Challenges in Maintaining Geopark Facilities and Assets: Evidence from Malaysian Geoparks

Challenges in Maintaining Geopark Facilities and Assets: Evidence from Malaysian Geoparks

Muhammad Aidil Mat Shah¹, Syamsul Hendra Mahmud^1*, ‘Aziezah Norul Anhar²

¹Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, University Technology Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia

²Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000621

Received: 12 September 2025; Accepted: 20 September 2025; Published: 23 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explores the challenges of maintaining built facilities and assets in Malaysian geoparks, a critical yet under-researched dimension of sustainable geoheritage management. Drawing on qualitative case studies across eight geoparks, including two UNESCO Global Geoparks and six National Geoparks, the research identifies recurring issues such as weather-related deterioration, sensitive terrain conditions, budgetary constraints, manpower shortages, reliance on community-based repairs, visitor impacts, vandalism, and outdated equipment. Findings reveal that these challenges are interdependent, with financial and human resource limitations underlying most maintenance gaps. The study highlights the need for integrated asset management strategies that combine preventive planning, sustainable funding, skilled personnel, stakeholder collaboration, and resilient infrastructure design. By providing empirical evidence from diverse geopark settings, this research contributes to the discourse on heritage site management and offers policy insights to strengthen the long-term sustainability, safety, and visitor experience of Malaysia’s geoparks. However, the scope of this paper is deliberately confined to identifying and analyzing these maintenance challenges. A detailed examination of potential solutions – such as adopting digital tools (e.g., Building Information Modelling), instituting enhanced governance frameworks, or establishing sustainable financing models – lies beyond this study and will be addressed in future research.

Keywords— Geoparks, Asset Maintenance, Built Environment, Facility Management, Infrastructure Maintenance

INTRODUCTION

Geoparks are designated areas that integrate the conservation of geological heritage with sustainable tourism and local community development[1]. In Malaysia, the establishment of geoparks has expanded over the past decade, underscoring the need for effective maintenance of their facilities and infrastructure [2]. Geopark assets such as trails, viewing platforms, signage, visitor centres, and safety installations form the functional backbone of these parks [2]. They ensure accessibility, interpretative learning, visitor safety, and operational support, thereby playing a critical role in the sustainable use and presentation of geoheritage[3]. However, maintaining these built environment assets presents unique challenges. Geopark infrastructure is often located in outdoor and environmentally sensitive settings (e.g. karst caves, coastal zones, dense forests), making it vulnerable to weathering, erosion, and heavy visitor usage [4]. Furthermore, many geoparks operate under resource constraints and evolving management frameworks, which can hamper systematic upkeep of assets [2]. Despite the recognised importance of these facilities and emerging calls to integrate digital tools like Building Information Modelling (BIM) to enhance maintenance efficiency, there is a lack of empirical understanding of the on-the-ground challenges in keeping geopark assets in optimal condition.

This study addresses that gap by exploring the key issues faced by geopark management teams in maintaining geopark facilities and assets in Malaysia. Through in-depth qualitative investigation across multiple geoparks, the research identifies the recurring challenges that threaten the sustainability and safety of geopark infrastructure. The findings provide insight into how factors such as climate, funding, human resources, and community involvement impact maintenance, and they highlight areas where strategic interventions are needed. By shedding light on these challenges, the study contributes to developing more robust asset management strategies for geoparks and informs policymakers on the support required to preserve the integrity of these significant heritage sites.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Geopark assets and their significance

Geoparks contain a variety of built environment elements that support conservation, education, tourism, and community engagement functions [5]. Although often considered secondary to the geological features, these facilities are essential for ensuring a quality geopark experience. They include structures and amenities at geosites (e.g. stairs, boardwalks, railings), along geotrails (e.g. paths, bridges, rest huts), at visitor centers and galleries, as well as in community areas (e.g. kiosks, toilets, shelters)[1]. These assets enable safe access to geoheritage sites, provide interpretative information, and support basic services for visitors and staff. They are also strategic points

for implementing new technologies such as digital interpretation panels or monitoring systems. Recent studies in heritage infrastructure management have emphasised the value of digital asset management tools like BIM for optimising maintenance schedules and supporting data driven decision-making[1]. This underlines that built facilities in geoparks should be viewed not just as ancillary structures, but as critical components that require proper management to sustain the overall geopark mission.

To clarify the scope of geopark assets considered in maintenance planning, they can be categorised by their functional roles. Table 1 summarises key types of geopark facilities, with examples of each. These range from Geosite Infrastructure (e.g. safety railings at caves or cliffs), to Trail Infrastructure (paths and bridges along geotrails), Visitor and Administrative Facilities (visitor centers, toilets, parking), Interpretive Structures (information signage, outdoor displays), Community/ Commercial Assets (stalls, exhibition spaces), Support and Safety Infrastructure (drainage, lighting, fencing), and Mobility/Access Infrastructure (ramps, jetties, covered walkways). Each category plays a specific role in making geoparks accessible and educational while protecting both visitors and the environment.

Table 1: Key geopark asset categories and examples of built environment elements

These assets are situated across different zones of a geopark and collectively ensure both the protection of geoheritage and the comfort of visitors. Figure 1 illustrates how such components are typically distributed – from geosites and trails to central visitor areas and community nodes.

Figure 1: Conceptual Diagram of geopark asset zones, including geosites, trails, visitor centres, and community areas.

Although they serve diverse purposes, all asset types require regular maintenance to remain functional [6]. Assets exposed to the elements (e.g. outdoor trails, wooden structures) are susceptible to deterioration from heavy rain, sunlight, and biological growth [7]. Facilities with high human traffic (e.g. toilets, information centres) face wear-and-tear and require frequent cleaning and repairs [8]. Interpretive signs may fade or be vandalised, and community kiosks must be kept in good repair to maintain hygiene and service quality [9]. Support infrastructure like drainage and safety barriers often operate unseen until they fail, yet are vital to prevent accidents and environmental damage. Thus, maintaining these varied assets is a complex task that is crucial for the ongoing operation of geoparks.

Geoparks in malaysia: overview and asset context

Malaysia has made significant strides in geopark development, beginning with the designation of Langkawi as the first UNESCO Global Geopark in Southeast Asia in 2007 [10]. Since then, the network of geoparks has grown under the National Geopark Development Programme, guided by the national strategic plan Pelan Pembangunan Geopark Negara 2021–2030 [11]. As of November 2023, Malaysia has 12 nationally recognized geoparks, two of which (Langkawi and Kinabalu) carry UNESCO Global Geopark status. Table 2 lists these geoparks along with their state locations, designation level, and year of recognition. The list includes a diverse range of geological settings and cultural landscapes – from islands and highlands to deltaic plains – reflecting the broad scope of Malaysia’s geoheritage.

Table 2: Recognized Geoparks in Malaysia (as of Nov 2023)[11]

These geoparks encompass a wide array of geological features (limestone karsts, fossils, volcanic formations, etc.), as well as rich biodiversity and cultural heritage [12]. Notably, Perlis Geopark covers an entire state (Perlis) [13], making it unique in scale, while Lipis Geopark contains significant karst areas (e.g. Merapoh caves) and aspires to future UNESCO status [14]. The development and management of Malaysian geoparks involve multiple stakeholders, including federal and state agencies, local authorities, and community groups. Each geopark has its own management unit or committee responsible for operations, often under the guidance of the federal Department of Minerals and Geoscience (JMG) and the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment, and Climate Change (NRECC) [15].

The variety of settings among Malaysia’s geoparks means that asset maintenance needs can differ widely [16]. For example, infrastructure in a tropical rainforest geopark faces high rainfall and humidity [4], while an urban-adjacent geopark may experience heavier visitor footfall and potential vandalism [17]. Geoparks in rural areas might rely more on community involvement [18], whereas those with more funding (or UNESCO status) might have dedicated maintenance teams. Despite these differences, all geoparks must balance the goals of conservation and education with the practical demands of upkeep and visitor safety [19].

Classification of Geopark Built Assets and Maintenance Priority

Building on the categories outlined earlier (Table 1), geopark built assets can also be classified by their typical location within the park, their primary function, and their relative priority for maintenance [20]. This helps managers allocate resources by identifying which assets are most critical or most vulnerable. Table 3 provides a functional classification of geopark assets along these dimensions. For instance, Geosite infrastructure is typically located at caves, cliffs, or other geologically sensitive sites [21]; its primary function is to enable safe access and viewing, and it generally has a high maintenance priority because it is exposed to natural hazards and heavy visitor impact [22]. Trail infrastructure (paths, bridges along routes) is also high-priority due to weather exposure and erosion risks [23]. Visitor facilities at central locations have high priority given their constant use and the importance of utilities (water, electricity) and sanitation for visitor satisfaction [24]. Interpretive structures (signage, displays) are usually medium priority – important for education but less critical than safety or basic facilities – though they require periodic upkeep due to weathering or vandalism [25]. Community and commercial assets (market stalls, etc.) have a medium priority; their maintenance often depends on usage frequency and materials (some may be maintained by the community itself) [26]. Support infrastructure like drainage and lighting is essential for operations and safety, but often only noticed when malfunctioning; it has a medium priority for proactive checks. Across all categories, maintenance priority is influenced by how failure of that asset would impact visitor safety, heritage conservation, and the geopark’s reputation [27].

