Visitors’ Connection with Ex-Situ Conservation in Zoos: Catalyst for Visitation Intention to In-Situ Ecotourism Destinations

 

Bukola O. Adetola

Department of Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria

Taiwo S. Akinboboye

¹Department of Ecotourism and Wildlife Management, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

 

 

ABSTRACT

Biodiversity conservation needs systematic conservation effort which includes both in-situ and ex-situ conservation and promotion of sustainable resource use for translation into conservation planning. The degree to which Zoo visits encourage people to visit specific in-situ conservation sites to participate in ecotourism activities was investigated. The study was carried out in nine (9) zoos across 5 States in Southwest Nigeria. Four hundred and fifty (450) questionnaires were administered to visitors in the zoos to acquire information about their socio-demographic attributes, awareness of in-situ ecotourism sites, perception, motivation and visit intention to in-situ conservation ecotourism destinations. Descriptive statistics, Analysis of variance and Chi-square test were used for data analysis. Findings revealed that 39.8% of the respondents were aware of in-situ ecotourism sites in Nigeria. Moreover, 76.2% of the visitors are highly interested in wildlife tourism and willing to visit in-situ conservation destinations. Positive perceptions of in-situ ecotourism destinations were high amongst the respondents. Intentions to visit the wild were propelled by their visit to the zoo. Craving to acquire knowledge about natural environment, verify what they have seen and told in the zoo about animals and natural habitat, emotionally and physically get refreshed and close to nature and adventure instigated respondents’ willingness and curiosity in seeing animals in the wild. Gender, age, marital status, education and income were significantly related to awareness, perception and intention to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations (p˂0.05). There was significant difference in the respondents’ awareness of in-situ ecotourism destinations, perception of ecotourism destinations and visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destinations. The great impetus that appearance at the zoos has on visitation to in-situ conservation areas has been documented to inform policy makers and stakeholders in ecotourism management.

Key words: Zoo, Wild, Conservation, Ecotourism, Visitor,

 

INTRODUCTION

Nature conservation spans a broad field of practices, ranging from biodiversity conservation in natural habitat (in-situ) to outside natural environment (ex-situ) which include zoos and botanical gardens. Zoos are considered by universal thinkers and environmentalists as important means of conserving biodiversity (Melfi, 2012; Ratledge, 2001). Around half the world’s population lives in cities (Miller et al., 2004), so zoos offer an important connection to an element of the natural world. The potential, and indeed the responsibility of zoos to educate and influence millions of people are therefore huge (Delapa, 1994). Nygren & Ojalammi (2018) report concludes that both biodiversity under­standing and knowledge of actions to help protect biodiversity had increased as a result of zoo and aquaria visits.

Recreation opportunities such as wildlife viewing in protected area is seen by conservationists as an important tool and justification for conservation. Ecotourism entails a combination of conservation and tourism to benefit local communities, especially focusing on sustainability (Myburgh & Saayman, 2002), it is no doubt a tool for conservation of natural and cultural resources and an instrument for sustainable development, especially in rural areas. However, considering the rate of habitat loss worldwide, ex-situ conservation is increasingly important but not enough to ensure biodiversity conservation, therefore, there is need for more campaign to promote in-situ conservation and all conservation strategies which include ecotourism.

Most often studies that involve zoos’ responsibilities in conservation have tried to measure it role in fund raising for conservation projects, capacity building, training, Research, captive breeding, education and recreation. However, there were dearth of studies especially on the degree to which visitation to zoos achieve expanding enthusiasm to patronize in-situ ecotourism destinations. On this basis, this study investigates the extent to which zoo experience in Nigeria influence and increase visitor’s connectedness with nature and the objective were to elucidate information on visitors’ awareness, perception and willingness to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations, determine factors that influence visitation intension to the wild. In this respect, the following hypothesis were developed for the study

1. There is no significant relationship between tourists’ socio demographic characteristics and visitors’ awareness, perception and visitation intention to in-situ ecotourism destination.
2. There is no significant difference in the awareness, perception and visitation intention of visitors to in-situ ecotourism destination in the selected sites.

 

METHODOLOGY

Description of the Study Areas

The Southwestern part of Nigeria is the abode of Yoruba people with a population of approximately 50 million according to National Population Commission (Awoyemi et al., 2012). This figure constitutes about 35 per cent of the total population of the country. The major settlements are found in Lagos, Osun, Ogun, Oyo, Ondo and Ekiti states (Figure 1). South west region is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, which according to Balogun, (2000) serves as one of the major gate ways to the hinterlands. The climate in south–west Nigeria is characterized by both wet and dry seasons and relatively high humidity. The mean annual rainfall is about 1200mm (Olaniran, 2002).

