Negotiating stakeholder solutions to complex visitor management problems: the case of traffic management in the Kruger National Park

Abstract

Increasing visitor numbers in wildlife tourism destinations creates a number of issues in relation to visitor management. Developing traffic and visitor policies, while taking into consideration the varying desires and needs of different visitor and organisational stakeholder groups, is a daunting task. Using the situation in the Kruger National Park (KNP) in South Africa, this paper demonstrates how through the combined use of focus groups and the Delphi technique, negotiated stakeholder solutions can be reached between seemingly opposed wildlife tourism and conservation user groups. Traffic congestion has been a major problem in the southern section of the Kruger National Park and has contributed towards reduced visitor satisfaction with the wildlife watching experience in the Park. Focus group discussions with nine different stakeholder groups identified major traffic related problems that participants agreed needed to be addressed and an extensive range of suggestions for improving perceived traffic congestion problems. Applying a Delphi process to these suggestions resulted in a high level of consensus across all stakeholder groups regarding actions management should take to address traffic problems in the Park.

Keywords:

• visitor management
• traffic congestion
• Kruger National Park
• wildlife tourism
• Delphi technique

INTRODUCTION

As a category II Protected Area (IUCN, 2019), national parks are charged with upholding the dual mandate of conserving biodiversity and limiting the impacts of visitors, while at the same time providing enjoyment and benefits to their constituents (Manning et al., 2017). Cultivating an appreciation for the natural environment and cultural heritage is important for building public support for national parks (Wright and Matthews, 2015) and necessary to sustain efforts in conserving biodiversity for future generations (Weiler et al., 2013). The presence of too many visitors in one place, however, can lead to perceptions and feelings of overcrowding and congestion that can significantly reduce the quality of the visitor experience, particularly in settings where visitors expect a natural experience (Fredman et al., 2012), such as wildlife tourism destinations (Scholtz and Van Der Merwe, 2020; Sumanapala and Wolf, 2022; Tarver et al., 2019). With international tourist arrivals showing a strong recovery in most regions following the COVID-19 pandemic (UNWTO, 2023), wildlife tourism destinations have an opportunity to reassess current practices, including those dealing with visitor experiences. However, most protected areas lack the necessary financial and human resources and the information required for optimal decision-making (Leung et al., 2018), including visitor management strategies. In a climate of increased visitation coupled with such compromised ability to implement solutions, protected area managers are forced to prioritise policy responses to address complex visitor management problems.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RESULTANT PROBLEMS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH AFRICA

The Kruger National Park (KNP) is an internationally recognised wildlife park brand and the flagship tourism product offering within the system of South African national parks (SANParks, 2018b). Since the first three tourist cars entered the KNP in 1927, the park’s popularity as a wildlife tourism destination has increased tremendously among both international and domestic visitors. The number of visitors to the KNP rose from 1.5 million recorded during the twelve months between April 2013 and March 2014 to almost 1.9 million over the same period in 2018/19, mainly due to the rise in day visitor numbers (SANParks, 2019).

Whilst the additional revenues raised through conservation fees is a welcome contribution to the Park’s funding (SANParks, 2018a), concerns have been raised by KNP stakeholders that rising visitor numbers threaten the “tranquillity and sense of place” (SANParks, 2018c, 46). Incidences of congestion in the south of the KNP, particularly at the Park’s entrance gates, picnic sites and at major wildlife sightings, have become a regular occurrence during peak visitation periods (Ferreira and Harmse, 2014). Complaints captured in the formal guest feedback system highlight the dissatisfaction and frustration of visitors:

Absolute chaos at sightings particularly lion and leopard. Traffic jams, people hanging out of windows, climbing out of sun roofs etc. Game drive vehicles a major cause of traffic chaos. (Visitor’s experience during January school holidays, 2015)

Overall, the Park is in good condition. Unfortunately, visitors seem to forget the basic rule of leaving a way through the traffic when a lion, etc is being observed. If a Park Ranger is present, I would encourage him or her to remind people of this. There was an unfortunate incident when someone was facing an emergency situation and struggled to get through the cars. (Visitor’s experience during June school holidays, 2017)

Congestion occurs more frequently on public holidays, over long weekends and during school holidays (Ferreira and Harmse, 2014). It is acknowledged in the KNP’s park management plan as one of the major threats to achieving two of SANParks’ strategic goals: Creating diverse and unique visitor experiences; and stimulating tourism and economic development in the region (SANParks, 2018b). In response to the congestion, some researchers have gone so far as to call for a cap on tourism development inside the KNP, stating that the KNP was having difficulty providing a satisfactory experience (Ferreira and Harmse, 2014). One approach to managing the number of visitors is a gate quota system which stipulates the maximum number of vehicles per day for each entry gate (SANParks, 2018d). However, such a strategy would restrict SANParks’ ability to achieve its strategic objective of attracting and growing new domestic markets in order to increase societal support and funding for conservation management activities. Accordingly, a comprehensive traffic management policy is needed that takes into consideration park management goals as well as the needs and requirements of various stakeholders.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN THE KNP AS A “WICKED” PROBLEM

