International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Hotel 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 guests
pay for enhanced disinfection?", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol.
27 Iss 4 pp. 690 - 710
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0020
Downloaded on: 17 February 2016, At: 04:54 (PT)
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 456 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Basak Denizci Guillet, Ibrahim Mohammed, (2015),"Revenue management research in hospitality
and tourism: A critical review of current literature and suggestions for future research", International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 526-560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-06-2014-0295
Yao-Chin Wang, Yeasun Chung, (2015),"Hotel brand portfolio strategy", International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 561-584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-01-2014-0031
Dennis A Rauch, Michael Dwain Collins, Robert D Nale, Peter B. Barr, (2015),"Measuring service
quality in mid-scale hotels", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
Iss 1 pp. 87-106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2013-0254

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:239791 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

IJCHM
27,4
690
Received 13 January 2014
Revised 24 March 2014
15 May 2014
Accepted 7 June 2014
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 27 No. 4, 2015
pp. 690-710
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0020
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
Hotel cleanliness: will guests pay
for enhanced disinfection?
Dina Marie V. Zemke
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Jay Neal
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
Stowe Shoemaker
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, and
Katie Kirsch
Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to propose that there may be a marketable segment of guests who are
willing to pay a premium for guestrooms that are cleaned using enhanced disinfection techniques
beyond the normal room cleaning procedures. Room cleanliness is important to hotel guests. Some hotel
brands currently offer allergy-free rooms, charging a premium for this service. However, no hotel
brands currently serve the market that is willing to pay more for enhanced disinfection. This
exploratory study investigates whether there is such a segment and, if so, what price premium these
customers are willing to pay for enhanced disinfection.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey methods were used to determine the consumer’s
perceptions of hotel guestroom cleanliness; the effectiveness of traditional and enhanced cleaning
methods; and willingness to pay for enhanced guestroom disinfection.
Findings – Younger travelers and female travelers of all ages may be willing to pay a significant price
premium 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 not
be analyzed by brand or service level.
Originality/value – Past research focuses only on traditional cleaning methods. This article provides
a template for the hotel industry to explore the feasibility of offering enhanced cleanliness as a
revenue-generating amenity.
Keywords Customer segmentation, Willingness to pay, Hotel cleanliness, MERS-CoV,
Ozone/UV disinfection, Price sensitivity analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Multiple studies have investigated factors influencing accommodation selection.
Unsurprisingly, many concluded that cleanliness is one of the most important factors
 (Callan, 1996; Kuhn, 2007; Lewis, 1987; Lin, 2003; McCleary and Weaver, 1992; Mehta Hotel
and Vera, 1990; Saleh and Ryan, 1992;Weaver and Oh, 1993). Kuhn (2007) reported that cleanliness
the majority of complaints and compliments received by hotel managers pertain to
standards of guestroom hygiene. This study also found that guests particularly value a
clean bathroom, especially the toilet (Kuhn, 2007). However, even when a hotel room is
cleaned properly, the risk of contamination from sick guests can still exist. For example,
Winther et al. (2007) investigated environmental contamination under natural 691
conditions via an overnight stay in a hotel room by adults with naturally acquired colds
(e.g. the rhinovirus). Environmental contamination patterns showed that rhinovirus is
easily transferred from guests to door handles, pens, light switches, TV remote controls,
faucets and telephones (Winther et al., 2007). While rhinovirus is generally not life
threatening, 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 (Barber
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

et al., 2011; Lockyer, 2002, 2003; Raajpoot, 2002). However, these studies investigated
cleanliness 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 this
perception may be amplified through media exposure. Then an overview of cleaning
methods, including two new technologies – ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and ozone
disinfection – is provided, along with relevant hotel operational issues that accompany
these technologies. Finally, hotel guests were surveyed to measure their attitudes about
hotel room cleanliness, their perceptions of health risks, their awareness and attitudes
about the new cleaning technologies and their willingness to pay a price premium for a
guestroom with enhanced cleaning using one of the new technologies.

Review of literature
Pandemic concerns
Pandemics with large economic impacts on the travel and tourism industries have
occurred over the past decade. The perceived risk of a health threat, such as an infectious
disease at a tourist destination, is cited as consumers’ most important reason to change
travel plans (Kozak et al., 2007). The news media shapes public opinion about events and
issues by using salience cues, such as placement, level of coverage and repetition of
stories (Iyengar and Kinder, 1987; McCombs, 2004). This influence is seen in the
parallels that exist between the media’s coverage of public health issues and the
coinciding 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. For
example, consider the media coverage of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and
influenza 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 Health
Organization (WHO). As information about the virus spread, consumers became
reluctant to travel, leading to deteriorating demand for hotel rooms. This reduction
translated into significant financial losses and long-term negative effects for the lodging
industry worldwide. For example, Pine and McKercher (2004) report that the SARS
pandemic resulted in a tourism gross domestic product decrease of 41 and 42 per cent for
Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively, during the approximately four-month travel
 IJCHM advisory period. Similarly, the 2009 outbreak of H1N1 had a significant impact on the
27,4 hospitality industry (Monterrubio, 2010). The outbreak of this disease in Hong Kong
reduced consumer intentions to travel to Hong Kong, the effects of which were felt in
steadily decreasing hotel occupancy rates between March and May 2009 (Wu et al.,
2010). A similar decline was observed in Mexico, where occupancy levels dipped
between 5 and 10 per cent in Mexico City (Monterrubio, 2010). These events contributed
692 to the growing concern for health among travelers and confirm the notion that health
risks can greatly impact the tourism industry.
The term coronavirus describes a family of viruses, ranging from the common cold to
SARS and the H1N1 influenza virus (World Health Organization, 2013). At the time of
this writing, a new strain of coronavirus is emerging. This new strain, the Middle East
respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), first appeared in Saudi Arabia in June
2012 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Public Health Preparedness
and Response, Division of Emergency Operations, 2013). Eighteen months later, 157
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

