Original Scientific Article
Service Quality in Restaurants Operating
in a Rural Area: The Case of Slovenian Istria
Marko Kukanja
University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
marko.kukanja@fts.upr.si
Tanja Planinc
University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
tanja.planinc@fts.upr.si
The purpose of this paper was to investigate service quality in restaurants operat-
ing in the rural area of Slovenian Istria. The dineserv tool was used as a research
instrument. The research sample consisted of 25 restaurant facilities and 250 valid
questionnaires completed by domestic guests. Based on results of the exploratory
factor analysis, twomain factor groups that best explain domestic guests’ quality per-
ceptions in rural restaurant facilities were identified: (1) Empathy, Responsiveness,
and Assurance (era) and (2) Tangibles. The results of our study are significantly
different from those obtained in a previous study performed in the coastal area of
Slovenian Istria (Kukanja & Planinc, 2015), as they indicate a relatively bipolar and
homogeneous service quality structure. This study is of great managerial interest at
the micro (restaurant) and macro (destination) levels. Research results indicate that
restaurant managers should emphasise the importance of the two identified quality
dimensions (era and Tangibles) and continuously measure the level of their offer-
ings. Accordingly, research results may also be implemented in future destination
quality and development strategies. In terms of future research, it would be of great
interest to see if similarities in guests’ quality perceptions exist between Slovenian
Istria and other competitive rural destinations.
Keywords: restaurant industry, service quality, dineserv, rural areas, Slovenian
Istria
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.12.147-159
Introduction
Understanding, achieving, and maintaining service
quality are recognised as essential elements leading
to the successful business of hospitality firms. Know-
ing guests’ quality expectations is instrumental in de-
veloping a quality strategy for meeting and exceeding
their expectations (Ryu & Lee, 2017). Consequently,
the efforts of service managers and researchers are di-
rected to understanding andmeasuring guests’ quality
expectations and the quality of services provided.
In Slovenian Istria, several local tourism strategies
primarily focus on general guidelines on how to de-
velop different types of tourism in different geograph-
ical areas, towns, and municipalities (see https://www
.las-istre.si; Mestna občina Koper, 2016; Turistično
združenje Portorož, 2019). To the best of our knowl-
edge, there are no studies that measure guests’ percep-
tions of restaurant service quality on an operational
(micro) level in rural areas. This is important because
different restaurant facilities are the primary providers
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 147
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
of the gastronomic services in rural Istria (Kukanja,
2016). The only study that measured domestic guests’
quality perceptions in the area (coastal Istria) was
conducted by Kukanja and Planinc in 2015, based on
which the present study examines domestic guests’
quality perceptions in restaurant facilities operating
in the rural part of Slovenian Istria. It does this by ap-
plying the dineserv tool. To determine guests’ level
of satisfaction with the quality of restaurant offerings,
in our study, the servperf (performance-based) ap-
proach was implemented, as previously suggested by
Adil, Ghaswyneh, and Albkour (2013), Cronin and
Taylor (1994), and Unuvar and Kaya (2017).
The purpose of this investigation is to explore do-
mestic guests’ quality perceptions in restaurant facil-
ities operating in the rural part of Slovenian Istria.
Based on previous research conducted in the area and
the literature review (see Chapter 2), we formulated
our main research question (rq):
rq How do domestic guests’ perceive service quality
in restaurants located in rural Istria?
This paper is divided into several sections. First, a
brief review of service quality and rural tourism re-
search is provided. Next, the research methodology
is presented; followed by a presentation and discus-
sion of results. In conclusion, suggestions for future
research and useful information for restaurant man-
agers are provided.
Literature Review
Service Quality
In recent decades, many academics (Hanks, Line, &
Kim, 2017; Kukanja, Gomezelj Omerzel, & Kodrič,
2017; Nikbin, Marimuthu, & Hyun, 2016) have ex-
amined the concept of service quality, its dimensions,
and measurement methods. Among the various defi-
nitions proposed, the most widely used is the one pro-
posed by Oliver (1980), which defines service qual-
ity as a gap between guests’ quality expectations and
quality perceptions (Park& Jeong, 2019). Service qual-
ity is built on the concept of guest satisfaction. Satis-
faction is most often defined as a post-purchase con-
struct that is related to how a consumer likes or dis-
likes a service after experiencing it (Truong & Foster,
2006). In terms of the restaurant industry, this post-
purchase construct is primarily a result of pre-dining
expectations and previous experiences. According to
Oliver’s (1980) disconfirmation theory, an individual
guest’s expectations are confirmed when the service
performs as expected, negativelywhen the service per-
forms worse than expected, and positively when the
service performs as/or better than expected. Based on
Oliver’s theoretical concept, Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Berry (1985) defined service quality as the ability
of a service to fulfil and exceed guests’ quality expec-
tations. Because of the intangibility of services and
guests’ subjective perceptions of service quality, the
delivery of high-quality services in the hospitality and
tourism industry is a difficult task. In academic litera-
ture, several attempts have been made to capture and
measure the essential components of service quality.
Parasuraman et al. (1985; 1988) developed a five-
step model of service quality (also referred to as the
Gapmodel) andproposed the servqual instrument,
which measures service quality based on 22 quality
indicators merged into five service quality attributes
(quality dimensions): Responsiveness, Assurance, Tan-
gibles, Empathy, and Reliability (also referred to as
rater). Similarly, Grönroos (1990) and Lehtinen and
Lehtinen (1991) proposed two major components of
service quality: the tangible (technical) and the in-
tangible (functional) aspect of service quality. Fol-
lowing the pioneering work of Parasuraman et al.
