A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

i
A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL
DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
by
Victoria Cristina A. Capistrano
Jhenna Rebecca E. Padilla
A Thesis Submitted to
the School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering
Mapúa Institute of Technology
September 2013

iii
ABSTRACT
The researchers conducted the study to identify the significant DINESCAPE factors of
fast food and casual dining restaurants that influence the overall customer rating/satisfaction and
to recommend what DINESCAPE factors to improve on in fast food and casual restaurants based
on the significant factors defined. Random respondents were asked if they had experienced
dining in all the six subject restaurants and then were given survey questionnaires. Sample size n
was computed using the multiple regression sample size calculator. From that, the number of
observations was also dependent on the sample size. The computed sample size was 103
however, a total of 45 respondents were acceptable by using multiple regression analysis because
according to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black (1995), in order to maximize the number of
observations per variable, the minimum ratio of five observations per independent variable
should be utilized. The relationship of various DINESCAPE factors and overall satisfaction were
determined using different statistical tools like descriptive Statistics, multiple regression analysis,
and correlation analysis using the SPSS software. By using multiple regression analysis, it
showed that for fast food restaurants not all of the DINESCAPE factors turned out to be
significant. The most number of specific factors that were significant is three. For Jollibee and
McDonald’s, there were no significant factors. For Chowking, only three specific factors were
significant; enough space seating, crowded seating arrangement, and warm atmospheric factors.
For casual dining restaurants, only few resulted to be significant; seats/furnishings is the only
factor that is most common among the significant specific factors. In correlation analysis,
individually there are more specific factors significant in fast food restaurants than in casual
dining restaurants. The researchers get the DINESCAPE factors which attained the most number
of specific factors that were significant, basically those that are within 70% and above. For fast
food restaurants, four factors were significant: service counter lines, color theme, lighting, and
walkways/aisle width, then only temperature for casual dining restaurant. Based on these results,
the researchers recommend to the subject restaurants to allot focus and importance on these
identified significant factors for a better overall customer satisfaction and patronage.
Keywords: DINESCAPE, Fast Food Restaurant, Casual Dining Restaurant, Overall Customer
Satisfaction, SPSS, Multiple Regression, Correlation Analysis

iv
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
First and foremost, we would like to express our inmost gratefulness to the Lord
Almighty, for His never ending guidance that made us more committed and secured. And by that
we offer this to Him who gave us this experience, wisdom and strength of mind in completing
this study.
To our parents who have always been supportive and provided us the best possible
education we could have, gave us full encouragement, motivation, and directed us through this
journey.
We also like to express our deepest appreciation to our adviser Professor Jenalyn Yandug
and panel members for sharing us their knowledge and skills. With all of their patience and
consideration that determined us to do our best in pursuing this study.
To our loving friends who never failed to cheer us up, support us, and who always
believed in our capabilities and determination.
They are all our inspiration that made us strong enough to face all the challenges that
came along our way and who served as a very important part of our lives.
Victoria Cristina A. Capistrano
Jhenna Rebecca E. Padilla

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEGEMENT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
The Gap of the Missing Information 7
Research Questions 8
Objectives of the Study 8
Scope and Limitations 8
Significance of the Study 11
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
Case Study for Restaurant Queuing Model 17
Convenience, acceptability, and the demand for fast food 17
Consumers in Asia Pacific-Our Fast Food/Take Away Consumption Habits 17
Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values

vi
of eating-out and fast restaurant consumption in Korea 17
Dinescape, Emotions and Behavioral Intentions in Upscale Restaurants 17
Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior:
A review of the experimental evidence 17
Fast Food Outlets: Consumer Expectations and Perception 18
Cashed-Up Filipinos Feast on Fast Food 18
The roles of the physical environment, price perception,
and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty
in the family restaurant industry 18
College students and fast food-how students perceive restaurant brands 18
College student’s perception and preference
of brand name foodservice in university dining operations 18
Customers’ cognitive, emotional, and actionable response
to the servicescape: A test of the moderating effect
of the restaurant type 19
Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty 19
The student food shopper: segmentation on the basis
of attitudes to store features and shopping behavior 19
The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of wait 19
The relationship between restaurants attributes satisfaction
and return intent in U.S. theme restaurants 20
The dining experience: do restaurants satisfy customer needs 20
The combined effects of the physical environment
and employee behavior on customer perception
of restaurant service quality 20
Consumer research in the restaurant environment 20
The new mature market: senior market 20

vii
Advanced Food and Beverage Service 21
Don’t Sit So Close to Me: Restaurant Table Characteristics
and Guest Satisfaction 21
Does age attenuate the impact of pleasant ambient scent
on consumer response? 23
Synthesis 25
Chapter 3: A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE
PHILIPPINES 26
Abstract 26
Introduction 27
Methodology 27
Theoretical Framework 27
Conceptual Framework 28
Operational Framework 28
Research Design 29
Descriptive Statistics 29
Multiple Regression Analysis 29
Correlation Analysis 29
Data Gathering 30
Respondents of the Study and the Research Locale 30
Data Gathering Procedure 30
Instrumentation 31
Sample Size, n 31
Survey Questionnaire 32
Results and Discussion 34
Descriptive Statistics Analysis 34
Discussion of Results 113
Correlation Analysis 118

viii
Discussion of Correlation Results 157
Multiple Regression Analysis 158
Dependent Variable 158
Independent Variable 159
Statistical Treatment of Data 160
Hypothesis 162
Null Hypothesis 163
Alternative Hypothesis 163
Multiple Regression Analysis using SPSS 164
Discussion of Regression Results 166
Chapter 4: CONCLUSION 177
Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATION 184
REFERENCES 185
APPENDICES 189

ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1: Summary of Average Scores of the Fast Food Restaurants 113
TABLE 3.2: Summary of Average Scores of the Casual Dining Restaurants 115
TABLE 3.3: Summary of Average Scores of the Fast Food &Casual Dining Restaurants 117
TABLE 3.4: Correlation Results Summary of Jollibee 118
TABLE 3.5: Correlation Results Summary of Jollibee Ratings (6-10) 122
TABLE 3.6: Correlation Results Summary of McDonald’s 125
TABLE 3.7: Correlation Results Summary of McDonald’s (Ratings 6-10) 128
TABLE 3.8: Correlation Results Summary of Chowking 131
TABLE 3.9: Correlation Results Summary of Chowking (Ratings 6-10) 135
TABLE 3.10: Correlation Results Summary of Shakey’s 139
TABLE 3.11: Correlation Results Summary of Shakey’s (Ratings 6-10) 142
TABLE 3.12: Correlation Results Summary of Pizza Hut 145
TABLE 3.13: Correlation Results Summary of Pizza Hut (Ratings 6-10) 148
TABLE 3.14: Correlation Results Summary of Max’s 151
TABLE 3.15: Correlation Results Summary of Max’s (Ratings 6-10) 154
TABLE 3.16: Summary of Correlation Analysis 157
TABLE 3.17: Model Summary of Jollibee 164
TABLE 3.18: ANOVA Table of Jollibee 164
TABLE 3.19: Regression Coefficients Results of Jollibee 165
TABLE 3.20: Model Summary of McDonald’s 166
TABLE 3.21: ANOVA Table of McDonald’s 166
TABLE 3.22: Regression Coefficients Results of McDonald’s 167

x
TABLE 3.23: Model Summary of Chowking 168
TABLE 3.24: ANOVA Table of Chowking 168
TABLE 3.25: Regression Coefficients Results of Chowking 169
TABLE 3.26: Model Summary of Shakey’s 170
TABLE 3.27: ANOVA Table of Shakey’s 170
TABLE 3.28: Regression Coefficients Results of Shakey’s 171
TABLE 3.29: Model Summary of Pizza Hut 172
TABLE 3.30: ANOVA Table of Pizza Hut 172
TABLE 3.31: Regression Coefficients Results of Pizza Hut 173
TABLE 3.32: Model Summary of Max’s 174
TABLE 3.33: ANOVA Table of Max’s 174
TABLE 3.34: Regression Coefficients Results of Max’s 175
TABLE 4.1: Significant Specific Factors for all Restaurants (Correlation Analysis) 177
TABLE 4.2: Significant DINESCAPE Factors for all Restaurants
(Correlation Analysis) 179
TABLE 4.3: Significant Specific Factors for all Restaurants
(Multiple Regression Analysis) 179

