nyeri 10143, Kenya; leanard.juma@dkut.ac.ke
2 Faculty of Economics and regional Sciences, Szent Istvan Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, 2100 Godollo, Hungary
* Correspondence: khademi-vidra.aniko@uni-mate.hu
Abstract: Various scholars have endorsed contemporary visitor management strategies broadly cat-
egorized as hard or soft approaches. The hard strategies like area closure, penalties, patrols, or lim-
iting access have been deemed punitive and restrictive to visitors seeking escape into natural envi-
ronments. On the other hand, nature interpretation (NI) and general conservation information,
christened as soft strategy, are pushed as complementary or alternative non-obstructive visitor man-
agement tactics. However, these arguments notwithstanding, questions linger about the choice of
appropriate NI strategies, their application, and their effectiveness. This study sought to establish
which NI and visitor information approaches can be used be to manage visitors by target group
effectively at the Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Data was collected by surveying n = 570
respondents that constituted visitors (n = 413) and tour guides (n = 157) participating in wildlife
tourism at MMNR over six months. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to present
and analyze data with spearman’s correlation used for testing the relationships to answer the re-
search question. Study results established mixed results with different NI attributes comprising a
few weak, some very weak, and the majority no correlations with the respondents’ demographics.
The month of the visit and type of vehicle used had very weak negative correlations with attributes
of NI, generally implying inverse relationships. Nationality and gender had the least correlations,
while the month of visit and the purpose of the visit had the highest number of correlations with,
the latter having slightly stronger correlations. Display boards and orientation signage had the high-
est number of very weak and weak correlations with nearly all the respondents’ demographics ex-
cept nationality and gender. Visitor codes/do’s and don’ts followed with tour guiding with no cor-
relations with almost all the demographics. The study recommends continuous improvement of all
NI approaches at the MMNR, with urgency being given to display boards and orientation signage
followed by visitor codes and tour guiding, as evidenced from findings. The study further recom-
mends research on contemporary trends in NI and conservation education and information dissem-
ination.
Keywords: wildlife tourism; visitor management; visitors; tour guides; nature interpretation;
educational activity; questionnaire survey; destination management
1. Introduction
Nature interpretation (NI) is an educational activity that examines and attractively
reveals an area’s physical, biological, and cultural attributes and interrelationships using
tangible objects and first-hand experience to create satisfaction, responsible actions,
Citation: Juma, L.O.;
Khademi-Vidra, A. Nature
Interpretation as a Conservation
Educational Approach in Visitor
Management; The Application
Dilemma for Different Target
Groups at Masai Mara National
Reserve, Kenya. Sustainability 2022,
14, 2935. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14052935
Academic Editor: Michael Tarrant
Received: 3 February 2022
Accepted: 25 February 2022
Published: 2 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 2 of 21
awareness, and commitment to the interpreted values and areas. NI attempts to convey
cultural and natural heritage values, deter negative impacts, and support conservation
initiatives of protected areas. In the past and contemporaries, nature interpretation has
become one of the essential foundations in visitor management as destination managers
and planners endeavour to balance between sustainable conservation of tourism re-
sources and visitor satisfaction [1–4]. NI, also synonymous with environmental education,
has been used as a visitor management strategy for areas that attract or have the potential
to attract visitation to solicit public support towards conservation initiatives. NI used syn-
onymously with environmental or conservation education depending on the season, or
management focus has been implemented varyingly at different destinations. Some of the
approaches implemented include interpreters or tour guides, visitor education centers,
display boards, directional signage, visitor codes, guidebooks, brochures, and other print
media broadly classified as personal and non-personal strategies in NI [4–6]. NI’s personal
forms like tour guiding require a person to deliver the NI whenever and wherever re-
quired. It is labour intensive and requires skilled personnel for effectiveness.
On the contrary, non-personal forms of NI do not need the personnel once installed;
they are self-communicating. These include orientation maps, visitor codes, information
centres, display boards, and signage, tangible or physical, unlike tour guiding, which is a
human-dependent service for actual delivery. Interpreters, also known as tour guides, are
people from different educational and socio-cultural backgrounds and are specialized in
providing an essential interpretation of observed realities and experience in an area en-
tertainingly [5,7–11]. In essence, the application of NI approaches varies from one scenario
to another; various approaches complement each other depending on the area and man-
agement objective or focus. Complementarity is critical for the sustainable development
of destinations and or attractions as different NI approaches present certain advantages
or disadvantages. These facts notwithstanding, destination planners and managers have
endeavoured to apply different approaches for different visitor groups and scenarios
[12,13]. For instance, in expansive nature-based destinations, nature trails or tracks with
adequate orientation maps, signage, visitor codes, and information centres will facilitate
practical interpretation provided with or without tour guides. By and large, the interpret-
ers provide environmental education as the visitors savour their outdoor classroom expe-
rience on the spot as NI facilitates knowledge about the environment and the interrela-
tionships between nature and society at that destination.
Historically, visitor management in protected areas has been primarily interested in
visitor impacts, emphasizing mitigating undesirable consequences. This included limiting
the number of visitors, changing visitor behaviour, and changing the resource itself over
time. These methods have been categorized as either ‘hard’ or soft [14]. Physical, regula-
tory, and economic control are components of ‘hard’ visitor management systems. ‘Soft’
approaches use education and interpretation to help people learn [14]. One of the main
points of the current research was to find out which nature interpretation and visitor ed-
ucation approaches can be used to manage visitors by group effectively. Therefore, it was
necessary to review and describe a conceptual system that focuses on didactic-based ac-
tivities related to nature interpretation.
1.1. Theoretical Framework for Environmental Education (EE)
EE is a broad conceptual category for this research and systems approach, as it incor-
porates all didactic techniques with an emphasis on the environment. Educators, thinkers,
and philosophers such as Humboldt, Froebel, Rousseau, Goethe, Dewey, Montessori, and
Haeckel influenced the environmental theory and practice throughout the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Sir Patrick Geddes (1854–1933) is widely regarded as one of the early
philosophers to identify the critical links between environmental factors and education
[15]. Patrick Geddes’ work as a city planner was his most well-known accomplishment.
He did, however, desire to know more about individuals in their physical, social, and
natural environments [16]. In 1948, at a meeting of the International Union for the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 3 of 21
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Paris, the term “environmental education” was first
used in a public and professional setting [15,16]. Many heads of state and government
attended the historic 1977 Conference in Tbilisi [17]. Environmental education’s goals, ob-
jectives, and definitions were articulated and emphasized in detail. The conference en-
dorsed the following purposes of EE.
EE is a multifaceted process that encompasses events and a well-thought-out ap-
proach to societal development as a whole. Individuals increase environmental conscious-
ness and acquire knowledge, skills, attitudes, experiences, and determination through EE,
enabling people to act independently or jointly to answer current and prospective ecolog-
ical challenges. People gain the knowledge to form alliances, comprehend NGO activities,
create participatory urban planning approaches, and assure developing markets for eco-
business through EE. EE is a learning process that increases people’s knowledge and
awareness of the environment, improves skills and competence to solve difficulties, and
creates attitude, motivation, and commitment to make decisions and take action [17].
EE bolsters individuals’ critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving abil-
ities. It trains people to weigh opposing viewpoints on a particular environmental aspect
to make the right judgments instead of merely advocating for or opposing anything. EE
has the following components: Environmental awareness and sensitivity; first, environ-
mental awareness and comprehension, and environmental challenges. The second con-
cern is that it creates environmentally conscientious attitudes and willingness to improve,
enhance or maintain environmental quality. Another consideration is inculcating individ-
uals’ ability to recognize environmental challenges and assist in their solutions. And
lastly, participation in actions that result in the resolution of environmental issues. EE is
“conceived as a lifetime process that shapes the biosphere through active, innovative, and
critically engaging the young and old in the daily decisions [18]. In addition, Stevenson &
Stirling [19] observes that it is more meaningful to involve individuals in studying and
solving real challenges that significantly concern them. Monroe et al. point out environ-
mental education engages various target groups, multidimensional and ever-evolving
[16] (p. 206). As learners seek more information and greater understanding, EE becomes
a lifelong process, Stevenson and Stirling noted [19].
1.2. Conservation Education
As a result of current environmental trends and educational needs, the range of
meanings of the notion of environmental education (EE) has widened and changed sig-
nificantly. The notion has been dynamic due to its interdisciplinarity and complicated role
in pedagogy: it now has numerous fields and sub-areas. Plant and animal conservation,
encompassing wildlife and natural environments, is described as conserving plants and
animals from the harmful impacts of human activities. The following definition indicates
that “conservation” and “environmental education” are mutually beneficial. For example,
EE could work as a catalyst in preserving human and other beings’ natural habitats. Con-
servation of nature is also possible with a well-planned and implemented EE. The intro-
duction of information and communication technology has sparked a surge in interest in
EE evaluation as a means of moving toward conservation [20]. Conservation education
encourages building an ecological foundation to construct principles [21]. Conservation
education affects social growth components like personality, character, collaboration abil-
ity, and leadership to enhance engagement in identifying and resolving environmental
issues [22].