cases had been reported in several Middle Eastern countries and in Europe; these cases
include 69 deaths, yielding a nearly 32.9 per cent mortality rate (World Health
Organization, 2013). Health-care professionals worldwide are concerned about the virus
mutating and spreading rapidly, particularly if travelers facilitate human-to-human
transmission.
The US public at large began to hear about MERS-CoV in May 2013. The first
recorded cases of the virus appeared in the USA in May 2014. Whether or not the
MERS-CoV becomes a worldwide pandemic remains to be seen. However, in light of
previous pandemic outbreaks, such as SARS in 2003 and H1N1 in 2009, the hotel
industry needs to prepare for the possible pandemic outbreaks – MERS-CoV or
otherwise – that seem to happen every two to three years. The need for preparation is
twofold – first and foremost, to fulfill the industry’s obligation to take reasonable care in
providing accommodations for travelers. Second, and more interestingly, the industry
might be able to provide a more extensive level of hotel guestroom cleanliness as an
amenity, above and beyond the baseline expectation that the room should be clean. If a
guest segment desires higher levels of cleanliness, would these guests pay a premium
for 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 of
organic and inorganic observable soil from a surface, often achieved through a
combination of water and detergents or enzymatic materials. Decontamination is
defined as the removal of disease-causing (pathogenic) microorganisms from objects or
surfaces, but does not address the presence or acceptability of visible soil, so a hotel
could potentially provide a surface that is not clean, but is decontaminated (i.e. clean
dirt). Disinfection eradicates most or all pathogenic microorganisms on a surface, with
the exception of bacterial spores. Finally, sterilization provides a surface where all
microbial life, including bacterial spores, is destroyed (Rutala et al., 2008).
Hotels traditionally use chemical cleaning and sanitizing products for public spaces
and guestrooms. The rooms may still provide an environment where communicable
diseases can be spread by human-to-surface contact. Therefore, researchers are
studying the effectiveness of new cleaning and sanitizing methods for use in hotels and
 other public assembly areas. Two novel methods currently under study are ozone Hotel
disinfection and UV disinfection methods. cleanliness
Ozone. Ozone disinfection works by pumping concentrated levels of ozone gas into a
space 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) to
intense electrical charges, similar to a lightning strike. Ozone is unstable under normal
atmospheric conditions and will quickly break down to form the regular two-molecule 693
form of oxygen, although the Earth’s upper atmosphere does support a relatively small
amount of ozone that forms the protective ozone layer. Ozonators, which generate ozone
gas, have been used for many years to clear guestrooms of offensive odors, such as
cigarette or cigar smoke. The effectiveness of ozonators’ ability to improve air quality is
not proven (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013) and, if used improperly, could
cause respiratory illnesses in people and animals (Delfino et al., 1996). Ozone may also
have a negative effect on live plants and items made of plastic, rubber and other
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

petroleum-based materials (Fares et al., 2010; Singh and Sharma, 2008).

More recently, researchers have experimented with using ozone gas in high
concentrations to lower bacterial counts on surfaces (Moat et al., 2009), particularly ones
that sanitize surfaces without the harmful side effects discussed above (Franken, 2005).
These systems work in the following manner: a machine raises the room’s relative
humidity to 75 per cent or higher and then introduces a high concentration of ozone gas
into the space. Next, an additional chemical, such as a gaseous volatile olefin, is released
to react with the ozone and neutralize it in the form of hydroxyl radicals, which are
generally considered to be harmless for human exposure (Mole and Golding, 2004). The
total process time will vary, but early estimates indicate that hotel room disinfection
using this method will take about 60-90 minutes.
Ultraviolet. UV xenon disinfection uses a xenon-gas light source to create UV
lightwaves. This technology has long been used in multi-room air handling systems for
commercial real estate and health-care facilities. Air traveling through the ductwork
passes through an area bathed in UV light, which kills microbes suspended in the air. A
different technique is used in hospital rooms and has recently been introduced into the
broader consumer market. The technology employs a tower that emits high-energy UV
pulses. The UV light pulses disinfect the area and its surfaces effectively and reduce the
need for traditional cleaning chemicals.

Marketing cleanliness
Several studies have investigated the physical environment of a hotel as part of the
guests’ service experience (Kotler, 1973; Barber et al., 2011). The term servicescape is
often used to describe the surroundings of a service organization and includes items
such as the interior and exterior design of the building, ambient temperature, lighting
and 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 the
customer’s perception of service quality (Barber and Scarcelli, 2010; Lockyer, 2003).
Several studies have suggested that the absence of hygienic conditions can be a source
of dissatisfaction. For example, Yamanaka et al. (2003) reported that even though
consumers cannot see the “behind the scene conditions of a business”, this unseen area
can be a significant concern for consumers and may be a primary factor when choosing
a service establishment and may create dissatisfaction. In addition, Brown et al. (1991)
 IJCHM proposed that the absence of hygienic conditions is an important dissatisfier for
27,4 customers during the service quality experience. Barber et al. (2011) suggest
that cleanliness should be considered an important part of an assessment that measures
customers and the influence of service quality. One of the challenges in marketing
cleanliness as an amenity is that it is a consumer expectation that the physical
environment will be clean and hygienic. So how do hoteliers exceed consumers’
694 expectations?

