PAPERS
Survey of Railway Customer Perception of Men's Restroom Cleanliness in Railway Stations
2025 Volume 66 Issue 1 Pages 1-8
Details
2025 Volume 66 Issue 1 Pages 1-8
In order to extract factors that affect customer evaluations of men's restrooms in railway stations, we conducted surveys to understand railway customer perception of men's restroom cleanliness in railway stations. Statistical analysis of the survey results revealed that two indicators, “odor satisfaction” and “urine stains on skirting boards,” affect user perception of cleanliness and their decision to use the same restroom again. It also became clear that user perception of the cleanliness of men's railway restrooms cleaned using dry methods in terms of odor was statistically significantly higher than those cleaned with wet methods.
To attract more customers to use railways, which are a form of public transport, it is very important to create an inviting environment (inside stations and trains, etc.). Station restrooms in particular, in terms of appearance and odor, are one of the passenger facilities that most shape opinions about the quality of a station environment. Past surveys [1, 2], have found that about 20% of all respondents consider odor to be an important factor determining the attractiveness of station facilities. In addition, Ozaki et al. [3] found that there was a high correlation between overall evaluation items such as “Would you choose to use this restroom again?” and “Has your perception of the facility improved?” and evaluation items such as “odor,” “cleanliness,” and “comfort” in shaping user perception of restrooms in commercial facilities. In addition, Takahashi et al. [4, 5] reported that it was confirmed that the trap and flush methods of urinals, the presence or absence of urinal backsplash stones and gutters, and the size of floor tiles in men's restrooms at stations affected odor acceptability. One reason for this is that in men's restrooms, the urinals are located on the walking surface of the floor, and urine stains scattered on the floor may be spread by user movement around the restroom. In general, restrooms in stations are cleaned by cleaning companies contracted by railway operators, and the quality of the cleaning work is evaluated by inspections carried out by the cleaning companies themselves using evaluation criteria set for each cleaning area. On the other hand, there are few reports on user evaluation of the cleanliness of station restrooms, and it is not clear how users evaluate the quality of current cleaning work, and what kind of cleaning quality would improve user perception of cleanliness.
In recent years, an increasing number of stations have introduced a method (dry cleaning) that does not use water to clean the floor of restrooms in stations to suppress the growth of bacteria [6], which is considered to be one of the causes of odors in restrooms. It has been reported that dry cleaning reduces restroom odors compared to restrooms cleaned using conventional water-based methods (wet cleaning) [7, 8]. However, cleaning evaluations are carried out using almost the same criteria regardless of cleaning method.
Therefore, we conducted a survey to investigate customer perceptions of station restroom cleanliness (hereafter referred to as “monitor survey”) with the aim of understanding how railway customers evaluate station restroom cleanliness, in order to contribute to the improvement of cleaning quality for users. When analyzing data collected from these surveys, we considered the indicators that affect the answer to the question “Would you choose to use this restroom again?” based on the contents of the previous study [3] mentioned above. Based on the contents of previous studies [4, 5], the restrooms included in the survey were limited to men's restrooms. We also examined whether differences in cleaning methods (dry or wet) would produce differences in survey results. In this paper, we report on the contents and results.
The restrooms surveyed were men's restrooms at two stations (hereafter referred to as “Station A” and “Station B”) where dry cleaning was carried out on the floor, and men's restrooms at two stations (hereafter referred to as “Station C” and “Station D”) where wet cleaning was carried out. These four stations were selected from stations that met the following conditions.
Condition (1) The number of passengers must be approximately the same.
Condition (2) The renovation of the restroom, including the change of the floor of the restroom, was carried out at about the same time.
