Visitor Participation in Deviant Leisure Practices in a South African National Park

Abstract

Kruger National Park is one of the most well-preserved national parks in the Southern Hemisphere. However, cases of visitors participating in deviant leisure practices (DLPs) are reported in the park, threatening the sustainability of sensitive tourism resources. Adopting a deviant leisure lens, this study assesses the extent to which visitors participate in DLPs at the Kruger National Park (KNP) and the causes of those behaviours. Variables adopted from the KNP codes of conduct for visitors were used to measure the DLPs based on the visitors’ perception of the park. A quantitative survey design, with a sample size of 237 respondents, assessed respondents’ participation in DLPs. The study results reveal that visitors participate in DLPs at KNP. However, the level at which visitors participate in DLPs is inconsistent. The most common DLPs by visitors are getting close to animals to take pictures and driving off-road to see animals. The reasons for visitors participating in these behaviours are the need to create memorable experiences and being in “holiday mode”. The least violated codes of conduct in the park are picking up archaeological objects to keep them as souvenirs and bringing prohibited items into the park without declaring. This study is significant as it is the first to investigate the extent visitors participate in DLPs using a self-reported instrument. Based on the results, park managers may develop effective strategies to reduce the number of visitors getting close to animals to take pictures and driving off-road to observe animals at close range.

1. Introduction

In an era where tourism is growing unrestrainedly (Dias et al., 2021), deviant leisure practices (DLPs) are widespread behaviours undertaken by visitors in their quest to create memorable experiences (Zhang & Cao, 2023). DLPs pose challenges to managers of protected areas such as national parks. Most DLPs are committed ‘under the radar’ as they violate the codes of conduct in tourism spaces. Despite these actions often not being directly visible, the cases of visitors participating in DLPs are prevalent in the tourism industry. At Yellowstone National Park in the United States, visitors disobey the park rules, camping outside designated areas and making fires in restricted areas. About 300 deaths have been recorded between 2012 and 2017 due to visitors’ negligence. About 150 deaths are recorded annually (Leasca, 2017). At Sequoia National Park in the USA, hikers are reported bypassing the safety rail (Harden, 2025). In Italy, a French tourist was reported stealing sand from beaches in Sardinia (Giuffrida, 2019). Another tourist broke three toes of a 19th-century statue posing for a photo (Borghese et al., 2020). In Kruger National Park (KNP), a man was killed by an elephant while trying to serve a grandson who was taking pictures (Mthethwa, 2025). Based on these cases, it is clear that some visitors disobey codes of conduct by engaging in DLPs. While these reports highlight the basic narrative of DLPs in tourism, less empirical evidence exists to validate their frequency and accumulation (Ghazvini et al., 2020). Where there is evidence, it supports one form of DLPs rather than a combination. This view is supported by Ching et al.’s (2021) observation that studies assessing diverse DLPs in protected areas in the African context are scarce. This gap underscores the need for further research to investigate a combination of DLPs that violate the code of conduct in protected areas, such as the KNP.

The KNP is South Africa’s largest national park and is amongst the most iconic wildlife sanctuaries in the world (Ballantyne et al., 2023; Van der Merwe, 2023). The park is home to the famous ‘Big Five’ (Elephant, rhino, leopard, buffalo, and lion) and is one of Africa’s most decorated game-viewing parks (Lubbe et al., 2019). Embedding charismatic landscapes, megafauna, and flora, outdoor activities are popular in the park (Liang et al., 2020). Consequently, the park has become one of sub-Saharan Africa’s most sought-after tourism products (Ballantyne et al., 2023; Van der Merwe, 2023). To achieve the dual mandate of conserving sensitive resources and offering high-quality visitor experiences, KNP authorities have formulated codes of conduct to mitigate visitor participation in DLPs. Some codes of conduct guiding visitors to behave responsibly at KNP include staying in vehicles, not feeding animals, not drinking in public, not removing flora and fauna, not littering, and bringing pets into the park (Liang et al., 2020). The codes of conduct are provided to visitors upon their arrival at the port of entry, and some are displayed along the roads in the park. However, anecdotal information reveals that despite these guidelines, visitors participate in DLPs at the KNP. According to Liang et al. (2020), 7% of photographs taken in the park and posted on social media depict unwanted behaviour. Illustrating these reports, the editor of the “Games of Thrones” was killed by a lioness when she opened the car window to take a photograph (Ohlheiser & Izadi, 2015). Recently, while driving, a tourist hit a lion while evading traffic congestion (Moorgas, 2024), and a man was killed by an elephant while trying to save a grandson the lion attacked while taking pictures (Mthethwa, 2025). The habituation of wildlife to humans has been reported with freshwater terrapins (Pelusios sinuatus) in the park (Barrientos et al., 2020). All these cases substantiate that visitors disobey the codes of conduct at the KNP. While DLPs at the KNP have been published in anecdotal information (e.g., newspapers, online travel blogs, and public forums), there is a lack of empirical evidence to support their occurrence at the KNP. Utilising a criminological perspective and a deviant leisure theoretical lens, the study aims to examine the extent to which visitors participate in selected DLPs and the reasons for their participation.

2. Literature Review

Understanding deviant leisure practices and their causes in protected areas is important for enhancing the development of mitigating systems. This section discusses DLPs, their constituents, and causes.

