Perceptions and Reality of Hotel Cleanliness Pre- and Post-Onset of COVID-19

 

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the hotel industry and its guests realized the crucial role of cleanliness and sanitation. Despite this newfound awareness, there remains a research void concerning COVID-19's impact on hotel cleanliness and the shift in guests' cleanliness perceptions. This study employed a scientific approach using ATP meters to compare surface cleanliness levels in hotels before and after COVID-19 emerged. Findings revealed a significant disparity in cleanliness across these periods, alongside evidence of potential bacterial contamination. Furthermore, the study confirmed a transformation in guests' cleanliness perceptions due to the pandemic, offering insights for theoretical and practical enhancements within the industry.

Keywords

ATP meter, Hotel Cleanliness, Guest Perception, Housekeeping

                                                                                           

INTRODUCTION

Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the global hospitality industry. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) (2021), the U.S. hotel industry lost over $15 billion in room sales revenue in 2021. Simultaneously, the pandemic heightened the emphasis on health and safety by national and international organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2023) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (2023). Consumer mindset also shifted, with health, safety, and hygiene becoming top priorities. AHLA (2023) updated the recommended industry cleaning protocols based on CDC guidelines to respond to and survive the pandemic. Subsequently, the U.S. hotel industry re-evaluated and improved its housekeeping and cleaning protocols overnight to ensure the well-being and safety of guests and staff.

Previous studies emphasized the importance of hotel cleanliness and hygiene from the perspective of creating positive guest impressions (Brian et al., 2014; Delea et al., 2020; Kline et al., 2014; Sifuentes et al., 2014; Spoerr & Pitsoulis, 2022). Pre-pandemic, guest perception of hotel cleanliness was shown to influence perceptions of service quality, guest satisfaction, and behavioral intentions (Barber & Scarcelli, 2010; Moon et al., 2017; Pizam & Tasci, 2019). During the pandemic, several studies evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on hotel housekeeping and cleaning practices to also include guests’ health and safety perceptions (Pillai et al., 2021; Shen & Wilkoff, 2022; Shin & Kang, 2020).

While understanding consumer perceptions is important, objective measurement of cleaning is needed to understand whether a surface is truly clean. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence meters provide a means to objectively assess surface cleanliness and have been used to assess the cleanliness of hospitals (Amodio & Dino, 2014; Boyce et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2008; Nante et al., 2017), restaurants (Kim et al., 2021), and hotels (Park et al., 2019). While the pandemic heightened the emphasis on cleaning, empirical research assessing whether extra cleaning effort made a difference in objective cleaning measures (i.e., ATP) is lacking. Additionally, beyond assessing cleanliness, ATP meters can be used to evaluate other biological substances, such as determining the presence of bad bacteria; however, studies evaluating cleanliness versus bacterial contamination in the hospitality setting are sparse. It's crucial to examine whether the enhanced cleaning protocols adopted by hotels after the COVID-19 outbreak have tangibly improved cleanliness. To address this, this study used ATP meters for a comprehensive assessment of hotel surface cleanliness. The objectives were threefold: 1) to compare surface cleanliness pre- and post-onset of COVID-19, 2) to test for the existence of harmful bacterial contaminations and the relationship between the cleanliness level and bacterial contaminations on surfaces, and 3) to gauge customer perceptions regarding cleanliness in the wake of COVID-19, focusing on perceived cleanliness, frequency of contact with surfaces, and the importance attributed to cleanliness by guests. This research provides valuable insights into how COVID-19 changed hotel cleanliness outcomes with an objective assessment, namely ATP testing. The findings also provide a better understanding of how guest perceptions of cleanliness changed post-onset of the pandemic.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

The importance of cleanliness in hotels

Hotel guests have always held hotel cleanliness in the highest regard, and a clean guest room is considered an essential and expected amenity (Torres & Kline, 2006). Cleanliness is also essential in guest satisfaction (Dolnicar, 2002) and a component of hotel customer delight (Magnini et al., 2011; Torres & Kline, 2006). Hotel guests will decide to select, stay, and return to an establishment based on perceived cleanliness (Barber & Scarcelli, 2010). Conversely, most customer complaints are about hotel hygiene standards (Kuhn, 2002). Consistently, one of the top five online hotel stay complaints is the lack of cleanliness (Meng et al., 2018). Hotel guests value cleanliness above most amenities, and clean guest rooms are a basic need that, if absent, will detract from the overall guest experience.

