Regarding the management of the visitor experience, numerous studies have identified the factors visitors regard as crucial for a memorable or satisfying experience. These studies were, however, mainly conducted in a national park or natural event setting. Collectively, the results from the studies show that factors such as accessibility (DeBruyn & Smith 2009; Knight 2010; Montag, Patterson & Freimund 2005), proximity to the wildlife (Finkler & Higham 2004; Orams 2000; Schänzel & McIntosh 2000; Wolf & Croft 2012; Ziegler, Dearden & Rollins 2012), the possibility of clear observation (DeBruyn & Smith 2009; Finkler & Higham 2004; Kruger, Viljoen & Saayman 2013; Orams 2000) and interpretation (De Witt, Van Der Merwe & Saayman 2014; Foxlee 2001; Kruger, Van der Merwe & Saayman 2018; Ziegler et al. 2012) are essential for a successful wildlife-viewing experience. There is, however, no universally accepted set of management factors, and they are mostly dependent on the type of setting and the experience offered.

Compared to zoo and aquarium research, research is limited regarding captive non-zoo experiences. However, some research has investigated the demand for wildlife tourism and the role that visitors play (Moorhouse et al. 2015), the role of captive breeding for conservation (Nogueira-Filho & Nogueira 2004) and the role of visitors as assessors of unethical wildlife use (Moorhouse, D’Cruze & Macdonald 2017). The major problem within the literature is to clearly define what captive wildlife settings include (Packer & Ballantyne 2012; Reiser 2018), as well as to what degree human–wildlife interaction is permitted (Cohen 2019). In the present research, the focus is on captive wildlife within rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries. Except for zoos and aquariums, many sanctuaries, orphanages and centres are very proconservation and do not allow visitors. 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. The following hypothesis was therefore formulated:

Various studies have identified the profile, motives and expectations of visitors to wildlife settings, particularly to South African national parks. Collectively, the findings of these studies indicate that visitors to national parks are homogeneous in terms of their sociodemographic profile: they are mainly from Gauteng (the economic hub of the country), in their forties, well educated, prefer longer lengths of stay and have considerable spending power (Engelbrecht, Kruger & Saayman 2014; Kruger & Saayman 2014; Kruger, Saayman & Hermann 2014; Kruger et al. 2017). Previous research conducted on the motives of these visitors identified the push factor, escape from the daily routine (Botha, Saayman & Kruger 2016; Hermann et al. 2016; Kruger, Saayman & Saayman 2010; Kruger et al. 2017; Saayman & Dieske 2015). Other push motives consistent across the board include factors such as novelty (Kruger et al. 2010; Van der Merwe & Saayman 2008), nostalgia (Kruger et al. 2010; Van der Merwe & Saayman 2008) and personal gain (Viviers & Slabbert 2012). Pull factors include education and learning about nature (Botha et al. 2016; Kruger et al. 2010; Saayman & Dieske 2015), participating in recreational and leisure activities (Hermann et al. 2016), as well as the park attributes, nature experiences and photography (Kruger et al. 2010).

Regarding captive wildlife settings, the current research (2015–2019) primarily makes a distinction between captive zoo and aquarium visitor experiences and captive non-zoo visitors. Research on captive zoo visitor experiences has indicated that visitors are primarily attracted to zoos for a fun day out, to relax and for the benefit of children (Higginbottom 2004). In a more in-depth investigation, Packer and Ballantyne (2016) indicate that differences between zoo and aquarium visitors are noticeable. Both zoo and aquarium visitors emphasise the social aspects of the visit (quality time with family and friends). However, the aquarium visitors had a higher percentage (nearly double) of visitors who indicated learning as the highest priority. Unfortunately, the motives of visitors to other captive wildlife settings have not yet been identified. The authors argue that visitors’ motives could play an essential role in the way they regard conservation management, and therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Kuo (2002), Stewart et al. (1998), Tilden (1977) and Ward and Wilkinson (2006) identify four types of interpretation, namely attended versus unattended; personal versus impersonal, primary, secondary and tertiary; and hard versus soft. Tilden (1977) was the first to classify different types of interpretation. He identified attended (in person) and unattended (not in person) interpretation, which is also closely related to Ward and Wilkinson’s (2006) personal and impersonal interpretation. Attended or personal interpretation refers to interpretation that involves person-to-person contact, such as game drives or educational talks, whereas unattended or impersonal interpretation refers to interpretation with no personal contact, such as educational displays or exhibits. Over the years, the classifications have, however, grown into more complicated types (Botha et al. 2016). For example, 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. Soft interpretation refers to the specific educational message presented to visitors at interpretation centres, whereas hard interpretation refers to viewing platforms (physical), rules about behaviour (regulatory) and higher fees in peak seasons (economic). Based on these classifications, it is clear that interpretation is a necessary component of the visitor experience (hard or secondary and tertiary interpretation), and it relates to the experience (soft or primary interpretation).