2.1. Conceptualising Deviant Leisure

Rooted in the discipline of criminology and deviance, deviant leisure refers to any unconventional practice that promotes countless interactive, monetary, ecological, and social harms at the intersection of consumer capitalism and forms of commodified leisure (Raymen & Smith, 2020). In its simplest sense, deviant leisure refers to any practice by visitors that does not adhere to the codes of conduct. Tickle and Von Essen (2020) note that deviant leisure encompasses any behaviour that diverts from cultural, social, and ethical norms. Littering, hunting, feeding animals, making noise, removing flora and fauna, and coming close to animals are some of the common DLPs in a protected area (Chebli et al., 2024; Ching et al., 2021; Fenitra et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024; Pratt, 2022; Sharma, 2020). However, it should be noted that deviant leisure is politically and socially created and hence, subjective and variable. An act regarded as deviant leisure in one area might not be deviant in another. To avoid subjectivity and variability in this study, any act that did not comply with KNP codes of conduct was considered deviant leisure.

To clarify and enhance a better understanding of deviant leisure, scholars have approached deviant leisure differently, with some adopting a positivist approach while others opting for a constructionist approach. The latter suggests that deviant leisure is absolute, objective, observable, and predetermined, whereas the former indicates that deviant leisure is relative, subjective, and an act of free will (Harris & Magrizos, 2023). Not disputing the positivist and constructivist approaches to deviant leisure, Jørgensen and Reichenberger (2023) believe deviant leisure is better understood if viewed through the moral disengagement theory and placed on a continuum. In this regard, the authors anchor different forms of deviant leisure on the continuum, that determines human actions ranging from destructive, unsafe, and intrusive to unsustainable, based on a person’s moral judgement. Destructive deviant leisure refers to any antisocial acts by tourists which cause some damage to tourism property (Bhati, 2021; Bhati & Pearce, 2017). Examples of destructive deviant leisure include, amongst others, vandalism, graffiti, littering, misuse, and theft. Unsafe deviant leisure refers to any act that places tourists at risk. These include cases where tourists interact with animals, adventure hiking, sports activities, and car and transport injuries. Intrusive deviant leisure refers to disruptive acts. These behaviours include rowdiness and conflict such as fighting at tourist destinations. Unsustainable deviant leisure involves the irresponsible consumption of tourism resources such as the use of water unsparingly in areas with a shortage of water and feeding animals. Pratt (2022), on the other hand, proposed a continuum of deviant leisure, looking at how deviance is committed. Consequently, terminologies such as impulsive (done without forethought) and habitual (done constantly) deviant leisure were proposed.

2.2. Constituents of DLPs in Tourism

The term DLP is yet to be popularised in academic discourse. Instead, several alternative labels have been used by different scholars referring to practices that do not adhere to codes of conduct. Amongst these are uncivilised behaviour practices (Li & Chen, 2017), misbehaviour practices (Harris & Magrizos, 2023), anti-pro-environmental behaviour practices (Graves & Roelich, 2021), unethical behaviour practices (Kuseni et al., 2024), uncivilised behaviour practices (Zhang & Cao, 2023), dysfunctional behaviour practices (Chebli et al., 2024), and jay customer behaviour practices (Pratt, 2022). Despite the diversity and divergence of the labels in different contexts, a common theme among these labels is that they all denote any practices by visitors that completely or slightly differ from usual practices after entering an unfamiliar setting (Li & Chen, 2022). This study bungles these alternative labels and terms them DLPs to avoid confusion.

Several acts do not comply with codes of conduct in tourism. According to Chebli et al. (2024), visitors participate in DLPs because they are attention seekers, benefit seekers, rule breakers, and property abusers. In the context of seeking attention, visitors often harass other visitors. Harassment may be sexual, verbal, or physical. Visitors might become aggressive towards other tourists after using substances such as drugs or abusing alcohol, while others might behave rudely or aggressively to show their superiority. Some visitors may steal objects from tourist areas, becoming benefit seekers (Pratt, 2022). According to Chebli et al. (2024), visitors undertaking hiking trails at Tassil N’Ajjer Park pick up objects they intend to keep as souvenirs.

Another common DLP by visitors is breaking laws, knowingly or unknowingly. Cases of visitors as rule breakers have been reported across the world. At Tassil N’Ajjer Park in Algeria, Chebli et al. (2024) note that visitors consume cannabis. Goh (2019, 2020) and Fenitra et al. (2023) observed that visitors walk outside the designated walking trails, get out of their cars, and get close to the animals. Reports of visitors polluting the environment by disposing of non-biodegradable plastics are common (Ghazvini et al., 2020). In a study at the Pilanesberg National Park in South Africa, Scholtz and Van der Merwe (2020) found high levels of littering in overcrowded areas. Esfandiar et al. (2021) indicated that littering has become a habit among visitors at Yanchep National Park in Australia. In Israel, Lev et al. (2023) studied natural sites and found that 32% of participants generated waste. Ching et al. (2021) and Li et al. (2021) found that visitors make noise in Ibiza when partying, using amplifiers and loudspeakers, disturbing the tranquillity of the desert.

Visitors might abuse the property through acts of vandalism. Bhati (2023, 2021) observes that visitors often damage local traditions and culture through vandalism. Vandalism may be graffiti on rock paintings or drawings or the defacement of attractions (Chebli et al., 2024; Chebli & Ben Said, 2020; J. H. Wu et al., 2020). According to Frey and Briviba (2021), visitors have been known to destroy cultural relics and historical sites.

A cursory reading of the current tourism studies literature reveals that deviant leisures have been studied in different countries and regions. These include visitors walking off-trail (Goh et al., 2017); damaging cultural traditions and customs (Bhati, 2023); littering (Lev et al., 2023; J. H. Wu et al., 2020); destroying cultural relics and historical sites (Frey & Briviba, 2021); and scrawling (S. Wu & Guo, 2018) and making noises (Li et al., 2021).