Over the years, media attention to hotel outbreaks such as SARS, norovirus, and Legionnaires’ disease and issues such as bed bugs have created an acute awareness of these perceived and actual threats among hotel guests (Kline et al., 2014). Hotel managers are very aware of guest concerns, and media attention focuses on cleanliness and how it impacts their hotels’ and brands’ reputations.

Hotel managers are also evaluated for cleanliness as part of delivering on their franchise agreements and brand promises. Brand standards and inspections have treated cleanliness as a non-negotiable expectation even pre-COVID-19 (Wroten, 2020). Entities outside a hotel’s brand also inspect hotels and provide ratings that often include cleanliness as part of their assessment. It is common for governments in Asia and Europe to inspect and provide ratings for all hotels in their respective countries. This is not the case in the U.S. However, most U.S. hotels are inspected by the Automobile Association of America (AAA), where ratings start at one diamond and go up to five diamonds. Hotels cannot gain a basic rating without offering clean accommodations (Pitrelli, 2022).

Housekeeping performance post-onset of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a paradigm shift in hotel cleaning practices and how these practices were marketed to consumers (Meyer, 2020). Major hotel chains revamped their brand standards and worked with various organizations and academics to develop a more scientific process for cleaning. The CDC and the WHO provided baseline guidance for new cleaning practices for hoteliers (CDC, 2020; WHO, 2020). Additionally, AHLA created hotel cleaning guidelines for the first time in its history. The AHLA Stay Safe (2020) guidelines, developed in direct response to challenges brought by the pandemic, provided detailed instructions to keep both guests and staff safe. These new cleaning programs provided procedures and resources including COVID-19 vaccine information, face covering and personal protection steps, hand hygiene, COVID-19 training, signage specifications, sanitizing protocols (laundry, guestrooms, and common areas), employee health, food and beverage safety guidance, cleaning facilities (guestrooms and common areas), and indoor air quality.

Beyond the AHLA’s Stay Safe program, brand-specific programs were also developed and marketed to guests (Lodging Staff, 2020). Examples included but were not limited to Hilton’s CleanStay, IHG’s Clean Promise, and Choice Hotels’ Commitment to Clean Standards. The purpose of the AHLA and brand-specific programs was not only to decrease the guest risk of contracting the virus but also to provide transparency and confidence to guests concerned about viral spread. Promoting guest safety was an integral part of these programs. AHLA and hotel companies advertised these programs as amenities to combat the global fear of the pandemic and entice people to travel again (Fan et al., 2022; Gursoy & Chi, 2020; Wilson & Chen, 2020).

Pre-COVID-19, hotel guest room cleaning focused on delivering clean and neat rooms, and cleanliness was confirmed primarily through visual inspection (Kline et al., 2014;Park et al., 2019). Innovative programs initiated during the pandemic required disinfecting daily and more frequent cleaning of high-touch surfaces and areas (CDC, 2020). Room cleaning was not done daily but only after guests’ check-out post-onset of COVID-19. After check-out, rooms were thoroughly disinfected (CDC, 2020). Laundry protocols were also updated to wash towels and linens in the warmest possible water using disinfecting detergents (CDC, 2020). Staff members were trained to wash their hands more frequently and remain socially distanced. This included using personal protective equipment, such as face masks, and completing other required safety training.