Recently, some researchers have advocated including conservation education’s
longer-term and more significant benefits on societies, such as building networks of rela-
tionships, as desired and quantifiable objectives [23]. Similarly, Stirling’s [24] notion of the
resilient learner emphasizes the person’s self-improvement or social abilities essential for
healthy development and life success. Understanding how conservation education affects
individual social development in a broader society or social group can help researchers
document socio-ecological outcomes more thoroughly.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 4 of 21
Bloom [25] defined learning as ‘what we know,’ founded on acquiring knowledge
and abilities and including attitudes and beliefs. Ecopsychologists have demonstrated a
correlation between emotional attachment to nature and ecologically responsible conduct
[26–28]. A close relationship is argued to be a primary factor in selecting and implement-
ing conservation education techniques [28]. Individual cognitive and affective outcomes
[29,30] are targeted in conservation education programs. In other words, a more informed
and concerned public is expected to be more motivated and capable of fixing environmen-
tal issues through ecologically responsible behaviour such as energy conservation and re-
cycling.
1.3. Nature Interpretation
Interpretation is required for any learning process; it is a methodology in which in-
terpreters provide meaning to the contents, which must be absorbed and organized
uniquely. The nature and specification of the item always influence the interpretation (for
example, in the case of Heritage Interpretation, cultural heritage contents). Some past re-
search efforts on natural interpretation primarily focused on visitor management [31–33].
As described by some scholars, nature interpretation is an educational activity that seeks
to uncover meanings and relationships through objects, media, or personal experiences
rather than just transmitting information [31,34,35]. Nature interpretation packages and
conveys messages as a visitor management strategy while considering the potential influ-
ence on protected areas and tourists, according to Ham & Sandberg and Ham et al. [32].
As evidenced by rules of conduct, exhibit boards, maps, and directional signs, nature in-
terpretation have personal and non-personal components [33]. This study emphasizes nat-
ural interpretation—from a didactic standpoint—and places a premium on subjective, in-
dividual perception of the learning experience in a constantly changing natural context.
The visitor, scenery, timing, social interactions, physical circumstances, and emotional re-
action are factors in nature experiences [36–41]. Participants’ behavioural and emotional
states shift in distinct stages over time [42], and numerous such perspectives on the nature
experience have been developed.
According to Jurow [42], active development and accumulation of place meanings
could be considered a true partner in a relationship. The setting’s physical and social in-
teractions aided the formation of long-term bonds with a community. In rural contexts,
social interactions and rituals contribute to developing shared narratives and meanings,
which form the backbone of nature interpretation. Personal interpretation (as opposed to
signage, audio tours, brochures, and films) is a preferred style of explanation and a good
component of the tourist experience. Coble [43], conducted a poll that emphasized intel-
lectual and emotional links. In Coble’s study, personal interpretation was the most effec-
tive on-site interpretive experience, which looked at the impact of interpretative offerings
such as events, guided tours, exhibitions, signage, films, and brochures [43]. The most
memorable on-site experience for respondents was ranger-led programs, which surpassed
all other forms of interpretive encounters [42]. Pine and Gilmore [44] assert that the service
economy is transforming into a new economy known as the experience economy, which
happens when a corporation purposefully exploits [its] services as a stage to integrate
individual customers into a memorable event. Their argument revolves around the eco-
nomic implications of distinguishing between providing a service and providing an expe-
rience, a world made up of tangibles, intangibles, and memories. Furthermore, buyers are
eager to pay extra for experiences. The writers contend that buyers cannot control goods,
commodities, or services. An experience, on the other hand, is purely subjective, existing
only in the mind of the person who had it. So no two ‘ ‘people’s experiences are alike.
Each encounter results from a complex interaction between the staged event and the ‘
‘individual’s mental state.
Scholars argue that the quality of NI delivery is dependent on the competencies pos-
sessed by tour guides/interpreters; that is, the knowledge and skilling possessed by tour
guides or interpreters can make them serve as better mediators and positive change agents
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 5 of 21
within destinations for sustainability [45–49]. In most destinations, tour guide training is
not strictly regulated [50–52]. In contrast, others regulate tour guides through licensing
and/or membership to professional associations to regulate their conduct, skilling, and
competencies. Some scholars argue that the experience and social-cultural background
have a more significant impact on interpretational delivery and competencies of interpret-
ers or tour guides [10,53]. As managers and planners strive for the sustainability of attrac-
tions and destinations, these notwithstanding, they commonly complement interpreters
with other non-personal NI approaches [54]. These non-personal NI approaches include
information centres, trails, signages, and display boards [34,54–57].
Operative Tools of Nature Interpretation
Information is not the same as nature interpretation, neither a tourist information
centre, a sign, or a brochure. These are only some of the methods for delivering nature
interpretation. It entails more than simply informing people about identifying a wildlife
species or the age of a structure. Nature interpretation is a well-coordinated, innovative,
and inspirational method of learning. It allows us to explore the world’s numerous com-
plexity and our place within it. People are stirred, their assumptions are challenged, and
their desire to learn is piqued [58]. The visitor and the service provider are at the heart of
traditional visitor management approaches. Their purpose is to improve the tourist expe-
rience, provide the suitable demand product, distinctive service group core design, raise
attraction awareness, and reduce seasonality through enhanced understanding of reve-
nues [59,60].
In contrast, as Eagles and crew point out, the primary purpose of visitor management
in protected areas is to deal with problems that arise as a result of their actions. With this
mentality, the visitor management system grew [61]. And the broad objectives were to
check (the behaviour of those entering the area, influence (visitor decisions), to reduce the
impact of tourists on the environmental effect. A previous paper by Juma et al. [33] fo-
cused on the importance of tour guiding, visitor codes, visitor information centres, display
boards, and orientation signage in the process of nature interpretation. In Table 1 below,
the study summarises each technique’s strengths and weaknesses in the context of the
current research.
Table 1. Applicability of different Media and Strategies in Nature interpretation.
Media and
Strategy
Application
Strengths
Limitations
Print media
and websites
Provide pre-arrival information, such as site
maps, a list of media and activities available,
and the best routes.
During their visit to the site, provide visitors
with directions.
Give details on the location, its landscape, and
its wildlife (incl. streaming)
Provide environmental communications, codes
of conduct, or site-specific or key ecological mes-
sages, as needed.
Apps and a variety of digital materials help in
on-the-spot interpretation.
Easily transportable and
valuable
Multiple points of entry
Budget-friendly
Widespread distribution
Raising the site’s profile
can assist in managing ex-
pectations before they ar-
rive.
Regular maintenance is
required. Match the prod-
uct to the site’s ‘look and
feel.’
On-site’ litter’ can be cre-
ated from paper-based
materials.
Is the site’s Wi-Fi ade-
quate?
some visitors may have
limited time to spend on
site
Roadside dis-
play boards, vis-
itor centres, and
viewing sites
A focal point for the rangers/volunteers have a
base of operations here.
Provide site information as well as upcoming ac-
tivities and events.
a conspicuous location
where tourists can obtain
site-related information
and guidance
If it does not already ex-
ist, it can be costly to start
up.
It needs to be updated
regularly or have a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 6 of 21
Provide various content, including static, audio,
paper-based, and live exhibits.
Feely boxes, cabinets, and touch tables can help
to foster personal connections.
Provide details on the site’s management appli-
cable codes of conduct, among others
Possibility of providing a
diverse selection of media
“rolling program’ for re-
peat visitors
not be suitable for all visi-
tors.
Wildlife
viewing hides
and lookouts
Can give visitors a cause to visit a location and a
focal point of their visit.
Allows visitors to have a first-hand experience
searching for and seeing wildlife.
They can host various media, but static graphic
panels are frequently used.
Rangers or volunteers can meet and greet tour-
ists from this spot.
Whether or not to supply optical equipment for
visitors needs to be considered.
It can assist visitors in be-
ing more connected to na-
ture.
Self-discovery creates
value for the tourist expe-
rience.
Can control visitor inter-
est while minimizing
wildlife disturbance
Wildlife sightings might
be unpredictable.
Unique locations may be
in isolated, unstaffed ar-
eas.
Isolated enclosures can be
intimidating for some vis-
itors.
Visitors require their opti-
cal equipment for better
views.
Face-to-face and
guided tours;
Rangers, guides,
volunteers
Rangers give information, orientation, and ex-
planations, manage expectations, create aware-
ness, and monitor on-site behaviour. Rangers
can also present theatre, music, poetry, and
walks and activities.
Patrolling rangers can ‘stroll the site,’ meet and
greet tourists, and serve on ‘information duty,’
among other things.
Tours can be personalized to people with vary-
ing degrees of interest and understanding on
various topics.
Rangers can organize ‘working parties’ to allow
visitors to more personally interact with the site
Highly effective and pow-
erful.
Rangers can respond to
guest requests and que-
ries immediately.
The information provided
can be updated regularly
and matched to the visi-
tors’ needs.
Visitors’ active participa-
tion and engagement can
be easily facilitated
Experienced and well-
trained rangers, tour
guides, and volunteers
are required.
It might not be suitable
for all types of visitors.
There should be a diverse
choice of tour subjects
available.
Patrolling rangers are in-
effective on vast and iso-
lated sites.
Electronic strate-
gies
Podcasts, interactive maps, and downloaded au-
dio trails are available on mobile devices and ap-
plications.
Spy and webcams are used, providing either a
live broadcast or edited highlights. Reasonably
necessary for sensitive wildlife species or areas
that are potentially harmful or difficult to reach.