Table 1. Summary of past deviant leisure studies.

Researchers	Domain and Location	Research Focus	Research Method
Chebli et al. (2024)	Tassili N’Ajjer in Algeria	Causes Typologies Consequences	Mixed
Goh (2020)	National Park in Australia	Venturing off-trail	Qualitative
Harris and Magrizos (2023)	UK leisure industry	Souvenir	Qualitative
Li et al. (2024)	Huangshan Mountain in China	Overcrowding	Qualitative
J. H. Wu et al. (2020)	Xitou Nature Education Area in Taiwan	Vandalism	Quantitative
Lev et al. (2023)	Israel	Littering	Quantitative
Esfandiar et al. (2023)	Yanchep National Park in Australia	Littering	Quantitative
Van der Merwe (2023)	Kruger National Park, South Africa	Overcrowding	Qualitative
Liang et al. (2020)	Greater Kruger National Park	Getting close to animals Getting out of the car Protruding from the car Using alcohol Littering Engaging in dangerous behaviour	Qualitative

below summarises some DLP studies showing the domain, research focus, and methodologies utilised.

In the context of this study, Ballantyne et al. (2023), Liang et al. (2020), and Van der Merwe (2023) conducted studies at the KNP, analysing different aspects of DLPs. Ballantyne et al. (2023) looked at the stakeholder perception of traffic congestion [Open Safari vehicle (OSV)], and the results revealed that traffic congestion was a problem. In a follow-up study, Van der Merwe (2024) noted that tourists’ perceptions of OSV at the KNP differ, as some felt that they promoted traffic congestion while others thought they were better than self-driven vehicles. Liang et al. (2020) conducted a study using social media to establish unwanted behaviour displayed by visitors in the Greater Kruger National Park. The results revealed that 7% of the photographs showed unwanted behaviours. Among these behaviours, the most common DLP was visitors getting out of their cars (79%), followed by protruding from their vehicles (14%) and having close contact with animals (4%). Van der Merwe (2023) conducted another study at the KNP, exploring behaviour in overcrowded areas. According to the study results, visitors in overcrowded areas engaged in harmful or disruptive activities such as speeding.

A review of the studies suggests that studies on DLP or non-compliance with codes of conduct have been conducted in the tourism industry. However, most of these studies isolated the aspects of DLP, treating them as independent. Most importantly, less quantified evidence of their magnitude exists in protected areas such as national parks. This indicates that evidence is needed to determine the most common DLPs at the KNP to enhance the development of mitigating strategies.

2.3. Causes of DLPs

Human behaviour is complex and driven by a rich tapestry of causes. Chebli et al. (2024) proposed three main mediating factors: situational factors, information retrieval and judgement formation, and personal factors. Situational factors include lack of supervision, pricing, weak enforcement of regulation, and unavailability of sanctions. Since most protected areas are created for visitors to relax and enjoy, there is weak law enforcement and supervision. However, the laissez-faire approach characterising the parks has become one main reason visitors violate the law. In a study conducted by Li and Chen (2022), the results revealed that misbehaviour by tourists is determined by the perception that rules and protective recommendations are not enforced.

Information retrieval may cause visitors to engage in DLPs. Information retrieval includes reasons such as lack of communication and information dissemination. According to the theory of moral disengagement, people who lack knowledge are often disengaged (Bandura, 2016). As such, visitors who engage in DLPs justify the behaviour based on not being aware of the consequences (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2021). Juvan and Dolnicar (2021) emphasised the denial of the consequences of travel, responsibility, and control as causes of DLPs. Some visitors engage in DLPs because they are confused by the information disseminated. There might be confusion about the codes, which are not clear enough to be interpreted by the visitor. Ambiguity is one issue that might result in visitors justifying their irresponsible behaviour practices.

Judgemental formations and personal factors cause visitors to engage in DLP. Judgemental information includes egocentrism, group effect, and ethnocentrism. Under egocentrism, visitors pay less attention to a collective good than one’s good. In this case, the “tragedy of commons” prevails with tourist justifying their deviance or bad behaviour as insignificant or even harmless (Harris & Magrizos, 2023). Visitors pick artefacts in protected areas, justifying it as collecting travel souvenirs. Group size or effect may cause visitors to engage in DLPs. The group size gives some visitors the impression that they are anonymous and do not care about the image they project. Lastly, ethnocentrism motivates visitors to engage in irresponsible behavioural practices.

3. Material and Methods

This section probes the scope of the research, the research design and methods, and ethical considerations.

3.1. Scope of the Research

Located in the northeastern part of South Africa, in the provinces of Mpumalanga and Limpopo, the KNP covers an area of about 19,623 square kilometres and hence, is the largest protected area in the country. Since its opening to visitors in 1927, KNP has developed to become one of the wildlife brands in Africa. The park showcases some of the most unique sensitive flora and fauna and has become a flagship of conservation and ecotourism. The park receives approximately 1.8 million visitors annually (Brett, 2022; SANParks, 2022). The KNP is part of the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve, an area designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as an International Man and Biosphere Reserve. It is trite, however, that such a treasured tourism asset is, on the contrary, becoming a common ground for visitors to engage in DLPs.

3.2. Research Design and Methods

This study adopted a descriptive research design using a survey. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data from visitors at KNP. According to SANParks (2022), KNP receives approximately 1.8 million visitors annually. Based on the annual visits, a sample size of 385 respondents was considered a necessary minimum and representative of populations at a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval to enable the generalisation of the findings (Raosoft, Inc., 2004). A total of 385 respondents were targeted and 237 questionnaires were retained as user-friendly, with an effective rate of 62% and an ineffective rate of 38%. According to Cohen et al. (2008), a higher response rate of 85% is critical but not always necessary. As such, a 62% response rate was considered a good response rate, indicating that the survey effectively gathered the opinion of a significant portion of the target audience.