Mysophobia and hotel guests

Mysophobia (from the Greek musos, “uncleanliness” and phobos, “fear”), colloquially
known as germaphobia, is the pathological fear of contamination and microorganisms
(or germs). While very few hotel guests may actually suffer from this fear, the continued
media broadcast of health issues increases awareness and may increase the perceived
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

risk of illness. Tansey and O’Riordan (1999) explained the cultural theory as a way of
interpreting how and why persons form opinions and judgments concerning risk,
danger, pollution and threat. The focus of this theory is to suggest that these judgments
are formed in a social context and not independently. When consumers see frequent
media reports about health risks related to germs and/or disease, the perceived risk (as
well as the real risk in specific cases) of travel may increase, as evidenced in Mexico and
China. Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) suggested that in countries such as the USA,
where many hazards have systemically been reduced, citizens may actually feel more at
risk. More specifically, their thesis is that given that the prevalence of lethal hazards has
decreased, the feeling of being more “at risk” may be social in origin.

Hotel industry trends

The Best Western hotel chain recently deployed a variation of UV technology in its
housekeeping departments to decrease microbial levels in guestrooms, reduce the need
for cleaning chemicals and improve indoor air quality (Best Western, 2012). In 2012, the
company initiated its “I Care Clean” program in more than 2,100 properties. The
program uses UV black lights to illuminate stains, including those made by bodily
fluids, during housekeeping cleaning processes and inspections. The program also uses
UV sterilization wands, which operate by slowly waving the wand over a surface to be
sanitized. Television remote controls were re-engineered for easier cleaning and
disinfection. The “I Care Clean” program also features single-use pillow and blanket
wraps to improve cleanliness standards throughout Best Western’s brands (Best
Western 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 & Fresh
Hampton Bed®, a premium bed with white linens “washed fresh for every guest” with a
100 per cent Hampton guarantee of the overall cleanliness of the room (Hilton
Worldwide: Hampton Inn and Suites, 2013). Similarly, Hilton Garden Inn offers the
adjustable Garden Sleep System® bed, featuring “fresh, white, cozy duvets and crisp
linens” and a hypoallergenic pillow option. These options are available in all guestrooms
without a premium charge. Hyatt Hotels offers the “Respire by Hyatt – Hypo-Allergenic
Rooms” program (Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, 2010). These rooms are specially prepared,
using the PURE Solutions cleaning and air filtration systems (Pure Solutions, 2013) to
 provide a hypoallergenic environment. At this time, it appears that Hyatt is charging a Hotel
premium of approximately US$20 per night for these rooms. cleanliness
Purpose of the study
Cleanliness is one of the most basic expectations of hotel guests. Real risks exist in terms
of communicable diseases, particularly in the travel industry. While hotel operators
work to meet their guests’ expectations for cleanliness, frequent media reports of 695
outbreaks may generate an elevated perception of risk for some guests. Increased
consumer awareness of communicable diseases and concerns about traveling beg the
question – are some consumers willing to pay for additional cleaning and sanitizing
methods for hotel rooms? If so, which guests form this market segment and how much
more would they be willing to pay for enhanced disinfection of the guestroom? To
answer these questions, the objectives of this exploratory study were to:
• solicit consumer perceptions of hotel room cleanliness and the potential risk of
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

contracting illnesses from items within hotel rooms;

• understand the perceived efficacy of novel cleaning methods, specifically UV
disinfection and ozone disinfection methods; and
• determine if consumers are willing to pay for these additional cleaning methods.

Methods
Survey instrument
An online survey was created using Internet-based Qualtrics™ software. Demographic,
behavioral and willingness-to-pay questions either used categorical scales or solicited
open-ended responses. Nineteen items commonly found in a hotel room were listed
based on surveys by Brewer and Rojas (2008) and Lockyer (2003). The survey
respondents were asked about the perceived cleanliness of each item and the perceived
risk or likelihood of becoming ill through contact with each of the 19 items. The
Likert-type scale for perceived cleanliness ranged from 1 ⫽ “Very Unclean” to 7 ⫽ “Very
Clean.” 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 on
Brewer 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 measure
the respondent’s level of agreement with statements about the cleanliness of hotel
guestrooms 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 gauged
consumer awareness related to information searching, overall awareness of health risks
and the level of consumer precaution (Martinez-Poveda et al., 2009).
A series of questions associated with two new methods of disinfection – UV
disinfection and ozone disinfection – were also included in the survey, along with the
traditional chemical disinfection method. The term “Disinfection” was used with each
method to maintain consistency and to prevent error due to potential bias of different
terms when comparing the methods. Simple, concise definitions were provided to obtain
the respondent’s perception of each cleaning method. For example, an “Ultraviolet
Disinfected” hotel room was defined as a room in which UV disinfection was used to
further clean and disinfect without toxins or side effects. An “Ozone Disinfected” hotel
room was defined as a room in which an additional cleaning agent was used to kill
bacteria, odors and mold spores.
 IJCHM Questions about perceived value, perceived effectiveness and willingness to pay a
27,4 premium were included for each of the three methods of cleaning. The value questions in
this study were based on Heung and Ngai’s (2008) measurements of perceived value in
restaurants. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the willingness to pay a
premium for enhanced disinfection. A price sensitivity instrument created by Lewis and
Shoemaker (1997) was used to evaluate the actual dollar amount the respondent would
696 be willing to pay to stay in either an UV disinfected or an ozone disinfected room. The
instrument used the following four questions to elicit top-of-mind responses from the
survey participant:
(1) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UV
disinfected” (or ozone disinfected) hotel room to be cheap?
(2) At what price (in dollars) would you consider the price of the premium for a “UV
disinfected” hotel room to be expensive?
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