These technologies could be used to support ad-
ditional on the site interpretative activities
and/or media.
Easy to carry and use
The material that visitors
are interested in is availa-
ble to them.
Possible to update
straightforwardly and
straightforwardly.
Visitors can share photos
and leave their com-
ments.
Costly updating and on-
going maintenance
higher technological abili-
ties are necessary.
Rely on explanations
given on the spot.
Inappropriate for some
sites
challenges of Wi-Fi / mo-
bile connectivity.
Source: adapted from [33,62].
As mentioned previously, every interpretation is distinctive, and no two are the
same. The consequences of interpretation formation are multifaceted, involving various
contributing elements. From an inclusive approach, it is evident that demographic, socio-
cultural, and psychological characteristics (personal habits, temperament, value system,
norms, motivation, and interest, among others) all influence interpretation development.
Mazilu and Mitroi described demographic characteristics as descriptive classifiers [63,64].
That gender, age, education, income, nationality, and family life cycle are examples of
socio-demographic variables frequently employed by travel professionals [65–67,64]. Ac-
cording to Weaver and Oppermann [68,64], these characteristics describe the tourism mar-
ket and accurately forecast travel behaviour trends. Age is a critical demographic feature
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 7 of 21
for tourism stakeholders since it accurately predicts visitor demand for leisure activities
[69]. Individuals’ desire for leisure and outdoor exploration is positively correlated with
age [67].
The likelihood of engaging in wildlife pursuits differs with age, according to Spence
[70]. When a person is younger, participating in an activity increases, and as the person
becomes older, the likelihood of participating in activity diminishes. The study postulated
that it is critical to choose an environmental terrain and experience that adapts to the tar-
get group’s age and psychosocial characteristics and rethink the tools to adopt based on
age-related intellectual abilities. Gender is another important factor impacting travel de-
mand [71]. Males and females travel in various ways, depending on the purpose of travel.
Men tend to travel more than their female counterparts. Intrapersonal or physical con-
straints influence females more than males [72,73]. Moreover, cost, time, and family obli-
gations limit ‘ ‘women’s trip participation [74,75]. The result is that women choose indoor
activities like shopping and eating over outdoor activities like skiing [76].
Education level has been shown to impact travel motivation [67], whereas marital
status has a significant impact [64,67,77]. Understanding the visitor audience’s educa-
tional level can be beneficial for developing educational content in the case of any natural
encounters and sophisticated nature tour packages. Except for educational groups, there
is no assumption about the educational attainment of specific tourists; nonetheless, a
knowledgeable tour guide may make distinctions. When creating programs, it is possible
to emphasize the visitors’ motivations and areas of interest. However, the intricacy of the
psychographic and demographic elements that contribute to their determination has al-
ready been examined. Simultaneously, when evaluating these intricate action processes,
it is vital to emphasize that each receipt of natural experience is unique and special, as the
subject of the reception, namely, nature, is constantly changing in space and time. As a
result, individuals cannot experience a natural event that is repeated and its reception.
This is a situational process: uniform demographic, socio-cultural, and psychological pat-
terns cannot define natural individual presence. The environment cannot be statically de-
scribed.
2. Materials and Methods
The study was conducted at the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR), one of
Kenya’s most visited wildlife tourism destinations and the world. MMNR has been chris-
tened the 8th wonder of the world due to the seasonal wildebeests’ migration that attracts
high visitor numbers during the high season. The research adopted a descriptive survey
design, and questionnaires were the main data collection tool. Descriptive and inferential
statistics were employed to present and analyze data using spearman’s correlation to test
the research question. In the interpretation of spearman’ correlations, the study adopted
the following ranking of correlation coefficients; 0.00–0.19 very weak correlations; 0.20–
0.39 weak; 0.40–0.59 moderate; 0.60–0.79 strong; 0.80–1.0 very strong correlations as
adopted from Akoglu [78].
Data collection took over six (6) months; in the low season months of November (20%
of the respondents), December (11.2%), January (10.4%), and February (7%), and the high
season months of August (31.2%) and September (20.2%) as detailed in Table 2 below. The
high season constituted 51% of the respondents and 49% for the low season, giving a total
sample size of n = 570. The respondents (n = 570) included 67.5% Kenyans, 18.7% non-
residents, and 13.7% resident foreigners that visited MMNR. 61.9% of the respondents
were males, 36.3% were females, and a further 1.8% for others. The skewed data towards
the male gender was because 157 of the 570 respondents were tour driver guides who
were predominantly male.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 8 of 21
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n= 570) [79].
Demographic
SPSS
Code
Description
Frequency
Valid Percent
The month of
data collection
1
Jan
59
10.4
2
Feb
40
7.0
8
Aug
178
31.2
9
Sep
115
20.2
11
Nov
114
20.0
12
Dec
64
11.2
Total
570
100.0
Nationality
1
Kenyan Citizen
385
67.5
2
Resident Foreigner
78
13.7
3
Non-resident
107
18.8
Total
570
100.0
Gender of
respondents
1
Male
353
61.9
2
Female
207
36.3
3
Other
10
1.8
Total
570
100.0
Age
1
Below 24 years
83
14.6
2
25–40 years
310
54.4
3
41–65 years
166
29.1
4
66 years & above
11
1.9
Total
570
100.0
Education
level
1
University
281
49.3
2
College
254
44.6
3
Secondary
28
4.9
4
Primary
7
1.2
Total
570
100.0
Purpose of
visit
1
Work-related-Tour guide
157
27.5%
2
Work-Related-Others
9
1.6%
3
Holiday/Vacation
324
56.8%
4
Education and research
80
14.0%
Total
570
100.0
Vehicle type
used
1
Self-drive on ordinary vehicle
91
16.0
2
Self-drive on tour
equipped vehicle
33
5.8
3
Driver Guide & Company
tour equipped vehicle
338
59.3
4
Freelance Local Guide &
tour equipped vehicle
108
18.9
Total
570
100.0
The majority of the respondents fell in the youthful category of ages 25–40 years
(54.4%), followed by those aged 41–65 years (29.1%), those aged below 24 years consti-
tuted 14.6%, and lastly, senior citizens (66 years and above) with a small fraction of 1.9%
as detailed in Table 2 above. The demographics of the visitor age completely departed
from past statistics where the senior citizens constituted a more significant percentage of
travellers than the current scenario attributed to the COVID-19 scare. It is especially true
for senior citizens whom COVID-19 could have constrained their vacationing despite hav-
ing higher travel propensity characteristics. Contrastingly, the youthful part of the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 9 of 21
population travelled more during the COVID-19 pandemic as they could have considered
themselves as having higher immunity levels.
On the education level of the respondents (n = 570), over 49.3% of the respondents
had a university education, 44.6% had college-level education, while 4.9% and 1.2% had
secondary and primary level education, respectively (Table 1 above). Regarding the pur-
pose of the visit, 56.8% of the respondents were on holiday/vacation, 27.5% were tour
driver guides at work, 14% were on education and research, and a small fraction (1.6%)
were visiting for other work-related purposes. Indeed vacationers, tour guides, and edu-
cation and research visits constitute the primary travel purposes into MMNR. The re-
search also delved into establishing the most commonly used mode of accessing MMNR.
Study results revealed that company tour-equipped vehicle with driver-guide (59.3%)
was the most popular means, followed by local freelance guides with tour-equipped ve-
hicles (18.9%), and closely followed by self-drive visitors on ordinary vehicles (16%). Vis-
itors on Self-drive on tour-equipped vehicles were the least used means for accessing
MMNR.
3. Results and Discussions
As evinced in Figure 1 below, tour guiding was the most prevalent form of NI in
MMNR, as observed by 83.9% of the visitors and wildlife viewers. Tour guiding was fol-
lowed in a distant second by display boards and orientation signage, with 43.3% of the
respondents noting this approach’s existence. A situation that could partly be attributed
to either the display boards being few or that most wildlife viewers never noted their ex-
istence as they concentrated on viewing wild animals. Visitor codes came third, with
36.8% of respondents noticing them within MMNR. Last on the list was a visitor infor-
mation center noted by a paltry 13.2%. These statistics indicate the prominent forms of NI
as currently observed in MMNR. Indeed tour guiding is the most widely used, followed
by display boards and orientation signage, visitor codes or dos and don’ts, and lastly, the
visitor information centres that are indeed very few.
Figure 1. Types of NI in MMNR [79].
3.1. Attitudes towards NI Approaches
The study first subjected several tour guiding attributes (as a personal form of NI)
here considered dummy variables for these non-personal forms of nature interpretation.
It was observed that generally, the respondents had positive attitudes with the least affir-
mations attribute being’ visitor codes and signage are observed by tour guides’ with 53%
respondents strongly agree (15%) and agree with 38% as shown in Figure 2 below. Visitor
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 10 of 21
codes are communicated to tourists by tour guides followed with over 55% affirmations
strongly agree with 18% and agree having 38% responses.
Figure 2. Respondents’ attitudes towards tour guiding attributes (n = 570) [79].
