ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

The design and management of ambience—Implications for hotel

architecture and service
Morten Heidea,, Kirsti Lærdala, Kjell Grønhaugb
a
Norwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway
b
Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, N-5045 Bergen, Norway
Received 15 December 2005; accepted 23 January 2007

Abstract

Ambience has become a pivotal concern for tourism and hospitality managers worldwide. In an effort to improve the ambience,
different groups of professionals are involved, in particular hospitality managers and outside experts, e.g. designers and architects.
Despite the wide management interest, there is an apparent lack of empirical research that addresses ambience and its role in
hospitality settings. The authors attempt to add to current knowledge by gaining deeper insights into what design experts and hotel
managers understand by ambience and how they perform to improve the ambience of their establishments.
The reported study identified important differences in the two groups’ understanding of the importance of various ambience-
enhancing factors (antecedents) and the benefits and risks associated with investing in ambience (consequences). These differences may
influence priorities and cause conflicts. Managerial implications and recommendations to stimulate future research are offered.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ambience; Atmospherics; Hotel management; Design; Guest satisfaction

1. Introduction Studies in organizational behaviour indicate that the

Ambience has become a pivotal concern for tourism and
hospitality managers worldwide. The relevance of and
emphasis on ambience for creating a successful hospitality
experience is evident from reading almost any travel-
related journal or magazine. Nearly four decades ago,
Campbell-Smith wrote The Marketing of the Meal Experi-
ence, which is relevant to a discussion of ambience because
of its focus on the elements required to broaden the appeal
of the meal experience and ensure value added for the
consumer (Campbell-Smith, 1967). During the 1970s and
1980s, Lawson considered aspects related to ambience in
various texts on hospitality planning and design (see for
example Lawson, 1976, 1987), while Jones (1983) in his
standard text on foodservice operations devotes several
pages to a discussion of ambience.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 51833751; fax: +47 51833750.
E-mail addresses: morten.heide@uis.no (M. Heide),
kirsti.m.lardal@uis.no (K. Lærdal),
kjell.gronhaug@nhh.no (K. Grønhaug).
ambience of the work place may influence the attitude and
behaviour of employees and thus affect service delivery. In
the service marketing literature, ambience has been viewed
in relation to customers and has been discussed in
particular as a tool for changing consumer attitudes and
behaviour. According to Bitner (1992), ambience will be
more important for service organizations than for produ-
cers of tangible goods. The fact that services are produced
and consumed simultaneously, and that this occurs within
the physical facilities of the firm, means that customers will
be exposed to the ambience of the ‘‘production site’’ and
consequently that this ambience will be an important
determinant of customer satisfaction. Troye and Heide
(1987) identified ambience as an essential variable for
explaining customer satisfaction among hotel guests,
regardless of geographical area, nationality of guests and
type of hotel. Similarly, a recent study focusing on
restaurants found that ambience is often perceived by both
guests and staff as the single most positive characteristic of
the establishment, being rated as even more important than
the food itself (Kokko, 2005). Furthermore, travel-related

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.01.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1316 M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
journals and magazines frequently seem to give the
impression that ambience is a key success factor directly
linked to financial results.
Although ambience is important and concerns both
managers and guests, it is rather difficult to grasp, and this
is reflected in the fact that the concept is ambiguous.
Furthermore, ambience is in some way created, implying
that input factors influence ambience. Elements of physical
design and decor have been highlighted as drivers of
ambience and a limited number of studies have examined
their importance for management in general (e.g. Kotler,
1973) and for customers and employees of service firms in
particular (e.g. Bitner, 1992).
Also, hospitality managers often try to improve the
ambience of their establishments. Because of the perceived
need for assistance in this task, they frequently involve
external design experts, e.g. designers and architects. Since
ambience is a complex phenomenon and an ambiguous
concept, and training and experience differ among
hospitality managers and design experts, their perceptions
and knowledge of the role of ambience may differ.
This paper is organized as follows: In the next section
we address the phenomenon of ambience, examining how
ambience has been conceptualized and understood, the
underlying theoretical assumptions, and how ambience has
been treated in the research literature. This serves as input
for our tentative perspective, guiding the empirical investi-
gation that follows. Then we outline the research metho-
dology chosen for our investigation. Finally, we report our
findings and offer an analysis and interpretation of the
results. Our study indicates that the effects are complex and
nuanced and that certain risks may be associated with
ambience investments. We believe that our findings are
important and have clear relevance for hospitality research
and management. In the last section, we therefore highlight
the theoretical and managerial implications of our study.
Avenues for further research are also suggested.
2. Ambience—key concepts and theoretical assumptions
Ambience is a commonly used term—both in everyday
life and in business contexts. However, the concept is
ambiguous. It is often used unconsciously and conveys
multiple meanings. In order to assess the importance of
ambience in relation to hospitality management, an
adequate definition of the term is required.
What we refer to here as ambience, Kotler terms
atmosphere, which can be technically defined as ‘‘the air
surrounding a sphere.’’ The term is also used more
colloquially to describe the quality of the surroundings
(Kotler, 1973). This implies that it goes beyond the
individual, i.e. atmosphere or ambience includes elements
of the environment. The individual may very well
contribute to the ambience but other factors must be
present as well. In fact, we view ambience as created by the
interaction between individuals and their environment.
In the context of service delivery, it is relevant to make a
distinction between atmosphere or ambience and services-
cape (Bitner, 1992). While, servicescape is the physical
environment in which services are delivered, ambience can
be viewed as the result of interaction between people (i.e.
service providers and customers) and the physical environ-
ment (i.e. the servicescape). A key point, however, is that
ambience is perceived and experienced. Moreover, the
phenomenon of ambience is abstract and ambiguous, and
people may vary in their perception of it.
