Mi Hyun Oh; Jeong-sook Choe; Young Kim; Sang Eun Lee; Hee Young Paik; Mi Jin Jang

doi:10.4163/jnh.2014.47.5.463

Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.47(6) > 1081367

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Oh, Choe, Kim, Lee, Paik, and Jang: Customer perception and expert assessment in restaurant food environment by region – Focused on restaurants in Suwon, Hwaseong city -∗

Research Article

J Nutr Health 2014;47(6):463-474.

Published online: 20 January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2014.47.5.463

Customer perception and expert assessment in restaurant food environment by region – Focused on restaurants in Suwon, Hwaseong city -∗

Mi Hyun Oh¹, Jeong-sook Choe¹, Young Kim¹, Sang Eun Lee², Hee Young Paik², Mi Jin Jang³

¹National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju-gun, Jeonbuk 565–851, Korea

²Department of Foods and Nutrition, Seoul National University, Seoul 151–741, Korea

³Department of Public Health and Nutrition, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 151–741, Korea

Received 22 April 2014 Revised 15 May 2014 Accepted 12 November 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the food environment, particularly focusing on restaurants in three areas (Suwon city, Hwaseong Byeongieom-dong, and Bibong-myun). Methods: A total of 662 persons were surveyed on customers' perceptions of the food environment in restaurants. A structured questionnaire composed of 30 questions on 7 factors, sanitation (4 items), displaying information (5), food quality (12), information on nutritional and healthy food choice (6), restaurant's accessibility (1), availability (1), and affordability (1) was used. In addition, an expert assessment of restaurant sanitation, and information on nutritional·healthy food choice was conducted through visiting 126 restaurants. Results: Scores (range of score: 1∼7) for each factors assessing the restaurant food environment were 5.06 for sanitation factors, 5.05 for displaying information factors, 5.13 for taste·appearance factors, and 4.35 for healthy menu factors. Informations on nutritional· healthy food choice showed a low rate: only 16.24% of the subjects answered that there is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods and 27.4% answered that menus contain nutritional information. Significant differences in food environment were observed by region (city, town, rural). The restaurants food environment in the rural area turned out to be poorer than that of the other two areas. In comparison of customer perception and expert assessment, significant differences were observed for ‘Employee appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy' (p < .05), and ‘There is a message encouraging the choice of healthy foods' (p < .05). Conclusion: This study provided evidence for differences of restaurant food environment by regions. In the rural area, there is a problem in restaurant's accessibility, availability, and affordability because of a lack of variety in menu items and restaurants. This results suggest that there is a need for more healthy food restaurants in the rural area.

Keywords: restaurant food environment, Korean restaurant, customer perception

References

1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Korea Health Statistics 2012: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V-3). Cheongwon: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2013.

2. Korea Rural Economic Institute. A base study on developing the consumer behavior survey for food. Seoul: Korea Rural Economic Institute;2013.

3. Suh YS, Jang JH, Kim HS, Chung YJ. Comparison of nutritional status of the Daejeon metropolitan citizens by frequency of eating out. Korean J Nutr. 2010; 43(2):171–180.

4. Lee D, Lee JC, Kim MH. Effect of menu calorie labels on menu sales and consumer's recognition at a Korean restaurant in a hotel. Korean J Community Nutr. 2013; 18(5):505–514.

5. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008; 29:253–272.

6. D'Angelo H, Suratkar S, Song HJ, Stauffer E, Gittelsohn J. Access to food source and food source use are associated with healthy and unhealthy food-purchasing behaviours among low-income African-American adults in Baltimore city. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14(9):1632–1639.

7. Boehmer TK, Lovegreen SL, Haire-Joshu D, Brownson RC. What constitutes an obesogenic environment in rural communities? Am J Health Promot. 2006; 20(6):411–421.

8. Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Nettleton JA, Jacobs DR, Franco M. Fast-food consumption, diet quality, and neighborhood exposure to fast food: the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 170(1):29–36.

9. Hearst MO, Pasch KE, Laska MN. Urban v. suburban perceptions of the neighbourhood food environment as correlates of adolescent food purchasing. Public Health Nutr. 2012; 15(2):299–306.

