International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementHotel cleanliness: will guests pay for enhanced disinfection?Dina Marie V Zemke Jay Neal Stowe Shoemaker Katie Kirsch

Article information:To cite this document:Dina Marie V Zemke Jay Neal Stowe Shoemaker Katie Kirsch , (2015),"Hotel cleanliness: will guestspay for enhanced disinfection?", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol.27 Iss 4 pp. 690 - 710Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0020

Downloaded on: 19 October 2015, At: 02:28 (PT)References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 295 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Yao-Chin Wang, Yeasun Chung, (2015),"Hotel brand portfolio strategy", International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 561-584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0031Basak Denizci Guillet, Ibrahim Mohammed, (2015),"Revenue management research in hospitalityand tourism: A critical review of current literature and suggestions for future research", InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 526-560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2014-0295Ajay Aluri, Lisa Slevitch, Robert Larzelere, (2015),"The effectiveness of embedded social media onhotel websites and the importance of social interactions and return on engagement", InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 670-689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2013-0415

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:510719 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

*Related content and download information correct at time ofdownload.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Hotel cleanliness: will guests payfor enhanced disinfection?

Dina Marie V. ZemkeWilliam F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada,

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Jay NealConrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management,

University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Stowe ShoemakerWilliam F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada,

Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, and

Katie KirschDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas, USA

AbstractPurpose – This study aims to propose that there may be a marketable segment of guests who arewilling to pay a premium for guestrooms that are cleaned using enhanced disinfection techniquesbeyond the normal room cleaning procedures. Room cleanliness is important to hotel guests. Some hotelbrands currently offer allergy-free rooms, charging a premium for this service. However, no hotelbrands currently serve the market that is willing to pay more for enhanced disinfection. Thisexploratory study investigates whether there is such a segment and, if so, what price premium thesecustomers are willing to pay for enhanced disinfection.Design/methodology/approach – Survey methods were used to determine the consumer’sperceptions of hotel guestroom cleanliness; the effectiveness of traditional and enhanced cleaningmethods; and willingness to pay for enhanced guestroom disinfection.Findings – Younger travelers and female travelers of all ages may be willing to pay a significant pricepremium for enhanced disinfection of a hotel guestroom.Research limitations/implications – The survey instrument was administered via the Internet,limiting the sample. The study participants were not asked about hotel brand; thus, the results could notbe analyzed by brand or service level.Originality/value – Past research focuses only on traditional cleaning methods. This article providesa template for the hotel industry to explore the feasibility of offering enhanced cleanliness as arevenue-generating amenity.

Keywords Customer segmentation, Willingness to pay, Hotel cleanliness, MERS-CoV,Ozone/UV disinfection, Price sensitivity analysis

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionMultiple studies have investigated factors influencing accommodation selection.Unsurprisingly, many concluded that cleanliness is one of the most important factors

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM27,4

690

Received 13 January 2014Revised 24 March 201415 May 2014Accepted 7 June 2014

International Journal ofContemporary HospitalityManagementVol. 27 No. 4, 2015pp. 690-710© Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-6119DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0020

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

(Callan, 1996; Kuhn, 2007; Lewis, 1987; Lin, 2003; McCleary and Weaver, 1992; Mehtaand Vera, 1990; Saleh and Ryan, 1992;Weaver and Oh, 1993). Kuhn (2007) reported thatthe majority of complaints and compliments received by hotel managers pertain tostandards of guestroom hygiene. This study also found that guests particularly value aclean bathroom, especially the toilet (Kuhn, 2007). However, even when a hotel room iscleaned properly, the risk of contamination from sick guests can still exist. For example,Winther et al. (2007) investigated environmental contamination under naturalconditions via an overnight stay in a hotel room by adults with naturally acquired colds(e.g. the rhinovirus). Environmental contamination patterns showed that rhinovirus iseasily transferred from guests to door handles, pens, light switches, TV remote controls,faucets and telephones (Winther et al., 2007). While rhinovirus is generally not lifethreatening, other illnesses have a negative impact on the tourism industry.

Cleanliness has been identified as an important criterion in judging service quality,and the physical environment plays a significant role in the delivery process (Barberet al., 2011; Lockyer, 2002, 2003; Raajpoot, 2002). However, these studies investigatedcleanliness from the perspective of it as a basic service or as meeting guests’expectations. Can additional cleaning services be marketed as an additional amenity?This study begins with an exploration of the perceived risks of outbreaks and how thisperception may be amplified through media exposure. Then an overview of cleaningmethods, including two new technologies – ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and ozonedisinfection – is provided, along with relevant hotel operational issues that accompanythese technologies. Finally, hotel guests were surveyed to measure their attitudes abouthotel room cleanliness, their perceptions of health risks, their awareness and attitudesabout the new cleaning technologies and their willingness to pay a price premium for aguestroom with enhanced cleaning using one of the new technologies.

Review of literaturePandemic concernsPandemics with large economic impacts on the travel and tourism industries haveoccurred over the past decade. The perceived risk of a health threat, such as an infectiousdisease at a tourist destination, is cited as consumers’ most important reason to changetravel plans (Kozak et al., 2007). The news media shapes public opinion about events andissues by using salience cues, such as placement, level of coverage and repetition ofstories (Iyengar and Kinder, 1987; McCombs, 2004). This influence is seen in theparallels that exist between the media’s coverage of public health issues and thecoinciding levels of public attention to the featured infectious diseases and outbreaks(Ho et al., 2007). This phenomenon also exists for health incidents related to hotels. Forexample, consider the media coverage of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) andinfluenza A (H1N1), as well as infestations of bedbugs (Anderson and Leffler, 2008;Keogh-Brown and Smith, 2008; Monterrubio, 2010; NPMA, 2010; Tew et al., 2008).

The 2003 SARS pandemic was declared a global health threat by the World HealthOrganization (WHO). As information about the virus spread, consumers becamereluctant to travel, leading to deteriorating demand for hotel rooms. This reductiontranslated into significant financial losses and long-term negative effects for the lodgingindustry worldwide. For example, Pine and McKercher (2004) report that the SARSpandemic resulted in a tourism gross domestic product decrease of 41 and 42 per cent forHong Kong and Singapore, respectively, during the approximately four-month travel

691

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

advisory period. Similarly, the 2009 outbreak of H1N1 had a significant impact on thehospitality industry (Monterrubio, 2010). The outbreak of this disease in Hong Kongreduced consumer intentions to travel to Hong Kong, the effects of which were felt insteadily decreasing hotel occupancy rates between March and May 2009 (Wu et al.,2010). A similar decline was observed in Mexico, where occupancy levels dippedbetween 5 and 10 per cent in Mexico City (Monterrubio, 2010). These events contributedto the growing concern for health among travelers and confirm the notion that healthrisks can greatly impact the tourism industry.

The term coronavirus describes a family of viruses, ranging from the common cold toSARS and the H1N1 influenza virus (World Health Organization, 2013). At the time ofthis writing, a new strain of coronavirus is emerging. This new strain, the Middle Eastrespiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), first appeared in Saudi Arabia in June2012 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Public Health Preparednessand Response, Division of Emergency Operations, 2013). Eighteen months later, 157cases had been reported in several Middle Eastern countries and in Europe; these casesinclude 69 deaths, yielding a nearly 32.9 per cent mortality rate (World HealthOrganization, 2013). Health-care professionals worldwide are concerned about the virusmutating and spreading rapidly, particularly if travelers facilitate human-to-humantransmission.