Data were collected in October 2024. Given the favourable weather and lush vegetation, October receives high visitor numbers (SANParks, 2022) and was considered ideal for data collection. The semi-structured survey was made up of three sections. The first section captured the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The second section included 15 items developed based on KNP codes of conduct for visitors. To select 15 items from a pool of codes for visitors at KNP, a critical incident technique (CIT) was conducted. During the CIT, 6 park managers were telephonically interviewed to establish the codes of conduct that visitors did not adhere to, mostly at KNP. The 15 items common among the interviewees were measured on a five-point Likert scale rather than a dichotomous scale grounded on “yes” or “no”. The codes for the scale were interpreted as “Never” = 1, “Rarely” = 2, “Sometimes” = 2, “Often” = 4, and “Always” = 5. The choice was informed by the fact the attitudes, although influential on behaviour, are latent, and can only be inferred through indirect measures such as Likert scale items. Furthermore, Likert scale items were considered more appropriate for visitors to express their feelings towards acts violating the rules. A five-point Likert scale was preferred as it reduces response bias, as responses are less likely to feel forced into a particular response category such as “yes” or “no”. However, on data analysis, the dependent variables (codes of conduct) were recorded as binary variables. For example, items to measure visitor compliance with codes of conduct at the KNP were combined so that 1 and 2 were coded as “no” while 3, 4, and 5 were coded as “yes”. The third section of the questionnaire asked respondents to choose one or more reasons linked to their failure to adhere to the codes of conduct. The reasons were measured on a dichotomous scale, with “yes” indicating that respondents felt it caused them to engage in DLPs, while “no” indicated that they did not think it influenced them. Before the formal distribution of the questionnaires, the pilot test was performed by distributing the questionnaire to 5 experts to validate the items. The items were adjusted and paraphrased while grammatical errors were corrected based on the feedback from the five tourism experts.

A two-stage method was adopted in the research. A non-probability sampling method of convenience was utilised to select the areas where the questionnaires were distributed. Four main park ports of entry (Paul Kruger, Malelane, Numbi, and Phabeni), two rest camps (Pretoriuskop and Skukuza), and accommodation facilities (e.g., Skukuza Safari Lodge) were utilised. Questionnaires for the study were distributed to visitors by the researchers, with the help of a research assistant who was inducted into the process. Visitors were given the option of filling out the questionnaires on-site or online at their convenience. The researchers considered the procedures a more appropriate and practical approach for data collection, given the traffic jams reported at the main ports of entry into the park. The completed questionnaires were dropped at the accommodation, the park, and the rest park receptions.

The quantitative data were collected, compiled, and analysed by the researcher with the assistance of the Statistical Support Services at XXXX University using SPSS 25 software to generate both descriptive and inferential statistics, thereby addressing the research objective. Comparisons were conducted to establish the association of the reason for visitors engaging in DLPs at the KNP. Consequently, a series of Chi-square analyses were conducted with post-hoc tests using Fisher’s exact pairwise comparison (Vaske, 2008). The analyses of variance were employed to compare the reason for compliance with 9 codes of conduct.

3.3. Ethical Consideration

Participants who were 18 years or older were considered for the study. They were informed about the voluntary nature of the research and their right to withdraw without penalty. Anonymity was also guaranteed, as no personally identifiable data were requested. The XXXX University Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study with the ethics number HREC2024=08=016(MS).

4. Findings

4.1. Respondents’ Socio-Demographic Profile

Among the 237 respondents, the number of domestic visitors (54%) was more than that of international visitors (46%). Regarding the gender structure of respondents, there was an equal split between males (49%) and females (49%). The categories “other” and “prefer not to say” also revealed an equal split of 1%, respectively. These findings were similar to Scholtz and Van der Merwe’s (2020) findings in the Pilanesberg National Park, which show an equal share of the sample. The respondents were predominantly an “active population”, within the age group of 18–30 years (40%), followed by those between 51–60 years (30%) and 41–50 years (19%). Almost half of the respondents were married (47%), while those who were single covered a significant percentage (40%). Respondents were generally literate, as 23% of the sample held secondary/high school certificates, 19% held technical or vocational qualifications, 21% had undergraduate certificates, and 25% held bachelor’s degrees. Respondents to the park preferred to travel with either family members (29%), spouses/partners (21%), or friends (35%). More than half of the respondents in the sample were employed (58%), while the main purpose they visited the park was for relaxation (65%).

4.2. Visitor Self-Reporting on DLPs

Considering the study objective, respondents were asked to rate their adherence to KNP visitor codes of conduct to determine their participation in DLP. The codes of conduct were tested on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “Never” and 5 represented “Always”. To analyse the results, the 5 codes on the 5-point Likert scale were further classified into two mutually exclusive categories: “yes” and “no”. “Never” and “rarely” were combined as “No”, meaning that visitors complied with certain codes of conduct, and hence did not participate in DLPs at the KNP. The codes “sometimes”, “often”, and “always” were combined as “yes”, meaning that visitors did not comply with the KNP codes of conduct, and hence engaged in DLPs. The descriptive findings are presented in

Table 2. (a) Visitor participation in DLP at the KNP. (b) Mean score of complaint.