10. Lucan SC, Mitra N. Perceptions of the food environment are associated with fast-food (not fruit-and-vegetable) consumption: findings from multi-level models. Int J Public Health. 2012; 57(3):599–608.

11. Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, Brownell KD. Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(2):312–318.

12. Saelens BE, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Nutrition Environment Measures Study in Restaurants (NEMS-R): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(4):273–281.

13. Minaker LM, Raine KD, Cash SB. Measuring the food service environment: development and implementation of assessment tools. Can J Public Health. 2009; 100(6):421–425.

14. Clark RA, Coffee N. Why measuring accessibility is important for public health: a review from the Cardiac ARIA project. Public Health Bull S Aust. 2011; 8(1):3–8.

15. Frank L, Glanz K, McCarron M, Sallis J, Saelens B, Chapman J. The spatial distribution of food outlet type and quality around schools in differing built environment and demographic contexts. Berkeley Plan J. 2006; 19:79–95.

16. Jeffery RW, Baxter J, McGuire M, Linde J. Are fast food restaurants an environmental risk factor for obesity? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006; 3:2.

17. Lytle LA. Measuring the food environment: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36(4 Suppl):S134–S144.

18. Giskes K, van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Mackenbach JP, Turrell G. Socioeconomic inequalities in food purchasing: the contribution of respondent-perceived and actual (objectively measured) price and availability of foods. Prev Med. 2007; 45(1):41–48.

19. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Hollis-Neely T, Campbell RT, Holmes N, Watkins G, Nwankwo R, Odoms-Young A. Fruit and vegetable intake in African Americans income and store characteristics. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29(1):1–9.

20. Kim H, Yang I, Shin S. Effect of the service providers' perceived service quality on customer loyalty in restaurants. Korean J Community Nutr. 2000; 5(2):236–242.

21. Byun GI, Cho WJ. Family restaurant customers' quality evaluation and satisfaction depending on the physical environmental variables. Korean J Food Cult. 2006; 21(1):51–56.

22. Lee GR, Yoo YJ, Park GS. A study of the effect of environmental characteristics on overall service quality, and repurchase intentions in Korean foodservice firms. Korean J Food Cult. 2005; 20(6):661–667.

23. Jung MB, Kim SH, Kim YI. Impacts of hotel buffer restaurant's physical environment on both service quality and customer satisfaction as well as customer's loyalty – focused on the super deluxe hotels in Seoul. Korean J Tourism Res. 2010; 25(3):101–120.

24. Koo S, Park K. Dietary behaviors and lifestyle characteristics related to frequent eating out among Korean adults. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2013; 42(5):705–712.

25. Kim Y, Seo S, Kwon O, Cho MS. Comparisons of dietary behavior, food intake, and satisfaction with food-related life between the elderly living in urban and rural areas. Korean J Nutr. 2012; 45(3):252–263.

26. Statistics Korea. Korean statistical information service [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2013. [cited 2013 Jan 15]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=. MT_ZTITLE&parentId=K. MT_ZTITLE&parentId=K.

27. Monthly Restaurant. The customer behavior of eating out 2012 [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Food Service Information Co. Ltd.;2012. [cited 2014 Jan 15] Available from:. http://month.foodbank.co.kr/etc/search_view.php?secIndex=2863&page=15&section=&serial=&keyfield=all&key=?.

28. Agency Small Business. Commercial information systems [Internet]. Daejeon: Small Enterprise and Market Service;2008. [cited 2013 Jan 15] Available from:. http://sg.kmdc.or.kr/index.sg#/analy/result/D_205321_0/.

29. Hong K, Joung H. Restaurateur's willingness to participate in the healthy restaurant program in Seoul. Korean J Nutr. 2009; 42(3):268–277.

30. Hwang JJ. How does nutritional information about fast food menu items influence consumer choice behavior according to their health consciousness and nutritional knowledge? Korean J Hosp Adm. 2012; 21(2):93–112.

31. Yoo YJ, Lee JK, Choi YS. The evaluation of service employees' sanitary management in hotels. Korean J Food Cookery Sci. 2006; 23(5):565–572.

32. Wong F, Stevens D, O'Connor-Duffany K, Siegel K, Gao Y. Community Interventions for Health (CIH) collaboration. Community Health Environment Scan Survey (CHESS): a novel tool that captures the impact of the built environment on lifestyle factors. Glob Health Action. 2011; 4:5276.

