an analysis of restaurants and shops in south african national parks
TRANSCRIPT
i
AN ANALYSIS OF RESTAURANTS
AND SHOPS IN SOUTH AFRICAN
NATIONAL PARKS: VISITORS’ PERSPECTIVE
North-West University
Potchefstroom Campus
Private Bag X6001
POTCHEFSTROOM
2520
Tel +27 18 299 1810 Fax +27 18 299 4140
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr Martinette Kruger & Prof Melville Saayman
Copyright © 2011 TREES
ii
The authors would like to thank the following people and institutions:
1. Mr James Daniels from SANPARKS for the initiative and awarding TREES the
research project.
2. All the visitors for completing the questionnaires.
3. Mrs Cecile van Zyl for the language editing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 1
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1
4. RESULTS 2
SECTION A: Personal information and preferences when visiting National Parks 2
4.1 Gender 2
4.2 Year born 2
4.3 Home language 3
4.4 Marital status 4
4.5 Province of origin 4
4.6 Highest level of education 5
4.7 Wild Card holder 5
4.8 Gross annual income 6
4.9 Catering preferences 6
4.10 Purchasing of provisions 7
4.11 Use of park restaurants 7
4.12 Cultural products in National Parks 8
4.13 Accommodation at a B&B rate 8
SECTION B: The introduction of brands in National Parks 9
4.14 The introduction of a restaurant brand 9
4.15 The introduction of a take-away brand 9
4.16 Preferred brands 10
4.17 The importance of dining areas in National Parks 12
SECTION C: The following sections refer to the shops in National Parks and what
products need to be offered
13
4.18 Products to be offered in National Park shops 13
4.19 Expensiveness of shops at specific National Parks 14
4.20 Internet services in National Parks 15
iv
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
5.1 Conclusions 16
5.2 Recommendations 19
v
4. RESULTS 2
SECTION A: Personal information and preferences when visiting National Parks 2
Figure 4.1 Gender 2
Figure 4.2 Year born 3
Figure 4.3 Home language 3
Figure 4.4 Marital status 4
Figure 4.5 Highest level of education 5
Figure 4.6 Wild Card holder 5
Figure 4.7 Catering preferences 6
Figure 4.8 Purchasing of provisions 8
Figure 4.9 Use of park restaurants 8
Figure 4.10 Internet services at National Parks 15
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
4. RESULTS 2
SECTION A: Personal information and preferences when visiting National Parks 2
Table 4.1 Province of origin 4
Table 4.2 Gross annual income 6
Table 4.3 Purchasing of provisions 7
Table 4.4 Use of park restaurants 7
Table 4.5 The introduction of a restaurant brand 9
Table 4.6 The introduction of a take-away brand 9
Table 4.7 Preferred brands 11
Table 4.8 Brands disliked by respondents 11
Table 4.9 The importance of dining areas in National Parks 12
Table 4.10 Products to be offered in National Park shops 13
Table 4.11 Expensiveness of shops at specific National Parks 15
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
Table 5.1 Summary of results 16
LIST OF TABLES
1
1. INTRODUCTION
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
SANParks has restaurants operational in the majority of camps in National Parks.
However, feedback from SANParks’ customers has indicated that the dining product
offered in the restaurants and at the take-away facilities is at best “average” and in many
instances “poor”. SANParks is of the view that the introduction of South African
Restaurant Brands through a franchise model will resolve the problems that are currently
experienced at the restaurants ensuring consistency, value for money, product and pricing
options, quality of offering and high service standards. Therefore, the aim of this research
was to determine visitors to South African National Parks’ opinions, needs and
preferences regarding the introduction of brands and franchises in National Parks.
This research had the following primary aims:
Firstly, to determine visitors’ perspectives regarding SANParks’ restaurants and shops;
and
Secondly, to determine visitors’ preferences and opinions regarding the introduction of
restaurant and shop brands and franchises.