(a)
Deviant leisure practices (DLPs) in Protected Areas Based on the KNP Visitor Code of Conduct				No (Compliant)	Yes (Non- Compliant)	No (Complaint)	Yes (Non-Compliant)	Standard Error
				Frequency (N)		Percentage (%)		SE
Drive above the speed limit at KNP.				83	154	35	65	3.10
Not using water responsibly at KNP.				82	155	35	65	3.09
Feed wild animals at KNP.				156	81	66	34	3.08
Get close to wild animals to take pictures.				19	218	8	92	1.76
Get out of the car to see the animals.				162	75	68	32	3.02
Missed gate closing time at KNP (camp or park gates).				97	140	41	59	3.19
Not using electricity responsibly at KNP.				99	138	42	58	3.20
Inappropriately disposing of waste at KNP (littering).				73	164	31	69	3.00
Make a loud noise at KNP.				133	104	56	44	3.22
Purposely rushing to wildlife sights, knowing it would lead to crowding.				84	153	35	65	3.11
Stop in the middle of the road to observe wild animals.				27	210	11	89	2.06
Drive off the road to see animals at KNP.				68	169	29	71	2.94
Pick up objects to keep as souvenirs, e.g., dead animal bones, horns, etc.				187	50	79	21	2.65
Bring prohibited items into the park without declaring them, e.g., pets, guns.				205	32	86	14	2.22
Fight or harass other visitors at sites.				214	23	90	10	1.92
Mean of complaint				115	122	48	52
(b)
Variables	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Std. Err.	Min	Max	95% Confidence Interval
							Lower	Upper
Complaint	237	47.51	19.213	1.248	0	100	45.05	49.96

below.

Table 2a shows the self-reported compliance frequencies and percentages with the KNP codes of conduct. Respondent participation in DLPs at the KNP based on the park’s code of conduct varied significantly. Based on the total sample (n = 237), 65% indicated that they did not comply with the speed limits at KNP, implying that they engaged in DLP. One-third (35%) of the respondents adhered to the code of conduct. Regarding the responsible use of water in the park, 65% of the respondents admitted to having used water unsparingly, showing that several visitors violated the code of conduct. Regarding feeding animals, 66% of the respondents claimed not to have fed animals. The finding indicated that visitors to the KNP adhered to the code of conduct. A common violation of the KNP visitor code of conduct among respondents was getting close to animals to take pictures. A total of 9 out of 10 visitors violated this code of conduct, reporting to have taken pictures close to animals.

Two-thirds (68%) of the respondents claimed to have complied with the code of conduct stipulating that ‘visitors should not get out of their cars to take pictures’. These findings contradict the results of Liang et al.’s (2020) study that used images on social media to examine misbehaviours at KNP. With a slight preponderance, 59% of the respondents confessed to failing to meet the gate closing time. Such a trend was also revealed in the use of electricity at the KNP, with 58% of the responses accepting to have not adhered to the use of water responsibly. Out of the 237 respondents, 60% did not comply with the code of conduct concerning waste management. Thus, a significant percentage of visitors to the park engaged in deviant leisure, as the results indicate that 3 out of 5 visitors inappropriately disposed of waste. Regarding noise at the KNP, more respondents (56%) complied with the code of conduct and did not engage in this DLP.

In addition, 64% of the respondents agreed to rush purposely to wildlife sights, despite knowing it would lead to overcrowding. Interestingly, most respondents admitted to having stopped in the middle of the road to observe wild animals. These results are not surprising, with studies conducted on open safari vehicles revealing traffic congestion in the areas where wild animals are located (Van der Merwe, 2023, 2024). Most respondents admitted driving off-road to see animals (71%), which is against the park code of conduct. Picking up objects to keep them as souvenirs, bringing prohibited animals, and harassing other visitors are acts of deviance considered uncommon by respondents. The majority (78%) of respondents claimed to have not picked objects at the KNP and hence adhered to the code of conduct. About 86% claimed to have not brought items not allowed in the park, while 90% of respondents claimed to have not harassed other visitors.

Above all, 49% of the respondents agreed to have engaged in bad behaviour (did not adhere to codes of conduct), and 51% conducted themselves as expected in the park (good behaviour). Table 2b shows the mean score of complaints (47.51), standard deviation (19.213), and standard error (1.248).

4.3. Visitor Self-Reporting on Reasons for Engaging in DLPs

Of the 15 codes of conduct used to measure DLPs, 9 reported by the managers as the most common among visitors were selected. Different reasons were suggested for different DLPs. Respondents were asked to indicate one or more reasons that might have influenced them to participate in DLPs (not complying). “No” indicated that the visitor did not feel the reason was valid, while “Yes” revealed that the visitor felt that it applied to them.

Table 3. Reasons for visitors engaging in selected deviant leisure practices (DLPs).

