Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Collins Opoku Antwi
 -- 2001 2022-08-25 01:26:34 |
2 Format correction
Sirius Huang
 Meta information modification 2001 2022-08-25 03:17:57 | |
3 keywords
Sirius Huang
 -3 word(s) 1998 2022-08-29 09:47:08 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Antwi, C.O.;  Ren, J.;  Zhang, W.;  Owusu-Ansah, W.;  Aboagye, M.O.;  Affum-Osei, E.;  Agyapong, R.A. Airport Servicescape. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26464 (accessed on 18 May 2024).
Antwi CO,  Ren J,  Zhang W,  Owusu-Ansah W,  Aboagye MO,  Affum-Osei E, et al. Airport Servicescape. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26464. Accessed May 18, 2024.
Antwi, Collins Opoku, Jun Ren, Wenyu Zhang, Wilberforce Owusu-Ansah, Michael Osei Aboagye, Emmanuel Affum-Osei, Richard Adu Agyapong. "Airport Servicescape" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26464 (accessed May 18, 2024).
Antwi, C.O.,  Ren, J.,  Zhang, W.,  Owusu-Ansah, W.,  Aboagye, M.O.,  Affum-Osei, E., & Agyapong, R.A. (2022, August 25). Airport Servicescape. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/26464
Antwi, Collins Opoku, et al. "Airport Servicescape." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 August, 2022.
Airport Servicescape
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su141610114

The context of service delivery in the postmodernist era of experience consumption has become a powerful resource. Bitner put forward the concept of a “servicescape” to represent the physical service setting (i.e., the substantive staging of the service environment). Others have expanded this idea of a servicescape to include the social environment (i.e., the communicative staging of the service environment). Customers are said to respond to the elements of the service setting holistically. Premised on the extant conceptualization of a servicescape, the airport servicescape is defined as a composite of the substantive and communicative staging of the airport service environment.

airport servicescape substantive and communicative staging emotional response

1. Introduction

The global economy is increasingly service-oriented. Service environment is seen as a source of sustainable differentiation strategy [1][2][3][4]. This stream of research traces its roots and most of its theoretical groundings to environmental psychology, mainly the works of Mehrabian and Russell [5][6]. Informed by these works, Bitner [7] propounded the servicescape (described as “the manmade, physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social environment”). Following this, enormous inquiries into the relations between the substantively staged physical service environment and relevant marketing goals have been explored. Nonetheless, Bitner’s [7] servicescape definition limits what elements in a service environment constitute its servicescape: only the manmade physical surroundings!
To conceptualize a comprehensive servicescape that expands its relational benefits in a postmodern experience economy [8][9], Arnould et al. [9] defined servicescape as “more or less consciously designed places, calculated to produce commercially significant actions”. With this, an increasing number of studies have rigorously explored the effects of both substantive staging (SS, i.e., the physical creation of contrived environments) and communicative staging (CS, i.e., the ways in which the environment is presented and interpreted) of servicescape [9] on firms’ competitiveness [3][9][10][11]. Yet, Bitner’s [7] concern for the scant scientific research on a servicescape as a competitive resource and its impact on consumers—in marketing in particular—is still legitimate today. As Dedeoglu et al. [11] and J.Y. Park et al. [10] consistently noted, inquiries into the combined effects of the substantive and communicative staging of servicescape (SSoS and CSoS) on consumer responses are even fewer. Moreover, elements of a servicescape appear contingent, on the whole, upon the nature of the service industry [7][9]. Given the rapid evolution of the airport service setting, a comprehensive evaluation will provide invaluable information on service offerings that pleasure the customer (in this case, the traveler) to support the recent airport commercialization agenda.
Nonetheless, an investigation into the airport service environment—typically a substantively staged servicescape and a non-traditional one—has been paltry [12][13][14][15]. Furthermore, extant studies have limited their scope of inquiries to SSoS [14] despite evidence suggesting that CSoS dominates the influence of SSoS on consumers [16]. Staff ineffectiveness, poor facilities, and information flow at airports are some of the triggers of passenger dissatisfaction [15][17]. Passengers spend a considerable amount of time at airports post-9/11 for safety reasons, and the time for arriving at airports to go through check-in and take-off has only lengthened during COVID-19 [18], affecting efficiency [19] and passenger demand [20][21][22]. The passenger, therefore, spends ample time interacting with both the physical and human elements along all service touchpoints. To ensure a memorable experience, insight into the intricate workings of SSoS and CSoS and passenger response relations is urgent.