The study was carried out in nine (9) of the 11 zoos across 5 States in Southwest Nigeria where ex-situ conservation facilities are found. University of Ibadan (UI) Zoological Garden and Agodi Garden Ibadan, Oyo State, T.A Afolayan Wildlife Park, Federal University of Technology, Akure and Wesley University Zoological Garden, Ondo State, Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta Zoo Park and Olusegun Obasanjo presidential library Wildlife Park, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) Zoo, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Q- brat Zoo and Garden Badagry and Origin Gardens Ikorodu, Lagos State Nigeria (Figure 2). The zoological gardens boast of many fauna species like lions (Panther leo), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), Common jackal (Canis auceus), Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta), Ostrich (Struthio camelus), Peacock (Pavo cristatus), Baboon (Papio anubis),Drill Monkey (Mandrillus leucophaeus) Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) amongst others.

Figure 1: Map of Nigeria showing Southwest States

(Source: Field survey, 2019)

 

Data collection

The statistical population was the visitors to the selected Zoological Gardens. Respondents were selected based on their willingness to participate in the study. A total of four hundred and fifty (450) respondents were sampled. Proportional Stratified Sampling Technique was used for questionnaire administration across the selected zoos using the total annual visitors’ influx to the zoos in the year 2018. Well-structured questionnaire was self-administered by visitors in the selected zoos to acquire information on the socio-demographic attributes of respondents, awareness, perception and visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destinations. Visitors’ level of awareness was measured as Slightly Aware=1, Moderately Aware=2, and Highly Aware=3.  Perception about ecotourism destinations and factors influencing visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destination were measured using 5 -Likert Scale of Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, Undecided=3, Disagree=2, and Strongly Disagree=1. The responses were scored as 5,4,3,2 and1for SA, A, U, D and SD, respectively. The mean from each statement was obtained and used to classify the responses on each statement into SA (>4.5), A (3.5-4.4), U (2.5-3.4), D (1.5-2.4) and SD (<1.5). The weighted means for all the statements were calculated to be able to place all the responses on a continuum that enabled a conclusion to be drawn on the perception of in- situ ecotourism destinations and factors that influenced visit intentions of visitors as described by Thompson & Oparinde (2015).

 

Data Analysis

Both descriptive (frequency, percentages, tables, pie charts and bar charts, mean) and inferential (Chi-square and Analysis of Variance-ANOVA) statistical tools were used for data analyses with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.

 

Figure 2: Map of Southwest Nigeria showing the Selected Ex-situ Facilities

(Source: Field survey, 2019)

 

RESULTS

Socio-Demographic Attributes of Respondents

Findings from this study as represented in table 1 shows that higher percentage of visitors were male (72.9%  while 27.1 % were female. The major age group range from 15- 54 years, 76.9% were single and 22.2% were married. Most of the visitors were highly educated attaining to tertiary level of education (90.6%), among the 79.2% of the visitors that were employed, 49.6% were self-employed, 16.9% work in the private sector and 12.7% are with the public sectors, while 20.0% of the visitors were students. In addition, 19.6% of the visitors earned well above N100, 000 (>280 USD) as their monthly income. Although all the respondents are Nigerian, majority resides within Southwest, Nigeria,

 

Table 1: Socio- Demographic Attributes of Respondents

Variables	Frequency(N=450)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	328	72.9
Female	122	27.1
Age
≤14	3	0.7
15-24	141	31.3
25-44	278	61.8
45-54 55 and above	28 0	6.2 0
Marital Status
Single	346	76.9
Married	100	22.2
Divorced/Separated	1	0.2
Widower/Widow	3	0.7
Educational qualification
Non-formal Education	1	0.2
Primary Education	4	0.9
Secondary Education	37	8.2
NCE/ND	37	8.2
HND/B.Sc	321	71.3
M.Sc/PhD	35	7.8
Professional Qualification	15	3.3
Nationality
Nigerian	450	100
State of Residence
Enugu	1	0.2
Abuja	7	1.6
Niger	1	0.2
Imo	1	0.2
Edo	1	0.2
Ekiti	2	0.4
Kwara	1	0.2
Lagos	60	13.3
Ogun	34	7.6
Osun	17	3.8
Oyo	294	65.3
Ondo	31	6.9
Religion
Christianity	366	81.3
Islam	84	18.7
Estimated monthly Income
₦0 - ₦20,000 ($0-$55)	107	23.8
₦21,000 - ₦40,000 ($58-$111)	150	33.3
₦41,000 - ₦60,000 ($113-$166)	48	10.7
₦61,000 - ₦80,000 ($169-$220)	21	4.7
₦81,000 - ₦100,000 ($225-$277)	36	8.0
Above ₦100,000 ($280)	88	19.6
Occupation
Public sector	57	12.7
Self-employed	223	49.6
Student	90	20.0
Private Sector	76	16.9
Unemployed	4	0.9