Reasons for Engaging in Deviant Leisure Practices (DLPs)	Frequency (N)		Percentage (%)
I drove above the speed limit because -----------------	No	Yes	No	Yes
An emergency is out of control.	157	80	66	34
To make time for the gate closing time (at the camp or park gates)	141	96	59	41
I got distracted or didn’t realise I was speeding.	141	96	59	41
I did not think it mattered.	211	26	89	11
There was no law enforcement around so I wouldn’t be caught.	227	10	96	4
I used water unsparingly at the KNP because -----------------
I am generally not mindful of such practices while on holiday.	198	39	84	16
I follow the same habits when I am at home.	184	53	78	22
I was not aware of the importance of conserving water in the park.	187	50	80	21
Lack of water-saving mechanism available.	113	124	48	52
I fed animals at KNP because ---------------------------------------
Most people around me were feeding them.	222	15	94	6
Food is valuable to animals and feeding is a sensible thing to do.	193	44	81	19
I felt personally obliged to feed animals as I feed them at home.	173	64	73	27
Food does not harm animals.	155	82	65	35
I got close to wild animals because -----------------------------------------------------
I have an emotional affinity or proximity towards them.	218	19	92	8
I wanted to create memorable experiences at KNP.	94	143	40	60
I was in the ‘holiday mode” and not mindful.	99	138	42	58
I stopped in the middle of the road and climbed out of the car sunroof because -
Circumstances are out of control (it is hot at KNP, so fresh air is needed).	150	87	63	37
I wanted to see the animal clearly and at close range.	80	157	34	66
I am used to my old habits of climbing out of my car sunroof.	186	51	78	22
I missed gate closing time (camp or park gates) because ------------------------
I was lost while driving in the park.	205	32	87	13
I did not think being late would affect anyone in the park.	207	30	87	13
The closing times are unrealistic as animals roam in the late hours.	205	32	87	13
I was hoping to find more animals	127	110	54	46
I got stuck in traffic at a wildlife sighting	181	56	76	24
I used electricity unsparingly because ------------------------------------------------
I had paid for it when I paid for this trip; hence, I was using my money.	219	18	92	8
I lacked awareness of the need to save electricity.	198	37	84	16
I am used to my old habits of not saving electricity.	194	43	82	18
A few gadgets in the park save electricity.	119	118	50	50
I littered because -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were few refuse bins in the areas I visited.	134	103	57	43
My close friends were littering.	181	56	76	24
There are people employed in the park to pick litter.	207	30	87	13
There is no incentive for not littering at KNP.	152	85	64	36
I have negative emotions about animals.	232	05	98	2
I got into an overcrowded area and made a loud noise because ---------------
It is pleasant to be overcrowded and make noise while on holidays	194	34	82	18
It was because of circumstances out of my control.	146	91	62	38
My friends and family members were making loud noises.	135	102	57	43

shows the frequency of “Yes” and “No”.

As indicated in Table 3, the reasons for respondents not adhering to codes of conduct at the KNP and engaging in DLPs vary depending on the type of code of conduct (DLPs) (Table 3). Concerning driving over the speed limit in the park, visitors to KNP were least likely to agree on their justifications. From the 5 proposed reasons, the most common reason among respondents was “the need to make time for the gate closing time (at the camp or park gates)” (41%) and “I got distracted or didn’t realise I was speeding” (41%). Respondents showed a significantly higher level of agreement with the “lack of water serving mechanism” (52%) as a reason causing them to use water irresponsibly at the KNP. The reasons “I am generally not mindful of such practices while on holiday” (22%) and “I follow the same habits when I am at home” (21%) received considerably higher percentages of respondents on the subject matter. A total of 35% of the respondents indicated they had fed animals as they felt it did not harm them. Most respondents agreed that “I wanted to create memorable experiences at the KNP” (60%) and “I was in ‘holiday mode’ and not mindful” (58%) were their silent reasons for getting close to animals. Concerning the missing gate closing time, some respondents indicated “I was hoping to find more animals” as their reason (46%). “I got stuck in traffic at a wildlife sighting” also appeared common among respondents (26%). Half of the respondents used “lack of electricity-saving gadgets” to justify their use of electricity unsparing at the KNP. On littering at the KNP, 43% indicated that their littering was instigated by a close friend who littered and 36% indicated having a negative affinity for animals as their reason. A total of 38% indicated getting into overcrowding and making noise due to the influence of their friends and family.

4.4. Fisher’s Exact Test for the Association Between Complaint and Non-Compliance

A Fisher’s Exact Test was used to determine whether or not there is a significant association between categorical variables. In this study, a Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted to determine the association between complaints (good and bad behaviour) and the reasons used by respondents to justify their failure to comply with specific codes of conduct.

Table 4. Fisher’s Exact Test on visitor reason for not adhering to different codes.