Table 3: Functional classification of geopark built assets by location, role, and maintenance priority

This structured view of assets helps in planning maintenance regimes. High-priority items like safety railings or main trails might require frequent inspections [28] (e.g. before and after monsoon seasons), whereas medium-priority items like interpretive signs might be on a longer replacement schedule [29]. Importantly, the classification also shows that not all assets are equal in terms of risk [30]: a broken viewing platform railing (geosite infrastructure) poses an immediate safety hazard, while a faded information board (interpretive structure) mainly affects educational value. Thus, effective asset management in geoparks involves not only tracking the condition of diverse facilities but also prioritising interventions based on their function and risk level [31].

Challenges in geopark asset maintenance

Despite the benefits of having structured asset management plans, geoparks in Malaysia continue to face a range of challenges in maintaining their infrastructure and physical assets [32]. These challenges are rooted in financial, administrative, environmental, and socio-cultural factors, and they carry significant implications for the sustainability and safety of geopark operations [33]. As visitor numbers increase and expectations for quality experiences grow, any weaknesses in maintenance practices become more pressing [34]. Commonly reported issues include insufficient funding, inadequate manpower, fragmented planning, low public awareness, and environmental stresses. Each of these areas can lead to delays in repairs, deterioration of facilities, or even safety incidents, undermining the goals of the geopark [35].

One persistent barrier is resource constraints, encompassing both limited budgets and shortages of skilled personnel [36]. Many geoparks rely on government allocations or small grants that often fall short of actual needs [37]. Financial constraints result in postponed maintenance, inability to upgrade aging facilities, and reactive patch-up work instead of preventive maintenance (often only critical problems are addressed)[38]. In tandem, a lack of dedicated maintenance staff or technical experts means inspections and repairs may not be timely or thorough [39]. A single officer might be tasked with covering an entire geopark, leading to oversight of emerging issues [40]. This aligns with observations by Planning Malaysia (2022) that budget and human resource limitations severely hamper infrastructure upkeep in Malaysian parks [41].

A related issue is inadequate planning and management systems [42]. Few geoparks have comprehensive asset registers or use digital maintenance management systems (e.g. a GIS or BIM-based asset database) [43]. The absence of centralised data and planning frameworks leads to fragmented, ad hoc maintenance efforts [44]. Maintenance is often reactive (fixing things after failure) rather than preventive, due to lack of monitoring information and prioritisation tools [45]. Coordination among stakeholders is also a challenge[46] – for example, local authorities, park management, public works departments, and community groups might all be involved in maintenance in some way, but without clear roles, efforts can be duplicated or important tasks neglected. Weak inter-agency collaboration thus exacerbates the planning gaps [47].

Another challenge area is public awareness and engagement. Local communities and visitors may not fully understand the value of geoparks or the importance of proper behaviour and support in maintaining them [48]. Limited public awareness can translate into low community participation in official maintenance programs, as well as instances of vandalism, littering, or unauthorized activities that damage assets [49]. For instance, vandalism of signage and facilities has been linked to a lack of appreciation for geoconservation [50]. On the other hand, some geoparks have begun engaging residents as stewards [50]– for example, volunteer groups that help clean trails or repair minor damage – but such efforts are not yet widespread. Strengthening community involvement and educating visitors about responsible behaviour remain important tasks for geopark management [50].

Environmental and site-specific factors also pose serious maintenance challenges [51]. Malaysia’s tropical climate brings heavy rainfall and occasional extreme weather [52] (monsoons), leading to natural deterioration of trails, roads, and wooden structures through erosion, flooding, and rot [53]. Geoparks with unstable terrain – such as limestone karst areas or steep mountainous slopes – face constant issues of erosion, landslides, or sinkholes that can damage paths and facilities [54]. High humidity and biological growth (moss, algae) can quickly degrade surfaces and make walkways slippery [55]. Furthermore, poorly planned infrastructure can disrupt natural drainage or wildlife, causing habitat impacts and triggering negative feedback on the environment [56] (e.g. trail erosion harming vegetation). If facilities become unsafe (e.g. broken bridges or missing railings) or environmental degradation becomes severe, visitor safety is at risk and certain areas may become inaccessible. In Langkawi Geopark, for example, unmaintained trails after heavy storms have led to temporary site closures for safety reasons [57]. Overall, the environmental pressures of climate and terrain mean that maintenance in geoparks must be adaptive and responsive to nature’s changes, more so than in urban settings [58].

Table 4 summarises the main challenge areas identified in geopark asset maintenance and their implications. These challenges are interrelated: for instance, inadequate funding (a financial constraint) directly results in lack of manpower and poor equipment, which then affect planning capacity and response to environmental damage [59]. Likewise, low public awareness can lead to vandalism, adding to the burden on limited maintenance teams [60]. The implications column in Table 4 highlights how each challenge, if unaddressed, can undermine the geopark’s sustainability – from inability to perform routine upkeep to compromised visitor safety and conservation outcomes [61].

Table 4: Key challenges in Malaysian geopark asset maintenance and their implications (adapted from Planning Malaysia, 2022)

In summary, the literature indicates that maintaining geopark assets is a multidimensional challenge. Effective solutions require not only technical fixes but also improved funding models [62], capacity-building for staff [63], community engagement programs [64], and the use of technology for planning and monitoring [65]. The Malaysian context, with geoparks at different stages of development and recognition, provides a useful setting to examine how these challenges play out in practice. The present study therefore investigates maintenance challenges through the perspectives of those directly managing geopark assets, aiming to ground these broad issues in concrete, real-world examples.

METHODOLOGY

Study Areas and Participants

This research adopted a qualitative case study approach, focusing on multiple geoparks across Malaysia to capture a broad range of maintenance challenges [66]. A total of eight geoparks were purposively selected to represent different geographical regions, designation levels, and management contexts [67]. These included the country’s two UNESCO Global Geoparks – Langkawi (Kedah) and Kinabalu (Sabah) – as well as several National Geoparks: Gombak–Hulu Langat (Selangor), Kinta Valley (Perak), Lenggong (Perak), Jerai (Kedah), Sarawak Delta (Sarawak), and Perlis (Perlis). Together, these eight sites cover a mix of environments (island, highland, deltaic, karst, urban-fringe, etc.) and organizational structures. For instance, Gombak–Hulu Langat is in a rapidly urbanising area [68], whereas Lenggong and Kinta Valley include rural and heritage-rich landscapes [69]; Sarawak Delta and Kinabalu involve state park authorities [70], while others involve local councils or development boards. Studying all eight allows observation of maintenance issues that are common across geoparks as well as those unique to certain settings.

At each selected geopark, one key informant with direct knowledge of asset maintenance was identified, yielding a total of eight participants (labelled P1 through P8 for confidentiality). A purposive sampling strategy was used, with the assistance of each geopark’s management office (acting as gatekeepers) to nominate a suitable representative. Inclusion criteria for participants were: (i) holding a managerial, technical, or operational role related to the geopark’s facilities (e.g. site manager, maintenance supervisor, park officer); (ii) at least one year of experience in that role; and (iii) involvement in decision-making or on-the-ground maintenance activities for the park’s assets. This ensured that interviewees could provide “information-rich” insights on the challenges faced. All participants were officially affiliated with the geopark or a related agency and had given informed consent to participate [71].

The eight informants occupied various positions such as geopark manager (responsible for overall park operations), technical officer or site supervisor (overseeing maintenance crews and projects), and local government or community representatives involved in geopark management. Their professional experience in geopark-related work ranged from roughly 5 years to over 15 years. For example, one participant was a Geopark Manager with more than a decade of experience managing a UNESCO Global Geopark, while another was a Technical Advisor from a state tourism department focusing on a new national geopark. This diversity in roles and backgrounds (including federal agency staff, state parks officials, and community-based coordinators) provided a well-rounded perspective on maintenance practices. It also enabled comparisons between different geoparks – for instance, how a well-established geopark’s challenges might differ from those of a newly recognized one. Table 4.1 summarises the participants’ profiles, including their affiliations and years of experience.

Table 4.1: participants’ profiles, including their affiliations and years of experience

DATA COLLECTION

Interview Design: The study used semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative data. An interview guide was developed based on the research objectives and a review of relevant literature on heritage site management and infrastructure maintenance. The guide was structured into several domains covering topics such as maintenance challenges, planning and decision-making processes, use of technology in maintenance, community involvement, and recommendations for improvement. For each domain, open-ended questions were crafted (e.g. “What are the main challenges you face in maintaining geosites and their facilities?”), along with probing questions to elicit examples or deeper explanation (e.g. “Can you describe a recent maintenance issue and how it was handled?”). The interview protocol was reviewed by academic supervisors and pilot-tested informally with a non-participant park officer, leading to minor refinements in wording to ensure clarity and contextual relevance. This process ensured content validity and that the questions were appropriate for prompting detailed, reflective responses from participants.

Procedure: Field visits were conducted to each geopark between June and December 2024 to perform the interviews and observe site conditions. Interviews were scheduled in advance and took place in person at a location convenient for the participant – usually the geopark’s administrative office or, in a few cases, at a major geosite during a field tour. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The conversations were held in either English or Bahasa Malaysia, depending on the participant’s preference. In accordance with research ethics protocols (especially since several participants were government employees), audio recording was not permitted. Instead, the researcher took detailed handwritten notes during and immediately after each interview. These notes captured the participants’ responses as verbatim as possible, along with contextual observations (such as the setting, tone, or any non-verbal cues). Immediately after each session, the notes were reviewed and expanded to ensure all details and meanings were accurately documented. Where necessary, follow-up questions were asked via email or phone to clarify any ambiguous points.