Although the majority of users of the Park’s roads, gates and tourism infrastructure are wildlife watching tourists and tour operators, a diverse range of user groups traverse the Park. These include day visitors; overnight visitors; tour operators; guests from tourism establishments bordering the KNP; service delivery vehicles; military and other conservation-related operational vehicles; employees of the KNP and other private companies; and taxi operators who assist with transporting staff to and from their respective workplaces every day. Visitors to the KNP thus include not only visitors in the typical recreational sense but also staff, suppliers and transport operators. Each of these groups utilises the KNP’s roads in different ways and for different purposes, sometimes with opposing interests and requirements that further complicate efforts towards universally accepted traffic management policies and practices.

Day visitors, who make up almost 80% of annual visitors to the KNP (SANParks, 2019), opt for either a self-drive wildlife watching experience or a guided experience offered by private tour operators. Of the guided experiences available for day visitors, a trip on an open safari vehicle (OSV) remains the most popular, particularly among international visitors staying in accommodation establishments just outside of the KNP. Most OSVs operating in the KNP enter the Park through the southern gates, which adds pressure onto an already heavily trafficked network of tourist roads. Research suggests that first time and international visitors seek out iconic, large mammals while experienced visitors are more interested in endangered and rare species (Lindsey et al., 2007). From discussion with OSV guides, it is clear that they feel obligated to meet first time and international tourists’ expectations of seeing the “Big Five” (i.e., lion, rhino, African buffalo, leopard, and elephant), thus inadvertently creating a level of competitiveness that exacerbates “bad behaviour” at sightings of these animals. Many self-drive visitors express dissatisfaction with the behaviour of some OSV drivers, such as moving their vehicles to best position themselves at wildlife sightings, blocking the view for others. OSV drivers also notify each other of major sightings which then lead to speeding from one site to another (SANParks, 2015).

In response, the National Minister of Tourism launched a self-regulation project for privately-run OSV operators in the KNP in 2015 (SANParks, 2015). The resulting cooperative agreement between SANParks, the Southern Africa Tourism Services Association (SATSA) and OSV operators, is aimed at promoting responsible behaviour through a monitoring system that encourages visitors to report unacceptable OSV driver behaviour to SATSA (SANParks, 2015). As part of the agreement, the KNP management made a decision to allow OSVs to enter the Park 15 min prior to public gate opening times, in order to relieve congestion at the gates. This decision by the Park induced criticism from self-drive visitors who felt this was unfair treatment as OSVs skipped the queues and received an unfair advantage in spotting wildlife in the early morning hours. However, despite the various initiatives put in place to relieve congestion, visitors have continued to report problems relating to congestion and friction between different user groups.

Other user groups, such as taxi operators and drivers of service delivery and military vehicles, are primarily interested in moving staff and goods to and within the Park as efficiently as possible. In this regard, stakeholders have raised concerns that the policing of speed and reckless driving of such heavy vehicles is seldom seen (SANParks, 2018c).

These competing stakeholder interests and resultant behaviours has created a “wicked problem”, defined by Head and Alford (2015) as one that is complex, uncertain, open ended, or persistent. Protected area visitor management is often referred to as a wicked (Mccool and Stankey, 2003), complex and controversial problem (Manning et al., 2017). Generally speaking, successful public organisations are good at handling standard, predictable, and high volume service challenges, but do not necessarily possess the skills to address more complex, non-routine problems (Head and Alford, 2015).

Wicked problems require a level of negotiation between stakeholders that creates a platform for shared understandings and meanings about both the problem, its complexity and its potential solutions, rather than simply focussing on the quest for a single solution (Conklin, 2007). Particularly in relation to visitor experiences in protected areas, a broad collaborative approach with active stakeholder participation, encouraging inclusive decision-making, is required to deal with stakeholder divergence (Mccool, 2006).

The idea of more than one strategy or practice addressing visitor management problems is encouraged in outdoor recreation literature (Manning et al., 2017). Finding a definitive solution to a wicked problem is rarely achievable, however, it is possible to formulate partial, interim courses of action against wicked problems (Head and Alford, 2015). Interactive participation, defined by Pretty (2005) as a type of engagement where stakeholders participate in joint analysis and development of solutions, is a level up from functional participation where shared decision-making only happens after management decisions have already been made. Authentic collaborative engagement in protected area visitor management is favoured as it necessitates interactive participation with joint development or implementation of plans (Leung et al., 2018) and encourages stakeholder “buy-in”.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION IN PROTECTED AREA VISITOR MANAGEMENT

According to Leung et al. (2018), stakeholders, including visitors, other rights-holders and the general public, need to subscribe to and respect the unique value set inherent to each protected area. Stakeholder participation is essential in visitor management planning as managers need to be aware of the expectations of the public that the plan will likely impact (Fefer et al., 2016). A variety of methods have been used to consult and collaborate with stakeholders on visitor management decisions in protected areas. Perhaps the most common of these is the gathering of perspectives from visitors. There are many examples of studies that investigate visitor preferences and solutions regarding congestion and crowding in parks and other protected areas (e.g., Anderson et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Rathnayake, 2015; Sim et al., 2018).

