| Literature DB >> 35270469 |
Min-Pei Lin1, Estela Marine-Roig2, Nayra Llonch-Molina1.
Abstract
In the tourism and hospitality industry, ensuring the well-being of visitors is essential to achieving a competitive tourist destination. This objective is even more pressing in the gastronomy sector. Surprisingly, the scientific literature on this topic is scarce and relies on questionnaire surveys and interviews as a data source. After scrutinizing the 13 articles on gastronomy tourism and well-being indexed in the Web of Science or in Scopus, this study proposes two new lines of research interrelated by the concept of gastronomic image. These exploit the content shared online by consumers in order to assess subjective well-being derived from quality gastronomic experiences. The first is a framework for the customer-perceived image based on Grönroos's service quality model, and the second is a conceptual model based on Morris's semiotics to measure gastronomic image. Through mixed methodologies, i.e., qualitative in the first research line and quantitative in the second, the study applies the theoretical framework to Michelin-starred restaurants in two tourist regions with similar features but with different gastronomic cultures-Taiwan (Asia) and Catalonia (Europe)-using as a data source all the online travel reviews (OTRs) written in English about these restaurants shared on the TripAdvisor portal. Comparing the three categories of restaurants in both regions, the results show branding and marketing problems and significant differences in the popularity of restaurants and the satisfaction and well-being of diners. There is a positive relationship between the category of restaurants according to the number of Michelin stars and their popularity according to the number of OTRs, as well as with the satisfaction and well-being of diners, except for a 3-star restaurant that is the worst-rated. These outcomes from the demand side can be useful to stakeholders to design or improve gastronomic products and services.Entities:
Keywords: Catalonia; Taiwan; TripAdvisor; customer expectations; gastronomic image; gastronomy tourism; online travel review; service quality model; subjective well-being; user-generated content
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270469 PMCID: PMC8910413 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Thirteen articles indexed in the Web of Science or in Scopus on gastronomy tourism and well-being.
| Ref. | Context | Major Observations | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | (2022) | Tourists with food neophobia experienced positive effects on well-being after comfort food consumption. The findings offer insights for guiding future research on food neophobia and comfort food in tourism. | Questionnaire, Harman’s single factor test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation analysis |
| [ | (2021) | Public health regulations and social distancing measures impact consumers’ dining experiences and their comfort/discomfort. The domains of wellbeing seem to be very important for the individual, and they influence not only the restaurant choice but also the overall dining experience and the intention to revisit during the COVID-19 era. | Qualitative data obtained from in-depth interviews with consumers, Nvivo |
| [ | (2021) | The multidimensional nature of employee well-being and the underscored significance of a personal approach to defining employee-wellbeing was confirmed. The most critical dimension of employee well-being identified was workplace experience. Workplace happiness acts as an affective dimension of employee well-being. | interviews and survey, 7-point Likert scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) |
| [ | (2021) | Co-designing the experience contributed to better perceptions of culinary service consumption. Prior knowledge influences consumer perceptions of the experience and its co-creative aspects. | Sequential mixed-method approach, semi-structured interviews, post-experience survey, interactive co-design approaches, qualitative and quantitative approach |
| [ | (2021) | Halal food anxiety was positively associated with pandemic travel anxiety but negatively related to the psychological well-being of Muslim modelling. Various avenues are highlighted to exploit the vast commercial halal food market in non-Muslim majority destinations. | Questionnaire survey, structural equation modelling (SEM), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) |
| [ | (2021) | The results show that having an authentic food experience is most strongly associated with the sense of meaningfulness of the trip and experiencing positive emotions during the trip. Enduring food involvement can explain both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of the degree of the impact of food experiences on well-being. | Questionnaires, covariate-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM), squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), measurement model common method variance (CMV), Harman’s one-factor test |
| [ | (2020) | Taiwan food possesses different values for mainland Chinese. A significant positive correlation was observed between food consumption motivations and food experiential values. Value for money, service excellence, aesthetics, and escapism are likely to influence foodies’ well-being. | Questionnaire survey, structural equation modelling (SEM), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) |