 

 

 

Visitation Characteristics of Visitors in the Zoo

Higher percentage (69.5%) of the respondents were repeat visitors whose patronage has been twice, thrice and more than four times to the Zoo (Figure 3) while majority (55.3%) have visited with friends and relatives as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3:  Visitors’ Pattern of Visitation to the Zoo

Figure 4:  Visit Company to the Zoo

Visitors’ Awareness of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

As revealed in figure 5, only 39.8% of the respondents were aware of in-situ ecotourism destination while 60.2% were not aware and their level of awareness differs significantly (Figure 6). Table 2 shows family and friends (22.9%) and school (21.3%) as the main medium of awareness of in-situ ecotourism destination. Whereas, the current study heightened visitor’s awareness of in-situ ecotourism destination as reported by 64.4% visitors.

Figure 5: Awareness of In-situ ecotourism destinations

Figure 6: Level of awareness of In-situ ecotourism destinations

 

Table 2: Sources of Awareness of In-situ Ecotourism destination

Sources of Awareness of Ecotourism (In-situ) destination	Yes F       %		No F        %
Through Family and friends.	103	22.9	347	77.1
Through Advertisement.	19	4.2	431	95.8
Through Travel agent.	14	3.1	436	96.9
Through Internet.	32	7.1	418	92.9
Through social media.	39	8.7	411	91.3
Through electronic media.	56	12.4	394	87.6
Through Brochures, Magazines and Newspapers.	39	8.7	411	91.3
Through school	96	21.3	354	78.7
Through billboards, signposts and flyers.	28	6.2	422	93.8
I was informed during my visitation to the zoo.	28	6.2	422	93.8
This research exposed it to me.	290	64.4	160	35.6

 

Visitors’ Perception of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

In Table 3 visitors also responded to their perception of in-situ ecotourism destination consisting of 13 items with their mean response ranging from 4.45 to 3.73. The mean from each statement was obtained and used to classify the responses on each statement into SA (>4.5), A (3.5-4.4), U (2.5-3.4), D (1.5-2.4) and SD (<1.5).  Perception that animals in their natural habitat are not under the direct control of man (Mean =4.45, SD= 0.68) and visitors can enrich their knowledge about wildlife as animals exhibit their natural Behaviour in the wild (Mean =4.45, SD= 0.71) had the highest mean respectively  while adequate security will be provided for tourist in the wild (Mean =3.73, SD=1.25) had the least mean. The table shows that visitors had positive perception towards in-situ ecotourism destinations as indicated their agreement with all the perception statements.

Table 3: Visitors’ Perception of In-situ ecotourism destinations

Perception of ecotourism destinations	Mean	Std Dev.	Decision
Animals in their natural habitat (in-situ) are not under the direct control of man and use their natural instinct for their activities.	4.45	0.68	A
Visitors can enrich their knowledge about wildlife as animals exhibit their natural behaviour in the wild.	4.45	0.71	A
In-situ destination provides adequate diversity and welfare of wild animals.	4.26	0.86	A
Rare and unique wild animals that will be encountered in their natural habitat will boost tourist experience and conservation awareness.	4.37	0.73	A
Ecotourism in in-situ destination will provide opportunities to interact with local people and their culture.	4.27	0.83	A
Animals in natural habitat have no restriction in movement and are free from barriers like cages and fences.	4.33	0.79	A
Sighting of wild animals in their natural habitat may be difficult.	3.93	1.32	A
Wildlife tourism experience in natural habitat (in-situ) will satisfy visitors’ expectation than the zoo (ex-situ).	3.90	2.68	A
Animals in the parks have large areas to carry out their activities and have opportunities to escape from visitors.	4.43	0.73	A
Being able to touch animals in their natural habitat will be difficult.	4.45	2.00	A
Wild animals in their natural habitat may attack and injure tourist.	3.78	1.17	A
Adequate security for tourist will be provided in the wild.	3.73	1.25	A
Tour guide and interpretation services are available for tourist in the natural habitat of wild animals.	3.93	1.22	A

 

Visitation Intention of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

Interest for wildlife-based tourism to in-situ ecotourism destinations were highest amongst the visitors as posited by 76.2% (figure 7) and 83.1% of the respondents expressed their willingness to visit such destinations (figure 8). In addition, visit to the zoo increased the curiosity and motivated 80.2% of the respondent’s visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destination (figure 9).