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1: Theoretical Framework 27
FIGURE 3.2: Conceptual Framework 28
FIGURE 3.3: Operational Framework 28
FIGURE 3.4: Multiple Regression Sample Size Calculator 31
FIGURE 3.5: Survey Questionnaire 32
FIGURE 3.6: Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (Jollibee) 34
FIGURE 3.7: Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (Jollibee) 35
FIGURE 3.8: Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (Jollibee) 35
FIGURE 3.9: Rating of Comfortable Seats (Jollibee) 36
FIGURE 3.10:Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (Jollibee) 36
FIGURE 3.11:Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (Jollibee) 37
FIGURE 3.12:Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (Jollibee) 37
FIGURE 3.13:Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (Jollibee) 38
FIGURE 3.14:Rating of Accessibility of Layout (Jollibee) 38
FIGURE 3.15:Rating of Enough Number of Service Counters (Jollibee) 39
FIGURE 3.16:Rating of Long Service Counter Queues (Jollibee) 39
FIGURE 3.17:Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (Jollibee) 40
FIGURE 3.18:Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (Jollibee) 40
FIGURE 3.19:Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (Jollibee) 41
FIGURE 3.20:Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (Jollibee) 41
FIGURE 3.21:Rating of Calming Colors (Jollibee) 42
FIGURE 3.22:Rating of Comfortable Temperature (Jollibee) 42

xii
FIGURE 3.23:Rating of Relaxing Background Music (Jollibee) 43
FIGURE 3.24:Rating of Pleasing Background Music (Jollibee) 43
FIGURE 3.25:Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (Jollibee) 44
FIGURE 3.26:Rating of Enticing Aroma (Jollibee) 44
FIGURE 3.27:Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (Jollibee) 45
FIGURE 3.28:Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (Jollibee) 45
FIGURE 3.29:Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (Jollibee) 46
FIGURE 3.30:Rating of Welcoming Lights (Jollibee) 46
FIGURE 3.31:Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (Jollibee) 47
FIGURE 3.32:Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (McDonald’s) 47
FIGURE 3.33:Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (McDonald’s) 48
FIGURE 3.34:Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (McDonald’s) 48
FIGURE 3.35:Rating of Comfortable Seats (McDonald’s) 49
FIGURE 3.36:Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (McDonald’s) 49
FIGURE 3.37:Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (McDonald’s) 50
FIGURE 3.38:Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (McDonald’s) 50
FIGURE 3.39:Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (McDonald’s) 51
FIGURE 3.40:Rating of Accessibility of Layout (McDonald’s) 51
FIGURE 3.41:Rating of Enough Number of Service Counters (McDonald’s) 52
FIGURE 3.42:Rating of Long Service Counter Queues (McDonald’s) 52
FIGURE 3.43:Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (McDonald’s) 53
FIGURE 3.44:Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (McDonald’s) 53
FIGURE 3.45:Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (McDonald’s) 54

xiii
FIGURE 3.46:Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (McDonald’s) 54
FIGURE 3.47:Rating of Calming Colors (McDonald’s) 55
FIGURE 3.48:Rating of Comfortable Temperature (McDonald’s) 55
FIGURE 3.49:Rating of Relaxing Background Music (McDonald’s) 56
FIGURE 3.50:Rating of Pleasing Background Music (McDonald’s) 56
FIGURE 3.51:Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (McDonald’s) 57
FIGURE 3.52:Rating of Enticing Aroma (McDonald’s) 57
FIGURE 3.53:Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (McDonald’s) 58
FIGURE 3.54:Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (McDonald’s) 58
FIGURE 3.55:Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (McDonald’s) 59
FIGURE 3.56:Rating of Welcoming Lights (McDonald’s) 59
FIGURE 3.57:Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (McDonald’s) 60
FIGURE 3.58:Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (Chowking) 60
FIGURE 3.59:Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (Chowking) 61
FIGURE 3.60:Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (Chowking) 61
FIGURE 3.61:Rating of Comfortable Seats (Chowking) 62
FIGURE 3.62:Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (Chowking) 62
FIGURE 3.63:Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (Chowking) 63
FIGURE 3.64:Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (Chowking) 63
FIGURE 3.65:Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (Chowking) 64
FIGURE 3.66:Rating of Accessibility of Layout (Chowking) 64
FIGURE 3.67:Rating of Enough Number of Service Counters (Chowking) 65
FIGURE 3.68:Rating of Long Service Counter Queues (Chowking) 65

xiv
FIGURE 3.69:Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (Chowking) 66
FIGURE 3.70:Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (Chowking) 66
FIGURE 3.71:Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (Chowking) 67
FIGURE 3.72:Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (Chowking) 67
FIGURE 3.73:Rating of Calming Colors (Chowking) 68
FIGURE 3.74:Rating of Comfortable Temperature (Chowking) 68
FIGURE 3.75:Rating of Relaxing Background Music (Chowking) 69
FIGURE 3.76:Rating of Pleasing Background Music (Chowking) 69
FIGURE 3.77:Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (Chowking) 70
FIGURE 3.78:Rating of Enticing Aroma (Chowking) 70
FIGURE 3.79:Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (Chowking) 71
FIGURE 3.80:Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (Chowking) 71
FIGURE 3.81:Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (Chowking) 72
FIGURE 3.82:Rating of Welcoming Lights (Chowking) 72
FIGURE 3.83:Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (Chowking) 73
FIGURE 3.84:Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (Shakey’s) 73
FIGURE 3.85:Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (Shakey’s) 74
FIGURE 3.86:Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (Shakey’s) 74
FIGURE 3.87:Rating of Comfortable Seats (Shakey’s) 75
FIGURE 3.88:Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (Shakey’s) 75
FIGURE 3.89:Rating of High Quality Tableware
(e.g., glass, china, silverware) (Shakey’s) 76
FIGURE 3.90:Rating of Attractive Linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) (Shakey’s) 76

xv
FIGURE 3.91:Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (Shakey’s) 77
FIGURE 3.92:Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (Shakey’s) 77
FIGURE 3.93:Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (Shakey’s) 78
FIGURE 3.94:Rating of Accessibility of Layout (Shakey’s) 78
FIGURE 3.95:Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (Shakey’s) 79
FIGURE 3.96:Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (Shakey’s) 79
FIGURE 3.97:Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (Shakey’s) 80
FIGURE 3.98:Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (Shakey’s) 80
FIGURE 3.99:Rating of Calming Colors (Shakey’s) 81
FIGURE 3.100: Rating of Comfortable Temperature (Shakey’s) 81
FIGURE 3.101: Rating of Relaxing Background Music (Shakey’s) 82
FIGURE 3.102: Rating of Pleasing Background Music (Shakey’s) 82
FIGURE 3.103: Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (Shakey’s) 83
FIGURE 3.104: Rating of Enticing Aroma (Shakey’s) 83
FIGURE 3.105: Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (Shakey’s) 84
FIGURE 3.106: Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (Shakey’s) 84
FIGURE 3.107: Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (Shakey’s) 85
FIGURE 3.108: Rating of Welcoming Lights (Shakey’s) 85
FIGURE 3.109: Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (Shakey’s) 86
FIGURE 3.110: Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (Pizza Hut) 86
FIGURE 3.111: Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (Pizza Hut) 87
FIGURE 3.112: Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (Pizza Hut) 87
FIGURE 3.113: Rating of Comfortable Seats (Pizza Hut) 88

xvi
FIGURE 3.114: Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (Pizza Hut) 88
FIGURE 3.115: Rating of High Quality Tableware
(e.g., glass, china, silverware) (Pizza Hut) 89
FIGURE 3.116: Rating of Attractive Linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) (Pizza Hut) 89
FIGURE 3.117: Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (Pizza Hut) 90
FIGURE 3.118: Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (Pizza Hut) 90
FIGURE 3.119: Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (Pizza Hut) 91
FIGURE 3.120: Rating of Accessibility of Layout (Pizza Hut) 91
FIGURE 3.121: Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (Pizza Hut) 92
FIGURE 3.122: Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (Pizza Hut) 92
FIGURE 3.123: Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (Pizza Hut) 93
FIGURE 3.124: Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (Pizza Hut) 93
FIGURE 3.125: Rating of Calming Colors (Pizza Hut) 94
FIGURE 3.126: Rating of Comfortable Temperature (Pizza Hut) 94
FIGURE 3.127: Rating of Relaxing Background Music (Pizza Hut) 95
FIGURE 3.128: Rating of Pleasing Background Music (Pizza Hut) 95
FIGURE 3.129: Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (Pizza Hut) 96
FIGURE 3.130: Rating of Enticing Aroma (Pizza Hut) 96
FIGURE 3.131: Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (Pizza Hut) 97
FIGURE 3.132: Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (Pizza Hut) 97
FIGURE 3.133: Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (Pizza Hut) 98
FIGURE 3.134: Rating of Welcoming Lights (Pizza Hut) 98
FIGURE 3.135: Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (Pizza Hut) 99

xvii
FIGURE 3.136: Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) (Max’s) 99
FIGURE 3.137: Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement (Max’s) 100
FIGURE 3.138: Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement (Max’s) 100
FIGURE 3.139: Rating of Comfortable Seats (Max’s) 101
FIGURE 3.140: Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting (Max’s) 101
FIGURE 3.141: Rating of High Quality Tableware
(e.g., glass, china, silverware) (Max’s) 102
FIGURE 3.142: Rating of Attractive Linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) (Max’s) 102
FIGURE 3.143: Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas (Max’s) 103
FIGURE 3.144: Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring (Max’s) 103
FIGURE 3.145: Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability (Max’s) 104
FIGURE 3.146: Rating of Accessibility of Layout (Max’s) 104
FIGURE 3.147: Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor (Max’s) 105
FIGURE 3.148: Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures (Max’s) 105
FIGURE 3.149: Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors (Max’s) 106
FIGURE 3.150: Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors (Max’s) 106
FIGURE 3.151: Rating of Calming Colors (Max’s) 107
FIGURE 3.152: Rating of Comfortable Temperature (Max’s) 107
FIGURE 3.153: Rating of Relaxing Background Music (Max’s) 108
FIGURE 3.154: Rating of Pleasing Background Music (Max’s) 108
FIGURE 3.155: Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level (Max’s) 109
FIGURE 3.156: Rating of Enticing Aroma (Max’s) 109
FIGURE 3.157: Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor (Max’s) 110

xviii
FIGURE 3.158: Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere (Max’s) 110
FIGURE 3.159: Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere (Max’s) 111
FIGURE 3.160: Rating of Welcoming Lights (Max’s) 111
FIGURE 3.161: Overall rating according to customer satisfaction (Max’s) 112

A Research Study on the DINESCAPE Factor Differences between
Leading Fast Food and Casual Dining Restaurants in the Philippines
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Almost everyone goes to a fast food restaurant every day. During rush hours, especially
at lunch time, when a customer enters a fast food restaurant, he/she would like to be able to order
and eat as quickly as possible. This type of setting provides inexpensive food and quick service.
Many of these restaurants serve food such as french fries, burgers, fried chicken, pizza, chips,
pastas, and sandwiches.
Eating out gives consumers time to satisfy their hunger, and provides for convenience,
pleasure, entertainment, time saving, social interaction, and mood transformation (Park, 2004).
Moreover, excitement, pleasure, and sense of well- being are some of the benefits obtained from
eating out in restaurants.
Park (2004) also cited that the fast food restaurant industry is one typical form of global
business. What distinguishes fast food from other types of food away from home is that it is
indeed fast- near immediate service, providing a consistent and popular product. Davies and
Smith (2004) indicated that suppliers tend to specialize in products such as hamburgers, pizzas,
chicken, or sandwiches. They also assumed that consumers’ attitudes and knowledge of price,
health concern, child preferences, and environment are significant factors on consumers’ fast
food consumption alternatives.