The US public at large began to hear about MERS-CoV in May 2013. The firstrecorded cases of the virus appeared in the USA in May 2014. Whether or not theMERS-CoV becomes a worldwide pandemic remains to be seen. However, in light ofprevious pandemic outbreaks, such as SARS in 2003 and H1N1 in 2009, the hotelindustry needs to prepare for the possible pandemic outbreaks – MERS-CoV orotherwise – that seem to happen every two to three years. The need for preparation istwofold – first and foremost, to fulfill the industry’s obligation to take reasonable care inproviding accommodations for travelers. Second, and more interestingly, the industrymight be able to provide a more extensive level of hotel guestroom cleanliness as anamenity, above and beyond the baseline expectation that the room should be clean. If aguest segment desires higher levels of cleanliness, would these guests pay a premiumfor enhanced cleanliness as an amenity?

How is “clean” defined?The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides definitions of cleaning,disinfection, decontamination and sterilization. Cleaning is defined as the removal oforganic and inorganic observable soil from a surface, often achieved through acombination of water and detergents or enzymatic materials. Decontamination isdefined as the removal of disease-causing (pathogenic) microorganisms from objects orsurfaces, but does not address the presence or acceptability of visible soil, so a hotelcould potentially provide a surface that is not clean, but is decontaminated (i.e. cleandirt). Disinfection eradicates most or all pathogenic microorganisms on a surface, withthe exception of bacterial spores. Finally, sterilization provides a surface where allmicrobial life, including bacterial spores, is destroyed (Rutala et al., 2008).

Hotels traditionally use chemical cleaning and sanitizing products for public spacesand guestrooms. The rooms may still provide an environment where communicablediseases can be spread by human-to-surface contact. Therefore, researchers arestudying the effectiveness of new cleaning and sanitizing methods for use in hotels and

IJCHM27,4

692

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

other public assembly areas. Two novel methods currently under study are ozonedisinfection and UV disinfection methods.

Ozone. Ozone disinfection works by pumping concentrated levels of ozone gas into aspace that needs to be cleaned. Ozone is a gas consisting of three oxygen molecules (O3).It occurs naturally in small amounts, usually produced by subjecting oxygen (O2) tointense electrical charges, similar to a lightning strike. Ozone is unstable under normalatmospheric conditions and will quickly break down to form the regular two-moleculeform of oxygen, although the Earth’s upper atmosphere does support a relatively smallamount of ozone that forms the protective ozone layer. Ozonators, which generate ozonegas, have been used for many years to clear guestrooms of offensive odors, such ascigarette or cigar smoke. The effectiveness of ozonators’ ability to improve air quality isnot proven (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013) and, if used improperly, couldcause respiratory illnesses in people and animals (Delfino et al., 1996). Ozone may alsohave a negative effect on live plants and items made of plastic, rubber and otherpetroleum-based materials (Fares et al., 2010; Singh and Sharma, 2008).

More recently, researchers have experimented with using ozone gas in highconcentrations to lower bacterial counts on surfaces (Moat et al., 2009), particularly onesthat sanitize surfaces without the harmful side effects discussed above (Franken, 2005).These systems work in the following manner: a machine raises the room’s relativehumidity to 75 per cent or higher and then introduces a high concentration of ozone gasinto the space. Next, an additional chemical, such as a gaseous volatile olefin, is releasedto react with the ozone and neutralize it in the form of hydroxyl radicals, which aregenerally considered to be harmless for human exposure (Mole and Golding, 2004). Thetotal process time will vary, but early estimates indicate that hotel room disinfectionusing this method will take about 60-90 minutes.

Ultraviolet. UV xenon disinfection uses a xenon-gas light source to create UVlightwaves. This technology has long been used in multi-room air handling systems forcommercial real estate and health-care facilities. Air traveling through the ductworkpasses through an area bathed in UV light, which kills microbes suspended in the air. Adifferent technique is used in hospital rooms and has recently been introduced into thebroader consumer market. The technology employs a tower that emits high-energy UVpulses. The UV light pulses disinfect the area and its surfaces effectively and reduce theneed for traditional cleaning chemicals.

Marketing cleanlinessSeveral studies have investigated the physical environment of a hotel as part of theguests’ service experience (Kotler, 1973; Barber et al., 2011). The term servicescape isoften used to describe the surroundings of a service organization and includes itemssuch as the interior and exterior design of the building, ambient temperature, lightingand odors. The cleanliness of the tangible elements of the servicescape (e.g. entry,parking lot, hotel lobby and guest rooms) can have a significant influence on thecustomer’s perception of service quality (Barber and Scarcelli, 2010; Lockyer, 2003).Several studies have suggested that the absence of hygienic conditions can be a sourceof dissatisfaction. For example, Yamanaka et al. (2003) reported that even thoughconsumers cannot see the “behind the scene conditions of a business”, this unseen areacan be a significant concern for consumers and may be a primary factor when choosinga service establishment and may create dissatisfaction. In addition, Brown et al. (1991)

693

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

proposed that the absence of hygienic conditions is an important dissatisfier forcustomers during the service quality experience. Barber et al. (2011) suggestthat cleanliness should be considered an important part of an assessment that measurescustomers and the influence of service quality. One of the challenges in marketingcleanliness as an amenity is that it is a consumer expectation that the physicalenvironment will be clean and hygienic. So how do hoteliers exceed consumers’expectations?

Mysophobia and hotel guestsMysophobia (from the Greek musos, “uncleanliness” and phobos, “fear”), colloquiallyknown as germaphobia, is the pathological fear of contamination and microorganisms(or germs). While very few hotel guests may actually suffer from this fear, the continuedmedia broadcast of health issues increases awareness and may increase the perceivedrisk of illness. Tansey and O’Riordan (1999) explained the cultural theory as a way ofinterpreting how and why persons form opinions and judgments concerning risk,danger, pollution and threat. The focus of this theory is to suggest that these judgmentsare formed in a social context and not independently. When consumers see frequentmedia reports about health risks related to germs and/or disease, the perceived risk (aswell as the real risk in specific cases) of travel may increase, as evidenced in Mexico andChina. Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) suggested that in countries such as the USA,where many hazards have systemically been reduced, citizens may actually feel more atrisk. More specifically, their thesis is that given that the prevalence of lethal hazards hasdecreased, the feeling of being more “at risk” may be social in origin.

Hotel industry trendsThe Best Western hotel chain recently deployed a variation of UV technology in itshousekeeping departments to decrease microbial levels in guestrooms, reduce the needfor cleaning chemicals and improve indoor air quality (Best Western, 2012). In 2012, thecompany initiated its “I Care Clean” program in more than 2,100 properties. Theprogram uses UV black lights to illuminate stains, including those made by bodilyfluids, during housekeeping cleaning processes and inspections. The program also usesUV sterilization wands, which operate by slowly waving the wand over a surface to besanitized. Television remote controls were re-engineered for easier cleaning anddisinfection. The “I Care Clean” program also features single-use pillow and blanketwraps to improve cleanliness standards throughout Best Western’s brands (BestWestern International, 2013).