Third from the bottom was tour guides require regular interpretational training and
sensitization. Study results indicate that ambivalence increased as the level of positive
attitudes reduced, as shown in Figure 2 above. Tour guiding attributes that respondents
had favourable attitudes towards as represented agree strongly and agree are; first, ‘tour
guides have a good understanding of wildlife’ at 78%. This was followed by ‘tour guides
have good tour guiding skills’ with 74%, tour guides provide enlightening NI with 71%,
and lastly, tour guides communicate does and don’ts. Study results indicate that gener-
ally, few respondents had negative attitudes towards all the attributes of tour guiding as
depicted by strongly disagree and disagree. The negative attitudes increased marginally
as affirmation levels reduced.
The study further endeavoured to establish the respondents’ attitudes towards visi-
tor codes/ rules and regulations and display boards and orientation signage broadly cate-
gorised as forms of NI that do not require staffing after deployment, also known as non-
personal forms of NI. These include visitor codes, maps, display boards, orientation sign-
age, and visitor information centres. Likert scale items were used to assess respondents’
attitudes to the various attributes of non-personal forms of NI, as shown in Figure 3 below.
Recommendations to have visitor codes included in the proposed Mobile App had the
highest affirmation at 70.4%, with a further 26% ambivalence and a paltry 7% negative
attitudes.
4%
5%
4%
6%
7%
7%
8%
2%
4%
4%
6%
8%
8%
9%
15%
18%
21%
22%
27%
29%
29%
36%
35%
41%
34%
34%
38%
38%
42%
39%
30%
30%
24%
18%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Tour Guides Have a good understanding of
wildlife
Tour Guides Have good tour guiding skills
Tour Guides Provide enlightening Nature
interpretation
Tour Guides Communicates do's and don'ts
Tour Guides Require regular interpretational
training and sensitization
Visitor codes are communicated to tourists by
tour guides
Visitor codes and signage are observed by tour
guides and tourists
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Agree Strongly
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 11 of 21
Figure 3. Attitudes towards Non-personal forms of NI (n = 570) [79].
Display boards and orientation signage’ are easy to read and understand’ came in
second, as an attribute of a non-personal NI approach that had over 61.1% affirmations
represented by strongly agree (16.5%) and agree (44.5%). 22.1% of the respondents were
ambivalent (neither agree nor disagree), while a further 8.1% and 8.8% represented nega-
tive attitudes that disagree and disagree strongly, respectively (Figure 3 above). The at-
tribute tourists and tour guides ‘observed visitor codes and directional signage’ in MMNR
followed in the ranking with strongly agree to have 21.1% of the responses and agree
39.6% giving a total of 60.7% positive attitudes. 25.8% of the respondents neither agreed
nor disagreed. Respondents with negative attitudes accounted for 8.6% (disagree) and
4.9% (disagree strongly) of the responses. Visitor codes ‘are communicated to tourists by
tour guides’ was next with positive attitudes represented by responses of 17.9% of the
respondents for strongly agree and 37.9% for agree. 29.1% of the responses expressed neu-
tral ones, 7.9% disagreed, and 7.2% disagreed strongly.
Visitor codes ‘are observed by tour guides and tourists’ had positive attitudes repre-
sented by strongly agree (15.4%) and agree (38.2%), accounting for 53.6% of the responses.
This attribute had the highest level of ambivalence, standing at 29.3% (neither agree nor
disagree). A small fraction of the reactions accounted for negative attitudes as disagree
(8.6% and strongly disagree (8.4%). As to whether display boards and orientation signage
were of an appropriate size and visible, the study yielded the following responses;
strongly agree had 13.2%, agree 38.4%, neither agree nor disagree 23.7%, disagree 12.5%,
strongly disagree 12.3%. This statistic showed that over 51% had favorable attitudes,
whereas 24.7% had unfavourable attitudes. Display boards and orientation signage ‘are
strategically located’ had 13.2% of the responses on strongly agree, 37.5% on ‘agree,’ 26.7%
on ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 11.6% on’ disagree’ and a further 11.1% on ‘strongly disa-
gree.’ Lastly, on the questionnaire item about whether display boards and orientation
signage ‘are too many,’ 5.3% of the responses ‘strongly agree’, 12.8% agree, 25.8% neither
agree nor disagree, 32.6% disagree, and another 23.5% on strongly disagree. Study results
revealed that whereas other attributes of non-personal forms of NI had over 50% favour-
able responses or attitudes, display boards and orientation signage had the highest level
of negative attitudes/responses with a combined total of 56.1% (disagree and disagree
strongly). When combined with the respondents who showed ambivalence, the total
shoots to whooping 81.9%, this was an indication that display boards and orientation sign-
age were few and more are needed and improvement of the existing ones. Overall, most
respondents had favourable attitudes for the rest of the attributes.
7
8.8
4.9
7.2
8.4
12.3
11.1
23.5
0
8.1
8.6
7.9
8.6
12.5
11.6
32.6
22.6
22.1
25.8
29.1
29.3
23.7
26.7
25.8
0
44.6
39.6
37.9
38.2
38.4
37.5
12.8
70.4
16.5
21.1
17.9
15.4
13.2
13.2
5.3
020 40 60 80 100 120
Visitor coes to be included in the Mobile App
Display boards and orientation signage are easy to read and
understand
observe visitor codes and directional signage
Visitor codes are communicated to tourists by tour guides
Visitor codes are observed by tour guides and tourists
Display boards and orientation signage are of appropriate size and
visible
Display boards and orientation signage are strategically located
Display boards and orientation signage are too many
percentage of respondents
Apprbutes of Visitor codes, diaplay boards and
orientationsignage
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Agree Strongly
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 12 of 21
3.2. Correlations between Respondents’ Demographics and NI Approaches
In the interpretation of spearman’s correlations, the study adopted the following
ranking of correlation coefficients; 0.00–0.19 very weak correlations; 0.20–0.39 weak; 0.40-
0.59 moderate; 0.60–0.79 strong; 0.80–1.0 very strong correlations. The month of the visit
had very weak negative correlations with five of the seven attributes of tour guiding un-
der review (Table 3 below). Did you see/use tour guiding services had rs = −0.123, p = 0.003,
n = 570; tour guides have a good understanding of wildlife rs = −0.096, p = 0.022, n = 570;
tour guides have good skills for rs = −0.156, p = 0.000, n = 570; tour guides provide enlight-
ening nature interpretation rs = −0.109, p = 0.009, n = 570; and tour guides require regular
ni training and sensitization rs = −0.102, p = 0.012, n = 570. Two attributes, however, did
not have any correlation with the month of visit; these were tour guides communicating
dos and don’ts (rs = −0.072, p = 0.086, n = 570), and recommendations for a new NI training
programme (rs = −0.028, p = 0.508, n = 570). This largely depicts a weak inverse correlation
between tour guiding as a NI approach and the visit month. This very weak correlation
implies a better tour guiding experience in the low season months compared to the high
season months. This calls for more complementary NI and visitor information strategies,
especially in the high season when visitors and tourist numbers are high.
Visitor codes/do’s and don’ts had one very weak negative correlation with are ob-
served/ followed by tour guides and tourists rs = −0.085, p = 0.044, n = 570. All other visitor
codes/do’s and don’ts attributes did not correlate with the visitation month (Table 3).
These are, ‘did you see visitor Codes/do’s and don’ts’, ‘visitor codes are communicated
by tour guides’, and lastly, ‘visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile App’. These re-
sults imply that visitor codes are primarily not affected by the visitation month and can
be implemented in and out of season for consistency.
Similarly, display boards and orientation signage had very weak negative correla-
tions for three of its five attributes under consideration. This included the attributes ‘are
strategically located’ rs = −0.130, p = 0.002, n = 570; ’are of appropriate size and visible’ rs =
−0.157, p = 0.000, n = 570; and ’are easy to read and understand’ rs = −0.167, p = 0.000, n =
570 (Table 3 below). The attributes as to whether wildlife viewers identified display
boards and orientation signage as one of the NI approaches in MMNR and that they ‘are
too many’ did not correlate with the month of visitation. Research results generally sug-
gest that NI in MMNR should not largely be affected by month of visitation and should
be provided all year round at top standard as the correlations were largely very weak or
no correlation at all. However, caution is to be given, especially in the high season, as
study results suggested that NI were observed to be more effective in low season months
ceteris paribus. High season months require a more concerted effort on all strategies to
mitigate the complacency and or pressure related to high visitor volumes of the high sea-
son, especially for tour guiding and display boards and orientation signage.
Table 3. Correlations between NI approaches and respondents’ demographic characteristics (n =
570) [79].