Other marketing communication and inspection companies also altered their practices due to the pandemic. Hotel websites and online travel agencies (OTAs) added new amenity ratings that described the hotel property’s enhanced cleaning, social distancing, and other safety measures (Expedia, 2022). AAA started using ATP meter testing as part of its new guestroom inspection process (Edmonds, 2021). AAA added this scientific validation to evaluate high-touch hotel room areas to respond to customers’ concerns and build trust with their members. Based on the updates of housekeeping practices in the U.S. hotel industry, hypothesis 1 has been developed.

Hypothesis 1. Post-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cleanliness of hotel surfaces will show a significant improvement compared to the levels observed in the pre-pandemic period.

 ATP and Microbial Tests

Hotel housekeeping supervisors routinely assess guestroom cleanliness by visual inspection (Kline et al., 2014). This process can help identify the presence of visible dirt or stains. However, the visual inspection cannot detect if bacteria or other living microorganisms are on the surfaces. A few studies argued that the visual inspection sometimes differed from the microbial test (Cunningham et al., 2011; Frota et al., 2016), prompting suggestions to use more objective measures, such as an ATP meter. This device uses bioluminescence, the capacity of visible light emission from living organisms, to detect any living organic materials on surfaces and provide the number of organic materials in relative light units (RLU) (Aycicek et al., 2006; Dancer, 2004; Kim et al., 2021; Leon & Albrecht, 2007; Malik et al., 2003; Mulvey et al., 2011; Nante et al., 2017; Park et al., 2019). ATP meters are easy to use with simple, quick training (i.e., 10 to 20 minutes), and they provide results in 15 seconds once the sample is collected (Cunningham et al., 2011; Davidson et al., 1999; Hygiena, 2020).

ATP methods have been adopted to measure objective surface cleanliness in non-hospitality businesses, such as hospitals and food processing plants where cleanliness is essential (Amodio & Dino, 2014; Bakke, 2022; Nante et al., 2017; Whitely et al., 2022). With surface cleanliness becoming more important for consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic, ATP provides a means for hotels to monitor cleanliness objectively (Kim et al., 2021) and provide greater validity of their cleanliness that can be communicated to consumers.

Recently, ATP meter manufacturing companies introduced ATP swabs to detect harmful bacteria in a day (7 hours of incubation), a relatively short time compared to traditional lab tests (Hygiena, 2023). It cannot detect all types of bacteria but can detect the most common harmful bacteria and pathogens (Coliforms, E. coli,Enterobacteriaceae (EB), Listeria, L. mono Glo, and Salmonella). While it may be reasonable to think that higher bacterial counts equate to a less clean surface, studies examining these correlations in a hospitality setting are not available. Based on that, hypothesis 2 was developed as follows.

Hypothesis 2. Surfaces in hotels identified as dirty through ATP testing are consistently correlated with the presence of harmful bacterial contamination.

The impact of COVID-19 on guest perception and consumption behavior in hotels

Guest perception has played a significant role in understanding guest satisfaction, behavioral intentions, and consumption behavior in hospitality consumer studies. Since COVID-19 occurred, numerous studies have evaluated the pandemic’s impact on hotel guest perceptions in hospitality settings (Duarte et al., 2022; Foroudi et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2021; Peres & Paladini, 2022; Shin & Kang, 2020). According to Mehta et al. (2021), guests were mostly dissatisfied with overall service, cleanliness, and staff, with guest satisfaction significantly dropping during COVID-19. Guest perception of hotel health and safety was affected by how often they stayed at hotels during COVID-19 (Duarte et al., 2022).