Methods used to measure normative standards, as perceived by visitors, have made a significant contribution towards informing decisions around quality recreational experiences (Manning et al., 2002). Two popular methods for measuring normative standards in protected areas are visual-based and stated choice methods. Photo elicitation, as a visual-based method, has been used to measure what visitors find acceptable in terms of the numbers of other visitors encountered in a particular visitor attraction or setting (Cribbs et al., 2019). For example, visitors to the Bear Lake trail head in Rocky Mountain National Park were shown a series of photos of a typical scene on the trail, each with varying numbers of visitors in it. For each photo, respondents were asked to indicate whether they found the level of crowding acceptable (Schultz and Svajda, 2017). Such information helps protected area managers formulate visitor use management strategies based on thresholds of what visitors will tolerate (Manning et al., 2017).

Stated choice modelling on the other hand allows researchers to investigate trade-offs that occur in the presence or absence of certain recreational attributes or conditions in a particular setting. This approach to visitor research enables researchers to measure the importance of certain attributes in relation to others. For example, researchers examined the trade-offs visitors to Grand Teton National Park would be prepared to make in different transportation-related scenarios (Newton et al., 2018). The authors created three different scenarios by combining varying levels of attributes such as queuing times at entry gates, parking availability, speed, and volume of traffic. This approach made it possible for park management to identify the most important transport-related attributes to the visitor experience and determine those attributes visitors were willing to sacrifice to improve their experiences.

Consultation with stakeholders has been the typical response by government to detangle wicked problems (Head and Alford, 2015). Can traditional methods such as the ones often applied in public consultation and visitor research effectively address the scale and complexity of wicked problems in a way that promotes interactive participation and joint development of plans? Many national parks and other category protected areas provide opportunity for public input through formal visitor management frameworks, but lack the resources to provide a platform for shared understandings in a way that would encourage joint development of policy (Mccool et al., 2007).

A method that has been used for gathering varying opinions, but which has received less attention in visitor management literature, is the Delphi method. The Delphi technique is a well-established means of collecting information and gaining consensus among experts on various factors or issues under consideration (Landeta, 2006; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). Traditionally, it involves a series of steps initiated through the selection of an expert panel who provide their opinions of what they view to be the most important elements associated with the issue under consideration. These elements are then collated into a questionnaire that is distributed to the panellists in a series of iterative rounds, each round involving a modified questionnaire after elements of perceived least importance are removed. The modified questionnaire thus acts as a feedback process designed to move the experts toward greater consensus in relation to the importance of the elements they are viewing. The process is repeated until the researcher is satisfied that an agreed upon (i.e., consensus) solution is reached (Ballantyne et al., 2016). Recently, the Delphi method provided a pathway for experts from protected areas in Australia to unpack the reasons why multiple stakeholders are involved in the responsibility of visitor safety and how such responsibility-sharing varied across settings (Gstaettner et al., 2019).

The aim of this article is to demonstrate how negotiated stakeholder solutions can be reached between multiple user groups in the complex environment of “wicked” traffic management problems in a wildlife tourism setting. Using a case study of the Kruger National Park, we illustrate how blending focus group methodology, the Delphi survey process and accompanying analysis techniques, can act as an enabler towards shared stakeholder understandings, meanings and negotiated solutions that can be used to address traffic management issues in the Park.

METHODS

A mixed method research approach was used wherein focus group methodology was combined with two rounds of a Delphi survey. The use of focus groups allowed researchers to generate a rich understanding of participants’ experiences and beliefs, and to capture a broad range of views held by different stakeholders. This was followed by a more rigorous inquiry of stakeholders, using the Delphi method to converge differing views and attain a consensus community opinion.

Participants were drawn from the following stakeholder groups:

• Independent self-drive day visitors (DV);

• KNP visitors who camp or caravan overnight in the Park at one of the southern rest camps, e.g., Berg en Dal, Lower Sabie, Skukuza, Pretoriuskop, Crocodile Bridge (OCV);

• KNP visitors staying in other accommodation at one of the southern rest camps, e.g., Berg en Dal, Lower Sabie, Skukuza, Pretoriuskop, Crocodile Bridge (ONV);

• Open Safari Vehicle operators and guides (OSV);

• Managers of large tourist accommodation establishments bordering the Park - hosting tourists who enter the southern region either on organised daily tours or as self-drive day visitors (MTA);

• SANParks management – managers involved in conservation and tourism planning and operations in KNP, including staff responsible for policy for traffic management in the Park (SPM);

• SANParks Honorary Rangers from the Lowveld Region (HR);

• Members of appropriate taxi associations in the Lowveld;

• Other tour operators, including bus operators.