2. Airport Servicescape

The context of service delivery in the postmodernist era of experience consumption has become a powerful resource. This resource is forged as a strategic tool for the attainment of organizational goals. This development has been ascribed to the notion that service consumers, for the most part, are co-creators of service experience or value. The value co-creation perspective is powerfully driven home with the assertion that “…the consumer is in the factory” [7] (p. 57), where production and consumption are inseparable. Bitner [7] then put forward the concept of a “servicescape” to represent the physical service setting. Others have expanded this idea of a servicescape to include the social environment [23][24]. Customers are said to holistically respond to the elements of the service setting [8]. Therefore, premised on the extant conceptualization of a servicescape [7][9], the airport servicescape is presented as a composite of the substantive and communicative staging of the airport service environment.

2.1. The Substantive Staging of the Airport Servicescape (SSoS)

The physical setting of service delivery has been found to directly influence consumers’ affective states, which mold their behavioral responses across service industries in the consumer and organizational behavior, retailing, and marketing literature [11][13][24]. Given the presence of immateriality and its attendant absence of ownership and possession—typical of most experiential products including educational, legal, administrative, travel, and tourism services—substantive staging (SS) builds beliefs, facilitates understanding, and impacts the subsequent evaluation of service firms [25]. A pleasant physical service environment, therefore, has been demonstrated to be evocative of consumers’ high service quality inferences, positive image, desirable emotions, and satisfying and even delightful and exciting sensations among consumers, effectuating loyalty intentions, and favorable purchasing and stay behaviors [11][26]. Retail stores, hotels, restaurants, and resorts, in particular, have benefitted immensely from these research outputs. However, due to service industries’ diverse nature, physical elements or clues that compose service settings are not uniform across service industries. Based on this rich service diversity, the disunity in measurement scales, as witnessed by Jeon and Kim [27], is not surprising, or perhaps, even expected. The assessment of the servicescape of these diverse service industries is necessary for sustainable development [28].
The operationalization of the SS has been fashioned substantially in earlier works on consumer–physical service environment interaction, particularly the seminal paper of Bitner [7]. The author’s conceptual work on servicescape generally outlines the components of the physical service settings and the elements subsumed in them. The three-componential framework consisted of the following: ambient conditions (i.e., sensory elements in the service environment including temperature, color, lighting, sound, smell); spatial layout and functionality (i.e., spatial arrangement of items, their relationships, and their ease of use where service delivery is either facilitated or hindered); and signs, symbols, and artifacts (i.e., features of the service setting devised to produce cues about service providers and service facilities to the consumer). Later attempts led to the development of some industry-specific variants, such as Dinescape (consists of ambient conditions, space or facilities, and signs, symbols, and artifacts) [29] and Festivalscape (consists of facility aesthetics, lighting, ambiance, layout, table setting, and service staff) [30]. These variants evolved to reflect the unique features of particular service industry settings.
Cognizant of the absence of research on the strategic instrumentality of the substantively staged airport service environment, Moon et al. [31], with insights from Wu and Weber [32] and Wakefield and Blodgett’s [33] studies, developed the components of airports’ physical service setting. These consisted of layout accessibility (i.e., arrangement of furnishings, equipment, service areas, and passageways [7]), facility ambiance and aesthetics (i.e., the interior and architectural designs that enhance the attractiveness of the physical environment [34]), functionality (i.e., the ability of arranged machinery, equipment, and furnishings to facilitate the accomplishment of goals [7]), and cleanliness (i.e., the sense of neatness, tidiness, or orderliness in an establishment [35]). Ali et al. [12] reasoned that Moon’s [31] conception of airports’ physical environment was limiting. The authors pointed out that Moon et al. [31] did not capture such critical elements as signage, baggage trolleys, retail and dining options, crowding, internet and Wi-Fi connectivity, power sockets, and elevators. Given this limitation, Ali et al. [12] sought to improve Moon et al.’s [31] original four-component operationalization by adding attributes that have been omitted. Thus, Ali et al. [12] included signage and electronic equipment in layout accessibility and functionality, respectively.
Because passengers require different facilities at different stages of travel [36], Park and Park [13] proposed amusement, functionality, cleanliness, convenience, attractiveness, and pleasantness to evaluate airport transfer servicescape. In Wiredja’s [37] passenger-centered model, the substantively staged airport servicescape consists of two main components: main facilities (i.e., service attributes such as Wi-Fi and chargers, trolley, signage or wayfinding, inter-terminal connection, information query, user-friendly restrooms, aerobridge, and a waiting area before boarding), and value addition (i.e., service attributes such as airport access, retail space, and other facilities such as ATMs). Essentially, elements of Wiredja’s [37] classification of the airport’s physical service environment encompass the four components developed by Moon et al. [31] and the improvements by Ali et al. [12].