Regardless of other considerations like hotel category or number of rooms, hygiene evidence, such as cleanliness, was the most crucial influencer when choosing a hotel (Atadil & Lu, 2021; Duarte et al., 2022). Additionally, Yu et al. (2021) found a difference in the significance of hotel selection attributes pre- and post-onset of COVID-19. Kim and Han (2022) identified hygiene, precautionary tools, social distancing, cleanliness, and QR-code entry logs as the top five hotel selection attributes after the COVID-19 outbreak. German travelers perceived the importance of hotel attributes differently pre- and post-onset of COVID-19, and cleanliness of the room/bath and hotel cleanliness were the two most important hotel attributes during COVID-19 (Spoerr & Pitsoulis, 2022). In sum, previous studies found that COVID-19 impacted hotel guest perception, satisfaction, and consumption behaviors. Guests perceived the cleanliness level, the amount of touch during their hotel stay, and the importance of cleanliness differently after COVID-19. Thus, hypothesis 3 stated:

Hypothesis 3. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered hotel guests' perceptions of surface cleanliness, leading to a measurable increase in their concern and awareness about hygiene standards compared to the pre-pandemic period.

 

METHODOLOGY

This study used two different data sets using two different data collection methods: consumer survey and surface testing with ATP meters. Each data collection method included secondary data collected pre-COVID-19 pandemic and newly collected data post-onset of the pandemic. Table 1 shows the data collection periods.

 

Table 1. Data Collection Periods

 

The online consumer survey questionnaire was initially developed to measure guests’ perceptions of hotel cleanliness in 2017. The same questionnaire was used in 2021 after the onset of the pandemic. Participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) both times. Respondents received a small monetary reward for completing the survey. The questionnaire had three sections. First, respondents were asked how much they think they touch the hotel surfaces with their hands, face, or head while staying at a hotel. A 6-point Likert scale was used (1: very little, 6: very much). The hotel surfaces described in the surveys were divided into two groups: guestrooms (26 sites), such as bed sheets, light switches, etc., and public areas (18 sites), such as elevator buttons, front desk counter, etc. This study used the same 44 surfaces determined in the prior study (Park et al., 2019). Second, respondents rated their perception of the cleanliness of various hotel surfaces. A 7-point Likert scale (1: dirty, 7: clean) was used. Lastly, respondents were asked about the importance of cleanliness of various hotel surfaces. A 9-point Likert scale was used (1: not at all important, 9: extremely important).

Participation criteria included adults, 18 years and older, located in the USA who stayed in a hotel in the past 12 months. Quality assurance data cleaning methods were used for both data sets, including reviewing IP addresses (the same addresses were removed), hotel stay experiences (at least once in the past 12 months from the time they answered the questionnaire), the response time (3 minutes minimum, otherwise removed), and attention check questions (correct answers on two questions). Usable responses in 2017 were 412 of 543 participants and 438 of 499 participants in 2021.

The ATP surface testing data collection method was used to determine what hotel surfaces were clean and which were dirty. The ATP meter evaluates the level of general cleanliness and contamination of surfaces by detecting the presence of any living organisms. The standard protocol suggested by Alfa et al. (2014) was used to collect samples for the ATP meter. Before data collection was initiated, sample collectors used identical online training (how to swab and use the ATP meter) provided by the manufacturer (Hygiena) to ensure all the collectors followed the same protocol. The sampling locations in 2021 included two additional hotels, and one dropped compared to 2017; however, the swabbing sites within the properties were the same for both years. The hotels participating in this study were a mix of major brands (4) and independent hotels (1). The sampled hotels were all different and had their own cleaning policies and protocols. Only guestrooms that were clean and in ready-to-rent status were tested. Public areas were sampled randomly regardless of being cleaned or not because it is the condition that guests access during their stays.

 

Table 2. ATP Meter Sample Site and Location

 

Importantly, various ATP meter tests are available, and they test for different things. In the 2017 data collection, the EnSure Touch ATP meter with the UltraSnap swabs was used to test cleanliness (i.e., the presence of organic material) on surfaces. This test shows only the cleanliness level of the surfaces, not an indicator of contamination of bad bacteria. Thus, in the 2021 ATP testing, the MicroSnap swab test was added. The additional swabs (MicroSnap) test for potential contamination of bad bacteria (Coliforms, E. coli., EB, Listeria, L. mono Glo, and Salmonella) on the same surfaces. A total of 10 sites (high-touch areas) were sampled for the MicroSnap tests identified from the previous study (Park, et al. 2019). Table 2 explains the sampling protocol used for the two ATP tests used in this study.