2
According to Nessel (2010), despite rapid growth and popularity of fast food restaurants,
their profit margins are actually very slight, ranging from 4% to 7%. Moreover, as in other
service industries that are prominently influenced by the economic environment, restaurant
managers cannot be expectant about their business since the restaurant industry has been
experiencing intense competition in recent years.
Each foodservice facility may be planned to meet different objectives. For instance, the
objective for a fast food facility may stress the speed of service. However, there is one
characteristic common to all foodservice facilities and that is each is engaged in the production
and sale or distribution of meals. This common attribute requires that foodservices facilities be
planned for technologically modern production techniques and operated by modem management
concepts.
The fast food industries have experienced vast expanding growth and have generated a
need for excellent foodservice facilities. Nowadays, there are too many outlets in the country and
they have created a very competitive situation among themselves. Amongst the well-known ones
are Jollibee, Chowking, McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Goldilocks, etc. where their
operation is merely on food such as fried chicken, pastas, noodles, burgers, fries, pastries,
sandwiches, soft beverages, and the like.
The planning involved in fast food facilities may be simple, as in the case of rearranging
tables and chairs and replacing equipment in the production area. On the other hand, planning
may involve considerations of many diverse types of projects dealing with the development and
arrangement of spaces, equipment, and work areas.

3
The objective of fast food planning is to make optimum use of money, materials,
manpower, and equipment to provide the highest quality of food and service. Underlying this
primary objective is the basic concept of assuring the customer's satisfaction.
Nowadays, the changes in consumer bearings and behavior, labor and energy costs, and
also the general business environment have generated new and demanding problems for
foodservice. These conditions entail quickly flexible foodservice designs to new items, method
of service, operation, and atmosphere.
Another factor for fast food chains to consider is the customer satisfaction and service
quality. If they meet the needs and requirements of their customers within a time frame, it will
definitely have a good impact on the business because it will generate more sales and the
customers will be loyal in patronizing the fast food chain. Further, good feedback makes
business well-known, progress rapidly, and portray a good image in the business industry.
According to Johnson (2008), casual-dining restaurants offer food similar to fastfood
establishments but with a table-service dining atmosphere. Most casual-dining restaurants
provide a family-friendly environment. The menus at casual dining restaurants are usually more
extensive than those at fast-casual places. Further, casual-dining/mid scale restaurants employ
waiters who take customers’ orders and serve food. The prices of casual-dining restaurants are
lower than those at fine-dining restaurants, but a little more expensive than those at fastfood
establishments. These restaurants may serve a variety of pasta, chicken dishes, and simple
seafood dishes. Some have highly specialized menus, but others serve a broad range of cuisine.

4
Midscale restaurants refer to the middle ground between quick- service and upscale
restaurants. Full quality meals are low priced and offer a great value for the food. Some midscale
restaurants even provide alcohol beverages that appeal to certain customers who prefer it
occasionally on their tables.
According to Ranaweera and Prabhu (2003), customer satisfaction is often used as an
indicator of whether customers will return to a restaurant. While there is no guarantee of a
satisfied customer’s repeat visit, it is almost certain that an unsatisfied customer will not return.
He also stated in his article that numerous research studies have shown that customer satisfaction
is an important topic for foodservice managers. A high level of customer satisfaction leads to an
increase in repeat patronage, brand loyalty, as well as recruiting new customers by enhancing an
organization’s reputation. This is supported by Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) who cited
the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty in several studies. Customer satisfaction is one
of the most important outcomes of the marketing activities in the restaurant industry.
Young and Jang (2008) cited that if perceived service quality exceeds a customer’s
expectation, then a positive disconfirmation is created, which means the customer is satisfied. In
contrast, if perceived service quality falls below the customer’s expectation, then a negative
disconfirmation is created, which means the consumer is dissatisfied.
The physical environment may be an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavior when services are consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers
spend moderate to long periods of time in the physical surroundings (Ryu, 2005).

5
Another study by Chi and Gursoy (2009) stated that customer loyalty can help increase a
company’s profitability, because retaining an existing customer costs significantly less than
attracting a new one. In an article made by Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (2000), convenience,
price, and value are also a significant matters in determining return intentions.
Studies by Lee (2004) have shown that food quality, service quality, convenience, and
price and value have a favorable effect on dining satisfaction and return intention as it has been
related to increased sales, revenue, and customer loyalty. Law, Hui, & Zhao (2004) also narrated
how staff attitude, food quality, and variety and environment significantly affect customer
satisfaction in fast food outlets. However, food plays a key part but by no means is the only part
in satisfying the customer (Yuksel &Yuksel, 2002).
In an article by Soriano (2002), he mentioned that quality of food and fresh ingredients
were the reason why customers return to a restaurant. Soriano also found that quality of food was
significantly more important than any other attribute. The most important reason for customers’
intention of return to the restaurant was the quality of food.
According to Nielsen (2005), since the Philippines has one of the most developed fast
food restaurant segments in Asia and nearly all Filipinos (99 percent) are fast food patrons and
are widely used by different age groups, the researchers decided to cover this particular industry.
Based on the related literature gathered, most studies focused on customer satisfaction in
relation with upscale or fine dining restaurants. According to Kim and Moon (2009), they
stated that in upscale restaurants, customers may spend two hours or more, and they become

6
aware of the physical surroundings intentionally and unintentionally before, during, and after the
meal.
Aside from food and service, amusing physical setting (e.g., innovative interior design
and decor, pleasing music, subdued lighting, unique color scheme, ambient odor, spacious
layout, appealing table settings, and attractive service staff) should establish to a great extent the
degree of overall customer satisfaction and loyalty.
The authors then focused on facility setting of a fast food chain because a research by
Aaijaz and Ibrahim (2011) found that customers ascribe vast importance to quality of food,
facility layout, service quality, speed, and cleanliness. Hence, for a fast food chain to do well,
great consideration must be given to the first two groupings, which are the quality of food and
facility layout to develop customers' trusts of these factors.
There have been studies about DINESCAPE in upscale restaurants but few about fast
food and casual dining restaurants. According to Ryu (2005), DINESCAPE is defined as the
man-made physical and human surroundings in the dining area of upscale restaurants.
DINESCAPE includes six dimensions: facility aesthetics, lighting, ambience, layout, table
settings, and service staff. In this study, the researchers only considered the facility aesthetics,
lighting, and ambience since the focus of this study is in fast food and casual dining restaurants.
A research by Berry and Wall (2007) stated that facility aesthetics can be an essential
characteristic of attracting and retaining customers to a restaurant. It does not only impact
customer traffic to a restaurant, but also influences restaurant revenue.

7
Areni and Kim (1994) identified the impact of in-store lighting on various aspects of
shopping behavior (e.g., consumer behavior, amount of time spent, and total sales) in a retail
store setting. Lighting can be one of the most powerful physical stimuli in restaurants,
particularly in upscale restaurants.
According to the studies of Chebatet, et al. (2009) and Magnini & Parker (2009), ambient
elements are intangible background characteristics (e.g., music, scent, temperature) that tend to
affect the non-visual senses and may have a subconscious effect on customers.
Atmospheric music can affect customer perceptions of business places; elicit emotions;
influence customer satisfaction and relaxation; increase shopping time and waiting time;
decrease perceived shopping time and waiting time; influence dining; influence purchase
intentions; influence buyer/seller interaction; and, increase sales. Moreover, the influence of
pleasant scents as a powerful tool to increase sales has gained much attention in retail businesses.
Aroma can have an impact on a consumer’s desire, mood, or emotion to make a purchase.
Most of the factors that greatly trigger customer satisfaction in a restaurant aside from
food quality, price, service quality, and convenience are the DINESCAPE factors that then affect
the purchase behavior and loyalty of consumers. Consequently, this is the driving factor for the
researchers to develop and go through this current study.
The results of the study may provide operational insight for the fast food and casual
dining industries, specifically in identifying those influencing factors used to improve the
operational efficiency of the dining units. Also, the study will provide foodservice directors and

8
managers a conceptual insight into methods for improving setting systems to meet the needs of
the customers, and help them to differentiate themselves from other competitors.
This is why the researchers aim to focus on the setting factors of fast food and casual
dining restaurants affecting customer satisfaction. It is important to pursue this study for the
purpose of improving customers’ level of contentment since their trust and reliance are among
the key factors to make any business industry triumphant. Therefore, the researchers believe
exploring this topic will contribute to the foodservice industry.
As such, the study is aimed at answering the following research questions:
1. Is there a difference between DINESCAPE factors of fast food and casual dining
restaurants in the Philippines?
2. What are their DINESCAPE factors differences?
Consequently, the following are the objectives of the study:
1. To identify the significant DINESCAPE factors that influence overall customer rating/
satisfaction in fast food and casual dining restaurants.
2. To recommend what DINESCAPE factors to improve on fast food and casual dining
restaurants based on the significant factors defined.
The scope of this study covers the DINESCAPE factors of fast food and casual dining
restaurants in their dining area. The researchers chose casual dining restaurants because in
upscale/fine dining restaurants, it is more difficult to observe and gather data, given its restrictive
policy in research endeavors like this and high security.