Deviant Leisure Practice and the Reasons		Good Behaviours	Bad Behaviours	Exact Sig. (1-Sided)	Exact Sig. (2-Sided)
I exceeded the speed limit in the pack due to ---------------		%	%	p-Value	p-Value
An emergency is out of control.	No	42	58	0.004	0.006 *
	Yes	61	39
To make time for the gate closing time (at the camp or park gates).	No	45	55	0.096	0.186
	Yes	54	46
I got distracted or didn’t realise I was speeding.	No	43	57	0.033	0.064
	Yes	56	44
I did not think it mattered.	No	46	54	0.007	0.012 *
	Yes	73	27
There was no law enforcement around so I wouldn’t be caught.	No	48	52	0.143	0.205
	Yes	70	30
I used water unsparingly at the KNP because -------------------------
I am generally not mindful of such practices while on holiday.	No	45	55	0.025	0.037 *
	Yes	64	36
I follow the same habits when I am at home.	No	47	53	0.193	0.351
	Yes	55	45
I was not aware of the importance of conserving water in the park.	No	48	52	0.469	0.874
	Yes	50	50
Lack of water-saving mechanism available.	No	42	58	0.028	0.051
	Yes	55	45
I fed animals at KNP because -----------------------------------------------
Most people around me were feeding them.	No	47	53	0.042	0.061
	Yes	73	27
Food is valuable to animals and feeding is a sensible thing to do.	No	46	54	0.042	0.067
	Yes	61	39
I felt personally obliged to feed animals as I feed them at home.	No	39	61	0.000	0.000 *
	Yes	73	27
Food does not harm animals.	No	37	63	0.000	0.000 *
	Yes	71	26
I got close to wild animals because ----------------------------------------
I have an emotional affinity or proximity towards them.	No	48	52	0.270	0.476
	Yes	58	42
I wanted to create memorable experiences at KNP.	No	35	65	0.001	0.001 *
	Yes	57	43
I was in the ‘holiday mode” and not mindful.	No	44	57	0.116	0.191
	Yes	52	48
I stopped in the middle of the road to observe animals because --
Circumstances out of control (it is hot at KNP and needs fresh air).	No	42	58	0.006	0.010 *
	Yes	60	40
I wanted to see the animal at close range.	No	43	57	0.118	0.217
	Yes	52	48
I am used to my old habits of climbing out of my car sunroof.	No	46	54	0.118	0.207
	Yes	57	43
I missed the gate closing time (camp or park gates) because
I was lost while driving in the park.	No	44	56	0.000	0.000 *
	Yes	78	22
I did not think being late would affect anyone in the park.	No	47	53	0.125	0.241
	Yes	60	40
The closing times are unrealistic as animals roam in the late hours.	No	49	51	0.349	0.575
	Yes	44	56
I was hoping to find more animals	No	44	56	0.091	0.154
	Yes	54	46
I got stuck in traffic at a wildlife sighting	No	44	56	0.012	0.021 *
	Yes	63	37
I used electricity unsparingly because -------------------------
I had paid for it when I paid for this trip, hence using my money.	No	47	53	0.193	0.193
	Yes	61	39
I lacked awareness of the need to save electricity.	No	46	54	0.105	0.165
	Yes	59	41
I am used to my old habits of not saving electricity.	No	46	54	0.110	0.180
	Yes	58	42
A few gadgets in the park save electricity.	No	39	61	0.002	0.003 *
	Yes	58	42
I littered because --------------------------------------------------
There were few refuse bins in the areas I visited.	No	41	59	0.006	0.009 *
	Yes	58	42
My close friends were littering.	No	44	56	0.005	0.009 *
	Yes	64	36
There are people employed in the park to pick litter.	No	48	52	0.005	0.009 *
	Yes	52	48
There is no incentive for not littering at KNP.	No	41	59	0.001	0.002 *
	Yes	62	38
I have negative emotions about animals.	No	49	51	0.528	1.000
	Yes	40	60
I got into an overcrowded area and made a loud noise because ---
It is pleasant to make noise while on holiday.	No	43	57	0.000	0.000 *
	Yes	74	26
It was because of circumstances out of my control.	No	40	60	0.001	0.002 *
	Yes	62	38
My friends and family members were making loud noises.	No	37	63	0.000	0.000 *
	Yes	64	36

* p = value less than 0.05.

below shows the results of the study.

Using a significance threshold of 0.05, variations were revealed in justifying the decision to exceed the speed limit at the KNP as indicated in Table 3. The variables “An emergency out of control” and “I did not think it mattered” revealed p-values of 0.006 and 0.02, which are less than the threshold of 0.05. Thus, the results show a statistically significant association. Apart from these, the other variables (reasons) had p-values higher than 0.05, meaning there is no statistically significant difference. “To make time for the gate closing time at the camp or park gates” (p-value = 0.186), “I got distracted or didn’t realise I was speeding” (p = 0.064), and “there was no law enforcement around so I wouldn’t be caught” (p = 0.205) had p-values higher than 0.05. Thus, evidence is absent for an association between respondents who complied and those who did not. Under the use of water unsparingly at the KNP, “I am generally not mindful of such practices while on holiday” revealed a p-value less than 0.05 (0.037), which indicates that there is a relationship between compliance and non-compliance. The reasons for feeding animals in the park, which were statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.05, were “I felt personally obliged to feed animals as I feed them at home (p-value = 0.000) and “Food does not harm animals” (p-value = 0.000).

Concerning respondents getting close to animals, the variable “I wanted to create a memorable experience” revealed a p-value of 0.001, which is less than 0.05. This indicates evidence of an association between respondents engaging in destructive/unacceptable behaviour and engaging in good behaviour. Another association was revealed in the variable “stopping in the middle of the road to observe animals”. The reason “circumstances out of control” revealed a p-value of 0.001, less than 0.05. Under the reasons why respondents missed the gate closing time, the variables “I was lost while driving in the park” and “I got stuck in traffic at a wildlife sighting” generated p = values of 0.000 and 0.021, respectively. The p-values are less than 0.05, reflecting a significant association. The availability of fewer gadgets to save electricity regarding the use of electricity irresponsibly revealed a p-value of 0.002, which is less than 0.05. Regarding littering and overcrowding, most reasons recorded p = values less than 0.005, reflecting a strong association of variables. This also applied to why respondents got into an overcrowded area and made a loud noise at the KNP, where all the reasons revealed p-values of less than 0.005.

5. Discussions and Recommendations

KNP is one of the must-see national parks in South Africa. The park preserves some of the most extensive tourism resources, attracting over a million visitors annually. Many visitors and their associated practices in the park are a cause of concern due to practices that do not align with the visitor codes of conduct. Anecdotal information suggests that visitors are not adhering to the codes of conduct in the park, as such visitors are known to overspeed, make a loud noise, feed animals, get close to animals, litter, and drive off the roads. Most of these DLPs are against the codes of conduct and are detrimental to the sustainability of tourism resources in the park.

Socio-demographic findings revealed that more than half of the respondents were domestic visitors; thus, there is a need to intensify education and awareness among domestic visitors. Regarding age, the KNP is a favourable destination for the “active population”, probably because of the activities offered. Most of the respondents travelled with their family members, partners, or friends. Most people visiting the KNP are employed.