Figure 7: Visitors’ interest about wildlife tourism to in-situ ecotourism destinations

Figure 8: Willingness to visit in-situ ecotourism destination

Figure 9: Zoo visitation as motivation for visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destination

 

 

Factors that Influence Visitation Intention to In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

Table 4 revealed the factors that influence intention to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations as opined by respondents.  The mean values of responses on each factor statement varied from 4.55 to 3.59 and was classified into SA (>4.5), A (3.5-4.4).  To increase knowledge of new places (mean =4.55, SD = 1.00), seek adventure (mean =4.55, SD = 1.03) and verify what they have seen and told in the zoo about wild animals (mean =4.55, SD = 1.04) had the highest  means among the visit intention influencing factors that respondents indicated their strong agreement with. Also, as top priority, education and research (mean= 4.44, SD= 1.10), to learn how to behave around wild Animals (mean= 4.38, SD= 1.07) and financially support wildlife conservation in their natural environment (mean= 4.34, SD= 1.2) were top among the visit intension factors that respondents agreed to.

 

Table 4:  Factors that influence visit intention to In-situ Ecotourism destination

Factors that influence visit intentions to the wild	Mean	Std. Dev.	Decision
Cost/affordability of viewing wild animals in their natural habitats.	4.30	1.23	A
To learn more about wildlife conservation in their natural environment.	4.50	1.00	SA
Proximity to residence	3.59	1.31	A
To learn how to behave around wild Animals	4.38	1.07	A
To see different types of animals in the wild.	4.54	1.00	SA
Due to recommendations by family/ friends	4.23	1.24	A
To see wild animals in their natural habitats.	4.51	1.03	SA
To get close to nature	4.52	1.03	SA
To financially support wildlife conservation in their natural environment	4.34	1.12	A
To take photos of wild animals in their natural setting.	4.51	1.04	SA
To enjoy serene environment provided by nature.	4.54	1.04	SA
For education and research	4.44	1.10	A
To increase knowledge of new places.	4.55	1.00	SA
To relief myself of boredom and have fun.	4.53	0.99	SA
To seek adventure.	4.55	1.03	SA
To get away from home.	4.18	1.31	A
To be emotionally and physically refreshed.	4.50	1.01	SA
To spend time with my loved ones.	4.52	1.04	SA
To get away from the noise in the cities.	4.46	1.08	A
To verify what I have seen and told in the zoo about animals and ecotourism destinations.	4.55	1.04	SA

Relationship between Awareness of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

Table 5 indicates that gender (χ²=12.736, p˂0.05), age (χ²=7.961, p˂0.05), marital status (χ²=12.593, p˂0.05), education (χ²=74.096, p˂0.05), religion (χ²=21.109, p˂0.05), income (χ²=77.302, p˂0.05), residence (χ²=49.215, p˂0.05) are significantly related to awareness of ecotourism in-situ destinations while occupation (χ²=9.347, p˃0.05) is not significant.

Relationship between Perception of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

There is significant relationship between gender (χ²=60.481, p˂0.05), age (χ²=274.813, p˂0.05), marital status (χ²=131.430, p˂0.05), education (χ²=630.516, p˂0.05), religion (χ²=77.208, p˂0.05), occupation (χ²=323.369, p˂0.05), income (χ²=449.580, p˂0.05), residence (χ²=554.249, p˃0.05) and perception of in-situ ecotourism destinations (Table 6).

Relationship between Visit Intention to In-situ Ecotourism Destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

Table 7 indicates significant relationship between gender (χ²=24.803, p˂0.05), age (χ²=29.077, p˂0.05), marital status (χ²=31.576, p˂0.05), education (χ²=52.112, p˂0.05), income (χ²=20.352, p˂0.05) and visit intention to (in-situ) destinations, while religion (χ²=1.628, p˃0.05), occupation (χ²=13.479, p˃0.05), residence (χ²=32.680, p˃0.05) shows no significant relationship with intention to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations.

Difference in the Awareness, Perception and Visit Intention of to In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

Result of One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in the awareness, perception and visit intention of visitors to in-situ ecotourism destinations in figure 8 show significant difference in the respondents’ awareness of in-situ ecotourism destinations (F= 5.585, p˂0.05). Also, there is significant difference in visitors’ perception of ecotourism destinations (F= 3.901, p˂0.05) and visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destinations (F= 2.828, p˂0.05).  

 

Table 5: Relationship between Awareness of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

Variables	χ2	Df	Sig	Decision
Gender	12.736	1	0.000	Significant
Age	7.961	3	0.047	Significant
Marital status	12.593	3	0.006	Significant
Education	74.096	6	0.000	Significant
Religion	21.109	1	0.000	Significant
Occupation	9.347	4	0.053	Not Significant
Income	77.302	5	0.000	Significant
Residence	49.215	11	0.000	Significant

 

Table 6: Relationship between Perception of In-situ Ecotourism Destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

Variables	χ2	Df	Sig	Decision
Gender	60.481	27	0.000	Significant
Age	274.813	81	0.000	Significant
Marital status	131.430	81	0.000	Significant
Education	630.516	162	0.000	Significant
Religion	77.208	27	0.000	Significant
Occupation	323.369	108	0.000	Significant
Income	449.580	135	0.000	Significant
Residence	554.249	297	0.000	Significant

 

Table 7: Relationship between visit intention to In-situ Ecotourism destinations and Socio- Demographic Characteristics

Variables	χ2	Df	Sig	Decision
Gender	24.803	2	0.000	Significant
Age	29.077	6	0.001	Significant
Marital status	31.576	6	0.000	Significant
Education	52.112	12	0.000	Significant
Religion	1.628	2	0.443	Not Significant
Occupation	13.479	8	0.096	Not Significant
Income	20.352	10	0.026	Significant
Residence	32.680	22	0.067	Not Significant

 

Table 8: Difference in the Awareness, Perception and Visit Intention of Visitors to In-situ Ecotourism Destinations

Variable	F	Sig	Decision
Awareness of ecotourism destinations	5.585	0.000	Significant
Perception of ecotourism destinations	3.901	0.000	Significant
Visit intention to ecotourism destination	2.828	0.005	Significant

 

DISCUSSION

 Socio- Demographic Attributes of Visitors

It could be deduced from this study that the larger population were male and this is inconsistent with the findings of Yolanda & Giselle (2014) in South Africa National Zoological gardens which reported 35.5% of visitors to the zoos as male. Most of the visitors were between the age group of 15- 54 years old and have attained tertiary level of education, this suggests that highest percentage of the visitors were youths and are lettered. This is in corroborate the findings of Adetola & Adedire (2018) which also reported that most of the visitors in selected zoos in Southwest, Nigeria were between the age group of 15-54 years old and were highly educated. The respondents were Nigerians and most of them reside in Southwest States and this supports Ramukumba (2018) and Ridgway et al. (2005) studies that majority of tourists, lived within same state and metropolis as the site they were visiting. The study further shows that 79.2% of the visitors were employed as either self-employed, public and private sector employee while 20.0% were students. This is consistent with Karanikola et al. (2014) whose report revealed that 60% of visitors to Thessaloniki Zoo in Greek were employed. The employed visitors have disposable income and money to spend on recreation and those who are self-employed have full control over their time as considerable number earned well above N100,000 (>280 USD) as monthly income. This is consistent with Adetola et al. (2016) that 13.9% of the visitors to University of Ibadan Zoological garden earned more than N100, 000 as their monthly income.

Trip Characteristics

Visit company of respondents were more of friends and relatives and patronage to the zoos was more than once, invariably they were repeat visitors. This in tandem with the findings of Knežević et al., (2016) on visitors’ characteristics and motivation in Zagreb zoo where 88% of visitors were repeated visitors. Adetola & Adedire (2018) also reported that 78.3% of visitors to the University of Ibadan and Obafemi Awolowo University Zoo have patronized the zoos more than four time.

Visitors awareness, Perception and visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destinations

Awareness of in-situ ecotourism destination in Nigeria was low among the respondents and the level of awareness of visitors differs significantly. This affirm the low level of awareness and participation in ecotourism reported by Ogunjinmi & Braimoh (2018) in Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. The major sources of awareness in this study were through family and friends. This does not agree with Bormann et al. (2016) in their findings on the sources of information about tourism in Ghana where highest percentage of information was through travel agency. This result could be attributed to inadequate information about ecotourism and conservation as majority of the respondents get to know about in -situ conservation ecotourism sites through this study.

Visitors’ perception as a whole represents perception to the tourist site, as the image of destination (Lee, 2009). Respondents have positive feelings and opinions of the in-situ ecotourism sites as their responses agreed with the perception statements. The image of destination is a key factor and stimulus for the tourists when they choose destination (Prayag & Hosany, 2014; Lee, 2009). They include tangible resources and travelers’ perceptions and expectations, such as benefit expectation and image of the destination (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996). Nature characteristics is the dimension related to physical characteristic of national park including flora and fauna, is also one of the pull factors of satisfaction criteria that make up visitors perception (Jumrin & Maryono, 2018), this has been evident from this study as visitors agreed that in-situ destinations have diverse wild animals of rare and unique species, they also feel ecotourism destinations will enrich their knowledge about wildlife as animals are able to exhibit their natural behaviour in the wild. Study by Murphy et al., (2000) also asserts that features such as the natural environment and other primary features (attractions and amenities, etc.) may be primary determinants in defining the value of a destination for tourists.

Most of the zoo visitors were highly interested in wildlife tourism and willing to visit in-situ conservation destinations. This could be attributed to positive perceptions about in-situ ecotourism sites and this suggests that positive image perception of a destination become the most favorite choice among the other at the same alternative. This corroborates findings that have also established that tourists have wide interest in wildlife-based tourism activities attaching value on uniqueness, abundance and variety (Curtin & Wilkes, 2005; Newsome et al., 2005). Moreover, visit intentions to the wild were propelled by their visit to the zoo. This supports Coral et al. (2008) assertion that zoo experience affects and increase visitor’s connectedness with nature.

Visitors agreement with the factors that influenced visitation intension to the wild can be related to their positive perception of in-situ destinations and this supports Prayag &Hosany (2014) that negative image perception will reduce the number of visiting factors that influence tourists to visit a destination.     Craving to acquire knowledge and learn more about wildlife conservation in their natural environment, see different types of animals, take their photos, increase knowledge of new places, seek adventure, get close to nature and enjoy serene environment, to be emotionally and physically refreshed, relief from boredom and have fun, spend time with loved ones and  verify what they have seen and told in the zoo about animals were the major factors that strongly influenced visitors’ intention to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations. This observation was expected, as evidence suggests that there is a current shift in the way tourists associate with the environment (Galley & Clifton, 2004). Instead of directly interacting with the environment through activities like hiking and camping alone, tourists now see nature as something to appreciate and learn from.

As established by Eagles & McCool (2002), national parks are distinct areas that promotes and restores the physical and emotional health of visitors. This implies that parks assist individuals to renew their health and relieve pressure connected with urban living. Respondents show high concern for ecotourism in the natural environment for physical and emotional refreshment, relaxation and getting away from noise in the cities. Yoon & Uysal (2005) report similarly that the desire for rest, relaxation, health, social and family relationship are factors that force individuals to travel in order to escape their stressful routine and gain a new experience. Response from this study can be linked with the saying that cost implication of choice, affordability of such cost and proximity to residence are key factors man considers in satisfying their want, as respondents agreed that cost and proximity to residents are other factors that influenced their visit intention. This is consistent with Nicolau & Mas (2005) that higher prices lead to less destination utility for all individuals and that people looking for tranquility and relaxation are not pre-disposed towards long distances, especially when tranquility can be found closer to home.

Age, gender, education, income, religion, place of residence and marital status have significant relationship with visitor’s awareness of in-situ ecotourism destinations. This indicate that variation in those factors play significant role in influencing their level of awareness. This is similar to the findings of Cristiana et al., (2016) which reported that age, occupation, education and locality type had significant association with knowledge of protected areas in the study assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park. High level of education was obtained from this study this also confirms that high level of education often brings a greater awareness of wildlife and the environment (Williams et al., 2002).

Also, significant relationship exists between the visitors’ gender, age, marital status, education, religion, occupation, income, place of residence and perception of in-situ ecotourism destinations this may be attributed to the fact that those factors are key determinants of visitors’ perception of in-situ ecotourism destinations. Ajani et al. (2018) corroborated this in their study on assessment of demand for ecotourism holiday travel in Nigeria that significant relationship exists between demand for travelling to ecotourism site and respondent’s perception about the site. Research shows that perception on destination attractiveness is higher among travellers with tertiary education than the less educated (Mohsin, 2008). This implies that the high percentage of educated visitors in this study will more likely favourably perceive in-situ ecotourism destination.