This list represents the majority of stakeholders who have an interest and responsibility towards traffic and visitor flow issues in the Park.

Contact details for members of each stakeholder group were obtained from the SANParks client databases as well as relevant tourism associations. Overnight and day visitors who had visited the Park in the previous 12 months were randomly selected from the database using a set of random numbers, and invited via email to attend the stakeholder focus group discussions. Invitations to OSV and MTA groups were facilitated through tourism associations such as SATSA (Southern Africa Tourism Services Association) and Sunbird Tourism Development. The Kruger Lowveld Tourism website further provided a useful database of tourism establishments which was used for contacting MTAs. The People & Conservation Department of SANParks invited the local taxi associations to participate in the process.

Focus groups

A total of ten stakeholder focus groups were conducted in November 2017 in various locations, selected to maximise the convenience for each group. Table 1 shows the number of focus group participants and locations.

Table 1. Locations, number of groups and number of focus group participants.

Stakeholder group	Abbreviat-ion	Locations and number of focus group discussions	No of participants
Day visitors (self-drive)	DV	Mbombela & Skukuza, KNP (2)	16
Overnight camping visitors	OCV	Pretoria (1)	11
Overnight non-camping visitors	ONV	Pretoria (1)	21
Open safari vehicle operators or guides	OSV	Skukuza (1)	14
Managers of tourist accommodation	MTA	Skukuza, (1)	4
SANParks management	SPM	Skukuza (1)	16
Honorary Rangers	HR	Mbombela (1)	13
Taxi operators		Phabeni gate (1)	26
Other tour operators (e.g., coach, bus)		Pretoria (1)	4
Total			125

Each focus group meeting lasted between three and four hours and afforded participants the opportunity to voice their opinions on the major traffic-related problems in the KNP and to make suggestions regarding potential solutions for traffic congestion in the KNP. The focus group with taxi operators, who were mostly non-English speakers, was conducted through a translator.

Stakeholder focus group participants were each asked to identify and share what they perceived to be the main traffic problems in the KNP. The traffic problems identified by participants were then discussed and organised into themes (e.g., speeding, visitor education etc.). During the second part of the session, stakeholder suggestions and preferences regarding solutions to traffic management problems in the southern Park region were probed. Participants were asked to complete a free response task in which they wrote down as many solutions as possible to the traffic problems that had been identified by the group. Finally, each solution was discussed by the group to clarify content and meaning. Participant suggestions were noted during each session and added to an ongoing consolidated list after each session. The focus groups thus elicited a broad range of stakeholder suggestions and preferences for the development of an effective traffic management plan for the southern region of the Park.

Delphi survey & analysis

The final consolidated list of the various traffic problems and suggested solutions proposed by all the focus groups was used as the starting point of an iterative Delphi process of further consultation with a larger cohort of stakeholders which was conducted online. Participants of the stakeholder focus groups (excluding the non-English speaking taxi operators) were invited by email to complete the online questionnaire, while stakeholders who weren’t able to attend the focus group discussions in person but who indicated they would be interested to voice their opinions, were also given an opportunity to do so through the online survey. A total of 659 stakeholders were invited to complete the first questionnaire, and 319 (48%) responded. Participants were invited to forward the questionnaire to other interested stakeholders, resulting in an additional 75 responses, bringing the responses to a total of 394. The focus group suggestions made by the taxi operator group were noted and reported back to the KNP management as there were language and technology problems associated with this stakeholder group completing the online survey.

Nine problems and 91 potential solutions were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Survey participants were first requested to select the two biggest traffic management problems to be addressed in the KNP from the set of nine. They then rated their level of support or opposition towards each of the 91 potential solutions, on a 7 point scale (1 = strongly oppose to 7 = strongly support).

The four most frequently selected problems were identified, based on both weighted (giving an equal weight to each stakeholder group regardless of the number of participants) and unweighted means. These were retained in the second questionnaire. The solutions that had the greatest stakeholder support were identified using two methods designed to give an equal voice to each stakeholder group regardless of the number of group participants: (i) the top 15 solutions based on weighted means were selected, and (ii) any additional item that had been included in any stakeholder group’s top 5 items were added (an extra 7 items). These 22 items were retained in the second questionnaire.

The second online questionnaire required participants to select and rank order any of the 22 most-supported solutions they considered would help to solve each of the four major problems identified in the first questionnaire. After completing this task for each of the four problems, participants were asked to select and rank order the 10 suggestions they considered most important overall. The second questionnaire reflected stakeholder group support for specific solutions to major traffic management problems in the KNP and acted as a feedback process designed to move stakeholder participants toward greater consensus in relation to the importance of the solutions they were ranking. The second online questionnaire was sent by email to the original list of stakeholders, as well as the additional 75 respondents who completed the first questionnaire (a total of 734). It was completed by 390 participants (53% of those invited). The distribution of respondents across the stakeholder groups is reported in Table 2.