The questionnaire used in the survey was developed by TREES in collaboration with
SANParks and specifically Mr James Daniels and his colleagues. The questionnaire was
mailed via and posted on the website of South African National Parks from 7 to 9
November 2011. Visitors to National Parks had the opportunity to participate in the survey
by completing an online questionnaire. Respondents had the opportunity to win a two-
night mid-week stay for two people at any national park of their choice if they completed a
questionnaire. A total of 5 464 usable questionnaires were received after the allowed
period, and were used for the statistical analysis. The results of the survey will be
discussed next.
2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
2
4.1 GENDER
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Male Female
60%
40%
Figure 4.1: Gender
As shown in Figure 4.1, 60% of the respondents who participated in the survey were male,
while 40% were female.
4.2 YEAR BORN
According to Figure 4.2, the majority of respondents were born between 1952 and 1961
(29%), followed by respondents born between 1962 and 1971 (25%) and between 1942
and 1951 (22%). Younger respondents born between 1972 and 1981 accounted for 14%
of the respondents, while 6% of the respondents were born before or in 1941 and only 4%
were born between 1982 and 1991. The average age of respondents was between 50 and
59 years. It is clear from the results that significantly more older visitors participated in the
survey, although this is confirmed by research conducted by the Institute for Tourism and
Leisure Studies, or TREES as it is currently known.
SECTION A Personal information and preferences when visiting National Parks
4. RESULTS
3
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Before or in 1941
1942‐1951
1952‐1961
1962‐1971
1972‐1981
1982‐1991
1992‐2001
After 2001
6%22%
29%
25%
14%
4%
0%
0%
Figure 4.2: Year born
4.3 HOME LANGUAGE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Afrikaans English German French Other
43%48%
4%1%
4%
Figure 4.3: Home language
The majority of respondents who participated in the survey were either English- (48%) or
Afrikaans speaking (43%) (Figure 4.3). Only 4% respectively spoke German or other
languages, while 1% indicated that French was their home language.
4
4.4 MARITAL STATUS
7%
80%
7%4% 2%
SingleMarriedLiving togetherDivorcedWidow/er
Figure 4.4: Marital status
Figure 4.4 indicates that the majority of respondents were married (80%), while 7% were
respectively single or living together. Four percent (4%) was divorced and 2% widowed.
4.5 PROVINCE OF ORIGIN
Table 4.1: Province of residence
Forty-two percent (42%) of the respondents originated from Gauteng, with the Western
Cape providing the second highest number of respondents (18%) (see Table 4.4). Twelve
percent (12%) of the respondents were foreign respondents from Australia, the
Netherlands, Germany, the UK, USA, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, France,
Belgium, Mexico, Israel and Brazil. With regard to participation by the other seven South
African provinces, 7% of the respondents were from Mpumalanga, 5% respectively from
the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo, 3% from the Free State, 2% from the
North West and only 1% from the Northern Cape. Again, these results confirm former
PROVINCE PERCENTAGE
Gauteng 42%
Western Cape 18%
Eastern Cape 5%
North West 2%
Mpumalanga 7%
Northern Cape 1%
KwaZulu-Natal 5%
Limpopo 5%
Free State 3%
Outside RSA borders 12%
5
research conducted in South African National Parks by the Institute for Tourism and
Leisure Studies.
4.6 HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Figure 4.5 indicates that 78% of the respondents were well educated, with a diploma
(27%), a degree (21%), a master’s degree (13%), an honours degree (12%) and a
doctorate (5%). Seventeen percent (17%) of the respondents had matric as their highest
level of education, while 3% had another form of qualification than the ones listed and 2%
were pre-matric.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Pre‐matric
Matric
Diploma
Degree
Honours degree
Masters degree
Doctorate degree
Other
2% 17%
27%
21%
12%
13%
5%
3%
Figure 4.5: Highest level of education
4.7 WILD CARD HOLDER
67%
33%
Yes No
Figure 4.6: Wild Card holder
6
As shown in Figure 4.6, the majority of respondents were Wild Card holders (67%), while
33% were not.
4.8 GROSS ANNUAL INCOME
Table 4.2 indicates that 22% of the respondents did not like to disclose their income.