However, for Station D, since there were no other stations that met Condition (2) in the restroom for wet cleaning, a station that met Condition (1) was selected from a station in the vicinity of Station B where the survey was to be conducted on the same day. Table 1 shows the number of passengers at each station, how the restrooms are cleaned, and photos of the flooring. In addition, the schematic diagram of each restroom and the approximate dimensions and area are shown in Fig. 1.
| Station | A | B | C | D |
| Floor cleaning method | Dry | Wet | ||
| Number of renewals | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Year of last renewal | 2015 | 2015 | 2014 | 2006 |
| Cleaning tools (normal) | • Flat mop with cleaning sheet | • Tightly squeezed mop | ||
| Cleaning tools (midnight) (About once a month) | • Vacuum cleaner • Tightly squeezed sponge | • Brush • Rotating brush | ||
| Examples of cleaning tools [7] |
(Flat mop) |
(Tightly squeezed mop) | ||
| Floor structure | Rubber tiles | Porcelain tiles + joints | ||
| Photo of the inside of restrooms (example) | ;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1005.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) | ;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1006.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) | ||
| Photo of flooring | ;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1007.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) | ;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1008.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) | ||
| Average number of passengers getting on and off per day (Approximate values) *) | 70,000 | 35,000 | 70,000 | 30,000 |
*) The average number of passengers getting on and off per day was calculated based on the “Number of passengers at each station FY2017” published by JR East (https://www.jreast.co.jp/passenger/2017.html). However, the published figures are only for the number of passengers getting on, and do not include the number of them getting off. Therefore, we estimated that the “Number of passengers” is twice as many as the number of passengers getting on and calculated the figures (approximate values) in Table 1.
Here, we briefly describe the differences in cleaning methods used in the surveyed restrooms. In restrooms where dry cleaning is used, the floor is wiped using a flat mop equipped with a cleaning sheet during the day, and about once a month outside of business hours (late at night), dust is sucked up with a vacuum cleaner, and urine stains are wiped with a sponge soaked in water and wrung out tightly. On the other hand, in restrooms where wet cleaning is being carried out, the floor is wiped with a tightly wrung mop during the day, and about once a month outside of business hours, water containing detergent is sprinkled on the entire floor, scrubbed with a brush or rotating brush, and finally drained via the gutter into the sewer pipe.
2.2 Monitor attributes and survey itineraryThis survey was conducted a total of three times from 2018 to 2019. The first survey conducted in 2018 was designated as the “preliminary survey,” and the second and third surveys conducted in 2019 as the “main survey” after additional questions were added on the basis of the results of the preliminary survey. Table 2 shows the dates and the stations to be surveyed of each survey. The surveys were about men's restrooms, therefore all participants were men. Table 3 (a) shows the number of people and the breakdown by age group, Table 3 (b) shows the results of the question about the frequency of regular use of the stations, and Table 3 (c) shows the results of the question about the frequency of use of the restrooms in the stations.
| Date of survey | Stations with surveyed restrooms |
| 1st (Preliminary survey) 2018.12.2 | A, C |
| 2nd (Main survey) 2019.7.23 | A, C |
| 3rd (Main survey) 2019.7.30 | B, D |
| (a) age | ||||
| Age | Number of respondents | Total | ||
| 1st (Preliminary survey) | 2nd (Main survey) | 3rd (Main survey) | ||
| 20s | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
| 30s | 7 | 5 | 7 | 19 |
| 40s | 8 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| 50s | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Total | 25 | 12 | 13 | 50 |
| (b) Usual frequency of use of stations | ||||
| Frequency of use of stations | Number of respondents | |||
| 1st survey | 2nd survey | 3rd survey | Total | |
| Almost every day | 16 | 5 | 6 | 27 |
| Several times a week | 9 | 7 | 7 | 23 |
| (c) Usual frequency of use of restrooms in stations | ||||
| Frequency of use of restrooms in stations | Number of respondents | |||
| 1st survey | 2nd survey | 3rd survey | Total | |
| Use | 20 | 7 | 8 | 35 |
| Sometimes use | 4 | 5 | 5 | 14 |
| Never use | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The number of participants was determined in consultation with the railway operator responsible for the stations to be surveyed, as it was necessary to conduct the survey within the constraints of not interfering with the operation of the station, the passage of general customers, and the use of restrooms.
