AN ANALYSIS OF RESTAURANTS AND SHOPS IN SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS:

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: Melville.Saayman@nwu.ac.za E-mail: Martinette.Kruger@nwu.ac.za Dr Martinette Kruger & Prof Melville Saayman Copyright 2011 TREES i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 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. ii

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 13 products need to be offered 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 iii

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 5.1 Conclusions 16 5.2 Recommendations 19 iv

LIST OF FIGURES 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 v

LIST OF TABLES 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 vi

1. INTRODUCTION 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. 2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 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. 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 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 twonight 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. 1

4. RESULTS SECTION A Personal information and preferences when visiting National Parks 4.1 GENDER 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 4.1: Gender Male 60% Female 40% 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. 2

After 2001 1992 2001 0% 0% 1982 1991 4% 1972 1981 1962 1971 14% 1952 1961 25% 1942 1951 29% Before or in 1941 6% 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Figure 4.2: Year born 4.3 HOME LANGUAGE 50% 40% 30% 20% 43% 48% 10% 0% 4% 1% 4% Afrikaans English German French Other 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. 3

4.4 MARITAL STATUS 7% 4% 2% 7% 80% Single Married Living together Divorced Widow/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 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% 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 4

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. Other 3% Doctorate degree 5% Masters degree Honours degree Degree 12% 13% Diploma 21% Matric Pre matric 2% 17% 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Figure 4.5: Highest level of education 4.7 WILD CARD HOLDER 33% Yes No 67% Figure 4.6: Wild Card holder 5

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 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% 4.9 CATERING PREFERENCES 60% 50% 51% 40% 30% 20% 27% 17% 10% 2% 3% 0% Camping Self catering chalet Dine out and self catering Bed & Breakfast Dinner, Bed & Breakfast Figure 4.7: Catering preferences 6

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 bedand-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 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% 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 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% 7

4.12 CULTURAL PRODUCTS IN NATIONAL PARKS 17% Yes No 83% 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% Yes No 55% Figure 4.9: Accommodation at a B&B rate in National Parks 8

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 THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESTAURANT BRAND PERCENTAGE Totally agree 24% Agree 30% Neutral 16% Disagree 13% Totally disagree 17% 4.15 THE INTRODUCTION OF A TAKE-AWAY BRAND Table 4.6: The introduction of a take-away brand THE INTRODUCTION OF A TAKE-AWAY BRAND PERCENTAGE Totally agree 20% Agree 31% Neutral 16% Disagree 15% Totally disagree 18% 9

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: 10

Table 4.7: Preferred brands PREFERRED BRANDS Nando s Mugg and Bean Steers Spur Wimpy KFC Debonaires Juicy Lucy Ocean basket Kauai food Woolworths Food Sandwich Baron REASONS Well-known brand; Good variety; Affordable; A quick take-away; Consistency and quality; Offers healthier meals; Halaal Well-known brand; Wide appeal and combination of sit down/take out/coffee shop; Offers healthier meals; Wide variety offered on menu Well-known brand; Value for money; Affordable; Good quality food; Good variety Well-known brand; Best family restaurant; Value for money; Affordable; Good quality food; Good variety; Best lunch/dinner options Well-known brand; Affordable; Popular; Good variety; Consistency and quality; Children friendly; Quick service Popular chicken brand; Affordable Popular; Affordable Offers a variety of healthy food Offers a variety and affordable fish dishes; Caters for everyone Affordable; Variety of food; Halaal; Good quality; Offers healthy alternatives Quality food Variety of sandwiches; Affordable 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 BRANDS Newscafé McDonalds, Spur, KFC, Spur, Steers, Debonaires, Sandwich Baron, Romans, Scooters, Anat, KFC, Milky Lane, Mugg and Bean REASONS FOR DISLIKE Promotes loud music and drinking 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 11

Fish aways KFC Wimpy and Maxi s Food is tasteless and oily Only sells chicken Not tourist quality food 4.17 THE IMPORTANCE OF DINING AREAS IN NATIONAL PARKS Table 4.9: The importance of dining areas in National Parks NOT IMPORTANCE OF DINING AREAS IN VERY LESS IMPORTANT NEUTRAL IMPORTANT NATIONAL PARKS IMPORTANT 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 22% 51% 19% 6% 2% expensive fine dining options) 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%) 12

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 VERY IMPORTANT NEUTRAL LESS NOT NATIONAL PARK SHOPS IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT AT ALL The shops in National Parks should focus more on Fast Moving Customer 9% 33% 35% 17% 6% Goods Curios should be sold separately from the food and beverage sales in National Park shops 15% 29% 33% 19% 4% 13

Wild Card holders should have benefits such as discounts at Park 45% 35% 16% 3% 1% restaurants and shops Park shops should have more products aimed at a variety of 10% 31% 44% 13% 2% markets including children Shops should sell more Park-specific branded items such as mugs and t- 8% 32% 47% 11% 2% shirts The shops in National Parks cater for my requirements and no major 12% 42% 26% 17% 3% changes are required A retail brand such as SPAR, 7- Eleven, Friendly or Woolworths Foods will enhance my retail 15% 30% 17% 18% 21% experience in National Parks 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 9% 21% 21% 38% 11% pricy and stock a wider range I would rather pay more at the shop in the Park than to exit the Park during my holiday to buy from lessexpensive 21% 41% 15% 17% 6% outlets outside the Park 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. 14

Table 4.11: Expensiveness of shops at specific National Parks EXPENSIVENESS OF SHOPS NUMBER OF NUMBER OF YES NO AT SPECIFIC PARKS RESPONDENTS 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). 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes 44% No 56% Figure 4.10: Internet services at National Parks 15

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 Yes (45%); No (55%) Parks Introduction of brands in National Parks The introduction of a restaurant brand would 54% Agree to Totally Agree improve the dining experience in National 30% Disagree to Totally Disagree Parks 16% Neutral The introduction of a take-away brand would 51% Agree to Totally Agree improve the dining experience in National 33% Disagree to Totally Disagree Parks 16% Neutral 16

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 Kruger National Park: 62% Yes Parks 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. 17

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 everyday 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 18

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. 19

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. 20