Antecedents of ambience: Ambience is in some sense
created. To create something certain input factors are
needed. Several factors are believed to be important in this
respect. A review of relevant studies (referred to below)
points toward three factors that are important for creating
the desired ambience: (1) atmospheric factors; (2) social
factors; and (3) design factors.
Atmospheric factors are background conditions in the
environment, e.g. temperature, scent, noise, music, and
lighting (see e.g. Babin, Hardesty, & Suter, 2003; Baker,
Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Brengman & Geuens, 2003; Chebat,
Chebat, & Vaillant, 2001; Chebat & Michon, 2003;
Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gardner & Siomkos, 1986;
Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982, 1986; Spangenberg,
Crowley, & Henderson, 1996; Wilson, 2003; Yalch &
Spangenberg, 2000). While atmospheric factors have clear
relevance for the hospitality industry, other settings (in
particular retailing) dominate empirical research. Social
factors represent the ‘‘people’’ component of the environ-
ment and multiple social factors have been found to
influence perceptions of ambience (see e.g. Fisher & Byrne,
1975; Marks, 1988; Martin, 1986). The third category,
design factors, includes functional and aesthetic elements
such as architecture, style, and layout. A variety of design
factors, i.e. factors which managers influence and can
control, are important for ambience (see e.g. Baker et al.,
1992; Baraban & Durocher, 2001; Mamalis, Ness, &
Bourlakis, 2005; Ward, Bitner, & Banes, 1992).
It may be argued that empirical research into the
antecedents of ambience is dominated by monocausal
studies (i.e. investigations into the effects of single factors).
Consequently, we lack knowledge of the combined effects
of the three types of antecedents or drivers (i.e. atmospheric,
social and design factors), especially in the context of
hospitality research.
Consequences of ambience: Ambience only counts as a
tourism/hospitality variable if it generates a reaction within
or among individual visitors/guests. In other words, the
ambience is expected to evoke an internal response.
Conventional wisdom suggests that a guest’s choice of
hospitality products is based on both rational and
emotional considerations (Kwortnik, 2003), and it may
be argued that perceptions of ambience lead to certain
emotions, beliefs, and physiological sensations, which in
turn influence behaviours. Several studies provide insights
into possible cognitive, affective, physiological and beha-
vioural reactions (see e.g. Berry, Seiders, & Grewal, 2002;
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
1. Background
a) Education
Training and
Experiences
b) Firm-Specific
and Contex-
tual Factors
Fig. 1. The design and management of ambience in the hotel industry—tentative perspective.
Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Darley & Gilbert, 1985; Gardner
& Siomkos, 1986; Guéguen & Petr, 2006; Holahan, 1982;
Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Furthermore, studies show that
evaluations may vary according to biology, personality,
socio-cultural experience, goals, expectations, and other
internal and external factors (Lin, 2004; Walsh, Craik, &
Price, 2000). An individual’s response may also depend on
situational factors, such as mood states (Gardner, 1985) and
expectations (Bitner, 1992).
In sum, despite the considerable interest in ambience
among practitioners, limited empirical research has been
conducted in hospitality settings. While an important body
of relevant research exists in more general disciplines such
as environmental psychology, systematic research is needed
to study ambience in the context of hospitality manage-
ment. In particular, there is a lack of guidance for
hospitality managers in their efforts to improve the
ambience of their establishments.
3. A tentative perspective
As mentioned ambience is created. Also, due to the
believed importance of ambience in the hospitality
industry, firms and their managers often initiate goal-
directed efforts to improve the ambience of their establish-
ments.
Firms and their managers in the hospitality industry
have many varied roles. They are primarily occupied with
day-to-day operations, running businesses to survive and
prosper. They are also preoccupied with the ambience, or
more correctly, with guests’ perceptions of the ambience of
their establishments. To consciously improve the ambience
they need adequate procedural knowledge, i.e. knowledge
of how to go about, to enhance the ambience of their firms.
While hospitality managers strongly believe that am-
bience is important, and while they have experience and
their own ideas of what is important, they are often unsure.
To cope they often seek assistance from people they trust
and believe can help. It is almost self-evident that design
experts are the ‘‘perfect choice’’ for improving ambience.
Design experts are professionals; their education and
training are directed towards this task.
Training and education are important socializing fac-
tors, which also influence actors’ knowledge structures or
1317
2. Understanding 3. Response
Understanding
of Ambience Activities
including and Efforts
Antecedent to Improve
Ambience
Factors and
Consequences
‘‘mental models’’ and thus how they perceive and under-
stand ambience. Since Dearborn and Simon’s (1958)
seminal study, a considerable body of research has found
that factors like educational background and job experi-
ence are vital in shaping individuals’ frames of reference.
Thus, people with the same educational background and
professional experience are likely to share experiences,
norms and values that in turn may affect their perceptions
of various phenomena such as ambience. Furthermore,
perceptions and understanding represent actors’ realities
and influence their behaviours (Berger & Luckman, 1966).
Because hospitality managers and design experts are
involved in different tasks, and because they vary in educa-
tional background and experience, we might ask whether
they differ in perceptions and understanding of ambience.
If so, and because perceptions and understanding influence
behaviour, hospitality managers and design experts may
accentuate the role of ambience differently. This is
especially so because hospitality managers and design
experts, like all human beings, are constrained by their
limited cognitive capacity (Simon, 1957).
Based on the above review, we introduce our tentative
perspective, which is intended to guide, but not dictate, the
empirical investigation we present below.
Fig. 1 is to be read as follows. Factors such as training,
experience and educational background (1a) are assumed
to influence actors’ understanding of ambience-influencing
factors and consequences (2). The same applies to firm-
specific factors and the context in which the hospitality
establishment is embedded (1b). Actors’ understanding of
ambience-influencing factors and importance affect their
activities and efforts to improve the ambience of the
hospitality establishment.
