Customer perception about the quality in an à la carte restaurant: An exploratory analysis

André Luís Policani Freitas a; Marta Duarte de Barrosb

a North Fluminense State University
b Candido Mendes University – Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ

Abstract: Currently, tourism is one of the most promising economic activities. It’s success depends on a number of service sectors, including the restaurants. Several studies have been developed in order to assess the quality of services in restaurants searching to identify needs, expectations and most important attributes according to customers’ point of view. However, often these studies consider different dimensions and attributes, focusing on properties with specific characteristics, such as à la carte and self service. To contribute to the analysis of the problem, this article used a methodological approach based on existing models and studies to assess the quality of a restaurant regarding dimensions and items inherent to the segment, as perceived by customers. The study was conducted in a la carte restaurant located in a municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The use of the Alpha Coefficient of Cronbach showed that all dimensions were considered reliable. The results revealed that several critical items are associated with environmental conditions (servicescapes), as well as items related to facilities provided for people with special needs. It is believed that the approach is applicable to quality evaluation for other types of restaurants.

Keywords: Services quality; Services in restaurants; restaurants a la carte.

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the years, an increasing number of destinations has invested in tourism development, making the modern tourism a key element for socio-economic progress by creating jobs and businesses, infrastructure development and export revenues received (WTO, 2012).

The tourism sector occupies a relevant role in the world economy as one of the most promising activities and more economic representation, beside of the oil industry (BNDES, 2005). However, its success depends on several service sectors such as transport (air, road, maritime, etc.), lodging and, in particular restaurants.

In this context, the measurement of services quality provided in restaurants has been the subject of interest of several studies lately. Among other objectives, such studies seek to identify factors that influence the performance of services (Min et Min, 2011; Smith et al, 2009; Tinoco et Ribeiro, 2008) and analyze how the physical environment of the restaurants influences satisfaction and loyalty consumer (Ryu et Han, 2011; Ha et Jang, 2010; Kim et Moon, 2009).

However, most of these studies has different dimensions and attributes, focusing on properties with specific characteristics, such as a la carte restaurants, fast food and self-service. There is the inability to implement results due to the difference between the existing realities in the different types of restaurants.

Desiring to contribute to the treatment of the problem in question, apply a methodological approach based on existing models and scientific studies to measure the quality of services provided by restaurants regarding dimensions and items (criteria) associated with infrastructure, services rendered and environmental actions taken, as perceived by customers. An experimental study was conducted in order to (i) measure quality in a la carte restaurant located in a municipality of Rio de Janeiro; (ii) to verify the reliability of the data collection instrument through the use of Cronbach Alpha Coefficient; (Iii) identify the items considered most critical as perceived by customers and (iv) to capture the view from the restaurant manager on the results obtained and also possible corrective actions that can be implemented.

In addition to this introductory section, the article presents issues related to the evaluation of the quality of services in restaurants; a brief description of the adopted methodological procedures; the description of the experimental analysis and the results achieved and, finally, the conclusions and managerial implications.

2. SERVICE QUALITY IN RESTAURANTS

The restaurant segment is characterized as an activity predominantly of services. According to Freitas (2005), although much discussed in scientific research, the theme "Quality Services" is still the subject of many discussions, possibly due to the involvement of two objects of understanding not as trivial: quality and service. In order to help understanding the meaning of "services", researchers have identified characteristics related to this issue, which are:

These characteristics are present in the services provided in restaurants. For example, tables that were not occupied by customers can not be allocated to another time (intangibility) - which characterizes loss of opportunity, unforeseen changes in food composition or restaurant occupation can affect the customer (inseparability) - and the employee attendance can vary at certain times (heterogeneity).

Service is an experience that takes place on the premises of an organization and is influenced by environmental conditions. According Bitner (1992), the physical environment, the design of the facility (interior design, furniture, signage, layout), noise or surround sound, temperature, among other things, are called servicescapes and can influence employee performance and quality of service perceived by the customer.