Out of the 15 visitor codes of conduct used to determine adherence/compliance and deviance at the KNP, the respondents revealed that they did not adhere to 9. Such a high number indicates that visitors engage in DLPs at the KNP. Most visitors did not adhere to the following codes of conduct: “not getting close to animals taking pictures”, followed by “not stopping in the middle of the road to observe wild animals in the park”. These practices are highlighted in other previous studies by Liang et al. (2020) and (Van der Merwe, 2023, 2024). Most respondents claimed to have taken pictures close to dangerous wild animals to create memorable experiences and “instagrammable” moments. These DLPs align with the moral disengagement theory alluded to by Jørgensen and Reichenberger (2023), and also provide its application in a tourism context. In addition, the findings of this study also support Jørgensen and Reichenberger’s (2023) perspective of a continuum of DLPs; in our case, respondent actions highlighted a displacement of responsibility, a diffusion of responsibility, and most evidently, a distortion of consequences. To prevent visitors from disobeying codes of conduct and engaging in DLPs, the study recommends that the KNP authorities formulate strategies to enforce the law. The park managers and other responsible stakeholders should also educate visitors regarding the dangers of getting close to wild animals. More importantly, there is a need to clarify some of the codes of conduct to avoid subjectivism. It is suggested that more clarity be provided to visitors through intensive codes of conduct awareness. For instance, visitors are advised not to get close to dangerous animals, but the distance from an animal is not stipulated. This will enable visitors to interpret the code of conduct better. Another grey area is that of noise. The code of conduct might be confusing as what is noise to one person might not be perceived as noise by someone else, depending on the situation. The study recommends the implementation of penalties for offenders. In an era of technology, devices should be inserted in the park to pick up those incidents and those who commit them.

In light of the reason for engaging in deviant leisure practices, a summary of the most and the least frequent reasons is drawn in the matrix grid as shown in

Table 5. Reasons for participating in deviant leisure practices matrix grid.

Reasons for Participating in Deviant Leisure	Most Frequent Reasons	Moderate Reasons	Least Frequent Reasons
I drove above the speed limit because -----------------	To make time for the gate closing time (at the camp or park gates)	An emergency is out of control.	There was no law enforcement around so I wouldn’t be caught.
I used water unsparingly at the KNP because -----------------	Lack of water-saving mechanism available.	I was not aware of the importance of conserving water.	I am generally not mindful of such practices while on holiday.
I fed animals at KNP because ---------------------------------------	Food does not harm animals.	I felt personally obliged to feed animals as I feed them at home.	Most people around me were feeding them.
I got close to wild animals because -----------------------	I wanted to create memorable experiences	I was in the ‘holiday mode’ and not mindful.	I have an emotional affinity or proximity towards them.
I stopped in the middle of the road and climbed out of the car sunroof because	I wanted to see the animal clearly and at close range.	Circumstances are out of control (it is hot at KNP, so fresh air is needed).	I am used to my old habits of climbing out of my car sunroof.
I missed gate closing time because ---------	I was hoping to find more animals.	I got stuck in traffic at a wildlife sighting.	I was lost while driving in the park.
I used electricity unsparingly because --------------------------------	A few gadgets in the park save electricity.	I am used to my old habits of not saving electricity.	I had paid for it when I paid for this trip; hence, I was using my money.
I littered because -----------------------------------------	There were few refuse bins in the areas I visited.	There is no incentive for not littering at KNP.	I have negative emotions about animals.
I got into an overcrowded area and made a loud noise because ---------------	My friends and family members were making loud noises.	It was because of circumstances out of my control.	It is pleasant to be overcrowded and make noise while on holidays.

.

While the study results revealed marginal differences between adherence and non-adherence (51% and 49%), it is the prerogative of the management to decide if attention is required. However, one might pose an argument based on the broken window theory, which suggests that if bad things are left unsolved in the environment, they will attract more and more problems. A broken window is just the first step and other evidence of decay will gradually appear. If there is a cigarette butt somewhere, slowly there will be more cigarette butts in the area. In the study context, if fewer visitors do not adhere to the codes of conduct and engage in DLPs, others will not take long to copy their behaviour. The signs of littering in scenic areas are more likely to induce more littering and less environmentally responsible behaviour. A marginal difference may suddenly become big, based on others not taking too long to copy the negative behaviour. Therefore, this study recommends that the KNP authorities increase law enforcement in the park to lessen visitor participation in DLPs that violate the codes of conduct in the park.

This study is the first to theorise and contextualise DLPs. Unlike previous studies documenting DLPs independently, this study explored different DLPs. The study theoretically contributes to knowledge by exploring criminology in tourism through a deviant leisure framework. To this end, we investigated different DLPs and their causes at the KNP. This study is the first to measure DLPs at the KNP using the codes of conduct.

6. Study Limitations

Like any research, this study has some limitations. Firstly, the study used self-reported questionnaires to investigate visitor adherence to the codes of conduct to establish DLP at the KNP. In studies of this nature where respondents report on issues of violation, respondents may exaggerate or underreport compliance. This might have happened in this study despite the researcher’s use of a 5-point Likert scale to report dichotomous answers. Another limitation of the study was that the results did not indicate the extent of adherence or non-adherence. Instead, the study revealed the percentage of the participants but did not show the adversity of their deviance. The research was also based on the southern part of the KNP where situational factors might differ from other parts of the park. Lastly, the study utilised a quantitative approach; future research using qualitative research would provide better insight into adherence and DLP at KNP.