4. Methodology
As noted above, our present knowledge is rather limited.
Thus, we chose an exploratory, discovery-oriented ap-
proach to gain improved insights. As discussed above,
factors such as education, training and experience are
assumed to influence perceptions and understanding, as are
firm-specific and also contextual factors. To create varia-
tions along these dimensions, we included two groups, i.e.
hospitality managers and design experts.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1318 M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
The two groups included in our study differ greatly in
terms of background. While, design experts (architects,
interior designers and environmental psychologists) have
considerable insights into the design elements that con-
tribute to creating ambience, hospitality managers have
personal knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) through their opera-
tional experience of what it takes to maintain a favourable
ambience and balance the focus on ambience with
operational considerations like functionality, logistics and
occupancy rates.
Perceptions and thinking can be captured in several
ways. Although there are problems associated with doing
so, it is usually believed that what people say can appro-
priately reflect their perceptions and thinking (Huff, 1990).
Also secondary data can be appropriate. For example,
brochures, etc. are the outcome of systematic and costly
efforts. Here we had access to extensive secondary data,
such as brochures, advertisements, internal reports, and
interviews in the business press.
We also collected primary data. Because this was an
exploratory study, we decided to use semi-structured
interviews, which allow for conversational, two-way
communication. More precisely, we conducted interviews
with persons from the two groups of people assumed to be
influential, i.e. design experts and hospitality managers.
For practical reasons, only interviewees in Norway were
included in the study.
Prior to the interviews, the companies were contacted
either by telephone or e-mail to explain the purpose of the
study. All interviewees appeared to be open, positive and
interested in the topic. Notes were taken and a tape
recorder was used (in full agreement with the respondents).
After the interviews, responses were transcribed and
analysed in detail. The interviews, which lasted between
60 and 90 min, were conducted using a carefully developed
interview guide, which included data about the company
(including history, size and main types of clients/guests)
and the respondent (such as educational background and
experience record). Subsequent sections were aimed at
tapping specific knowledge about the structure and
significance of ambience. In addition, the interviews
focused on the antecedents of ambience, i.e. insights into
how various factors (both design and human elements) can
be combined to create the desired product as well as con-
sequences of ambience, both in terms of benefits and risks.
A total of 11 design experts from seven architectural
firms participated in the study. The firms ranged from one-
person companies to some of the leading architectural
firms in Norway. The interviewees were architects, interior
designers and an environmental psychologist who specia-
lizes in the psychological impact of architecture.
The other group consisted of a total of six hospitality
managers (general managers and executives in charge of
marketing, operations, cuisine and customer relations)
from three different companies. The managers had con-
siderable operational experience in tourism and hospitality
(hotels, restaurants and tourist resorts).
All of the hospitality companies selected for interview
are renowned for their ambience. While the companies are
fairly different as regards product type, architectural layout
and guest segments, all three companies emphasize their
particular ambience in their advertising, and the design
experts generally highlighted these companies as leading
examples as regards ambience. A description of the
architectural and hospitality companies that participated
in the study is given in the Appendix A.
5. Findings
Below we report the main findings of the exploratory
study.
5.1. Structure, amount and type of ambience
Among the design experts, creating ambience was
generally perceived as part of the art of building. It was
emphasized that ambience demands talent and an element
of surprise. The architects used terms like ‘‘synthesis’’ and
‘‘total architecture’’ in describing how ambience is created.
Communicative properties and the importance of finding
the right proportions were emphasized as essentials of
ambience, as reflected in the following quotes: ‘‘We
understand ambience through lasting impressions. The
important thing here is talk, dialogue, communication
between people and buildings’’ (Company 4). ‘‘The propor-
tions are most important, proportions in relation to the
human body. This is basic for me, and should always be the
basis’’ (Company 2). ‘‘To make buildings is to create small
places that feel good for the human body to be in ‘‘
(Company 5). ‘‘You cannot create ambience, it comes into
being. The most important requirement is an open mind, not
necessarily financial resources’’ (Company 6). ‘‘We must
have respect for traditions, the historical context, but explain
it with new eyes’’ (Company 1). ‘‘We should not plan
everything; there ought to be unexpected creations to be
discovered. This brings positive energy to the surface’’
(Company 7).
The interviews with the hospitality managers revealed
consistent patterns. As part of the interview, respondents
were asked to rate the ambience of their establishments on
a scale from 1 to 10. Scores of 8 and 9 were typical. We also
asked respondents to rate the ambience of their competi-
tors, and these were systematically rated lower. Thus, all
respondents rated their establishments very high on
ambience and appeared to be convinced that their
establishments had more ambience than their competitors,
as reflected by the following quotes: ‘‘Our main competitors
have standard business hotels. They lack personality and
local character. Interaction between staff and guests is
formal and stiff. You hear much more laughter in our hotel’’
(Manager, Company A). ‘‘We are different, we offer the
best experience. All activities are rooted in our brickworks
concepty the heat and firey the coffee roasting and
traditional bakeryy a total experience, this is extremely
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
important’’ (Manager, Company B). ‘‘Our mission is not to
run a hotel. We are here to care for our guests. They appre-
ciate our personal attention and the tranquil and relaxed
atmosphere, which they cannot find in bigger hotels. The
feedback we get from our guests concerning our ambience
and location is entirely positive’’ (Manager, Company C).
The managers regarded ambience as a key aspect and an
integrated part of the operations of the company,
nourished by friendly and caring attitudes among their
staff. Two of the establishments highlighted the authentic
atmosphere based on local history and shared pride in
original buildings or fragments from earlier times, as
reflected in the excerpts reported below: ‘‘It is important
that all our employees meet the guests, both kitchen
personnel and hosts. We all try to be friendly and have an
open mind, giving the guests a special time, flavoured with a
glimpse of our local historical tradition’’ (Manager, Com-
pany B). ‘‘We felt we had a responsibility to concern
ourselves with the local history of ‘the factory’ as part of the
identity of the place. We even went abroad several times to
get hold of old bricks and workers who knew the building
traditions’’ (Manager, Company C).