The age groups were those in their 20s to 50s, who frequently used stations and could participate during the daytime on the day of the survey (weekdays). We thought that high school students were included in the 10-year-olds and could not participate due to commuting to school, etc., and that those in their 60s and older would not use stations frequently, and that the risk of developing heat stroke would increase in the survey conducted in the summer (main survey). As a result of the above considerations, we decided to exclude these age groups from the participants. On the days of the survey, each participant was taken once to the restrooms in the two stations (Table 2) and asked to answer the evaluation items described below.
2.3 Survey contentIn a total of three monitoring surveys, we instructed the participants to first enter the surveyed men's restroom and check the facilities inside, and then to answer their impressions of the cleanliness of each facility (hereafter referred to as “cleaning status evaluation”). Specifically, we instructed the participants to evaluate the cleanliness of each surveyed facility based on the evaluation items set for each facility using a four-case method. Table 4 shows the facilities to be surveyed and the evaluation items for each facility, and Table 5 shows the options for answering. Among the evaluation items in Table 4, those indicated by “●” were set in both the preliminary survey and the main survey, and those indicated by “◇” were additional items set in the main survey based on the results of the preliminary survey. In addition, the items indicated by “●” were set with reference to previous studies [11, 12] and the quality evaluation items of the cleaning work carried out by the company in charge of cleaning the surveyed restrooms (hereafter referred to as “previous cleaning quality evaluation item [13]”). We also divided the surveyed facilities into “floor (around urinals)” and “floor (other than around urinals),” as we thought that the evaluation results of the floor might differ between the area around the urinal and the rest of the facility. In addition, the “grating (around the drain),” “lining (shelf behind the urinal),” and “entrance/exit,” which were not included in the previous study and the previous cleaning quality evaluation items, were newly added as facilities to be surveyed, considering that they are easily visible to users and may affect the impression of the restroom used.
| Surveyed facilities | Evaluation items |
| Urinal | ● Is there any dirt around the equipment? ● Is there dust or dirt accumulated inside the equipment (inner surface) or on the perforated plates? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Floor (around urinal) | ● Is there dirt under the urinal? ● Is there any uneven wiping or unwiped residue? ● Is there sticking gum? Is there dust or dirt in the corners? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Floor (except around urinal) | ● Are footprints not noticeable? ● Are dirt and sediment not noticeable? ● Is there sticking gum? Is there dust or dirt in the corners? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Grating | ● Is there any trash? ● Is there a puddle? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Lining | ● Is there any trash left in the lining? ●Are there any dust or dirt in the corners? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” |
| Wall | ● Is there any dirt around the urinal? ● Is there any graffiti? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Skirting board | ● Is dust not noticeable? ● Are any scratches not noticeable? ● Is there any sewage or wax adhesion? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Cubicle door (outside surface) | ● Is there dust around the door? ● Is the bottom of the door dirty? ● Is there any graffiti? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” ◇Are there “urine stains?” |
| Air vent | ● Is dust not noticeable? ● Are any scratches not noticeable? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” |
| Mirror | ● Is there an uneven wipe at the top? ● Is there any water stain on the bottom? ● Is there dust attached? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” |
| Wash basin | ● Is the wash basin clean with no water stains? ● Is there any garbage on the dressing table (luggage table)? ● Is the faucet clean and shiny? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” |
| Entrance/exit | ● Is the pictogram (restroom mark, etc.) dirty? ● Is there any trash falling near the entrance? ● Is the brightness of the entrance enough? ◇Are there “water drops or wetness?” |
| The whole restroom | ● Overall impression about cleaning |
| Options | Contents |
| 1 | Overall bad |
| 2 | Acceptable if cleaned |
| 3 | Acceptable |
| 4 | Overall good |
For the preliminary survey (first survey) only, in order to search for items that could be used as criteria for evaluating the cleanliness of restrooms, other than the items listed in “●,” and to confirm whether there were any contents that should be added to the evaluation items in Table 4 for the main survey, we asked the participants to freely describe any “points of concern such as dirt” for each surveyed facility and the air in the surveyed restroom space. The format of the answers was a fixed free-form format as shown in Table 6. The answers were organized according to the following procedure.