Twenty-one percent (21%) indicated that their annual gross income is more than R552
001, followed by respondents who earn between R140 001 and R221 000, between R221
001 and R305 000 and between R305 001 and R431 000 (12% each). Eleven percent
(11%) of the respondents indicated that they earn between R20 001 and R140 000, while
7% earn between R431 000 and R552 000 and only 3% earn less than R20 000.
Respondents’ average gross annual income is between R305 001 and R431 000.
Table 4.2: Gross annual income
4.9 CATERING PREFERENCES
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Camping Self‐catering chalet
Dine out and self‐catering
Bed & Breakfast Dinner, Bed & Breakfast
27%
51%
17%
2% 3%
Figure 4.7: Catering preferences
GROSS ANNUAL INCOME PERCENTAGE
Less than R20 000 3%
R20 001-R140 000 11%
R140 001-R221 000 12%
R221 001-R305 000 12%
R305 001-R431 000 12%
R431 001-R552 000 7%
More than R552 001 21%
I would not like to disclose my income 22%
7
According to Figure 4.7, more than half of the respondents prefer self-catering chalets
(51%), followed by camping (27%) and a combination of dining out and self-catering
(17%). Three percent (3%) indicated that they prefer the combination of dinner and bed-
and-breakfast, while 2% prefer bed-and-breakfast establishments. 4.10 PURCHASING OF PROVISIONS
With regard to the purchasing of provisions (groceries) when visiting National Parks, the
majority of respondents indicated that they either purchase some items in the Park at Park
shops (42%) or at supermakets at home (33%) (Table 4.3). Fifteen percent (15%)
indicated that they purchase groceries at supermarkets en route to the Park, while 6%
indicated that they purchased some items in towns next to the Park and only 4% indicated
that they purchase all items in the Park.
Table 4.3: Purchasing of provisions
4.11 USE OF PARK RESTAURANTS
As indicated in Table 4.4, 43% of the respondents indicated that they use the Park
restaurants at least once per visit. This was followed by respondents who indicated that
they use the Park restaurants on more than one occasion during their visit (34%).
Thirteen percent (13%) indicated that they do not make use of the restaurants during their
visit to National Parks, while 9% only make use of the take-away section and not the
restaurant. Therefore, most people make use of Park restaurants. Table 4.4: Use of Park restaurants
PURCHASING OF PROVISIONS PERCENTAGE
Supermarkets at home 33%
Supermarkets en route to the Park 15%
Some items in the Park at Park shops 42%
Some items in towns next to the Park 6%
All items bought in the Park 4%
USE OF PARK RESTAURANTS PERCENTAGE
Not at all 13%
At least once per visit 43%
On more than one occasion during my visit 34%
I only use the take-away section and not the restaurant 9%
8
4.12 CULTURAL PRODUCTS IN NATIONAL PARKS
17%
83%
Yes No
Figure 4.8: Cultural products in National Parks
An overwhelming 83% of the respondents indicated that National Parks should not offer a
greater variety of cultural products such as dancing and singing (Figure 4.8). Only 17%
felt that there should be more cultural products in National Parks. 4.13 ACCOMMODATION AT A B&B RATE IN NATIONAL PARKS
According to Figure 4.9, 55% of the respondents indicated that they would not like to see
SANParks sell accommodation at a B&B rate if the restaurants offer a quality breakfast
product. Forty-five percent (45%) however were in favour of this. This result confirms the
notion that visitors prefer to do most of the catering themselves. In light of this result, it is
important to consider the fact that once the quality of meals has improved, it would be
advisable to prompt the option of accommodation at a B&B rate. However, this should
never be the only option available for visitors since 55% of the respondents were against
it.
45%
55%
Yes No
Figure 4.9: Accommodation at a B&B rate in National Parks
9
SECTION B: The introduction of brands in National Parks
4.14 THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESTAURANT BRAND
On the question of whether the introduction of a restaurant brand, for example Spur, Cape
Town Fish Market, Mugg and Bean, Cafe 41, Wimpy, House of Coffees, Cattle Baron,
Primi Piatti, Tuscan BBQ, Carnivore, Wiesenhofs, Burgundys, Brazza, Bugattis, Fournos,
Newscafé, Moyo’s, Buther House, John Dory’s, Famous Fishhoeks, Cofi or Panarottis
would improve the dining experience in a National Park, the response was as follows: 30%
of the respondents agreed that a brand would improve the dining experience, followed by
24% who totally agreed with this (see Table 4.5). Therefore, 54% support the notion.