(1985) and Grönroos (1990), different scholars (Can-
dido &Morris 2000; Kukanja et al., 2017; Lin, Chan, &
Tsai, 2009) proposed alternative approaches to ser-
vice quality measurement. For example, Lin et al.
(2009) upgraded the traditional Importance Perfor-
mance Analysis (ipa) with service quality gap eval-
uation and developed a new instrument called ipga
(Importance Performance Gap Analyses), Saeida Ar-
dakani, Nejatian, Farhangnejad, and Nejati (2015) ap-
plied a fuzzy-logic method to service quality evalu-
ation, while Kukanja et al. (2017) developed a ser-
vice quality model based on the concept of Kotler’s
marketing mix. According to Ali, Hussain, Konar,
and Jeon (2017), none of these alternative models re-
ceived significant academic validation. Moreover, Ali
et al. (2017) found that all alternative models were
148 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
conceptually based on the gap model, as first pro-
posed by Parasuraman et al. (1985). This view was
also supported by Sharif and Kassim (2012), who state
that the predominant quantitative measurement tech-
nique in hospitality and tourism research remains the
servqual instrument with all its modifications. To
adapt the servqual instrument to the specifics of
the hospitality sector, many scholars modified the
original servqual instrument and developed spe-
cific tailor-made models, such as:
• lodgserv (Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, Patton,
& Yokoyama, 1990): a modified version of the
servqual instrument developed to measure
service quality within the context of lodging (ac-
commodation) settings;
• dineserv tool (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton,
1995): a modified version of the servqual in-
strument, developed for service quality evalua-
tion in different restaurant settings.
• holserv (WongOoiMei,Dean,&White, 1999):
a service quality instrument designed for quality
evaluation in hotels;
• tangserv (Raajpoot, 2002): developed to mea-
sure the tangible aspect of service quality;
• servimperf model (Lin et al., 2009): this in-
strument combines service quality evaluation
with importance measurement of different qual-
ity attributes;
• grserv scale (Chen, Cheng, & Hsu, 2013) de-
signed for measuring guests’ perceptions of ser-
vice quality in green restaurants;
• msq (Eid & Abdelkaber, 2017): a modified ver-
sion of the servqual instrument adapted for
measuring service quality in Muslim facilities;
Although restaurantmanagers can use simple tech-
niques to assess guests’ satisfaction (e.g., observa-
tions, conversations with employees and guests, hid-
den guests, etc.) service providers need standardised
(quantitative)measurement tools to empirically evalu-
ate, compare (benchmark), and understand the quality
construct of provided services.
Service quality is not essential only for the success
of restaurant firms, but also plays a vital role in the
way tourists and/or visitors experience tourist des-
tinations (Križman Pavlović & Živolić, 2008). Con-
sequently, more and more Destination Management
Organisations (dmos) are focusing on gastronomic
tourism as a central element of a destinations’ tourism
product (Sukiman, Omar, Muhibudin, Yussof, & Mo-
hamed, 2013). Rural tourism destinations, in partic-
ular, are promoting local gastronomy (most often in
the relationship between local food and tourism),
as it highlights their distinctive food cultures, im-
proves local sustainability standards, and strengths
community wellbeing (Bellini & Resnick, 2018; see
https://igcat.org). In Slovenia, restaurant service qual-
ity, especially in the context of rural tourism, is rel-
atively poorly analysed. This results in a lack of aca-
demic articles, although after the release of the Strat-
egy of Gastronomy Development of Slovenia in 2006,
a slight increase of research interest for gastronomy
and restaurant-quality researchwas observed (Gačnik,
2012; Kerma & Gačnik, 2015; Kukanja, 2016; 2017;
Sanchez-Cañizares & Castillo-Canalejo, 2015). Ac-
cordingly, there were more studies in the field of food
and beverage (restaurant) management (Gričar & Bo-
jnec, 2009; Kukanja & Planinc, 2018), farm tourism
management (Bojnec&Latruffe, 2013; Potočnik Slavič,
2014), and service quality management (Kukanja &
Planinc, 2015).
The DINESERV Tool
The original dineserv tool included 40 service qual-
ity indicators. In the process of academic evaluation,
the instrument was refined and revalidated. Today, the
final version includes 29 items, which are captured
into five rater quality dimensions of the generic
servqual instrument (Stevens et al., 1995). In their
pilot study of service quality in Quick Service, Ca-
sual/Theme, and Fine Dining Restaurants, Knutson,
Stevens, and Patton (1996) found that Reliability was
the most important service quality dimension, fol-
lowed by Tangibles, Assurance, Responsiveness, and
Empathy. Later, Johns and Tyas (1996) used a modi-
fied version of the servqual instrument to evaluate
the service quality of a contract catering company;
interestingly, they found that other specific elements
related to the quality of service staff and food, and not
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 149
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
the rater quality dimensions, were more important
for delivering high-quality services.