(1) Exclude answers with the same content as the evaluation items in “●” in Table 4.
(2) Extract the facilities for which the answer remains for each station as results of the procedure (1).
(3) Categorize each answer according to the cause of “worrisome stains” (including water, toilet paper, and odors).
(4) As a result of the classification, exclude the answer with the content with only one mention and with the content that cannot be removed by cleaning.
| “Specific part of equipment” | “Concerns” | “Condition” |
| [Answer example] | ||
| “Urinal” | “Darkening” | “Remained” |
Table 7 summarizes the contents of the answers, and the number of mentions made by two or more participants (referred to as “a”), the total number of mentions made for the same surveyed facility (referred to as “b”), and the ratio of “a” to “b.”
| Station | Facilities | Answer contents | Number of answers (a) | Total number of answers to the equipment (b) | a/b |
| A | Floor (except around urinal) | • Wet | 3 | 12 | 25% |
| • Toilet paper waste | 4 | 33% | |||
| Wall | • Trace of tape | 3 | 8 | 38% | |
| Wash basin | • Water splash (to wall or floor) | 3 | 6 | 50% | |
| Space air | • Odor of human waste | 2 | 4 | 50% | |
| C | Entrance/exit | • Dirty floor and wall | 4 | 5 | 80% |
| Space air | • Odor of human waste | 11 | 15 | 73% | |
| • Strong odor | 2 | 13% | |||
| • Anxious odor | 2 | 13% |
(Points with only one answer were excluded)
The reason why the number of answers was described as “number of mentions” instead of “number of participants who answered” was that there were participants who submitted two answers for the same facility in the same restroom, and we identified several cases where the value of “b” did not match the number of participants who answered.
In both Station A and Station C restrooms, the air in the restroom space smelled of human waste, accounting for 50% of the total number of answers in Station A and 73% in Station C. In addition, the remaining responses to the spatial air in the restroom in Station C were all related to odors. In addition, 25% and 50% of the mentions pointed out “water wetness” and “splashing water on the walls and floor” on the floor (other than around the urinal) and sinks in Station A, and 80% of the mentions pointed out “dirt on the floor and walls” at the entrance of Station C.
Checking the evaluation items of “●” in Table 4, “floor” and “wall” include evaluation items related to dirt, but “water wetness” is not included in the evaluation items of facilities other than the “floor (around urinals),” “grating,” and “mirror,” and evaluation items related to “human waste” are not included in any facility. In addition, the toilet paper scraps on the floor (other than around urinals) and the tape marks on the walls that were pointed out in the restroom in Station A are not usually seen in station restrooms (toilet paper scraps may occasionally fall in cubicles, but they are rarely found on other floors), and they are easy to remove as soon as they are found, as are the plastic bottles and empty cans that are sometimes seen. Based on these findings, we considered that it is necessary to understand users' awareness of “water droplets and water wetness” and “urine stains” for the surveyed facilities shown in Table 4, and as described above, these two evaluation items were additionally set in the main survey.