Regarding visitors’ interpretation needs and the preferences of visitors to wildlife tourist attractions, the majority of research is encapsulated within national parks and zoos. The interpretation offerings within captive wildlife tourist attractions are displayed usually through a wide variety of media. For example, zoos make use of a variety of media from personal face-to-face interaction with guides and rangers to written communication for information dissemination (Woods 1998). In a national park setting, applying a similar classification as Stewart et al. (1998), Botha et al. (2016) found that primary followed by secondary interpretation services as well as knowledgeable staff are deemed important by visitors. Interpretation is furthermore not only for educational purposes but is also related to accessibility and signage. However, determining the interpretation needs and preferences of visitors is a systematic continuum, especially with the advances in technology. Returning to rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries, the type of interpretation would surely differ from the type of interpretation employed in zoos and aquariums. Additionally, the interpretation needs and preferences of visitors to centres and sanctuaries are unfortunately unknown. Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated:

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.

The study made use of a quantitative research method in the form of a survey research design by means of a structured questionnaire that consisted of four sections. Section A captured sociodemographic details (gender, age, home language, level of education, nationality and province of origin, marital status, annual income, travel party, group size, the number of persons paid for, expenditure during the visit, type of sanctuary or rehabilitation centre visited and when the decision was made). Section B captured motivational factors, measuring 22 items on a five-point Likert scale of agreement ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). On a similar five-point Likert scale of agreement, Section C measured 33 key management aspects, and Section D measured 28 interpretation needs and preferences. The measurement methods were assessed according to validity and reliability criteria. All four sections satisfied the criteria for content validity. The statements included in Section B were based on previous studies on travel motives to nature-based destinations including those by Schänzel and McIntosh (2000), Foxlee (2001), Finkler and Higham (2004), Wolf and Croft (2012), Ziegler et al. (2012) and Kruger et al. (2013). These statements ranged from escape, socialisation, novelty, education, well-being and lifestyle. However, the authors also created statements linked to conservation and how this aspect in the context of sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres motivates visitors. Aspects such as volunteering and the extent of wildlife interaction preferred were also included. Section C was based on the findings on managerial aspects within national parks (Engelbrecht et al. 2014) and ranged from statements related to general management, service, logistics, accessibility and staff management. Because the research identified the determinants of enhanced conservation management, the authors created particular statements measuring respondents’ awareness of the establishments’ conservation efforts and wildlife management. Section D was based on and adapted from previous studies on the interpretation as discussed in the literature review (Botha et al. 2016; Kuo 2002; Stewart et al. 1998; Tilden 1977; Van Loggerenberg, Saayman & Kruger 2015; Ward & Wilkinson 2006) and included a variety of interpretation statements related to primary, secondary and tertiary interpretation. Whilst many of the statements measured in sections B, C and D were based on existing literature, the authors also created statements mainly related to management and experience at sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres.

Because of the nature of the research and the ethical implications, the researchers were not granted permission to conduct the research on-site at sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres in South Africa. Because visitors to these establishments may be defined as a population of wildlife tourists challenging to access, an electronic survey was deemed the only way to gain access to the population. Moreover, it is likely that the people who follow these establishments on Facebook are conservation-oriented and have visited a sanctuary or rehabilitation centre before. Therefore, a convenience snowball sampling method was used to gain access to these visitors. The data were therefore collected by means of a self-administrated online questionnaire distributed on the social media pages of willing centres and sanctuaries, as well as Facebook groups associated with wildlife conservation in South Africa. Convincing establishments and conservation agencies to form part of the research was a time-consuming and challenging process, as establishments were fearful that their practices would be scrutinised. Various Facebook pages were randomly selected; however, only five were willing to assist with the research. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the willing establishments and conservation groups that formed part of the research as well as their number of Facebook followers.