 

Table 3. ATP Meter Sampling Protocol

  

RESULTS

Cleanliness (ATP)

The results of the ATP reading (UltraSnap RLU scores) comparing cleanliness are shown in Table 4. The table includes two sections: (1) hotel guestrooms, where guests have their own space and experience most of their stay, and (2) public areas, which anyone can access once they enter the hotel for any purpose. The swab sites are ranked by the 2017 ATP results scores from highest to lowest. Based on information from the ATP meter manufacturer (Hygiena, 2021), scores of more than 1,000 RLUs indicate that the surface is considered dirty. The 2017 ATP reading (UltraSnap RLU scores) showed that TV remote control keypad (1412.54 RLUs) and inside door handle of the bathroom (1047.13) were the top two dirtiest sites among the 26 sites in guestrooms. However, in 2021, five sites, bathroom floor (1788 RLUs), bedside lamp switch (1772 RLUs), showerhead (1681.67 RLUs), inside door handle of the guestroom (1345.67 RLUs), and inside door handle of the bathroom (1260 RLUs) exceeded 1,000 RLUs. Even though the top-ranked dirtiest sites between the two years are not the same, rankings were similar except for a few sites, such as showerhead (1681.67 RLUs) and inside of toilet bowl (751.67 RLUs) in 2021. The top-ranked sites (i.e., dirtiest) in 2017 were primarily top-ranked in 2021, while the lowest-ranked (i.e., cleanest) sites in 2017 were also primarily the lowest-ranked in 2021. ATP score comparisons between the two years showed the following high-touch sites as clean: bed sheets (2 RLUs & 11 RLUs), bedspread (1.67 RLUs & 24 RLUs), blankets (1.33 RLUs & 442 RLUs), decorative bed scarf (32.5 RLUs & 0 RLUs), and duvet covers (6.33 RLUs & 18 RLUs).

ATP readings (UltraSnap RLU scores) in public areas significantly changed between 2017 and 2021. Specifically, in 2021, 13 out of 18 public area sites (72%) had ATP readings (UltraSnap RLU scores) higher than the cleanliness criteria of 1,000 RLUs. Most of the top-ranked dirtiest sites were high-touch areas such as buttons, door handles, or machines. In contrast, the 2017 public areas were relatively clean based on the 1,000 RLUs criteria (Table 4).

 

Table 4. The comparison of ATP cleanliness scores between 2017 and 2021

 

Table 5 shows the mean difference in ATP bacteria readings (UltraSnap RLUs Score) of guestrooms and public areas between 2017 and 2021. The t-test results indicated that ATP readings in public areas, but not guestrooms, significantly differed between 2017 and 2021. Thus, based on the findings in Table 5 and Table 6, hypothesis 1, “Post onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the cleanliness of hotel surfaces will show a significant improvement compared to the levels observed in the pre-pandemic period,” was rejected because public areas in 2021 were dirtier, while no significant difference was found in guestrooms.

 

Table 5. The comparison of ATP bacteria reading (UltraSnap RLUs Score) between 2017 and 2021

 

Bacteria Contamination (ATP)

Table 6 shows the ranked ATP bacteria readings (MicroSnap CFU score) from the 10 hotel surfaces (high-touch area). According to the ATP meter standard, a measurement of more than 10,000 CFUs means the object may be contaminated by bad bacteria (Hygiena, 2021). Results revealed four possible surfaces contaminated with bad bacteria. The couch (20,594 CFUs) and inside bathroom door handles (17,143 CFUs) had the highest CFU scores in guestrooms. Two additional guestroom sites, bedside lamp switch (9,597 CFUs) and TV remote control keypad (7,985 CFUs), did not have CFU scores exceeding 10,000; however, these scores were close to the 10,000-CFU cut-off. Again, these four guestroom areas are the highly touched sites. The hotel high-touch sites were identified from the previous study by Park et al. (2019), and they were defined as the areas frequently touched by guests’ hands and bodies during their stays.