Since the year 2000, there has been an increasing
amount of academic research on restaurant quality
management. In many studies, the dineserv tool
was used to assess the quality structure in different
geographical areas. For example, Kim, McCahon, and
Miller (2003) used the dineserv tool to evaluate
the service quality of a foreign-brand, casual dining
restaurant in Korea. The factor analysis indicated that
Tangibles had three sub-dimensions, and Responsive-
ness had a substantial overlap with Assurance. Results
also revealed that gender, average spending per per-
son (asp), and the dining occasion significantly im-
pacted guests’ perceptions of service quality. Similarly,
Bougoure and Neu (2010) used the dineserv tool to
assess service quality in the Malaysian fast food in-
dustry. The study confirmed the five-dimensional na-
ture of the dineserv tool. Later, Marković, Raspor
and Šegarić (2010) analysed service quality in restau-
rants in Croatia, using a modified version of the di-
neserv questionnaire and found that seven quality
dimensions best explain guests’ quality expectations in
Croatian restaurants and only two dimensions influ-
ence guests’ quality perceptions. Following the study
of Marković et al. (2010), in 2015, Kukanja and Plan-
inc conducted a cross-national comparison between
the two neighbouring North Mediterranean tourist
destinations: Opatija and Portorož and Piran. In their
study, Kukanja and Planinc (2015) identified the im-
portance of the very same quality dimensions as had
previously been identified in the Opatija’ study.
Similarly, Djekic et al. (2016) used the dineserv
tool to analyse restaurant guests’ perceptions of service
quality in different European cities: Belgrade (Serbia),
Manchester (uk), Thessaloniki (Greece), and Porto
(Portugal). The research results revealed that guests’
fromdifferent cities showed significantly different per-
ceptions regarding restaurant service quality. The au-
thors also reported that the gender of guests’ played
a significant role in the perception of the interior, re-
stroom, and service, while the age of respondents was
a category with no significant difference concerning
food quality, layout, restrooms, and service.
The results of presented studies indicate that the
rater quality dimensions are not necessarily applica-
ble in all restaurant facilities. Research results are not
generalisable as restaurant guests may have different
quality expectations fromdifferent restaurant facilities
in different geographic areas. Nevertheless, the pre-
sented findings may aid in better understanding the
specificity of the restaurant service quality. According
to Hansen (2014), dineserv has proven to be a reli-
able and valid measurement tool for assessing restau-
rant service quality. Following previous research, the
dineserv tool is applied in our study as well.
Rural Areas and Rural Tourism
According to Loureiro (2012), rural areas in post-
modern society have grown in importance and appeal,
since they have been perceived as green and unspoiled
places. Conceptually, rural tourism may be regarded
as tourism in the countryside, a form that embraces
the rural environment as pivotal to the product of-
fered (Loureiro, 2012). Rural tourism should be func-
tionally rural, small in scale, traditional, organically
and slowly growing, and managed by locals (Cawley
& Gillmor, 2008). According to Frochot (2005) and
Ohe and Kurihara (2013), scholars have also become
interested in rural tourism, as it was also recognised as
a development tool for often economically depressed
and underdeveloped rural areas. Rural tourism has
also been identified as an opportunity to diversify the
tourism product in terms of declining the importance
of the mass sea, sand, and sun (sss) tourism destina-
tions (Sharpley, 2002). Since the year 2000, there has
been an increasing tendency among the urban pop-
ulation to choose rural zones as short-term tourism
destinations (Loureiro, 2012). Service providers must
correspondingly adapt to the currentmarket situation.
Guests in rural areas are becoming extremely demand-
ing, as well as price- and quality-oriented (Sharpley,
2002). This results in an extremely competitive busi-
ness environment, which is also dominated by pow-
erful communication campaigns (Roberts, Hall, &
Morag, 2017) and strategically developed marketing
actions (e.g., Green story of Slovenia; Discover green
destinations and providers; Indulge in the most beau-
tiful green adventures etc.) on different social media
platforms (e.g., TripAdvisor, Booking.com, etc.).
150 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
Case Study Region
This researchwas carried out in the rural area of Slove-
nian Istria, more specifically, in the hinterland of the
municipalities of Piran, Koper, Izola, and Ankaran.
Slovenian Istria (also referred to as the SlovenianMed-
iterranean), and especially its seaside riviera, are one
of the most recognisable tourist destinations in the
Eastern Adriatic region. Based on its long tradition
of organised tourism, Slovenian Istria is still consid-
ered one of the most visited tourist destinations in the
Republic of Slovenia (see https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/
en/Field/Index/24/66). In order to upgrade the mar-
ket position of the entire area of Slovenian Istria,
different projects and strategies have been applied
by different municipalities and stakeholders, such as:
the eu cross-border project ‘365 Days of the Riviera,’
which aimed to extend the summer season, the gastro-
project ‘Taste of Istria,’ the wellness project ‘Wellness
Istria,’ the wine path project ‘Malvasia TourIstra,’ and
many others (see https://www.las-istre.si; https://www
.turistica.si). All projects emphasised the importance
of gastronomy and rural development for the overall
tourism development of the entire region (Slovenian
Istria). Further development of gastronomy in rural
areas is also emphasised in different local strategies
(e.g., Tourism Development Strategy of the Munici-
pality of Piran until 2025 (Turistično združenje Por-
torož, 2019); Strategy of Development and Market-
ing of the Municipality of Koper until 2025 (Mestna
občina Koper, 2016); and the National Strategy for the
Sustainable Growth of Slovenian Tourism for 2017–
2021 (Ministry of Economic Development and Tech-
nology, 2019). This is also important because gas-
tronomy and rural (green) areas are important ele-
ments of Slovene national identity and critical com-
ponents of its promotional campaigns at different
national and international levels (Korez-Vide, 2017).
Moreover, in 2018, Slovenia was officially appointed as
the European (eu) Region of Gastronomy 2021 (see
https://igcat.org).