The questionnaire was designed on the Research Analytics online survey software QuestionPro and was hosted online from 28 June 2017 to 14 November 2018. The participating establishments and agencies were reminded weekly to post the link to the survey continuously. Unfortunately, despite the researchers’ best efforts, a total of 183 questionnaires were collected. Incomplete questionnaires were not included in further analysis, resulting in 172 useable questionnaires. Statistics regarding the number of visitors to the sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres are currently unknown and impossible to accurately determine. If the sample size is based on the total number of the participating pages’ Facebook followers (28 992), according to Krejcie and Morgan’s formula (1970), for a population (N) of 30 000, a sample of 379 respondents would be seen as appropriately representative and could consequently validate the results. The authors acknowledge the limitation of an unrepresentative sample; however, because this is an exploratory research, the results are nonetheless considered sufficiently relevant and significant to consider. The results are especially valuable given the increasing pressure on wildlife sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres to manage their conservation efforts as well as the visitor experience sustainably and in an overly cautious manner in order to avoid adverse effects on wildlife.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Economic and Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (EMS-REC) at the North-West University (ethical clearance number NWU-00146-17-A4, 14 December 2017). The study did not target any vulnerable groups and only targeted adult respondents (18 years of age and older). A cover letter indicated the purpose of the research, informed consent details, stated that respondents’ participation in this research was entirely voluntary and that they would receive no form of compensation. If they wanted to halt participation in the study, they could do so without judgement. Responses from each individual were not identified, ensuring respondents’ anonymity, but rather the results were presented in aggregate (the results of the group were presented as a whole), and no individual results were reported.

Table 2 shows the profile of the respondents. The majority of the respondents were male, on average 42 years old, residing in Gauteng or the Western Cape Province, Afrikaans speaking and married with an undergraduate qualification and a high annual income. Specific species sanctuaries were visited the most, followed by wildlife sanctuaries. Respondents mainly made a spontaneous decision to visit with their families (immediate and extended). They travelled in groups of four adults and one child and were financially responsible for an average of three persons. During their visit, the highest spending was on accommodation and transport, with an average total spending of R3770.00.

As illustrated in Figure 2, a linear regression analysis was performed to show whether there is a significant relationship between conservation management and the other key management factors, along with the motivational factors and interpretation factors.

A standard least-squares regression analysis was performed to identify the determinants of conservation management. A stepwise, backwards and forwards regression analysis was also performed, and the eighth model in the backwards regression analysis had the best results. The R value (0.885) represented a simple correlation and indicated a good level of prediction for the model. The R² value (0.783) is the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that can be explained by the independent variables. The adjusted R² had a similar value (0.776). The significant variables in the models explained 78% of the variance. The F-ratio indicated that the overall regression model was a good fit for the data (F [5, 154] = 111.105, p = 0.001*). The independent variables statistically predicted the dependent variable in the models significantly. These results suggest that the model was a good fit for the data.

The statistically significant independent determinants of conservation management are indicated in Table 6. The motive socialisation and participation, as well as the visitor experience management factors accessibility and service management, were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The positive beta coefficients indicate positive relationships, thereby supporting H_1c, H_1d and H_2a. The motive wellness and interaction showed a statistically significant positive relationship at a 10% level of significance, thereby supporting H_2d. Because this is a preliminary study, the authors regard p < 0.10 as suggestive of a significant effect that warrants further study (Zar 2010). Interpersonal interpretation was the only interpretation needs and preference factor that was included in the model but was not statistically significant. The positive beta coefficient indicates that this factor can also enhance conservation management.

Confirming the notion that there is no universally accepted set of visitor experience management factors and that the type and nature of the tourism setting determine the set of management factors, the researchers identified five distinct visitor experience management factors within a captive wildlife setting. In order of importance, these are staff, service, accessibility, visitor and, lastly, conservation management. The combination of visitor experience management factors differs compared to those identified in the literature review except for accessibility management, which was also 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. Even though the FTT (2018) emphasises wildlife conservation as another key guideline, the low rating of conservation management is worrisome. Visitors regard other management aspects related to the visitor experience as more important than conservation management. The regression analysis revealed that accessibility and service management had a unique relationship with conservation management. These results imply that conservation management needs to be integrated into all facets of the visitor experience.

Enhancing and prioritising conservation management within each of the accompanying management facets will result in practical guidelines that could easily be enforced. For example, to enhance service management, the staff (on all levels) should be aware of the conservation goals set by the establishment and be trained to identify potential gaps in day-to-day operations. It should be made abundantly clear that conservation is the goal, and therefore, the principles of ecotourism will be in effect. Thus, reservations will be electronically handled to minimise paper use; if printed media are used, it should be on recycled paper; souvenirs will be of ethical and local origin; and in food operations, seasonal and locally sourced ingredients are to be used. The aforementioned can also enhance both staff and visitor management. Accessibility management had a statistically significant relationship, implying that particular attention should also be paid to enhance this aspect. Establishments should therefore ensure that they are accessible to all visitors, including disabled visitors, and that the visitor experience is designed to cater to these visitors’ needs. By implementing these types of conservation initiatives, visitors are made aware (consciously or subconsciously) about the importance of conservation management.

