Style

Is $150 too much to pay to climb a mountain?

by Lazylizards | February 1, 2009 at 06:55 am

85 views | 17 Recommendations | 4 comments

Climbing the highest mountain in Malaysia is not an easy feat. But booking a spot for the 2-day adventure trip seems to be harder.

In the past year, regular climbers and tourists, both foreign and local, have been flooding the blogosphere, travel forums and media with complaints. Their main gripes are that the climbing cost is astronomical, the waiting list long and the service and infrastructure, substandard.

Even the first edition of Lonely Planet Borneo published last year devoted almost one page to the issues, raising the question: is it worth the hassle?

The problem is that until recently, it cost just $10 to book a dorm bed at base camp but the cost has shot up by 500% since the park adminstration was privatised. Perhaps, the debate should not be whether the price of $150 for the privilege to climb enjoy this World Heritage wonder is too much, but rather, whether climbers in the past had been contributing enough to maintain the park.

Also, is the steep price hike helping locals who work as porters and guides?

Sutera Harbour Lodge, the company which manages the park, has this to say in defence of its practice:

“Since taking over the management of the Kinabalu Park properties in 2002, SSL had invested in renovations and upgrades for the properties. Many of the previously dilapidated structures were rebuilt from the ground up and even public restrooms have been renovated.

“Laban Rata guesthouse’s bathrooms are now heated and the beds have better support mattresses. The huts on the mountain are also better insulated from the cold.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Jennings David L

at 10:38 on February 1st, 2009

If the climbers are getting good service and the park needs money to keep the infrastructure in good order then an increase doesn't seem out of line. Are the services provided worth an increase? Sounds like the $10 was a token amount.

Jordan Yerman

at 11:26 on February 1st, 2009

Indeed, the biggest question (for me) is, who benefits from such a relatively high price?

mtammas

at 14:07 on February 1st, 2009

Privatization of nature, ah, yes, just part of the larger 'make money on everything' picture.

Lazylizards

at 03:07 on February 2nd, 2009

Thanks for your comments. Points well taken.

I believe that privatisation of services, even with a good intention to improve services, will fail when:

1. Corruption exists; and

2. Officials (including those overseeing the quality of the service provider) lack the will to be competent.

Having climbed Mt Kinabalu three times, I didn't find service lacking. Bear in mind the $10 covered only your bunk bed. You still paid for entry, guide, porter and meals.

If one uses the argument of controlling access to fragile nature spots as justification for price hikes, then should nature be priced so it becomes accessible only to those who can afford it? Even if it should (and I disagree it should) I think privatisation to enable this control is wrong.