Table 2. First and second round Delphi: number of survey respondents per stakeholder group.

Stakeholder group	Acronym	First round Delphi (n)	Second round Delphi (n)
Day visitors (self-drive)	DV	61	56
Overnight camping visitors	OCV	113	110
Overnight non-camping visitors	ONV	130	143
Open safari vehicle operators or guides	OSV	44	32
Managers of tourist accommodation establishments	MTA	18	23
SANParks management	SPM	9	8
Honorary Rangers	HR	15	11
Other tour operators (e.g., coach, bus)		4	7
Total		394	390

RESULTS

Focus group findings

Results from the focus group discussions revealed that similar perceived traffic management problems were mentioned by the various stakeholder groups. There was also a large amount of overlap in the commentary from participants regarding the places and issues needing traffic management attention and improvement. Focus groups confirmed that the main places where congestion was perceived as a problem were at park entrance gates, wildlife sightings, picnic sites and rest camps. Major issues that needed attention were identified as visitor education, vehicle speeding, driver behaviour (especially at wildlife sightings), an inefficient booking system, and the large number of service, military and OSV vehicles in the KNP.

In terms of solutions, most groups suggested improvements to the booking and entry systems and improvements to visitor education in relation to traffic restrictions and expected behaviour around wildlife sightings. Other solutions that were agreed across all stakeholder focus groups were the need for more active and visible traffic control; enforcement of traffic violations; and traffic management solutions to address the use of OSVs in the Park. Solutions identified by different stakeholder groups included a reduction in vehicle numbers and separating OSVs from self-drive visitors by opening new routes and entry lanes. An overarching theme emerging from the focus group discussions was the need to decouple the Kruger National Park brand from the “Big 5” value proposition. Participants agreed that shifting visitors’ perceptions of the Park away from seeing the “Big 5” was important in supporting SANParks’ efforts to reduce traffic problems in the south of the Park.

First round Delphi survey results

Major traffic management problems

During the first round of the Delphi process, four items emerged as the major traffic management problems based on both weighted and unweighted means (Table 3): (1) congestion at wildlife sightings; (2) congestion at entry gates; (3) visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings; and (4) vehicles speeding. Each stakeholder group identified at least three out of these four in their top four problems. Thus consensus was considered to be reached regarding the major problems that need to be addressed. There were minor differences between stakeholder groups in relation to the first and second highest rated traffic problem areas and issues. However, all of the eight stakeholder groups identified congestion at wildlife sightings as one of their top two issues needing attention.

Table 3: Major traffic management problems - results across all stakeholder groups (top four problems in each group are highlighted)

	% of respondents who rated each item as a “top 2” problem
Group	DV	OCV	ONV	OSV	MTA	SPM	HR	W Mean^1	UW Mean^2
Congestion at wildlife sightings	49.2	43.4	53.8	52.3	38.9	44.4	46.7	46.96	48.2
Congestion at entry gates	41.0	20.3	17.0	63.6	61.1	44.4	26.7	39.16	30.5
Visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings	26.2	37.2	26.2	29.5	22.2	11.1	20.0	24.63	29.2
Vehicles speeding	16.4	46.9	44.6	6.8	16.7	11.1	26.7	24.17	33.8
Increase in service, military, and OSV vehicles in the Park	16.4	18.6	23.1	0	5.6	11.1	46.7	17.36	17.8
Driver behaviour	23.0	16.8	17.7	6.8	16.7	22.2	13.3	16.64	16.8
Lack of visitor education	11.5	6.2	11.5	20.5	11.1	11.1	20.0	13.13	11.7
Inefficient booking system	1.6	0.9	0	9.1	16.7	11.1	0	5.63	2.5
Congestion at picnic sites and camps	8.2	2.7	3.1	2.3	0	11.1	0	3.91	3.6

¹ The weighted mean (W Mean) gives equal weight to each group, thus individuals in the smaller groups have more influence on the mean than those in larger groups

² The unweighted mean (UW Mean) gives equal weight to each individual. The “other” group (n=4) is included in the unweighted means but not the weighted means.

Preferred solutions to major traffic problems

The top 15 of the 91 suggested solutions, all of which obtained a weighted mean higher than 6.25 on the 1–7 scale, were selected to go forward to the second round. These 15 items accounted for 26 of the 35 possible top five positions across the seven groups. An additional 7 items were included to account for the remaining 9 positions. As an index of the level of consensus obtained, the percentage of the 35 possible top five positions accounted for by the overall top five items was calculated at 60% (21 out of 35). None of the groups shared exactly the same set of top 5 items.