2.2. The Communicative Staging of the Airport Servicescape (CSoS)

Earlier studies on servicescape development paid brief or no attention to social elements. The SS, as a result, has cardinally been the focus of research in marketing science. Academics are slowly—but increasingly—realizing the relevance of CS as a component of service settings [9][23][24]. Considering that CS deals with the presentation and interpretation of SS, meaning-making is at the heart of CS for service delivery. To construct meaning invariably requires an active participatory engagement between service providers and customers. Arnould et al. [9], for example, examined a wilderness servicescape, cardinally a natural environment. The authors established some markedly distinct qualities of this servicescape from those in prior studies, including that site preservation supersedes customers’ desires; the site forms the foreground and not the background; managers exercise little control over the site’s substantive staging. A crucial discovery was that the quality of communicative staging—presentation and interpretation of the site—enhances the experiential value of a wilderness servicescape, and that this communication is well-planned and synchronizes with the actual maneuvering through the physical servicescape.
The CS and SS of a servicescape work in synergy to influence customer experience. Inquiries into this synergy, as expected, are tilted towards traditional service industries, such as hotels and restaurants. There is, therefore, the need to extend these inquiries to not-so-traditional service settings. In this regard, evaluating the joint contribution of SS and CS at the airport service setting would be a useful way forward. Other customers’ influence informs the need for customer homogeneity (similarity in appearance and behavior) [24]. The satisfaction of being in one’s comfort zone induces loyal behaviors. Some of these behaviors, such as word of mouth (WoM), reinforce customer homogeneity. Advertising and service personnel training are targeted at this end accordingly. However, the pan-cultural character of consumers of international airports disincentivizes the utility of this kind of segmenting measure. Instead, the employees’ pleasing appearance, effective, helpful, and courteous behaviors, and the staging of local culture that evoke customers’ loyalty behaviors are within airport management’s control.
On interpersonal aspects, research shows that social encounters are important to experiential consumption [38][39]. The recent deployment of language help staff who speak the native language of core passenger segments at hub airports is a classic case of communicative staging. Language support is vital because customers’ emotional fulfillment lie—to a great extent—with non-financial burdens embedded in service delivery [40]. At airports, passengers’ emotional disquiet may arise from unpleasant sounds, high or cold temperatures, congestion, and rude and ineffective staff. More so, the existence of faithful patrons of first-class and business tickets and lounges at airports, who experience the best of airport staff, is emblematic of emotional supremacy in service evaluation. Consequently, airport staff courtesy, helpfulness, and efficiency greatly influence service evaluation and emotional and behavioral responses [41]. These indicators capture Wiredja’s [37] helpfulness and communication dimension of Airport Indicators of Passenger Experience (AIPEX).
Cultural elements exert a significant effect on memorable service experiences and constitute a fundamental component of the CS of a servicescape. For example, traditional dresses worn by airport staff and the decoration of airport terminals with cultural motifs present the national identity of the host country [12][42]. Culture is an essential pull factor that draws traffic to a destination. Some tourists cite the desire to experience a new culture as their travel motivation [43]. Therefore, bringing local culture to airport terminals is demonstrated to be critical to passenger satisfaction and a salient generator of intention to visit or revisit the host city or country, leading to airport reuse [36]. These studies justify new investments geared towards the creation of quasi-destination at airports as a commercialization strategy. An assessment of how passengers respond to staff and local culture investments at airports as a form of CS is therefore relevant and timely.