When talking about the ambience of their hotels, the
managers were inclined to focus on the total package
offered to guests, as reflected in the following quote: ‘‘We
are not just selling beds and meals; we help our guests with
their personal needs, equipment, even evening events and
bookings. We are there for them, at their service, trying to
give them a total product’’ (Manager, Company A).
5.2. Antecedents of ambience
There was considerable agreement among the design
experts on how architecture and the physical environment
influence the ambience. They explained that architects have
six tools for creating the desired ambience: (1) shape, (2)
proportion, (3) texture/materials, (4) colour, (5) lighting
and (6) furnishings. Shape and proportion are tools for
changing and transforming the open space into a different
setting, as well as to create specific settings. Texture and
colour define the character and qualities of the material.
Lighting is used to reinforce the desired daylight or evening
atmosphere and can for example be utilized to alter the
informal breakfast atmosphere of the room into a formal
evening setting. Choice of furnishing completes the
impression created by the other elements combined.
The design experts clearly emphasized that they combine
architectural tools to create a personal expression. It was
evident that this personal expression changes over time due
to through socialization, and educational institutions and
training are particularly essential in influencing the experts’
perspectives, thinking and behaviours. ‘‘The schools and
institutions where we train and learn mean a lot to us. We
make things using our hands. But through our thoughts and
minds, through philosophy, we create values’’ (Company 5).
Schools of architecture differ in their emphasis on
originality and practical functionality, and personal expre-
1319
ssion is further moulded through experience. An interesting
finding is that architects already as students tend to
determine the architectural direction they want to take
and if they do not succeed in this, they prefer to establish
one-person companies, as reflected in this quote: ‘‘After
graduation, it was vital for me to start working in a reputable
international firm. My dream employer was Frank Gehry
(Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and other legendary
buildings) because the global trends interest me and stimulate
my creativity. When this did not materialize, I started my
own company in order to keep my creative freedom and avoid
being influenced by a larger and less creative working
environment’’ (Company 5).
The hospitality managers were generally more concerned
than the design experts with social factors and their impact
as drivers of ambience. The examples used by the
hospitality managers reflected a focus on interaction
between staff members (staff–staff) between staff and
guests (staff–guest), and between guests (guest–guest).
Focus on the latter relationship is reflected in the following
quote: ‘‘We have to set the arrangement differently and show
more care in weddings and family anniversaries. These are
events that private people use a lot of money on and they
want a unique arrangement in return. The nerves of the
family members are highly strung and we often have to act as
counsellors when latent conflicts or ‘life crises’ surface’’
(Manager, Company B).
There was a common attitude among the hospitality
managers that the desired ambience can never be created
by a single factor. However, it was also emphasized that
one inconsistent element was enough to ruin an otherwise
favourable ambience. As a manager in Company A stated:
‘‘Our employees’ friendly welcome to our guests is easy to
reveal as honest or fake. If the employees have a bad day, we
demand full control over personal feelings or they should not
interact with our guests.’’
All managers emphasized that it is the atmospheric
drivers combined that create the ambience. Most inter-
viewees stressed the dynamic nature of ambience. It may
change gradually depending on time of day, weather,
season, type of guests and a number of other factors. One
of the managers interviewed at the conference facility
talked about the atmosphere as evolving in circles. Good
circles arise when the staff’s hospitality makes the guests
friendlier, which further reinforces the sociability of the
staff and so on. In less favourable instances, poor handling
of a guest might trigger a negative response, which might
develop into a negative spiral. One of the interviewees
summarized his thinking as follows: ‘‘Creating the ideal
ambience requires good vibes’’ (Manager, Company A).
Most of the companies in the study reported that they
have a repertoire of set configurations, which all contribute
to their special ambience. For the conference hotel, lunch
could be served in a formal or informal setting inside. If the
weather was nice, lunch was prepared outside. While the
design elements and the staff are the same for all settings,
specific atmospherics are used to create variations in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1320 M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
ambience. If the occasion was a formal evening dinner, the
staff would wear a particular outfit and the flower
decorations, china, cutlery and lighting would be totally
different from for instance an informal lunch or a summer
barbeque dinner. The companies also reported that these
configurations are adjusted gradually through incremental
innovations. By chance, a staff member may change the
configuration marginally, or a guest may suggest that for
instance a certain type of candles should be used. If
successful, these changes would then be incorporated into
the configuration. Success in this respect mainly meant
positive feedback from guests, i.e. imperfect learning. No
company reported any systematic approach to measuring
the effects of such changes.
Respondents stressed the importance of avoiding ‘‘fake’’
atmospheric drivers. Thus, it is considered vital that only
genuine materials be used in tangible elements, while on the
intangible side it is important that the staff really are
friendly towards guests and do not just act friendly because
it is expected of them. Thus, genuineness is an important
aspect of creating ambience in hospitality establishments.
Establishments that are high in genuineness use only ‘‘real’’
inputs in their products. As discussed earlier, the perceived
atmosphere is not determined by any single factor but
rather by the total configuration of atmospheric drivers.
For the tangible drivers, this means consistently high-
quality material and flawless design. For intangible
elements, genuineness requires that the host and staff
sincerely care about their guests, rather than merely
greeting them or communicating in a drilled manner.
