capacity scarcity restaurant revenue management.pdf

8/16/2019 Capacity scarcity Restaurant revenue management.pdf

1/11

International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 316–326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

j ournal homepage : www.elsevier .com/ locate / i jhosman

Restaurant revenue management: Do perceived capacity scarcity and

price differences matter?

Cindy Yoonjoung Heo a,∗, Seoki Lee b, Anna Mattila c, Clark Hu d

a School of Hotel andTourism Management, TheHong Kong Polytechnic University, 17 Science MuseumRoad Tsim ShaTsui East, Kowloon, Hong Kong b Schoolof HospitalityManagement, ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity, 201Mateer Building University Park, PA 16802, United Statesc School of Hospitality Management, ThePennsylvania State University, 201Mateer Building University Park, PA 16802,United Statesd Beijing UnionUniversity, Beijing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Restaurant revenue management

Fairness perception

Perceived scarcity

Capacity limitation

Commodity theory

a b s t r a c t

Revenue management (RM) has become an indispensable strategic tool in capacity-constrained service

industries whose total revenue often depends on the abilities of firms to use capacity efficiently. The

restaurant business is similar enough to traditional RM industries such as hotels and airlines, but restau-

rants also have unique characteristics that pose special challenges to restaurant operators. Among the

unique characteristics of restaurants are the relative flexibility of service capacity and the flexible dura-

tion of a meal, which are important subjects to be considered in the implementation of RM practices. In

addition, when a restaurant operator practices a demand-based variable pricing policy to adjust demand,

the magnitude of the price differences may influence fairness perceptions of the policy. Based on the com-

modity theory and the equity theory, this study hypothesizes that two main effects, namely, perceived

scarcity of capacity in a restaurant and price differences, influence the perceived value of a restaurant’s

offerings andthe fairness perceptions of a restaurant’s RM practices. As hypothesized, the negative effects

of price difference on fairness perceptions are supported by the results. However, findings suggest that

perceived scarcity of capacity influences neither the perceived value of a restaurant’s expected offering

nor the fairness perceptions for a restaurant’s RM practices.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Revenue management (RM) has become an indispensable

strategictool in capacity-constrained service industrieswhose total

revenues often depends on the abilities of firms to use capacity

efficiently. As the service provider reaches capacity, limitations

restrict ability to serve additional customers. A restaurant, for

example, may have insufficient seating capacity during the peak

midday period typically for serving lunches. Indeed, most service

providers face some type of capacity constraint (Desiraju and

Shugan, 1999) and the combination of perishability and capacity

constraints encourage service firms to focus on efficiently capital-

izing on existing capacity.

The capacity of a service firm is defined as “the highest quan-

tity of output possible in a given time period with a predefined

level of staffing, facilities, and equipment” (Lovelock, 1992, p. 26).

Measurement of capacity involves both physical and non-physical

aspects. For example, physical capacity may be the number of seats

(for airlines) and the number of rooms (for hotels). Non-physical

∗ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +1 852 9735 4004.

E-mail address: [email protected](C.Y. Heo).

capacity is usually time-based and reflects the notion of physical

capacity occupied during certain periods of time, such as seating

hours in restaurants and tee-times for golf courses. The capacity of

a service firm is usually fixed over the short term, and thus the

rationale for RM is the efficient use of fixed, perishable capaci-

ties by charging customers different prices for identical services

in an attempt to balance demand and revenues per capacity unit

(Kimes,1989a; McGilland Ryzin van, 1999). RM practitioners apply

concepts, such as market segmentation, demand forecasting, and

variable pricing, to ensure maximizing the service firm’s revenue

from limited capacity by adjusting prices to thehighest possible for

any given situation (Ng, 2007).

Kimes (1989a, 1989b) identified a number of preconditions

for the successful application and effective operation of RM. In

general, to gain additional revenues and profit, RM practices suit

service industries that have perishable inventory, fixed capacity,

high-fixed/low-variable cost structures, variable demand, and seg-

mentedmarkets (Kimes, 1989a, 1989b; Berman, 2005). In addition,

reservation systems can aid management of demand forecast-

ing by calculating inventory units prior to consumption. Airline,

hotel, and rental car industries represent traditional RM indus-

tries because they share those similar characteristics (Chiang et al.,

2007).

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784319http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosmanmailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007mailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007&domain=pdfhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosmanhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784319http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.007


2/11

C.Y. Heo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 316–326 317

The restaurant sector is sufficiently similar to hotels’ and air-

lines’ operations that RM practices are applicable for strategic

planning. However, restaurants also have unique characteristics

that pose special challenges, requiring operators to be creative in

developing appropriate RM strategies. Among the unique charac-

teristics of restaurants are the relative flexibilities of capacities

and the flexible durations of meals, and these represent impor-

tant subjects for consideration when implementing RM practices.

Unlike airlines and hotels, restaurants have somewhat more flexi-

ble capacities, for example, a restaurantmay have availableoutdoor

patios for extra seating during pleasant weather and peak patron-

age periods. Moreover, the total available seating capacity per day

in a restaurant is not fixed since customers’ seating durations are

unpredictable. Restaurant operators may need to understand how

customers perceive the capacity limitations of restaurants. This

knowledge is important because customers are mostly familiar

with RM practices in traditional RM industries (e.g., airlines or

hotels) with fixed capacities; perceptions of the relatively flexible

capacityof restaurants may influence customers’perceptions of RM

practices.