References

  1. Duleba, S.; Moslem, S. Sustainable Urban Transport Development with Stakeholder Participation, an AHP-Kendall Model: A Case Study for Mersin. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3647.
  2. Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Moslem, S.; Blaschke, T.; Duleba, S. Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model. Sustainability 2018, 11, 9.
  3. Antwi, C.O.; Fan, C.-J.; Ihnatushchenko, N.; Aboagye, M.O.; Xu, H. Does the nature of airport terminal service activities matter? Processing and non-processing service quality, passenger affective image and satisfaction. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 89, 101869.
  4. Gündoğdu, F.K.; Duleba, S.; Moslem, S.; Aydın, S. Evaluating public transport service quality using picture fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and linear assignment model. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 100, 106920.
  5. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974.
  6. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. The Basic Emotional Impact of Environments. Percept. Mot. Skills 1974, 38, 283–301.
  7. Bitner, M.J. Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 57–71.
  8. Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The experience economy: Past, present and future. In Handbook on the Experience Economy; Sundbo, J., Sorensen, F., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 1999; pp. 21–44.
  9. Arnould, E.J.; Price, L.L.; Tierney, P. Communicative Staging of the Wilderness Servicescape. Serv. Ind. J. 1998, 18, 90–115.
  10. Park, J.-Y.; Back, R.M.; Bufquin, D.; Shapoval, V. Servicescape, positive affect, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of familiarity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 78, 102–111.
  11. Dedeoglu, B.B.; Bilgihan, A.; Ye, B.H.; Buonincontri, P.; Okumus, F. The impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance of previous experience. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 10–20.
  12. Ali, F.; Kim, W.G.; Ryu, K. The effect of physical environment on passenger delight and satisfaction: Moderating effect of national identity. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 213–224.
  13. Park, K.; Park, J.-W. The effects of the servicescape of airport transfer amenities on the behavioral intentions of transfer passengers: A case study on Incheon International Airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018, 72, 68–76.
  14. Ma, G.; Ding, Y.; Ma, J. The Impact of Airport Physical Environment on Perceived Safety and Domestic Travel Intention of Chinese Passengers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Role of Passenger Satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5628.
  15. Bakır, M.; Akan, Ş.; Özdemir, E.; Nguyen, P.-H.; Tsai, J.-F.; Pham, H.-A. How to Achieve Passenger Satisfaction in the Airport? Findings from Regression Analysis and Necessary Condition Analysis Approaches through Online Airport Reviews. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2151.
  16. Wall, E.A.; Berry, L.L. The Combined Effects of the Physical Environment and Employee Behavior on Customer Perception of Restaurant Service Quality. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2007, 48, 59–69.
  17. Yang, J.-S.; Park, J.-W.; Choi, Y.-J. Passengers’ Expectations of Airport Service Quality: A Case Study of Jeju International Airport. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 2015, 5, 30–37.
  18. Blišťanová, M.; Tirpáková, M.; Brůnová, L. Overview of Safety Measures at Selected Airports during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8499.
  19. Shamohammadi, M.; Park, Y.; Choi, J.H.; Kwon, O.K. Exploring the Performance of International Airports in the Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Era: Evidence from Incheon International Airport. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4222.
  20. Barczak, A.; Dembińska, I.; Rozmus, D.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Transport Passenger Markets-Implications for Selected EU Airports Based on Time Series Models Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4345.
  21. Song, K.-H.; Choi, S. A Study on the Perception Change of Passengers on Sustainable Air Transport Following COVID-19 Progress. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8056.