One item, “SANParks vehicles and personnel to model good behaviour on the roads” (i.e., not speeding) was in every group’s top five solutions, and was the number one preferred solution for five out of the seven stakeholder groups (DV, OCV, ONV, MTA and SPM). Notable differences were observed between the preferences of the OSV group compared to the other cohorts (only one of this group’s top five preferences was included in the overall top 15, compared with 3–5 for all other groups). The two most supported solutions for the OSV group, “Open management roads for use by open safari vehicles” and “Provide three different queues for day-visit self-drivers, open safari vehicle and overnight visitors at entry gates” were not as popular among the other groups. These items were carried forward to round two in order to equally represent the interests of all stakeholder groups.

Second round Delphi survey results

In the second round, each of the four major problems identified in the first questionnaire was addressed separately: congestion at wildlife sightings; congestion at entry gates; visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings; and vehicles speeding. Respondents were asked to select and rank order (from most to least preferred) any of the 22 solutions they considered would help to solve each problem. For each problem, items selected as a solution by at least 40% of all respondents (aggregated across the seven stakeholder groups) were identified, together with the most highly supported item for each stakeholder group (based on both the percentage of respondents who ranked the item number 1, and the item’s average rank within the group).

Addressing congestion at wildlife sightings (Problem 1)

Six of the 22 solutions were selected (by at least 40% of participants) in relation to addressing congestion at wildlife settings (Table 4). The most preferred solution overall was “Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings” (selected as relevant by 75% of respondents, and ranked as most preferred by 25%). There was strong consensus among the groups that this was a highly preferred option, as it received the highest average ranking in all seven groups, and was the most preferred solution for five of the seven groups. The two groups that selected different most-preferred options were the OSV group (who preferred “Open management roads for use by open safari vehicles”) and the SPM group (who preferred “Provide education material in a number of common visitor languages”).

Table 4. Preferred solutions towards addressing congestion at wildlife sightings across all groups (n = 390).

	% included as solution	% ranked 1	% ranked 1–5	Average rank^1
Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings	75.4	25.4	60.5	4.98
Develop a complaints reporting system to quickly identify and deal with open safari vehicle and self-drive visitor bad behaviour in the Park	65.1	13.8	47.7	6.09
On entry, provide Park road map and guidelines for behaviour at sightings	49.0	7.7	30.3	7.46
More rigorous enforcement of existing road rules	42.6	8.5	29.0	7.71
Use Honorary Rangers to educate visitors about appropriate behaviour and guidelines	43.8	2.1	25.6	7.99
Reframe visitor expectations from just seeing the Big 5 to experiencing the whole Kruger environment	41.0	5.4	20.8	8.28

¹ Only items selected as a solution by at least 40% of respondents are listed, in order of popularity.

² In calculating the average rank, a rank of 10 was assigned to all items after rank 10, and all unselected items.

Addressing congestion at entry gates (Problem 2)

Four of the 22 solutions were selected by at least 40% of participants in relation to addressing congestion at entry gates (see Table 5). The most preferred overall was “Create a new online booking system to speed-up vehicle entry into the Park”. This option was selected as relevant by 79% of respondents, and ranked as most preferred by 48%. There was strong consensus among the groups that this was a highly preferred option, as it was the most preferred solution for all seven groups, and received the highest average ranking in five of the seven groups. “Provide three different queues for day-visit self-drivers, open safari vehicle and overnight visitors at entry gates” was the second most preferred option overall, and received the highest average ranking for the other two groups (OCV and MTA).

Table 5. Preferred solutions towards addressing congestion at entry gates across all groups (n = 390).

	% included as solution	% ranked 1	% ranked 1–5	Average rank^1
Create a new online booking system to speed-up vehicle entry into the Park	79.2	48.2	77.2	3.41
Provide three different queues for self-drive day visitors, open safari vehicle and overnight visitors at entry gates	75.4	25.9	72.6	4.14
Provide regular ongoing service quality training for gate reception staff	50.5	4.6	45.4	6.71
Prevent vehicles from using the Park for transit purposes	48.7	5.4	41.5	6.93

¹ Only items selected as a solution by at least 40% of respondents are listed, in order of popularity.

² In calculating the average rank, a rank of 10 was assigned to all items after rank 10, and all unselected items.

Addressing speeding (Problem 3)

Eight of the 22 solutions were selected by at least 40% of participants in relation to addressing speeding (Table 6). The most preferred solution overall was “More rigorous enforcement of existing road rules”. This was selected as relevant by 68% of respondents, and ranked as most preferred by 32%. There was strong consensus among the groups that this was a highly preferred option, as it received the highest average ranking in six of the seven groups, and was the most preferred solution for six of the seven groups. The exception was the HR group who selected “Increase the visibility of traffic officers in the Park” as most preferred.

Table 6. Preferred solutions towards addressing speeding across all groups (n = 390).