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

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

Data collection
Survey Sampling International was used to recruit participants and to distribute the
survey. Nine regions throughout the USA were randomly chosen, and within each
region, respondents were picked at random to complete the survey. Potential
respondents were qualified through screening questions that asked if they stay
overnight in a hotel at least once per year and if they are 18 years of age or older. Once
qualified, a total of 279 people completed the survey.

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

Results
Sample characteristics
Table I reveals the demographic and behavioral characteristics of the sample. Males and
females were sampled in roughly the same proportion. The median age of the sample
 was 49.2 years of age, with a mean of 46.4. A total of 54.6 per cent of the respondents Hotel
stayed one to three nights annually in a hotel, while the other 45.4 per cent stayed more cleanliness
than three nights. Approximately, 25 per cent of the respondents stayed six or more
nights a year in a hotel. The majority of trips were for leisure. These behaviors suggest
that respondents were familiar with hotels and that the respondents had high
discretionary authority when selecting a hotel, as leisure travelers are not usually bound
to specific brands or properties through corporate sales agreements, although they may 697
be influenced by relationships with hotel brand loyalty programs.

Behavioral characteristics
Table II displays the survey respondents’ agreement with a series of statement about
their health in relation to the sanitation of hotel rooms, as well as their own personal
health behaviors. Forty-two per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they
worry about the cleanliness and sanitation of hotel rooms, and nearly a third of
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

respondents believed that staying in a hotel could be risky for someone’s health. More
than half of the survey respondents report taking care of their health. However, only 42.9
per cent read information related to health and sanitation, and only 26 per cent agree that
they actually seek out information related to health and sanitation. Women and
respondents in the 32-52 year age group were significantly more likely to worry about
health and sanitation when staying at a hotel. However, women and respondents in the
53⫹ years of age category were more likely to seek out information related to health
than their male and younger counterparts were.

Cleanliness of guestroom items

Respondents were asked to think about their last hotel stay and indicate their
perceptions 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 elicit
the participants’ ratings of cleanliness based on their own top-of-mind perceptions. A
seven-point Likert-type scale to gauge the level of cleanliness was used, where 1 ⫽ “very
unclean” and 7 ⫽ “very clean”, as well as a “not sure” option. Table III shows the
percentage 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”) and
the overall mean.

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 nights
32-52 years 28.2% Median stay 3.0 nights
53⫹ years 43.0% Percent of nights spent for Table I.
Mean 46.4 years Business 11.9% Sample and
Median 49.2 years Leisure 81.7% behavioral
Both business & leisure 6.4% characteristics
 IJCHM Behavior Top box % Top two box %
27,4 Attitude (Rated a 7) (Rated a 6 or 7) Mean

Attitudes (n ⫽ 284)
When traveling, I worry about the cleanliness and
sanitation quality of my hotel 21.9 42 4.87
698 When my family stays at a hotel, I worry about health
and sanitation 21.3 38.6 4.62
When staying in a hotel, I worry about health and
sanitation 18.9 35.9 4.57
Staying 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 5.33
I take necessary precautions based on my awareness of
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

Table II. environmental issues 23.1 56.3 5.33

Attitudes and I am aware of environmental health risks 18.0 51.7 5.25
behaviors toward I read information related to health and sanitation 11.2 42.9 4.74
health and sanitation I search for information related to health and sanitation 8.2 26.0 4.13

The first column in Table III reveals that when looking only at “top box” box ratings, the
five 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) and
bed linens (45.1 per cent). These items are probably considered the most clean because
these are also the easiest to observe. The items that respondents considered less clean
include 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 cleanliness
of 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 were
directionally different, i.e. the less frequent travelers thought the rooms were slightly
cleaner. Women also generally thought the room items were cleaner than men did. This
increased perception was statistically significantly higher for toilets, bed linens and
bath towels.

Likelihood of getting sick

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

Attitudes toward cleaning methods

Next, the survey posed questions about three methods of cleaning – traditional
disinfection with chemicals (i.e. typical), followed by UV disinfection and ozone
disinfection (Table V).
 Guestroom Item (n ⫽ 284) Top box % (Rated a 7) Top two box % (Rated a 6 or 7) Mean
Hotel
cleanliness
Bath towels 54.0 86.9 6.13
Bathroom sink 49.3 83.0 6.03
Toilet 48.9 84.8 6.05
Shower/bathtub 45.6 78.5 5.87
Bed linens 45.1 85.1 6.03
Bathroom floor 40.7 76.2 5.79
699
Bedspread 39.8 74.7 5.79
Door knobs/handles 37.5 79.4 5.84
Light switches 37.0 74.8 5.73
Room service menu 36.5 71.9 5.67
Safe 35.5 76.7 5.70
Telephone 35.4 74.0 5.70
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

Television 35.0 74.5 5.76

Curtains 34.1 69.3 5.64
Mini-fridge 34.1 77.7 5.70
Hotel room carpet 33.1 66.2 5.55
Furniture cushions 33.0 70.1 5.65 Table III.
Television remote control 31.3 71.9 5.59 Cleanliness of
Furniture 31.3 75.5 5.69 guestroom items
during last hotel
Note: a A seven-point Likert-type scale was used where 1 ⫽ very unclean and 7 ⫽ very clean staya

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

Telephone 23.5 37.3 4.52

Door knobs/handles 23.3 39.7 4.56
Light switches 22.1 34.1 4.41
Television remote control 21.6 35.1 4.37
Toilet 17.2 29.0 3.97
Bedspread 15.9 29.5 4.07
Bathroom floor 15.4 28.5 3.99
Bath towels 13.3 26.6 3.69
Shower/bathtub 13.1 23.9 3.92
Bed linens 12.5 27.2 3.92
Room service menu 12.3 25.4 3.92
Mini-fridge 12.1 23.4 3.73
Hotel room carpet 10.9 23.3 3.81
Bathroom sink 10.5 20.2 3.73
Furniture 9.3 17.4 3.66
Television 7.8 15.3 3.29
Safe 7.0 11.3 3.16
Furniture cushions 6.6 18.3 3.64 Table IV.
Curtains 5.9 13.7 3.31 Likelihood of getting
sick from contact
Note: a A seven-point Likert-type scale was used where 1 ⫽ very unlikely and 7 ⫽ very likely with guestroom itema
 IJCHM Effectiveness of each method
27,4 Most 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 participants
thought that the two alternative techniques were either effective or very effective. The
youngest group of participants (18-31 years of age) rated the effectiveness of both the
700 UV and the ozone methods higher than the older participants did.
Next, each respondent was asked whether the benefits of each alternative method of
disinfection would outweigh a price premium for staying in a hotel room that was
cleaned using that method. A small percentage of respondents, ranging from 5.8-7.4 per
cent (“top box”), strongly believed that paying a premium for alternative disinfection
would outweigh the cost of the premium. The “top two box” range rises to 21.7-23.7 per
cent. The UV disinfection method yielded the highest mean score of 4.30. For both
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

alternative disinfection methods, the youngest group of participants (18-31 years of age)

Attitudes Chemical disinfection UV disinfection Ozone disinfection

How effective to you think (this method of disinfection) is in hotel room cleaning?
Sample size 263 210 196
Top box % (rated a 7) 14.4 11.9 9.7
Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) 47.9 41.9 29.6
Mean 5.38 5.16 4.77
The benefits of a hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would outweigh the cost of paying a
premium
Top box % (rated a 7) – 5.8 7.4
Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 23.7 22.7
Mean – 4.3 4.14
Hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would offer good service value
Top box % (rated a 7) – 10.7 9.9
Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 32.1 28.3
Mean – 4.74 4.49
I feel that a hotel room marketed as (method of disinfection) would be worth paying additional money
Top box % (rated a 7) – 8.0 7.0
Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 21.9 20.6
Mean – 4.13 4.01
I would prefer to stay in a (method of disinfection) hotel room rather than a standard hotel room
Sample size – 228 216
Top box % (rated a 7) – 12.3 11.6
Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 37.3 29.6
Mean – 4.82 4.60
I would pay additional money to stay in a (method of disinfection) hotel room rather than a standard
hotel room
Sample size – 229 216
Table V. Top box % (rated a 7) – 5.2 6.5
Attitudes toward Top two box % (rated a 6 or 7) – 21.4 20.8
methods of cleaning Mean – 4.01 3.91
 felt significantly more strongly that a room advertised as using one of these methods of Hotel
disinfection would be worth paying a premium. cleanliness
When asked whether an alternative method of disinfection would offer good service
value (but without mentioning a price increase), the top box and top two box scores rise
to 9.9-10.7 per cent and 28.3-32.1 per cent, respectively, leading to the conclusion that this
survey’s respondents see value in the method, but are not sure about paying more for the
value. However, when asked outright if the additional disinfection would be worth 701
paying additional money, the top two box scores decline to below their values in either
of the two previous questions. This again suggests some definite uncertainty about the
willingness-to-pay for this option.
The next two questions asked if the participant would prefer to stay in a hotel room
that was disinfected with each alternative method rather than a traditionally cleaned
room, and if the participant would agree to pay extra for the alternative disinfection. A
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

striking increase in the respondents’ preferences to stay in a specially disinfected room

is observed, which is followed by a continued decrease in the overall willingness to pay
more for this amenity.

Price sensitivity analysis

The final step explored how large a price premium a hotel could charge for providing the
various methods of disinfection before the price became too expensive and thus beyond
consideration. As a lower boundary, the survey also asked how little the hotel could
charge to the point where the service seemed too “cheap” and, therefore, of questionable
quality. Table VI shows the results of this analysis.
For both technologies, a little over 10 per cent of the respondents thought that $0.00
was too little to charge for alternative disinfection. The participants were asked to
identify a premium price that was so low that they would question the quality of the
disinfection method. Approximately 15 per cent of respondents felt that charging no
premium at all would make the disinfection method “too cheap to consider”, leading
them 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 to
pay a premium), the average lower threshold for a premium for alternative disinfection
is $50.00 for both UV and ozone disinfection. However, the participants specified a price
premium set so low that it would make the purchaser question the quality of the
amenity; 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 whose
means 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 too
expensive, as well as the point at which it would become so expensive that it would put
the premium cost beyond their consideration. When the respondents who are not
interested/unwilling to pay any premium are excluded, the price premium becomes too
expensive at around $100-106. The premiums become unaffordable and beyond
consideration in the $125-143 range. The survey respondents priced the lower and upper
limits of acceptable premiums roughly the same for both technologies. They seem to be
more willing to put a slightly higher upper limit on ozone disinfection.
 Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

27,4

702
IJCHM

Table VI.
Price sensitivity
UV disinfected Ozone disinfected
Price categories Gender Age Gender Age
Overall Men Women 18-31 years 32-52 years 53⫹ years Overall Men Women 18-31 years 32-52 years 53⫹ years

Pricing question
$0 (%) 10.7 10.0 10.6 3.8 8.6 17.0 10.3 6.6 13.3 5.3 11.8 13.2
$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⫹ 2.9 3.6 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.1 5.6 7.5 3.9 10.7 1.5 4.4
Mean (excluding 0) $58.70 $57.30 $59.80 $61.60 $59.30 $55.30 $58.20 $57.30 $59.00 $66.40 $53.70 $54.20
Median $59.00 $60.00 $59.00 $60.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00

Too expensive (n ⫽ 242) (n ⫽ 235)

$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
$1-50 31.0 38.5 25.0 32.1 28.2 32.6 29.8 35.8 24.8 32.0 27.5 29.7
$51-129 33.9 31.2 36.4 25.6 38.0 38.0 32.8 30.2 34.9 28.0 31.9 37.4
$130⫹ 30.2 27.5 32.6 41.0 29.6 21.7 31.5 30.2 32.6 37.3 36.2 23.1
Mean (excluding 0) $106.10 $93.30 $117.00 $119.90 $107.80 $92.20 $113.00 $105.80 $119.20 $123.60 $107.30 $108.10
Median $100.00 $94.50 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $80.00 $109.00 $100.00 $107.50 $85.00

Too expensive and beyond (n ⫽ 242) (n ⫽ 235)

consideration
$0 (%) 4.5 3.7 4.5 1.3 2.8 7.6 5.5 3.8 7.0 2.6 4.3 8.9
$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⫹ 45.0 41.3 48.5 55.1 50.7 32.6 44.7 39.6 48.8 52.6 53.6 31.1
Mean (excluding 0) $141.90 $133.10 $149.30 $171.40 $135.00 $120.90 $143.40 $118.80 $164.40 $173.50 $143.20 $116.40
Median $125.00 $100.00 $134.50 $150.00 $140.00 $100.00 $125.00 $100.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $100.00

So cheap that I would question (n ⫽ 242) (n ⫽ 232)

its quality
$0 (%) 16.1 16.4 15.3 12.8 13.0 20.2 15.5 16.3 14.8 11.8 14.9 19.1
$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⫹ 1.2 0.9 1.5 2.6 – 1.1 3.4 4.8 2.3 5.3 1.5 3.4
Mean (excluding 0) $41.40 $40.30 $42.30 $41.60 $40.00 $42.40 $47.60 $52.70 $43.50 $51.00 $43.80 $47.40
Median $40.00 $42.50 $40.00 $47.50 $37.50 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $36.00 $40.00
 The youngest age group also had the highest tolerance for paying a premium, but this Hotel
time it was also evident that women had a higher upper bound for the premium being cleanliness
“too expensive”. The 18-31 year olds thought that a UV disinfected room premium
would 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 $93.30
upper limit.

Comparison of means
703
Cronbach’s alpha values, measuring each construct’s reliability, were adequate
(perceived cleanliness ⫽ 0.973; perceived risk ⫽ 0.973; Behavior ⫽ 0.974; and consumer
awareness ⫽ 0.974). Based on the factor analysis, two consumer awareness measures
were eliminated: “search” and “check-ups”. One-way ANOVAs were used to compare
the 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 the
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

perceived cleanliness of bath towels, bed linens and the toilet between males and
females. Women perceived all three items as being cleaner than their male counterparts
did. On the other hand, females significantly perceived a higher risk of getting sick from
door knobs/handles, the bedspread, the telephone, the mini-fridge, the remote control
and light switches. Males did not significantly perceive a significantly greater risk for
any of the 19 items.
There were significant differences between the non-frequent traveling group and the
frequent traveling group. The frequent travelers perceived a significantly higher risk of
getting sick from curtains, furniture cushions, the television, the safe, the
shower/bathtub, hotel room carpet and the room service menu. Non-frequent travelers
did not perceive a higher risk of getting sick from any items. Strangely, there was no
significant difference in the perceived cleanliness of items in the hotel room between
either the frequent versus the non-frequent travelers or the leisure versus the business
travelers.
Additional one-way ANOVAs were conducted using “frequency of travel” and
“reason for visit” as the independent, grouping variables and “willingness-to-pay” for
UV and ozone disinfection as the dependent variables. There were no differences in the
means between any of the groups in either analysis.
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the consumer’s
willingness-to-pay as the dependent variable for each of the methods of cleaning. Each
of the willingness-to-pay– dependent variables was tested to determine the portion of
variance accounted for by each independent variable. Consumer awareness was not
significant in explaining the variance of any of the willingness-to-pay– dependent
variables. When testing UV disinfection, perceived value was the main explanatory
variable, with an effect coefficient of 0.569 (t ⫽ 12.67; p ⬍ 0.001), followed by perceived
effectiveness and perceived risk. These variables combine to account for approximately
78 per cent of the variance for consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for UV
disinfection. The regression equation is as follows:

WTP ⫽ 569PV ⫹ 380PE ⫹ 142PR ⫺ 663

When testing ozone disinfection, the main explanatory variable was again perceived
value (effect coefficient ⫽ 0.603; t ⫽ 11.73; p ⬍ 0.001), followed by perceived
effectiveness and perceived risk. Combined, these variables account for approximately
 IJCHM 79 per cent of the variance for consumers’ willingness to pay for ozone disinfection. The
27,4 regression equation is as follows:

WTP ⫽ 603PV ⫹ 310PE ⫹ 112PR ⫺ 236

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

Discussion
This exploratory study operates on the premise that hotel guests expect their
guestrooms to be clean. However, frequent media reports of health risks and disease
outbreaks, ranging from localized incidents all the way through worldwide pandemics,
have been proposed by some researchers as a trigger that elevates some consumers’
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

perceived risk of exposure and contracting the illness. This heightened perception may
result in a guest who is willing to pay a premium for a higher level of disinfection when
visiting 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 UV
disinfection, some critical operating issues must be addressed prior to offering one of
these new disinfection systems.
The survey respondents in this study did indeed yield a few potential customer
groups who are both interested in enhanced disinfection and would be willing to pay a
premium for it. Specifically, women of all ages and travelers in the 32-52 year age group
are worried about health and sanitation when staying at a hotel. Moreover, women of all
ages and the travelers in the 53⫹ year age group report actually seeking out information
about 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 and
UV) as more effective, perhaps as a reflection of younger consumers’ interests in new
technology. The results suggest that a potential market segment is willing to pay a
premium for enhanced cleaning, and the hotel industry should consider satisfying this
segment’s needs.

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

Marketing implications
Once a hotel company decides to incorporate one of these technologies, the company
needs to decide if it will offer the technology as part of the core product pricing or if it will
charge more for access to enhanced sanitation. The younger survey respondents (18-31
years of age) rated the effectiveness of both sanitation methods higher than older
 respondents. In addition, the younger respondents were more willing to pay for novel Hotel
disinfection methods, specified a higher dollar amount for the price premium being “too cleanliness
cheap”, and also had a higher tolerance for an upper limit on the price premium. When
comparing men and women, the female respondents were more concerned about
cleanliness in hotel rooms and also placed a high dollar amount on the upper limit for a
price premium.
In 2014, the global economy is improving and has not experienced a serious global 705
pandemic since H1N1. However, the current threat posed by the MERS-CoV coronavirus
should get the hotel industry’s attention. If MERS-CoV does not become a global health
event, the industry can breathe a sigh of relief, but then prepare for the next threat. The
cruise industry is already working to improve its defenses against norovirus and other
illnesses that are particularly contagious under the very unique environmental
conditions present on a cruise ship. However, cruise ships are not the only facilities
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

vulnerable to norovirus. In late November 2013, the Rio Las Vegas combated an
outbreak of norovirus that was brought to the property by schoolchildren attending the
National Youth Football Championship (Andrews, 2013). Hotel companies need to
explore improving cleanliness as an amenity and, where appropriate, consider turning
enhanced cleanliness into a company strength – and perhaps even profit from it.
Best Western hotels (2013) announced its “I Care Clean” program with a press release
on May 31, 2012. The press release discussed the branding company’s intention to be the
first mid-scale hotel company that customers think of in terms of cleanliness, a challenge
that this segment of the market faces. However, when the authors searched Best
Western’s Web site (www.bestwestern.com) in April 2014, no evidence of the program
was found in the reservations site or was listed as either an amenity or a standard option
for guestrooms. Deployment of new technology and standards is a slow, deliberate
process, so hotel owners and managers should watch how this opportunity for Best
Western evolves over time, as the technology diffuses throughout the brand.

Operational and practical implications

Multiple practical steps are required to implement an enhanced cleaning program.
These include purchasing, training and scheduling the new technologies. New
programs, such as an enhanced method of disinfection, may have a positive impact on
the 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 and
allergy-free room for the guests. This translates into training the employees on the most
current 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 new
disinfection technologies discussed here require not only a capital investment in the
equipment itself, but require training, compliance checks, energy costs (electrical,
water), inventory management and time. First, UV disinfection adds extra steps to the
normal housekeeping routine, which will increase the amount of time required to clean
a room. When a manager needs to reduce housekeeping staffing levels, thus increasing
the room load that each housekeeper must complete, the manager runs the risk of
housekeepers taking shortcuts and not allowing enough time to sanitize surfaces
properly with the UV wand.
 IJCHM The ozone method requires approximately 60-90 minutes to complete the disinfection
27,4 process and to ensure safety of the building’s occupants. The housekeeping department
cannot interrupt the process without risking either providing a room that is not
sanitized-as-advertised or exposing employees to dangerously high ozone levels. This
60-90 minute process is in addition to the time required for the housekeeping staff to
clean the room itself of surface dirt, change linens, vacuum, etc. A property using ozone
706 disinfection technology must include the cost of downtime for each room that is
disinfected, and must also decide whether to sanitize the room just once before the guest
checks 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 is
often provided by the system’s manufacturer under a maintenance contract with the
hospital. In this example, the hospital does not own or operate the equipment, but
instead works with one the manufacturer’s employees to schedule the disinfection
process. The manufacturer’s employee is based full-time at the facility and maintains
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

and operates the disinfection equipment. This arrangement may be feasible for a hotel if
the volume is sufficient to justify a full-time service contract. However, for smaller
properties, 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 research

This was an exploratory study that serves as a first step in determining general
attitudes about hotel guestroom cleanliness and the consumers’ awareness of cleaning
technologies. The study explored whether there may be a marketable hotel guest
segment that would pay a premium for enhanced disinfection. The study’s
generalizability is limited by several factors. First, the study participants were from all
segments of travelers, and were not recruited based on their preferences for a brand, a
level of service, room rate preferences, geographic preferences or other factors. The
results of this study are sufficiently promising that the next logical step would be to test
the concept on a brand basis, service-level basis, etc. In addition, the operational
implications of deploying UV and/or ozone disinfection would impact each hotel
differently, depending on size, staffing, occupancy levels and other market conditions.
In addition, the sample obtained did not categorize or stratify the respondents by other
demographic categories (besides gender and age) or behavioral categories, and, thus, a
deeper understanding of the potential market segment would be necessary before a hotel
company should invest in the new technology to ensure a good fit both revenue-wise and
operations-wise. Finally, the survey respondents were recruited online, so hotel guests
who do not use the Internet were not represented.
This study’s findings that female travelers and younger travelers appear to be more
willing to pay a premium for enhanced cleanliness suggest that future research explore
these themes in greater depth. In addition, future research could track the traveler’s
willingness to pay a premium over time to see if the willingness ebbs and flows with the
occurrence of a viral or bacterial outbreak, or with the emergence and dissemination of
new cleaning technologies.

Conclusions
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to focus on enhanced cleaning methods
as a revenue-generating amenity. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge by
 identifying market segments (both female and young travelers) exist that are willing to Hotel
pay a premium for enhanced cleaning. Hotel owners and operators must explore all cleanliness
options to enhance revenue in an increasingly competitive environment. Sometimes, the
revenue enhancement opportunities present themselves as experiences that take
common sense (e.g. room cleanliness) and elevate the mundane to a higher level.

References 707
Anderson, 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%3
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

A⫹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 service
quality 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 quality
through the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20
No. 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 of
Food 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 hotel
attributes”, 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 and
Communication 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), “Daily
asthma 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 of
Technological 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 ozone
risk 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”, Food
Safety & Security at Kansas State University, pp. 1-16, available at: www.
medallionhealthyhomes.ca/articles/applicationofo3.pdf, (accessed 20 June 2013).
 IJCHM Heung, V.C.S. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2008), “The mediating effects of perceived value and customer
satisfaction on customer loyalty in the Chinese restaurant setting”, Journal of Quality
27,4 Assurance 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).
708 Ho, S.S., Brossard, D. and Scheufele, D.A. (2007), “The polls-trends: public reactions to global
health 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 ‘respire
by 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,
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Keogh-Brown, M.R. and Smith, R.D. (2008), “The economic impact of SARS: how does the reality
match 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 international
travelers”, 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”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 83-88.
Lewis, R.C. and Shoemaker, S. (1997), “Price-sensitivity measurement: a tool for the hospitality
industry”, 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”, Unpublished
doctoral 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 Zealand
study”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 297-305.
McCleary, K.W. and Weaver, P.A. (1992), “Do business travelers who belong to frequent guest
programs 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, Blackwell
Publishing, 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 Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 80-87.
Moat, J., Cargill, J., Shone, J. and Upton, M. (2009), “Application of a novel decontamination process
using 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.
 Monterrubio, J.C. (2010), “Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and government Hotel
reaction on the Mexican tourism industry: an analysis of the media”, International Journal
of Tourism Policy, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
cleanliness
National Pest Management Association (NPMA) (2010), “The NPMA releases first-ever
comprehensive 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).
709
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).
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

Raajpoot, N. (2002), “TANGSERV: a multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
food 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 24
April 2014).
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1992), “Client perceptions of hotels, a multi-attribute approach”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 163-168.
Singh, B. and Sharma, N. (2008), “Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation”, Polymer
Degradation 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 for
hoteliers and destination markets”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 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 service
requirements?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 16-21.
Winther, B., McCue, K., Ashe, K., Rubino, J.R. and Hendley, J.O. (2007), “Environmental
contamination with rhinovirus and transfer to fingers of healthy individuals by daily life
activity”, 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 January
13, 2014).
Wu, E.H.C., Law, R. and Jiang, B. (2010), “Data mining for hotel occupancy rate: an independent
component analysis approach”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 426-438.
 IJCHM Yamanaka, K. Almanza, B., Nelson, D. and DeVaney, S. (2003), “Older American’s dining out
preferences”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 87-103.
27,4
Further reading
Anonymous (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,
710 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 1
June 2012).

About the authors

Dina Marie V Zemke, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the William F. Harrah College of Hotel
Downloaded by University of York At 04:54 17 February 2016 (PT)

Administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dina Marie V Zemke is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: dina.zemke@unlv.edu
Jay Neal, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and
Restaurant Management at the University of Houston.
Stowe Shoemaker, PhD, is Dean of the William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration and
a Lincy Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Katie Kirsch, BS, is a graduate of the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant
Management. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Food Science at Texas A&M
University.

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