Seventeen percent (17%) of the respondents indicated that they totally disagreed with the
statement and 13% disagreed. Sixteen percent (16%) of the respondents were neutral in
this regard indicating that they were neither for nor against it. Hence the majority of
respondents support the introduction of brands.
Table 4.5: The introduction of a restaurant brand
4.15 THE INTRODUCTION OF A TAKE-AWAY BRAND
Table 4.6: The introduction of a take-away brand
THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESTAURANT BRAND PERCENTAGE
Totally agree 24%
Agree 30%
Neutral 16%
Disagree 13%
Totally disagree 17%
THE INTRODUCTION OF A TAKE-AWAY BRAND PERCENTAGE
Totally agree 20%
Agree 31%
Neutral 16%
Disagree 15%
Totally disagree 18%
10
Thirty-one percent (31%) of the respondents indicated that the introduction of a take-away
brand, for example Debonaires, Steers, Nando’s, Sandwich Baron, Romans, Scooters,
Anat, KFC, Milky Lane, Vovotelo, Kauai food or Juicy Lucy would improve the take-away
experience at National Parks’ take-away facilities, followed by 20% who agreed with the
statement (Table 4.6). Similar to the restaurants, 51% of the respondents agreed to totally
agreed with the concept. Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents totally disagreed with
the introduction of a take-away brand, 16% were neutral and 15% disagreed.
Respondents indicated the following reasons for not wanting National Parks to introduce a
restaurant or take-away brand:
When visiting National Parks, respondents want to escape from their every-day
living and want to experience the nature and not the city. Brands are included in
their daily lives and this will therefore ruin their experience at the parks.
Respondents want to get away from the “explicit commercialisation of everyday
life”.
The introduction of brands will “ruin the aesthetics of the parks”.
The restaurants in the parks are unique and it is the difference in the appeal
compared to franchises that makes them unique.
Brands only add to a theme park character and do not fit into the nature of South
African National Parks. Individualised restaurants would be the better option.
Respondents also raised concerns about how the introduction of brands will
influence the image of National Parks, especially billboards and signage.
Littering in the parks will get worse.
Traffic will increase due to delivery vehicles. These drivers also do not always
oblige with the park rules and regulations and this can endanger the wildlife in the
parks.
If SANParks consider this concept, then these aspects should be addressed.
4.16 PREFERRED BRANDS
Table 4.7 shows the preferred brands that respondents would like to be introduced in
National Parks and the reasons for their preferences:
11
Table 4.7: Preferred brands
Of the 17% of the respondents who were totally against the idea of introducing brands in
National Parks, Table 4.8 shows the brands that respondents would not like to be
introduced and the reasons for their dislike. Even though this table represents the
thoughts of a small group of respondents, it is important to take note of these issues since
they can be managed.
Table 4.8: Brands disliked by respondents
PREFERRED BRANDS REASONS
Nando’s Well-known brand; Good variety; Affordable; A quick take-away;
Consistency and quality; Offers healthier meals; Halaal
Mugg and Bean Well-known brand; Wide appeal and combination of sit down/take
out/coffee shop; Offers healthier meals; Wide variety offered on menu
Steers Well-known brand; Value for money; Affordable; Good quality food;
Good variety
Spur Well-known brand; Best family restaurant; Value for money;
Affordable; Good quality food; Good variety; Best lunch/dinner options
Wimpy Well-known brand; Affordable; Popular; Good variety; Consistency
and quality; Children friendly; Quick service
KFC Popular chicken brand; Affordable
Debonaires Popular; Affordable
Juicy Lucy Offers a variety of healthy food
Ocean basket Offers a variety and affordable fish dishes; Caters for everyone
Kauai food Affordable; Variety of food; Halaal; Good quality; Offers healthy
alternatives
Woolworths Food Quality food
Sandwich Baron Variety of sandwiches; Affordable
BRANDS REASONS FOR DISLIKE
Newscafé Promotes loud music and drinking
McDonalds, Spur, KFC,
Spur, Steers, Debonaires,
Sandwich Baron,
Romans, Scooters, Anat,
KFC, Milky Lane, Mugg
and Bean
Too commercialised; Unhealthy and will ruin the aesthetics of the
Parks; Littering would be uncontrollable; These brands are part of
everyday living – do not want to see them at National Parks as well.