Two different approaches were employed to ensure that
staff members are genuine towards their guests: Company
B used a ‘‘care-approach’’ to the extent that the staff
functioned as problem solvers who were on standby night
and day. The other approach was to create a feeling of
‘‘ownership’’ among the staff. Company A used the phrase
‘‘partly mine’’ to sensitize staff and make them feel like
part-owners in order to ensure that they provided genuine
service for guests and spotted irregularities in the atmo-
spherics (for example a small stain on the table cloth, a
flower that needed to be removed from a flower decoration,
a wrinkled carpet, and so on). ‘‘The ambience depends on
our staff and their attitude toward guests. The people make
the difference. It is important, I would say crucial, that the
employees feel our product is ‘partly mine’. We stress this.
That is our policy’’ (Manager, Company A).
In addition to genuineness, the hospitality experts
maintained that their establishment had ambience because
it was totally different from what their competitors offered.
From their statements, we would infer that a hospitality
company will only be rated high on ambience if it has
features that distinguish it from other establishments.
Thus, distinctiveness is an important aspect of creating
ambience.
All the hospitality companies reported that there
had been conflicts with their architects/designers over
genuineness and distinctiveness. The conflict was always
the same. The hospitality manager/owner emphasized that
the genuineness of the establishment should be given
priority to preserve the identity of the place, while the
architects/designers proposed to introduce new elements
that would give the place originality and add to its
distinctiveness. For example, in the case of Company B,
the architect wanted to use modern windows that
represented a break with the style of the building.
Company C had to fight the architect to retain the
traditional expression of the ‘‘old brickworks’’. Company
A was persuaded by the architect to use decor elements that
were not functional in relation to the logistics of the
restaurant. The managers complained that architects
generally give priority to aesthetic elements, which
frequently come at the expense of functional considera-
tions.
5.3. Consequences of ambience
It was evident from the interviews that the architects and
designers perceive ambience as a competitive advantage,
which yields popular establishments. The following quote
from one of the architects is relevant in this regard: ‘‘Yes,
ambience is important and of great value. It is directly linked
to ‘the bottom line’’’ (Company 1). The design experts
highlighted the growing interest in planning and develop-
ment of new social arenas, public meeting places, recep-
tions and lobbies where people can mingle and build
networks. Furthermore, they emphasized that investments
in ambience, careful selection and preparation of good
localities and surroundings where people can meet,
generally help improve working conditions for staff. If
the environment was carefully designed for its intended
purpose, well-being would grow and prosper in terms of
satisfaction and contentment among users, as expressed in
the following quotes: ‘‘The architect needs to be 100%
socio-culturally involved. Architecture is not an autonomic
art but a tool for investigating social relations’’ (Company
7). ‘‘We are very much involved with the term ‘intermingling
architectural’ and environmental elements. This is important
to give people the feeling of a harmonically safe design, space
and place’’ (Company 6).
The hospitality managers revealed a more balanced view
of the consequences of ambience, i.e. they mentioned both
benefits and risks that may be associated with investing in
ambience. They highlighted the total product as a core
element and emphasized the importance of the social
factor, i.e. being present for guests and giving them a warm
welcome. It was crucial for them to be conscious of their
role as hosts rather than personal friends; ‘‘Our ambience is
very much appreciated by our guests. A great deal of them
have visited and really ‘used’ our establishment for years. We
are proud of that’’ (Company A).
It was apparent that ambience is considered important
for the well-being and contentment of guests. The
establishment always tried to give the guest the same room
as last time, if available, and offered special magazines or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
newspapers, if requested. Staff members were drilled in
being attentive and considerate of guests’ personal needs.
Company A: ‘‘Ambience is about making it feel like a second
home to the guests, and I repeat guests, not ‘pals’’’.
Company B: ‘‘We offer Sunday lunches mainly for people
in the surrounding area. It is a day when families have time to
examine and experience our ambience. Hopefully they will
return as business customers, recommend us to their
company and book in for another occasion. We call this
tangible promotion. We also have the time to prepare local
quality food.’’ Company C: ‘‘Ambience is about thinking
consistently. To be faithful to your concept is to never
disappoint your guests.’’
The companies also paid much attention to the personal
touch in order to stimulate all the senses: The smell of good
coffee, the fragrance from their open bakery, candlelight
and homemade pottery with herbs. They emphasized their
desire to give their guests a good experience, even when
understaffed or overworked. The guests appreciated the
caring attitude of the staff, which was ever present
although often invisible to the guests.
However, an overdone ambience is a potential risk,
which may also involve losing sight of the main product.
Examples of reported problems are communicated in the
following quotes. Company C: ‘‘We have enough waitresses
to take care of our many guests, but too few people in the
kitchen. Unfortunately, when the food orders are queuing up,
our guests have to wait an hour to be served. This is a
problem we need to solve quickly.’’ In the case of Company
C, it was clear that the manager’s prime interest was in the
history of the brickworks, not the day-to-day running of
the hotel: ‘‘I must admit that the occupancy rates have
suffered. My heart lies in the ambience and the unique
brickworks concept.’’
Company A: ‘‘Our ‘open house’ policy also attracts
unwanted visitors, especially at night time. This is also
related to our central location, downtown. We constantly
work on this challenge together with our employees.’’
Company B: ‘‘Some of our frequent guests feel at home
here to the extent that they help themselves to drinks and
snacks. They take this for granted and refuse to pay as ‘a
good friend’ of the house. We go a long way for our guests,
but it is a matter of balance.’’
To improve financial results, the owner of company B
considered doubling the number of rooms by constructing
a new wing. However, key customers strongly advised
against this expansion because it would ruin the ambience
of the hotel. The hotel followed this advice, even if it meant
lower scale advantages and poorer financial results: ‘‘Today
we are happy we did not expand our room capacity. Our
identity is the cosy and intimate ambience of the hotel and we
want to keep it that way.’’