| [ | (2020) | Through social interaction and leisure activities, casual restaurant environments (unassuming third places) become possible wellbeing places, including local coffee shops and fast food restaurants; health and well-being can be supported through stimulation, support, protection, and care mechanisms. | Thematic analysis of interviews, qualitative interviews, and ethnographic fieldwork with quantitative survey data, multilevel linear regression model, Nvivo |
| [ | (2020) | Customers will vent to the restaurant staff of their unsatisfactory daily life, which will affect their well-being. Poor well-being is caused by stressors in the workplace through a lack of psychological detachment from work at home. Employees are more effectively able to cope with work stressors when they have sufficient personal resources. | Survey, multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), eight-factor model, two-level hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) |
| [ | (2020) | Keen attention must be paid to ensuring adequate and proper flow of knowledge among handlers to ensure that proper hygiene-related standards are adhered to with utmost rigidity, and ensure they are well-motivated to practice hygienic sanitary controls. | Questionnaire, 5-point Likert scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation model (SEM), Herman’s single factor test |
| [ | (2017) | A destination’s gastronomy effect on well-being is founded on local eating habits, traditions, safety, and locally produced food and drinks (wine, beer, and juice) in line with the destinations’ culture. Even though some travelers only consume food for survival, most food and eating activities contribute to holiday well-being. | Quantitative research approach, questionnaires, 4-point Likert-type scale, univariate analysis (t-test, ANOVA, and regression analysis) |
| [ | (2015) | Establish a teaching and learning center for indigenous and cultural tourism in a tertiary education institution to educate locals and tourists. The specific roles of chefs and other hospitality personnel were highlighted, including their relevance in the hospitality and tourism industries. | Scrutiny of available literature |
| [ | (2014) | Cuisine experience and psychological well-being influence hot springs tourists’ revisit intentions and only cuisine experience affects psychological well-being; however, the significance of these factors varied based on the self-health perception levels (high or low) of tourists in the sample. | Questionnaire, 5-point Likert-type scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) |
Figure 1Subjective well-being formation underpinned by previous works [22,39].
Figure 2Gastronomic image perceived by diners in quality restaurants (own elaboration).
Figure 3Semiotic aspects of gastronomic images derived from a previous work [23].
Ranking aggregation example.
| Candidate | X (+) | X Rank | X Points | Y (−) | Y Rank | Y Points | Sum | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 18 | 2 | 3 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| C2 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 1 |
| C3 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 22 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| C4 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2.5 |
| C5 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2.5 |
Forty most frequent key terms per region.
| Taiwan | Catalonia | Taiwan | Catalonia | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Key Term | % | Key Term | % | Rank | Key Term | % | Key Term | % |
|
| food | 0.68680 | food | 0.68774 |
| nice | 0.17906 | dish | 0.16861 |
|
| restaurant | 0.57668 | restaurant | 0.59574 |
| dinner | 0.17738 | really | 0.16072 |
|
| good | 0.51952 | menu | 0.51503 |
| dish | 0.17653 | time | 0.16022 |
|
| service | 0.50018 | wine/s | 0.51014 |
| chef | 0.17233 | Michelin | 0.15103 |
|
| great | 0.40519 | service | 0.45090 |
| delicious | 0.15468 | dinner | 0.14584 |
|
| experience | 0.32197 | experience | 0.45070 |
| steak | 0.15468 | courses | 0.13835 |
|
| Taipei | 0.29675 | good | 0.31275 |
| table | 0.15047 | restaurants | 0.13585 |
|
| menu | 0.26732 | great | 0.29927 |
| quality | 0.14795 | table | 0.13575 |
|
| dishes | 0.26564 | best | 0.24553 |
| really | 0.14795 | dining | 0.13345 |
|
| best | 0.25640 | meal | 0.24423 |
| price | 0.14375 | chef | 0.12376 |
|
| place | 0.24715 | dishes | 0.24093 |
| course | 0.14291 | nice | 0.11957 |
|
| staff | 0.22949 | tasting | 0.22665 |
| amazing | 0.14123 | delicious | 0.11807 |
|
| wine/s | 0.22529 | amazing | 0.20967 |
| Taiwan | 0.14123 | worth | 0.11497 |
|
| excellent | 0.22025 | course | 0.20797 |
| lunch | 0.13534 | lunch | 0.11317 |
|
| time | 0.21689 | Barcelona | 0.19838 |
| reservation | 0.13198 | taste | 0.10938 |
|
| just | 0.19419 | excellent | 0.19708 |
| Taiwanese | 0.13114 | star | 0.10798 |
|
| meal | 0.18998 | staff | 0.19648 |
| try | 0.12862 | perfect | 0.09999 |
|
| dining | 0.18662 | just | 0.19388 |
| set | 0.1261 | went | 0.09809 |
|
| beef | 0.18326 | like | 0.17650 |
| taste | 0.12105 | kitchen | 0.09789 |
|
| like | 0.18326 | place | 0.17291 |
| served | 0.11853 | wonderful | 0.09779 |
Note. Total words (including stop words): TW = 118,957; CAT = 1,001,109. Unique words: TW = 6265; CAT = 18,895.