In the evaluation of services in restaurants, several studies have been conducted in order to identify the attributes that influence product purchasing decisions (Shaharudin et al, 2011). To examine how the perception of consumers in relation to the physical environment influences service quality, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Ryu et Han, 2011; Ha et Jang, 2010; Kim et Moon, 2009), measure performance and identify factors that influence the performance of services (Min et Min, 2011; Silva et al, 2009; Tinoco et Ribeiro, 2008).

However, note that there is not consensus of which dimensions are more suited to the measurement of service quality in restaurants, which is one of the main issues of interest to administrators, managers and researchers in the areas of quality services, marketing, tourism and hospitality.

According to Freitas and Almeida (2013), this problem has increased its complexity because there is no consensus on the items or criteria to compose each dimension of quality (in terms of meaning and quantity) and there is no better way to measure the quality of services (conceptual model). Can be capturing the perceptions of performance or expectations, the customer satisfaction in relation to services rendered or any relationship between these modes. The SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al, 1988, 1991.), based on obtaining the difference (gap) between performance and expectations (P - E) in the perception of consumers regarding the five dimensions of quality (distributed in 22 items in their original version), has been the conceptual scale most commonly used to evaluate various kinds of services despite existing criticism. Cronin et Taylor (1992) states that SERVPERF scale, based only on measures of performance perception of service, would be more appropriate for assessing the quality of services because the gaps do not bring additional information about it.

3. A ABORDAGEM METODOLÓGICA

Chart 1 shows the dimensions considered for the evaluation of quality in restaurants, present in Barros et Freitas (2012, 2013) and obtained from models and scientific studies.

Chart 1. Dimensions considered in the methodological approach.

Dimensions

Reliability (D1): Quality dimension of Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Cronin et Taylor (1994), reliability is the ability and capacity to perform a promised service without errors.

Receptivity (D2): Quality dimension of Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Cronin et Taylor (1994). It is the willingness to help customers, characterized by: personal attention, fast service, effectiveness in solving problems and the delicacy of employees.

Security (D3): Quality dimension of Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Cronin et Taylor (1994). Adapted for the service evaluation in restaurants, it is important about storage and handling of foodstuffs.

Empathy (D4): Quality dimension of Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Cronin et Taylor (1994). Is the individualized attention to customers using the restaurant service. It includes efforts to meet the specific needs of customers.

Product Quality (D5): It refers to the dimension of quality proposed by Shaharudinet al. (2011) and Jang et Namkung (2009). Presentation is associated on how the food is been prepared and presented to consumers. When the food is well prepared can attract the feeling for food consumption. Then will help to create a good relationship and emotional bond between the client and who serves the food.

Atmosphere Conditions (D6): They include environmental characteristics such as temperature, lighting, noise, smell, music. For example, studies in restaurants have shown that the rhythm of music can affect the permanence and amount of money spent (Bitner, 1992; Wakefield et Blodgett, 1999; Ryu et Jang, 2007; Kim et Moon, 2009; Ryu et Han, 2011).

Cleaning (D7): Many consumers implicitly associate cleanliness with the quality of servicescape. For example, cleaning floors and carpets, bathrooms that are disinfected and trash cans that are continuously emptied can influence the perceived quality of service (Wakefield et Blodgett, 1996).

Facilities (D8): refers to architectural design, along with interior design, which contributes to environmental attractiveness (Wakefield et Blodgett, 1996). Other aspects of interior design such as furniture, pictures and/or paintings, plants and/or flowers, or wall hangings can also serve to improve the perceived quality in dining environments, creating emotions (pleasure and excitement) on a client (Ryu et Jang, 2007; Jang et Namkung, 2009; Kim et Moon, 2009; Ryu et Han, 2011).

Layout (D9): In restaurants, layout refers to the way halls and walkways, food service lines, bathrooms, and entrances and exits are arranged correctly and organized (Bitner, 1992; Wakefield et Blodgett, 1996; Ryu et Jang, 2007; Kim et Moon, 2009; Ryu et Han, 2011).

Eletronic Devices (D10): electronic devices are used to deliver and improve the supply of primary service. They are used to display information and entertain clients while providing services, making the waiting time enjoyable (Wakefield et Blodgett, 1996,1999; Kim et Moon, 2009).