For the evaluation of odors in the restroom, we instructed people to answer regarding five evaluation items (common to all three surveys): “odor intensity,” “odor concern,” “odor pleasantness/unpleasantness,” “odor satisfaction,” and “odor tolerance.” The answer options for each evaluation item are shown in Table 8.
| (a) Odor Intensity | |
| Odor intensity | Contents |
| 0 | Undetectable (odorless) |
| 1 | Odor that can be detected barely |
| 2 | Weak odor that can still be identified as to what odor it is |
| 3 | Odor easily perceived |
| 4 | Strong odor |
| 5 | Intense odor |
| (b) Odor concern | |
| Answer options | Contents |
| 1 | Be concerned |
| 2 | Not be concerned |
| (c) Odor pleasantness/unpleasantness | |
| Pleasantness/unpleasantness | Contents |
| −4 | Extremely unpleasant |
| −3 | Very unpleasant |
| −2 | Unpleasant |
| −1 | Somewhat unpleasant |
| 0 | Neither |
| 1 | Somewhat pleasant |
| 2 | Pleasant |
| 3 | Very pleasant |
| 4 | Extremely pleasant |
| (d) Odor satisfaction | |
| Answer options | Contents |
| 1 | Dissatisfied |
| 2 | Somewhat dissatisfied |
| 3 | Neither |
| 4 | Somewhat satisfied |
| 5 | Satisfied |
| (e) Odor acceptance | |
| Answer options | Contents |
| 1 | Acceptable |
| 2 | Unacceptable |
In addition, we asked about two points: whether this station restroom was generally clean (hereafter referred to as “cleanliness”) and whether they would like to use this station restroom again (hereafter referred to as “reuse”) (common to all three times). Tables 9 and 10 show the answer options for each question.
| Answer options | Contents |
| 1 | It was clean |
| 2 | If anything, it was clean |
| 3 | Neither |
| 4 | If anything, it was dirty |
| 5 | It was dirty |
| Answer options | Contents |
| 1 | I would choose to use |
| 2 | If anything, I would choose to use |
| 3 | Neither |
| 4 | If anything, I would choose not to use |
| 5 | I would choose not to use |
The differences in the results of monitor surveys due to the different cleaning methods (dry or wet) were examined using a non-parametric test. Specifically, we compiled the results of a total of three surveys for each station restroom with dry cleaning (Station A and Station B) and wet cleaning (Station C and Station D) and performed a Mann-Whitney U-test to see if there were significant differences in the results of the survey. The results are shown in Table 11. Table 11 (a) shows the results for the surveyed facilities and evaluation items in Table 4, and Table 11 (b) shows the results for the five odor-related evaluation items (Table 8), “cleanliness” (Table 9), and “reuse” (Table 10).
| (a) Cleaning status evaluation of the surveyed facilities shown in Table 4 | |||
| Facilities | Significance probability | ||
| Evaluation items: “●” in Table 4 | Evaluation items: “◇” in Table 4 | ||
| Are there “water drops or wetness?” | Are there “urine stains?” | ||
| Urinal | 0.866 | 0.708 | 0.456 |
| Floor (around urinal) | 0.440 | 0.162 | 0.470 |
| Floor (except around urinal) | 0.924 | 0.454 | 0.900 |
| Grating | 0.247 | 0.099 | 0.307 |
| Lining | 0.504 | 0.792 | - |
| Wall | 0.536 | 0.475 | 0.488 |
| Skirting board | 0.408 | 0.054 | 0.688 |
| Cubicle door (outside surface) | 0.533 | 0.601 | 0.885 |
| Air vent | 0.799 | 0.895 | - |
| Mirror | 0.722 | 0.570 | - |
| Wash basin | 0.145 | 0.103 | - |
| Entrance/exit | 0.887 | 0.455 | - |
| The whole restroom | 0.441 | - | - |
| (b) Odor, “cleanliness” and “reuse” | |||
| Evaluation items | Significance probability | ||
| Odor intensity | 0.037 | ||
| Odor concern | 0.008 | ||
| Odor pleasantness/unpleasantness | 0.048 | ||
| Odor satisfaction | 0.011 | ||
| Odor acceptance | 0.028 | ||
| “Cleanliness” | 0.473 | ||
| “Reuse” | 0.437 | ||
The significance probability was less than 0.05 only for the five odor-related evaluation items (intensity, concern, pleasantness/unpleasantness, satisfaction, and tolerance) as shown in Table 11 (b). When compared with the graph (Fig. 2) showing the results of these five evaluations, it was found that all the results were significantly better in the restrooms in Station A and Station B, where dry cleaning was used, than those in Station C and Station D, where wet cleaning was used.