Approaches
of NI
Attributes of the
Approaches in NI
Month
of Visit
National
ity
Gender
Age
Educatio
n Level
Purpose
of Visit
Vehicle
Used
Tour guiding
Did you see/use Tour Guiding
services
rs
−0.123 **
0.082
0.039
0.004
−0.083 *
−0.002
0.054
p value
0.003
0.051
0.349
0.931
0.048
0.962
0.196
Tour guides communicates do’s
and don’ts
rs
−0.072
0.075
0.082
−0.011
−0.107 *
0.107 *
−0.058
p value
0.086
0.074
0.052
0.796
0.011
0.011
0.163
Tour guides have a good
understanding of wildlife
rs
−0.096 *
−0.008
0.038
0.006
−0.039
0.034
0.002
p value
0.022
0.856
0.371
0.890
0.354
0.423
0.970
Tour guides have good tour
guiding skills
rs
−0.156 **
0.056
0.020
−0.022
−0.044
0.054
−0.006
p value
0.000
0.180
0.632
0.594
0.298
0.199
0.877
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 13 of 21
Tour guides provide enlightening
NI
rs
−0.109 **
0.050
0.042
0.015
−0.030
0.043
0.028
p value
0.009
0.232
0.313
0.729
0.469
0.307
0.499
TGs require regular NI training
and sensitization
rs
−0.102 *
−0.057
−0.174
**
−0.027
0.119 **
−0.121
**
0.023
p value
0.015
0.177
0.000
0.523
0.005
0.004
0.582
Recommend a new tour guiding
curriculum
rs
-0.028
0.185 **
0.245 **
-0.058
-0.182 **
0.300 **
-0.134 **
p value
0.508
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.000
0.000
0.001
Visitor
Codes/Do’s
and Don’ts
Did you you see visitor
codes/do’s and don’ts
rs
0.023
0.045
0.140 **
0.005
−0.060
0.066
−0.108 *
p value
0.588
0.283
0.001
0.902
0.152
0.113
0.010
Visitor codes are communicated
by tour guides
rs
−0.060
−0.077
−0.022
−0.097 *
0.099 *
0.094 *
−0.026
p value
0.151
0.066
0.607
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.535
Visitor codes rules and
regulations in Mobile App
rs
0.005
0.116 **
0.120 **
0.112 **
0.097 *
−0.097 *
0.058
p value
0.899
0.005
0.004
0.008
0.021
0.021
0.164
Are observed by tour guides and
tourists
rs
−0.085 *
−0.024
−0.002
−0.095 *
−0.042
0.120 **
−0.062
p value
0.044
0.575
0.954
0.024
0.319
0.004
0.137
Display
boards and
orientation
signage
Did you see display boards and
orientation signage
rs
−0.060
0.017
0.043
−0.075
−0.094 *
0.189 **
−0.189**
p value
0.155
0.679
0.303
0.075
0.024
0.000
0.000
Are too many
rs
0.039
−0.068
0.042
−0.068
0.062
0.161 **
−0.136
**
p value
0.354
0.106
0.317
0.106
0.139
0.000
0.001
Are strategically located
rs
−0.130 **
−0.071
0.027
−0.155
**
−0.051
0.256 **
−0.178
**
p value
0.002
0.089
0.517
0.000
0.224
0.000
0.000
Are of appropriate Size and
Visible
rs
−0.157 **
0.019
0.056
−0.179
**
−0.063
0.226 **
−0.159
**
p value
0.000
0.649
0.180
0.000
0.134
0.000
0.000
Are easy to read and understand
rs
−0.167 **
−0.027
0.023
−0.146
**
−0.078
0.226 **
−0.161
**
p value
0.000
0.525
0.591
0.000
0.062
0.000
0.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed); rs—Spearmans’ correlation coefficient.
Nationality had only one very weak positive correlation (rs = 0.185, p = 0.000, n = 570)
with ‘recommends new tour guide training curriculum’ and another very weak positive
correlation with the attribute ‘visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile App’. The re-
maining attributes of tour guiding, visitor codes and display boards, and orientation sign-
age did not correlate with the respondents’ nationality. The calculated p-values of these
attributes were higher than the given p = 0.005, meaning the correlation results were not
significant. The result indicated that nationality had only one very weak correlation with
one of the seven attributes of tour guiding. Another very weak correlation with one out
of the possible four attributes of visitor codes/do’s and don’ts. Lastly, there is no correla-
tion with all the attributes of display boards and orientation signage. Overall, nationality
results indicated negligible correlations as only two out of sixteen possible correlations
were established and weak. This means that all the approaches of NI as currently used in
MMNR can largely be implemented across visitors and tour guides from all nationalities.
Attitude on most attributes is primarily never affected by the respondents’ nationality
without any significant variance in attitudes. The only exception is recommendations for
a ‘new tour guide training curriculum’ and ‘visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile
App’ with very weak and negligible positive correlations. That implied a weak propor-
tionate correlation, that as one variable increases, the other increases too and vice versa.
Like nationality, all the five attributes of display boards and orientation signage did
not correlate with gender. The calculated p-values of these attributes were higher than the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 14 of 21
given p = 0.005, meaning the correlation results were not significant. This meant that the
respondents’ gender did not affect how they viewed display boards and orientation sign-
age as an approach of NI in MMNR. It can then be argued that display boards and orien-
tation signage as a NI and visitor conservation education approach at MMNR can com-
fortably be implemented across the gender divide without any discrimination or visitor
profiling based on this demographic qualifier.
Two out of four attributes of visitor codes/do’s and don’ts had very weak positive
correlations with the gender of the respondents. Did you see visitor codes/do’s and don’ts
had rs = 0.140, p= 0.001, n = 570; whereas visitor codes /rules and regulations in Mobile App
ah an rs = 0.120, p = 0.004, n = 570). The rest of the attributes did not correlate with the
gender of the respondents, included’ tour guides communicate visitor codes’ (rs = −0.077,
p = 0.066, n = 570), and visitor codes’ are observed by tour guides and tourists’ guides’ (rs
= −0.024, p = 0.575, n = 570), where the calculated p-value was greater than the given p =
0.005. These results notwithstanding, it can be argued that the very weak correlations be-
tween the two out of the four attributes of visitor codes and the gender of the respondents
were negligible as they were below 0.1. Therefore, it can be generalised that largely, re-
spondents’ attitudes towards visitor codes were never affected considerably by their gen-
der. As such, visitor codes can effectively be applied across all gender.
Further correlations between the gender of the respondents and tour guides were
done, and results revealed two weak relationships out of the possible seven. One weak
positive correlation was yielded with ‘recommendations on a new tour guide training
curriculum, guides’ (rs = 0.245, p = 0.000, n = 570), which implied a weak proportionate
relationship as shown in Table 3 above. Another very weak negative correlation was real-
ized with TGs requiring regular NI training and sensitization (rs = −0.174, p = 0.000, n =
570), implying an inverse correlation. The remaining five attributes of tour guiding did
not correlate with gender as the calculated p-value was greater than the given p = .005.
These are ‘did you see/use tour guiding services’; ‘tour guides communicate do’s and
don’ts’; ‘tour guides have a good understanding of wildlife’; ‘tour guides have good tour
guiding skills’; and ‘tour guides provide enlightening nature interpretation’. All attributes
relating to tour guiding execution did not correlate with gender. This means that profiling
visitors along gender lines should never be a concern in implementing tour guiding. How-
ever, gender becomes a weak factor of consideration when determining recommendations
for regular training of tour guides or the need for a new tour guide training curriculum.
As shown in Table 3 above, research findings indicated that tour guiding did not
correlate with the age of the respondents as all attributes of tour guiding had a calculated
p-value that was higher than the given p-value of 0.005. Therefore, study results indicated
that tour guiding is valuable in delivering NI across all ages in MMNR. The only concern
could be the content and manner of executing it. No correlations between age and tour
guiding indicated that respondents’ attitudes towards tour guiding as a NI and conserva-
tion education approach were never affected by their age. While assessing how age corre-
lated with visitor codes, study results established two very weak negative relationships
with visitor codes are communicated by tour guides (rs = −0.097, p = 0.021, n = 570), and
are observed by tour guides and tourists (rs = −0.095, p = 0.024, n = 570) as shown in Table
3 above. These results depicted a very weak inverse relationship, that is, when the age of
the respondents increased attitudes towards ‘visitor codes are communicated by tour
guides’ and ‘are observed by tour guides and tourists’ reduced and vice versa. This in-
verse relationship had a nearly negligible and very weak correlation.
On the other hand, a very weak positive correlation was established between re-
spondents’ age and visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile App (rs = 0.112, p = 0.008,
n = 570). This result implied that the respondent’s attitudes and recommendations to have
visitor codes as one of the features in a proposed Mobile App for MMNR was mildly af-
fected by the respondents’ age; as age increased, the attitudes towards the visitor codes in
the Mobile App increased. These results notwithstanding one other attribute of visitor
codes did not correlate with the age of the respondents, that is, ‘did you see visitor
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 15 of 21
codes/do’s and don’ts’ in MMNR (rs = 0.112, p = 0.008, n = 570). This was a weak propor-
tionate relationship between the two variables.
Further analysis to establish a relationship between age and attributes of display
boards and orientation signage yielded three very weak negative correlations and two no
correlations, as shown in Table 3 above. ’Are strategically located’ has rs = −0.155, p = 0.000,
n = 570; ’are of appropriate size and visible’ had rs = −0.179, p = 0.000, n = 570;’ while ‘are
easy to read and understand’ had rs = −0.146, p = .000, n = 570. on the other hand, ‘did you
see display boards and orientation signage’ had rs = −0.075, p = 0.075, n = 570; while ’are
too many’ had rs = −0.068, p = 0.106, n = 570. Age and attributes of display boards and
orientation signage yielded mixed reactions that can be summarized as no correlations or
very weak positive and some very weak negative correlations that were largely inclined
no correlations at all.