During the site visits, direct observations were also made of geopark facilities (e.g. trail conditions, state of signage, cleanliness of amenities). While not the primary data, these observations provided background context and sometimes corroborated issues mentioned by participants (for example, seeing broken or weather-worn infrastructure that an interviewee had described). These insights were recorded as field memos and later used to complement the interview data during analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

The qualitative data (interview notes and field memos) were analysed using thematic analysis, following the six-step approach outlined by Braun and Clarke [72]. The analysis was primarily manual, given the narrative nature of the field notes and the need to stay close to the context of responses (no audio transcripts were available to input into software). The steps were as follows:

1. Familiarisation: All interview notes were read and re-read thoroughly to immerse the researcher in the content. Initial impressions were noted, and significant excerpts were highlighted. Since the interviews were not audio-recorded, this step was crucial to ensure no subtle point was overlooked in the written notes.
2. Generating Initial Codes: Next, the data was coded systematically. Segments of text that appeared meaningful or relevant to the research question were labeled with codes. For example, a statement like “our budget is barely enough to cover basic repairs” might be coded as “budget constraints”. Coding was iterative – the researcher went through each interview multiple times, refining codes and adding new ones as needed. Both semantic codes (explicit issues mentioned, e.g. “vandalism incident”) and latent codes (underlying ideas, e.g. “lack of enforcement”) were captured.
3. Searching for Themes: The initial codes were then examined for patterns and grouped into potential themes. A theme was defined as a broader category that captures several related codes. For instance, codes such as “limited funds”, “insufficient staff”, and “delayed approvals” were grouped under a theme of Budgetary and Resource Constraints. At this stage, a provisional set of themes and sub-themes began to emerge, reflecting recurring challenges discussed by participants.
4. Reviewing Themes: The candidate themes were reviewed against the dataset to verify that they were representative and coherent. Some themes were merged or re-scoped to avoid overlap. For example, what was initially separated as “weather impacts” and “terrain issues” were reviewed and retained as distinct sub-themes under a larger theme of Environmental Challenges. Any excerpts that did not fit well were re-examined to see if a new theme was needed or if they were outliers.
5. Defining and Naming Themes: Once the final themes were decided, each was clearly defined and given a concise name. The essence of each theme – what aspect of maintenance challenge it represented – was articulated. Sub-themes were also identified for particularly complex themes. In total, the analysis distilled the data into eight major sub-themes under the overarching topic of maintenance challenges (as will be presented in the Results section). These sub-themes were labeled in descriptive terms (e.g. “High Visitor Impact” for issues arising from tourist behaviour, “Sensitive Terrain Conditions” for geo-environmental constraints).
6. Producing the Report: In the final step, evidence from the data was organised to be reported under each theme. Representative quotes from different participants were selected to illustrate each sub-theme. Care was taken to include a range of geoparks in the examples, showing that the themes were not isolated to one site but observed in multiple cases. The themes and supporting quotes form the core of the qualitative findings in this paper.

Throughout the analysis process, strategies were employed to ensure rigour and credibility. These included maintaining an audit trail of codes and theme development, peer debriefing with academic colleagues (discussing the emerging themes to test their validity), and triangulating with the researcher’s field observations. By following a structured approach and grounding the themes in actual participant statements, the analysis aimed to reliably capture the most salient maintenance challenges facing Malaysian geoparks.

RESULTS

Overview of Qualitative Findings

Eight key sub-themes emerged from the interviews, each representing a recurring challenge in geopark asset maintenance across the various sites. These themes reflect the complex interplay of environmental conditions, resource limitations, and human factors that impact the upkeep of facilities. Notably, many challenges were shared across geoparks of different sizes and statuses, suggesting they are systemic in nature. In the following subsections, each sub-theme is described in detail and illustrated with direct quotes from participants (labelled P1 through P8). The sub-themes identified are: (1) Weather-Related Deterioration, (2) Community-Based Repair Dependency, (3) High Visitor Impact, (4) Vandalism and Human Impact, (5) Sensitive Terrain Conditions, (6) Manpower Constraints, (7) Outdated Maintenance Equipment, and (8) Budgetary Constraints. While presented separately for clarity, these issues often overlap – for example, budget constraints underlie many of the other problems. The results highlight not only the specific maintenance issues encountered but also their root causes and consequences for geopark operations.

Weather-Related Deterioration

All participants (P1–P8) reported that adverse weather conditions pose a significant challenge to maintaining geopark assets. In Malaysia’s climate, heavy rainfall and monsoon seasons are frequent, and they can cause rapid deterioration of trails, structures, and facilities. This sub-theme emerged as a universal concern across the geoparks, regardless of geographic location or management model. Participants described how intense rain leads to problems such as soil erosion on trails, water damage to infrastructure, and unsafe conditions for visitors.

Several interviewees noted that heavy downpours often result in trail damage and erosion. For example, P1 stated that “kawasan denai sering rosak waktu hujan lebat” (trails are often damaged during heavy rains). P2 similarly observed, “tapak kami selalu terjejas bila hujan lebat, terutama kawasan berbukit,” meaning their sites, especially hilly areas, are affected whenever there’s a downpour. The monsoon season exacerbates these issues; as P3 explained, “musim tengkujuh menyebabkan hakisan di kawasan pelancongan utama,” indicating that the monsoon causes erosion in major tourist areas of the geopark. These conditions not only degrade paths but also increase maintenance workload as repairs must be done more frequently.

Other participants highlighted safety hazards and logistical problems caused by weather. P4 mentioned that after rain, water accumulates and paths become slippery, creating danger for visitors (“air bertakung dan jalan licin lepas hujan, bahaya untuk pelawat”). P5 pointed out the sensitivity of certain geological features, noting that “keadaan geologi karst sangat sensitif bila hujan lebat” – karst terrains (limestone areas) can be easily destabilised by heavy rain, complicating any maintenance or construction work there. P6 and P8 discussed how unpredictable weather disrupts maintenance schedules, as outdoor repair work often must be postponed during bad weather (“musim hujan memang mencabar untuk buat kerja baik pulih tapak” – the rainy season makes site repairs very challenging, said P6). In some cases, prolonged rainfall even damaged the maintenance equipment itself; P7 noted that “peralatan kami rosak bila terdedah kepada hujan sepanjang minggu,” meaning their tools got damaged when exposed to continuous rain for a week.

These consistent concerns suggest that weather-related deterioration is a systemic challenge affecting geopark maintenance. It impacts planning (need to time work in between rains), safety (wet and eroded facilities endanger visitors), and resource efficiency (repairs have to be repeated due to recurrent damage). Geopark teams often find themselves in a cycle of fixing washouts, clearing debris, and reinforcing structures after each major weather event. The findings indicate a need for more weather-resilient infrastructure design (e.g. better drainage on trails, use of materials that withstand rain) and flexible maintenance plans that account for seasonal climate patterns.

Community-Based Repair Dependency

Several geoparks rely heavily on community-based efforts to maintain assets, especially in situations where formal maintenance support is limited or slow to arrive. This sub-theme captures both the value and the limitations of local community involvement in geopark upkeep. Participants from multiple sites acknowledged that local residents, volunteers, or community groups frequently step in to conduct minor repairs, trail cleaning, or other maintenance tasks. Such community participation can be crucial in remote areas or during budget shortfalls. However, it also exposes a vulnerability: essential maintenance might be delayed or insufficient if it depends on voluntary efforts alone.

P2 remarked that “biasanya komuniti tempatan yang tolong baiki denai bila ada kerosakan kecil,” indicating that usually the local community helps fix trails when there are minor damages. This suggests an informal arrangement where villagers or local volunteers address small issues (like patching a footpath or clearing fallen branches) without waiting for official maintenance crews. P4 similarly said, “kami banyak bergantung kepada sukarelawan untuk kerja baik pulih ringan,” meaning they depend a lot on volunteers for light repair works. Such statements illustrate that in some geoparks, volunteerism fills the gap left by insufficient maintenance staffing.

In scenarios where funding is delayed or insufficient, community initiative becomes a stopgap solution. P6 explained that “kadang-kadang, kalau tunggu bajet lambat, orang kampung akan ambil inisiatif sendiri,” which translates to “sometimes, if waiting for budget [approval or disbursement] takes too long, the villagers take their own initiative.” This was echoed in several cases where community members organized “gotong-royong” (communal work) to maintain facilities like tourist trails, especially when bureaucratic processes for repairs were slow. Such proactive involvement shows community pride and ownership of the geopark, which is a strength.

However, participants also acknowledged the limitations of relying on community efforts. As P8 cautioned, “penglibatan komuniti penting, tapi tak semua kerja boleh diserah pada mereka,” meaning community involvement is important, but not all tasks can be entrusted to them. For instance, technical jobs like structural reinforcement, electrical repairs, or handling heavy machinery require skilled professionals and cannot be done by volunteers without proper training. There are also issues of consistency and sustainability – volunteer efforts might wane over time or be available only intermittently.