In a previous study [3], one of the overall evaluation items of the restroom was “Would you choose to use this restroom again?” For this reason, in this study, when analyzing the users' evaluation results, we considered the indicators that affect the answer to “reuse.” Therefore, we conducted a correlation analysis between the answers to “reuse” and the results of the cleanliness evaluation of the surveyed facilities (Tables 4 and 5), odor-related (Table 8), and “cleanliness” (Table 9). The correlation coefficient was Kendall's rank correlation coefficient because all options shown in Tables 5 and 8, 9, 10 were ordinal data [14]. Table 12 shows the results of this analysis for the common evaluation items for all three surveys (Tables 4, 5, 8, and 9, except for the evaluation items indicated by “◇” in Table 4) and the evaluation items added in the main survey (the evaluation items indicated by “◇” in Table 4). In Table 12, the absolute value of the correlation coefficient that exceeded 0.4 was shaded to indicate that the absolute value was larger than that of the others (strong correlation with “reuse”).
| (a) Common evaluation items for all 3 surveys | |||||
| Reference table | Evaluation target (facilities, odor, etc.) | (Preliminary survey) | (Main survey) | ||
| Kendall's rank correlation coefficient | Frequency | Kendall's rank correlation coefficient | Frequency | ||
| Table 4 | Urinal | −0.308* | 49 | −0.457** | 50 |
| Floor (around urinal) | −0.110 | 49 | −0.360** | 50 | |
| Floor (except around urinal) | −0.141 | 48 | −0.263* | 50 | |
| Grating | −0.104 | 49 | −0.340** | 50 | |
| Lining | −0.336** | 49 | −0.418** | 50 | |
| Wall | −0.109 | 49 | −0.248 | 50 | |
| Skirting board | −0.169 | 49 | −0.275* | 50 | |
| Cubicle door (outside surface) | −0.146 | 49 | −0.385** | 50 | |
| Air vent | −0.063 | 49 | −0.242* | 50 | |
| Mirror | −0.104 | 49 | −0.265* | 50 | |
| Wash basin | −0.041 | 49 | −0.280* | 50 | |
| Entrance/exit | −0.182 | 49 | −0.200 | 50 | |
| The whole restroom | −0.278* | 49 | −0.533** | 50 | |
| Table 8 | Odor intensity | 0.543** | 49 | 0.455** | 50 |
| Odor concern | −0.508** | 49 | −0.448** | 50 | |
| Odor pleasantness/unpleasantness | −0.546** | 49 | −0.479** | 50 | |
| Odor satisfaction | −0.614** | 49 | −0.552** | 50 | |
| Odor acceptance | 0.388** | 49 | 0.258 | 50 | |
| Table 9 | “Cleanliness” | 0.505** | 49 | 0.538** | 50 |
| **: The correlation coefficient is significant at the 1% level (two-sided). *: The correlation coefficient is significant at the 5% level (two-sided). | |||||
| (b) Evaluation items added in the main survey | |||||
| Evaluation target (facilities, odor, etc.) | Evaluation items | Kendall's rank correlation coefficient | Frequency | ||
| Urinal | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.314* | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.435** | 50 | |||
| Floor (around urinal) | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.279* | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.251* | 50 | |||
| Floor (except around urinal) | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.219 | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.316* | 50 | |||
| Grating | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.375** | 46 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.412** | 46 | |||
| Lining | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.460** | 50 | ||
| Wall | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.417** | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.252 | 50 | |||
| Skirting board | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.445** | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.573** | 49 | |||
| Cubicle door (outside surface) | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.431** | 50 | ||
| Are there “urine stains?” | −0.446** | 50 | |||
| Air vent | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.470** | 50 | ||
| Mirror | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.194 | 50 | ||
| Wash basin | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.193 | 50 | ||
| Entrance/exit | Are there “water drops or wetness?” | −0.186 | 50 | ||
| **. The correlation coefficient is significant at the 1% level (two-sided). *. The correlation coefficient is significant at the 5% level (two-sided). | |||||
From Table 12 (a), it was found that the absolute value of the correlation coefficient with the answer to “reuse” exceeded 0.4 for the following evaluation items. The preliminary survey and main survey are listed separately.
Preliminary survey: Four odor-related evaluation items (“odor intensity,” “odor concern,” “odor pleasantness/unpleasantness,” and “odor satisfaction”) and “cleanliness” in the restroom as a whole.
Main survey: Evaluation of the same evaluation items as the preliminary survey, and the cleaning status of “urinal,” “lining,” and “entire restroom.”
The absolute values of the correlation coefficient for the “urinal” and “lining” in the preliminary survey exceeded 0.3, which were larger than that of other facilities surveyed. In addition, these facilities are easily visible when using the urinals. From these results, it was considered that it would be possible to encourage users to “use the restroom again” by improving the above four odor-related evaluation items and the cleanliness of the urinal and lining to improve customer perceptions.
On the other hand, from Table 12 (b), the facilities that were found to have an absolute correlation coefficient value of more than 0.4 with the response to “reuse” are listed below by evaluation item.
“Are there water drops or wetness?”: linings, walls, skirting boards, cubicle doors, ventilation openings
“Are there urine stains?”: urinals, gratings, skirting boards, cubicle doors
As with the odor evaluation items and “cleanliness” shown in Table 12(a), these items were not included in the previous study [11, 12] or in the previous cleaning quality evaluation items, so we consider that these items are necessary to improve the perception of cleanliness and encourage “reuse” by customers.
In addition, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed on the results of the main survey to confirm the degree of influence on “reuse.” The objective variable was “reuse,” and the explanatory variables were all the evaluation items except the following items: “reuse,” the evaluation items found that the correlation coefficient is not significant at the 5% level (Table 12), “overall restroom” (Table 4) and “cleanliness” (Table 9) in the cleaning status evaluation. “Overall restrooms” and “cleanliness” were excluded from the explanatory variables because they were evaluations of the station restroom as a whole and were not indicators of specific facilities. Note that these variables are ordinal data, but they were treated as quantitative data here. As a result, two explanatory variables with a high degree of influence on the objective variable “reuse” were identified: “odor satisfaction” and “urine stains on skirting boards.” Table 13 shows the standardized partial regression coefficients (hereinafter referred to as “β”), significance probability, VIF (variance inflation factors) for each explanatory variable, coefficient of determination, adjusted coefficient of determination.
| Explanatory variables | Standardized partial regression coefficients (β) | Significance probability | VIF |
| Odor satisfaction | −0.443 | < 0.001 | 1.278 |
| Urine stains on skirting boards | −0.415 | 0.001 | 1.278 |
Coefficient of determination: 0.540
Adjusted coefficient of determination: 0.519
Comparing β, it was estimated that the impact of “odor satisfaction” (β = −0.443) on “reuse” was greater than that of “urine stains on skirting boards” (β = −0.415). In addition, since the VIF values were sufficiently small for all explanatory variables, multicollinearity between explanatory variables was not observed [15]. Furthermore, since the coefficient of determination was 0.540 and the adjusted coefficient of determination was 0.519, and the multiple regression equation was relatively good, we considered that these two explanatory variables are appropriate variables for evaluating “reuse” [16].