9
The DINESCAPE factors in this study are defined by facility aesthetics, lighting, and
ambience inside the fast food restaurants.
This study focused on fast food and casual dining restaurants inside the malls,
particularly in SM Manila. The selected branches are operating in Manila, the capital of the
Philippines, with a population of 1,660,714.
The three fast food restaurants are operated by transnational corporations that have
standards regarding existing facility layout. The researchers will not be able to propose a layout
design since it is already standardized by their corporations.
This study aims to analyze and identify the standards/best practices of the three leading
fast food firms and the three selected casual dining restaurants in terms of the DINESCAPE
setting of their dining facility.
According to the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis, Inc. (IDEA) latest
industry trends, in its regular publication, based on the 2010 Top 25,000 Corporations List
released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 1,469 companies that fall under the
classification of restaurants, cafes and fast-food centers registered consolidated gross revenues
and profits of Php124.41 billion and Php4.04 billion, respectively.
Jollibee Foods Corporation remains to be the frontrunner among the leading
fast food outlets in the country. It has also managed to be in the country’s top 100 corporations
for more than two decades now. In 2009, its total revenues amounted to Php26.16 billion while
its total net sales reached Php2.60 billion. In addition, Jollibee had the largest asset size among

10
other local players with Php23.28 billion. As of March 2011, there were around 719 Jollibee
stores in the country and 407 stores abroad—which included the 278 stores in China.
Thus, the researchers agreed to concentrate on the top three fast food chains which
include Jollibee as the top one, followed by Chowking, and McDonald’s which are all located at
SM Manila, the city with the largest population in the Philippines according to census.
On the other hand, the researchers selected three of the most well known casual dining
restaurants, namely Shakey’s, Pizza Hut and Max’s Restaurant. These three casual dining
restaurants are also located at SM Manila, so as to have consistency in the location of data
gathering procedures.
The questionnaires were distributed to identified customers (via interview) who have
already experienced dining in the six aforementioned fast food/casual dining restaurants
particularly at SM Manila. It was not necessary that they should be inside those said fast
food/casual dining restaurants during the process of answering the questionnaires. The
researchers presented pictures of the dining area of the subjects to target respondents in order for
them to be familiarized again of what it really looks like; thus, it will be easier for them to rate
the subjects without being biased. The sample size n was computed using the multiple regression
sample size calculator to obtain the appropriate quantity of respondents.
The importance of this study to the researchers lies in finding out the significant
DINESCAPE factors of the fast food and casual dining restaurants that influence the overall
customer rating/satisfaction of customers, and likewise, to recommend what DINESCAPE factor
to improve to result to a better overall satisfaction rating from customers.

11
The importance of this study to the Institute is that it can be a learning tool for future
researchers, giving them the knowledge that the authors have contributed and inspiring them to
have the same kind of study in the future.
The significance of this research to the industry, specifically to the fast food and casual
dining restaurants, is that they can adopt the results generated by the authors and this can benefit
them since it will entail improvements not only on their dining setting, but also with the growth
of their business.
Fast food and casual dining operators will be able to distinguish what services should be
offered and the characteristics it may possess. These findings can be used to develop a strategy
for improving the competitive position in the foodservice industry. It will also be a guide in
improving what factors customers considered important that will not only attract loyalty, but also
foster the effectiveness of the operations.
In this way, the customers will become more loyal patrons of the identified fast food
chains and casual dining restaurants and there will be an improvement in satisfaction because of
adequate service they are experiencing.
The implication of this study to the readers is that they can also learn something from the
present study, which can be used as a basis for further research to develop a more comprehensive
study with usage of other appropriate tools.

12
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature and Studies
A restaurant is an establishment which prepares and serves food and drinks to customers
in return for money, either paid before the meal, after the meal, or with a running tab. Meals are
generally served and eaten on premises, but many restaurants also offer take-out and food
delivery services. Restaurants vary greatly in appearance and offerings, including a wide variety
of the main chef's cuisines and service models.
In an article entitled Casual Dining vs. Quick Service by Cognizant (2009), it stated that
restaurants can follow various formats, but some commonly known formats are the Quick
Service, Casual/Mid Scale and Fine Dining/Up Scale formats.
Even though all Restaurants serve a combination of food and beverages to its customers,
there exist some specific formats based on pricing, preparation methods, and menu style.
Casual Dining/Mid Scale restaurants serve moderately-priced food in a casual
atmosphere. Except for buffet-style restaurants, casual dining restaurants typically provide table
service. They usually have a full bar with separate bar staff and a limited wine menu.
Quick Service food establishments are known for speed of service and low cost, which
are key considerations in this format. A feature that distinguishes them from traditional
restaurants is absence of crockery and cutlery. The customer is expected to eat the food directly
from the disposable container it was served in.

13
Fine Dining/Up Scale restaurants are full service restaurants with specific dedicated meal
courses. Décor of such restaurants feature higher quality materials with an eye towards the
ambience desired by the restaurateur. The wait staffs are usually highly trained and often wear
more formal attire.
According to Allfoodbusiness.com (2008), restaurants are generally classified into three
groups namely: Quick Service, Mid Scale and Upscale. Quick service, also known as fast food
restaurants, offer limited menus that are prepared quickly and usually have drive-thru windows
and take-out. Mid scale restaurants offer full meals at a medium price that customer perceive as
"good value." Lastly, upscale restaurants offer high quality cuisine at a high end price. They
offer full service and have a high quality of ambience.
A fast food restaurant, sometimes known as a quick service restaurant or QSR, is a
specific type of restaurant characterized both by its fast food cuisine and by minimal table
service. Food served in fast food restaurants typically caters to a "meat-sweet diet" and is offered
from a limited menu, cooked in bulk in advance and kept hot, is finished and packaged to order,
and is usually available ready to take away, though seating may be provided.
According to Johnson (2008), a fast-food or quick-service restaurant provides the
quickest service and food at the cheapest prices. The décor in most fast-food restaurants is
simple. Fast-food restaurants are often franchises of a brand with many locations. The largest-
fast food chains operate globally. Some individuals choose to open small, local, non-chain fast
food restaurants. Fast-food restaurants often include a place to dine, while some may possess
only drive-through or walk-up windows for customers to order and pick up food. Fast-food
restaurants often serve hamburgers, chicken, sub sandwiches, Mexican fare, or ice cream.

14
Fast food restaurants offer limited menus such as hamburgers, French fries, hot dogs,
chicken, sandwiches, various finger foods and other choices for the convenience of customers
wanting a quick meal. Orders are placed at a counter often under a brightly-lit menu featuring
color photographs of what is featured on the menu, receive their food within a few minutes of
ordering, and have the option of consuming it at or away from the restaurant.
In fast-food restaurants, a customer chooses their meals from a limited list of offerings
for fast consumption. Customers usually place their orders at a counter and the food is served
quickly either on trays or packaged. They are supposed to carry their trays to the table and throw
out their own trash when they have finished eating.
According to Johnson (2008), casual-dining restaurants offer food similar to fast-casual
establishments but with a table-service dining atmosphere. Most casual-dining restaurants
provide a family-friendly environment. The menus at casual dining restaurants are usually more
extensive than at fast-casual places.
Casual-dining/mid scale restaurants employ waiters who take customers’ orders and serve
the food. The prices of casual-dining restaurants are lower than at fine-dining restaurants, but a
little more expensive than at fast-casual places. These restaurants may serve a variety of pastas,
chicken dishes, and simple seafood dishes. Some have highly specialized menus, but others serve
a broad range of cuisine.
The term ‘midscale’ refers to both pricing and service components. Pricing is midscale
because menu items are generally priced above the QSR level but below the casual theme

15
segment. Service falls between traditional full service and the low-cost fast food/quick service
offerings.
Midscale restaurants mean the middle ground between quick- service and upscale
restaurants. Full quality meals are low priced and offer a great value for the food. Some midscale
restaurants even provide alcohol beverages that are retain certain customers who prefer it
occasionally on their tables.
A casual-service restaurant is a sit-down property offering alcoholic beverages that
market to singles, couples, and businesspersons with a check average lower than that of an
upscale restaurant and higher than that of a family- or quick-service restaurant.
According to Klara (2001), fine dining restaurants take its functions as a luxury place to
have dinner. Fine dining restaurant is classified as an upscale restaurant. This operation seeks to
attract customer with high-income.
The term Fine Dining brings to mind all kinds of images, from crisp white table cloths to
waiters in tuxedos. Fine dining, just as the name suggests, offers patrons the finest in food,
service, and atmosphere. It is also the highest priced type of restaurant one can operate.
There are three main areas of focus with a fine dining restaurant: the menu, service, and
atmosphere.
Many fine dining restaurants offer prix fixed menus or limited menus that change on a
daily or weekly basis. A great benefit of a smaller, rotating menu allows you to buy seasonal
items when they are at their peak of freshness.