Methodology
Research Process and Sample Description
In the first part of the study, qualitative research was
performed to identify previous studies on restaurant
quality in rural areas. Articles related to the research
topic were retrieved in February 2019 frommajor aca-
demic databases for tourism and hospitality research,
such as ebscohost (http://search.ebscohost.com/),
Science Direct (http://sciencedirect.com/), and the
Springer database (http://link.springer.com/). Key-
words used to retrieve literature included: ‘restaurant
quality,’ ‘rural,’ ‘service quality,’ ‘dineserv,’ and ‘ser-
vice measurement.’ The screening process startedwith
reading titles and abstracts of each article. Although
service quality is well researched in academic liter-
ature, surprisingly, there were relatively few studies
focusing on restaurant service quality in rural areas.
Articles and chapters in books that matched the topic
of the research were included in the study in a logical
manner (a total of nine publications). During the pro-
cess of reviewing the academic literature, we also veri-
fied whether any previous studies had analysed restau-
rant service quality in Slovenian Istria. We found only
one research study, conducted by Kukanja and Planinc
in 2015. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only
study that measured the quality of restaurant offerings
in Slovenian Istria using the dineserv methodology.
In the next part of the study, domestic guests’ per-
ceptions of restaurant service quality were analysed
using the dineserv tool. This instrument comprises
29 service quality indicators that correspond to the five
quality dimensions of the generic servqual instru-
ment (quality indicators are presented in Table 2). The
level of guests’ quality perceptions was measured on
a five-point Likert-type ordinal scale, ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Although the
generic dineserv tool measures the differences be-
tween guests’ quality expectations and perceptions to
determine the level of the quality gap, in our study, we
focused only on the analysis of guests’ quality percep-
tions, as suggested by Adil et al. (2013). The research
process used in this study was prepared by adapting
the procedure used by Kukanja and Planinc (2015),
who measured guests’ quality expectations and per-
ceptions in different restaurant settings located in the
Portorož and Piran coastal area. Their study included
32 restaurant settings and 156 domestic guests.
In order to facilitate the comparison of results
to Kukanja and Planinc’s study, our study is predi-
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 151
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
cated on the following research preconditions: time
of field research (month of April); guest sample (do-
mestic guests), and restaurant sample (only the fol-
lowing types of foodservice facilities were included in
the study: restaurants (in Slovene restavracije), inns
(in Slovene gostilne), and snack facilities (in Slovene
okrepčevalnice) (see also Table 4). To determine the ge-
ographical (rural) area in which our researchwas con-
ducted, we obtained information from the local devel-
opment agency las Istre, which is responsible for Is-
trian rural development (see https://www.las-istre.si),
and we consulted representatives of local tourism en-
trepreneurs operating in the area (M. Kozlovič Hrva-
tin, personal communication, 11 February 2019). Un-
fortunately, the exact number of restaurants located
in rural Istria is unknown, although according to of-
ficial data (see https://www.ajpes.si), 413 companies
were operating in restaurant (Food & Beverage) sec-
tor in the four Istrian municipalities (Piran, Koper,
Izola, and Ankaran).
The fieldwork was performed by five pre-trained
surveyors. Based on convenience sampling, question-
naires were distributed in 25 restaurants located in the
Istrian hinterland. Each restaurant received ten ques-
tionnaires, which were completed by domestic guests.
Residents were not included in the research. Before
conducting the research, we obtained permission from
the restaurant managers. Guests were asked to fill in
a questionnaire after the service encounter. Although
we used the performance-based scale, which (accord-
ing to Adil et al. (2013)) considerably reduces the num-
ber of guests unwilling to collaborate in the study,
some guests (n = 31) refused to participate for a va-
riety of reasons. Therefore, the final analysis is based
on 250 valid questionnaires. The ibm spss software
version 25.0 was used for the analysis of the results.
First, descriptive statistics analysis was used to de-
scribe respondents’ demographic characteristics and
to evaluate their quality perceptions (see Table 1).
Next, exploratory factor analysis (efa) was performed
(see Tables 2 and 3) to assess the perceived quality
structure. Principal component analysis with varimax
rotationwas used to derive the underlying dimensions
of service quality. Variables with eigenvalues equal to
or greater than 1, factor loadings above 0.3, and fac-
Table 1 Socio-Demographic Data
Variable Item f 
Gender Female  .
Male  .
Age –  .
–  .
–  .
–  .
More than   .
Level of
education
Elementary school  .
Vocational or secondary school  .
Associate degree  .
College or faculty degree  .
Master’s degree or PhD  .
Number
of visits
Once (first-time visitor)  .
Twice  .
Three times or more  .
Purpose
of visit
Celebration  .
Business  .
Get together (socialising)  .
To dine (nutrition)  .
tors that contain more than three quality indicators
were retained. To test the reliability of the scale and
the inner consistency of extracted factors, the Cron-
bach alpha coefficients were calculated.
Research Results
In Table 1, the basic socio-demographic data are pre-
sented. As can be seen, the majority of respondents
were in the 16–25 year group (the average is 38.3 years
of age; standard deviation is 15.45), and the sample was
almost equally composed of female (50.4) and male
(49.6) guests. Most guests had finished vocational or
secondary school. Next, the purpose of visit and the
number of visits to the same restaurant were analysed.
Most guests (72.4) visited the same restaurant three
or more times with the purpose of dining (46.4).
The results presented in Table 2 show that all 29
dineserv quality indicators were evaluated relatively
highly (the averagemean value is 4.31). Among the five
service quality dimensions, the highest-rated dimen-
152 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
Table 2 Analysis of Guests’ Quality Perceptions
Quality indicators () ()
Tangibles i Visually attractive parking areas and building exteriors . .
i Visually attractive dining area . .
i Clean, neat and appropriately dressed staff . .
i Restaurant’s decor typical to its image and price range . .
i Easily readable menu . .
i Visually attractive menu . .
i Comfortable dining area . .
i Clean restrooms . .
i Clean dining areas . .
i Comfortable seats in the dining room . .