Seat Comfort (D11): upholstery, backrests and fabric/heat seats (Wakefield et Blodgett, 1996; Kim et Moon, 2009).

Service Staff (D12): It includes the appearance, number and gender of employees. The interactions between the service staff and customers are not considered as elements of the physical environment, since they are not tangible quality attributes(Ryu et Han, 2011). A professional employee can transmit the organization image for a customer closer and personal. For Baker et al. (1992), social signals (for example, number and appearance of staff) influence the emotions of customers positively. Similarly,Ryu et Jang (2007) supported the strong influence that employees have in the perception of service.

Table Settings (D13): Fancy restaurants should be designed to deliver a prestigious image to attract high class customers. For example, cutlery, crockery, glasses and high quality linens can be effective tools to influence the perception of customers. According to Ruy et Han (2011), this dimension has been largely ignored in the literature because it is valid only for fancy restaurants.

Environmental Actions(D14): this dimension refers to items related to environmental management (Gil et al.,2001; Khan, 2003; Mensah, 2006; Erdogan et Baris, 2007).

**Source** : Own elaboration.

The α Cronbach coeficient (Cronbach, 1951) was used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire in each dimension and also to identify possible items that, if excluded, would increase the reliability of the questionnaire.

The quartile analysis (Freitas et al., 2006) was used to identify the most critical items. According to this analysis, quartiles are interpreted as values that separate each priority level (critical, high, moderate or low). Items are considered critical when the average performance of a restaurant is less than the first quartile, i.e., are items that need to receive urgent corrections to improve the quality. Items in average performance between the first and second quartile are defined as high priority items, items whose average performance is between the second and third quartile are considered items of "moderate priority" and, finally, the items whose average performance is higher than the third quartile are considered low priority. The items identified as more critical were presented to the restaurant manager in order to determine corrective actions aimed at improving the quality of establishments.

4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

The study was conducted in a la carte restaurant located in the municipality of Macae, in Região dos Lagos, Rio de Janeiro. The municipality stands out for the large number of tourist attractions in terms of natural beauty and also in terms of business tourism, the presence of numerous companies and as one of the main access to oil platforms in the Baia de Campos. Opened in 2002, currently the restaurant has 10 employees.

During the search, a large variation in the number of clients in the property was observed, because at certain times predominated individual requests (for a single client), and others, to several people who were gathered at one table. However, it estimated an average daily number of 150 customers.

The used sampling was a non probabilistic with approach by convenience, ie, the selection of respondents was defined from the ease of access to the elements by the researcher (Malhotra, 2006). In this study, this sampling procedure was used in preference to the use of probabilistic sampling due to the unavailability of the entire population of clients to be drawn (step that characterizes a probabilistic sampling). Moreover, the audience is very diverse, because the restaurant gets employees of numerous companies located in Macaé for lunch, business meetings and social gatherings, as well as tourists. It adds also that many customers, when approached by the researcher chose not to participate in the study, mainly due to lack of time.

Each respondent used a printed questionnaire to assign values indicating their perception of restaurant performance. Data collection occurred for 10 consecutive days and the average time of instrument response was 10 minutes. The study included 74 guests; 71 questionnaires were considered valid.

Table 1 shows the distribution of data frequency. Note that the male and female respondents are well distributed, being approximately 46% and 53%, respectively. Only 14% of respondents reported having a monthly income less than R$ 1,000.00; 79% have 25 years or more, 58% have higher education, and 68% of respondents attend the restaurant more than once a week. Data relating to the last three aspects can contribute to a good credibility of the answers.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents

Answers of each response category (%)

Genre

Masculine
(46,48)

Feminine
(53,52)

 

 

 

Age groups
(years)

18 a 24
(21,12)

25 a 34
(22,54)

35 a 44
(35,21)

45 a 60
(16,90)

61 a 80
(4,23)

Monthly income
(R$)

0 a 999,99
(14,08)

1.000,00 a 1.999,99
(21,13)

2.000,00 a 4.000,00
(38,03)

> 4.000,00
(26,76)

 

Visit frequency

Rarely
(9,86)

Once a week
(22,54)

2 or 3 times a week
(43,67)

