• “It is important to stress that we cannot afford to lose international visitors at this point, nor can we risk creating confusion around one of our flagship attractions,” says tourism expert.
• “Renaming would almost certainly lead to short-term brand loss, visitor uncertainty, and broader economic costs across the tourism sector.”
• “Kruger is arguably one of the most famous wildlife brands in the world. It is mentioned alongside names such as the Serengeti and Yellowstone.”
Renaming the Kruger National Park will have severe consequences for South Africa’s tourism sector, as the park is synonymous with the country’s tourism offering and, as a brand, its name holds immense value both locally and abroad.
This is according to Prof Elmarie Slabbert, director of the research unit Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society (TREES) at the North-West University (NWU), who warns that the decision should be taken with great care, as it will have far-reaching implications.
On Tuesday, 23 September, the Mpumalanga legislature adopted a motion to rename the Kruger National Park to Skukuza National Park, although the renaming has not yet been finalised.
“Kruger is arguably one of the most famous wildlife brands in the world. It is mentioned alongside names such as the Serengeti and Yellowstone, which highlights its immense brand value and global recognition among international visitors and tourists. Renaming it would, without doubt, dilute that value in the short to medium term, as it would take considerable time for a new name to gain the same level of international recognition,” she explains.
“The change would also bring significant financial implications. A comprehensive rebranding campaign would be required, including international marketing, digital platforms, advertising, and updates for tour operators. This ripple effect would not only impact the park itself but also everyone who promotes it, both locally and globally. The cost would be substantial, and it could take years for a new identity to become established worldwide.
“Of course, Skukuza National Park might resonate more strongly with local communities, and I acknowledge that this is an important consideration. However, we are also likely to see resistance from South Africans and international supporters who view Kruger as a globally recognised symbol of South African tourism.”
Tourism contributes about 8.8% to South Africa’s GDP – 9.5% before the pandemic – and supports nearly 1.7 million jobs. It remains one of the driving forces behind the country’s struggling economy.
Slabbert continues: “It is important to stress that we cannot afford to lose international visitors at this point, nor can we risk creating confusion around one of our flagship attractions. Renaming would almost certainly lead to short-term brand loss, visitor uncertainty, and broader economic costs across the tourism sector.
“In the longer term, such a change could offer opportunities for greater cultural inclusivity and repositioning. Yet, the question remains whether now is the right time to pursue this, especially given that South Africa’s international tourist numbers have not yet returned to pre-COVID levels.”