	% included as solution	% ranked 1	% ranked 1–5	Average rank^1
More rigorous enforcement of existing road rules	67.9	32.3	62.3	4.85
Increase traffic and speeding surveillance	67.9	13.6	60.26	5.39
Vary the places and times of speed traps	59.7	6.2	50.0	6.24
Enforce speed limits and issue on the spot fines for all vehicles in the Park	55.1	11.3	43.3	6.54
Enforce traffic management rules and transgressions	51.0	4.6	38.5	7.02
Increase the visibility of traffic officers in the Park	49.5	6.2	33.1	7.26
Prevent vehicles from using the Park for transit purposes	47.4	6.4	39.5	7.60
SANParks vehicles and personnel to model good behaviour on the roads	44.6	4.6	27.2	7.74

¹ Only items selected as a solution by at least 40% of respondents are listed, in order of popularity.

² In calculating the average rank, a rank of 10 was assigned to all items after rank 10, and all unselected items.

Addressing visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings (Problem 4)

Four of the 22 solutions were selected by at least 40% of participants in relation to addressing visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings (see Table 7). The most preferred solution overall was “Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings”. This was selected as relevant by 70% of respondents, and ranked as most preferred by 39%. There was strong consensus among the groups that this was a highly preferred option, as it received the highest average ranking in all seven groups, and was also the most preferred solution for all seven groups. However, it should be noted that this item was also the most preferred solution to the problem of addressing congestion at wildlife sightings.

Table 7. Preferred solutions towards addressing visitor behaviour at wildlife sightings across all groups (n = 390).

	% included as solution	% ranked 1	% ranked 1–5	Average rank^1
Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings	70.5	39.5	66.7	4.42
Develop a complaints reporting system to quickly identify and deal with open safari vehicle and self-drive visitor bad behaviour in the Park	68.7	13.3	60.26	5.26
Use Honorary Rangers to educate visitors about appropriate behaviour and guidelines	53.6	4.4	44.4	6.70
On entry, provide Park road map and guidelines for behaviour at sightings	49.0	11.5	40.5	6.77

¹ Only items selected as a solution by at least 40% of respondents are listed, in order of popularity.

² In calculating the average rank, a rank of 10 was assigned to all items after rank 10, and all unselected items.

Overall preferred solutions by each group

Respondents were asked to select and rank order the 10 suggestions they considered most important overall. The top 12 solutions, determined by the weighted means (calculated by taking the mean of the average rank for each group), are presented in Table 8. The five highest ranked suggestions overall, according to both weighted and unweighted means, were:

1. Create a new online booking system to speed-up vehicle entry into the Park.

2. Provide three different queues for self-drive day visitors, open safari vehicles and overnight visitors at entry gates.

3. More rigorous enforcement of existing road rules.

4. Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings.

5. Develop a complaints reporting system to quickly identify and deal with open safari vehicle and self-drive visitor bad behaviour in the Park.

Table 8: Average ranking for the top 12 preferred solutions (items in each group’s top 5 are highlighted; the lower the rank, the more preferred the solution.)

	DV	OCV	ONV	OSV	MTA	SPM	HR	W Mean	UW Mean
Create a new online booking system to speed-up vehicle entry into the Park	5.21	5.84	6.98	4.17	5.95	2.38	6.2	5.25	5.94
Provide three different queues for self-drive day visitors, open safari vehicle and overnight visitors at entry gates	6.60	6.13	6.95	5.69	5.70	8.38	5.7	6.45	6.47
More rigorous enforcement of existing road rules	7.02	6.94	6.71	8.03	7.45	7.25	6.1	7.07	6.98
Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings	6.06	6.86	6.61	7.17	7.60	10.0	6.1	7.20	6.76
Develop a complaints reporting system to quickly identify and deal with open safari vehicle and self-drive visitor bad behaviour in the Park	6.23	5.86	6.60	8.21	7.05	7.88	8.8	7.23	6.61
SANParks vehicles and personnel to model good behaviour on the roads	8.35	7.85	7.77	9.07	7.40	5.50	8.9	7.83	7.95
Increase the visibility of traffic officers in the Park	8.23	8.38	8.89	7.52	8.95	7.75	5.1	7.83	8.42
Open management roads for use by open safari vehicles	8.81	9.61	9.29	4.93	6.40	7.63	8.2	7.84	8.70
On entry, provide Park road map and guidelines for behaviour at sightings	7.81	8.14	7.99	7.62	7.35	8.25	8.9	8.01	7.98
Enforce traffic management rules and transgressions	8.29	7.79	8.03	8.45	7.9	9.00	7.3	8.11	8.03
Prevent vehicles from using the Park for transit purposes	7.96	7.12	7.02	8.76	8.70	9.38	8.6	8.22	7.60
Reframe visitor expectations from just seeing the Big 5 to experiencing the whole Kruger environment	8.31	8.80	8.96	8.41	8.95	6.63	7.7	8.25	8.80

¹ The weighted mean (W Mean) gives equal weight to each group, thus individuals in the smaller groups have more influence on the mean than those in larger groups

² The unweighted mean gives equal weight to each individual. The “other” group (n=7) is included in the unweighted means but not the weighted means.