4 to 6 times a week
(18,31)

Every day
(5,62)

Education level

Middle school
(2,5)

High School
(22,5)

Graduation
(45,0)

Post-Graduation (30,0)

 
**Source:** own elaboration

Table 2 shows the frequency of N/A-N/E responses, restaurant performance accounted (Average Performance of each item , the average performance of each dimension and overall performance , Cronbach’s α value for each dimension and also the alpha value of each dimension, if an item is deleted from the questionnaire. Unanswered items or marked as "not rated" were replaced by the average performance of item. According to Freitas et Rodrigues (2005), this is one of the most widely used by professional statistical packages. It is important to note that a significant number of respondents marked N/A for items related to parking, kitchen cleaning and environmental actions by these do not exist or are not perceived. Only one item was not understood by the client.

Table 2. Average performance and reliability coefficient.

Dimension

Item

N/E

N/A

Alpha

Alpha if the item is excluded

D1

Reliability

I1

0

0

9,15

9,38

0,778

0,713

I2

0

10

9,31

0,695

I3

0

1

9,43

0,729

I4

0

2

9,43

0,725

I5

0

2

9,55

0,814

D2

Receptivity

I6

0

7

8,59

8,85

0,760

0,724

I7

0

0

9,20

0,691

I8

0

2

9,23

0,602

I9

0

3

8,37

0,792

D3

Security

I10

0

1

9,40

9,46

0,755

0,745

I11

0

1

9,41

0,704

I12

0

0

9,59

0,608

I13

0

0

9,45

0,658

D4

Empathy

I14

0

7

9,03

9,00

0,846

0,807

I15

0

1

9,10

0,858

I16

0

12

8,56

0,786

I17

0

0

9,15

0,777

I18

0

6

9,14

0,826

D5

Product quality

I19

0

0

9,42

9,40

0,970

0,958

I20

0

0

9,23

0,977

I21

0

0

9,45

0,951

I22

0

0

9,49

0,953

D6

Atmosphere

 Conditions

I23

0

1

8,36

8,45

0,843

0,820

I24

0

1

8,11

0,754

I25

0

1

8,56

0,788

I26

0

5

8,76

0,828

D7

Cleaning

I27

0

4

9,00

8,93

0,752

0,613

I28

0

38

8,91

0,859

I29

0

1

8,94

0,551

I30

0

1

8,86

0,634

D8

Facilities

I31

0

1

7,14

6,65

0,913

0,879

I32

0

1

6,87

0,863

I33

0

1

6,74

0,867

I34

0

1

8,03

0,908

I35

0

16

4,45

0,938

D9

Layout

I36

0

1

7,54

7,67

0,945

0,932

I37

0

4

7,48

0,940

I38

0

1

7,93

0,923

I39

0

0

7,72

0,916

D10

Eletronic Devices

I40

0

1

7,93

7,64

0,922

0,915

I41

0

5

7,35

0,902

I42

0

3

7,63

0,842

D11

Seat comfort

I43

0

0

8,39

8,28

0,930

0,836

I44

0

0

8,45

0,874

I45

0

0

7,99

0,974

D12

Service staff

I46

0

0

9,15

9,20

0,904

0,841

I47

0

0

9,20

0,812

I48

0

1

9,26

0,917

D13

Table settings

I49

0

0

8,83

8,40

0,756

Do not apply

I50

0

2

7,97

Do not apply

D14

Environmental Actions

I51

0

36

7,03

6,60

0,890

0,787

I52

0

29

6,38

0,918

I53

0

37

6,38

0,807

D15

Accessibility for People with Special Needs

I54

0

15

4,46

4,25

0,932

0,908

I55

0

11

4,92

0,919

I56

0

16

3,67

0,910

I57

0

14

3,96

0,918

I58

0

21

3,02

0,926

I59

1

29

5,49

0,937

Source: own elaboration

Table 2 shows that the alpha value in all dimensions was higher than 0.60 - minimum recommended by Malhotra (2006) for exploratory studies. If some items are excluded, the reliability of the dimension to which these items belong increases. On the other hand, there is excluded items that reduce the reliability of the dimension.

Figure 1 shows the results of Analysis of Quartiles. Several critical items are associated with environmental conditions (servicescapes), such as parking (I35, I58), facilities design makes the restaurant attractive (I31), restaurant decor (I32) colors used in the environment (I33), signaling the environment (I36), background music (I26), electronic device (I41), and environmental actions (I51, I52 and I53). In particular, items related to facilities provided to special needs carriers are also critical and can be differences in relation to other restaurants. It also emphasizes that some of these aspects were considered in critical study by Barros et Freitas (2013).

Figure 1. Quartiles analysis results

PRIORITY

Critical

I58

I56

I57

I35

I54

I55

I59

I52

I53

I33

I32

I51

I31

I41

I37

3,02

3,67

3,96

4,45

4,46

4,92

5,49

6,38

6,38

6,74

6,87

7,03

7,14

7,35

7,48

1st Quartile = 7,51

High

I36

I42

I39

I38

I40

I50

I45

I34

I24

I23

I9

I43

I44

I25

I16

7,54

7,63

7,72

7,93

7,93

7,97

7,99

8,03

8,11

8,36

8,37

8,39

8,45

8,56

8,56

2nd Quartile = 8,56

Median

I6

I26

I30

I49

I28

I29

I27

I14

I15

I18

I1

I17

I46

I7

I47

8,59

8,76

8,86

8,86

8,91

8,94

9,00

9,03

9,10

9,14

9,15

9,15

9,15

9,20

9,20

3rd Quartile = 9,20

Low

I20

I8

I48

I2

I10

I11

I19

I3

I4

I13

I21

I22

I5

I12

  

9,23

9,23

9,26

9,31

9,40

9,41

9,42

9,43

9,43

9,45

9,45

9,49

9,55

9,59
**Source: **Own elaboration

Chart 3 presents the comments of the restaurant manager in relation to critical priority items. The manager recognizes the need to make the environmental actions taken noticeable to customers. Deserves reflection the non interest even for issues related to colors and room decoration, because people do not go to a restaurant only to satisfy hunger, but also to celebrate special occasions with family and friends (Ha et Jang, 2012). The restaurant environment can influence mood and customer emotions (Jang et Namkung, 2009; Liu et Jang, 2009), wich can possibly contribute to the perception of quality.

Chart 3. Analysis of critical priority items by the restaurant manager

Itens

Comments by manager

I58: parking with spaces reserved for people with special needs
I35: Parking (existence and size of the waves, room to maneuver).

There is no parking, neither room to make one.

I56: Bathrooms adapted for people with special needs.

There is no way to expand for lack of space.

I57: Communication (signs for toilets, adapted menus (Braille).

There is no adapted menu. Adjust the menu.

I54: Access (via ramps, stairs, handrails, elevator, tactile floor).

You need to improve access by providing a ramp.

I55: Circulation (suitable furniture and floors, lowering the sidewalks).

Due to the construction. Nothing to do

I59: staff trained to meet the special needs.

Demand is low. It is not feasible to hire an employee.

I52: Waste controls equipment (lighting sensors and water).

Ancient architecture. Change the sanitary discharge vessel, for example.

I53: Disclosure of information related to environmental issues.

No disclosure. Disclose on menus.

I33: The colors used create a cozy atmosphere.

Does not agree.

I32: The restaurant decor is attractive.

Does not agree.

I51: waste generated control (eg selective collection).

No disclosure. Make a disclosure to convey a positive image of the restaurant.

I31: The design of the facilities makes the restaurant attractive.

The structure is old, difficult to change.

I41: The appliances (TV, CD, DVD) add 'emotion' to the site.

There are two TVs. Sometimes a customer wants music, another wants to watch TV. Centering on one thing: music or TV.

I37. The signage in the environment of this restaurant provides adequate guidance.

No signs. Flag.
**Source:** Research data

High priority items were also commented on by the manager. In particular, the manager does not agree with the results related to furniture, tableware and comfort of the seats. On the other hand, the manager agrees with the limitation of space, negatively influencing the circulation and comfort of customers (I36<sub>, I39, I43 and I45). But, according to his perception, there is nothing to do.

