Visitor satisfaction with facilities

Facilities provided for visitors in Kinabalu Park include accommodation, restaurants and souvenir shopping facilities, as well as walkways, toilets, sitting areas and shelters.

There is also a sport complex in the park, which, however, is mainly used by Sabah Parks staff and the local population. There is also a library located at the R&E division of Sabah Parks administration building in Park HQ. The library is used by the park personnel and researchers and is not open to the public.

In Park HQ, in 2005 the accommodation facilities consisted of 2 blocks of hostels and 30 lodges. The room rates for lodges ranged from RM 92 to RM 1,150, while RM 12 per bed was charged in the hostel (Figure 5.1). These facilities accommodated up to 232 guests per night. In Poring Hot Spring, there were 4 units of lodges and 2 blocks of hostels with a total capacity of 82 guests per night. The room rates for the lodges ranged from RM 92 to RM 288 while a hostel bed cost RM 12.

There was also a camping ground that accommodated up to 100 persons. Camping space cost RM 6 per person.

Figure 5.1 Accommodation facilities in Park HQ: lodge (left) and hostel (right) In Mesilau Nature Resort, resort lodges and hostels catered for 220 persons a night, while at Laban Rata, there were 160 dormitory beds located in 3 huts and a rest house. In addition, 2 lodges accommodated 6 persons. While the lodges at Park HQ and Mesilau Nature Resort were heated, the facilities in the rest house/hostel were basic. At Laban Rata, the rest house with 76 beds and two lodges were heated. In Mesilau, the room rates ranged from RM 350 to RM 400, while the hostel beds cost RM 30 per bed, and in Laban Rata RM 17 per bed for a non-heated room and RM 34 per bed for a heated room. Lodges cost between RM 115 and RM 230 (SSL 2006).

Enhancing visitor satisfaction

A restaurant serving both western and local food was located at Laban Rata, Poring Hot Spring and Mesilau Nature Resort, and 2 restaurants at Park HQ. In addition, there was a souvenir shop at each station.

5.2.2 Level of visitor satisfaction with facilities

Accommodation facilities were evaluated in terms of pricing and quality. The survey results indicate that 72% of the respondents stayed in the park for one night or more.

The main reason was convenience. Furthermore, the nearest accommodation available located 150 m outside the park was a bed and breakfast type.

Overall, the satisfaction level among the visitors to Kinabalu Park with the quality of the accommodation facilities was above average: 30.1% of the respondents rated the quality of accommodation as expected, 44.5% as satisfying and 16.8% as most satisfying. Only 8.6% of the respondents rated the quality of the accommodation facilities as below average. The results are similar to the resort guests’ feedback provided by SSL, who provided feedback forms in each accommodation unit to obtain the comments from its guests for quality control. According to this feedback, at least 80% of the respondents rated their overall stay as satisfactory. The reasons for dissatisfaction included: water heater was not working, changing room and toilets were not clean and poorly maintained, etc. Despite these complaints, repeat visitors remarked on the significant improvements in the accommodation facilities after the privatization of accommodation facilities.

In terms of accommodation types, hostels were the top choices among the visitors who stayed overnight, mainly due to budget considerations: 13.8% stayed in lodges and 86.2% stayed in hostels. There was no significant difference in satisfaction level between lodges and hostels, but the level of satisfaction among the respondents in lodges was slightly higher (Figure 5.2).

Another reason why many visitors preferred to stay in the park was that the pricing was considered acceptable. The survey results show that the majority of the respondents stated that the pricing for the accommodation facilities in Kinabalu Park was reasonable: 41.6% rated the prices as satisfying, 13% were most satisfied, and 30.7% rated the prices as expected. Only 14.7% rated the accommodation pricing as

disappointing and most disappointing. There was also only a slight difference between the two accommodation types (Figure 5.3).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

most disappointing

disappointing as expected satisfying most satisfying Satisfaction level

% of respondents

lodges hostels

Figure 5.2 Satisfaction according to accommodation types in Kinabalu Park

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

most disappointing

disappointing as expected satisfying most satisfying

Satisfaction level

% of respondents

lodges hostels

Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with pricing according to accommodation types in Kinabalu Park

Enhancing visitor satisfaction

The eating facilities in Kinabalu Park used by 61.4% of the visitors were evaluated in terms of meal quality and price. The survey results reveal that the quality of meals was generally rated as expected by the respondents (67.2%), while 21.9% were disappointed with the quality, and 10.9% rated it as satisfying. In terms of pricing, 44%

of the respondents rated the meal prices as expected and 40.5% as disappointing and most disappointing, 14.4% as satisfying and 1% as most satisfying (Figure 5.4).

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

most disappointing

disappointing as expected satisfying most satisfying

Satisfaction level

% of respondents

Meal quality Meal price

Figure 5.4 Satisfaction with meal quality and prices in Kinabalu Park

The comparison of meal prices in the park and outside the park was one of the main reasons that many of the respondents rated the meal prices in Kinabalu Park as relatively low. Unlike the accommodation facilities located outside the park, which are located at least 150 m away from the Park HQ entrance, there is restaurant right outside Park HQ, the Bayu Restaurant. Therefore, the factor of convenience and distance was not taken into consideration in the rating of meal prices. According to the respondents at Park HQ, the meal price in the park was much higher than that charged in Bayu Restaurant, i.e., at least two to three times higher. Similarly, respondents at Poring Hot Spring stated that the quality of the meal offered in the park was better than that

available outside the entrance of Poring Hot Spring, but that the prices were much too high, especially for the domestic visitors.

Three souvenir shops were operated by SSL in Kinabalu Park. The survey results reveal that the pricing of souvenirs was generally rated as expected (65.9%).

Nevertheless, 20.1% of the respondents rated it as disappointing, while 13.9% as satisfying. The respondents who rated the pricing of souvenirs as expected, also stated that they had expected Kinabalu Park to sell souvenirs at a higher price than the shops or stalls outside the park or in the capital city due to its relatively remote location and also the fact that it is a famous tourist destination. Some visitors who rated prices as satisfying were also of the opinion that the prices were lower than they had expected.

Nevertheless, others were disappointed with the souvenir prices, which were higher than they had expected. This was the case with the local visitors, where 31.9% rated pricing as disappointing compared to 3.6% of the foreign visitors. This is possibly related to low income level of these visitors. The majority of the foreign visitors (75%) earned USD 12,000-95,999, while the local visitors (72%) earned between USD 6,000 and USD 59,999.

Public facilities in the park, i.e., toilets, walkways, shelters and sitting areas, were rated by the majority of the respondents as expected (63.4%), 23.4% as disappointing and 13.2% as satisfying. Where the public facilities were rated as expected, the rating was based on the consideration that Kinabalu Park is located in a developing country and relatively remote. Therefore, the visitors only expected basic, practical and functional facilities, a sufficient number of facilities to cater for the demand, and a moderate hygiene level. Unfortunately, these expectations were not fully met in the park as revealed through the complaints made, which included inadequate number of shelters and sitting areas as well as cleanliness problems, poor up-keep of toilets, and water supply shortage in the toilets.

5.3 Visitor satisfaction with activities