Reliability i Service in the promised time . .
i Quick correction of incorrect service . .
v Dependable and consistent restaurant . .
i Accurate bill . .
i Error-free served order (food) . .
Responsiveness i Maintaining speed and quality of service during busy times . .
i Provision of prompt service . .
i Extra effort for handling special requests . .
Assurance i Employees can answer questions completely . .
i Comfortable and confident feeling . .
i Staff provide inf. about menu items, their ingred. and methods of preparation . .
i Feeling safe . .
i Well-trained, competent and experienced staff . .
i Restaurant supports the employees . .
Empathy i Employees provide individual attention . .
i Special feeling . .
i Anticipation of guests’ individual needs and wants . .
i Sympathetic and reassuring employees . .
i Guests’ best interests at heart . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) mean, (2) standard deviation.
sion was Reliability (mean 4.6), with i14, with ‘the ac-
curate guest bill’ as its highest-rated indicator (mean
value 4.82). The results indicate that the lowest percep-
tions are related to the dimension of Empathy (mean
4.17), with the lowest scores related to the indicator i27
– ‘Anticipation of guests’ individual needs and wants’
(mean 4.03). Standard deviations (sd) show how ho-
mogeneous guests are in the evaluation of different
quality indicators.
In the next section of the study, efa was perfor-
med to assess the factor structure of perceived service
quality. The first step in this process was to check the
distribution of data. Because we could not confirm
a normal distribution for any of the selected qual-
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 153
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
ity indicators of the first set (a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test was used), it was necessary to use the Principal
Axis Factoring method for performing efa. Based
on the results of the first test, we evaluated the suit-
ability of the information for inclusion in the factor
model. Thus, based on the value of the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (kmo) Measure of Sampling Adequacy (0.943),
and the outcome of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2 =
4206.494; degrees of freedom = 406), we estimated
that all included variables were suitable for perform-
ing efa. Most indicators had satisfactory commonal-
ities (≥0.50), suggesting that the greater part of their
variability can be explained by the influence of the
common factors. In the next step, eight quality in-
dicators with too low (<0.50), commonalities (i1, i5,
i6, i7, i14, i15, i16, and i25) were excluded from the
evaluation process. After a few successive iterations
of the factor model evaluation (eight rotations were
performed), we finally selected as the most appropri-
ate the model with 19 service quality indicators; while
two indicators with too low communalities (i17 and
i21) had to be removed from the factor model.
The suitability of the information for inclusion in
the final model is also supported by the high value of
the kmo indicator (0.942) and the outcomeof Bartlett’s
test (χ2 = 2945.012; degrees of freedom= 171). Based on
a rotated factor solution, we have decided to include
two main factor groups (service quality dimensions)
in the finalmodel, as they allow amoremeaningful in-
terpretation of results. The final (rotated) factormodel
with two quality dimensions is presented in Table 3. In
the final model, factor weights with factor loadings
above 0.3 and factors that contain more than three
service quality indicators were retained. Indicators be-
longing to the quality dimensions Empathy (i28, i29,
i27, and i26), Reliability (i11, i12, i13) and Assurance
(i24, i19) were logically merged into a new common
quality dimension called ‘era.’
Based on the rotated matrix of factor weights pre-
sented in Table 3, it is evident that according to guests’
perceptions of service quality, only two quality dimen-
sions are important for delivering restaurant service
quality: (1) era (51.06) and (2) Tangibles (7.31).
Based on the presented quality dimensions and the
values of their total explained variances, it is evident
Table 3 Final-rotated factor solution
() () () () () ()
i . –. i . .
i . –. i . .
i . . i –. .
i . –. i –. .
i . . i –. .
i . . i . .
i . . i . .
i . . i . .
i . . i . .
i . . * . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) quality indica-
tors, (2) empathy, reliability and assurance (era), (3) tangi-
bles. * Percentage of explained variance.
that, according to guests’ quality perceptions, the indi-
cators reflecting the quality of service staff (era) have
by far the greatest importance in assuring restaurant
quality, followed by the quality of Tangibles. We be-
lieve that further dissection of the results would not
contribute to the improvement of the quality of re-
search. Therefore, we have decided to keep the final
factor model with two main factor groups (quality di-
mensions).
Discussion
In order to better understand the results of the sta-
tistical analysis presented in Chapter 3, our findings
were compared to the results of the previous study per-
formed in the coastal area of Portorož and Piran. Re-
search characteristics and findings of both studies are
summarised in Table 4.
The comparison of results from both studies re-
veals that the highest rated quality indicator was ‘Bill
accuracy.’ It can thus be suggested that restaurant bills
were accurate in both studies. Interestingly, in the Por-
torož and Piran research, the lowest-rated indicator
was ‘Paying more than planned.’ Therefore, we might
assume that guests did not paymore than they had ini-
tially anticipated. In our study, the lowest-rated indi-
cator was ‘Anticipation of guests’ individual needs and
wants,’ which indicates that guests were not completely
154 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
Table 4 Comparison of Results between the Two Restaurant-Quality Studies from Slovenian Istria
Research characteristics Portorož & Piran (coastal area)* Hinterland (rural area)
Methodology dineserv tool (mod. questionnaire) dineserv tool (original version)
Time of research April 2014 April 2019
Research approach Two-step (perceptions-minus-
expectations)
One-step (performance analysis)
Sample size (n) 32 restaurants; 156 domestic guests 25 restaurants; 250 domestic guests
Restaurant type Restaurants, Inns, Snack facilities Restaurants, Inns, Snack facilities
Highest rated indicator Bill accuracy Bill accuracy
Lowest rated indicator Paying more than planned Anticipation of guests’ individual needs
and wants
Identified quality dimensions (factor
structure)
Four dimensions (respectively): Assur-
ance, Restaurant Ambiance, Respon-
siveness, and Satisfaction and Loyalty
Two dimensions: era and Tangibles
Notes * Study conducted in 2015 by Kukanja and Planinc.
satisfiedwith the way the service staff anticipated their
needs and wants.