Rather focus on improving the current service at the restaurants; Not
ideal for overseas visitors; National Parks should have their own brand
12
4.17 THE IMPORTANCE OF DINING AREAS IN NATIONAL PARKS
Table 4.9: The importance of dining areas in National Parks
IMPORTANCE OF DINING AREAS IN NATIONAL PARKS
VERY IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT NEUTRAL LESS
IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
AT ALL
Experience nature while dining i.e.
outside dining 45% 37% 12% 3% 3%
Product options (menu variety) 27% 51% 14% 6% 2%
Value for money 51% 41% 6% 1% 1%
Pricing (affordability is more
important than quality) 10% 24% 26% 33% 7%
Menu variety (fish, meat,
vegetables, kiddies, Halaal etc.) 24% 48% 18% 8% 2%
Pricing options (availability of
smaller / cheaper options and
expensive fine dining options)
22% 51% 19% 6% 2%
Quality of meals 65% 32% 2% 0% 1%
Service efficiency 68% 28% 3% 0% 1%
Having TVs in the restaurants as
most chalets and bungalows do
not have these facilities
2% 7% 15% 18% 58%
The following were the most important with regard to dining areas in National Parks (see
Table 4.9):
Quality of meals (97%)
Service efficiency (96%)
Value for money (92%)
Experience nature while dining i.e. outside dining (82%)
Respondents regarded the following aspects as less important:
Having TVs in the restaurants as most chalets and bungalows do not have these
facilities (76%)
Pricing (affordability is more important than quality) (40%)
Fish aways Food is tasteless and oily
KFC Only sells chicken
Wimpy and Maxi’s Not tourist quality food
13
SECTION C: The following section refers to the shops in National Parks and what
products need to be offered
4.18 PRODUCTS TO BE OFFERED IN NATIONAL PARK SHOPS
The following were the most important with regard to products that shops in National Parks
should offer (see Table 4.10):
The shops should focus on freshness of vegetables, meat and bread (93%)
Wild Card holders should have benefits such as discounts at Park restaurants and
shops (80%)
I would rather pay more at the shop in the Park than to exit the Park during my
holiday to buy from less-expensive outlets outside the Park (62%)
The shops are too expensive (62%)
Respondents regarded the following aspects as less important:
Buying provisions before leaving on holiday is part of my holiday and will remain so
even if the shops are less expensive and stock a wider range (49%)
A retail brand such as SPAR, 7-Eleven, Friendly or Woolworths Foods will enhance
my retail experience in National Parks (39%)
The shops in National Parks should focus more on Fast Moving Customer Goods
(23%)
Curios should be sold separately from the food and beverage sales in National Park
shops (23%)
Table 4.10: Products to be offered in National Park shops
PRODUCTS TO BE OFFERED IN NATIONAL PARK SHOPS
VERY IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT NEUTRAL LESS IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
AT ALL
The shops in National Parks should
focus more on Fast Moving Customer
Goods
9% 33% 35% 17% 6%
Curios should be sold separately
from the food and beverage sales in
National Park shops
15% 29% 33% 19% 4%
14
Wild Card holders should have
benefits such as discounts at Park
restaurants and shops
45% 35% 16% 3% 1%
Park shops should have more
products aimed at a variety of
markets including children
10% 31% 44% 13% 2%
Shops should sell more Park-specific
branded items such as mugs and t-
shirts
8% 32% 47% 11% 2%
The shops in National Parks cater for
my requirements and no major
changes are required
12% 42% 26% 17% 3%
A retail brand such as SPAR, 7-
Eleven, Friendly or Woolworths
Foods will enhance my retail
experience in National Parks
15% 30% 17% 18% 21%
The shops should focus on freshness
of vegetables, meat and bread 53% 40% 6% 1% 0%
Buying provisions before leaving on
holiday is part of my holiday and will
remain so even if the shops are less
pricy and stock a wider range
9% 21% 21% 38% 11%
I would rather pay more at the shop
in the Park than to exit the Park
during my holiday to buy from less-
expensive outlets outside the Park
21% 41% 15% 17% 6%
The shops are too expensive 25% 37% 29% 8% 1%
4.19 EXPENSIVENESS OF SHOPS AT SPECIFIC NATIONAL PARKS
According to Table 4.11, the majority of the respondents felt that shops in Kruger National
Park are too expensive (69%). This was followed by 61% and 60% of the respondents
who respectively felt that the shops at Tsitsikamma National Park and Addo Elephant
National Park are too expensive. Regarding the other National Parks, more than half of
the respondents felt that shops at Augrabies Falls National Park (59%), Kgalagadi
Transfrontier National Park (58%), Mountain Zebra National Park (55%) and Karoo
National Park (51%) are too expensive.