33. Baranowski T, Missaghian M, Watson K, Broadfoot A, Cullen K, Nicklas T, Fisher J, O'Donnell S. Home fruit, juice, and vegetable pantry management and availability scales: a validation. Appetite. 2008; 50(2–3):266–277.

34. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th edition.Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall;2009.

35. Kye SH, Moon HK, Chung HR, Hwang SH, Kim WS, Moon HY. A study for the improvement of sanitary condition in Korean style-restaurant in Seoul city area (I) -evaluation on sanitation of working environment and facilities for the kitchen–. Korean J Food Cult. 1995; 9(5):457–465.

36. Kye SH, Moon HK, Chung HR, Hwang SH, Kim WS. A study for the improvement of sanitary condition in Korean style-restaurant in Seoul city area (II) -evaluation on sanitary management of cooking equipment and personal hygiene–. Korean J Food Cult. 1995; 10(1):1–10.

37. Kim SJ, Yi NY, Chang HJ, Kwak TK. Current status of sanitation management performance in Korean-food restaurants and development of the sanitary training posters based on their risk factors. Korean J Food Cult. 2008; 23(5):582–594.

38. Yu JL, Park DY. Korean family's perception of the importance of the quality of restaurants according to family life cycle. Korean J Community Nutr. 2002; 7(1):130–140.

39. Sohn CY. Perception of nutrition labeling on restaurant menus among adults in Suwon. Korean J Community Nutr. 2009; 14(4):420–429.

40. Chung HJ, Cheon HS, Kwon KI, Kim JY, Yoo KS, Lee JH, Kim JW, Park HK, Kim SH, Hong SM. The recognition and requirement of nutrition labeling in fast-food restaurants. Korean J Nutr. 2009; 42(1):68–77.

41. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Menu nutritional information manual [Internet]. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;2013. [cited 2014 Jan 20]. Available from:. http://www.mfds.go.kr/nutrition.

42. Hong K, Joung H. Developing a questionnaire to evaluate the healthy restaurant program. Korean J Nutr. 2011; 44(6):562–576.

43. Ma X, Barnes TL, Freedman DA, Bell BA, Colabianchi N, Liese AD. Test-retest reliability of a questionnaire measuring perceptions of neighborhood food environment. Health Place. 2013; 21:65–69.

44. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Access to affordable and nutritious food-measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences: report to congress [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service;2009. [cited 2014 Apr 10]. Available from:. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-administrative-publication/ap-036.aspx.

Table 1.

Structure of the questionnaire

Factors	Questions	Scale type	Reference
Sanitation	4	7-point Likert scale	Jung etc²³, Yoo etc³¹
Displaying Information	5		Wong etc³²
Food Quality	12		Baranowski T etc³³, D'Angelo H etc^6, Hwang³⁰
Nutritional Information	6	Nominal scale(Y/N)	Saelens etc¹², Minaker etc¹³
Accessibility	1	7-point Likert scale	Boehmer etc⁷, D'Angelo etc⁶
Availability	1
Affordability	1
Demographic	6	Nominal scale	−

Table 2.

Reliability and validity analysis

Factors	Constructs	Factor analysis		Cronbach's α
Factors	Constructs	Factor loading	Eigen value (Total variance%)	Cronbach's α
Taste · appearance	The consistent flavor and amount	0.795	4.645 (22.121)	0.928
	The food tastes good	0.783
	The attractive menu's composition	0.752
	The adequate amount of the food	0.727
	The visually attractive menu	0.712
	The fresh ingredients	0.622
	The various drinks	0.571
Healthy	There are the menus for health (low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar et al.).	0.810	3.769 (17.946)	0.877
	The menu relates the healthy	0.784
	The menu of healthy diet (Diet Menu) introduces.	0.781
	The menu made with ingredients for health	0.700
	The menu made with recipe for health	0.686
Sanitation	Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean.	0.834	3.689 (17.565)	0.921
	Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean.	0.813
	Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy	0.808
	Inside air is pleasant	0.719
Displaying information	Information is displayed for entrance, emergency exit, no-smoking section and rest-room	0.800	3.454 (16.449)	0.906
	The menu shows the price for each dish.	0.786
	The description of the dish in the menu is understandable.	0.764
	Information is displayed for operation hours, reservations (conditions), closing time, and contact number.	0.720
	The sign is easily readable.	0.646
The cumulative total variance		74.082
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin)		0.936
Information on nutritional and healthy food choice	Menu contains nutritional information	–	–	0.808
	There are healthy foods.
	Information There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods.
	There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods.
	There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill).
	There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered (an opposite of ‘piled').