Furthermore, the comparison of results from both
factor analyses reveals that efa in Portorož and Piran
study extracted four factors, which explained 61.70 per
cent of the total variance in the data. Research results
revealed that guests’ perceptions of restaurant service
quality in the coastal area were mainly based on the
quality of the following four quality dimensions: As-
surance, Ambiance, Responsiveness, and Satisfaction
and Loyalty. In our study, only two factors were ex-
tracted (era and Tangibles), which explains 58.37 per
cent of the total variance in the data. Although the first
factor (era) is composed of three quality dimensions
(see Table 3), the research result indicates a relatively
bipolar service quality structure in rural restaurants in
comparison to restaurants located in the coastal area.
The factor structure in rural restaurants highlights the
importance of the quality of service staff (era) and
the quality of the physical environment (Tangibles).
This is critical because it indicates the importance of
functional quality (people) in restaurants located in a
rural area. To ensure restaurant quality in rural areas,
managers must primarily ensure the quality of ser-
vice staff and the physical environment. This is also
relevant because in the Republic of Slovenia the min-
imum standards related to the quality of the physical
environment are determined by the national rules (see
https://www.tgzs.si/zakonodaja). In contrast, there are
no minimum standards related to the professional
characteristics of service staff.
Taken together, these results suggest that domestic
guests in coastal and rural restaurants do not evaluate
restaurant service quality based on the same quality
indicators. There are several possible explanations for
these results. First, the time gap between the two types
of research might have significantly influenced guests’
quality expectations and/or the level of restaurant offer
in both areas. However, there are also other possible
explanations for these results, such as: the primary
focus of restaurateurs operating in rural area is on
local guests (residents), the seasonality of restaurant
offerings in the coastal area, the high fluctuation of
service staff working in coastal restaurants, restaurant
managers’ characteristics, rural area managers’ demo-
graphic characteristics, which might be significantly
influenced by the specifics of the ‘Mediterranean’ way
of life, etc. More research on this topic needs to be
undertaken before the association between restaurant
guests’ quality perceptions in both areas ismore clearly
understood.However, the results of this study are quite
encouraging as they indicate a relatively high level of
perceived service quality in restaurants located in the
Istrian hinterland (average mean value is 4.31).
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 155
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
Conclusion and Implications
The purpose of this studywas to determine howdiffer-
ent quality indicators of the institutional dineserv
tool influence domestic guests’ quality perception in
rural restaurants. Based on qualitative research, we
were unable to determine the importance of differ-
ent quality indicators in restaurants operating in a
rural area. Returning to the rq posed at the begin-
ning of this study, it is now possible to state that, in
rural Istria, domestic guests perceive restaurant ser-
vice quality based on two primary quality dimensions:
era and Tangibles (see also Table 3). This study has
also identified nineteen service quality indicators that
best explain guests’ quality perceptions in rural restau-
rants: visually attractive dining area, clean neat and
appropriately dressed staff, restaurant’s décor typical
to its image and price range, clean restrooms, clean
dining areas, comfortable seats in the dining room,
service in the promised time, quick correction of in-
correct service, dependable and consistent restaurant,
extra effort in handling special requests, employees
completely answer questions, comfortable and confi-
dent feeling, feeling safe, well-trained, competent and
experienced staff, restaurant supports the employees,
special feeling, anticipation of guests’ individual needs
andwants, sympathetic and reassuring employees, and
guests’ best interest at heart.
The second part of this study was concerned with
comparing the results of our study to previous re-
search findings (Kukanja & Planinc, 2015). In com-
parison to previous research conducted in a coastal
area, our study confirmed the importance of differ-
ent quality dimensions. It can, therefore, be assumed
that domestic guests in restaurants located in a coastal
and rural area have different quality perceptions re-
garding restaurant service quality. The present study
confirms previous findings (Djekic et al., 2016; Kim,
Ng, & Kim, 2009) and contributes additional evidence
which suggests that service quality dimensions cannot
be generalised. The present findings enhance our un-
derstanding of restaurant service quality in rural areas.
The findings of this study have important impli-
cations for future practice and quality development
strategies, as they provide information about service
quality in restaurants operating in a rural area. Once
guests’ quality perceptions are identified, restaurant
managersmust strive to provide quality offerings. The
key policy priority should, therefore, be to implement
a quality management system (e.g., systematic and on-
going analyses of restaurant quality, training and ed-
ucational programmes for restaurant managers and
staff, comparison and exchange of best practices, etc.)
at individual (restaurant’s) and destination (regional)
level.
This study has also found that the cooperation be-
tween scholars (academia) and restaurant providers
(regarding research into restaurant service quality in
rural areas) is generally weak. As restaurants present a
basic and vital element of a destination’s tourism offer,
restaurant service quality should be regularly evalu-
ated. Gastronomy represents a critical element in des-
tination marketing and significantly influence a des-
tination’s image. Therefore, restaurant service quality
should also bemeasured by local marketers and devel-
opers. In terms of quality control, Ohe and Kurihara
(2013) reported the importance of a broader perspec-
tive related to local resource management. Especially
the nurture of local food heritage and the quality of the
partnership between tourism providers and local food
producers found to be extremely important for quality
assurance and economic development at the destina-
tion level.