In addition, intention of respondents to visit in-situ ecotourism destinations had significant relationship with their gender, age, marital status, education, and income. This showed that visitors’ demographic characteristics are predictor of their visit intention. With regards to variation in respondents age and marital status, this can be related with Adetola & Adedire (2018) opinion that the youth and single had a lot of free time and lesser responsibility than the married visitors and may decide to visit ecotourism sites. Researches had also emphasized the role of family in decision making as Thornton et al., (1997) stated that holiday and vacation planning is a group activity and it is based on the family decision making including the consent of the children also, Kirti & Dharminder, (2018) stated that young teenagers are more cohesive in family decision making, and LaMondia et al., (2009) highlighted trip distance, environment of the place and activities for children as one of the factors that influence tourists’ decision making. Although findings from this study is inconsistent with Sirakaya et al. (2002) which had no relationship between demographic such as gender, age, occupation and demand for travelling. The result is in tandem with Ledwaba et al. (2011) that participating in recreation is mainly about how the recreationist plans on his time and income.

The significant difference in visitors’ awareness of in-situ ecotourism destination can be attributed to inadequate education and information about protected areas whish agrees with the finding of Ogunjinmi et al., (2013) that the Nigerian broadcast media had no specific programmes on nature conservation. Differences in visitor’s perception and visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destination is in line with Echtner & Brent (2003) that value perception has effect on tourist’s intention to visit tourist destinations.

 

CONCLUSION

It is evident from this study that respondents foresee a good image and favourable impression of in-situ destinations, despites low level of awareness about these sites, they feel that in-situ ecotourism destinations are rich in biodiversity and have the tendency to appease them more than zoo.  In addition, the intention, motivation and willingness of visitors to satisfy their curiosity to see these animals in the wild was driven by their visit to the zoo. This established the role of zoos in promoting conservation awareness and changing people’s attitude towards conservation cannot be over emphasized. Visitors have various factors that influenced visit intention to in-situ ecotourism destinations, top priority is the desire to get close to nature and enjoy a serene environment, learn more about wildlife conservation in their natural environment, see different types of animals, increase knowledge of new places, be emotionally and physically refreshed, get relieved from boredom and authenticate what they saw, heard and learned about zoo animals. The results of this study will inform policy makers and stakeholders on wildlife conservation in the planning and growth of ecotourism. Synergy between Nigeria National Parks Service, Zoos and Wildlife Parks are also essential to increase public awareness, understanding, park resource appreciation and support for biodiversity conservation efforts.

 

REFERENCES

Adetola B. O. & Adedire O. P. (2018). Visitors’ Motivation and Willingness to Pay for Conservation in Selected Zoos in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 22 (4):531 – 537

Adetola, B. O., Adenuga, A. J. & Morenikeji O. (2016). Willingness to Pay for Captive Wildlife Tourism at the University of Ibadan Zoological Garden. Journal of Research in Forestry, Wildlife & Environment, 8(2): 58-72.

Ajani F., Oluyode O.M. & Kalu J.E. (2018). Assessment of Demand for Ecotourism Holiday Travel Among University of Ibadan Members of Staff. Journal of Tourism Research. 20: 4 – 16

Awoyemi, O. K., Ewa, E. E., Abdulkarim, I. A., &Aduloju, A. R. (2012). Ethnobotanical Assessment of Herbal Plants in Southwestern Nigeria. Academic Research International, 2 (3):1-8.

Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 3(8), 32-38

Balogun, M. B. (2000). The Forest Zones of Southwestern Nigeria. A paper Presented at University of Ilorin at the 4th Conference on Biodiversity and Conservation Techniques. 11th August, 2000.

Bormann, F.  K.A, Vincent, K. A. & Emmanuel, A. (2016). Sources and Availability of Information for Tourists: A Study of Ghana. Merit Research Journal of Art, Social Science and Humanities, 4(1), 001-005.

Coral M. B, John, F., & Wesley, P. S. (2008). The Value of Zoo Experiences for Connecting People with Nature. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 139–150.

Cristiana M. C, Carmen, S., Mirela, I., & Vasile, B., (2016). Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 32 :70 – 79

Curtin, S.C., & Wilkes, K. (2005). British wildlife tourism operators: Current issues and typologies. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 455–478.

Delapa, M. (1994) Interpreting hope, selling conservation: Zoos, aquariums and environmental education. Mus. News (May-June): 48-49

Eagles, P. F. J., & McCool, S. F. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas: Planning and management, New York: CABI Publishing. Pp 295

Echtner, M. C, & Brent, R. Jr. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image. The Journal of tourism Studies, 14(1):37- 48.