6. Analysis of findings
In this section we analyze, or perhaps more correctly,
interpret the reported findings. The hospitality managers
1321
had no problem in rating and characterizing the ambience
of their own establishments as well as the perceived
ambience of their competitors. This observation reflects
the fact that for these actors ambience is something ‘‘real’’
something that is considered important. An interesting
observation is that all companies (i.e. the managers in the
companies) reported the ambience in their establishment as
very good, and also better than the ambience achieved by
their competitors. Can this be explained? The managers are
actors trying to do their best, and they are convinced that
they are succeeding. They observe their competitors, but
being an actor is different from being an observer. As
reflected in the literature on relations between the roles of
actor and observer, individuals perceive things dramati-
cally differently in these two roles (for an excellent
discussion, see Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
The subjects’ use of words in classifying ambience
indicates a shared ‘‘language’’ for and understanding of
the phenomenon in the industry. This language and under-
standing, however, seem to be industry-specific, as reflected
in the literature on ‘‘industry recipes’’, i.e. understanding
on how to operate in an industry (see Spender, 1989).
The reported findings also reflect the fact that the actors
involved hold strong views of what are important
influential factors affecting their behaviours. The subjects
within this industry not only have opinions—or mental
models including opinions—on ‘‘driving factors’’; they also
hold largely shared beliefs about what is important and
how to behave. Thus, the reported findings indicate some
general understanding shared among actors in the industry.
In other words, the findings reflect a general industry
socialization, influenced by observation, interaction and
imitation. Consequently, thinking and behaviours are
‘‘standardized’’, or perhaps institutionalized, as reflected
in the extensive literature on institutionalization, which can
be exemplified by the highly regarded work of DiMaggio
and Powell (1983).
Our findings also demonstrate the importance of training
and education. For example, expert designers employ
concepts like ‘‘fake’’ and ‘‘real’’. These examples show
that education establishes specific opinions, and that for
these actors these opinions have become a part of their
reality. Moreover, the reported findings also demonstrate
that differences in education and training may cause
differences in thinking and mental models, which may give
rise to differences in priorities and cause conflicts. This is
reflected, e.g. in differences in emphasis on aesthetics and
functionality.
Design experts have a set of ‘‘tools’’ at their disposal to
create the desired ambience, such as colours, texture/
materials, lighting, etc. The manner in which the design
experts employ these tools is to a large extent determined
by socialization (education and training are particularly
crucial in influencing the architects’ perspectives, thinking
and behaviours).
In general, respondents agreed that the atmosphere in a
hospitality setting is determined by the total configuration
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1322 M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
of atmospheric drivers. Agreement also prevails that while
the desired ambience can never be created by a single
factor; it may take only one inconsistent element to ruin an
otherwise favourable ambience. For example, using in-
expensive wallpaper may ruin the ambience of an otherwise
luxurious hotel, while a rude waiter or waitress may have
damaging effect in a restaurant with an otherwise friendly
atmosphere. An interesting perspective in this regard is the
apparent asymmetry between positive and negative atmo-
spheric drivers. While it takes considerable care, talent and
experience to cultivate the desired ambience, one unfortu-
nate incident might be enough to mark the impression in
the minds of guests for years to come.
Distinctiveness and genuineness are key factors in
creating ambience in hospitality establishments. It is likely
that even the most carefully designed and operated hotel
would be regarded as lacking ambience if there were
1000 identical hotels. Thus, truly atmospheric hospitality
establishments have a certain uniqueness that distinguishes
them from the herd. However, means of creating such
uniqueness can often be a source of conflict between
design experts and hospitality managers, as mentioned
above.
Genuineness appears to be the other important dimen-
sion. As discussed earlier, the design experts emphasized
that only genuine materials should be used and stressed the
importance of avoiding ‘‘fake’’ atmospheric drivers. On the
intangible side, it is considered vital that the staff be
genuinely friendly towards their guests and not only behave
this way because it is expected of them, or as Donald A.
Adams has put it: ‘‘To give real service you must add
something which cannot be bought or measured with
money, and that is sincerity and integrity’’. For tourism
destinations, the concept of genuineness also has relevance
in terms of authenticity. It is reasonable to assume that
tourism settings will only be regarded as authentic if the
tourists perceive them as trustworthy and genuine. As
highlighted by Wicker (1981) and Fridgen and Hinkleman
(1977), authentic settings are successful and provide the
tourist with satisfaction when there is a fit between what
happens in the setting and what is expected of the setting.
Above we have discussed the dynamic nature of
ambience and hotels’ use of incremental innovations.
However, as regards genuineness it might be argued that
successful hotels develop an appealing ambience and
change more slowly than those who have not developed
an attractive ambience. Well-timed updates rather than
constant change may be the most desirable tool for
maintaining a favourable ambience.
Significant benefits are believed to be associated with
investment in ambience. Our respondents agreed that a
pleasant ambience tends to lead to positive attributions,
which are important for guest satisfaction, repeat visits and
a positive word-of-mouth reputation. When it is not
possible to give guests ‘‘the full package’’, the atmospheric
aspects of the hospitality establishment can be commu-
nicated in mini-deliveries.
Establishments that emphasize tranquillity and laid-back
elements require time for their guests to absorb the
ambience. Conference establishments of this type may be
taking a risk if participants leave the establishment for a
couple of hours to take care of urgent business in their
offices or to spend the night in their own homes. Con-
sequently, the location should be close enough to their core
clients to enable easy access but sufficiently remote to
ensure that distractors are avoided.
Other types of establishments require complementary
offerings. In the case of Company A, proximity to the city’s
most popular restaurants added value to the product.
While the restaurant guests in Company C appreciated the
small-town setting they also complained about the lack of
nightlife and opportunities to continue the evening after
dinner. Expanding the focus beyond the individual estab-
lishment to also include complementary products may
provide new insights and opportunities. When there are
complementary offerings that match the ambience of the
hospitality company, important synergies can be realized,
which in turn may produce a destination atmosphere.