The carpet inside the elevator (21,467 CFUs) was likely contaminated with harmful bacteria in public areas. The site dispensing area of the ice machine had 5,725 CFUs. It was below the 10,000-CFU mark.

 

Table 6. MicroSnap Total bacteria organism test results in 2021

 

Consumer Perception

The respondents’ demographic profiles for the guest perception of cleanliness data are shown in Table 7. In 2017, male responses (52.2%) were slightly more than female responses (44.9%), whereas 2021 data include almost double the responses from males (66.2%) than females (32.6%). For age, the distribution was similar between the two years, with more than 75% of respondents between the ages of 20 and 49. Respondents were relatively young because of the online survey data collection method. In 2017, more than 85% of respondents had a bachelor’s or an associate degree, with an even higher percentage of respondents (96%) in 2021. All respondents in both years had hotel stay experiences at least once within 12 months before they took the survey. In 2021, more respondents stayed in hotels more than three times a year than they did in 2017.

 

Table 7. Profiles of Respondents

 

Tables 8 and 9 show the t-test results of hotel guests’ cleanliness perceptions pre- and post-onset of COVID-19. The comparisons of the 44 sites (26 guestrooms and 18 public areas) between the two years found that guests’ cleanliness perceptions significantly changed post onset of COVID-19. Except for one site (bathroom mirror), all the mean values of guest cleanliness perception were significantly higher in 2021. The statistically significant results indicate that guests' cleanliness perception of the 44 hotel sites has changed post-onset of COVID-19.

 

Table 8. The comparison of guest cleanliness perceptions of guestroom surfaces between 2017 and 2021

 

Table 9. The comparison of guest cleanliness perceptions of public surfaces between 2017 and 2021

 

Tables 10 and 11 show the results of guest perceptions regarding the touch frequency of the 44 hotel surfaces during their hotel stays. A series of t-tests revealed significant differences in the means for 2017 compared to 2021. In particular, 36 (21 in guestrooms, 15 in public areas) out of 44 surfaces significantly differed in terms of the perceived amount of touch while guests stayed in hotels. Guestroom and public area mean values in 2021 were higher than in 2017. The results showed that guests perceived that they touched the surfaces significantly more in 2021 than in 2017. It indicates that guests’ perception of the amount of touch surfaces changed during their hotel stays post-onset of COVID-19.

 

Table 10. The comparison of guests’ perception of the amount of touch guestroom surfaces during hotel stays between 2017 and 2021

 

Table 11. The comparison of guests’ perception of the amount of touch public surfaces during hotel stays between 2017 and 2021

 

Results in Table 12 compare the two years of how hotel guests rate the importance of cleanliness at hotels, restaurants, and in general. T-tests revealed that the importance of cleanliness in these three areas differed significantly between the two years. Unlike previous perception test results, the mean values of hotels (M=7.37), restaurants (M=7.40), and general (M=7.03) in 2021 were lower than the mean values in 2017. Additionally, the mean values of more than 7 points out of 9 are relatively high.

 

Table 12. The comparison of the importance of cleanliness between 2017 and 2021

 

DISCUSSION

This study first tested the cleanliness levels on hotel surfaces using the ATP tests in 2017 and completed follow-up testing in 2021. The results of surface cleanliness of the hotel guestrooms were not significantly different between 2017 and 2021. However, the public areas had significantly higher ATP-UltraSnap readings in 2021. These results show that objectively measured cleanliness levels in hotel guestrooms were similar between the two time points; however, public surfaces were dirtier in 2021. These results were unexpected because the U.S. hotel industry had actively recommended and reported updates to its housekeeping protocols and practices in response to the pandemic and tried to provide a safer environment for guests and staff.