Level of education generally generated mixed very weak correlation results with at-
tributes of tour guiding as a NI approach. In summary, there were three very weak nega-
tives, one very weak positive correlation, and three no correlations. ‘Tour guides com-
municate do’s and don’ts’ yielded an rs = −0.107, p = 0.011, n = 570; ’recommend a new tour
guiding curriculum’ rs = −0.182, p = 0.000, n = 570; ’did you see/use tour guiding services’,
(rs = −0.083, p = 0.048, n = 570); and lastly, tour guides require regular NI training and
sensitization (rs = 0.119, p = 0.005, n = 570) as shown in Table 3 above. On the other hand,
‘tour guides have a good understanding of wildlife’, ‘tour guides have good tour guiding
skills’, and ‘tour guides provide enlightening NI’ had no correlations with level of educa-
tion.
Further analysis on how the level of education correlated with attributes of’ visitor
codes/do’s and don’ts, two very weak positive correlations and two no correlations were
yielded as detailed in Table 3 above. ‘Tour guides communicate visitor codes’ had an rs =
0.099, p = 0.018, n = 570, and visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile App had rs =
0.097, p = 0.021, n = 570. On the other hand, ‘did you see visitor codes/do’s and don’ts’ (rs
= −0.062, p = 0.152, n = 570), and ‘is observed by tour guides and tourists’ (rs = −0.042, p =
0.319, n = 570) did not correlate with respondents’ level of education. Generally, the two
correlations between the level of education and visitor codes/do’s and don’ts were very
weak and negligible. It can be argued that the respondents’ level of education primarily
did not affect their attitudes towards ‘visitor codes/do’s and don’ts. And as such, visitor
codes/do’s and don’ts can be used effectively and nearly indiscriminately regardless of
visitors’ level of education.
On correlating the respondents’ level of education with ‘display boards and orienta-
tion signage’ attributes, one very weak negative correlation was yielded with the query as
to whether respondents saw display boards and orientation signage (rs = −0.094, p = 0.024,
n = 570) at MMNR. All other attributes of display boards and orientation signage did not
correlate with respondents’ level of education as the calculated p-value was greater than
the given p = 0.005. They included’ are too many, ‘are strategically located’, ‘are of appro-
priate size and visible’, and ‘are easy to read and understand’. It can be argued that one
very weak correlation was negligible. That level of education did not affect the respond-
ents’ attitudes towards display boards and orientation signage as a NI and conservation
education approach at the MMNR. Therefore the NI approach can be implemented across
its visitor publics without profiling them by the level of education.
The study also sought to establish the relationship between the purpose of visit ver-
sus the NI and conservation education approaches implemented at the MMNR. Overall,
out of the seven attributes under evaluation, tour guiding had one very weak negative
correlation and two positive correlations with the respondents’ purpose of visit. These
were ‘tour guides require regular NI training and sensitization’ (rs = −0.121, p = 0.004, n =
570), ‘tour guides communicates do’s and don’ts’ (rs = 0.107, p = 0.011, n = 570), and ‘rec-
ommend a new tour guiding curriculum’ (rs = 0.300, p = 0.000, n = 570), respectively. On
the other hand, four attributes of tour guiding did not correlate with respondents’ purpose
of visit. These are ’did you see / use tour guiding services’ (rs = −0.002, p = 0.962, n = 570);
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 16 of 21
’tour guides have a good understanding of wildlife’ (rs = 0.034, p = 0.423, n = 570); ’tour
guides have good tour guiding skills’ (rs = 0.054, p = 0.199, n = 570); and ’tour guides pro-
vide enlightening NI’ (rs = 0.043, p = 0.307, n = 570). These results indicated that regardless
of the purpose of the visit, respondents, to some small extent, endorsed the need for a new
tour guide training curriculum. As for the other attributes of tour guiding, the two very
weak correlations were near negligible, and thus tour guiding can be viewed as critical to
all visitors in the MMNR.
Study results further revealed that the purpose of the visit had very weak positive
correlations with three of the four attributes of visitor codes/do’s and don’ts. The remain-
ing attribute did not correlate. These are, ’visitor codes are communicated by tour guides’
(rs = 0.094, p = 0.025, n = 570); ’visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile App’ (rs =
−0.097, p = 0.021, n = 570); and ’are observed by tour guides and tourists’ (rs = 0.120, p =
0.004, n = 570). On the other hand, ‘did you see visitor codes/do’s and don’ts’ had rs = 0.066,
p = 0.113, n = 570.
The purpose of the visit was two very weak and three weak positive correlations with
display boards and orientation signage. The two attributes that had very weak positive
correlations were ‘did you see display boards and orientation signage’ (rs = 0.189, p = 0.000,
n = 570), and that display boards and orientation signage ‘are too many’ (rs = 0.161, p =
0.000, n = 570). On the other hand weak positive correlations were observed between pur-
pose of visit and ‘are strategically located’ (rs = 0.256, p = 0.000, n = 570); ‘are of appropriate
size and visible’ (rs = 0.226, p = 0.000, n = 570), and lastly, ‘are easy to read and understand’
(rs = 0.226, p = 0.000, n = 570). Study results indicated a direct correlation that the purpose
of the visit weakly influenced visitors’ attitudes towards display boards and orientation
signage and very weakly towards visitor codes/do’s and don’ts. This implied that to a
small extent, some caution should be taken in implementing these NI and conservation
education at the MMNR that as the purpose of visit changed from work-related visit to
vacation and research, attitudes increased and vice versa.
The study had sought to establish if the type of vehicle used by respondents corre-
lated with the NI and conservation education approaches implemented at the MMNR. On
tour guiding, results revealed that the type of vehicle used had a single and very weak
negative with the recommendation for a new tour guiding curriculum (rs = −0.134, p =
0.001, n = 570) as shown in Table 3 above. This was one of the seven attributes of tour
guiding, as the other six did not correlate with the type of vehicle used. These are ‘did you
see/use tour guiding services’; ‘tour guides communicate do’s and don’ts’; and, ‘tour
guides have a good understanding of wildlife’. In addition to these, ‘tour guides have
good tour guiding skills’; ‘tour guides provide enlightening NI’; and ‘tour guides require
regular NI training and sensitization’. These six attributes of tour guiding had a calculated
p-value was greater than the given p = 0.005. These six attributes of tour guiding that never
correlated with the type of vehicle used primarily focused on the skilling and execution
of their duties. The correlated attribute was the recommendation for a new tour guide
training curriculum. It can thus be argued that respondents’ attitudes towards tour guide
knowledge and skilling were never affected by the type of vehicle used.
The type of vehicle used had one very weak negative correlation with one attribute
of visitor codes/do’s and don’ts; that is ‘did you see visitor codes/do’s and don’ts’ (rs =
−0.108, p = 0.010, n = 570). The other three attributes that did not correlate included ‘visitor
codes are communicated by tour guides’, ‘visitor codes rules and regulations in Mobile
App’, and ‘are observed by tour guides and tourists’ as their calculated p-value was
greater than the given p = 0.005. This correlation was on if respondents saw visitor codes
at MMNR. This is because the purpose of the visit can inversely dictate to a very weak
extent how keen the visitors are to the visitor codes/do’s and don’ts found at MMNR. On
the other hand, questions about how the visitor codes/do’s and don’ts are implemented
and whether they are effective indicated no correlation. This means that the type of vehicle
used did not affect the attitudes formed by respondents towards visitor codes/do’s and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 17 of 21
don’ts. Therefore in this regard, the approach can be implemented indiscriminately re-
gardless of the vehicular type used to access MMNR.
When display boards and orientation signage were correlated with the type of vehi-
cle used in the MMNR study, results yielded very weak negative correlations for all of its
attributes. ’Did you see display boards and orientation signage’, (rs= −0.189, p = 0.000, n =
570), ’are too many’ (rs = −0.136, p = 0.001, n = 570), ’are strategically located’ (rs = −0.178, p
= 0.000, n = 570), ’are of appropriate size and visible’ (rs = −0.159, p = 0.000, n = 570), and
that display boards and orientation signage ’are easy to read and understand’ (rs = −0.161,
p = 0.000, n = 570). Despite being very weak, all these correlations were significant at 0.01
level. This implies a very weak inverse correlation between the type of vehicle used and
the attitudes towards display boards and orientation signage. That attitudes towards
boards and orientation signage increased as the type of vehicle used reduced towards self-
drive in ordinary vehicles. The attitudes reduced as the vehicle increased towards a tour-
equipped vehicle with a professional tour guide. It is imperative to note that self-drive
visitors with ordinary vehicles value display boards and orientation signage more because
they are less experienced in visiting MMNR than tour guides who have experience and
have more confidence in outdoor locations.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The study also established that out of sixteen possible correlations, the month of re-
spondents’ visit had nine very weak negative correlations spread over attributes of tour
guiding (5), visitor codes/do’s and don’ts (1), and display boards and orientation signage
(3). The month of the visit had seven no correlations; tour guiding (2), visitor codes/do’s
and don’ts (3), and display boards and orientation signage (2). More attention and effort
should be in the high season compared to the low season despite very weak negative cor-
relations. Results revealed a slight tendency for visitors to develop negative attitudes to-
wards the NI approaches from low to high visitation months. This is especially true for
tour guiding with the highest number of very weak negative correlations. The study rec-
ommends that regular tour guide training workshops, awareness creation, and hard visi-
tor management strategies like patrols or penalties could supplement the NI approaches,
especially in the high tourist seasons.