Other hotel companies also strategically market their brands in response to travelers’health concerns. For example, Hampton Inn and Suites developed the Clean & FreshHampton Bed®, a premium bed with white linens “washed fresh for every guest” with a100 per cent Hampton guarantee of the overall cleanliness of the room (HiltonWorldwide: Hampton Inn and Suites, 2013). Similarly, Hilton Garden Inn offers theadjustable Garden Sleep System® bed, featuring “fresh, white, cozy duvets and crisplinens” and a hypoallergenic pillow option. These options are available in all guestroomswithout a premium charge. Hyatt Hotels offers the “Respire by Hyatt – Hypo-AllergenicRooms” program (Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, 2010). These rooms are specially prepared,using the PURE Solutions cleaning and air filtration systems (Pure Solutions, 2013) to

IJCHM27,4

694

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

provide a hypoallergenic environment. At this time, it appears that Hyatt is charging apremium of approximately US$20 per night for these rooms.

Purpose of the studyCleanliness is one of the most basic expectations of hotel guests. Real risks exist in termsof communicable diseases, particularly in the travel industry. While hotel operatorswork to meet their guests’ expectations for cleanliness, frequent media reports ofoutbreaks may generate an elevated perception of risk for some guests. Increasedconsumer awareness of communicable diseases and concerns about traveling beg thequestion – are some consumers willing to pay for additional cleaning and sanitizingmethods for hotel rooms? If so, which guests form this market segment and how muchmore would they be willing to pay for enhanced disinfection of the guestroom? Toanswer these questions, the objectives of this exploratory study were to:

• solicit consumer perceptions of hotel room cleanliness and the potential risk ofcontracting illnesses from items within hotel rooms;

• understand the perceived efficacy of novel cleaning methods, specifically UVdisinfection and ozone disinfection methods; and

• determine if consumers are willing to pay for these additional cleaning methods.

MethodsSurvey instrumentAn online survey was created using Internet-based Qualtrics™ software. Demographic,behavioral and willingness-to-pay questions either used categorical scales or solicitedopen-ended responses. Nineteen items commonly found in a hotel room were listedbased on surveys by Brewer and Rojas (2008) and Lockyer (2003). The surveyrespondents were asked about the perceived cleanliness of each item and the perceivedrisk or likelihood of becoming ill through contact with each of the 19 items. TheLikert-type scale for perceived cleanliness ranged from 1 � “Very Unclean” to 7 � “VeryClean.” The Likert-type scale for perceived risk ranged from 1 � “Very Unlikely” to 7 �“Very Likely”. This set of questions was developed by modifying questions based onBrewer and Rojas’ (2008) study of the perceived risk of food health and safety.

Consumer awareness was measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale to measurethe respondent’s level of agreement with statements about the cleanliness of hotelguestrooms in relation to people’s health, as well as their own personal health behaviors,ranging from 1 � “Strongly Disagree” to 7 � “Strongly Agree”. These questions gaugedconsumer awareness related to information searching, overall awareness of health risksand the level of consumer precaution (Martinez-Poveda et al., 2009).

A series of questions associated with two new methods of disinfection – UVdisinfection and ozone disinfection – were also included in the survey, along with thetraditional chemical disinfection method. The term “Disinfection” was used with eachmethod to maintain consistency and to prevent error due to potential bias of differentterms when comparing the methods. Simple, concise definitions were provided to obtainthe respondent’s perception of each cleaning method. For example, an “UltravioletDisinfected” hotel room was defined as a room in which UV disinfection was used tofurther clean and disinfect without toxins or side effects. An “Ozone Disinfected” hotelroom was defined as a room in which an additional cleaning agent was used to killbacteria, odors and mold spores.

695

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Questions about perceived value, perceived effectiveness and willingness to pay apremium were included for each of the three methods of cleaning. The value questions inthis study were based on Heung and Ngai’s (2008) measurements of perceived value inrestaurants. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the willingness to pay apremium for enhanced disinfection. A price sensitivity instrument created by Lewis andShoemaker (1997) was used to evaluate the actual dollar amount the respondent wouldbe willing to pay to stay in either an UV disinfected or an ozone disinfected room. Theinstrument used the following four questions to elicit top-of-mind responses from thesurvey participant:

(1) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UVdisinfected” (or ozone disinfected) hotel room to be cheap?

(2) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UVdisinfected” hotel room to be expensive?

(3) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UVdisinfected” hotel room to be too expensive and beyond consideration?

(4) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UVdisinfected” hotel room to be too cheap, so that you question the quality?

Baseline room rates were not provided, as the survey respondents were recruited amongguests who had experienced a recent hotel stay. The recruitment process did not focuson a particular hotel service class or room rate level. The survey was pilot tested with 20respondents to ensure reliability and validity. Once validated, the survey was deployedto collect data.

Data collectionSurvey Sampling International was used to recruit participants and to distribute thesurvey. Nine regions throughout the USA were randomly chosen, and within eachregion, respondents were picked at random to complete the survey. Potentialrespondents were qualified through screening questions that asked if they stayovernight in a hotel at least once per year and if they are 18 years of age or older. Oncequalified, a total of 279 people completed the survey.

Data analysisDescriptive statistics were utilized to compare the perceived effectiveness of each of themethods of disinfection. Factor analysis was used to assess the variable constructs andto perform the necessary data reduction. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) wereused to explore between-group differences. One-way ANOVAs were also used to look athow perceived effectiveness and willingness-to-pay for specific methods of disinfectionare influenced by frequency and purpose of travel. To examine the causal relationshipsrelating to willingness-to-pay for each disinfection method, multiple regression analysiswas conducted with perceived value, perceived effectiveness, perceived risk andconsumer awareness as the independent variables.

ResultsSample characteristicsTable I reveals the demographic and behavioral characteristics of the sample. Males andfemales were sampled in roughly the same proportion. The median age of the sample

IJCHM27,4

696

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

was 49.2 years of age, with a mean of 46.4. A total of 54.6 per cent of the respondentsstayed one to three nights annually in a hotel, while the other 45.4 per cent stayed morethan three nights. Approximately, 25 per cent of the respondents stayed six or morenights a year in a hotel. The majority of trips were for leisure. These behaviors suggestthat respondents were familiar with hotels and that the respondents had highdiscretionary authority when selecting a hotel, as leisure travelers are not usually boundto specific brands or properties through corporate sales agreements, although they maybe influenced by relationships with hotel brand loyalty programs.

Behavioral characteristicsTable II displays the survey respondents’ agreement with a series of statement abouttheir health in relation to the sanitation of hotel rooms, as well as their own personalhealth behaviors. Forty-two per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that theyworry about the cleanliness and sanitation of hotel rooms, and nearly a third ofrespondents believed that staying in a hotel could be risky for someone’s health. Morethan half of the survey respondents report taking care of their health. However, only 42.9per cent read information related to health and sanitation, and only 26 per cent agree thatthey actually seek out information related to health and sanitation. Women andrespondents in the 32-52 year age group were significantly more likely to worry abouthealth and sanitation when staying at a hotel. However, women and respondents in the53� years of age category were more likely to seek out information related to healththan their male and younger counterparts were.