Despite its contributions, some significant limita-
tions need to be considered. The major limitation of
this study is the absence of foreign guests’ evaluation
of perceived restaurant quality. Another limitation is
the time of research, as it was conducted in only a one-
month period. Therefore, additional caution must be
applied, as the findings might not be completely gen-
eralisable. Notwithstanding these limitations, this re-
search has generated many questions in need of fur-
ther investigation. Future studies should empirically
investigate whether differences exist between differ-
ent segments of guests during different times of the
year (especially during high and low season). A fur-
ther study could also assess restaurant quality in other
neighbouring and competitive rural destinations, such
as Slovene Karst and Brda, Croatian Istria, and the
Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Regarding rec-
ommendations for future research, further work could
156 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
also investigate if differences exist between restaurant
managers’ and guests’ perceptions of service quality.
References
Adil, M., Al Ghaswyneh, O. F. M., & Albkour, A. M. (2013).
servqual and servperf: A review of measures in
services marketing research. Global Journal of Manage-
ment and Business Research, 13(6), 65–76.
Ali, F., Hussain, K., Konar, R., & Jeon, H. M. (2017). The ef-
fect of technical and functional quality on guests’ per-
ceived hotel service quality and satisfaction: A sem-pls
analysis. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 18(3), 354–378.
Bellini, N., & Resnick, E. (2018). The luxury turn in wine
tourism: Still good for local development? In N. Bellini,
C. Clergeau, &O. Etcheverria (Eds.),Gastronomy and lo-
cal development (pp. 262–267). London, England: Rout-
ledge.
Bojnec, Š., &Latruffe, L. (2013). Farm size, agricultural subsi-
dies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy,
32, 207–217.
Bougoure, U. S., & Neu, M. K. (2010). Service quality in the
Malaysian fast food industry: An examination using di-
neserv. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(2), 194–212.
Candido, C. J., &Morris, D. S. (2000). Charting service qual-
ity gaps. Total Quality Management, 11(4/6), 463–472.
Cawley, M., & Gillmor, D. A. (2008). Integrated rural tour-
ism: Concepts and practice. Annals of Tourism Research,
35(2), 316–337.
Chen, C. T., Cheng, C. C., &Hsu, F. S. (2015). grserv scale:
An effective tool for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality in green restaurants. Total Quality Man-
agement & Business Excellence, 26(3/4), 355–367.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). servperf versus
servqual: Reconciling performance-based and per-
ceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
Djekic, I., Kane, K., Tomic, N., Kalogianni, E., Rocha, A.,
Zamioudi, L., & Pacheco, R. (2016). Cross-cultural con-
sumer perceptions of service quality in restaurants. Nu-
trition & Food Science, 46(6), 827–843.
Eid, R., & Abdelkader, A. A. (2017). Muslim service qual-
ity dimensions in the tourism and hospitality industry:
Construct development and measurement validation.
International Journal of Islamic Marketing and Branding,
2(3), 215–231.
Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in ru-
ral areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism Management,
26(3), 335–346.
Gačnik, A. (2012). Gastronomy heritage as a source of devel-
opment for gastronomy tourism and as a means of in-
creasing Slovenia’s tourism visibility.Academia Turistica,
5(2), 39–60.
Gričar, S., &Bojnec, Š. (2009).Dejavniki gibanja cen v gostin-
stvu.Koper, Slovenia:University of Primorska, Faculty of
Management.
Grönroos, C. (1990). Relationship approach to marketing in
service contexts: The marketing and organizational be-
havior interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 3–11.
Hanks, L., Line, N., & Kim, W. G. W. (2017). The impact
of the social servicescape, density, and restaurant type
on perceptions of interpersonal service quality. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 61(2017), 35–
44.
Hansen, K. V. (2014). Development of servqual and di-
neserv for measuring meal experiences in eating es-
tablishments. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 14(2), 116–134.
Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). Use of service quality gap the-
ory to differentiate between foodservice outlets. Service
Industries Journal, 16(3), 321–346.
Kerma, S., &Gačnik, A. (2015).Wine tourism as an opportu-
nity for tourismdevelopment: Examples of goodpractice
in Slovenia. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, 27(4), 311–323.
Kim, H. J., McCahon, C., & Miller, J. (2003). Assessing ser-
vice quality in Korean casual-dining restaurants using
dineserv. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
6(1), 67–86.
Kim,W. G., Ng, C. Y. N., & Kim, Y. S. (2009). Influence of in-
stitutional dineserv on customer satisfaction, return
intention, and word-of-mouth. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28(1), 10–17.
Knutson, B. J., Stevens, P., & Patton, M. (1996). dineserv:
Measuring service quality in quick service, casual/theme,
and fine dining restaurants. Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, 3(2), 35–44.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., Patton, M., & Yokoya-
ma, F. (1990). lodgserv: A service quality index for
the lodging industry.Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2),
277–284.
Korez-Vide, R. (2017). Storytelling in sustainable tourism
management: Challenges and opportunities for Slovenia.
Journal of Advanced Management Science, 5(5), 380–386.
Križman Pavlović, D., & Živolić, S. (2008). Upravljanje mar-
ketingom turističke destinacije: stanje i perspektive uRe-
publici Hrvatskoj. Economic Research, 21(2), 99–113.
Kukanja, M. (2016). Od beneškega bakalaja do sladke Istre:
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 157
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
razvoj prehrambnega gostinstva na Slovenski obali.Koper,
Slovenia: University of Primorska Press.
