Evaluating the effectiveness of guided versus non-guided interpretation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa

Abstract

In the face of growing pressure placed on the natural environment, the study on which this article is based considered the effectiveness of interpretive provision in mitigating the harmful effects of tourism on the environment. The aim of this research was to determine whether guided or non-guided interpretation is most effective in reaching the stated goals of interpretation. The four key goals of interpretation, namely visitor satisfaction, knowledge gain, attitude change and modification of behaviour intent, were used in the assessment of the relative effectiveness of guided and non-guided interpretation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Through comparing responses to questionnaires from post-visit samples and observing both guided and non-guided interpretation, the research found that guided interpretation was only marginally more effective in reaching the four key goals of interpretation than the non-guided interpretive media. Guided interpretation was found to be more effective in terms of visitor satisfaction, whilst guided and non-guided interpretation had only marginal differences in effectiveness in relation to knowledge gain, attitude change and intent to modify behaviour.Conservation implications: The necessity of implementing an appropriate interpretation programme within protected areas cannot be overemphasised. The interpretation programme should be designed to include elements of both guided and non-guided interpretation in order to achieve a predetermined goal. The effectiveness of the programme should be evaluated periodically and amended where appropriate.

Interpretation and tourism: holy grail or emperor’s robes?

“…Further investigation of these websites and other discussions of interpretation reveal considerable consensus about how interpretation makes a difference and what it makes a difference to. The core functions or benefits of interpretation can be organised by level of conceptualisation from the individual visitor to improving sustainability beyond the destination (Roberts et al, 2014). At the level of the individual visitor, interpretation is claimed to be an important part of the visitor experience contributing to making a visit meaningful, interesting and rewarding or enjoyable (Interpretation Australia, 2014;Moscardo, 2013).…”

Poučne staze za samostalni obilazak u zaštićenim područjima i njihov značaj za ekološko obrazovanje posjetitelja

“…One potential solution is a combination of information sources (Coghlan and Kim, 2012) and methods considered more eff ective, such as new technologies (Wolf, Stricker and Hagenloh, 2013) and guided tours. However, the motivation of visits also plays an important role in these cases (Poudel and Nyaupane, 2013), and the diff erences between these alternatives and standard interpretive trails might not be noticeable (Roberts, Mearns and Edwards, 2014). Th e previous results indicate statistically signifi cant diff erences in knowledge and information among all three groups.…”

The Effectiveness of Environmental Interpretation in Influencing Visitors' Knowledge in Kinabalu Park

“…Similarly, visitors' actual knowledge at the Walpole-Nornalup National Park, Australia also showed no differences before and after they were exposed to the newly installed interpretive signs in the park (Hughes & Morrison Saunders, 2002). Roberts et al (2014) study at the Kruger National Park, South Africa also found no differences in the knowledge between visitors who took guided and non-guided interpretation. In Kinabalu Park, very few research related to interpretation were undertaken (Jacobson, 2009;Bidder et al 2016).…”

“…Several studies on the evaluation of interpretation had been carried out in the context of Malaysian natural environment (Mohd Hafizal Ismail, 2008;Jacobson, 2009;Roslina, Manohar, Ismail Adnan, Azlizam, & Mohd Aswad, 2013;Amin, Chan, & Mohd Shukri, 2014;Lim, Manohar, Azlizam, & Zakaria, 2016;Bidder et al, 2016). Majority of the studies yielded either partially positive or positive findings (Tubb, 2003;Madin & Fenton, 2004;Powell & Ham, 2008;Roslina et al, 2013) but there have also been studies that reported very little or no differences at all in the visitors' knowledge before and after they were exposed to interpretation (Papageorgiou, 2001;Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2002;Novey & Hall, 2006;Roberts, Mearns, & Edwards, 2014). Tubb (2003) study at the High Moorland Visitor Centre in Dartmoor National Park, United Kingdom found that visitors' knowledge and awareness increased after they were exposed to the interpretation at the centre.…”