From these insights, we see a dual message: on one hand, community-based maintenance provides invaluable support and reflects local stewardship of geopark resources; on the other hand, it highlights gaps in formal maintenance provision. This sub-theme underlines the need for formalising maintenance structures – perhaps through community training programs, maintenance budgets that empower local teams, or quicker small-scale funding releases – so that community help complements rather than substitutes for systematic maintenance. Engaging local communities is clearly beneficial for routine upkeep and fostering shared responsibility, but it should be part of a broader strategy that ensures complex and long-term maintenance needs are met by qualified personnel with adequate resources.

High Visitor Impact

Unregulated tourist behaviour and surges in visitor numbers (especially during weekends or school holidays) were identified as major contributors to the wear and damage of geopark facilities. This sub-theme reflects the adverse impact of high visitor volume on trails, sites, and amenities, as well as specific visitor behaviours that exacerbate infrastructure degradation. Participants noted that during peak periods, certain geoparks become overcrowded, leading to accelerated physical deterioration of paths, viewing platforms, and other facilities. Additionally, some visitors engage in actions that directly harm sensitive environments, requiring additional maintenance or restoration efforts.

Several participants described how peak tourist seasons strain the parks. P1 shared that “bila cuti sekolah, kawasan jadi terlalu sesak. Denai cepat rosak,” which means “when it’s school holidays, the area becomes overcrowded and the trails get damaged quickly.” This was echoed by P5, who observed “kerosakan paling ketara berlaku masa musim cuti. Kemudahan awam cepat uzur,” indicating that the most noticeable damage occurs during the holiday season when public facilities wear out faster than usual. Essentially, high footfall leads to intensive use of trails (trampling vegetation edges, loosening soil) and heavy use of amenities (toilets, shelters), causing them to age or break at an accelerated rate. Maintenance teams struggle to keep up with repairs when visitor numbers remain continuously high over weeks.

Beyond sheer numbers, visitor behaviour plays a role. P3 highlighted harmful habits such as tourists climbing on fragile geological formations, saying “ramai pelawat suka panjat kawasan batu kapur, itu menyebabkan hakisan,” meaning many visitors like to climb limestone outcrops, which causes erosion. Such behaviour not only damages the rock surfaces (a conservation concern) but can also destroy constructed walkways or fences intended to keep people off those features. P7 pointed out a different issue: “pelawat kadang-kadang buang sampah merata, menyukarkan kerja pembersihan,” i.e. visitors sometimes litter everywhere, making cleaning work difficult. Litter can clog drainage, attract pests, or simply degrade the natural beauty, adding to maintenance duties for staff who must remove trash regularly. In some cases, litter or vandalism can render facilities unusable (e.g. trash in a pondok or shelter might discourage others from using it until cleaned).

These experiences indicate that visitor management is a key factor in geopark maintenance. Without adequate measures such as visitor education, enforcement of park regulations, and infrastructure designed to handle crowds, the influx of tourists can quickly outpace the maintenance capacity. Participants suggested the need for improved awareness campaigns to encourage responsible behaviour (e.g. not littering, staying on designated paths), as well as possibly infrastructural solutions like more robust trail materials or designated viewing platforms to confine foot traffic. Enforcement – having park rangers or signage to deter risky behaviours like off-trail hiking or vandalism – was also implied as necessary. In summary, managing high visitor impact involves both soft approaches (education, community outreach) and hard approaches (physical infrastructure and enforcement) to ensure that tourism remains sustainable and does not degrade the very assets that visitors come to enjoy.

Vandalism and Human Impact

In several geoparks, participants reported persistent issues with vandalism and inappropriate visitor activities that lead to direct damage of facilities. This sub-theme overlaps somewhat with high visitor impact but focuses on intentional or careless actions by people that undermine conservation efforts and add to the maintenance burden. Examples include defacing or breaking signage, damaging safety railings, or misusing public amenities like rest areas. Such actions not only incur repair costs but also diminish the educational and aesthetic value of the sites.

Participants shared multiple anecdotes illustrating this problem. P2 reported that “papan tanda banyak diconteng atau dirosakkan oleh pelawat,” meaning many information signboards are scribbled on or destroyed by visitors. Interpretive signs are crucial for geoparks to convey geological information – when they are vandalised, it impacts the visitor experience and requires replacement or repainting. P4 recounted an incident: “ada kes pelawat patahkan pagar keselamatan untuk masuk ikut jalan pintas,” i.e. there was a case where visitors broke a safety fence to take a shortcut. This act not only damaged the infrastructure (the fence) but also posed a safety risk by allowing unauthorized access to a restricted area. It shows disregard for both rules and safety on the part of some visitors.

P6 reflected on the cumulative effect of such behaviours, explaining “kerosakan pada kemudahan awam kadang-kadang berpunca daripada sikap pelawat sendiri,” which translates to “damage to public facilities is sometimes caused by the visitors’ own attitudes/behaviour.” This was a general comment noting that negligence – like not using facilities properly, or even minor acts of misuse – can cause a lot of deterioration over time. An example given by P7 was that “tandas awam dan pondok rehat sering dijadikan tempat melepak dan kadang-kadang dirosakkan,” meaning public toilets and shelters are often used as hangout spots and sometimes get vandalised. Congregating in these areas isn’t an issue per se, but it often leads to litter, graffiti, or broken fittings if unsupervised groups misuse the space.

These findings point to a need for both better visitor education and stricter enforcement of park rules. Many geoparks would benefit from programmes that instill a sense of respect for the site – for instance, briefing visitors on expected behaviour, putting up clear informational signs about regulations, and explaining the significance of not damaging features. Additionally, having staff or community wardens present can deter deliberate vandalism. Some parks may consider surveillance for critical areas (e.g. CCTV at important sites) as a preventative measure. Another approach is design improvements: using more durable materials for signage (that resist weather and are harder to deface), placing fencing in a way that it’s less tempting to breach, or providing designated spaces for visitors to gather that are easy to monitor and maintain. Ultimately, reducing human-induced damage will require an integrated strategy combining outreach, supervision, and smart design, so that geopark facilities are both inviting for visitors and resilient against misuse.

Sensitive Terrain Conditions

Geoparks often encompass fragile terrain and ecosystems – such as limestone karst formations, steep mountainous slopes, peat swamps, or coastal areas – which impose constraints on maintenance activities. This sub-theme addresses the difficulties in performing maintenance in such sensitive environments without causing further damage, as well as how certain terrains limit the use of standard equipment. Participants emphasized that these conditions require specialized approaches and added caution.

Several quotes illustrate the range of terrain challenges. P3 described the fragility of limestone hills: “kawasan bukit batu kapur ni rapuh, kena hati-hati bila nak buat baik pulih,” which means “this limestone hill area is fragile; we have to be very careful when doing restoration works.” In karst areas, rocks can be brittle and there may be unseen cavities, so heavy machinery or even minor drilling can risk collapse or rockfall. Maintenance teams must often do more manual, delicate work in such zones, which is slower and labor-intensive. P5 similarly highlighted a geological instability concern: “kami tak boleh buat kerja berat sangat sebab struktur geologi mudah runtuh,” (“we can’t do very heavy work because the geological structure collapses easily”). This was likely referring to not using heavy construction methods or large structures in areas where the ground or rock is unstable.

Water-related terrains pose their own problems. P6 noted “kawasan tebing sungai ni cepat terhakis, tak boleh letak struktur kekal sangat,” meaning “this riverbank erodes quickly; we cannot put very permanent structures [there].” For river or coastal geosites, erosion can undermine foundations; anything built might need frequent reinforcement or could be washed away. It also implies the need for non-intrusive interventions – for example, using removable boardwalks or periodic re-routing of trails rather than concrete paths that could alter water flow or trap debris. P8 reported difficulties with peatland: “tanah gambut ni kalau musim hujan memang susah nak lalui, jentera pun tak boleh masuk,” which translates to “during the rainy season, this peat soil is really hard to traverse, even machinery cannot enter.” In waterlogged or soft soils, trucks or excavators might get bogged down, so maintenance crew might resort to handheld tools or wait for dry periods. Peat and swamp environments also recover slowly from disturbances, so one must minimize any digging or heavy foot traffic to avoid long-term damage.

Participants shared that because of these factors, standard maintenance procedures often need adaptation. For example, instead of driving a vehicle in, teams might have to carry materials by foot to a hillside site to avoid carving an access road. In some cases, maintenance might be limited to certain seasons when the terrain is stable (e.g. dry season for peat areas, non-monsoon for coastal cliffs). P3–P8’s experiences collectively suggest that addressing terrain-related constraints requires tailored strategies that account for geophysical limitations. This could include training staff in low-impact maintenance techniques (like using floating boardwalks in wetlands, or anchor bolts in caves placed with minimal drilling), consulting geologists or engineers for site-specific solutions, and investing in specialised equipment (such as lightweight portable tools). Moreover, it underscores the importance of initial infrastructure design that suits the terrain – for example, using raised platforms over sensitive ground, or choosing materials that can flex/move with minor ground shifts.

In summary, sensitive terrain conditions in geoparks demand a careful balance: maintaining visitor access and safety while not harming the very environment the geopark is meant to protect. Maintenance interventions must be gentle and smart, often requiring more effort and creativity from the geopark teams.

Manpower Constraints

A common theme expressed by the interviewees was the shortage of dedicated maintenance personnel for geopark operations. Most geoparks in the study, especially those with limited budgets or those managed as part of larger agencies, do not have enough staff focused solely on maintenance tasks. This sub-theme reflects how human resource limitations lead to delayed responses to problems, reduced routine monitoring, and an over-reliance on reactive or improvised solutions.

