| Abstract: | 政府實施餐飲衛生分級評核，其用意是欲提供民眾符合衛生規範的餐廳資訊以供選擇；然而，消費者對於餐飲衛生分級評核的辨識和態度與其消費行為之相關性從未被探討。在現今的研究中，台南市298名年滿18歲之餐廳消費者被納入以完成問卷，並且檢驗消費者對於餐飲衛生分級評核的辨識和態度分別與其消費行為之相關性。 結果顯示，不曾在媒體上看見餐飲衛生評核之訊息的消費者，1) 其在評核為“優級”的餐廳用餐時，感覺滿意的程度顯著較低 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96，95% confidence interval [C.I.] = 1.20-3.22)；2) 想找一家有評核標章的餐廳用餐時，較沒把握可以找到 (OR = 2.57，95% C.I. = 1.56-4.22)；3) 進入餐廳時，能夠立即看見評核標章，仍較不會影響其用餐之選擇 (OR = 2.57，95% C.I. = 1.56-4.23)。另一方面，不同意很容易可以看見餐廳的評核標章的消費者，1) 較不會為了健康，而帶親友或自己會選擇有評核標章的餐廳用餐 (OR = 2.38，95% C.I. = 1.43-3.95)；2) 其在評核為“優級”的餐廳用餐時，感覺滿意的程度也顯著較低 (OR = 1.70，95% C.I. = 1.03-2.82)；3) 若想找有評核標章的餐廳用餐，較沒把握可以找到 (OR = 3.57，95% C.I. = 2.11-6.04)；4) 進入餐廳時，能夠立即就看見評核標章，仍較不會影響其用餐之選擇 (OR = 2.22，95% C.I. = 1.34-3.68)；5) 媒體上刊載餐飲衛生評核的訊息是較不會影響其選擇有標章的餐廳用餐 (OR = 2.12，95% C.I. = 1.28-3.51)。 此外，分別不同意會優先選擇有衛生評核標章的餐廳用餐 (OR = 3.81，95% C.I. = 1.93-7.53) 以及業者若沒有通過衛生評核就不應該營業 (OR = 2.59，95% C.I. = 1.50-4.56) 的消費者，較不可能會為了健康而帶親友或自己選擇有衛生評核標章的餐廳用餐。對於業者展示衛生評核標章是告知消費者其餐飲產品符合安全衛生的好方法 (OR = 3.13，95% C.I. = 1.19-8.24)、獲得衛生評核標章的餐廳可以提供較衛生安全的食物 (OR = 2.66，95% C.I. = 1.32-5.37)、以及會優先選擇有衛生評核標章的餐廳用餐 (OR = 3.81，95% C.I. = 1.93-7.53) 分別表示不同意的消費者，其進入餐廳時，即使能夠立即看見評核標章，仍是較不會影響其用餐選擇。另一方面，對於業者展示評核標章是告知消費者該店餐飲產品符合安全衛生的好方法 (OR = 3.08，95% C.I. = 1.17-8.11)、會優先選擇有評核標章的餐廳用餐 (OR = 3.75，95% C.I. = 1.90-7.40)、以及業者若沒有通過評核就不應該營業 (OR = 1.87，95% C.I. = 1.10-3.20) 分別表示不同意的消費者，媒體上刊載餐飲衛生評核的訊息是較不會影響其選擇有標章的餐廳消費。 現今的結果建議著，公部門若要藉由實施餐飲衛生分級評核來提供民眾符合衛生規範的餐廳訊息以供選擇，這仍須透過適當的推廣，以改善民眾對於餐飲衛生評核的辨識與態度，如此才可能進而改變對於餐飲消費的行為。
The intention of “restaurant hygiene grading assessment”, which is implemented by government, is desired to provide people the restaurant information that meet the hygiene requirements for selection. However, the correlation of attitude and recognition towards “restaurant hygiene grading assessment” with consumer behavior among consumers has not been explored yet. In the current study, 298 restaurant consumers in Tainan City whose ages ≥ 18 years were recruited to complete a questionnaire, and to examine the correlation of attitude and recognition towards “restaurant hygiene grading assessment” with consumer behavior among consumers; respectively. The results showed that, consumers who never see the information about restaurant hygiene assessment reported in the media, 1) had a significantly lower level of satisfaction when dining at a restaurant in “excellent class” for assessment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval [C.I.] = 1.20-3.22); 2) if they desired to eat at a restaurant with the label of the assessment, they were less confident to find it (OR = 2.57, 95% C.I. = 1.56-4.22); 3) when entering a restaurant, the label of the assessment could be seen immediately, but still, it was unlikely to affect their dining choice (OR = 2.57, 95% C.I. = 1.56-4.23). On the other hand, consumers who disagreed that the label of restaurant assessment could be seen easily, 1) for health, they were unlikely to bring their relatives and friends or just bring themselves to choose a restaurant with the label of the assessment to dine (OR = 2.38, 95% C.I. = 1.43-3.95); 2) they had a significantly lower level of satisfaction when dining at a restaurant in “excellent class” for assessment (OR = 1.70, 95% C.I. = 1.03-2.82); 3) if they desired to eat at a restaurant with the label of the assessment, they were less confident to find it (OR = 3.57, 95% C.I. = 2.11-6.04); 4) when entering a restaurant, the label of the assessment could be seen immediately, but still, it was unlikely to affect their dining choice (OR = 2.22, 95% C.I. = 1.34-3.68); 5) messages about restaurant hygiene assessment reported in the media were unlikely to affect their choice for the consumption at restaurant with the label (OR = 2.12，95% C.I. = 1.28-3.51). In addition, consumers who disagreed that they will give priority to dine at restaurant with the label of hygiene assessment (OR = 3.81, 95% C.I. = 1.93-7.53) and restaurant should not be open if it hadn’t passed the hygiene assessment (OR = 2.59, 95% C.I. = 1.50-4.56), respectively, were less likely to bring their relatives and friends or just bring themselves to choose a restaurant with the label of hygiene assessment to dine for health. Consumers who disagreed that it is a good way for a restaurant, showing the label of hygiene assessment to inform consumers about their catering products that meet the requirements of safety and hygiene (OR = 3.13, 95% C.I. = 1.19-8.24), restaurants with the label of hygiene assessment could supply healthier and safer foods (OR = 2.66, 95% C.I. = 1.32-5.37), and they will give priority to dine at restaurant with the label of hygiene assessment (OR = 3.81, 95% C. I. = 1.93-7.53), respectively, were still unlikely to affect their dining choice when they entering a restaurant, even the label of the assessment could be seen immediately. On the other hand, consumers who disagreed that it is a good way for a restaurant, showing the label of assessment to inform consumers about their catering products that meet the requirements of safety and hygiene (OR = 3.08, 95% CI = 1.17-8.11), they will give priority to dine at restaurant with the label of the assessment (OR = 3.75, 95% CI = 1.90-7.40), and restaurant should not be open if it hadn’t passed the assessment (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.10-3.20), respectively, their choice for the consumption at restaurant with the label were unlikely affected by messages about restaurant hygiene assessment reported in the media. The present results suggest if the public sectors desire to provide people the restaurant information that meet the hygiene requirements for selection by implementation of “restaurant hygiene grading assessment”, it will still be required through appropriate promotion, in order to improve for public’s recognition and attitude towards the restaurant hygiene assessment, thus perhaps it can further change the behavior towards the restaurant consumption. |