While this study did not empirically determine why public areas tested dirtier, many environmental and economic factors could have contributed to this result. For example, if protocols were not properly updated, implemented, or followed, they could have the opposite effect and decrease cleanliness. Alternatively, other factors, such as staffing shortages, could have impacted the effectiveness of these protocols. The hotel industry was hit hard twice, once by the pandemic and again by the labor shortage that heavily impacted the hospitality industry as the world recovered from the pandemic (Adams, 2021). As travel resumed after the initial wave of the pandemic, seasoned housekeeping staff and managers who left the industry did not return, and hotels struggled to hire and replace them (Schulz, 2021). Notably, this study also found positive cleaning practices. For example, ATP tests in 2017 and 2021 confirmed that bed linens were clean in both years. The bed linen cleaning and laundry practices used by hotels are effective and result in perceived and actual clean bed linens.

It is essential for hotels to carefully implement and monitor their COVID-19 response protocols to ensure that they effectively maintain cleanliness and protect the health and safety of their guests and staff. This cannot be done without proper staffing levels and well-trained staff who implement proper evidence-based cleaning procedures.

Secondly, this study included testing for the presence of bacteria. Samples were collected from the high-touch area, which guests frequently touch during their stays, as identified by Park et al., 2019. The results showed that the bacterially contaminated surfaces were handles/buttons that guests frequently touch. Specifically, the couch samples were collected from the armrests of couches, which guests touch more than other parts of the couches. It indicates that hotel managers should pay attention to these high-touch areas.

While guestrooms are cleaned between check-outs and check-ins or possibly every night, public areas require more frequent attention due to the higher traffic volume. Proper sanitation, in addition to cleaning, is critical in the battle against potential bacteria in hotels. It is important to note that human hands might be a primary source of bacteria transfer (Burton et al., 2011). This is particularly relevant in hotels, where guests engage in various activities such as eating, drinking, washing, sleeping, sweating, breathing, and touching.

Lastly, the study examined how COVID-19 affected guests' perception of cleanliness by comparing their perceptions pre- and post-onset of the pandemic. Results showed that guest cleanliness perception was impacted by COVID-19 and supported results from previous studies reporting pandemic-related changes in guest perception and consumption behavior (Atadil & Lu, 2021; Duarte et al., 2022; Kim & Han, 2022; Mehta et al., 2021; Spoerr & Pitsoulis, 2022; Yu et al., 2021). As expected, guest cleanliness perceptions improved. Still, the study's results were intriguing. While ATP UltraSnap tests did not indicate any cleanliness improvement pre- versus post-onset of the pandemic, hotel guests perceived that hotel surfaces were clean. They also perceived that they touched more surfaces after the onset of the pandemic and were more aware of their touching behavior. The hotel industry created new protocols and heavily marketed them in the media and on hotel properties (AHLA, 2020). The marketing and visible signs of cleaning and sanitizing measures (such as disinfectant sprays and hand sanitizers, as well as increased cleaning frequency) may have given guests a sense of reassurance and safety. Additionally, hotels communicated their enhanced cleaning measures to guests through signage and other methods, such as mobile applications, which may have continually confirmed the guests' perception of cleanliness.

Importantly, however, this study found that guests' perceptions were not aligned with actual cleanliness. This illustrates that when it comes to cleanliness, perception is not reality. Again, hotels should regularly test and evaluate to ensure proper cleaning and sanitizing procedures are in place. Currently, ATP meters are used by AAA to test guest room cleanliness in hotels. Routine use of ATP meters by housekeeping staff and supervisors can provide a more scientific, objective method to maintain a consistently clean and safe environment for guests and staff. Using an objective method to demonstrate cleanliness is much more effective than subjective visual inspection. According to Zemke et al. (2015), guests are willing to pay a premium for hotel rooms that are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Using the ATP method to target potential hotel guests could be a valuable strategy and provide a marketable advantage.