Cleanliness of guestroom itemsRespondents were asked to think about their last hotel stay and indicate theirperceptions of the cleanliness of the different items typically found in a hotel room.These items included the bathroom sink, toilet, towels, light switches and the telephone.A specific definition of cleanliness was not provided with this set of questions, to elicitthe participants’ ratings of cleanliness based on their own top-of-mind perceptions. Aseven-point Likert-type scale to gauge the level of cleanliness was used, where 1 � “veryunclean” and 7 � “very clean”, as well as a “not sure” option. Table III shows thepercentage of people who rated each feature “very clean,” (also known as “top box”),the percentage who rated each feature either “clean” or “very clean” (“top-two box”) andthe overall mean.

Table I.Sample andbehavioral

characteristics

Sample characteristics (n � 284) Behavioral characteristics (n � 284)

Gender Nights per year spent overnight in a hotel:Male 47.5% 1-3 nights 54.6%Female 52.5% 4-5 nights 21.1%

6-9 nights 8.8%Age 10� nights 15.5%18-31 years 28.9% Mean stay 6.8 nights32-52 years 28.2% Median stay 3.0 nights53� years 43.0% Percent of nights spent forMean 46.4 years Business 11.9%Median 49.2 years Leisure 81.7%

Both business & leisure 6.4%

697

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

The first column in Table III reveals that when looking only at “top box” box ratings, thefive items perceived to be the most clean include the bath towels (54.0 per cent),bathroom sink (49.3 per cent), toilet (48.9 per cent), shower/bathtub (45.6 per cent) andbed linens (45.1 per cent). These items are probably considered the most clean becausethese are also the easiest to observe. The items that respondents considered less cleaninclude the furniture, the remote control, furniture cushions and the hotel room carpet.

Respondents who stay in hotels once or twice per year generally rated the cleanlinessof every room item higher than the respondents who reported more frequent visits.While the differences in ratings were not statistically significant, in every case they weredirectionally different, i.e. the less frequent travelers thought the rooms were slightlycleaner. Women also generally thought the room items were cleaner than men did. Thisincreased perception was statistically significantly higher for toilets, bed linens andbath towels.

Likelihood of getting sickRespondents indicated how likely they would be to get sick from coming into contactwith each of the items found in a hotel room (Table IV). A seven-point Likert-type scalewas used, ranging from very unlikely to very likely. Many of the items perceived to bethe least clean in Table III are items that survey respondents believe pose a higherlikelihood of making someone sick. These items tend to be hard surfaces that arehigh-touch items (doorknobs, handles, telephone, switches, television remote), or areused in close proximity to the mouth, as in the case of telephones.

Attitudes toward cleaning methodsNext, the survey posed questions about three methods of cleaning – traditionaldisinfection with chemicals (i.e. typical), followed by UV disinfection and ozonedisinfection (Table V).

Table II.Attitudes andbehaviors towardhealth and sanitation

AttitudeBehavior Top box %

(Rated a 7)Top two box %(Rated a 6 or 7) Mean

Attitudes (n � 284)When traveling, I worry about the cleanliness andsanitation quality of my hotel 21.9 42 4.87When my family stays at a hotel, I worry about healthand sanitation 21.3 38.6 4.62When staying in a hotel, I worry about health andsanitation 18.9 35.9 4.57Staying in a hotel can be risky for someone’s health 14.6 31.0 4.54

Behaviors (n � 284)I voluntarily get periodic health check-ups 32 56 5.33I take necessary precautions based on my awareness ofenvironmental issues 23.1 56.3 5.33I am aware of environmental health risks 18.0 51.7 5.25I read information related to health and sanitation 11.2 42.9 4.74I search for information related to health and sanitation 8.2 26.0 4.13

IJCHM27,4

698

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Table III.Cleanliness of

guestroom itemsduring last hotel

staya

Guestroom Item (n � 284) Top box % (Rated a 7) Top two box % (Rated a 6 or 7) Mean

Bath towels 54.0 86.9 6.13Bathroom sink 49.3 83.0 6.03Toilet 48.9 84.8 6.05Shower/bathtub 45.6 78.5 5.87Bed linens 45.1 85.1 6.03Bathroom floor 40.7 76.2 5.79Bedspread 39.8 74.7 5.79Door knobs/handles 37.5 79.4 5.84Light switches 37.0 74.8 5.73Room service menu 36.5 71.9 5.67Safe 35.5 76.7 5.70Telephone 35.4 74.0 5.70Television 35.0 74.5 5.76Curtains 34.1 69.3 5.64Mini-fridge 34.1 77.7 5.70Hotel room carpet 33.1 66.2 5.55Furniture cushions 33.0 70.1 5.65Television remote control 31.3 71.9 5.59Furniture 31.3 75.5 5.69

Note: a A seven-point Likert-type scale was used where 1 � very unclean and 7 � very clean

Table IV.Likelihood of getting

sick from contactwith guestroom itema

Guestroom item (n � 284) Top box % (Rated a 7) Top two box % (Rated a 6 or 7) Mean

Telephone 23.5 37.3 4.52Door knobs/handles 23.3 39.7 4.56Light switches 22.1 34.1 4.41Television remote control 21.6 35.1 4.37Toilet 17.2 29.0 3.97Bedspread 15.9 29.5 4.07Bathroom floor 15.4 28.5 3.99Bath towels 13.3 26.6 3.69Shower/bathtub 13.1 23.9 3.92Bed linens 12.5 27.2 3.92Room service menu 12.3 25.4 3.92Mini-fridge 12.1 23.4 3.73Hotel room carpet 10.9 23.3 3.81Bathroom sink 10.5 20.2 3.73Furniture 9.3 17.4 3.66Television 7.8 15.3 3.29Safe 7.0 11.3 3.16Furniture cushions 6.6 18.3 3.64Curtains 5.9 13.7 3.31

Note: a A seven-point Likert-type scale was used where 1 � very unlikely and 7 � very likely

699

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Effectiveness of each methodMost respondents believe that traditional chemical disinfection techniques work best,followed by UV disinfection and ozone disinfection. Ozone had a higher top box score(9.7 per cent) but, overall, only slightly more than 29 per cent of study participantsthought that the two alternative techniques were either effective or very effective. Theyoungest group of participants (18-31 years of age) rated the effectiveness of both theUV and the ozone methods higher than the older participants did.