Participants frequently cited having too few staff to cover the extensive areas and numerous facilities within a geopark. P1 explained that “kakitangan tetap untuk penyelenggaraan sangat terhad,” meaning “permanent staff for maintenance is very limited.” In practice, this could mean only one or two maintenance officers for an entire geopark spanning dozens of square kilometers, or that maintenance is just one of many duties for a general staff member. The result is that issues like broken signs or eroded trails might remain unaddressed for longer than desirable, simply because no one is available to check all sites regularly or perform the fix immediately. P3 shared a concrete example: “kami cuma ada dua orang je untuk jaga keseluruhan kawasan,” (“we only have two people to take care of the whole area”). This clearly illustrates how overstretched the personnel are – a small team must “split themselves” to handle multiple locations, inevitably leading to some oversight.

In some cases, geopark management resorts to borrowing or reallocating staff from other departments. P6 noted, “kadang-kadang kami terpaksa bergantung kepada staf jabatan lain,” indicating that sometimes they have to depend on staff from other departments. For example, they might ask the general groundskeepers or forestry workers to help with a trail repair, or rely on the public works department of the local council for technical jobs. While inter-departmental help can patch the gap, it is not a sustainable solution because those staff have their own primary duties and may not be readily available or specifically trained for geopark needs. P7 highlighted the consequence of insufficient personnel: “banyak kerja terbengkalai sebab tak cukup orang nak pantau setiap lokasi,” meaning “a lot of work is left unfinished because there aren’t enough people to monitor each location.” This implies that non-critical maintenance tasks (like repainting a faded sign, or clearing a minor trail obstruction) might be postponed indefinitely, and only the most urgent issues get attention. Over time, these backlogs can accumulate and degrade the overall quality of the park’s infrastructure.

The observations from participants point to the need for improved staffing strategies and resource allocation for maintenance. Possible solutions could be to assign a dedicated maintenance unit for each geopark (even if small, it would focus solely on upkeep tasks), increase the number of technical staff through government support or partnerships (perhaps involving local municipalities or volunteer ranger programs), and provide training to existing staff to multi-task effectively. Another aspect is better prioritisation – given limited manpower, having clear maintenance schedules and priority lists (for instance, safety-related fixes first, aesthetic improvements later) can help ensure that the most important tasks are not neglected. Additionally, when manpower cannot be immediately increased, some geoparks have turned to community engagement (as noted earlier) or outsourcing specific maintenance jobs to contractors. However, outsourcing requires funding and oversight. In essence, addressing manpower constraints likely circles back to the issue of funding and planning: ensuring there is budget to hire or contract sufficient workers, and managing them in a coordinated way to cover the geopark’s needs.

Outdated Maintenance Equipment

Another recurring issue identified was the use of outdated or inadequate equipment for maintenance work. Participants observed that many geopark maintenance teams lack modern tools and machinery, relying instead on old or improvised equipment that reduces efficiency and effectiveness. This sub-theme highlights how equipment constraints can slow down repairs, limit the types of work that can be done, and sometimes pose safety risks for the maintenance crew (if they must use improper tools for a task).

Several participants shared anecdotes on this front. P2 mentioned, “masih guna peralatan lama yang dah uzur, susah nak buat kerja cepat,” which means “we’re still using old equipment that’s worn out, it’s hard to get the work done quickly.” This suggests that tools like power washers, drills, vehicles, etc., might be past their prime, prone to breakdowns, or simply not efficient by current standards. Using an old generator or rusted machetes, for example, could make tasks like clearing fallen trees or mixing concrete much slower than necessary. P4 pointed out that “tak semua tapak ada akses kepada mesin yang sesuai,” meaning “not every site has access to appropriate machinery.” In practice, this could mean that certain heavy machinery (like small excavators or cherry-picker lifts for high work) is not available at all, or if available, cannot reach remote sites due to lack of roads or fear of terrain damage. So, some tasks that ideally would be mechanised (like dredging a silted pond or trimming high branches) must be done manually or not at all.

P6 emphasised a specific gap: “kita kekurangan jentera untuk kerja-kerja berat, jadi ambil masa lama,” translating to “we lack machinery for heavy works, so it takes a very long time.” Without the right machines, even simple projects – hauling materials, earthworks to fix erosion, installing new structures – require much more manpower and time, or are postponed waiting for equipment borrowed from elsewhere. P8 added another perspective, “nak baiki struktur pun kadang guna alat manual yang tak efisien,” meaning “even to repair a structure, sometimes [we] use manual tools that are inefficient.” This scenario paints a picture of maintenance staff trying to fix, say, a wooden bridge using hand saws and hammers where a power saw and drill would do the job better and more safely. Not only does this slow the repair, but it might result in lower quality work or temporary fixes.

Collectively, these remarks underscore a pressing need for equipment upgrades and better logistical support for maintenance operations. Modernising equipment could include acquiring items like portable power tools, reliable vehicles (e.g. 4×4 utility trucks or ATVs that can navigate rough terrain), and protective gear for staff. In addition, introducing technologies like GPS mapping devices or drones for inspection could greatly enhance monitoring efficiency. However, obtaining such equipment circles back to budget availability and planning – it must be recognised as a priority by park management and supporting authorities. Some participants hinted that equipment requests are often submitted but await funding approval for long periods.

Improving logistics is also crucial. Even if a geopark cannot station every piece of machinery on-site, having a shared pool at the state or region level that can be mobilised quickly would help. For example, a regional response team with a small excavator and chainsaws could travel to any geopark in that state for emergency trail clearing after a storm. Moreover, maintenance scheduling should factor in moving equipment around: if one geopark has a cherry-picker for a month, plan tasks in that period that need it, then rotate it to the next site.

In summary, outdated equipment is a handicap that makes every maintenance challenge harder to address. Modern tools would enable faster, safer, and more durable maintenance work. Addressing this issue will likely require capital investment and perhaps external support (e.g., special grants to parks for equipment purchases), but the payoff would be more efficient operations and possibly cost savings in the long run (as tasks completed properly reduce repeat fixes).

Budgetary Constraints

Finally, budgetary constraints were unanimously cited by participants as the most critical overarching challenge. All eight informants (P1–P8) indicated that limited or inconsistent funding profoundly affects every aspect of geopark maintenance, from procuring materials and hiring staff to scheduling timely repairs. In many ways, this sub-theme underlies several others: financial limitations lead to manpower shortages, lack of equipment, reliance on community help, and so on. Budget issues manifest in delayed maintenance works, inability to replace aging infrastructure, and difficult prioritisation choices about what can or cannot be fixed each year.

Each participant provided insight into how funding shortfalls impact their work. P1 described how their annual maintenance allocation is barely sufficient for essentials, saying “bajet penyelenggaraan tiap tahun sangat terhad, cukup-cukup makan je,” which translates colloquially to “the yearly maintenance budget is very limited, just barely enough to get by.” This implies that there is no room for major improvements or contingencies – they can perhaps do routine cleaning and small fixes, but anything beyond that might be out of reach without extra funds. P2 shared that they sometimes rely on external donations or sponsorships, noting “kadang-kadang kami kena minta sumbangan luar untuk tampung kos baik pulih,” meaning “sometimes we have to seek outside contributions to cover repair costs.” While seeking sponsorship (from private companies or higher government bodies) can help, it’s not guaranteed or sustainable as a strategy for core maintenance needs.

Others highlighted how limited budgets force difficult decisions and postponements. P3 said “kena pilih kerja mana nak buat dulu sebab tak cukup bajet,” (“we have to choose which work to do first because the budget isn’t enough”), indicating that some maintenance tasks must be deferred or dropped every year. P5 similarly mentioned they often cannot purchase necessary spare parts or materials because those items were not budgeted for: “kami kadang tak dapat beli alat ganti pun sebab tak masuk peruntukan.” This can lead to situations where broken facilities remain out of service for long periods because the part to fix it isn’t on hand and there’s no allocated money to buy it until the next cycle.

P6 and P7 explained that even when funds are promised, the disbursement can be slow or insufficient, resulting in maintenance works being delayed or carried into the next fiscal year. For example, P7 noted “bila tiada bajet tambahan, kerja pembaikan ditangguh ke tahun depan,” meaning “when there’s no additional budget, repair works are postponed to the following year.” This often happens for larger maintenance projects – if, say, a viewing platform needs major refurbishment, they might propose it this year but if funding isn’t approved, it gets rolled over. P6 added that waiting for full funding can be so slow that they sometimes start temporary fixes but end up putting off the proper repair: “kalau nak tunggu peruntukan penuh memang lambat, kadang kita tangguh dulu,” (“if we wait for full funding, it’s really slow, sometimes we just postpone [the work]”). Meanwhile, P8 highlighted bureaucratic hurdles at the state level: “kita selalu bergantung kepada bajet negeri, tapi tak tentu bila diluluskan,” which means “we always depend on state budget approval, but it’s uncertain when it will be approved.” This uncertainty makes planning difficult – one year the geopark might get a decent maintenance budget, the next year it might be cut or delayed, leaving them scrambling to cover basic needs.

These testimonies clearly show that budgetary limitations cut across all aspects of geopark maintenance, making it the most pervasive and systemic challenge. When funds are scarce, maintenance becomes largely reactive and selective – minor issues accumulate into bigger problems, infrastructure ages without proper renewal, and the quality of visitor experience can decline. Moreover, the reliance on unpredictable funding streams (annual government budgets or ad-hoc grants) introduces instability in long-term maintenance planning.

Addressing budgetary constraints likely requires high-level interventions: consistent funding allocations for geopark maintenance in government budgets, possibly new revenue streams (like a small portion of ticket fees or tourism tax earmarked for maintenance), and careful financial planning by geopark management to prioritise critical maintenance annually. It may also involve advocacy to demonstrate that investing in maintenance saves money over time by preventing costly failures and supports tourism, which has economic returns.

In summary, financial constraints are the root challenge that needs to be managed to enable all other maintenance improvements. Without sufficient funding, solutions to manpower, equipment, or community programs remain limited in scope. Therefore, securing and efficiently utilising funds is fundamental to enhancing the maintenance of geopark facilities.

Summary of Identified Maintenance Challenges

In total, the qualitative analysis identified eight interrelated sub-themes representing the most common and pressing maintenance challenges across Malaysian geoparks. These are: weather-related deterioration, community-based repair dependency, high visitor impact, vandalism and human impact, sensitive terrain conditions, manpower constraints, outdated maintenance equipment, and budgetary constraints. While each sub-theme highlights a specific aspect of the problem, it is important to note that they often overlap and mutually reinforce one another. For instance, limited manpower and outdated equipment frequently stem from underlying financial constraints (indeed, all participants cited budget issues as a major factor). Similarly, reliance on community volunteers and delays in addressing weather damage are connected to both budget and staffing limitations. High visitor impact and vandalism might be mitigated by better planning and public engagement, which in turn require sufficient resources and personnel.

Overall, the findings underscore that maintaining built assets in geoparks is not solely a technical or operational issue, but also a structural challenge. It is shaped by resource availability (funds and tools), institutional capacity (staff and planning systems), and environmental conditions that are inherent to geoparks. Table 5 provides an overview of these eight maintenance challenge areas and indicates which participants (P1–P8) mentioned each issue during the interviews. The ubiquity of check marks in the table illustrates that many challenges are shared broadly among the geoparks, especially budgetary constraints which every participant raised.

Crucially, the interdependencies among challenges suggest that piecemeal solutions will not be sufficient. A holistic approach is required to effectively improve geopark asset maintenance. This approach should integrate forward-thinking planning (e.g. preventive maintenance schedules and asset tracking), adequate and stable funding, skilled and sufficient human resources, stakeholder coordination (between agencies, local communities, and possibly private partners), and adaptive strategies tailored to each geopark’s environment (such as weather-proofing infrastructure or using terrain-appropriate techniques). In the following section, the implications of these findings are discussed in light of broader management practices, and recommendations are made for strengthening the maintenance of geopark facilities to ensure these natural heritage sites remain safe, accessible, and sustainable.

Table 5: Overview of eight major maintenance challenges and their occurrence (P1–P8) (✓ indicates the participant explicitly mentioned the challenge)

(P1–P8 = Participant codes corresponding to each geopark representative)

As shown in Table 5, challenges like Budgetary Constraints were universally noted, while others such as High Visitor Impact and Vandalism were raised by roughly half of the participants, often those from more tourist-heavy sites. Community-Based Repair Dependency and Outdated Equipment were mentioned in cases where formal support was weaker, highlighting disparities in how geoparks cope with maintenance. The spread of checkmarks underlines the earlier point: many of these issues co-occur, suggesting that tackling one area (for example, securing more budget) could have positive ripple effects on others (enabling hiring of staff, purchase of equipment, etc.).

In conclusion of the results, the qualitative evidence paints a comprehensive picture of the maintenance challenges in Malaysia’s geoparks. The managers and officers on the ground experience a constant balancing act – attending to environmental wear and visitor impacts with limited means. Their insights make clear that any long-term solution will need to address fundamental resource and governance issues, not just quick fixes on individual problems.

DISCUSSION

The above findings reveal a multifaceted set of challenges that hinder the effective maintenance of geopark facilities. Notably, these challenges are highly interrelated, forming a web of constraints that can trap geopark management in a reactive mode. A lack of funding leads to insufficient staffing and outdated equipment, which in turn make it harder to address weather damages or implement preventive upkeep, which then exacerbates deterioration and safety risks – and the cycle continues. This holistic understanding is crucial: improving geopark asset maintenance cannot be done in silos (e.g. by fixing one problem at a time) without considering the broader system in which these problems exist.

When comparing the results to prior literature and known issues in park management, there is a strong alignment on certain core problems. Resource constraints, especially financial and human resources, stand out as the fundamental issue and were echoed by every participant. This mirrors observations in other protected area studies that chronic underfunding is a primary barrier to effective infrastructure management (Planning Malaysia, 2022). Similarly, the identification of planning gaps and reliance on reactive maintenance corroborates earlier conference findings that Malaysian geoparks often lack structured asset management frameworks (IOP Conference Series, 2022). The qualitative evidence adds depth to these points by showing how, for example, a single officer juggling an entire geopark’s needs results in fragmented attention and how delays in budget approvals directly cause maintenance postponements on the ground.

The findings also highlight the socio-cultural dimension of maintenance, something that quantitative or technical assessments might overlook. The role of local communities in upkeep (both as helpers and in some cases as sources of damage through misuse) underscores that maintenance is not purely an engineering issue but also one of community engagement and education. Instances of vandalism and littering point to a need for improved visitor management strategies. This suggests that geopark management would benefit from closer collaboration with community stakeholders – turning residents and repeat visitors into allies for maintenance. Initiatives like community “Friends of the Geopark” groups or educational campaigns in local schools can foster a sense of shared responsibility for facilities. In fact, some participants’ reliance on volunteerism indicates an available social capital that could be better structured; rather than ad-hoc help, geoparks could formalise volunteer maintenance days or adopt-a-trail programs, mitigating the manpower shortage to some extent.

Another discussion point is the environmental and design aspect. Geoparks are by nature dynamic environments – heavy rain, humidity, and erosion are expected challenges, not anomalies. The persistent weather-related damage and terrain difficulties reported suggest that maintenance needs to be more anticipatory and adaptive. This could involve investing in more resilient infrastructure (for example, using weather-resistant materials, improved drainage systems, or modular structures that can be easily repaired or replaced). It also means incorporating maintenance considerations at the design stage of any new facility. For instance, when building a boardwalk in a peat swamp, planners should include features that allow sections to be lifted for re-levelling as the ground shifts, and ensure that materials can withstand waterlogging. Likewise, in erosion-prone slopes, geotechnical assessments and protective measures (retaining walls, geotextiles) should accompany any trail or platform construction to reduce future repair frequency.

The need for an integrated maintenance strategy becomes evident when considering these points collectively. Rather than addressing, say, vandalism with isolated enforcement, or weather damage with repeated patch jobs, geopark authorities should develop a comprehensive maintenance master plan. Such a plan would set clear maintenance priorities (safety-critical assets first), schedules (regular inspections timed with monsoon patterns), resource plans (budget forecasts, equipment purchase and rotation schedules), and roles (which agency or team handles what type of maintenance). It could also outline an emergency response protocol for extreme events (like landslides or floods affecting infrastructure).

One encouraging implication of the study is that many challenges identified are manageable with known solutions, given sufficient will and resources. Budget constraints, while persistent, can be alleviated by demonstrating the value of geoparks to government and perhaps diversifying funding (e.g. earmarking a portion of tourism revenue). Human resource issues could be tackled by training multi-skilled staff or introducing internship programs with local universities for conservation maintenance. The equipment gap might be closed with one-time grants or corporate social responsibility (CSR) contributions where companies donate machinery. Furthermore, the push for digital transformation in heritage sites (noted in the literature) could be leveraged – for example, implementing a simple digital reporting system for rangers to log maintenance issues could significantly improve monitoring (even a smartphone-based app or shared spreadsheet can serve this purpose at low cost).

It is also worth noting that some challenges carry opportunities in disguise. The heavy reliance on community support, while a sign of institutional limitation, also indicates strong local interest – a foundation upon which more inclusive management models can be built. Engaging community members in a structured way could improve maintenance outcomes and simultaneously build local pride and job opportunities (such as community warden programs). Similarly, addressing visitor-induced damage by enhancing interpretation and outreach can turn into an opportunity for deeper visitor engagement: if visitors are made part of the solution (through awareness campaigns or citizen science programs where they help report issues), they might feel more invested in preserving the park.