These five items accounted for 27 of the 35 top five positions across the seven groups, thus reflecting an increase in the level of consensus index from 60% in the first round to 77% in the second round. Three of the stakeholder groups shared the same set of top five solutions (DV, OCV, ONV).

In the second round, the group that diverged the most from the overall mean was the SANParks management (SPM) group. This group placed a higher priority on “SANParks vehicles and personnel to model good behaviour on the roads” and “Reframe visitor expectations from just seeing the Big 5 to experiencing the whole Kruger environment”, compared with other groups. They placed lower priority than other groups on “Enforce vehicle behaviour rules around wildlife sightings” and “Provide three different queues for self-drive day visitors, open safari vehicles and overnight visitors at entry gates”.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Prior to setting a visitor management strategy, it is important to understand the differing perspectives and preferences of stakeholders and the context in which they appear (Leung et al., 2018). The value of the methods employed in this study is that they provided a way of identifying the divergent perspectives of stakeholders and then helped to negotiate solutions through the identification of shared preferences (Conklin, 2007).

Even though consensus among stakeholders regarding the major traffic problems was reached quite early in the process, differences were observed between different stakeholder groups regarding their preferred solutions to these problems. For instance, differences were observed between the SANParks stakeholder management (SPM) group priorities compared to other stakeholder groups. The SPM group placed a higher priority on two actions: reframe visitor expectations from just seeing the Big 5 to experiencing the whole Kruger environment and SANParks vehicles and staff modelling good behaviour (i.e., not speeding). However, while management acknowledging their staff’s contribution towards unacceptable behaviour is encouraging, other stakeholders regarded solutions that directly address congestion and behaviour concerns at wildlife sightings as more important.

Despite the differences observed between and within stakeholder groups, in the end, the range of opinions and preferences converged into a set of agreed or negotiated solutions for each of the perceived four major traffic management problems. Through the process of soliciting (focus groups), evaluating (rating in Delphi round one) and trade-offs between potential traffic management solutions (ranking in Delphi round two), it was possible to determine those solutions requiring immediate attention and the actions that would be supported by the majority of respondents from all the stakeholder groups.

In conclusion, the focus group and Delphi process has provided a unique insight into what actions Park Management should prioritise to make the quickest, most impactful, stakeholder-approved and cost-effective solutions to traffic congestion problems in the south of the KNP. In this regard, it is recommended that management:

• create a more effective online booking system that collects all the information that the Park needs from entering visitors; enforces ‘vehicle capping’; facilitates quick vehicle entry to the Park; and provides visitor education in relation to traffic restrictions and expected behaviour around wildlife sightings before any booking can occur;

• provide SANParks day visitor OSV guided trips at the southern Park entry gates (“park and ride” scheme) for those not able to enter the Park due to vehicle capping restrictions;

• provide private OSV day tour routes at all southern Park entry gates by linking existing service and maintenance roads for their private use; OSV guided day tour companies to be consulted regarding the provision and payment for required facilities and the ongoing maintenance of these facilities and the upkeep of roads;

• institute a depot system for camp suppliers outside of Park entry gates; all supplies for individual camps to be transported daily by SANParks vehicles after camp gate closing times;

• enforce all traffic management and visitor behaviour rules around wildlife sightings;

• ensure that all park employees model good behaviour on the roads, i.e., not speeding – at present, visitors’ perceive that they are required to “do what officials say, rather than what officials do”;

• train Honorary Rangers to be visitor hosts at all Entry Gates; empower them to enforce traffic and visitor behaviour management rules in the Park and use them to respond rapidly to complaints regarding OSV and self-drive visitor bad behaviour;

• provide visitor education materials regarding traffic rules and considerate behaviour around wildlife viewing sites at the entrance gates as well as stickers that can be attached to the driver side front window of vehicles to act as reminders while driving; place cartoons, humorous notes, slogans and reminders of good behaviour throughout the Park (in public toilets, shops, hutted accommodation and at Camp exits); and

• provide ongoing service quality training for traffic management and Park gate staff.

The stakeholder engagement process that informed these recommendations allowed the views of different user groups to be heard and valued, and identified a range of solutions to address the most pressing traffic-related issues facing the Park. While some of these issues may be unique to KNP, the process used in this study can be readily employed to address a range of perceived problems in other protected areas. The increasing demand for nature-based tourism experiences in many countries is likely to create conflicts between tourists’ desire for an enjoyable, up-close experience and the need to protect and maintain the natural resources that underpin the experience. Engaging various stakeholder groups in the search for solutions has the potential to enhance park managers’ understanding of the problems, identify new and innovative visitor management strategies, and increase the likelihood of compliance with such strategies. This outcome will enable managers to better balance their dual mandate of conserving biodiversity while also providing a high quality visitor experience.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).