Next, each respondent was asked whether the benefits of each alternative method ofdisinfection would outweigh a price premium for staying in a hotel room that wascleaned using that method. A small percentage of respondents, ranging from 5.8-7.4 percent (“top box”), strongly believed that paying a premium for alternative disinfectionwould outweigh the cost of the premium. The “top two box” range rises to 21.7-23.7 percent. The UV disinfection method yielded the highest mean score of 4.30. For bothalternative disinfection methods, the youngest group of participants (18-31 years of age)

Table V.Attitudes towardmethods of cleaning

Attitudes Chemical disinfection UV disinfection Ozone disinfection

How effective to you think (this method of disinfection) is in hotel room cleaning?Sample size 263 210 196Top box % (rated a 7) 14.4 11.9 9.7Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) 47.9 41.9 29.6Mean 5.38 5.16 4.77

The benefits of a hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would outweigh the cost of paying apremiumTop box % (rated a 7) – 5.8 7.4Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 23.7 22.7Mean – 4.3 4.14

Hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would offer good service valueTop box % (rated a 7) – 10.7 9.9Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 32.1 28.3Mean – 4.74 4.49

I feel that a hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would be worth paying additional moneyTop box % (rated a 7) – 8.0 7.0Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 21.9 20.6Mean – 4.13 4.01

I would prefer to stay in a (method of disinfection) hotel room rather than a standard hotel roomSample size – 228 216Top box % (rated a 7) – 12.3 11.6Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 37.3 29.6Mean – 4.82 4.60

I would pay additional money to stay in a (method of disinfection) hotel room rather than a standardhotel roomSample size – 229 216Top box % (rated a 7) – 5.2 6.5Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 21.4 20.8Mean – 4.01 3.91

IJCHM27,4

700

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

felt significantly more strongly that a room advertised as using one of these methods ofdisinfection would be worth paying a premium.

When asked whether an alternative method of disinfection would offer good servicevalue (but without mentioning a price increase), the top box and top two box scores riseto 9.9-10.7 per cent and 28.3-32.1 per cent, respectively, leading to the conclusion that thissurvey’s respondents see value in the method, but are not sure about paying more for thevalue. However, when asked outright if the additional disinfection would be worthpaying additional money, the top two box scores decline to below their values in eitherof the two previous questions. This again suggests some definite uncertainty about thewillingness-to-pay for this option.

The next two questions asked if the participant would prefer to stay in a hotel roomthat was disinfected with each alternative method rather than a traditionally cleanedroom, and if the participant would agree to pay extra for the alternative disinfection. Astriking increase in the respondents’ preferences to stay in a specially disinfected roomis observed, which is followed by a continued decrease in the overall willingness to paymore for this amenity.

Price sensitivity analysisThe final step explored how large a price premium a hotel could charge for providing thevarious methods of disinfection before the price became too expensive and thus beyondconsideration. As a lower boundary, the survey also asked how little the hotel couldcharge to the point where the service seemed too “cheap” and, therefore, of questionablequality. Table VI shows the results of this analysis.

For both technologies, a little over 10 per cent of the respondents thought that $0.00was too little to charge for alternative disinfection. The participants were asked toidentify a premium price that was so low that they would question the quality of thedisinfection method. Approximately 15 per cent of respondents felt that charging nopremium at all would make the disinfection method “too cheap to consider”, leadingthem to question the method’s effectiveness. When excluding the participants who use“zero” cost as the threshold (thus considering only respondents who would be willing topay a premium), the average lower threshold for a premium for alternative disinfectionis $50.00 for both UV and ozone disinfection. However, the participants specified a pricepremium set so low that it would make the purchaser question the quality of theamenity; the lowest threshold price is in the range of $40-47. The highest “too cheap”dollar amount among the youngest age group (mean � $66.40 for ozone disinfection and$61.60 for UV disinfection) is quite high when compared to the two older groups whosemeans were approximately $53.70 and $59.30 (32-52 years) and $54.20 and $55.30 (53�years).

Respondents also offered the price at which the disinfection method seemed tooexpensive, as well as the point at which it would become so expensive that it would putthe premium cost beyond their consideration. When the respondents who are notinterested/unwilling to pay any premium are excluded, the price premium becomes tooexpensive at around $100-106. The premiums become unaffordable and beyondconsideration in the $125-143 range. The survey respondents priced the lower and upperlimits of acceptable premiums roughly the same for both technologies. They seem to bemore willing to put a slightly higher upper limit on ozone disinfection.

701

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Table VI.Price sensitivity

Pric

eca

tego

ries

UV

disi

nfec

ted

Ozo

nedi

sinf

ecte

dG

ende

rA

geG

ende

rA

geO

vera

llM

enW

omen

18-3

1ye

ars

32-5

2ye

ars

53�

year

sO

vera

llM

enW

omen

18-3

1ye

ars

32-5

2ye

ars

53�

year

s

Pric

ing

ques

tion

$0(%

)10

.710

.010

.63.

88.

617

.010

.36.

613

.35.

311

.813

.2$1

-50

42.8

43.6

42.4

43.6

38.6

45.7

50.4

55.7

46.1

46.7

50.0

53.8

$51-

129

43.6

42.7

44.7

48.7

50.0

35.1

33.8

30.2

36.7

37.3

36.8

28.6

$130

�2.

93.

62.

33.

82.

92.

15.

67.

53.

910

.71.

54.

4M

ean

(exc

ludi

ng0)

$58.

70$5

7.30

$59.

80$6

1.60

$59.

30$5

5.30

$58.

20$5

7.30

$59.

00$6

6.40

$53.

70$5

4.20

Med

ian

$59.

00$6

0.00

$59.

00$6

0.00

$60.

00$5

0.00

$50.

00$5

0.00

$50.

00$6

0.00

$50.

00$5

0.00

Too

expe

nsiv

e(n

�24

2)(n

�23

5)$0

(%)

5.0

2.8

6.1

1.3

4.2

7.6

6.0

3.8

7.8

2.7

4.3

9.9

$1-5

031

.038

.525

.032

.128

.232

.629

.835

.824

.832

.027

.529

.7$5

1-12

933

.931

.236

.425

.638

.038

.032

.830

.234

.928

.031

.937

.4$1

30�

30.2

27.5

32.6

41.0

29.6

21.7

31.5

30.2

32.6

37.3

36.2

23.1

Mea

n(e

xclu

ding

0)$1

06.1

0$9

3.30

$117

.00

$119

.90

$107

.80

$92.

20$1

13.0

0$1

05.8

0$1

19.2

0$1

23.6

0$1

07.3

0$1

08.1

0M

edia

n$1

00.0

0$9

4.50

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$100

.00

$80.

00$1

09.0

0$1

00.0

0$1

07.5

0$8

5.00

Too

expe

nsiv

ean

dbe

yond

cons

ider

atio

n(n

�24

2)(n

�23

5)

$0(%

)4.

53.

74.

51.

32.

87.

65.

53.

87.

02.

64.

38.

9$1

-50

27.3

34.9

21.2

29.5

26.8

26.1

28.5

36.8

21.7

28.9

26.1

30.0

$51-

129

23.1

20.2

25.8

14.1

17.7

33.7

21.3

19.8

22.5

15.8

15.9

30.0

$130

�45

.041

.348

.555

.150

.732

.644

.739

.648

.852

.653

.631

.1M

ean

(exc

ludi

ng0)

$141

.90

$133

.10

$149

.30

$171

.40

$135

.00

$120

.90

$143

.40

$118

.80

$164

.40

$173

.50

$143

.20

$116

.40

Med

ian

$125

.00

$100

.00

$134

.50

$150

.00

$140

.00

$100

.00

$125

.00

$100

.00

$150

.00

$150

.00

$150

.00

$100

.00

Soch

eap

that

Iwou

ldqu

estio

nits

qual

ity(n

�24

2)(n

�23

2)

$0(%

)16

.116

.415

.312

.813

.020

.215

.516

.314

.811

.814

.919

.1$1

-50

23.6

60.9

63.4

67.9

62.3

57.4

62.5

58.7

65.6

65.8

59.7

61.8

$51-

129

20.7

21.8

19.8

16.7

24.6

21.3

18.5

20.2

17.2

17.1

23.9

34.8

$130

�1.