16
Fine dining wine and liquor selections should be on the high end. Each wine should be
paired with individual dishes.
Customer service in a fine dining restaurant is much more attentive than in casual dining
establishments. Fine dining service goes far beyond taking an order and delivering food. Many
fine dining services include:
• escorting patrons to the table, holding the chair for women;
• escorting patrons to the restrooms;
• crumbing the table in between courses;
• replacing linen napkins if a patron leaves the table;
• explaining menu items without notes; and
• serving food directly on the plate at the table.
When it comes to fine dining atmosphere, restaurants can be in any type of setting and
feature a wide variety of cuisine, from ethnic to organic, local fare. Standards that are always
included in fine dining are fine china, glassware, and flatware (absolutely no paper, plastic, or
styrofoam), while tablecloths are hard to escape in fine dining. Atmosphere can take the
traditional route, with silver candelabras and rose centerpieces, or hip and trendy with a bold
color scheme and modern furnishings. Music playing subtly in the background should reflect the
theme, such as classical for a traditional fine dining restaurant or jazz tunes for something
modern. Lighting should also be subtle, leaning toward dim (romantic).
According to Dharmawirya and Adi (2011), there are several determining factors for a
restaurant to be considered good or bad. Taste, cleanliness, the restaurant layout, and settings are

17
some of the most important factors. These factors, when managed carefully, will be able to
attract plenty of customers.
Turley and Milliman (2000) stated that during the past several decades, physical
environment has become an important area in the study of hospitality and retail environment,
with researchers beginning to study the influence of such physical environments of a restaurant
or store environment on consumer behavior. Ambience was investigated by other researchers
that may give restaurants a competitive edge (Horeco, 2000). Also, the importance of a
comfortable atmosphere is increasing in restaurants.
According to Ryu (2005), DINESCAPE is defined as the man-made physical and human
surroundings in the dining area of upscale restaurants. The DINESCAPE includes six
dimensions: facility aesthetics, lighting, ambience, layout, table settings, and service staff.
Jekanowski, Binkley, and Eales (2001) indicated that what differentiates fast food from
other types of food away from home is that it is certainly fast near immediate service, providing
a consistent and popular product. Because of the standardized menu and consistent quality, only
minimal time is needed to be spent obtaining product information. Park (2004) stated that
consumers derive benefits from food and restaurants, so people experience excitement, pleasure
and a sense of personal well-being.
According to Nielsen (2005), the Philippines has one of the most developed fast food
restaurant segments in Asia. Nearly all Filipinos (99 percent) are fast food patrons, and the
Philippines are third in the world in terms of the frequency of fast food restaurant visits. Business
Asia (2000) estimated that there are a total of 2000 fast food restaurant outlets in the Philippines,
and contributing to 2 percent of total food service outlets in the country.

18
According to Knutson (2000), college students are the major customers of the fast food
industry. It is estimated that college students spend $7 billion for less essential purchases, which
include fast food.
Campus Hospitality (2003) stated that with respect to college market capability, the
spending capacity of college students is more than $90 billion, which will then lead to the growth
of revenue for dining facilities.
Lee (2004) studied college students’ awareness and preference of brand name
foodservice in university dining operations. The outcomes obtained that dining environment,
competency of employee, quality of menu and food selection, and price and nutrition
information had an impact on the college students’ total satisfaction. However, dining
environment was the utmost significant factor in influencing colleges’ students’ overall
fulfillment level.
Aaijaz, N., & Ibrahim, M. (2011) found that customers ascribe vast importance to quality
of food, facility layout, service quality, speed, and cleanliness. Hence, for a fast food chain to do
well, great consideration must be given to the first two groupings to develop customers' trusts of
these factors.
Han and Ryu (2009) affirmed that the importance of achieving a well-defined atmosphere
has acquired expanding attention in hospitality since it is considered one of the key attributes in
appealing and satisfying customers.
In an article made by Sulek and Hensley (2004), it indicated that food quality is important
in identifying aims to return. Other than that, the restaurant’s physical setting may also affect

19
customer satisfaction and return intentions. They also verified that atmosphere of the dining area
was a significant factor of satisfaction in the overall dining experience. That’s why University
dining facilities have begun to emphasize décor, music, and lighting as a selling point to
customers, that helped to create an expectation of the dining experience.
According to FoodService Director (2003), the University of Tampa, Florida reported
that their customer counts went up to 85% after the renovation of one residence dining hall.
Another by FoodService Director (2005) stated that the ambience of the facility, with upscale
furniture, colors, and finishes, is the major factor that keeps students coming back to the dining
facility. Soriano (2002) mentioned that the importance of a comfortable atmosphere will persist
to rise with time. Therefore, the most important thing is the design and concept.
In a study made by Mattila (2001), emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty are
important factors in the success of a restaurant. The study also implied that the top three reasons
the respondents gave for patronizing their target restaurant were food quality, service, and
atmosphere.
According to Kim and Moon (2009), customers in upscale restaurants may spend two
hours or more, and they become aware of the physical surroundings intentionally and
unintentionally before, during, and after the meal.
Aside from food and service, amusing physical settings (e.g., innovative interior design
and decor, pleasing music, subdue lighting, unique color scheme, ambient odor, spacious layout,
appealing table settings, and attractive service staff) should establish to a great extent the degree
of overall customer satisfaction and loyalty.

20
Research by Berry and Wall (2007) stated that facility aesthetics can be an essential
characteristic of attracting and retaining customers to a restaurant. It does not only impact
customer traffic to a restaurant, but also influences restaurant revenues.
Moreover, facility aesthetics can play as a valuable marketing instrument by affecting
customer reactions such as attitudes, emotions, price perception, value, satisfaction, and
behavior.
In a study conducted by Weiss (2003), he concluded that customer satisfaction with
restaurant attributes is influential in predicting repeat purchase behavior (intent to return). Also,
the study‘s experimental results denoting that customer satisfaction with the theme restaurant
features, food quality and atmosphere, were all dominant in establishing customer’s return
intention.
Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (2000) revealed that the total dining encounter covers not
only food and beverages, but also the atmosphere of the dining area and service provided. They
also indicate feeling comfortable, cleanliness, freshness of the food, staff appearance and the
room temperature as fundamental factors. Another study by Lahue, P. (2000) stated that physical
characteristics of the restaurants were important issues for the mature segment.
According to Andersson and Mossberg, L (2004), diners manage to deem factors that
fulfill their hunger which is a food related attribute; atmosphere, and location features that then
look for the surrounding environment, and anticipate their presence to be recognized at the
restaurant which is the brand and people related aspects. They also cited that restaurant operators

21
need to take into consideration their staff training system, availability of flexible menu options,
and atmosphere such as music, space, lighting, and safety according to time.
An article by Roboson and Kimes (2009) indicated that catering a comfortable
atmosphere was another area that should not be undervalued. Just like menu changes, the
atmosphere may prove to be essential to be regularly changed and given a fresh look. They also
mentioned that restaurant directors must train their workforce to follow standardized guidelines
and adjust music, lighting, etc. as period varies, not playing the same music repeatedly. Lastly,
the design and decor must harmonize with the cuisine and service.
Wishna (2000) predicted that, in the future, customers will be more sophisticated in their
dining decisions mainly because of their willingness to expand their dining horizons and try new
things. Customers will seek new dining experiences that will satisfy their ever-changing
expectations. Thus, it is important to know, understand, and meet customers’ expectations.
According to Soriano et al. (2002), retailing and foodservice literature suggest that
consumers’ store image perception is a significant construct in explaining store patronage and
store loyalty. Factors such as temperature, décor, and furniture are one of the fast food
restaurant’s attributes that were essential.
In an article by Advanced Food and Beverage Service (1999), the layout and design of a
food service operation are two of the vital factors in the success of the restaurant. There are many
factors that must give attention to in the design and layout of the operation that will either help
contribute or hinder the success of the operation.

22
Atmosphere helps encourage repeat customers with regards to the overall impression that
they get from the operation. They judge the atmosphere in a more subconscious way first, then
the other factors of the operation, while a poorly planned and uncomfortable atmosphere is
definitely being noticed. The underlying factors of atmosphere were appearance, colors, odors,
sound, and comfort level.
For appearance, furnishings need to be selected both for their visual appeal, practicality,
and durability. The items must look good when they are new as well as when they are several
years old. The ease of maintenance and cleaning must be considered when choosing items.
For the sound, its level in the operation should neither be too loud or too soft. Music can
be used to balance the theme or concept of the operation. The volume of the music needs to be
fine-tuned as not to over shadow guests' conversations, but loud enough for people to hear if they
are interested, and also care must be taken not to affront customers by the type of music played.
When it comes to odors, it can either supplement or detract from the dining experience.
The key is to remove the unpleasant smells and leave the pleasant smells. The color of walls and
furnishings impact the way we characterize them. Dark colors make an area look smaller while
bright ones make an area look bigger. Color and level of lighting are important factors in
determining the atmosphere. For fast food chains, it is better that the colors and lights are bright.
The temperature level of the dining room contributes to the comfort level of diners.
Consumers will complain if the dining room is too warm as well as too cool. The temperature
level can also affect whether the customers will continue to dine in the fast food and casual
dining restaurant or just leave immediately.