Contributions

This study contributes to a better understanding of how consumers' perception of cleanliness in hotels was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study's findings indicate that guests' perception of cleanliness has shifted since the outbreak of COVID-19, with guests now expecting a higher level of cleanliness in hotels than before. This study could serve as a valuable reference point for future research exploring consumer cleanliness perceptions within the hotel industry. Cleanliness perception might be a strong predictor for understanding guest satisfaction in the hotel industry. The well-known expectation and disconfirmation theory (ECT) (Oliver, 1980) shows that consumer satisfaction is determined by the comparison between perception of product performance and expectation. The results of this study found that consumers had higher expectations in terms of hotel cleanliness since COVID-19.

Many previous studies confirmed that consumer cleanliness perception had a great impact on consumer satisfaction, behavioral intention, and consumption behavior. (Barber & Scarcelli, 2010; Barreda & Bilgihan, 2013; Magnini et al. 2011; Zemke et al., 2015). Thus, the finding of this study helps better understand the shift in consumer cleanliness perception and expectation in hotels.

Furthermore, this study employed a novel scientific method to measure the possibility of bacterial contamination on hotel surfaces. This study proposes an alternative approach for collecting data on the cleanliness of surfaces in the hospitality sector.

The outcomes of this study are beneficial to hotel managers and practitioners. Specifically, hotels can enhance their housekeeping protocols and training by using ATP meters to ensure satisfactory cleanliness.

This study confirmed that guests touch certain surfaces more often than other areas during COVID-19. Hotels face the constant threat of dirty surfaces, whether they are high-touch or low-touch. There is a chance that hotel surfaces might be contaminated with bad bacteria if the surfaces are exposed to any bacteria-friendly medium.

The comparison illustrates a dynamic shift in cleanliness and potential hygiene focus areas within hotels, underlining the importance of adaptive cleaning protocols to address varying microbial contamination levels. The data underscores the necessity for hotel management to prioritize high-touch and frequently used areas for cleaning to ensure guest safety and hygiene. Additionally, the significant improvements in certain items suggest that targeted cleaning efforts can effectively reduce microbial presence, emphasizing the value of consistent and thorough cleaning practices.

Additionally, hotels can apply the scientific, objective measure of cleanliness levels as a marketing tool. Using the criteria of 1,000 RLUs from a standard ATP test for cleanliness level and 10,000 CFUs from a MicroSnap Total test for the possibility of bacterial contamination on surfaces, as employed in this study, could serve as a valid numeric standard for ATP meter testing of surfaces. Continual updates of housekeeping protocols and training are recommended until the desired level of cleanliness is achieved. While using UltraSnap ATP for all surfaces may not be practical due to time constraints, housekeeping inspectors can test high-touch areas and fabric surfaces with standard ATP meters that provide immediate test results using a handheld device and swabs. This is an effective method to inspect the cleanliness of hotel surfaces. Visual inspection should not be the only acceptable method to measure cleanliness in a post-COVID-19 world.

Limitations and future research

This study used only five hotels and 21 guestrooms to collect ATP samples. Thus, this study’s results might not be generalized to all U.S. hotels. Simultaneously, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, occupancy rates and sales in 2021 just returned to pre-pandemic levels, similar to the testing in 2017. Thus, the sampling conditions were not equivalent in the two years. This study did not conduct microbial CFU tests for all 44 surfaces in hotels due to the limitation of funds. There might be other surfaces with a higher number of CFU tests. In future studies, it would be exciting to test all the surfaces with ATP bacteria tests (i.e., MicroSnap Total). Additionally, the possibility of implementing the ATP meters in other hospitality industries, such as the restaurant inspection process, will be an interesting study.

*AI technology is used to improve proofreading.