Regarding the respondents’ nationality, two very weak positive correlations and
fourteen no correlations were established out of the sixteen possible attributes of NI ap-
proaches tested. All the display boards and orientation signage characteristics tested did
not correlate, while tour guiding and visitor codes had one each. These correlations were
on recommendations for a new tour guide training curriculum, and that visitor codes or
rules and regulations should be included in the proposed Mobile App. These future rec-
ommendations from respondents notwithstanding, nationality did not affect the attitudes
formed on NI as currently implemented at the MMNR. And therefore, the implementa-
tions of NI should not necessarily involve profiling visitors, albeit having the NI and con-
servation education information being made available in appropriate languages for re-
spective target groups. The study recommends that some of the simple common signages
and visitor codes be presented in at least three common international languages depend-
ing on the visitation trends.
Like nationality, gender had the second-highest number of no correlations at thirteen.
Again, all attributes of display boards and orientation signage did correlate with gender,
meaning that attitudes towards this form of NI were affected by gender. On the other
hand, visitor codes had one very weak correlation and three no correlations, while tour
guiding had five no correlations, one very weak, and one weak correlation. These recom-
mendations were that tour guides require regular NI training and sensitization, visitor
codes in Mobile App, and respondents’ recommend a new tour guide training curriculum.
Important to note is that these correlations are related to respondents’ recommendations
for future strategies and not how NI approaches are currently implemented at MMNR.
Therefore holding other factors constant, gender did not affect respondents’ attitudes
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 18 of 21
towards NI approaches currently implemented at MMNR. However, there is room for
future improvements, like regular NI training and sensitization and a new tour guide
training curriculum to enhance the skilling and delivery of NI. On the other hand, the
Mobile application for NI should have visitor codes in Mobile App as one of its key fea-
tures.
Overall, correlations between age and NI approaches in MMNR yielded five very
weak negative and one very weak positive correlations, and ten no correlations. Seven of
the no correlations was between age and tour guiding, as all attributes did not correlate.
This means that NI through tour guiding can be applied across all ages without discrimi-
nation, albeit the only concern is to package conservation information appropriately for
the respective age groups. Visitor codes and age revealed two very weak negatives, a very
weak positive, and no correlation; the figures implied negligible correlations. This meant
that attitudes towards visitor codes were least affected by the age of respondents and
should, as such, be packaged to observe the tenets of effective communication through
clarity. Display boards and orientation signage had three very weak negative correlations
and two no correlations. Display boards and orientation signage are important regardless
of age, especially for first-time or inexperienced visitors or due to seasonal route or oper-
ational changes, and should be managed keenly for all visitor groups.
Study results on attributes of NI approaches and respondents’ level of education gen-
erated seven very weak correlations and nine no correlations. Of these correlations, tour
guiding had the highest count; three very weak negative and one very weak positive cor-
relation. Visitor codes had two negligible correlations with level of education, while dis-
play boards and orientation signage had a single very weak correlation also. Even though
all the correlations between the level of education and NI approaches are near negligible,
it is imperative to note that as respondents’ level of education increased, there was a ten-
dency to be more critical. Whereas most attributes of NI generated very weak and no cor-
relations, in addition to these, the purpose of the visit had four weak correlations. These
correlations were on recommendations for a new tour guide training curriculum, that dis-
play boards and orientation signage were strategically located, appropriate size and visi-
ble, and easy to read and understand. Correlating the type of vehicle used and NI ap-
proaches yielded seven very weak negative correlations and nine no correlations. Display
boards and orientation signage had all attributes correlating with the type of vehicle used,
while visitor codes and tour guiding had one very weak correlation each. Indeed, visitors
were keen on display boards and orientation signage because they required proper sign-
age to navigate the vast MMNR. Therefore, the study recommends that more attention be
given to display boards and orientation signage to improve and erect more as they were
observed to be few.
Overall, display boards and orientation signage had the highest number of very weak
and weak correlations, followed by visitor codes/do’s and don’ts. Lastly, tour guiding
with most no correlations. Study results indicated the prominence of tour guiding as the
most widely used and recognisable NI approach in MMNR. It was followed by display
boards and orientation signage, visitor codes or dos and don’ts, and lastly, the visitor in-
formation centres that were indeed very few. Overall, the study recommends continuous
improvement of all NI approaches at the MMNR with urgency being given to display
boards and orientation signage followed by visitor codes and tour guiding, as evidenced
from findings. The study further recommends research on contemporary trends in NI and
conservation education and information dissemination.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; methodology, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.;
software, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; validation, L.O.J.; A.K.-V. formal analysis, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; investi-
gation, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; resources, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; data curation, L.O.J.; writing—original
draft preparation, L.O.J.; writing—review and editing, L.O.J. and A.K.-V.; visualization, L.O.J. and
A.K.-V.; supervision, A.K.-V.; and project administration, A.K.-V.; All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 19 of 21
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: All respondents for the survey gave their informed consent for in-
clusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Dec-
laration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Kenya’s National Commission of Science,
Technology and Innovation vide research license number.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because it is part of an ongoing research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Stokes, D.; Crawshaw, B. Teaching Strategies for Environmental Education. Environmentalist 1986, 6, 35–43.
2. White Oak Wildlife. Conservation. Available online: http://www.whiteoakwildlife.org/conservation/ (accessed on 14 December
2021).
3. Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. (14 December 2021). What is Environmental Education? Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/education/what-environmental-education (accessed on 14 December 2021).
4. Salazar, N.B. Tourism and Glocalization: ‘Local’ Tour Guiding. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 628–646.
5. Black, R.; Ham, S.H. Improving the quality of tour guiding: Towards a model for tour guide certification. J. Ecotourism 2005, 4,
178–195.
6. Mak, A.H.; Wong, K.K.; Chang, R.C. Critical issues affecting the service quality and professionalism of the tour guides in Hong
Kong and Macau. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1442–1452.
7. Mak, A.H.; Wong, K.K.; Chang, R.C. Factors affecting the service quality of the tour guiding profession in Macau. Int. J. Tour.
Res. 2010, 12, 205–218.
8. Nyahunzvi, D.K.; Njerekai, C. Tour guiding in Zimbabwe: Key issues and challenges. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 6, 3–7.
9. Prakash, M.; Chowdhary, N.; Sunayana. 2011. Tour Guiding: Interpreting the Challenges. Available online: http://chios.ae-
gean.gr/tourism/volume_6_no2_art04.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2021).
10. Huang, S.; Hsu, C.H.; Chan, A.M. Tour guide performance and tourist satisfaction: A study of the package tours in Shanghai.
J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2010, 34, 3–33.
11. Poudel, S.; Nyaupane, G.P. The Role of Interpretative Tour Guiding in Sustainable Destination Management A Comparison
between Guided and Nonguided Tourists. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 659–672.
12. Stewart, M.A. Managing Heritage Site Interpretation for Older Adult Visitors. 2017. Available online: http://sym-
phonya.unicusano.it/article/view/2016.2.09avellino (accessed on 15 December 2021).
13. Kuo, I.-L. The effectiveness of environmental interpretation at resource-sensitive tourism destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2002, 4,
87–101.
14. Mason, P.A. Visitor Management in Protected Areas: From ‘Hard’ to ‘Soft’ Approaches? Curr. Issues Tour. 2005, 8, 181–194.
15. Palmer, J. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise; Routledge: London, UK, 1998.
16. Pudin, S. Development of an Environmental Education Programme for Waste Management with Local Communities in Sabah,
Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 2015. Available online: https://researchcom-
mons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/9675/thesis.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 December 2021).
17. UNESCO. Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (Final Report); UNESCO: Paris, France, 1978.
18. Clover, D.E. Environmental adult education. Adult Learn. 2002, 13, 2–6.
19. Stevenson, R.B.; Stirling, C. Environmental learning and agency in diverse education and cultural contexts. In Engaging Envi-
ronmental Education: Learning, Culture and Agency; Stevenson, R.B., Dillon, J., Eds.; Sense: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp.
219–237.
20. Carleton-Hug, A.; Hug, J.W. Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Eval. Program
Plan. 2010, 33, 159–164.
21. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), 2014 Status Report. Available online:
https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/eepro/resource/files/2014_state_elp_report.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2021).
22. Jacobson, S.K.; McDuff, M.D.; Monroe, M. Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques; Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford,
UK, 2006.
23. Schneller, A.J. Environmental service learning: Outcomes of innovative pedagogy in Baja California Sur, México. Environ. Educ.
Res. 2008, 14, 291–307.
24. Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 2010, 468, 1029–1031.
25. Bloom, B.; Englehart MFurst, E.; Hill, W.; Krathwohl, D. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals.
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Longmans, Green: New York, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 1956.
26. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
27. Louv, R. 2008. Children and Nature: A Report on the Movement to Reconnect Children to the Natural World. Available online:
https://www.childrenandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/CNMovement.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2021).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 20 of 21
28. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Murphy, S.A. The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Envi-
ronmental Concern and Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2008, 41, 715–740.