  22. Mancinelli, E.; Rizza, U.; Canestrari, F.; Graziani, A.; Virgili, S.; Passerini, G. New Habits of Travellers Deriving from COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey in Ports and Airports of the Adriatic Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8290.
  23. Pizam, A.; Tasci, A.D. Experienscape: Expanding the concept of servicescape with a multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary approach (invited paper for ‘luminaries’ special issue of International Journal of Hospitality Management). Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 25–37.
  24. Hanks, L.; Line, N.D. The restaurant social servicescape: Establishing a nomological framework. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 74, 13–21.
  25. Zhang, Z. The effect of library indoor environments on occupant satisfaction and performance in Chinese universities using SEMs. Build. Environ. 2019, 150, 322–329.
  26. Liu, S.Q.; Bogicevic, V.; Mattila, A.S. Circular vs. angular servicescape: “Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 47–56.
  27. Jeon, S.; Kim, M.-S. The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in an international airport service environment. Serv. Bus. 2012, 6, 279–295.
  28. Dimitriou, D.; Karagkouni, A. Assortment of Airports’ Sustainability Strategy: A Comprehensiveness Analysis Framework. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4217.
  29. Ryu, K.; Jang, S.S. The Effect of Environmental Perceptions on Behavioral Intentions Through Emotions: The Case of Upscale Restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 56–72.
  30. Lee, Y.-K.; Lee, C.-K.; Lee, S.-K.; Babin, B.J. Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 56–64.
  31. Moon, H.; Yoon, H.J.; Han, H. Role of Airport Physical Environments in the Satisfaction Generation Process: Mediating the Impact of Traveller Emotion. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 21, 193–211.
  32. Wu, A.; Weber, K. Convention center facilities, attributes and services: The delegates’ perspective. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2005, 10, 399–410.
  33. Wakefield, K.L.; Blodgett, J.G. Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychol. Mark. 1999, 16, 51–68.
  34. Wakefield, K.L.; Blodgett, J.G. The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. J. Serv. Mark. 1996, 10, 45–61.
  35. Vilnai-Yavetz, I.; Gilboa, S. The Effect of Servicescape Cleanliness on Customer Reactions. Serv. Mark. Q. 2010, 31, 213–234.
  36. Tang, C.; Weaver, D.; Lawton, L. Can stopovers be induced to revisit transit hubs as stayovers? A new perspective on the relationship between air transportation and tourism. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 62, 54–64.
  37. Wiredja, D. Assessment of Airport Service Performance: A Passenger-Centred Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2017.
  38. Antwi, C.O.; Ntim, S.Y.; Boadi, E.A.; Asante, E.A.; Brobbey, P.; Ren, J. Sustainable cross-border tourism management: COVID-19 avoidance motive on resident hospitality. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 1–21.
  39. Boadi, E.A.; He, Z.; Antwi, C.O.; Altab, H.; Bosompem, J.; Hinson, R.E.; Boadi, V.A. Value co-creation and employee service behaviours: The moderating role of trust in employee-hotel relationship. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102898.
  40. Berry, L.L.; Wall, E.A.; Carbone, L.P. Service Clues and Customer Assessment of the Service Experience: Lessons from Marketing. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2006, 20, 43–57.
  41. Antwi, C.O.; Fan, C.-J.; Nataliia, I.; Aboagye, M.O.; Xu, H.; Azamela, J.C. Do airport staff helpfulness and communication generate behavioral loyalty in transfer passengers? A conditional mediation analysis. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 102002.
  42. Ariffin, A.A.M.; Yahaya, M.F. The relationship between airport image, national identity and passengers delight: A case study of the Malaysian low cost carrier terminal (LCCT). J. Air Transp. Manag. 2013, 31, 33–36.
  43. Ariffin, A.A.M.; Maghzi, A. A preliminary study on customer expectations of hotel hospitality: Influences of personal and hotel factors. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 191–198.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Collins Opoku Antwi
,
Jun Ren
,
Wenyu Zhang
,
Wilberforce Owusu-Ansah
,
Michael Osei Aboagye
,
Emmanuel Affum-Osei
,
Richard Adu Agyapong
View Times: 838
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Aug 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback