Frogs have been under severe pressure since the industrial revolution, with almost a third of the more than 7000 known amphibian species listed as threatened by the IUCN (Amphibiaweb 2017; Bishop et al. 2012; IUCN 2017). According to the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) (2018, 2021), South Africa has 135 frog species, of which 30% are considered threatened by the IUCN. The EWT (2021) is currently running projects across three provinces (Western Cape, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal) to protect the nine most endangered frog species of South Africa. An entire class of vertebrates face a mass extinction spasm, and conservation actions are needed to save them. The first and primary threats to frogs are invasive species, problematic species and gene composition, affecting 37% of all South African frog species. This approximation is noticeably higher than the global average of 15.7% (Angulo, Hoffmann & Measey 2011). The second major threat to South African species is biological resource usage (46%), whereas pollution, together with residential and commercial development, are listed as the third threat, affecting 14% of frogs, which is almost a third of South African frog species (Angulo et al. 2011; EWT 2021; Harrison et al. 2000). The fourth factor affecting nearly 26% of all South African frog species comprises several natural system modification processes (fire, water quality and weather) (EWT 2018). Almost 50% of all frog species in South Africa are affected by agriculture and aquaculture, which result in habitat loss (Angulo et al. 2011). It is imperative to protect frogs because of the ecological function they perform (EWT 2018). Frogs help control insect populations, keep waterways clear and serve as a food source in ecosystems (Angulo et al. 2011; Du Preez & Carruthers 2017; West 2018). To minimise the existing amphibian extinction crisis, the global community must respond with an innovative and multidisciplinary approach to protect amphibians at an unprecedented scale (Angulo et al. 2011; Mittermeier, Gascon & Andreone 2008).

Unfortunately, the conservation of frogs does not receive the same attention from the public and conservation authorities as does the conservation of more charismatic endangered species such as rhinos (Estren 2012). These attitudes are ascribed mainly to a lack of knowledge about frogs and to the negative connotations of most native folklore and mythology about frogs (Ceriaco 2012). The question can be asked whether the public might become more involved in the conservation of frogs once it is emphasised that they are threatened and need urgent conservation action. Frogging tourism can be a solution to this problem. With its thriving ecotourism industry and diverse environment, South Africa and its provincial and national parks provide the ideal opportunity to study the potential of frogs within ecotourism. By involving tourists in the conservation and education of frogs, it is vital to understand the market of ecotourism and the needs of tourists properly. Such information can be used to better plan and manage this supplemental frog conservation approach, thus contributing to its sustainability (Angulo et al. 2011; Mittermeier et al. 2008).

South African National Parks cover a wide area across South Africa (SANParks 2020) and provide the ideal destination for frogging activities, as numerous endangered and endemic frog species occur within these national parks (eds. Minter et al. 2004). The Western Cape hosts the highest number of endemic species in South Africa (Du Preez & Carruthers 2017; eds. Minter et al. 2004), for example, the strawberry rain frog (Breviceps acutirostris), Cape Mountain rain frog (Breviceps montanus), endangered Knysna leaf-folding frog (Afrixalus knysnae), near-threatened Cape Peninsula moss frog (Arthroleptella lightfooti) and the critically endangered Table Mountain ghost frog (Heleophryne rosei); some of these species are found within national parks situated in the Western Cape. The Kruger National Park, which is the most preferred park by national and international tourists (Van der Merwe & Saayman 2008), hosts a total of 28 known frog species (Du Preez & Carruthers 2017; eds. Minter et al. 2004), for example, the charismatic golden leaf-folding frog (Afrixalus aureus), water lily frog (Hyperolius pusillus) and banded rubber frog (Phrynomantis bifasciatus). With their unique colours and features, these species will pose great photographic opportunities for ecotourists.

Tourists constantly seek unique experiences, especially activities that bring them close to nature. Frogging is a fun and easy family or individual activity that can aid in the protection of wetland habitats and the species found within these ecosystems (NatureWatch 2022). Tourists will learn more about these beautiful creatures’ lifestyles, calls and physical features by participating in frogging activities.

A desktop study was conducted to determine the size and scope of frogging tourism, specifically in South Africa. Table 1 summarises the eight frog-related tourism activities found during the study. Within South Africa, none of these frogging destinations is found within any of the South African National Parks. Currently, there are no known frogging activities hosted by national parks or at least listed on their websites as an activity (SANParks 2021). The closest to this is the privately owned Jock Safari Lodge next to the Kruger National Park (South African Lodges.com 2022). Out of the eight identified destinations listed in Table 1, two are managed by national nonprofit conservation organisations of South Africa (i.e. Birdlife South Africa and the Endangered Wildlife Trust), one by a local nonprofit conservation organisation (Matotoland Eco-Tourism Association), two by private nonprofit conservation organisations, two by public tour operators and one by the owners of the destination. This indicates a lack of national parks to develop frogging tourism activities that can conserve frogs in South Africa.

For this research, a quantitative research approach was followed, namely nonprobability sampling, to which convenience sampling was applied (Mathers, Fox & Hunn 2007; Patel 2009). The research sample population was tourists who had previously visited South African National Parks. Permission was obtained from the SANParks research office to conduct the investigation. The consent letter accompanying the questionnaire clearly stated that respondents should have visited South African National Parks in the past to participate in the research. The questionnaire was hosted on the South African National Parks website via a link to Google Forms. The questionnaire was accessible to the public for six weeks. The data were collected using Google Forms, which offered live and instant access to the feedback. For the period, 356 (n) completed questionnaires were received back.

The web-based questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society (TREES) of the NWU, SANParks (2016a) and the African Amphibian Research Group of the NWU, in line with a study performed by Fricker and Schonlau (2002). The questions covered various aspects of frog conservation and ecotourism to generate information on how tourists feel about participating in frog-related activities. The focus of this questionnaire was on the demographic profile of frogging tourists, motivations for frogging, views on the protection and conservation of frogs and current frog identification and call identification knowledge. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure the degree to which tourists are aware of frog conservation, their perception of frogs and frog conservation, participation in frog-related ecotourism activities and their main reasons for visiting a destination.

The data received from the questionnaires were captured in Google Forms and exported to a Microsoft Excel file format for further use and interpretation (Factor Analysis). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test to measure if the data from the questionnaires were suited for factor analysis (Glen 2016). SPSS 24 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used to analyse the data.

Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of NWU, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences (reference numbers EMS2016/11/04-0213 and EMS2016/11/04-0214 [online]).

The results (Table 2) indicate that the respondents were mainly female (56%), English-speaking, married and between the ages of 25 and 34 years (26%). The Gauteng province in South Africa was their main province of residence (41%). The most significant percentage (42%) of the respondents had a degree or diploma and were employed (54%), earning a salary higher than R552 001 per annum (32%). Most respondents were South African citizens, with only 5% being international. The profile obtained from this research on travellers to national parks in South Africa is similar to previous research conducted in national parks by Engelbrecht (2011), Kruger et al. (2018), Mouton (2009) and Van Tonder (2012), who found that visitors to national parks are mostly married, English-speaking and residing predominantly in Gauteng, with an average age of 45 years and a university or secondary qualification.

In this section, respondents were asked to respond to questions on when they were first exposed to nature-based tourism, the feelings they experienced during their first frog encounter (if they had one), their preference when visiting a nature-based destination and their preferred holiday activity to participate in. These questions are needed to build the profile of potential frogging tourists to South African National Parks.

Most respondents (56%) started visiting nature-based destinations from the age of three; only 12% of the respondents indicated that they were exposed to natural areas for the first time as an adult (older than 20 years).

Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (where ‘1’ = strongly disagree and ‘5’ = strongly agree) to what extent they agreed with a list of frog protection statements (Figure 1). The following three statements obtained the highest values: frogs play an important role in nature (4.75); we must protect frogs and conserve their habitats (4.83); and future generations and your children will benefit if frogs are protected (4.68). Most of the respondents were aware that frogs play an important role in nature, that they should be conserved and that people should be educated about frogs. It is thus imperative to send out the message that the global community should get involved with the conservation of frogs and that it is not only the responsibility of the research and conservation community.

The following results discuss the participants’ awareness and interest regarding frogs and participating in frog-related tourism activities (Figure 2). Questions were asked to determine whether the participants felt that frogging activities could be offered at nature-based destinations such as national parks. Again, respondents had to rate their response on a five-point Likert scale (where ‘1’ = not at all and ‘5’ = a great deal). Looking at the mean values of each question, the answers to the following five questions stood out:

The results show that most respondents are aware that several frog species are endangered and that frog-related tourism activities can benefit from their conservation. What also stood out is that most respondents find frogs interesting, have been educated about frogs and would like to partake in frog-related activities.

When asked if respondents would travel to specific destinations for specific frogging activities, almost half of the respondents were unsure (54%) and 31% stated that they would. A significant percentage of respondents indicated that they would be willing to travel regionally (27%) to visit a frog-related tourism destination, whereas 22% would only travel locally. A total of 21% indicated that they would be willing to travel to neighbouring provinces.

The following section discusses the results of the travel motives of the respondents of this research. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted with the KMO test to measure if the data from the questionnaires were suited for factor analysis (Glen 2016). The Cronbach’s alpha score for the KMO tests was between 0.92 and 0.7 for the various factors, which is acceptable (Field 2006; Glen 2016). The 22 constructs delivered (Table 3) five factors: social aspects, relaxation, biodiversity, conservation and new experiences.

Inter-item correlations were also calculated and provided the following results (Table 3): the total variance declared was above 50%, which shows an appropriate fit of the selected components (Pietersen & Maree 2007). The mean value of each factor was calculated as the average of all items contributing to a specific factor to interpret the mean scores of the original five-point Likert scale and ranged from 3.13 to 4.26. Relaxation (Factor 2) and conservation (Factor 4) are regarded as the most important travel motives, having a mean value of 4.21 (relaxation) and 4.26 (conservation) and a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.92 (relaxation) and 0.87 (conservation). The factors are discussed next.

Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (where ‘1’ = not at all and ‘5’ = a great deal) to what extent they would participate in specific frog-related activities (Table 4). The results show that 50% of participants were interested in doing night walks during which they could look for and listen to frogs, and 40% of participants were interested in doing a frog identification-related activity. The participants were not very keen on doing frog-related activities where entertainment for children was included or where they must watch educational films. Their additional suggestions for activities included assisting with the re-establishment of frogs in nature and combining frogging trips with other nocturnal animal expeditions. The activities that obtained the highest mean values out of five are presented in the following table.