Twenty most frequent key terms per region and restaurant category.
| Taiwan | Taiwan | Taiwan | Catalonia | Catalonia | Catalonia | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | 1-Star | % | 2-Star | % | 3-Star | % | 1-Star | % | 2-Star | % | 3-Star | % |
| 1 | food | 0.65 | food | 0.75 | service | 0.66 | food | 0.78 | food | 0.69 | food | 0.58 |
| 2 | good | 0.62 | restaurant | 0.57 | food | 0.63 | restaurant | 0.67 | restaurant | 0.57 | restaurant | 0.54 |
| 3 | restaurant | 0.58 | service | 0.50 | restaurant | 0.58 | menu | 0.57 | menu | 0.55 | wine/s | 0.54 |
| 4 | service | 0.47 | great | 0.43 | hotel | 0.56 | service | 0.50 | wine/s | 0.55 | experience | 0.50 |
| 5 | great | 0.40 | good | 0.42 | duck | 0.51 | wine/s | 0.45 | experience | 0.50 | menu | 0.42 |
| 6 | place | 0.33 | experience | 0.41 | good | 0.44 | good | 0.42 | service | 0.45 | service | 0.40 |
| 7 | Taipei | 0.33 | wine/s | 0.35 | experience | 0.43 | great | 0.37 | great | 0.30 | best | 0.29 |
| 8 | best | 0.31 | dishes | 0.32 | dishes | 0.31 | experience | 0.36 | meal | 0.29 | meal | 0.25 |
| 9 | beef | 0.31 | menu | 0.32 | great | 0.31 | excellent | 0.27 | tasting | 0.29 | great | 0.22 |
| 10 | steak | 0.29 | Taipei | 0.26 | menu | 0.31 | dishes | 0.26 | good | 0.28 | good | 0.22 |
| 11 | staff | 0.26 | dining | 0.25 | excellent | 0.30 | best | 0.24 | course | 0.26 | just | 0.22 |
| 12 | experience | 0.23 | dish | 0.24 | pork | 0.28 | place | 0.23 | dishes | 0.26 | course | 0.22 |
| 13 | excellent | 0.23 | time | 0.24 | Taipei | 0.28 | tasting | 0.22 | Barcelona | 0.24 | dishes | 0.21 |
| 14 | menu | 0.22 | chef | 0.23 | palais | 0.26 | Barcelona | 0.21 | staff | 0.22 | amazing | 0.21 |
| 15 | dishes | 0.21 | just | 0.22 | best | 0.25 | amazing | 0.20 | amazing | 0.22 | like | 0.19 |
| 16 | quality | 0.20 | course | 0.20 | nice | 0.22 | meal | 0.20 | best | 0.21 | world | 0.18 |
| 17 | time | 0.20 | staff | 0.20 | dining | 0.21 | Michelin | 0.19 | just | 0.19 | staff | 0.18 |
| 18 | meat | 0.20 | excellent | 0.20 | just | 0.21 | staff | 0.19 | dish | 0.18 | tasting | 0.18 |
| 19 | nice | 0.19 | like | 0.20 | room | 0.21 | just | 0.18 | excellent | 0.18 | table | 0.17 |
| 20 | meal | 0.19 | lunch | 0.20 | time | 0.21 | dish | 0.17 | like | 0.18 | time | 0.16 |
Note. % = Percentage of the total words in the category (including stop words).