Again, it is reasonable to assume that tourists perceive the
destination elements holistically, which implies that it is the
total configuration of elements that determines how the
tourism destination’s ambience is perceived.
The design experts’ emphasis on the importance of
ambience and the benefits it brings means that they are not
as likely as the hospitality managers to see the risks of
investing in ambience. As explained earlier, the shared view
of the design experts was that ambience is important and
directly linked to the financial bottom line. Among the
hospitality managers, a more nuanced view was prevalent.
Overdoing the ambience and thereby losing sight of the
main product was a risk they recognized. Our results reflect
a possible conflict between operational requirements and a
focus on ambience. The manager of Company A com-
plained that the architect had achieved substantial recogni-
tion for the characteristic joints in the tiled wall of the
restaurant, yet they created a considerable challenge in
terms of day-to-day cleaning and hygiene. Furthermore,
the architect had focused on the ambience of the restaurant
to the extent that important functional space requirements
had suffered. For instance, there was no space for empty
bottles, which created constant friction between waiters
and chefs. In the planning phase, the architect was so
preoccupied with creating the ambience of the hotel that he
neglected important operational requirements such as a
laundry room on each floor. For Company C, the manager
had spent considerable time and money recreating the
authentic brickworks ambience. He acknowledged that
occupancy rates were too low and financial results had
suffered. In spite of this, he said he needed time to finish the
design features of the hotel before turning to operational
issues. However, the company ran into financial difficulties
and went bankrupt.
Focusing on a serene/tranquil ambience (as in Company
B) might impose restrictions as regards saving labour costs
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
and expanding the scale of operations. In our opinion, the
link between ambience and profitability is complex and
depends on a number of other factors. While, it is generally
believed that ambience is crucial for the success of
hospitality companies, our study clearly shows that too
great a focus on ambience might threaten financial results if
less attention is paid to operational aspects such as
functionality, logistics and occupancy rates.
7. Conclusions
The reported findings deserve some further comment:
Our findings show that ambience really counts in the
hospitality industry. For people in the industry, it is
something ‘‘real’’ that is taken seriously. Furthermore, our
observations point to industry-specific knowledge about
ambience and influencing factors. This knowledge is partly
personal and tacit, i.e. uncoded (Polanyi, 1958). The
personal aspect of this knowledge is indicated by variations
in knowledge between individuals and groups. The knowl-
edge is partly subjective, and it may be biased as well. As
demonstrated above, the hospitality managers all rated
their own company higher on ambience than their
competitors.
Another observation is that training and education
apparently have considerable impact on perceptions of
what should be emphasized, and thus what is ‘‘real’’ for
various groups of people. Furthermore, as we have shown,
groups of actors develop their own ‘‘language’’ which
reflects their realities and is not entirely understood by
other groups.
There is little doubt that personal knowledge as reflected
in the actors’ thinking and behaviour is valuable and
complements—and maybe goes beyond ‘‘scientific’’, re-
search-based knowledge, i.e. knowledge that has passed
some evaluation before being accepted. Because knowledge
about ambience is personal and tacit, it is also rather rigid,
easily taken as ‘‘truth’’.
Travel-related journals and magazines frequently seem
to convey the impression that ambience is a key success
factor that is directly linked to financial results. Our study
indicates that the effects of ambience are more complex
and nuanced and that there may be substantial risks
associated with ambience investments. Consequently, we
believe our findings are important and have clear relevance
for hospitality management and research.
One swallow does not a summer make; nor does one
study yield the whole truth. There can be no doubt that
more research is needed. In our opinion, further research
should move in two directions: (1) we need to conduct
additional studies among practitioners in the industry,
including more actors and firms (organizations), also from
other regions and industries as well as other cultures, in
order to examine to what extent personal-based knowledge
is local or universal; (2) another stream of research should
include empirical testing, to establish a solid foundation of
knowledge about ambience, the factors that influence
1323
ambience, and the important consequences of ambience,
especially for further progress in the tourism and hospital-
ity industry.
Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate the constructive comments and
suggestions from Editor Chris Ryan and two anonymous
reviewers.
Appendix A. Companies included in the study
A.1.Design experts
Company 1: This firm was established in 1995 and
currently employs nine professionals (architects, designers
and an environmental psychologist). Their main concept is
to serve the needs of users, with less focus on aesthetics.
Company 2: Established as a family-owned architectural
firm in 1937 and taken over by the next generation in 1977.
The company has a long list of merits in all branches of
architecture and extensive expertise in tourism and hotels.
Company 3: Established in 1996, the company has grown
gradually and currently employs 10 professionals. They
cover a broad range of architecture, including hospitality
establishments and restaurants. The company has won two
national awards and international architectural magazines
have described their work as free and easy with a focus on
cross-cultural collaboration.
Company 4: This company was established in 1958 and
currently has a staff of 16. The company is regarded as a
leading architectural firm, both in Norway and interna-
tionally, and has received several awards. The firm is
responsible for a number of landmark buildings, which
have received extensive recognition in architectural articles
and books.
Company 5: This is a one-person company. The owner
divides his time between architectural work and teaching.
Company 6: This is another one-person company,
established 6 years ago. The owner has extensive experience
as an architect and a strong interest in art and culture.
Company 7: The owner of this small architectural firm is
currently chair of the local architectural society. Her
interest extends beyond the buildings into the socio-
cultural and issues involving architecture and the environ-
ment. She has extensive national and international
experience.