Considering the results, geopark management authorities (both at park and national levels) should consider several strategic recommendations:

• Secure Sustainable Funding: Advocate for dedicated maintenance funds in annual budgets. Explore alternative funding like maintenance endowment funds, partnerships with tourism operators (who might co-sponsor upkeep as it benefits them), or small entrance/parking fees where appropriate, with proceeds ring-fenced for maintenance needs.
• Capacity Building: Increase staffing either by hiring or training existing personnel in maintenance skills. In the interim, formalise volunteer maintenance schemes to harness community goodwill. Provide regular training workshops on low-impact maintenance techniques suitable for geopark environments.
• Adopt Technology: Implement basic asset management systems – even a spreadsheet listing all major facilities, their condition, and maintenance history can help track needs. In the long term, consider more advanced tools (GIS mapping of assets, or a BIM model for a visitor centre’s facilities) for efficient planning. Utilize social media or mobile apps to receive visitor feedback on facility conditions (many issues like fallen trees or broken toilets can be reported by visitors in real time if channels exist).
• Enhance Design and Materials: Whenever renovations or new constructions are done, choose designs that are proven to endure local conditions. Consult experts in sustainable park infrastructure. This might mean higher upfront costs but will reduce recurring maintenance costs.
• Stakeholder Collaboration: Foster a maintenance network among all parties – local councils, public works departments, park rangers, community leaders. Regular coordination meetings can ensure everyone knows what their role is (for example, a local council may agree to periodically clear access roads and drains, while the park team focuses on trails and facilities within geosites). Multi-stakeholder involvement also helps in pooling resources – equipment or expertise can be shared.
• Visitor Management and Education: Develop targeted educational programs highlighting how visitors can help keep the geopark clean and intact (e.g. “Leave No Trace” principles tailored to geoparks). Improve signage that directs visitor flow to minimise off-trail wanderings. In popular sites, consider having volunteer guides or rangers present to both guide tourists and discourage vandalism or littering. Over time, as the visitor culture shifts towards one of respect and care, the strain on maintenance might lessen.

In conclusion, the discussion makes it clear that the challenges identified are not insurmountable, but they require a shift from ad-hoc maintenance to a more planned, well-resourced, and inclusive maintenance regime. The Malaysian geopark context, with strong government interest in expanding geoparks, provides an opportune moment to prioritise maintenance as a key component of geopark management. By learning from the experiences of those on the front lines (as captured in this study), stakeholders can implement changes that ensure the physical backbone of the geoparks – their trails, facilities, and infrastructure – are preserved and improved. This, in turn, will help safeguard the geological and cultural heritage that the geoparks were established to protect, and maintain the quality of visitor experience that drives their educational and economic value.

While this study highlights the challenges faced in maintaining geopark facilities and assets, it is important to acknowledge that digital tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), GIS mapping, and sensor-based monitoring were only briefly mentioned. Their practical application, particularly in resource-constrained settings, will be explored in future research. Similarly, issues of policy enforcement, governance frameworks, and long-term financing mechanisms are beyond the scope of the current paper, but they remain critical factors for sustainable asset maintenance.

CONCLUSION

This study has examined the challenges of maintaining geopark facilities and assets in Malaysia through first-hand accounts of geopark managers and officers. The research identified eight major, recurring issues: from environmental impacts like heavy rainfall damage and sensitive terrain constraints, to human and organizational factors such as limited budgets, manpower shortages, reliance on community repairs, intense visitor pressures, and instances of vandalism. These findings paint a comprehensive picture of why keeping geopark infrastructure in good condition is difficult under current conditions. Importantly, the results show that many of these challenges are interlinked, often stemming from fundamental constraints in funding and capacity.

In a formal academic context, these insights contribute to the broader understanding of sustainable heritage site management. They underscore that effective maintenance of geoparks is a systemic issue, requiring improvements not just in technical fixes but in planning, resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, and policy support. Addressing the challenges will likely demand an integrated strategy: one that secures adequate financial resources, builds maintenance capacity (through skilled staff and better equipment), engages local communities and visitors as partners in conservation, and designs infrastructure that is resilient to the environmental realities of geoparks.

For Malaysia’s geoparks, implementing such strategies is vital for the long-term sustainability of both the geoheritage and the visitor economy. Well-maintained facilities ensure visitor safety and satisfaction, which in turn support education and tourism objectives. Conversely, continued neglect or reactive maintenance could lead to deteriorating assets, safety incidents, or loss of public trust, undermining the geopark’s purpose. The evidence gathered here provides a clear impetus for policy-makers and geopark authorities to prioritise asset maintenance as part of overall geopark management. By doing so, Malaysia’s geoparks can better preserve their unique natural and cultural heritage while providing high-quality, safe, and educational experiences to visitors.

In conclusion, maintaining geopark assets is as crucial as conserving the geological features themselves – the two are intertwined in delivering a sustainable geopark. This paper serves as a foundation by focusing on challenges, while future studies will build on this analysis to examine practical solutions such as policy frameworks, technological applications, and stakeholder engagement.