Table 3.

General characteristics of the subjects

	Variables	Number (%)
Region	Suwon	246 (37.2)
	Byeongjeom	175 (26.4)
	Bibong	241 (36.4
Gender	Male	384 (58.0)
Gender	Female	278 (42.0)
Job	Expert	89 (13.4)
	Businessman	152 (23.0)
	Service	91 (13.7)
	Farmer·simple labor	90 (15.1)
	Homemaker	85 (12.8)
	Etc. (student et al.)	145 (21.9)
Frequency of eating out	1 & Over/day	133 (20.1)
	4∼6 times/week	133 (20.1)
	1∼3 times/week	346 (44.0)
	2∼3 times/month	36 (4.6)
	1 and less/month	14 (1.8)
Age	20∼29 years	182 (27.5)
	30∼39 years	213 (32.2)
	40∼49 years	174 (26.3)
	50 years and more	93 (14.0)
Information sources of eating out	Surrounding people	419 (63.3)
	Internet	108 (16.3)
	Newspaper· TV· magazine	66 (10.0)
	Outdoor advertising	69 (10.4)
Reasons of visits	Good taste	371 (56.0)
	Good accessibility	97 (14.7)
	Resonable price	88 (13.3)
	Health	85 (12.8)
	Atmosphere & service	21 (3.2)
Total		662 (100.0)

Table 4.

General characteristics of the subjects by regions

	General characteristics	Byeongjeom	Bibong	Suwon	χ²
Age (year)	20∼29	38 (21.7)¹⁾	30 (12.4)	114 (46.3)	104.286^∗∗∗2)
	30∼39	76 (43.4)	68 (28.2)	69 (28.0)
	40∼49	47 (26.9)	87 (36.1)	40 (16.3)
	50 years and more	14 (8.0)	56 (23.2)	23 (9.3)
Job	Expert	26 (14.9)	39 (16.2)	24 (9.8)	148.540^∗∗∗
	Businessman	39 (22.3)	48 (19.9)	65 (26.4)
	Service	26 (14.9)	23 (9.5)	42 (17.1)
	Farmer, simple labor	9 (5.1)	77 (32.0)	14 (5.7)
	Homemaker	47 (26.9)	18 (7.5)	20 (8.1)
	Etc. (student et al.)	28 (16.0)	36 (14.9)	81 (32.9)
Frequency of eating out	1 & Over/day	32 (18.3)	46 (19.1)	55 (22.4)	27.822^∗∗
	4∼6 times/week	42 (24.0)	65 (27.0)	26 (10.6)
	1∼3 times/week	91 (52.0)	109 (45.2)	146 (59.3)
	2∼3 times/month	5 (2.9)	17 (7.1)	14 (5.7)
	less than once a month	5 (2.9)	4 (1.7)	5 (2.0)
Total		175 (100)	241 (100)	246 (100)

1) n (%) 2) ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001

Table 5.