From the results of the correlation analysis described above (Table 12), the Kendall rank correlation coefficients for “odor satisfaction” and “urine stains on skirting boards” in the main survey were −0.552 and −0.573, respectively. Among the explanatory variables included in the multiple regression analysis by the stepwise method, the absolute value of the correlation coefficient is the highest, indicating that these two evaluation items have the strongest correlation with “reuse.” These results suggest that although simple comparisons cannot be made due to the difference in the handling of data between ordinal data and quantitative data, “odor satisfaction” and “urine stains on skirting boards” extracted by the stepwise method are the most effective indicators that encourage users to “reuse.”
Section 3.1 showed that the five odor-related evaluation results were significantly better for the station restrooms using dry cleaning than the station restrooms for those using wet cleaning, and this section showed that the four evaluation items related to odor were included among the evaluation items that had a strong correlation with “reuse.” Considering these results together, it is believed that the introduction of dry cleaning is one of countermeasures which could improve “odor satisfaction” and increase the percentage of customers who want to use the station restroom again.
In order to assess the cleaning quality of restrooms in railway stations from the perspective of railway customers, we conducted a monitor survey of men's restrooms in railway stations with different cleaning methods (dry or wet) with the aim of extracting factors that affect users' satisfaction and intention to reuse. The results are shown below.
(1) The significant difference in the results of each evaluation conducted in the main survey due to the different cleaning methods (dry or wet) was examined using the Mann-Whitney U-test. It was found that the evaluation results of the dry-cleaned restroom were significantly better than those of the wet-cleaned restroom for the five odor-related evaluation items (intensity, concern, pleasantness/unpleasantness, satisfaction, and tolerance).
(2) A total of three monitor surveys were conducted in two station restrooms with dry cleaning and two station restrooms with wet cleaning. Of these, the first survey was conducted as a “preliminary survey” and the second and third surveys were conducted as the “main survey.” Correlation analysis was performed on the results of the survey, and evaluation items that were strongly correlated with “repeat use” were identified. As for the results of the survey, evaluation items strongly correlated with “reuse” were extracted by correlation analysis. The results of the main survey were examined using the stepwise method to confirm the relationship between “reuse” and other evaluation items. The result confirmed that the two evaluation items of “odor satisfaction” and “urine stains on skirting boards” had the strongest correlation with “reuse.” Therefore, it was found that it was possible to increase the percentage of customers who think they would like to use the station restroom again by adding content that reflects these evaluation items to the cleaning quality evaluation items and by performing cleaning that is highly rated by users.
(3) “Odor satisfaction” was extracted as one of the appropriate explanatory variables for evaluating “reuse,” and the results of the users' odor evaluation were significantly better for dry-cleaned restrooms than for wet-cleaned restrooms. These results suggest that the introduction of dry cleaning is one of the countermeasures that could improve “odor satisfaction” and thereby increase the percentage of customers who think they would “like to use the restroom again” in the station.
Although new knowledge has been obtained from the user evaluations of the cleaning quality of the station restrooms targeted in this study, it is necessary to conduct a similar survey of more station restrooms and to accumulate data in order to obtain more general conclusions in the future. On top of that, by scrutinizing and optimizing the items of cleaning quality evaluation, we aim to develop a maintenance and management method that can provide comfortable station restrooms that customers think they would like to use again.
This article is a reprint of the Journal of Environmental Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan (Vol. 88, No. 807, pp. 421-428, May 2023 [17]) with some additions and corrections.
|
Takashi KYOTANI
Senior Researcher, Comfort Science and Engineering Laboratory, Human Science Division Research Areas: Analytical Chemistry, Biological Chemistry |
|
Yoshiki IKEDA, Dr.Eng. Assistant Center Chief, East Japan Railway Company Omiya Architecture Technology Center Research Areas: Architectural Environment Psychology |
|
Hiroshi OISHI, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Tohoku Institute of Technology Research Areas: Architectural Environmental Engineering |
|
Tamami KAWASAKI, Ph.D. Senior Researcher, Comfort Science and Engineering Laboratory, Human Science Division Research Areas: Environmental Biochemistry |
;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1003.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09)
;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/01-1004.png%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09)