15
Table 4.11: Expensiveness of shops at specific National Parks
EXPENSIVENESS OF SHOPS AT SPECIFIC PARKS YES NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS NO NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
Kruger National Park 69% 3593 31% 1590
Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 58% 1073 42% 763
Tsitsikamma National Park 61% 1076 39% 702
Addo Elephant National Park 60% 1245 40% 834
Mountain Zebra National Park 55% 636 45% 522
Augrabies Falls National Park 59% 1147 41% 807
Karoo National Park 51% 815 49% 792
4.20 INTERNET SERVICES IN NATIONAL PARKS
More than half of the respondents (56%) indicated that they would not make use of
Internet services if available in National Parks, while 44% indicated that they would (Figure
4.10).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes No
44%
56%
Figure 4.10: Internet services at National Parks
16
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS The following table (Table 5.1) provides an overview of the profile of SANParks visitors as
well as their opinions and preferences regarding the introduction of certain brands in
Parks.
Table 5.1: Summary of results
Demographic profile and preferences when visiting National Parks
Gender Male (60%); Female (40%)
Average age 1952-1961 (50-59 years)
Home language English (48%); Afrikaans (43%)
Marital status Married (80%)
Province of origin Gauteng (42%); Western Cape (18%)
Highest level of education Diploma (27%); Degree (21%)
Wild Card holder Yes (67%); No (33%)
Gross annual income Average between R305 001 and R431 000
Catering preferences Self catering chalet (51%); Camping (27%)
Purchasing of provisions Some items in the Park at Park shops (42%);
Supermarkets at home (33%)
Use of park restaurants At least once per visit (43%); On more than one
occasion during my visit (34%)
Cultural products in National Parks Yes (17%); No (83%)
Accommodation at a B&B rate in National Parks
Yes (45%); No (55%)
Introduction of brands in National Parks
The introduction of a restaurant brand would
improve the dining experience in National Parks
54% Agree to Totally Agree
30% Disagree to Totally Disagree
16% Neutral
The introduction of a take-away brand would improve the dining experience in National Parks
51% Agree to Totally Agree
33% Disagree to Totally Disagree
16% Neutral
17
Preferred brands Nando’s, Mugg and Bean, Steers, Wimpy, KFC,
Steers, Juicy Lucy, Ocean Basket, Kauai food,
Woolworths Food, Sandwich Baron and
Debonaires
The importance of certain dining areas in National Parks
Most important aspects with regard to dining areas in National Parks
Quality of meals (97%)
Service efficiency (96%)
Value for money (92%)
Experience nature while dining i.e.
outside dining (82%)
Products to be offered in National Parks
Most important aspects with regard to products to be offered by shops in National Parks
The shops should focus on freshness of
vegetables, meat and bread (93%)
Wild Card holders should have benefits
such as discounts at Park restaurants
and shops (80%)
I would rather pay more at the shop in
the Park than to exit the Park during my
holiday to buy from less-expensive
outlets outside the Park (62%)
The shops are too expensive (62%)
Expensiveness of shops at specific National Parks
Kruger National Park: 62% Yes
Internet services in National Parks 56% would not make use of Internet services if
it is available in National Parks
The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:
The profile correlates with a series of results from research conducted by the
Institute of Tourism and Leisure Studies/TREES at the North-West University.