However, it is possible that the amount of tables and chairs are not suitable for the room size. In this regard, it is appropriate to investigate a quantity of furnitures in order to reduce the identified weaknesses, but that does not harm the revenue of the property. As previously reported, there are items that are noticed and used by the customer and that can make your experience with the restaurant more enjoyable (or not). The identification of these aspects can contribute to improving the perception of quality. The average ratings of overall performance level of the restaurant was 8.03. In the open questions (Block 3), suggestions for improvements were associated with the most pleasant and harmonious environment, expansion of the bathroom, adequate parking for people with special needs, larger amount of TVs, external and internal painting, better lighting, and service on Sundays at regular hours. All would recommend and return to the restaurant for various reasons, such as food and varied menu, family atmosphere, quality food and attentive attendants.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIALS IMPLICATIONS

As well as the assessment and classification of lodging facilities have been studied lately, the restaurant industry has attracted the attention of researchers from different areas of knowledge such as Administration, Tourism and Production Engineering.

Due to international events to be held in Brazil in the coming years, studies and practices applied to this issue become relevant, which motivated this study. In particular, this article investigated a methodological approach to measuring quality in an à la carte as perceived by customers.

Although many of the customers approached have alleged lack of time and chose not to participate, through this exploratory study, an analysis with the alpha coefficient of Cronbach, revealed that all 15 dimensions were considered reliable. With the data frequency distribution, important information regarding the customer profiles were obtained. The results of the analysis of quartiles indicated that some items associated with environmental conditions (of facilities design, restaurant decor, colors used in the environment, signaling, etc.) and aspects related to people with special needs were considered critical. Items related to the lack of parking and space constraints can also negatively influence the quality perceived by customers.

The critical and high priority items were presented to the restaurant manager. This manager reported his opinion about the results found and highlighted a number of actions to be implemented in order to improve the quality of services provided.

In a more concise way, the major contributions of the results of this study are aimed at improving the quality of services provided by the restaurant analyzed. It is believed that the methodological approach should be applicable to the measurement of quality in other restaurants, consisting in a simple and practical tool for improving the management of the services of these organizations. However, generalizations and interpretations of these results should be performed sparingly compared with results from application of the approach in other types of restaurants.

Future studies may consider samples with a larger quantity of respondents, involving customers from several restaurants, which allows it possible the use of multivariate statistical techniques and results that are broader, ie not limited to a specific restaurant. For example, factor analysis can be used to verify the relationship between the variables (items) and group them into a smaller set of dimensions (factors), possibly reducing the number of items of data collection instrument. Multiple regression analysis can be used to identify which dimensions are more correlated with the overall quality of service. In particular, these aspects represent the main directions for the development of new research on the subject in question.

6. REFERENCES

  1. Baker, J., Levy, M. e Grewal, D. (1992), “An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 445–460.

  2. Barros, M. D. et Freitas, A. L. P. (2012), “Avaliação da qualidade de serviços em restaurantes: uma proposta de modelo e estudo experimental”, artigo apresentado no XIX SIMPEP: Simpósio de Engenharia de Produção, Bauru, SP, pp. 1-12.

  3. ______ (2013), “Service quality in restaurants: an experimental analysis performed in Brazil”, artigo apresentado no XIX ICIEOM: International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Valladolid, Spain. v. 1. pp. 1-12.

  4. Bitner, M. J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 56, pp. 57–71.

  5. BNDES – Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (2005), “Setor de Turismo no Brasil: Segmento de Hotelaria”. BNDES Setorial, Rio de Janeiro, No. 22, pp. 111-150, Disponível em http://www.bndes.gov.br/SiteBNDES/export/sites/default/bndes_pt/Galerias/Arquivos/conhecimento/bnset/set2205.pdf (Acesso em 28 de agosto de 2013).

  6. Cronbach, L. J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 6, No 3, pp. 297-334.

  7. Cronin, J. J. et Taylor, S. A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 55-68.

  8. Cronin, J. J. et Taylor, S. A. (1994), “Servperf versus Servqual: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 125-131.