20.

91.

52.

6–

1.1

3.4

4.8

2.3

5.3

1.5

3.4

Mea

n(e

xclu

ding

0)$4

1.40

$40.

30$4

2.30

$41.

60$4

0.00

$42.

40$4

7.60

$52.

70$4

3.50

$51.

00$4

3.80

$47.

40M

edia

n$4

0.00

$42.

50$4

0.00

$47.

50$3

7.50

$40.

00$4

0.00

$40.

00$4

0.00

$40.

00$3

6.00

$40.

00IJCHM27,4

702

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

The youngest age group also had the highest tolerance for paying a premium, but thistime it was also evident that women had a higher upper bound for the premium being“too expensive”. The 18-31 year olds thought that a UV disinfected room premiumwould be “too expensive” at $119.90, whereas the older groups’ limits were $107.90 and$92.20. Women set the “too expensive” limit at $117, versus the men, who had a $93.30upper limit.

Comparison of meansCronbach’s alpha values, measuring each construct’s reliability, were adequate(perceived cleanliness � 0.973; perceived risk � 0.973; Behavior � 0.974; and consumerawareness � 0.974). Based on the factor analysis, two consumer awareness measureswere eliminated: “search” and “check-ups”. One-way ANOVAs were used to comparethe consumers’ perceived risk of getting sick from each room item, based on gender,purpose of travel and frequency of travel. There was a significant difference for theperceived cleanliness of bath towels, bed linens and the toilet between males andfemales. Women perceived all three items as being cleaner than their male counterpartsdid. On the other hand, females significantly perceived a higher risk of getting sick fromdoor knobs/handles, the bedspread, the telephone, the mini-fridge, the remote controland light switches. Males did not significantly perceive a significantly greater risk forany of the 19 items.

There were significant differences between the non-frequent traveling group and thefrequent traveling group. The frequent travelers perceived a significantly higher risk ofgetting sick from curtains, furniture cushions, the television, the safe, theshower/bathtub, hotel room carpet and the room service menu. Non-frequent travelersdid not perceive a higher risk of getting sick from any items. Strangely, there was nosignificant difference in the perceived cleanliness of items in the hotel room betweeneither the frequent versus the non-frequent travelers or the leisure versus the businesstravelers.

Additional one-way ANOVAs were conducted using “frequency of travel” and“reason for visit” as the independent, grouping variables and “willingness-to-pay” forUV and ozone disinfection as the dependent variables. There were no differences in themeans between any of the groups in either analysis.

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the consumer’swillingness-to-pay as the dependent variable for each of the methods of cleaning. Eachof the willingness-to-pay– dependent variables was tested to determine the portion ofvariance accounted for by each independent variable. Consumer awareness was notsignificant in explaining the variance of any of the willingness-to-pay– dependentvariables. When testing UV disinfection, perceived value was the main explanatoryvariable, with an effect coefficient of 0.569 (t � 12.67; p � 0.001), followed by perceivedeffectiveness and perceived risk. These variables combine to account for approximately78 per cent of the variance for consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for UVdisinfection. The regression equation is as follows:

WTP � 569PV � 380PE � 142PR � 663

When testing ozone disinfection, the main explanatory variable was again perceivedvalue (effect coefficient � 0.603; t � 11.73; p � 0.001), followed by perceivedeffectiveness and perceived risk. Combined, these variables account for approximately

703

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

79 per cent of the variance for consumers’ willingness to pay for ozone disinfection. Theregression equation is as follows:

WTP � 603PV � 310PE � 112PR � 236

The perceived effectiveness for each method was investigated (Table VI). Chemicaldisinfection had the highest mean value (5.39), followed by UV disinfection (mean �5.17) and ozone disinfection (mean � 4.77).

DiscussionThis exploratory study operates on the premise that hotel guests expect theirguestrooms to be clean. However, frequent media reports of health risks and diseaseoutbreaks, ranging from localized incidents all the way through worldwide pandemics,have been proposed by some researchers as a trigger that elevates some consumers’perceived risk of exposure and contracting the illness. This heightened perception mayresult in a guest who is willing to pay a premium for a higher level of disinfection whenvisiting a hotel. This study is a first step in determining if such a guest segment exists.In addition, if a hotel operator were to offer either the ozone disinfection or the UVdisinfection, some critical operating issues must be addressed prior to offering one ofthese new disinfection systems.

The survey respondents in this study did indeed yield a few potential customergroups who are both interested in enhanced disinfection and would be willing to pay apremium for it. Specifically, women of all ages and travelers in the 32-52 year age groupare worried about health and sanitation when staying at a hotel. Moreover, women of allages and the travelers in the 53� year age group report actually seeking out informationabout health information.

When examining the perceptions of which method of disinfection was most effective,most participants believed that traditional cleaning methods were effective. However,the younger participants were more likely to identify the alternative methods (ozone andUV) as more effective, perhaps as a reflection of younger consumers’ interests in newtechnology. The results suggest that a potential market segment is willing to pay apremium for enhanced cleaning, and the hotel industry should consider satisfying thissegment’s needs.

Theoretical implicationsCultural theory suggests that judgments of risk, danger or threat are formed in a socialcontext and not independently (Tansey and O’Riordan, 1999). Enhanced cleaningmethods may reduce both the actual and perceived risks for travelers. The efficacy ofthese enhanced methods is still being determined. However, increased advertisingcampaigns by hotel companies that market their chain’s cleaning or enhanced cleaningpractices may suggest to consumers that the hotel acknowledges the traveler’s concernsand is doing due diligence in providing a cleaner environment.

Marketing implicationsOnce a hotel company decides to incorporate one of these technologies, the companyneeds to decide if it will offer the technology as part of the core product pricing or if it willcharge more for access to enhanced sanitation. The younger survey respondents (18-31years of age) rated the effectiveness of both sanitation methods higher than older

IJCHM27,4

704

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

respondents. In addition, the younger respondents were more willing to pay for noveldisinfection methods, specified a higher dollar amount for the price premium being “toocheap”, and also had a higher tolerance for an upper limit on the price premium. Whencomparing men and women, the female respondents were more concerned aboutcleanliness in hotel rooms and also placed a high dollar amount on the upper limit for aprice premium.

In 2014, the global economy is improving and has not experienced a serious globalpandemic since H1N1. However, the current threat posed by the MERS-CoV coronavirusshould get the hotel industry’s attention. If MERS-CoV does not become a global healthevent, the industry can breathe a sigh of relief, but then prepare for the next threat. Thecruise industry is already working to improve its defenses against norovirus and otherillnesses that are particularly contagious under the very unique environmentalconditions present on a cruise ship. However, cruise ships are not the only facilitiesvulnerable to norovirus. In late November 2013, the Rio Las Vegas combated anoutbreak of norovirus that was brought to the property by schoolchildren attending theNational Youth Football Championship (Andrews, 2013). Hotel companies need toexplore improving cleanliness as an amenity and, where appropriate, consider turningenhanced cleanliness into a company strength – and perhaps even profit from it.