29. McKenzie-Mohr, D.; Lee, N.R.; Schultz, P.W.; Kotler, P.A. Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works; Sage Publica-
tions: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
30. Clayton, S.; Litchfield, C.; Geller, E.S. Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2013, 7, 377–382.
31. Tilden, F. Interpreting our heritage. In Chapel Hill Books; University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1997; Avail-
able online: https://doi.org/973.07 TIL https://books.google.hu/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=LCCN77365104&re-
dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 23 November 2019).
32. Ham, S.H.; Sandberg, E.K. Interpretation as Strategic Communication in Protected Area Management. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitors in Recreational and Protected Areas, Stockholm, Sweden, 21–24
August 2012; Fredman, P., Stenseke, M., Liljedahl, H., Mossing, A., Daniel, L., Eds.; MMV: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; pp. 132–
133.
33. Juma, L.O.; Bakos, I.M.; Khademi-Vidra, A. Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management Objectives: A Survey of Tourist
Attitudes at Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187246.
34. Juma, L.O. Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: An Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes; Lambert Academic
Publishing: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2016.
35. Albrecht, J.N. Introduction to Visitor Management in Tourism Destinations. In Visitor Management in Tourism Destinations; Al-
brecht, J.N., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 3–8.
36. Hull, R.B.; Stewart, W.P.; Yi, Y.K. Experience Patterns: Capturing the Dynamic Nature of a Recreation Experience. J. Leis. Res.
1992, 24, 240–252.
37. Norman, M.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Nature/Person Transactions during an Outdoor Adventure Experience: A Multi-Phasic Analy-
sis. J. Leis. Res. 1998, 30, 401.
38. Terry, H. Nature Experience in Transactional Perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1993, 25, 17–36.
39. Borrie, W.T.; Roggenbuc, J.W. The Dynamic, Emergent, and Multi-Phasic Nature of On-Site Wilderness Experiences. J. Leis. Res.
2001, 33, 202.
40. Patterson, M.E.; Watson, A.E.; Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.R. An Hermeneutic Approach to Studying the Nature of Wilder-
ness Experiences. J. Leis. Res. 1998, 30, 423.
41. Werner, C.M.; Altman, I. Humans and Nature: Insights from a Transactional View. In Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-
Behavior Research; KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 21–37.
42. Jurow, K. Making Meaning Together: The Role of Interpretation during a Short-Term Nature Excursion. Ph.D. Thesis, Antioch
University, Keene, NH, USA, 2016. Available online: https://aura.antioch.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=etds
(accessed on 15 December 2021).
43. Coble, T.; Lin, H.S.; Coble, D.; Hart, J.L.; Darville, R. Visitor Voices: Assessing Interpretive Outcomes in the Intermountain Region;
National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
44. Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 96–105.
45. Marzouki, S.Y.; Posecion, A.T. Employee Engagement and Commitment, Communication Skills and Talent Management Com-
petencies of Tourism Professionals. J. Tour. Hosp. Sports 2019, 40, 43–59.
46. Jahwari, D.S.; Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Tanrisever, C. Efficacy of the theory of communication competence and personality traits in
predicting tour guides’ income. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 16, 109–136.
47. Guzman, J.P. Tour Guiding Competency of Tourism Graduates Working in Selected Travel Agencies in Calamba City, 2009.
Ejournals.ph Ani: Let. Calamba Res. Rep. 2011, 1, 1.
48. Rahmawati, E. Improving the Quality Service of Tour Guides through the Competency Certification Program; Public
Knowledge Project > Open Journal Systems, Budapest: 2015. Available online: http://unisbank.ac.id/ojs/index.php/sendi_u/ar-
ticle/view/3319/926 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
49. Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, M.-L.; Chen, Y.-C. How Tour Guides’ Professional Competencies Influence on Service Quality of Tour Guiding
and Tourist Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research. International J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 2017, 7, 1–19.
50. Ong, C.-E.; Ryan, C.; McIntosh, A.J. Power-knowledge and tour-guide training: Capitalistic domination, utopian visions and
the creation and negotiation of UNESCO’s Homo Turismos in Macao. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 48, 221–234.
51. Jacobson, S.K.; Robles, R. Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservation education: Development of a tour guide
training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Environ. Manag. 1992, 16, 701–713.
52. Leff, P. California counties adapt permitting and regulations for agritourism. Calif. Agric. 2011, 65, 2.
53. Prakash, M.; Chowdhary, N. Tour guides: Roles, challenges and desired competences A review of literature. International J.
Hosp. Tour. Syst. 2010, 3, 1–12.
54. Kuo, I.-L. The Use of Visitor Management Techniques to Protect a Fragile Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Bournemouth University,
Poole, UK, 2003.
55. National Parks Service. (15 December 2021). Redwood National and State Parks California. Available online:
https://www.nps.gov/redw/index.htm. (accessed on 14 December 2021).
56. Mukhina, K.D.; Rakitin, S.v.; Visheratin, A.A. Detection of tourists attraction points using Instagram profiles. Procedia Comput.
Sci. 2017, 108, 2378–2382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.131.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2935 21 of 21
57. Švajda, J.; Masný, M.; Koróny, S.; Mezei, A.; Machar, I.; Taczanowska, K. Visitor profiling using characteristics of socio-demo-
graphic and spatial behavior as tools to support the management of protected mountain areas. Geografie 2018, 123, 461–478.
https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2018123040461.
58. McArthur, T. Living Words_ Language, Lexicography and the Knowledge Revolution; University of Exeter Press: Exeter, UK, 1998.
59. Rátz, T. Cultural Tourism. In Michalkó, G (Szerk): Turisztikai Terméktervezés és Fejlesztés. 2011. Available online:
http://www.eturizmus.pte.hu/szakmai-anyagok/Turisztikai%20term%C3%A9kter-
vez%C3%A9s%20%C3%A9s%20fejleszt%C3%A9s/book.html (accessed on 14 December 2021)
60. Szeberényi, A. (2021): Examining the Main Areas ff Environmental Awareness, Sustainability and Clean Energy. In Sustainable
Development Goals Southampton; Daniel, G., Hayri, U., Rashmi, G., Eds.; Tradepreneur Global Academic Platform: London, UK,
2021; pp. 17, 258–274, 458.
61. Eagles, P.; Mccool, S.; Haynes, C.; Phillips, A. (2002): Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas Guidelines for Planning and Man-
agement. Park Tourism Projekt. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/pag-008.pdf (ac-
cessed on 14 December 2021).
62. Mitchell, J.; Ryland, P. Creating an Interpretation Plan: An Introduction Natural Interpretation: A Guide To The Interpretation
Of Nature And Wildlife. 2020. Available online: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/29728/7/BPG13-Natural%20interpreta-
tion.pdf. (accessed on 15 December 2021).
63. Mazilu, M.; Mitroi, S. Demographic, social, economic and geographic features shaping factors of the tourist market. Rom. Econ.
Bus. Rev. 2010, 5, 159–166.
64. Kara, N.S.; Mkwizu, K.H. Demographic factors and travel motivation among leisure tourists in Tanzania. Int. Hosp. Rev. 2020,
34, 81–103.
65. Mkwizu, K.H. Analysis of sources of information and income of domestic tourists to national parks in Tanzania. ATLAS Tour.
Leis. Rev. 2018, 2018, 28–43.
66. Mkwizu, K.H. The Influence of Television Advertising on Domestic Tourism: A Case of Southern Tourist Attractions in Tanza-
nia. Available online: http://repository.out.ac.tz/1878/ (accessed on 4 January 2018).
67. Ma, A.; Chow, A.; Cheung, L.; Lee, K.; Liu, S. Impacts of tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics on the travel motivation
and satisfaction: The case of protected areas in South China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3388.
68. Weaver, D.; Oppermann, M. Tourism Management; John Wiley: Milton, MA, USA, 2000.
69. Mieczkowski, Z. The World Trends in Tourism and Recreation; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
70. Spence, M. The effect of age on the probability of participation in wildlife-related activities: A birth year cohort study. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 2002, 84, 1384–1389.
71. Collins, D.; Tisdell, C. Gender and differences in travel life cycles. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 133–143.
72. Josiam, B.; Kinley, T.; Kim, Y. Involvement and the tourist shopper: Using the involvement construct segment the American
tourist shopper at the mall. J. Vacat. Mark. 2005, 11, 135–154.
73. Andronikidis, A.; Vassiliadis, C.; Masmanidis, T. Evaluation of the compatibility degree of constraint variables for the demand
of ski center services. J. Vacat. Mark. 2008, 14, 211–220.
74. Scott, D. The Relevance of Constraints Researches to Leisure Service Delivery; Jackson, E.L., Ed.; Constraints to Leisure; Venture
Publishing: State College, PA, USA, 2005; pp. 279–293.
75. Alexandris, K.; Carrol, B. Demographic differences in the perception of constraints on recreational sports participation: Result
from a study in Greece. Leis. Stud. 1997, 16, 107–125.
76. Xie, H.; Costa, C.; Morais, D. Gender differences in rural tourists motivation and activity participation. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2008,
16, 1–27.
77. Fan, X.; Qiu, H.; Hsu, C.; Liu, Z. Comparing motivations and intentions of potential cruise passengers from different demo-
graphic groups: The case of China. J. China Tour. Res. 2015, 11, 461–480.
78. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TJEM.2018.08.001.
79. Juma, L.O.; Khademi-Vidra, A. (2021) Research data (2021). N=570.