A.2. Hospitality companies
Company A: This is a trendy business hotel centrally
located in the main city in south–western Norway. The
hotel offers a splendid view over the harbour and the old
section of the city on the one hand and the city’s pulsating
shops, restaurants and bars on the other. In summer, the
hotel mainly caters for tourists and visitors to the city’s
numerous festivals. The hotel restaurant is trendy, with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1324 M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
prices in the upper range. The bar is a popular meeting
place for hotel guests and townspeople. The hotel director
is also founder (and co-owner) of a nearby outdoor café on
the quay promenade, which is among the most popular in
the city.
Company B: This company owns and operates a cosy,
intimate full-service hotel in a rural setting. The hotel
building was erected as a farmhouse in 1898 and later used
as summerhouse by a wealthy timber merchant for many
years. It was converted to a hotel in 1985. The hotel has a
high-quality restaurant, which specializes in game and
other local delicacies. Company B specializes in arranging
all types of courses and conferences. The establishment
also caters for tourists (with an emphasis on families and
extended stays), local visitors and weddings/anniversaries.
Company C: This is a romantic hotel located in a small-
town setting. It was originally built as an 18th-century
brickworks and the owners have put a great deal of work
into converting it into a hotel in several stages over a 12-
year period. Due to the high standard of the rooms, the
hotel has a special appeal to the upper-range tourist
segment. The hotel also has an up-market restaurant, a
high-quality bakery and a specialty coffee shop.
The heterogeneity of the three hospitality companies is
reflected both in terms of products (hotels, restaurants,
premises for weddings/anniversaries, specialty coffee shop,
bakery, bars and cafés) and type of establishment (trendy
business hotel, rural conference hotel and romantic small-
town hotel).
References
Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and shopping
intentions—The intervening effect of price fairness and perceived
affect. Journal of Business Research, 56, 541–551.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to
making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68,
445–460.
Baraban, R. S., & Durocher, J. F. (2001). Successful restaurant design
(2nd ed). New York: Wiley.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality.
London: Allen Lane.
Berry, L. L., Seiders, K., & Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service
convenience. Journal of Marketing, 66, 1–17.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings
on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57–71.
Brengman, M., Geuens, M., (2003). The four dimensional impact of color
on shoppers’ emotions. Working paper. Ghent: University of Ghent.
Campbell-Smith, G. (1967). The marketing of the meal experience.
Guildford: Surrey University Press.
Chebat, J. C., Chebat, C. G., & Vaillant, D. (2001). Environmental
background music and in-store selling. Journal of Business Research,
54, 115–123.
Chebat, J. C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall
shoppers’ emotions, cognition, and spending—A test of competitive
causal theories. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529–539.
Darley, J. M., & Gilbert, D. T. (1985). Social psychological aspects of
environmental psychology. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 949–991). New York:
Random House.
Dearborn, D. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on
the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21,
140–144.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational
fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Donovan, R., & Rossiter, J. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental
psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.
Fisher, J. D., & Byrne, D. (1975). Too close for comfort: Sex differences in
response to invasions of personal space. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 32, 15–21.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Fridgen, J. D., & Hinkleman, B. (1977). Recreational behavior and
environment congruence. Paper presented at Leisure Research Sympo-
sium, National Recreation and Parks Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical
review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.
Gardner, M. P., & Siomkos, G. J. (1986). Toward a methodology for
assessing effects of in-store atmospherics. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Advances
in consumer research, Vol. 13 (pp. 27–31). Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research.
Guéguen, N., & Petr, C. (2006). Odors and consumer behavior in a
restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25,
335–339.
Holahan, C. J. (1982). Environmental psychology. New York: Random
House.
Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping strategic thought. New York: Wiley.
Jones, P. (1983). Food service operations. London: Cassell.
Kokko, T. (2005). Offering development in the restaurant sector—A
comparison between customer perceptions and management beliefs.
Helsingfors: Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and
Business Administration, No. 140.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Marketing,
49, 48–64.
Kwortnik, R. J., Jr (2003). Clarifying ‘‘fuzzy’’ hospitality-management
problems with depth interviews and qualitative analysis. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 117–129.
Lawson, F. (1976). Hotels, motels and condominiums: Design, planning and
maintenance. London: Architectural Press.
Lawson, F. (1987). Restaurants, clubs and bars. London: Architectural
Press.
Lin, I. Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and
emotion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23,
163–178.
Mamalis, S., Ness, M., & Bourlakis, M. (2005). Tangible and intangible
store image attributes in consumer decision making: The case of fast
food restaurants. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and
Applications, 2, 1705–1714.
Marks, R. B. (1988). Personal selling: An interactive approach (3rd ed).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Martin, W. B. (1986). Quality service: The restaurant manager’s bible.
Ithaca, NY: School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University.
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a
driver of in-store evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77,
273–289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental
psychology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Milliman, R. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of
supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46, 86–91.
Milliman, R. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior
of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 286–289.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Spangenberg, E. R., Crowley, A. E., & Henderson, P. W. (1996).
Improving the store environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations
and behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 60, 67–80.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325
Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry recipes: The nature and sources of
managerial judgement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Troye, S. V., & Heide, M. (1987). Gjesteundersøkelsene i Indre Nordfjord,
Kristiansand og Vesterålen, sommeren 1986. Bergen: Senter for
Anvendt Forskning.
Walsh, W. B., Craik, K. H., & Price, R. H. (2000). Person–environment
psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., & Banes, J. (1992). Measuring the
prototypicality and meaning of retail environments. Journal of
Retailing, 68, 194–220.
1325
Wicker, A. W. (1981). Nature and assessment of behavior settings: Recent
contributions from the ecological perspective. In P. McReynolds (Ed.),
Advances in Psychological Assessment, Vol. 5 (pp. 22–61). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, S. (2003). The effect of music on perceived atmosphere
and purchase intentions in a restaurant. Psychology of Music, 31,
93–112.
Yalch, R. F., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). The effects of music in a retail
setting on real and perceived shopping times. Journal of Business
Research, 49, 139–147.