Best Western hotels (2013) announced its “I Care Clean” program with a press releaseon May 31, 2012. The press release discussed the branding company’s intention to be thefirst mid-scale hotel company that customers think of in terms of cleanliness, a challengethat this segment of the market faces. However, when the authors searched BestWestern’s Web site (www.bestwestern.com) in April 2014, no evidence of the programwas found in the reservations site or was listed as either an amenity or a standard optionfor guestrooms. Deployment of new technology and standards is a slow, deliberateprocess, so hotel owners and managers should watch how this opportunity for BestWestern evolves over time, as the technology diffuses throughout the brand.

Operational and practical implicationsMultiple practical steps are required to implement an enhanced cleaning program.These include purchasing, training and scheduling the new technologies. Newprograms, such as an enhanced method of disinfection, may have a positive impact onthe hotel staff because it demonstrates the priorities of the operation. For example,providing the very best technology to clean the rooms provides a safe, clean andallergy-free room for the guests. This translates into training the employees on the mostcurrent science, technology and equipment, thereby enhancing their skill sets.

Opportunities to embrace new technologies present themselves every year. However,new technology benefits always come with a price – or many prices. The newdisinfection technologies discussed here require not only a capital investment in theequipment itself, but require training, compliance checks, energy costs (electrical,water), inventory management and time. First, UV disinfection adds extra steps to thenormal housekeeping routine, which will increase the amount of time required to cleana room. When a manager needs to reduce housekeeping staffing levels, thus increasingthe room load that each housekeeper must complete, the manager runs the risk ofhousekeepers taking shortcuts and not allowing enough time to sanitize surfacesproperly with the UV wand.

705

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

The ozone method requires approximately 60-90 minutes to complete the disinfectionprocess and to ensure safety of the building’s occupants. The housekeeping departmentcannot interrupt the process without risking either providing a room that is notsanitized-as-advertised or exposing employees to dangerously high ozone levels. This60-90 minute process is in addition to the time required for the housekeeping staff toclean the room itself of surface dirt, change linens, vacuum, etc. A property using ozonedisinfection technology must include the cost of downtime for each room that isdisinfected, and must also decide whether to sanitize the room just once before the guestchecks in or to sanitize the room each day during the guest’s stay.

Finally, when UV or ozone disinfection systems are used in hospitals, the service isoften provided by the system’s manufacturer under a maintenance contract with thehospital. In this example, the hospital does not own or operate the equipment, butinstead works with one the manufacturer’s employees to schedule the disinfectionprocess. The manufacturer’s employee is based full-time at the facility and maintainsand operates the disinfection equipment. This arrangement may be feasible for a hotel ifthe volume is sufficient to justify a full-time service contract. However, for smallerproperties, or for periods of low occupancy or low demand for enhanced disinfection,outsourcing this service may not be feasible.

Study limitations and suggestions for future researchThis was an exploratory study that serves as a first step in determining generalattitudes about hotel guestroom cleanliness and the consumers’ awareness of cleaningtechnologies. The study explored whether there may be a marketable hotel guestsegment that would pay a premium for enhanced disinfection. The study’sgeneralizability is limited by several factors. First, the study participants were from allsegments of travelers, and were not recruited based on their preferences for a brand, alevel of service, room rate preferences, geographic preferences or other factors. Theresults of this study are sufficiently promising that the next logical step would be to testthe concept on a brand basis, service-level basis, etc. In addition, the operationalimplications of deploying UV and/or ozone disinfection would impact each hoteldifferently, depending on size, staffing, occupancy levels and other market conditions.In addition, the sample obtained did not categorize or stratify the respondents by otherdemographic categories (besides gender and age) or behavioral categories, and, thus, adeeper understanding of the potential market segment would be necessary before a hotelcompany should invest in the new technology to ensure a good fit both revenue-wise andoperations-wise. Finally, the survey respondents were recruited online, so hotel guestswho do not use the Internet were not represented.

This study’s findings that female travelers and younger travelers appear to be morewilling to pay a premium for enhanced cleanliness suggest that future research explorethese themes in greater depth. In addition, future research could track the traveler’swillingness to pay a premium over time to see if the willingness ebbs and flows with theoccurrence of a viral or bacterial outbreak, or with the emergence and dissemination ofnew cleaning technologies.

ConclusionsTo the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to focus on enhanced cleaning methodsas a revenue-generating amenity. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge by

IJCHM27,4

706

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

identifying market segments (both female and young travelers) exist that are willing topay a premium for enhanced cleaning. Hotel owners and operators must explore alloptions to enhance revenue in an increasingly competitive environment. Sometimes, therevenue enhancement opportunities present themselves as experiences that takecommon sense (e.g. room cleanliness) and elevate the mundane to a higher level.

ReferencesAnderson, A.L. and Leffler, K. (2008), “Bedbug infestations in the news: a picture of an emerging

public health problem in the United States”, Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 70 No. 9,pp. 24-27.

Andrews, J. (2013), “Las Vegas norovirus outbreak under investigation”, Food Safety News,available at: www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/12/las-vegas-norovirus-outbreak-under-investigation/?utm_source�feedburner&utm_medium�feed&utm_campaign�Feed%3A�foodsafetynews%2FmRcs�%28Food�Safety�News%29#.UswaG9JDtyw(accessed 7 January 2014).

Barber, N., Goodman, R.J. and Goh, B.K. (2011), “Restaurant consumers repeat patronage: a servicequality concern”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,pp. 329-336.

Barber, N. and Scarcelli, J.M. (2010), “Enhancing the assessment of tangible service qualitythrough the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20No. 1, pp. 70-88.

Best Western Hotels (2013), “Select corporate and hotel initiatives”, available at: www.bestwestern.com/programs/bwgreen/initiatives.asp, (accessed 20 June 2013).

Best Western International (2013), “Best Western introduces new cleaning technologies”,available at: www.bestwestern.com/about-us/press-media/press-release-details.asp?NewsID�834, (accessed 20 June 2013).

Brewer, M.S. and Rojas, M. (2008), “Consumer attitudes toward issues in food safety”, Journal ofFood Safety, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Brown, S.W., Gummeson, E., Edvardsson, B. and Gustavsson, B. (1991), Service Quality:Multidisciplinary and Multinational Perspectives, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

Callan, R.J. (1996), “An appraisement of UK business travelers’ perceptions of important hotelattributes”, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 113-127.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response,Division of Emergency Operations (2013), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus(MERS-CoV): Information and Guidance for Clinicians. Clinician Outreach andCommunication Activity (COCA) Conference Call, 13 June, available at: http://emergency.cdc.gov/coca/ppt/2013/06_13_13_MERSCoV_FINAL.pdf, (accessed 18 June 2013).

Delfino, R.J., Coate, B.D., Zeiger, R.S., Seltzer, J.M., Street, D.H. and Koutrakis, P. (1996), “Dailyasthma severity in relation to personal ozone exposure and outdoor fungal spores”,American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 154 No. 3, pp. 633-641.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1983), Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection ofTechnological and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, London, p. 221.

Fares, S., Goldstein, A. and Loreto, F. (2010), “Determinants of ozone fluxes and metrics for ozonerisk assessment in plants”, Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 629-633.