23
According to Chebat, Morrin, and Chebat (2009), lighting can be one of the highly
powerful physical stimuli in restaurants, particularly in upscale restaurants. Whereas bright
lighting at fast-food restaurants may denote speedy service and comparatively low prices, but
calmed and warm lighting could representatively express full service and high prices.
Ambient components are intangible background features (e.g., music, scent, temperature)
that may alter the non-visual senses and may have an intuitive effect on customers. Aroma can
have an effect on a consumer’s aspiration to make a procurement, temper, or emotion.
Lastly, atmospheric music can affect customer assessments of business places, elicit
emotions, influence customer satisfaction and relaxation, influence dining, influence purchase
intentions, influence buyer/seller interaction, and increase sales.
All of these should be planned carefully to develop a comfy and at ease atmosphere. The
atmosphere is everything the customer experiences when visiting an operation, so it plays an
essential role with regards to the patrons of different fast food and casual dining restaurants.
According to a study by Ryu & Jang (2007), the physical environment is an important
determinant of consumer psychology (e.g., disconfirmation and satisfaction) and behavior (e.g.,
patronage and word-of-mouth) when a service is consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and
when customers spend moderate to long time periods in the atmospheric place.
Wu and Liang (2009) stated that service encounter in restaurant settings consists of three
main elements: environmental elements (e.g. design, music, and lighting), employees (e.g.
professional skills, reliability), and customers (e.g. interaction with other customers). To

24
understand all characteristics of the restaurant service quality, an appropriate measurement
instrument should be developed.
In the studies of Han & Ryu (2009), and Kim & Moon (2009), customers in upscale
restaurants may spend two hours or more, and they sense the physical surroundings consciously
and unconsciously before, during, and after the meal. In addition to food and service, pleasant
physical setting (e.g., innovative interior design and décor, pleasing music, subdue lighting,
unique color scheme, ambient odor, spacious layout, appealing table settings, and attractive
service staff) should determine to a large extent the degree of overall customer satisfaction and
loyalty.
Synthesis
Based on the previous studies stated in the related literature, it specifies that customer
satisfaction and service quality is a big factor to ensure that restaurants will be able to stick to
what they used to be if customer needs and requirements were given right away, considering that
it still meets the desired quality level.
It also mentioned that customer satisfaction plays an important role in refining the
planning of the design of facilities of restaurants because it encourages loyalty and fulfillment
that can be a factor for improving profitability and competence.
There were many vital aspects that can greatly influence customer satisfaction such as the
food quality in priority, service level, price, and convenience. But there are also other factors that
should be taken into consideration when it comes to the appearance and atmosphere inside the
restaurant. This include lighting, décor, furniture, music, odor, temperature, color that will best

25
compliment the dining experience of the customers. For fast food and casual dining restaurants,
these factors can be a big help for foodservice operators to develop and give more attention to it
since the competition in that particular industry is rising sharply.

26
Chapter 3
A Research Study on the DINESCAPE Factors Differences between Leading
Fast Food and Casual Dining Restaurants in the Philippines
Abstract
The researchers conducted the study to identify the significant DINESCAPE factors of
fast food and casual dining restaurants that influence the overall customer rating/satisfaction and
to recommend what DINESCAPE factors to improve on in fast food and casual restaurants based
on the significant factors defined. Random respondents were asked if they had experienced
dining in all the six subject restaurants and then were given survey questionnaires. Sample size n
was computed using the multiple regression sample size calculator. From that, the number of
observations was also dependent on the sample size. The computed sample size was 103
however, a total of 45 respondents were acceptable by using multiple regression analysis because
according to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black (1995), in order to maximize the number of
observations per variable, the minimum ratio of five observations per independent variable
should be utilized. The relationship of various DINESCAPE factors and overall satisfaction were
determined using different statistical tools like descriptive Statistics, multiple regression analysis,
and correlation analysis using the SPSS software. By using multiple regression analysis, it
showed that for fast food restaurants not all of the DINESCAPE factors turned out to be
significant. The most number of specific factors that were significant is three. For Jollibee and
McDonald’s, there were no significant factors. For Chowking, only three specific factors were
significant; enough space seating, crowded seating arrangement, and warm atmospheric factors.
For casual dining restaurants, only few resulted to be significant; seats/furnishings is the only
factor that is most common among the significant specific factors. In correlation analysis,
individually there are more specific factors significant in fast food restaurants than in casual
dining restaurants. The researchers get the DINESCAPE factors which attained the most number
of specific factors that were significant, basically those that are within 70% and above. For fast
food restaurants, four factors were significant: service counter lines, color theme, lighting, and
walkways/aisle width, then only temperature for casual dining restaurant. Based on these results,
the researchers recommend to the subject restaurants to allot focus and importance on these
identified significant factors for a better overall customer satisfaction and patronage.
Keywords: DINESCAPE, Fast Food Restaurant, Casual Dining Restaurant, Overall Customer
Satisfaction, SPSS, Multiple Regression, Correlation Analysis

27
Introduction
The authors aim to focus on the significant factors of DINESCAPE that affects the
overall customer rating/satisfaction in fast food and casual dining restaurants and to give more
attention to it since the trust and reliance of customers are one of the key factors to make any
business industry triumphant.
As such, the study aimed to answer the two research questions: is there a difference
between the DINESCAPE factors of fast food and casual dining restaurants in the Philippines?;
and, what are their DINESCAPE factor differences?
The researchers also expected to obtain the following objectives: to identify the
significant DINESCAPE factors that influence the overall customer rating/satisfaction in fast
food and casual dining restaurants; and, to recommend what DINESCAPE factors to improve on
in fast food and casual dining restaurants based on the significant factors defined.
Methodology
Food Product
Service quality,
customer satisfaction
Store patronage
Facility Design
Fig 3.1 Theoretical Framework

28
The theoretical framework above shows that food product affects the service quality and
customer satisfaction which result to store patronage. It also shows how dining facility design
might contribute to the service quality (Soriano, 2002)
Food quality and
variation, product
value, brand,
product’s price range,
fast service
Service quality,
customer satisfaction
Store patronage, store
loyalty
Facility Design
Fig 3.2 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework above shows that food quality and variation, product value
and price range, brand, and fast service affect the service quality and customer satisfaction which
result to store patronage and store loyalty. It also shows how dining facility design might
contribute to the service quality and customer satisfaction.
DINESCAPE Factors:
· Seating/Furnishings
· Walkways
· Service counters
· Color theme
· Lighting
· Temperature
· Aroma
· Noise
Dining Facility
Design
Customer Satisfaction
Fig 3.3 Operational Framework

29
The operational framework above shows how the DINESCAPE factors of the dining area
affect the dining facility design that may improve customer satisfaction of fast food and casual
dining restaurants (Lilani, 2008).
Research Design
Descriptive Statistics
After conducting the survey, descriptive statistics was used to summarize the results of
the survey and present it in the form of bar graphs. The authors utilized it in order to show
graphically the various results that were gathered.
Multiple Regression Analysis
The data collected were evaluated using multiple regression analysis in order to find out
the effects of various DINESCAPE factors (independent variable) on the dependent variable,
customer satisfaction, and if there will be positive regression on the relationship of the
DINESCAPE factors of the fast food restaurants and customer satisfaction likewise with casual
dining restaurants and customer satisfaction.
This was used to come up with the regression model to establish their relationship. To
establish the findings of the regression analysis, the researchers used the SPSS software.
Correlation Analysis
To know the strength of linear relationship of DINESCAPE factors to customer
satisfaction, correlation analysis was applied. The range of possible values for r is from -1.0 to
+1.0. If r is close to zero then there is no relationship between the variables; if it has positive
sign, they have a direct correlation which means that as the other variable gets larger the other

30
gets larger too. But if r is negative, it means that as one gets larger, the other gets smaller which
is frequently called as an inverse correlation.
Data Gathering
Respondents of the Study and the Research Locale
The respondents of the survey were the typical customers of the target fast food chains,
particularly Jollibee, Chowking, and McDonald’s, and also the usual customers of the selected
casual dining restaurants, specifically Shakey’s, Pizza Hut, and Max’s. These fast food chains
and casual dining restaurants were primarily located in SM Manila, that is near to different
schools, offices, and establishments.
Data Gathering Procedure
Jollibee, Chowking, McDonald’s were the fast food restaurants that were observed and
studied by the researchers. Assuming that these fast food restaurants have their standard layout
design on all their branches, the researchers chose a branch of these fast food restaurants each in
Manila to observe. For the casual dining restaurants, the three chosen were Shakey’s, Pizza Hut,
and Max’s that will be also observed and surveyed by the researchers.
The questionnaires were distributed to customers who have already experienced dining in
at the six subject fast food/casual dining restaurants, particularly at SM Manila by
interviewing/asking them first. It is not necessary that they should be inside those said fast
food/casual dining restaurants during the process of answering the questionnaires. The
researchers presented pictures of the dining area of the subjects to target respondents in order for
them to be familiarized again of what it really looks like, and thus, it will be easier for them to

31
rate the subjects without being biased. The sample size n was computed using the multiple
regression sample size calculator to obtain the appropriate quantity of respondents.
Instrumentation
Sample Size, n
The value of sample size was computed using an online sample size calculator.
Fig 3.4 Multiple Regression Sample Size Calculator
By convention, the anticipated effect size (f2) of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered
small, medium, and large, respectively. The desired statistical power level should be 0.80 or
above for goodness of fit. The total number of predictors is the number of dependent variables,
which in this case, are the eight variables. The probability level, also known as the p-value, alpha
level, or type I error rate, should be less than or equal to 0.05 to claim statistical significance.
However, a total of 45 respondents were acceptable by using multiple regression analysis
because according to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black (1995), in order to maximize the number
of observations per variable, the minimum ratio of five observations per independent variable
should be utilized. To use multiple regression analysis, the ratio of observations to independent