Number of restaurants and English reviews in Taiwan and Catalonia in November 2021.
| Region | N | OTRs | Min. | Max. | Mean | Median | Std. Dev | Skew. | Kurt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TW | 29 | 1038 | 1 | 171 | 35.79 | 20 | 42.80 | 1.70 | 2.63 |
| CAT | 49 | 7038 | 5 | 834 | 145.67 | 57 | 194.59 | 1.93 | 3.30 |
Note. N: number of restaurants; Min.: minimum number of OTRs per restaurant; Max.: maximum; Std. Dev: standard deviation; Skew.: skewness; and Kurt.: kurtosis.
Figure 4Online travel reviews per categories and year. Source: TripAdvisor OTRs in English (Taiwan: 1038; Catalonia: 7138).
Number of customer reviews and scores per region and restaurant category.
| Region | Category | N | Count | 5* (%) | 4* (%) | 3* (%) | 2* (%) | 1* (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 star | 21 | 559 | 60.11 | 23.97 | 8.05 | 3.40 | 4.47 | |
| TW | 2 stars | 7 | 400 | 62.00 | 23.00 | 7.25 | 3.75 | 4.00 |
| 3 stars | 1 | 79 | 59.49 | 24.05 | 6.33 | 5.06 | 5.06 | |
| 1 star | 37 | 3052 | 69.95 | 15.27 | 7.57 | 4.03 | 3.18 | |
| CAT | 2 stars | 9 | 2189 | 74.60 | 12.33 | 6.30 | 3.52 | 3.24 |
| 3 stars | 3 | 1897 | 79.86 | 9.33 | 5.38 | 2.74 | 2.69 |
Note. (5–1)* = TripAdvisor score bubble (excellent, very good, average, poor, terrible).
Average scores and percentage of terms in evaluative and affective dimensions.
| Region | Category | Score− | Score+ | AvgScore | Feel− | Feel+ | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 star | 7.87 | 84.08 | 82.96 | 0.57 | 4.38 | 2 | |
| TW | 2 stars | 7.75 | 85.00 | 83.81 | 0.54 | 4.21 | 1 |
| 3 stars | 10.13 | 83.54 | 81.96 | 0.59 | 4.22 | 3 | |
| 1 star | 7.21 | 85.22 | 86.20 | 0.59 | 4.56 | 3 | |
| CAT | 2 stars | 6.76 | 86.93 | 87.88 | 0.53 | 4.16 | 2 |
| 3 stars | 5.43 | 89.19 | 90.23 | 0.45 | 3.73 | 1 |
Note. − = negative polarity; + = positive polarity.
Percentage of key terms in attitudinal (A) and behavioral (B) dimensions.
| Region | Category | Behav− | Behav+ | Rank B | Recom− | Recom+ | Rank A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 star | 0.0000 | 0.0381 | 2 | 0.0398 | 0.3528 | 1 | |
| TW | 2 stars | 0.0041 | 0.0345 | 3 | 0.0406 | 0.2437 | 2 |
| 3 stars | 0.0000 | 0.0856 | 1 | 0.0428 | 0.1818 | 3 | |
| 1 star | 0.0025 | 0.0343 | 2 | 0.0425 | 0.3156 | 1 | |
| CAT | 2 stars | 0.0019 | 0.0232 | 2 | 0.0474 | 0.2851 | 2.5 |
| 3 stars | 0.0015 | 0.0198 | 2 | 0.0448 | 0.2115 | 2.5 |
Note. − = negative polarity; + = positive polarity.