  9. Erdogan, N. et Baris, E. (2007), “Environmental protection programs and conservation practices of hotels in Ankara, Turkey”, Tourism Management, No. 28, pp. 604–614.

  10. Freitas, A. L. P. (2005), “A qualidade em serviços no contexto da competitividade”, Produção on-line, Florianópolis, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-24.

  11. Freitas, A. L. P. et Rodrigues S. G. (2005), “A avaliação da confiabilidade de questionários: uma análise utilizando o coeficiente alfa de Cronbach”, artigo apresentado no XII SIMPEP: Simpósio de Engenharia de Produção, Bauru, SP, pp. 1-12.

  12. Freitas, A. L. P., Manhães, N. R. C. e Cozendey, M. I. (2006), “Emprego do SERVQUAL na avaliação da qualidade de serviços de Tecnologia da Informação: uma análise experimental”, artigo apresentado no XXVI ENEGEP: Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, Salvador, BA, pp. 1-12.

  13. Freitas, A. L. P. et Almeida, G. M. M. (2013), “Classificação da qualidade de serviços em meios de hospedagem: uma abordagem exploratória”, Revista Hospitalidade, São Paulo, Vol. X, No. 2, pp. 363–386.

  14. Gil, M. J. A., Jiménez, J. B. e Lorente, J. J. C. (2001), “An analysis of environmental management, organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels”, The International Journal of Management Science: Omega, No. 29, pp. 457–471.

  15. Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 36-44.

  16. ______. (1988), “Service quality: the six criteria of good perceived service quality”, Review of Business, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.10-13.

  17. Ha, J. et Jang, S. (2010), “Effects of service quality and food quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 520–529.

  18. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2011), Pesquisa de Serviços e Hospedagem Disponível em: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/psh/2011.pdf (Acesso em 29 de Setembro de 2013).

  19. Khan, M. (2003), “ECOSERV ecotourists’ quality expectation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 109–124.

  20. Kim, W. G., Moon, Y. J. (2009), “Customer`s cognitive, emotional, and actionable response to the servicescape: A test of the moderating effect of restaurant type”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, pp. 144-156.

  21. Jang, S. S. et Namkung, Y. (2009), “Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian – Russell model to restaurants”, Journal of Business, Vol. 62, pp. 451-460.

  22. Liu, Y. et Jang, S-C. (2009), “Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: what affects customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, pp. 338–348.

  23. Malhotra, N. (2006), Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada, 4 ed., Bookmam, Porto Alegre, RS.

  24. Mensah, I. (2006), “Environmental management practices among hotels in the greater Accra region”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 414–431.

  25. Min, H. et Min, H. (2011), “Benchmarking the service quality of fast-food restaurant franchises in the USA: a longitudinal study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 282-300.

  26. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. e Berry, L. L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, fall, pp. 41-49.

  27. ______. (1988), “Servqual: multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 12-39.

  28. Ryu, K., Han, H. (2011), “New or repeat customers: How does physical environment influence their restaurant experience?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30, pp. 599–611.

  29. Ryu, K. et Jang, S. (2007), “The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 56-72.

  30. Shaharudin, M. R., Mansor, S. W. e Elias, S. J. (2011), “Food Quality Attributes among Malaysia’s Fast Food Customer”, International Business and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 198-208.

  31. Silva, L. M. T., Medeiros, C. A. F. e Costa, B. K. (2009), “Qualidade dos serviços turísticos no setor de restaurantes: uma aplicação do modelo SERVPERF”, Revista Hospitalidade, Vol. VI, No.2, pp. 115-139.

  32. Tinoco, M. A. C. et Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2008), “Estudo qualitativo dos principais atributos que determinam a percepção de qualidade e de preço dos consumidores de restaurantes à la carte”. Gest. Prod, Vol.15, No.1, pp. 73-87.

  33. Wakefield, K. L et Blodgett, J. G. (1996), “The effect of the servicescape on custormers` behavioral intentions in leisure service settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 45-61.

  34. ______ (1999), “Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 51–68.

  35. WTO - Wourld Tourism Organization (2012), UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 12 ed., World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.

  36. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. e Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: integrating customer focus across the firm, 4 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.