Kukanja, M. (2017). Quality measurement in restaurant in-
dustry from the marketing perspective: A comparison
of guests’ andmanagers’ quality perceptions. Ekonomska
misao i praksa, 26(1), 41–61.
Kukanja, M., & Planinc, T. (2015). Restaurant quality: A
cross-national comparison between two neighbouring
North Mediterranean tourist destinations – Portorož
and Opatija; Domestic customers’ perspective. Academ-
ica Turistica, 8(2), 85–110.
Kukanja, M., & Planinc, T. (2018). Influence of managers’
perceptions of quality on restaurant operational prof-
itability: Evidence fromSlovenian smes.Turizam, 66(2),
115–120.
Kukanja, M., Gomezelj Omerzel, D., & Kodrič, B. (2017).
Ensuring restaurant quality and guests’ loyalty: An in-
tegrative model based on marketing (7p) approach. To-
tal QualityManagement& Business Excellence, 28(13/14),
1509–1525.
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1991). Two approaches to ser-
vice quality dimensions. Service Industries Journal, 11(3),
287–303.
Lin, S. P., Chan, Y.H., &Tsai,M. C. (2009). A transformation
function corresponding to ipa and gap analysis. Total
Quality Management, 20(8), 829–846.
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2012). Tourism in rural areas: Founda-
tion, quality and experience. InM. Kasimoglu, (Ed.),Vi-
sions for global tourism industry: Creating and sustaining
competitive strategies (pp. 441–460). Rijeka, Croatia: In-
Tech.
Marković, S., Raspor, S., & Šegarić, K. (2010). Does restau-
rant performance meet customers’ expectations? An as-
sessment of restaurant service quality using a modified
dineserv approach. Tourism and Hospitality Manage-
ment, 16(2), 181–195.
Mestna občina Koper. (2016). Strategija razvoja in trženja
turizma v Mestni občini Koper do leta 2025. Retrieved
from https://www.koper.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/
03/Strategija-turizma-v-MOK-do-2025.pdf
Ministry of EconomicDevelopment andTechnology. (2019).
The strategy for the sustainable growth of Slovenian tour-
ism for 2017–2021. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Author.
Nikbin, D., Marimuthu, M., & Hyun, S. S. (2016). Influence
of perceived service fairness on relationship quality and
switching intention: An empirical study of restaurant ex-
periences. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(10), 1005–1026.
Ohe, Y., & Kurihara, S. (2013). Evaluating the complemen-
tary relationship between local brand farm products and
rural tourism: Evidence from Japan. Tourism Manage-
ment, 35, 278–283.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitivemodel of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).
Servqual: Amultiple-item scale formeasuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1),
12–40.
Park, J., & Jeong, E. (2019). Service quality in tourism: A sys-
tematic literature review and keyword network analysis.
Sustainability, 11(13), 1–21.
Potočnik Slavič, I. (2014). Farm tourism in Slovenia: Mosaic
structure and future prospects. Journal of Rural & Com-
munity Development, 9(3), 280–294.
Raajpoot, N. A. (2002). tangserv: A multiple item scale
for measuring tangible quality in foodservice industry.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 109–127.
Roberts, L., Hall, D., & Morag, M. (2017). New directions in
rural tourism. London, England: Routledge.
Ryu, K., & Lee, J. S. (2017). Examinationof restaurant quality,
relationship benefits, and customer reciprocity from the
perspective of relationship marketing investments. Jour-
nal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(1), 66–92.
Saeida Ardakani, S., Nejatian, M., Farhangnejad, M. A., &
Nejati, M. (2015). A fuzzy approach to service quality di-
agnosis.Marketing Intelligence&Planning, 33(1), 103–119.
Sanchez-Cañizares, S., & Castillo-Canalejo, A. M. (2015).
A comparative study of tourist attitudes towards culi-
nary tourism in Spain and Slovenia.British Food Journal,
117(9), 2387–2411.
Sharif, K., & Kassim, N. M. (2012). Non-academic service
quality: Comparative analysis of students and faculty as
users. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1),
35–54.
Sharpley, R. (2002). Rural tourism and the challenge of
tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tourism
management, 23(3), 233–244.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). dineserv:
A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants. The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
36(2), 5–60.
Sukiman,M. F.,Omar, S. I.,Muhibudin,M., Yussof, I., &Mo-
hamed, B. (2013). Tourist satisfaction as the key to des-
tination survival in Pahang. Procedia: Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences, 91, 78–87.
158 | Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019
Marko Kukanja and Tanja Planinc Service Quality in Restaurants
Truong, T. H., & Foster, D. (2006). Using holsat to evalu-
ate tourist satisfaction at destinations: The case of Aus-
tralian holidaymakers in Vietnam. Tourism Manage-
ment, 27(5), 842–855.
Turistično združenje Portorož. (2019). Strategija razvoja tur-
izma v občini Piran do leta 2025. Retrieved from https://
www.portoroz.si/si/files/default/PDF/Partnerji/
Strategija20rzavoja20turizma20obc48dine
20Piran20do20leta202025.pdf
Unuvar, S., & Kaya, M. (2017). Measuring service quality by
servperf method: A research on hospitality enterprises.
Australian Academy of Accounting and Finance Review,
2(4), 354–362.
Wong Ooi Mei, A., Dean, A. M., & White, C. J. (1999).
Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry.
Managing Service Quality, 9(2), 136–143.
This paper is published under the terms of the
Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0) License.
Academica Turistica, Year 12, No. 2, December 2019 | 159