Customer perception of restaurant food environment by regions

Factors	Total (n = 662)	Byeongjeom (n = 175)	Bibong (n = 241)	Suwon (n = 246)	F
Sanitation	5.06 ± 1.11¹⁾	5.24 ± 0.99^a2)	5.03 ± 1.22^ab	4.95 ± 1.07^b	3.677∗³⁾
Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean.	5.09 ± 1.24	5.27 ± 1.16^a	5.05 ± 1.37^ab	4.98 ± 1.15^b	2.953
Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean.	5.12 ± 1.20	5.37 ± 1.05^a	5.07 ± 1.32^b	5.00 ± 1.16^b	5.134∗∗
Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy.	4.98 ± 1.24	5.07 ± 1.16	4.91 ± 1.38	4.98 ± 1.14	0.864
Inside air is pleasant.	5.04 ± 1.23	5.23 ± 1.11^a	5.13 ± 1.35^a	4.81 ± 1.17^b	6.845∗∗∗
Displaying Information	5.05 ± 1.16	5.32 ± 0.93^a	4.99 ± 1.06^b	4.92 ± 1.36^b	6.778∗∗
Information is displayed for entrance, emergency exit, no-smoking section and rest-room.	4.74 ± 1.51	4.95 ± 1.39^a	4.61 ± 1.70^b	4.73 ± 1.40^ab	2.593
The menu shows the price for each dish.	5.43 ± 1.34	5.83 ± 0.99^a	5.25 ± 1.63^b	5.33 ± 1.17^b	10.859∗∗∗
The description of the dish in the menu is understandable.	5.46 ± 1.33	5.88 ± 0.95^a	5.28 ± 1.60^b	5.34 ± 1.20^b	12.309∗∗∗
Information is displayed for operation hours, reservations (conditions), closing time, and contact number.	4.42 ± 1.42	4.47 ± 1.42	4.37 ± 1.71	4.43 ± 1.50	0.186
The sign is easily readable.	5.26 ± 1.33	5.51 ± 1.19^a	5.18 ± 1.55^b	5.16 ± 1.17^b	4.299∗
Taste· Appearance	5.13 ± 1.02	5.29 ± 0.88	5.08 ± 1.10	5.07 ± 1.01	2.736
The consistent flavor and amount	5.36 ± 1.17	5.57 ± 1.03^a	5.33 ± 1.26^b	5.23 ± 1.14^b	4.557∗
The food tastes good	5.37 ± 1.18	5.58 ± 1.00^a	5.34 ± 1.32^b	5.25 ± 1.15^b	3.991∗
The attractive menu's composition	5.12 ± 1.23	5.39 ± 1.10^a	5.02 ± 1.35^b	5.03 ± 1.16^b	5.668∗∗
The adequate amount of the food	5.17 ± 1.17	5.27 ± 1.13	5.17 ± 1.28	5.10 ± 1.08	1.171
The visually attractive menu	5.03 ± 1.23	5.25 ± 1.18^a	4.87 ± 1.35^b	5.04 ± 1.12^ab	5.034∗∗
The fresh ingredients	5.20 ± 1.19	5.35 ± 1.04^a	5.27 ± 1.30^a	5.02 ± 1.16^b	4.578∗
The various drinks	4.68 ± 1.46	4.58 ± 1.60	4.58 ± 1.54	4.86 ± 1.60	2.931
Healthy menu	4.35 ± 1.19	4.45 ± 1.16	4.38 ± 1.24	4.24 ± 1.17	1.775
There are the menus for health(low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar etc.)	). 4.30 ± 1.31	4.46 ± 1.35	4.29 ± 1.33	4.20 ± 1.27	1.929
The menu relates the healthy.	4.49 ± 1.40	4.57 ± 1.40^ab	4.63 ± 1.47^a	4.30 ± 1.31^b	3.598∗
The menu of healthy diet (Diet Menu)	3.59 ± 1.60	3.46 ± 1.65^b	3.48 ± 1.67^b	3.80 ± 1.48^a	3.289∗
The menu made with ingredients for health	4.72 ± 1.35	4.91 ± 1.30^a	4.85 ± 1.40^a	4.45 ± 1.29^b	8.195∗∗∗
The menu made with recipe for health	4.63 ± 1.34	4.81 ± 1.35^a	4.68 ± 1.38^ab	4.46 ± 1.27^b	3.916∗

¹⁾ Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree'

²⁾ a, b: Duncan's multiple comparisson (a > b)

Table 6.

Customer perception of information on nutritional and healthy food choice by regions

Information on nutritional and healthy food choice	Total	Byeong-jeom	Bibong	Suwon	χ²
Menu contains nutritional information.	181 (27.4)¹⁾	57 (32.5)	48 (19.9)	76 (30.8)	15.311^∗2)
There are healthy foods.	182 (27.5)	63 (36.0)	59 (24.4)	60 (24.3)	10.571∗
There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods.	107 (16.2)	39 (22.2)	27 (11.2)	41 (11.6)	12.691∗
There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods.	56 (8.5)	7 (4.0)	21 (8.7)	28 (11.3)	8.746
There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill).	73 (11.0)	19 (10.8)	18 (7.4)	36 (14.6)	8.480
There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered (an opposite of a double/piled).	93 (14.1)	21 (12.8)	41 (17.0)	31 (12.6)	8.218

1) ‘yes' n (%) 2) ∗p < 0.05

Table 7.

Comparison of customer perception of restaurant's Accessibility, Availability, and Affordability by regions

Factors	Constructs	Total	Byeongjeom	Bibong	Suwon	F
Accessibility	How do you feel about moving away this restaurant?	4.93 ± 1.58¹	⁾ 5.18 ± 1.53^a2)	4.65 ± 1.75^b	5.02 ± 1.39^a	6.484^∗∗3)
Availability	How do you feel about difficulties for selecting menus in the restaurant?	5.21 ± 1.47	5.44 ± 1.36^a	5.06 ± 1.69^b	5.18 ± 1.28^ab	3.457^∗
Affordability	How do you feel about the burden of the food price?	4.86 ± 1.33	5.13 ± 1.31^a	4.71 ± 1.44^b	4.81 ± 1.20^b	5.350^∗∗

1) Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree' 2) a, b: Duncan's multiple comparison (a > b) 3) ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01

Table 8.

Comparison of customer perception and expert assessment about sanitation

Constructs	Total			Byeongjeom			Bibong			Suwon
Constructs	Customer	Expert	t	Customer	Expert	t	Customer	Expert	t	Customer	Expert	t
Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy.	4.98 ± 1.23¹⁾	4.70 ± 1.24	2.365^∗2)	5.07 ± 1.56	4.59 ± 1.14	2.300^∗	4.91 ± 1.38	4.48 ± 1.38	1.957	4.98 ± 1.14	5.02 ± 1.12	–0.232
Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean.	5.08 ± 1.24	5.04 ± 1.25	0.338	5.27 ± 1.16	5.14 ± 1.23	0.655	5.05 ± 1.37	4.87 ± 1.49	0.827	4.98 ± 1.15	5.14 ± 0.95	–0.848
Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean.	5.12 ± 1.20	5.03 ± 1.23	0.749	5.37 ± 1.05	5.19 ± 1.20	0.908	5.07 ± 1.32	4.80 ± 1.39	1.227	5.00 ± 1.16	5.14 ± 1.07	–0.725
Inside air is pleasant.	5.03 ± 1.23	4.83 ± 1.21	1.614	5.23 ± 1.11	5.03 ± 1.26	0.970	5.13 ± 1.35	4.70 ± 1.30	2.043^∗	4.81 ± 1.17	4.81 ± 1.07	0.014

1) Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree' 2) ∗p < 0.05

Table 9.

Comparison of customer perception and expert assessment about nutritional healthy food choice information

Constructs	Total			Byeongjeom			Bibong			Suwon
Constructs	Customer n = 662	Expert n = 126	χ²	Customer n = 175	Expert n = 37	χ²	Customer n = 241	Expert n = 45	χ²	Customer n = 246	Expert n = 44	χ²
Menu contains nutritional information.	181 (27.4)¹⁾	27 (21.6)	2.179	57 (32.6)	15 (40.5)	0.877	48 (19.9)	3 (6.5)	4.991	76 (30.9)	9 (20.5)	1.545
There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods.	107 (16.2)	8 (6.4)	8.526^∗2)	39 (22.3)	0 (0.0)	10.495^∗∗∗	27 (11.2)	2 (4.3)	2.434	41 (16.3)	6 (13.6)	0.149
There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods.	56 (8.5)	4 (3.2)	4.630	7 (4.0)	2 (5.4)	0.047	21 (8.7)	2 (4.3)	1.415	28 (11.4)	0 (0.0)	5.295^∗
There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill).	73 (11.0)	12 (9.6)	0.824	19 (10.9)	5 (13.5)	0.128	18 (7.5)	2 (4.3)	1.193	36 (14.7)	5 (11.9)	0.228
There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered.	93 (14.1)	26 (20.8)	3.990	21 (12.0)	11 (29.7)	6.240∗	41 (16.6)	7 (15.2)	0.690	31 (12.7)	8 (18.2)	1.249

1) ‘yes' n (%) 2) ∗p < 0.05

TOOLS

Similar articles