Galley, G., & Clifton, J. (2004). The motivational and demographic characteristics of research ecotourists: Operation Wallacea volunteers in south-east Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism, 31(1):69-82.

Nicolau J. L. & Mas, F. J. (2005). The influence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist destinations: The moderating role of motivations. Tourism Management, 27: 982–996.

Said, J., & Maryono, M. (2018). Motivation and Perception of Tourists as Push and Pull Factors to Visit National Park. E3S Web of Conferences, 31, 08022. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20183108022 

Karanikola, P. Tampakis, S. Tsantopoulos, G. & Digbasani C. (2014). The public zoo as recreation and environmental education area: Visitor’s perceptions and management implications. WSEAS Transact. Environ. Develop., 10(1): 2-10.

Kirti, S. D. & Dharminder, K. B. (2018). Tourist decision making: Exploring the destination choice criteria. Asian Journal of Management, 7(2): 140-153

Knežević, M. Zucko, I. & Ljuština M. (2016). Who is visiting the Zagreb Zoo: Visitors’ Characteristics and Motivation. Sociologija i prostor, 54(2): 169-184.

Ledwaba, L.J., Belete, A., Senyolo, G.M., Hlongwane, J.J. & Senyole, M.P.(2011). Factors determining the demand for water recreation in the middle Olifant Sub-Basin: A case study of Loskop Recreation Centre in South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(28): 6036-6041.

Lee, T. H. (2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leisure Science, 31(3), 215–236.

Melfi, V. A. (2012) “Ex situ gibbon conservation: status, management and birth sex ratios,” International Zoo Yearbook, Vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 241–251, 2012.

Miller, B., Conway, W., Reading, R. P., Wemmer, C., Wildt, D., & Kleiman, D. (2004). Evaluating the Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural History Museums. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 86-93.

Mohsin, A. (2008). Analysis of Chinese Travellers' Attitudes toward Holidaying in New Zealand: The Impact of Socio-Demographic Variables. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 16(12): 21-40

LaMondia, J., Snell, T., & Bhat, C. R. (2010). Traveler Behavior and Values Analysis in the Context of Vacation Destination and Travel Mode Choices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2156(1), 140–149. doi:10.3141/2156-16 

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43–52.

Myburgh E. & Saayman M. 2002. Ecotourism in Action. Potchefstroom: Leisure Consultants and Publications. National Park Gesäuse in Austria - a Comparison, 170.

Newsome, D., Dowling, R., & Moore S. (2005). Wildlife Tourism. Aspects of Tourism Series. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

Nygren, N. V & Ojalammi, S. (2018), Conservation education in zoos – a literature review    Finnish Journal for Human-Animal Studies, 4: 72-76.

Ogunjinmi, A.A., & Braimoh, C.O., (2018). Assessment of community awareness and participation in ecotourism in Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. Environ Socio-econ. Stud, 3: 1-12. DOI: 102478/environ-2018-0017.

Ogunjinmi, A. A, Onadeko, S. A., & Ogunjinmi, K. O. (2013). Media coverage of nature conservation and protection in Nigeria National parks. Int. Journal of Bio. & Cons., 5(10), 687-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/ IJBC2013.0598.

Olaniran, O.J. (2002). Rainfall Anomalies in Nigeria: The Contemporary Understanding .55th Inaugural Lecture, University Press, Ilorin. Pp 66.

Prayag. G, & Hosany, S, (2014).  When Middle East meets West: Understanding the motives and perception of young tourist from United Arab Emirate. Tourism Management, 40, 35–45.

Ramukumba. T (2018).  Tourists revisit intentions based on purpose of visit and preference of the destination. A case study of Tsitsikamma National Park.  African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Volume 7 (1):1-10

Ratledge. C., (2001) “Towards conceptual framework for wildlife Tourism,” Tourism Management, Vol. 22: 31–40.

Ridgway, S.C., Livingston, M., Chang Smith S. E. (2005). Visitor Behavior in Zoo Exhibits with Underwater Viewing: A publication of Visitors Studies Association, Volume 8(3): 1-10.

Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., and Williams, A. M. (1997), Tourist group holiday decision making and behaviour: the influence of children. Tourism management, 18(5), 287- 297.    

Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G. & Herberlein, T.A. (2002). A quantitative summary of attitude towards wolf and their reintroduction (1972-200). Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30: 575-584.

Yolanda J.  & Giselle M. du Plessis (2014) Motivators to visit the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa.  African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure,Vol. 3 (1):1-6

Yoon U., & Uysal, M. (2005). An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-46.