REFERENCES

1. UNESCO, “UNESCO Global Geoparks,” https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/geoparks/about​.
2. R. Abdul Aziz, H. S. Hashim, and I. Komoo, “GEOPARK FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION: A NEED FOR INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT,” PLANNING MALAYSIA, vol. 1, no. 1, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.21837/pm.v1i1.89.
3. Global Geoparks Network, “Strategic Plan 2022-2023,” Strategic Plan 2022-2023.
4. J. E. Gordon, “Climate Change and Geotourism: Impacts, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Tourism and Hospitality, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 514–538, 2023, doi: 10.3390/tourhosp4040032.
5. “PLANNING MALAYSIA Conservation With Development: Focus On Langkawi,” 2011.
6. M. Herrera Galán, “Evidence-based asset management applied to maintenance function control,” J Qual Maint Eng, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 635–644, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1108/JQME-05-2018-0045.
7. K. M. B. Barakat, “Climate Change Impacts on Heritage Timber Structures,” 2024.
8. M. GhulamRabbany, S. Afrin, A. Rahman, F. Islam, and F. Hoque, “Environmental effects of tourism,” American Journal of Environment, Energy and Power Research, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 117–130, 2013.
9. S. Mattern, “Maintenance and care,” Places Journal, 2018.
10. O. P. Liu and S. Abd Halim, “Planning for heritage tourism: The case of Langkawi Geopark,” Planning Malaysia, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011.
11. Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Malaysia, Pelan Pembangunan Geopark Negara 2021–2030. 2023.
12. R. Dowling, “Geotourism’s contribution to sustainable tourism,” in The practice of sustainable tourism, Routledge, 2015, pp. 207–227.
13. N. A. A. Anuwar, S. A. Sobri, A. Hermawan, K. A. Hambali, W. Ismail, and M. H. M. Amini, “The potential of eco-tourism: a narrative case study of Perlis state park, Malaysia,” Journal of Critical Reviews, vol. 7, no. 15, pp. 3070–3077, 2020.
14. A. B. H. Fuad et al., “Species Diversity of Bats in the Rich Limestone Complex Area of Merapoh in Lipis National Geopark, Malaysia,” ARPHA Preprints, vol. 5, p. e125911, 2024.
15. S. A. Halim, I. Komoo, H. Salleh, and M. Omar, “THE GEOPARK AS A POTENTIAL TOOL FOR ALLEVIATING COMMUNITY MARGINALITY.,” Shima, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011.
16. S. A. Halim and N. A. Ishak, “Examining community engagement in heritage conservation through geopark experiences from the Asia Pacific region,” Kajian Malaysia, vol. 35, pp. 11–38, 2017.
17. R. K. Dowling and D. Newsome, “Geotourism destinations–visitor impacts and site management considerations,” Czech Journal of Tourism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 111–129, 2017.
18. N. T. Farsani, C. Coelho, and C. Costa, “Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio‐economic development in rural areas,” International journal of tourism research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 68–81, 2011.
19. E. Kornecká, M. Molokáč, B. Gregorová, V. Čech, P. Hronček, and M. Javorská, “Structure of Sustainable Management of Geoparks through Multi-Criteria Methods,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 16, no. 3, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16030983.
20. R. Varriale, L. Genovese, and B. Aldighieri, “‘Diffused Geoparks’: Territorial Integration as Solution for a Shared Sustainable Growth Based on Geotourism in Italy, Japan and Tunisia,” Heritage, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2083–2105, 2022, doi: 10.3390/heritage5030109.
21. F. Morante-Carballo, M. J. Domínguez-Cuesta, N. Paz-Salas, J. Malavé-Hernández, J. Dueñas-Tovar, and P. Carrión-Mero, “Evaluation of the potential of coastal cliffs as geosites for the promotion of geotourism,” Geography and Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 356–371, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2023.08.003.
22. I. Neches, “Geodiversity beyond material evidence: A Geosite Type based interpretation of geological heritage,” Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol. 127, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2015.12.009.
23. U. Pröbstl-Haider, C. Hödl, K. Ginner, and F. Borgwardt, “Climate change: Impacts on outdoor activities in the summer and shoulder seasons,” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, vol. 34, p. 100344, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100344.
24. C. P. Au-Yong, X. Gan, N. Azmi, R. Zainol, and I. S. Mat Radzuan, “Maintenance priority towards the features and facilities in Malaysian public parks: Visitors’ perspective versus actual experience,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 14, p. 102133, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2023.102133.
25. L. Deng, N. H. Romainoor, and B. Zhang, “Evaluation of the Usage Requirements of Hospital Signage Systems Based on the Kano Model,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15064972.
26. S. Sharmin, “ON ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’ AND ‘SUSTAINABILITY’: DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS AND MEANINGS,” Journal of Indian Research, vol. 4, pp. 56–72, Jan. 2016.
27. H. Begić and H. Krstić, “Comprehensive review and comparative analysis of building condition assessment models,” Results in Engineering, vol. 22, p. 102176, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102176.
28. K. W. Johansen, J. Teizer, and C. Schultz, “Automated rule-based safety inspection and compliance checking of temporary guardrail systems in construction,” Autom Constr, vol. 168, p. 105849, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2024.105849.
29. G. Edney, T. Smart, F. Howat, Z. Batchelor, C. Hughes, and A. Moss, “Assessing the effect of interpretation design traits on zoo visitor engagement,” Zoo Biol, vol. 42, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1002/zoo.21759.
30. D. Maletič, H. Pacaiova, A. Nagyova, and M. Maletič, “The Link Between Asset Risk Management and Maintenance Performance: A Study of Industrial Manufacturing Companies,” Quality Innovation Prosperity, vol. 24, p. 50, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.12776/qip.v24i3.1477.
31. V. Golfinopoulos et al., “Quantitative Assessment of the Geosites of Chelmos-Vouraikos UNESCO Global Geopark (Greece),” Geosciences (Basel), vol. 12, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.3390/geosciences12020063.
32. O. Dousin, S. Aralas, and J. I. Denis, “Geopark development and community well-being: The case of Kinabalu UNESCO Global Geopark, Sabah, Malaysian Borneo,” International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 384–395, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2024.06.002.
33. S. Gaonkar and S. V Sukthankar, “Measuring and evaluating the influence of cultural sustainability indicators on sustainable cultural tourism development: Scale development and validation,” Heliyon, vol. 11, no. 4, p. e42514, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42514.
34. C. P. Au-Yong, P. Hoh, and D. Amos, “Enhancing the Maintenance Practice to Improve Guests’ Satisfaction in the Hotels Industry,” Built Environment Journal, vol. 21, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.24191/bej.v21i1.477.
35. R. Elfithri, M. Mokhtar, and M. Abdullah, “Water and environmental sustainability in Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, Malaysia: issues and challenges towards sustainable development,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 14, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12517-021-07537-x.
36. W. Fang, G. R. Gou, L. T. O. Cheung, L. Fok, A. S. Y. Chow, and K. Zhang, “An Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Geopark Management and Conservation: A Case Study of Geotourists in the Greater China Region,” Resources, vol. 13, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.3390/resources13020024.
37. M. Molokáč, E. Kornecká, and D. Tometzová, “Proposal for Effective Management of Geoparks as a Tool for Sustainable Tourism in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic,” Land (Basel), vol. 13, no. 7, 2024, doi: 10.3390/land13071104.
38. M. Molokáč, E. Kornecká, and D. Tometzová, “Proposal for Effective Management of Geoparks as a Tool for Sustainable Tourism in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic,” Land (Basel), vol. 13, no. 7, 2024, doi: 10.3390/land13071104.
39. A. Benhanifia, Z. Ben Cheikh, P. M. Oliveira, A. Valente, and J. Lima, “Systematic review of predictive maintenance practices in the manufacturing sector,” Intelligent Systems with Applications, vol. 26, p. 200501, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2025.200501.
40. A. Briggs, D. Newsome, and R. Dowling, “A proposed governance model for the adoption of geoparks in Australia,” International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 160–172, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.12.001.
41. D. Salleh, Infrastructure Development in Malaysia: How Planning System Regulates Local Infrastructure Provision? 2023. doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2023.11.02.58.
42. F. Khaled, “The Impact of Poor Planning and Management on the Duration of Construction Projects: A Review,” Jun. 2019.
43. N. Zouros and I. Valiakos, “Geoparks management and assessment,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, vol. 43, pp. 965–975, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.12681/bgsg.11262.
44. A. Hauashdh, S. Nagapan, J. Jailani, and Y. Gamil, “An integrated framework for sustainable and efficient building maintenance operations aligning with climate change, SDGs, and emerging technology,” Results in Engineering, vol. 21, p. 101822, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101822.
45. J. E. Gordon, “Climate Change and Geotourism: Impacts, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Tourism and Hospitality, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 514–538, 2023, doi: 10.3390/tourhosp4040032.
46. N. Jakubeit, W. Haanstra, J. Braaksma, M. Rajabalinejad, and L. van Dongen, “Co-Designing Sustainable Coordination to Support Inter-Organizational Decision Making,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 11, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14116467.
47. N. Shahirah, N. S. Mior Shariffuddin, W. Adzim, W. Zain, and M. Azinuddin, “Collaborative Challenges among Stakeholders on Tourism Destination Competitiveness,” Mar. 2021.
48. M. S. N. Ibrahim, S. Abdul-Halim, M. Y. Ishak, and S. Hassan, “The local community awareness on Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark status: Case of Kampung Padang Puteh, Langkawi, Malaysia,” International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 233–241, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.02.009.
49. A. Bhati, “Psychographic variables, tourist behaviour and vandalism in the South-East Asian tourism sector,” PLoS One, vol. 16, p. e0252195, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252195.
50. J. Stolz and H. E. Megerle, “Geotrails as a Medium for Education and Geotourism: Recommendations for Quality Improvement Based on the Results of a Research Project in the Swabian Alb UNESCO Global Geopark,” Land (Basel), vol. 11, no. 9, 2022, doi: 10.3390/land11091422.
51. S. Bolan et al., “Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 909, p. 168388, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168388.
52. C. Y. Ng, W. Z. Wan Jaafar, Y. Mei, F. Othman, S. H. Lai, and J. Liew, “Assessing the changes of precipitation extremes in Peninsular Malaysia,” International Journal of Climatology, vol. 42, no. 15, pp. 7914–7937, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7684.
53. Y.-F. Leung and J. Marion, “Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: A state-of-knowledge review,” J Soil Water Conserv, vol. 51, pp. 130–136, Mar. 1996.
54. X. Pellicer, A. Aytaç, A. Amorfini, and S. Delaby, Geohazards in European Geoparks. 2024. doi: 10.37609/akya.1159.
55. J. Zhao, Y. Zheng, B. Zhang, Y. Chen, and Y. Zhang, “Progress in the study of algae and mosses in biological soil crusts,” Frontiers of Biology in China, vol. 4, pp. 143–150, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11515-008-0104-0.
56. C. Chu, “Impact of Continued Infrastructural Development on Wildlife and its Habitat,” Theoretical and Natural Science, vol. 4, pp. 453–460, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.54254/2753-8818/4/20220620.
57. R. Elfithri, M. Mokhtar, and M. Abdullah, “Water and environmental sustainability in Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, Malaysia: issues and challenges towards sustainable development,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 14, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12517-021-07537-x.
58. J. E. Gordon, “Climate Change and Geotourism: Impacts, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Tourism and Hospitality, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 514–538, 2023.
59. A. A. Fashina, M. A. Omar, A. A. Sheikh, and F. F. Fakunle, “Exploring the significant factors that influence delays in construction projects in Hargeisa,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 4, p. e06826, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06826.
60. J. Madani, V. Nemati, R. Mostafazadeh, and H. Ashja, “Factors influencing and controlling vandalism by tourists and local indigenous communities at the Fandoghlou forest natural site,” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, vol. 48, p. 100830, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2024.100830.
61. A. Fröhlich, F. Przepióra, S. Drobniak, G. Mikusiński, and M. Ciach, “Public safety considerations constraint the conservation of large old trees and their crucial ecological heritage in urban green spaces,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 948, p. 174919, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174919.
62. A. M. Santos, M. Cincera, and G. Cerulli, “Sources of financing: Which ones are more effective in innovation–growth linkage?,” Economic Systems, vol. 48, no. 2, p. 101177, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2023.101177.
63. M. Nancy, K. Prudence, and M. University Research Repository Extension, “Capacity Building programs and their impact on employee performance. A case study of Metropolitan International University,” vol. 3, pp. 74–81, Apr. 2024.
64. S. Abdul Halim and N. Ishak, “EXAMINING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION THROUGH GEOPARK EXPERIENCES FROM THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION,” Kajian Malaysia, vol. vol.35, pp. 11–38, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.21315/km2017.35.Supp.1.2.
65. J. Hermawan, L. I. Wijaya, and A. Rianawati, “Leveraging digitalization in geoheritage and geoparks: Analysis of advancements and trends through bibliometric analysis and the antecedents, decisions, outcomes-theories, contexts, methods (ADO-TCM) framework,” International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 453–472, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2025.05.002.
66. P. Baxter and S. Jack, “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers,” Qualitative Report, vol. 13, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573.
67. D. A. Ruban, A. V Mikhailenko, N. N. Yashalova, and A. V Scherbina, “Global geoparks: Opportunity for developing or ‘toy’ for developed?,” International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 54–63, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2022.11.003.
68. J. Mohamad and A. Othman, “Gombak District: An overview of its development in the context of the Klang Valley Region.,” vol. 12, pp. 59–74, Jan. 1995.
69. A. Jusoh, Y. Sauman Sabin, R. Abdullah, F. Abdullah, and T. Chin, “Analysis of the Prospect of Heritage Tourism in Kinta Valley, Perak (Malaysia),” Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 11, p. 2020, Jun. 2020.
70. H. C. Goh and R. Zainol, “Conservation Education in Kinabalu Park, Malaysia: Analysis of Visitors’ Satisfaction.,” Journal of Tropical Forest Science, vol. 26, pp. 208–217, Apr. 2014.
71. M. Shaheen, S. Pradhan, and R. Ranajee, “Sampling in Qualitative Research,” 2019, pp. 25–51. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5366-3.ch002.
72. S. K. Ahmed et al., “Using thematic analysis in qualitative research,” Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, vol. 6, p. 100198, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198.