The primary aim of this article was to explore and identify factors in a measurement scale to measure the influencers of geotourism development of an African national park. This article looked at developing a measurement scale for determining the influential factors and subsequent variables that can be used to support geotourism development with a focus on the Kruger National Park (KNP) as a case study.

Geotourism is a form of tourism that sustains and enhances the identity of a territory, by taking into consideration the territory’s geology, environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage and the well-being of its local surrounding residents (European Geoparks Network 2011). Previous studies (Ehsan, Begum & Leman 2016; Ngwira 2015; Reimold, Whitfield & Wallmach 2006) concur that geotourism is a branch of sustainable tourism that can be used for poverty alleviation, geoconservation and the development of rural economies. Furthermore, this study adds to the tourism literature to identify African national parks such as the KNP as a public resource not only famed for its wildlife but also with the potential to be a geopark. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Global Geoparks (UGGp) defined geopark territory as ‘single, unified geographical areas where sites and landscapes of international geological significance are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education and sustainable development’ (UNESCO 2018).

The need to understand tourist behaviour and their decision-making processes has seen a number of studies focussed on tourists’ motivations (Njagi, Ndivo & Manyara 2017:2) as these may assist in tourism product development, improved marketing strategies, enhanced service delivery approaches and the creation of a competitive advantage over other destinations offering similar products or services (Van Vuuren & Slabbert 2011:295). Based on literature reviewed (Clawson 1972; Kruger & Saayman 2014; Stemberk et al. 2018), policies and management plans for tourism, including geotourism development, have to take into account the influential factors and impacts (positive and negative) of tourism at national parks if these are to be developed as destinations. The tourism system (tourism actors [particularly sustainability of abutting communities to a park], geotourism places of interest in parks, businesses arising from this as well as the geotourism preferences of the tourists themselves) contributes to the production of new geotourism heritage management systems (heritage places such as important grave sites, dinosaur fossils, geographic points of interest, cultural practices and their actors) that function according to specific geographical context needs as regards meeting all types of stakeholder expectations (Gravari-Barbas 2018). This sentiment is linked to this article’s objective of identifying factors that can be used to catalyse geotourism development. The potential contribution to local sustainable development from use of these national geoheritage sites is not being realised. The development of a measurement scale to measure the influential factors towards geotourism development within the KNP hopes to provide an opportunity to sustain and diversify the current tourism market, thereby improving the competitiveness of the organisation through geotourism products. As a result, this study links with the United Nations 2030 agenda, especially with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 15.

The subsequent delineation presents a literature review detailing the concept of geotourism, research method and design, results, discussion, recommendations and conclusions. Acknowledgements, ethical considerations and cited references are also provided.

The concept of tourist influential factors incorporates the theory that people travel because they are pushed into making this decision by internal forces and pulled by external forces of the destination attributes (Njagi et al. 2017; Phau, Lee & Quintal 2013; Uysal & Jurowski 1994). In this paradigm, the push theory implies that tourists are pushed by their own needs towards destinations where they expect their needs will be satisfied (Njagi et al. 2017). Pull factors, on the other hand, are forces that drive an individual tourist to select a specific place over others as a tourist destination (Phau et al. 2013:271). Push factors are viewed as relating to the needs and wants of the traveller, such as the desire for escape, rest, relaxation, adventure, prestige, health, fitness and social interaction. Pull factors, on the other hand, have been characterised by unique attributes of the destination itself (Klenosky 2002:385). The existence of a rich historic, cultural and geographic heritage, such as geotourism, offers is considered, sometimes even over-deterministically, as one of the most important factors for tourism development (Gravari-Barbas 2018:5). The relationship between tourism and development of specific geotourism through leveraging heritage is one of the most discussed subjects in recent years by the academic tourism literature (Rozenkiewicz, Widawski & Jary 2020; Santa-Cruza & Lopez-Guzman 2017; Santangelo & Valente 2020; Widawski et al. 2020).

Worldwide research reveals that contemporary tourists seek authentic travel experiences (Chingombe & Taru 2018; Phau et al. 2013; Reimold 2001; Stokes, Cook & Drew 2003) and geotourism can provide such an authentic experience (Ginting & Febriand 2018). Newsome, Dowling and Leung (2012) note that

Surrounding what is considered as geoheritage, Lima, Brilha and Salamuni (2010) note

Carcavilla et al. (2009) note that globally, a minority of countries do see geoheritage conservation as an essential activity and currently, three international programs working with International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) programmes are creating opportunities to protect geological (geo) heritage as follows: the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the Biosphere Reserves and Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Agreement).