Franken, L. (2005), “The application of ozone technology for public health and industry”, FoodSafety & Security at Kansas State University , pp. 1-16, available at: www.medallionhealthyhomes.ca/articles/applicationofo3.pdf, (accessed 20 June 2013).

707

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Heung, V.C.S. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2008), “The mediating effects of perceived value and customersatisfaction on customer loyalty in the Chinese restaurant setting”, Journal of QualityAssurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 85-107.

Hilton Worldwide: Hampton Inn and Suites (2013), “We love having you here”, available at: www.hiltonworldwideglobalmediacenter.com/assets/HWW/docs/brandFactSheets/BrandFacts_HX.pdf, (accessed 20 June 2013).

Ho, S.S., Brossard, D. and Scheufele, D.A. (2007), “The polls-trends: public reactions to globalhealth threats and infectious diseases”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 671-692.

Hyatt Hotels & Resorts (2010), “Hyatt Hotels and Resorts purifies guest experience with ‘respireby Hyatt-Hypo Allergenic Rooms’”, available at: http://hyattpressroom.com/hyatt/en/news_releases0/2010/Hyatt-Hotels-and-Resorts-Purifies-Guest-Experience-With-Respire-by-Hyatt-Hypo-Allergenic-Rooms.html (accessed 20 June 2013).

Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D.R. (1987), News that Matters: Television and American Opinion,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Keogh-Brown, M.R. and Smith, R.D. (2008), “The economic impact of SARS: how does the realitymatch the predictions?”, Health Policy, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 110-120.

Kotler, P. (1973), “Atmospherics as a marketing tool”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 48-64.

Kozak, M., Crotts, J.C. and Law, R. (2007), “The impact of the perception of risk on internationaltravelers”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 233-242.

Kuhn, K. (2007), “Clean rooms at top of guests’ priority lists”, Caterer & Hotelkeeper, Vol. 197 No. 4,p. 11.

Lewis, R.C. (1987), “The measurement of gaps in the quality of hotel services”, InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 83-88.

Lewis, R.C. and Shoemaker, S. (1997), “Price-sensitivity measurement: a tool for the hospitalityindustry”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 44-54.

Lin, F.Y. (2003), “An analysis of hospitality consumer lifestyles in the United States”, Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, TX Tech University, TX.

Lockyer, T. (2002), “Business guests’ accommodation selection: the view from both sides”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 294-300.

Lockyer, T. (2003), “Hotel cleanliness: how do guests view it? Let us get specific. A New Zealandstudy”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 297-305.

McCleary, K.W. and Weaver, P.A. (1992), “Do business travelers who belong to frequent guestprograms differ from those who don’t belong?”, Hotel Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,pp. 51-64.

McCombs, M.E. (2004), Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion, BlackwellPublishing, Malden, MA.

Martinez-Poveda, A., Molla-Bauza, M.B., Gomis, F.J.C. and Martinez, L.M-C. (2009),“Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain”,Food Policy, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 519-528.

Mehta, S.C. and Vera, A. (1990), “Segmentation in Singapore”, Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 80-87.

Moat, J., Cargill, J., Shone, J. and Upton, M. (2009), “Application of a novel decontamination processusing gaseous ozone”, Canadian Journal of Microbiology, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 928-933.

Mole, A. and Golding, J.P.B. (2004), “US Patent No. 7604774”, US Patent and Trademark Office,Washington, DC.

IJCHM27,4

708

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Monterrubio, J.C. (2010), “Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and governmentreaction on the Mexican tourism industry: an analysis of the media”, International Journalof Tourism Policy, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-15.

National Pest Management Association (NPMA) (2010), “The NPMA releases first-evercomprehensive global bed bug study to determine the extent of resurgence”, available at:www.pestworld.org/all-things-bed-bugs/bed-bug-news/press-releases/press-releases/the-npma-releases-first-ever-comprehensive-global-bed-bug-study-to-determine-extent-of-resurgence (accessed 20 June 2013).

Pine, R. and McKercher, B. (2004), “The impact of SARS on Hong Kong’s tourism industry”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 139-143.

PURE Solutions (2013), “Behind PURE room: PURE’s patented, 7-step purification process”,available at: http://pureroom.com/pure_process/behind_pureroomhttp://pureroom.com/pure_process/behind_pureroom, (accessed 20 June 2013).

Raajpoot, N. (2002), “TANGSERV: a multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality infood service industry”, Journal of Food Service Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 109-127.

Rutala, W.A., Weber, D.J. and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee(HICPAC) (2008), “Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities”,available at: www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf (accessed 24April 2014).

Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1992), “Client perceptions of hotels, a multi-attribute approach”, TourismManagement, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 163-168.

Singh, B. and Sharma, N. (2008), “Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation”, PolymerDegradation and Stability, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 561-584.

Tansey, J. and O’Riordan, T. (1999), “Cultural theory and risk: a review”, Health, Risk & Society,Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-90.

Tew, P.J., Lu, Z., Tolomiczenko, G. and Gellatly, J. (2008), “SARS: lessons in strategic planning forhoteliers and destination markets”, International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 332-346.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2013), “Ozone generators that are sold as air cleaners”,available at: www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html, (accessed 18 June 2013).

Weaver, P.A. and Oh, H.C. (1993), “Do American business travelers have different hotel servicerequirements?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 5No. 3, pp. 16-21.

Winther, B., McCue, K., Ashe, K., Rubino, J.R. and Hendley, J.O. (2007), “Environmentalcontamination with rhinovirus and transfer to fingers of healthy individuals by daily lifeactivity”, Journal of Medical Virology, Vol. 79 No. 10, pp. 1606-1610.

World Health Organization (2013), “Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus(MERS-CoV) – update (November, 2013)”, available at: www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/Update12_MERSCoV_update_22Nov13.pdf, (accessed on January13, 2014).

Wu, E.H.C., Law, R. and Jiang, B. (2010), “Data mining for hotel occupancy rate: an independentcomponent analysis approach”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 426-438.

709

Hotelcleanliness

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)

Yamanaka, K. Almanza, B., Nelson, D. and DeVaney, S. (2003), “Older American’s dining outpreferences”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 87-103.

Further readingAnonymous (2010), “Hotels improve air quality”, Filtration and Separation, Vol. 47 No. 4, p. 12.Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D.R. (2010), News that Matters: Television and American Opinion,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.World Health Organization (2009), “Statement made at the secretary-general’s briefing to the

United Nations general assembly on the H1N1 influenza situation”, available at: www.who.int/dg/speeches/2009/influenza_a_h1n1_situation_20090504/en/index.html, (accessed 1June 2012).

About the authorsDina Marie V Zemke, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the William F. Harrah College of HotelAdministration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dina Marie V Zemke is the correspondingauthor and can be contacted at: dina.zemke@unlv.edu

Jay Neal, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel andRestaurant Management at the University of Houston.

Stowe Shoemaker, PhD, is Dean of the William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration anda Lincy Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Katie Kirsch, BS, is a graduate of the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and RestaurantManagement. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Food Science at Texas A&MUniversity.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

IJCHM27,4

710

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F R

IJE

KA

At 0

2:28

19

Oct

ober

201

5 (P

T)