The majority of SANParks visitors who participated in the survey were male,
between the ages 50 and 59, either English- or Afrikaans speaking, married,
originated from Gauteng or Western Cape Provinces, have a diploma or degree,
were Wild Card holders, earn between R305 001 and R431 000 per annum and
prefer self-catering chalets.
When travelling to National Parks, visitors purchase some items in the Park at Park
shops and will make use of Park restaurants at least once per visit. However, 96%
of the respondents do not buy their groceries at park shops.
18
The majority of respondents indicated no need for cultural products in National
Parks or accommodation at a B&B rate.
The majority of respondents also indicated that the introduction of a restaurant or
take-away brand would improve the dining experience in National Parks.
Nando’s, Mugg and Bean, Steers, Wimpy, KFC, Steers, Juicy Lucy, Ocean Basket,
Kauai food, Woolworths Food, Sandwich Baron and Debonaires were the most
preferred brands because of their reputation, affordability as well as quality and
variety of meals offered.
Retail brands were not received with the same enthusiasm as their restaurant
counterparts.
However, concerns raised by the 30% of respondents who were totally agains the
introduction of brands in National Parks include:
o When visiting National Parks, respondents want to escape from their every-
day living and want to experience the nature and not the city. Brands are
included in their daily lives and this will therefore ruin their experience at the
parks.
o Respondents want to get away from the “explicit commercialisation of
everyday life”.
o The introduction of brands will “ruin the aesthetics of the parks”.
o The restaurants in the parks are unique and it is the difference in the appeal
compared to franchises that makes them unique.
o Brands only add to a theme park character and do not fit into the nature of
South African National Parks. Individualised restaurants would be the better
option.
o Respondents also raised concerns about how the introduction of brands will
influence the image of National Parks, especially billboards and signage.
o Littering in the parks will get worse.
o Traffic will increase due to delivery vehicles. These drivers also do not
always oblige with the park rules and regulations and this can endanger the
wildlife in the parks.
The following aspects are important to respondents when dining in National Parks:
o Quality of meals
o Service efficiency
o Value for money
o Experience nature while dining i.e. outside dining
19
The following aspects are important to respondents regarding products offered by
shops in National Parks:
o The shops should focus on freshness of vegetables, meat and bread
o Wild Card holders should have benefits such as discounts at Park
restaurants and shops
o I would rather pay more at the shop in the Park than to exit the Park during
my holiday to buy from less-expensive outlets outside the Park
o The shops are too expensive
The majority of respondents felt that the shops at the Kruger National Park are too
expensive.
The majority of respondents would not make use of Internet services if it is available
at National Parks.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the research and the fact that the survey attracted a significant response, the
following recommendations are made:
Firstly, on the question as to whether SANParks should consider brands to replace
the current restaurant concessionaires, the answer is positive. This should,
however, be done in a responsible manner, which implies that the aspects such as
signage and packaging should be done in an environmentally friendly manner and
without ruining the aesthetic nature of the parks. Other aspects are indicated in the
section above.
Secondly, on the question as to whether brands should be introduced in the case of
take-aways, the answer is the same as with restaurants. The same guidelines also
apply here.
Thirdly, on the question as to whether SANParks should introduce retail brands, the
answer was inconclusive. It seems that respondents are satisfied with the current
arrangement although freshness of products requires attention and the fact that
products are too expensive. This is a concept that could be introduced at a later
stage since the greatest problem lies with restaurants.
Fourthly, on the question if curios should be sold separate from food and beverage,
more respondents were in favour of it than against it. If one looks at all the answers
pertaining to park shops, it is clear that except for the fact that they are expensive,
the general feeling is one of satisfaction.
20
Fifthly, on the question as to whether Wild Card holders should get some form of
benefit, respondents strongly support this notion. Seeing that the Wild Card is
considered a loyalty card, this aspect should not be too difficult to arrange.