Ruban (2015) summarised the number of journal articles published globally on geotourism between 2012 and 2014 and found that there was limited research conducted on the subject. From the article summary, it was found that there are 179 published articles on geotourism in Europe, 104 on Asia and 29 on Africa. Only approximately 10 of the publications on Africa dealt with South African geoheritage. It is clear that there is paucity of information in South Africa in terms of realising the potential from geotourism by undertaking empirical research to guide its development. Geotourism can assist to create local enterprises and new jobs (Dowling & Newsome 2010; UNESCO 2016) and educate tourists and local people on the need to protect geopark attributes. For example, geotourism has been effectively utilised to establish local enterprises and educate tourists and local people in order to promote conservation of geoheritage sites in Europe, Asia, Australia and Canada (Newsome et al. 2012; Rozenkiewicz et al. 2020; Santangelo & Valente 2020; Widawski et al. 2020).

Given that geotourism is so important, there were several strong motives for researching the factors and subsequent variables that can influence the measurement scale for geotourism development and for choosing the KNP as a case study. Firstly, no study has investigated the measurement scales that may influence or hinder geotourism development at the KNP. Therefore, there is a need to address a conundrum of intertwined endogenous and exogenous conditions as a strategy for enhancing the viability of community-based geotourism projects (Mukwada & Sekhele 2017). This article contributes by filling this gap as it identifies a quantitative measurement scale based on factors and subsequent variables to measure the potential of a national park for geotourism development. Secondly, the current knowledge of heritage resources, especially geotourism within protected areas, is extremely limited (South African Heritage Resources Agency [SAHRA] 2017:20). Generally, national parks, especially in African countries, are managed and financed by national and/or provincial governments. As public resources often are located in relatively remote and poor rural areas, national parks ought to be available and accessible to the countries’ citizens, especially living in communities abutting the parks to leverage value for local community sustainability, conservation and economic development. According to Ngwira (2020) and Reimold (2001), South Africa has abundant natural resources that are not utilised for educational, recreational or tourism purposes. This indicates great potential for natural attractions such as geoheritage sites in the KNP, which have not been utilised by South African parks. Schutte (2009) indicates that few local or international tourists know about the KNP as a geopark leveraging geological history and the cultural heritage of the park. This could be because of the fact that research in the KNP focuses predominantly on biophysical issues and to date insufficiently on the social-ecological issues of the park (Smit et al. 2017:10). In addition, geotourism in South Africa has not as yet been effectively developed and promoted by the National Department of Tourism (NDT) or explored as a potential by the KNP management. Reasons for this include lack of institutional and public participation in heritage concepts (Ngwira 2020; Reimold 1999), lack of data on important geological or geomorphological sites (Schutte & Booysen 2010) and problems with prescribing relevant legislation to manage these precious places (Cairncross 2011:204). In addition, although some strategic, legislative framework for protecting South Africa’s heritage resources has been in operation for more than a decade, it has neither achieved a valuable level of heritage management and protection nor achieved the adequate development of a related heritage geotourism sector (National Department of Science and Technology [NDST] 2012:20). Thirdly, whilst the National Tourism Sector Strategy (NTSS) of South Africa recognises the tourism sector’s potential to bring about community economic growth and employment creation (NDT 2017), the main focus for visitors at the KNP is still wildlife viewing (Grünewald, Schleuning & Böhning-Gaese 2016; Scholtz, Kruger & Saayman 2014). Neglecting the importance of developing geotourism potentially misses an opportunity to fully achieve sustainable tourism-related business development for surrounding communities. The findings of this article are a contribution to the limited literature on South African parks’ potential as geoparks for opportunities related to geotourism valuable in helping to ensure long-term sustainability for related community business competitiveness and local community inclusion.

The KNP is located in the north-eastern corner of South Africa. The park is the largest national park in Africa and one of the top tourist destinations in the world (SANParks 2018; Smit et al. 2017:3). Abutting communities could benefit from the KNP as a public resource (United Nations 2015). As a result, parks (geoparks) as public resources must be available for leverage by local abutting communities so that the following 2030 SDGs 1 (poverty alleviation), 2 (ending hunger), 8 (sustainable economic growth and job creation), 9 (infrastructure development), 10 (reduce inequality) and 15 (protection of natural resources) can be realised. For instance, as regards untapped geotourism potential, for the Venda communities abutting the north of the KNP (Figure 1), there are exemplary geoheritage sites with both very high geotourism and cultural values currently totally un-utilised for geotourism, for instance (see yellow indicators in Figure 1):

Definitions of geotourism have evolved as tourist began to focus on geological heritage and geoconservation, incorporating notions such as understanding others’ cultures, personal education and sustainability in terms of the importance of recognising the need to preserve such sites and indigenous communities who cohabit with or near it (Hose 2016; Newsome et al. 2012). As it evolves, several definitions for geotourism have been proposed (Boley, Nickeson & Bosak 2016; Gordon 2018; Ruban 2015), often using terminologies such as geodiversity, geoconservation, geoheritage and geosite in different ways, but what the concepts of geotourism and geoheritage encompass is widely argued in literature (Brilha 2018).