The results of this study both confirm and contradict existing literature and reveal new motives, thereby confirming that the combination of motives is greatly influenced by the type of wildlife setting experience, in this case, captive wildlife experiences. Four motives were identified, namely socialisation and participation, volunteerism and education, wellness and interaction, as well as novelty and value. The combination of motives has not yet been identified in the literature and can therefore be regarded as distinct to captive wildlife experiences. The importance of socialisation and participation confirms the findings by Higginbottom (2004) and Packer and Ballantyne (2016), who also identify socialisation as an important motive to visit captive zoo settings, but contradict the majority of research conducted in a national park setting, where escaping remains the main visitor motive. Education, part of the combined motive volunteerism and education, is also supported as a key motive for visiting captive wildlife settings as identified by Higginbottom (2004) and Packer and Ballantyne (2016), as well as national parks (Botha et al. 2016; Kruger et al. 2010; Saayman & Dieske 2015). However, it appears, for visitors to sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres, that to get actively involved in the form of volunteering is also a critical motive to visit these types of establishments. Hermann et al. (2016) identify participating in activities as an important motive for national park visitors; however, the combined motive, wellness and interaction, is another motive novel to the research indicating that visitors to captive wildlife settings regard these experiences as contributing towards their well-being and lifestyle, but that they want interaction with the wildlife to be assured.

The regression analysis revealed that socialisation and participation along with wellness and interaction were the motives that had the greatest influence on enhancing conservation management. To prioritise conservation management through the motive socialisation and participation, establishments can create programmes that are group-orientated and family-friendly whilst being immersive. Immersive activities are often also ‘soft’ activities, which in general lack any physical danger, require little to no skill and seem safe to most participants. Moreover, the activities should offer transformative wildlife viewing experiences. These experiences should create the illusion of being near the wildlife whilst still being a ‘hands-off’ approach. Hence, physical proximity should be exchanged with remote viewing that still offers an intimate feeling. An example used in birdwatching is the use of viewing platforms and hides so that visitors might be able to view certain species-specific attributes.

Regarding the factor wellness and interaction, the personal well-being and lifestyle items are indicative that visitors do perceive increases in personal well-being and that visitation forms part of a lifestyle. Because these are subjective to each, a more bespoke approach should be followed depending on various visitor attributes, which are easily gained through a quick visitor preference survey with every booking made. In general, the establishments should be willing to prioritise conservation management above visitor preferences, but in a very conscious manner. Visitors have to be informed that specific behaviour should be avoided and that particular attention is given in providing a proconservation experience.

Four interpretation need factors were identified, proposing a new typology of interpretation specifically for captive wildlife experiences, namely, in order of importance, interpersonal, subjective, interactive and objective interpretation. Interpersonal interpretation is related to personal interpretation as identified by Ward and Wilkinson (2006), primary interpretation by Stewart et al. (1998) and Kuo’s (2002) hard interpretation. However, whilst the classification above mainly refers to physical structures such as interpretation centres and viewing platforms, interpersonal interpretation in the present research also includes aspects related to how the interpretation messages are presented, for example, regarding font type, size, colour and media. Subjective and objective interpretation are similar to secondary and tertiary interpretation as classified by Stewart et al. (1998) and Botha et al. (2016) and unattended interpretation by Tilden (1977) and Kuo’s (2002) soft interpretation. A distinct interpretation factor identified in the research was interactive interpretation, which has, to the authors’ knowledge, not yet been identified in the literature as a form of interpretation. This factor refers to the application of technology, such as touchscreens and interactive puzzles, to educate visitors.

The regression analysis did not reveal any statistically significant relations for the interpretation factors. However, interpersonal interpretation was the only factor included in the model, indicating that this form of interpretation has the potential to enhance conservation management. It nevertheless remains important to enhance all forms of interpretation, as education is key to conservation management. Because objective interpretation revealed increased preferences for information on nearly all regional aspects, establishments have the opportunity to have historical perspective on the development of the area or region, as well as on other species (not necessarily on ‘display’) that are indigenous. This could ensure that visitors have a well-rounded and intellectually stimulating experience that is completed with the wildlife viewing. It is essential to provide the information in an interpersonal manner by making use of well-educated tour guides, ensuring that the information is comprehensible and free from too many academic terms and jargon and that staff are ready to answer a variety of questions from visitors of all ages and backgrounds. The use of the interpersonal interpretation media should relate to the social aspects being family-friendly and easily understood by children. This, in turn, also contributes to enhancing the visitor experience management factors, namely staff and visitor management. Visitors regarded subjective interpretation as an essential form of interpretation, implying that conservation efforts should be visually displayed to inform visitors of the establishments’ history and conservation goals. Both 2D and 3D displays can further help enhance this interpretation factor.