32
variables should not fall below five. Since the study makes use of eight independent variables, it
can utilize a total of 45 respondents.
Name/Pangalan: Male/Lalake
Age/Edad: Female/Babae
Occupation/ Trabaho:
Jollibee McDonald's Chowking Shakey's Pizza Hut Max's
1. Ang Silid Kainan ay lubusang
malinis.
2. Ang Carpet/Sahig ay mataas na
kalidad.
3. Ang Carpet/Sahig ay nkakapag
pakomportable ng pakiramdam.
4. Ang mga palamuti sa kisame ay
kaakit-akit.
5. Ang mga palamuti sa dingding
ay biswal na sumasamo.
6. Muwebles (e.g., dining table,
chair) ay mataas ang mga
kalidad.
7. Ang mga pinta/litrato ay kaakit-
akit.
8. Ang mga kulay na ginamit ay
nkakapag bigay ng malilim na
kapaligiran.
9. Ang mga kulay na ginamit ay
lumikha ng komportable na
kapaligiran.
10. Ang mga kulay ay nakakapag
pakalma sa pakiramdam.
11. Ang pag-iilaw ay lumilikha ng
isang komportableng kapaligiran.
12. Ang pag-iilaw ay lumilikha ng
malilim na kapaligiran.
13. Ang pag-iilaw ay nagbibigay
ng malugod na pagtanggap.
14. Ang background music ay
nkagiginhawa sa pakiramdam.
15. Ang Background music ay
nakasisiya.
16. Ang temperatura ay
komporatable.
Gender/Kasarian:
Rate the following according to your degree of satisfaction (Bigyan ng grado ang mga sumusunod sa antas ng kabuuang
pagkakuntento):
Objective: To gather information about the degree of satisfaction of the customers on the dining setting of fast food
restaurants/casual dining restaurants. (Layunin: Upang makakalap ng impormasyon sa pagkakuntento ng mga mamimili sa
pagkakadisenyo ng loob ng restawran.)
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Civil Status/Estadong Sibil:

33
Fig 3.5 Survey Questionnaire
This survey questionnaire was obtained from Ryu, the author of Dinescape, Emotions and
Behavioral Intentions in Upscale Restaurants (2005).
After getting the results using the statistical tools above, the authors determined from the
results which DINESCAPE factors from the three fast food and casual dining restaurants the
customers were highly satisfied with. The authors combined the results in order to recommend
17. Ang aroma ay nakaka akit
18. Ang antas ng ingay ay hindi
kasiya siya.
19. Ang layout ay madali para sa
akin upang gumalaw sa paligid.
20. Ang pagkaka ayos ng mga
upuan ay nagbibigay sa akin ng
sapat na espasyo.
21. Ang pagkaka ayos ng mga
upuan ay nkakapag paramdam ng
kasikipan.
22. Ang mga upuan ay
komportable.
23. Ang pagkaka ayos ng mesa ay
kaakit akit.
24. Ang mga tableware (e.g.,
glass, china, silverware) ay
mataas ang kalidad.
NA NA NA
25. Ang mga linens (e.g., table
cloths, napkin) ay kaakit akit.
NA NA NA
26. Sapat na bilang ng mga
service counters.
NA NA NA
27. Mahabang pila sa mga service
counters .
NA NA NA
5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 2 - Poorly Satisfied 1 - Not Satisfied
5 - Sobrang Pagkakuntento 4 - Nakuntento 2 - Hindi Gaanong Nakutento 1 - Hindi Nakuntento
Jollibee McDonald's Chowking Shakey's Pizza Hut Max's
Overall, how satisfied are you
with your dining experience?
(Sa pang kalahatan, gaano ka
nakuntento sa iyong karanasan
sa kainang pasilidad?)
3 - Fairly Satisfied
3 - Medyo Nakuntento
Overall Satisfaction/Pangkalahatang Pagkakuntento
(Kumpleto na ngayon ang survey. Maraming salamat sa iyong oras at pakikilahok.)
The survey is now complete. Thank you very much for your time and participation.

34
what DINESCAPE factors to improve on in fast food and casual dining restaurants based on the
significant factors defined.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The researchers used descriptive statistics analysis to create a summary of statistics for
the results of the survey conducted. The survey illustrations and analysis were presented in the
following bar graphs. The results of the surveys conducted among the random customers of the
top three fast food restaurants and three casual dining restaurants were illustrated as follows.
Descriptive Statistics Analysis of the Fast Food Restaurants
Seats/Furnishings
9%
27%
49%
16%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
3
5
High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining
table, chair)
Fig 3.6 Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair)
At a total number of 45 respondents, 49% of them rated the High Quality Furniture (e.g.,
dining table, chair) of Jollibee a score rating of 3 (fair), 27% rated a score of 2 (poor), 16% rated
a score of 4 (high), and 9% rated a score of 1 (very poor).The average rating score for High
Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) of Jollibee is 2.71.

35
11%
27%
47%
16%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
3
5
Enough Space for Seating
Arrangement
Fig 3.7 Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement
For enough space for seating arrangement, 47% of the respondents rated it with a score of
3 (fair), 27% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 16% rated it a score of 4 (high), and 11% rated a score
of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for enough space for seating arrangement of Jollibee is
2.67.
2%
13%
36%
44%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Crowded Seating Arrangement
Fig 3.8 Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement
For crowded seating arrangement, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 4 (high),
36% rated it a score of 3 (fair), 13% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 4% rated it a score of 5 (very
high), and 2% rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for enough space for
crowded seating arrangement of Jollibee is 3.36.

36
11%
31%
40%
16%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Seats
Fig 3.9 Rating of Comfortable Seats
For comfortable seats, 40% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 31% rated it a
score of 2 (poor), 16% rated it a score of 4 (high), 11% rated it with a score of 1 (very poor), and
2% rated it a score of 5 (very high) with 2%. The average rating score for comfortable seats of
Jollibee is 2.67.
18%
33%
38%
11%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1
2
3
4
5
Visually Attractive Table Setting
Fig 3.10 Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting
For visually attractive table setting, 38% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
33% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 18% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), and 11 rated it a score of 4
(high). The average rating score for visually attractive table setting of Jollibee is 2.42.

37
Walkways/Aisle Width
2%
13%
53%
31%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas
Fig 3.11 Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas
For thoroughly clean dining areas, 53% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
31% rated it a score of 4 (high), 13% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and 2% rated it a score of 1
(very poor). The average rating score for thoroughly clean dining areas of Jollibee is 3.13.
7%
18%
56%
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
High Quality Carpeting/Flooring
Fig 3.12 Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring
For high quality carpeting/flooring, 56%of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
20% rated it a score of 4 (high), 18% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and 7% rated it a score of 1
(very poor). The average rating score for high quality carpeting/flooring of Jollibee is 2.89.

38
9%
18%
56%
16%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability
Fig 3.13 Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability
For carpeting/flooring comfortability, 56% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
18% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 16% rated it a score of 4 (high), 9% rated it a score of 1 (very
poor), and 2% rated it a score of 5 (very high). The average rating score for carpeting/flooring
comfortability of Jollibee is 2.84.
4%
29%
47%
18%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Accessibilty of Layout
Fig 3.14 Rating of Accessibility of Layout
For accessibility of layout, 47% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 29% rated
it a score of 2 (poor), 18% rated it a score of 4 (high), 4% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), and
2% rated it a score of 5 (very high). The average rating score for accessibility of layout of
Jollibee is 2.84.

39
Service Counter Lines
4%
11%
40%
40%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Enough Number of Service Counters
Fig 3.15 Rating of Enough Number of Service Counters
For enough number of service counters, 40% of respondents both rated it with a score of
4 (high) and 3 (fair), 11% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and 4% rated it a score of 5 (very high) and
another 4% as 1 (very poor). The average rating score for thoroughly clean dining areas of
Jollibee is 3.29.
4%
40%
40%
11%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Long Service Counter Queues
Fig 3.16 Rating of Long Service Counter Queues
For long service counter queues, 40% of respondents both rated it with a score of 3 (fair)
and 2 (poor), 11% rated it a score of 4 (high), and rating scores of 5 (very high) and 1 (very poor)
were reported with both 4%. The average rating score for high quality carpeting/flooring of
Jollibee is 2.71.

40
Color Theme
2%
22%
40%
31%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Visually Appealing Wall Decor
Fig 3.17 Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor
For visually appealing wall decor, 40% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
31% rated it as 4 (high), 22% rated it as 2 (poor), 4% rated it as 5 (very high), and 2% rated it a
score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for visually appealing wall decor of Jollibee is
3.13.
7%
18%
44%
31%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Attractive Paintings/Pictures
Fig 3.18 Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures
For attractive paintings/pictures, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 31%
rated it as 4 (high), 18% rated it as 2 (poor), and 7% rated it as 1 (very poor). The average rating
score for attractive paintings/pictures of Jollibee is 3.00.

41
0%
22%
44%
33%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Warm Atmosphere Colors
Fig 3.19 Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors
For warm atmosphere colors, 44%of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 33%
rated a score of 4 (high), and rated a score of 2 (poor) with 22%. The average rating score for
warm atmosphere colors of Jollibee is 3.11.
0%
20%
38%
40%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Atmosphere Colors
Fig 3.20 Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors
For comfortable atmosphere colors, 40% of respondents rated it with a score of 4 (high),
38% rated it a score of 3 (fair), 20% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and 2% rated it a score of 5 (very
high). The average rating score for comfortable atmosphere colors of Jollibee is 3.24.

42
2%
20%
42%
33%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Calming Colors
Fig 3.21 Rating of Calming Colors
For calming colors, 42% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 33% rated it a
score of 4 (high), 20% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and scores of 5 (very high) and 1 (very poor)
were reported, with both rated by 2%. The average rating score for calming colors of Jollibee is
3.13.
Temperature
4%
11%
44%
33%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Temperature
Fig 3.22 Rating of Comfortable Temperature
For comfortable temperature, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 33%
rated it a score of 4 (high), 11% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 7% rated it a score of 5 (very high),
and 4% rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for comfortable temperature of
Jollibee is 3.27.