Dowling and Newsome (2010) suggest that geotourism can be divided into two parts: thus, geo and tourism: ‘geo’ means geomorphology, whilst ‘tourism’ refers to visiting, learning, appreciating and engaging with geosites.

However, this has a lack of emphasis on the well-being of residents as historic guardians of a geological area with their associated culture. Ehsan, Leman and Begum (2013:1713) capture this omission by better defining geotourism as a ‘tool for sustainable development of geoheritage resources’. Hose (2012:4) claims that no studies have adequately covered the ‘current breadth of modern geotourism in terms of the nature of [local community] provision and geographical coverage, together with its theoretical underpinnings’, which this study addresses. This definition is in line with Jimura (2011). For this research, according to Pacione (2001:356), local community is: ‘a group of people who share a geographic area and are bound together by common culture, values, race or social class’. Establishing a measurement scale that encompasses evaluating development factors of a geopark such as the KNP that then guides the development of geotourism to the benefit of local communities becomes critical.

This section presents the profile of respondents as well as the findings of the factor analysis.

This study identified the factors that can influence the development of geotourism at the Kruger National Park. The general conclusion was that tourists in this sample were influenced towards geotourism by different factors and the characteristics of the KNP. A different set of factors was found to affect the motivation for visiting a geoheritage site, which includes geoheritage, culture and social responsibility, personal education and stimulation, rurality and exercise, accessibility and facilities and safety and security. This article corroborates the findings that geoheritage and culture (Gravari-Barbas 2018), social responsibility (Ehsan et al. 2016), personal education and stimulation (Hose 2016), rurality and exercise (Reimold et al. 2006; Stokes et al. 2003) and accessibility and facilities (Phau et al. 2013) are considered as some of the main motivational factors for visiting a geoheritage site.

It is clear from the results that visitors’ attributes towards geoheritage sites at the KNP are influenced by natural characteristics, accessibility and conservation factors and this is in support of previous research by Stokes et al. (2003) and Newsome et al. (2012). The findings indicate representativeness of geoheritage sites and entertainment for children as influential factors for visitors’ attributes towards geotourism. Furthermore, the findings indicate that service and facilities and urban and sophisticated preferences were identified as the important attributes when visiting a geoheritage site (Ginting & Febriand 2018). This is in line with the findings of Klenosky (2002) that pull factors (features, attractions or attributes of the destination itself) are important when visiting a tourism destination.

Local social sustainability benefits and local economic/business development were determined as factors that influence visitors’ attitudes towards the well-being of local people. This is consistent with the findings of Ginting and Febriand (2018:2) that show ‘geotourism bringing benefits to the tourist and local people’ where tourists obtain a unique travel experience and local people acquire economic benefits from tourist visits (Boley et al. 2011). The factors that can hinder the development of geotourism were impacts on nature and impacts on human that corroborate the results by Christian (2018) and Reynard and Giusti (2018).

Because of the absence of a single, standardised quantitative measurement scale, the factors and subsequent variables indicated in Tables 2–7 are considered suitable for investigating influential factors towards geotourism development.

This article provides a clear and focussed view of an instrument for measuring the perceptions of tourists on influential factors towards geotourism development at the KNP. This instrument takes into account that the geoheritage, culture and social responsibility, personal education and stimulation, rurality and exercise, accessibility and facilities, safety and security, natural characteristics, accessibility and conservation, representativeness of geoheritage sites, entertainment for children, service and facilities, urban and sophisticated preferences, local social sustainability benefits, local economic/business development, impacts on nature and impacts on human may influence geotourism development.

From a methodological perspective, all these factors are suitable for measuring and analysing tourists’ perceptions on influential factors towards geotourism development at the KNP and other geotourism-focussed destinations. As this measurement scale provides different variables for measuring the tourists’ views on factors influencing geotourism development, it intends to assist SANParks, local community leaders, the private sector (including existing tour operators) and government departments in achieving a sustainable tourism activity. Findings from this article will enable them to plan, develop and market geotourism according to protect geoheritage sites, improve the well-being of local communities, improve and sustain the current tourism market product deliverables.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this article is that the influential factors of geotourism (geoheritage, culture and social responsibility, personal education and stimulation, rurality and exercise, accessibility and facilities, safety and security, natural characteristics, accessibility and conservation, representativeness of geoheritage sites, entertainment for children, service and facilities, urban and sophisticated preferences, local social sustainability benefits, local economic/business development, impacts on nature and impacts on human) can play a pivotal role in geotourism development and local social sustainability. This study is the first of its kind to produce a uniquely South African measurement scale that can assist with opening new tourism opportunities such as geotourism for creation of local employment and park management and improve academic knowledge on geotourism. Because of this study, the factors and subsequent variables of geotourism at the KNP are now better understood. The developed method of determining factors influencing geotourism development serves as a guideline for future studies in South African National Parks, national parks on the African continent and also globally. However, there were various potential challenges that can hinder the development of geotourism at the KNP such as lack of public participation and inventory of geoheritage sites.