43
Noise
16%
18%
51%
11%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Releaxing Background Music
Fig 3.23 Rating of Relaxing Background Music
For relaxing background music, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 18%
rated it a score of 2 (poor), 16% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), 11% rated it a score of 4 (high),
and 4& rated it a score of 5 (very high). The average rating score for relaxing background music
of Jollibee is 2.71.
16%
18%
51%
13%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Pleasing Background Music
Fig 3.24 Rating of Pleasing Background Music
For pleasing background music, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 18%
rated it a score of 2 (poor), 16% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), 13% rated it a score of 4 (high),
and 2% rated it with a score of 5 (very high). The average rating score for pleasing background
music of Jollibee is 2.69.

44
9%
18%
20%
40%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Unpleasant Noise Level
Fig 3.25 Rating of Unpleasant Noise Level
For unpleasant noise level, 40% of respondents rated it with a score of 4 (high), 20%
rated it a score of 3 (fair), 18% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 13% rated it a score of 5 (very high),
and 9% rated a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for unpleasant noise level of
Jollibee is 3.31.
Aroma
7%
22%
33%
27%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1
2
3
4
5
Enticing Aroma
Fig 3.26 Rating of Enticing Aroma
For enticing aroma, 33% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 27% rated it a
score of 4 (fair), 22% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 11% rated it a score of 5 (very high), and 7%
rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for enticing aroma of Jollibee is 3.13.

45
Lighting
7%
24%
51%
18%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Attractive Ceiling Decor
Fig 3.27 Rating of Attractive Ceiling Decor
For attractive ceiling decor, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 24%
rated it a score of 2 (poor), 18% rated it a score of 4 (high), and 7% rated it a score of 1 (very
poor). The average rating score for attractive ceiling decor of Jollibee is 2.80.
4%
20%
44%
27%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere
Fig 3.28 Rating of Comfortable Lighting Atmosphere
For comfortable lighting atmosphere, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
27% rated it a score of 4 (high), 20% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and rated a score of 5 (very
high) and 1 (very poor) with both 4% were reported. The average rating score for comfortable
lighting atmosphere of Jollibee is 3.07.

46
4%
13%
53%
27%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Warm Lighting Atmosphere
Fig 3.29 Rating of Warm Lighting Atmosphere
For warm lighting atmosphere, 53% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 27%
rated it a score of 4 (high), 13% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 4% rated it a score of 1 (very poor),
and 2% rated it a score of 5 (very high). The average rating score for warm lighting atmosphere
of Jollibee is 3.09.
2%
9%
33%
49%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Welcoming Lights
Fig 3.30 Rating of Welcoming Lights
For welcoming lights, 49% of respondents rated it with a score of 4 (high), 33% rated it a
score of 3 (fair), 9% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 7% rated it a score of 5 (very high), and 2%
rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score of Jollibee is 3.49.

47
2%
13%
53%
31%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
3
5
Overall Rating
Fig 3.31 Overall rating according to customer satisfaction
For overall satisfaction, 53% of respondents rated it a score rating of 3 (fair), 31% rated it
a score of 4 (high), 13% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and 2% rated it a score of 1 (very poor).
Majority of the respondents rated the overall satisfaction of Jollibee a rating score of 3. The
average of overall satisfaction is 3.13.
McDonald’s
Seats/Furnishings
4%
18%
49%
27%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
3
5
High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining
table, chair)
Fig 3.32 Rating of High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair)
For a total number of 45 respondents, 49% of them rated the High Quality Furniture (e.g.,
dining table, chair) of McDonald’s a score rating of 3 (fair), 27% rated it a score of 4 (high), 18%
rated it a score of 2 (poor), 4% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), and 2% rated it a score of 5 (very

48
high). The average rating score for High Quality Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) of
McDonald’s is 3.04.
9%
22%
51%
18%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
3
5
Enough Space for Seating
Arrangement
Fig 3.33 Rating of Enough Space for Seating Arrangement
For enough space for seating arrangement, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3
(fair), 22% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 18% rated it a score of 4 (high), and 9% rated it a score
of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for enough space for seating arrangement of
2%
16%
33%
44%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Crowded Seating Arrangement
Fig 3.34 Rating of Crowded Seating Arrangement
For crowded seating arrangement, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 4 (high),
33% rated it a score of 3 (fair), 16% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 4% rated it a score of 5 (very

49
high), and 2% rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for enough space for
crowded seating arrangement of McDonald’s is 3.33.
7%
31%
36%
22%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Seats
Fig 3.35 Rating of Comfortable Seats
For comfortable seats, 36% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 31% rated it a
score of 2 (poor), 22% rated it a score of 4 (high), 7% rated it a score of 1 (very poor), and a
score of 5 (very high) was reported by 4%. The average rating score for comfortable seats of
11%
40%
33%
16%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Visually Attractive Table Setting
Fig 3.36 Rating of Visually Attractive Table Setting
For visually attractive table setting, 40% of respondents rated it with a score of 2 (poor),
33% rated it a score of 3 (fair), 16% rated it a score of 4 (high), and rated a score of 1 (very

50
poor) was reported among 11%. The average rating score for visually attractive table setting of
Walkways/Aisle Width
0%
7%
51%
40%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas
Fig 3.37 Rating of Thoroughly Clean Dining Areas
For thoroughly clean dining areas, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
40% rated it a score of 4 (high), 7% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and a score of 5 (very high) with
2%. The average rating score for thoroughly clean dining areas of McDonald’s is 3.38.
2%
22%
51%
24%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
High Quality Carpeting/Flooring
Fig 3.38 Rating of High Quality Carpeting/Flooring
For high quality carpeting/flooring, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
24% rated it a score of 4 (high), 22% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and a score of 1 (very poor)
with 2%. The average rating score for high quality carpeting/flooring of McDonald’s is 2.98.

51
7%
16%
51%
22%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability
Fig 3.39 Rating of Carpeting/Flooring Comfortability
For carpeting/flooring comfortability, 51% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
22% rated it a score of 4 (high), 16% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 7% rated it a score of 1 (very
poor), and a rated score of 5 (very high) with 4%. The average rating score for carpeting/flooring
comfortability of McDonald’s is 3.02.
4%
22%
49%
20%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Accessibilty of Layout
Fig 3.40 Rating of Accessibility of Layout
For accessibility of layout, 49% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 22% rated
it a score of 2 (poor), 20% rated it a score of 4 (high), and a rated score of 5 (very high) and 1
(very poor) were reported with both 4%. The average rating score for accessibility of layout of

52
Service Counter Lines
2%
13%
31%
49%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Enough Number of Service Counters
Fig 3.41 Rating of Enough Number of Service Counters
For enough number of service counters, 49% of respondents rated it with a score of 4
(high), 31% rated it a score of 4 (high), 13% rated it a score of 2 (poor), 4% rated it a score of 5
(very high), and a rated score of 1 (very poor) with 2%. The average rating score for thoroughly
clean dining areas of McDonald’s is 3.40.
4%
49%
31%
13%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1
2
3
4
5
Long Service Counter Queues
Fig 3.42 Rating of Long Service Counter Queues
For long service counter queues, 49% of respondents rated it with a score of 2 (poor),
31% rated it a score of 3 (fair), 13% rated it a score of 4 (high), 4% rated it a score of 1 (very
poor), and a rated score of 5 (very high) with 2%. The average rating score for high quality
carpeting/flooring of McDonald’s is 2.60.

53
Color Theme
0%
16%
42%
31%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Visually Appealing Wall Decor
Fig 3.43 Rating of Visually Appealing Wall Decor
For visually appealing wall decor, 42% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
31% rated it a score of 4 (high), 16% rated it a score of 2 (poor), and a rated score of 5 (very
high) with 11%. The average rating score for visually appealing wall decor of McDonald’s is
3.38.
2%
18%
38%
33%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1
2
3
4
5
Attractive Paintings/Pictures
Fig 3.44 Rating of Attractive Paintings/Pictures
For attractive paintings/pictures, 38% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 33%
and 2% rated it a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for attractive paintings/pictures
of McDonald’s is 3.29.

54
2%
9%
47%
38%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Warm Atmosphere Colors
Fig 3.45 Rating of Warm Atmosphere Colors
For warm atmosphere colors, 47% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 38%
and 2% it rated a score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for warm atmosphere colors of
0%
7%
44%
40%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Atmosphere Colors
Fig 3.46 Rating of Comfortable Atmosphere Colors
For comfortable atmosphere colors, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair),
40% rated it a score of 4 (high), 9% rated it a score of 5 (very high), and 7% rated it a score of 2
(poor). The average rating score for comfortable atmosphere colors of McDonald’s is 3.51.

55
2%
9%
44%
33%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Calming Colors
Fig 3.47 Rating of Calming Colors
For calming colors, 44% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 33% rated a score
of 4 (high), 11% rated a score of 5 (very high), 9% rated a score of 2 (poor), and 2% rated a
score of 1 (very poor). The average rating score for calming colors of McDonald’s is 3.42.
Temperature
4%
7%
42%
36%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1
2
3
4
5
Comfortable Temperature
Fig 3.48 Rating of Comfortable Temperature
For comfortable temperature, 42% of respondents rated it with a score of 3 (fair), 36%
rated a score of 4 (high), 11% rated a score of 5 (very high), 7% rated a score of 2 (poor), and a
score of 1 (very poor) was given by 4%. The average rating score for comfortable temperature of

A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Similar to A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES (20)

More from Anna Landers

More from Anna Landers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A RESEARCH STUDY ON THE DINESCAPE FACTORS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING FAST FOOD AND CASUAL DINING RESTAURANTS IN THE PHILIPPINES