In addition, when a restaurant operator practices a demand-

basedvariable pricing policy, the magnitudeof the pricedifferences

may influence fairness perceptions of the policy. The responses of

customers to restaurants’ RM practices are critical to successful

application of RM in restaurants because revenue maximization is

only attainable when customers accept the RM practices without

dissatisfaction. Previous literature suggested that perceptions of

value(e.g., Dodds,Monroe, andGrewal, 1991;Grewal, Monroe, and

Krishnan, 1998; Monroe, 1990; Rao and Monroe, 1989) and fairness

in service exchanges (e.g., Maxwell, 2002) are important factors

for sustaining customer satisfaction, positive behavioralintentions,

and consequently, long-term profitability. To sustain customer sat-

isfaction and to maintain positive relationships with customers,

andfor successfulimplementation of RM, customers’perceptionsof

RM, such as perceptions of value andfairness, arenecessaryconsid-

erations, coinciding with the characteristics of industries (Chiang

et al., 2007: Heo and Lee, 2009).

RM has had application to the restaurant industry, but priorresearch offered a limited number of specific strategies for imple-

mentation (Kimes et al., 1998; Susskind et al., 2004). Restaurants

offering promotions, such as “happy hour” and “early bird spe-

cials,” onlyfocus on discountsduring low-demandperiods. The core

element of RM is to charge premium prices during high-demand

periods based on capacity limitation. However, the potential for

customers’ dissatisfaction have discouraged restaurant operators

from applying various types of RM approaches, including demand-

based pricing (Kimes and Wirtz, 2003a). Therefore, the current

study focuses on customers’ perceptions of a scarcity of capacity

in restaurants and customers’ varying reactions to price different-

ials in terms of the perceived value of a restaurant’s offerings and

the perceptions of RM practices’ fairness.

2. Literature review

2.1. Restaurant revenue management

Capacity utilization is a major concern for restaurants when

attempting to maximize revenue because restaurants have, by

nature, relatively limited space, relatively high fixed costs, and no

inventory opportunities. However, restaurants unconcerned with

limited space, such as takeout restaurants that market the meal

without associated space and time, may have limited interest for

applying RM to maximize revenues. Kimes (1999) argued that the

principles of RM can apply to restaurants given that the unit of

sale in restaurants is the time required for service rather than just

the meal. RM is more applicable to restaurants enjoying demand

greater than seating capacity during peak times (e.g., Friday din-

ner). These types of restaurants can increase revenue by managing

demand and controlling the customers’ seating duration.

Kimes(1999) and Kimes et al.(1998, 1999)wereamongthe first

to address the issue of restaurant RM. They developed a strategic

framework for applying RM to restaurants to increase revenue by

effectively managing seating durations and demand-based pricing.

They proposed using therevenue peravailable seat hour (RevPASH:

revenue accrued in a given time interval divided by the number

of seats available during that time). RevPASH indicates the rate at

which capacity utilization generates revenue, and it increases as

the number of tables’ turnover increases and the length of sea-

ting durations decrease. Kimes et al. (1998) suggested managing

seating duration and customers’ arrival as methods for demand

management. Seating duration (subsequently, duration of a meal)

is the length of time that a customer occupies a seat in a restau-

rant; its importance arises from governing the availability of seats

(Kimes et al., 1998). By reducing variations in meals’ durations,

restaurant operators can manage reservations and seating deci-

sions more effectively (Kimes,1999;Kimesand Chase,1998;Kimes

et al., 1998).

Basedon theargument of Kimes et al. (1998), several researchers

expanded the discussion of the relevant issues for controlling the

duration of meals. For example, Kimes and Robson (2004) discov-

ered that seating durations in midscale restaurants vary based on

table characteristics such as table type and table location. Kimes

and Thompson (2005) reported the average duration of a meal

by party size and day of week for midscale restaurants. Bell and

Pliner (2003) showed that meal durations increase with party size

among several restaurant contexts. Kimes et al. (2002) discov-

ered that Europeans preferred a significantly longer dining time,

while North Americans and Asians share similar meal duration

expectations. Noone and Kimes (2005) examined the effects of

reduced durations on the satisfaction of customers and their inten-

tions to return to the restaurant, and found duration reduction

strategies can directly and negatively influence customers’ satis-

faction. Noone et al. (2007) f ound that an exceedingly fast paceduring a meal diminishes customers’ satisfaction. More recently,

Noone et al. (2009) f ound that the overall relationship between

a perceived service encounter’s pace and satisfaction follows an

inverted U-shape. Thompson (2009) conducted a simulation-based

study andfoundthat on average, therevenue bump experienced by

decreasing dining duration is less than one-quarter of the amount

predicted by the common assumption that a reduction in dining

duration yields a proportional increase in revenue.

Some researchers are more interested in maximizing rev-

enue by increasing efficiency of restaurants’ operations. Sill and

Decker (1999) proposed the use of capacity management science

(CMS) as a systematic approach to evaluate the capacity potential

and process efficiency of a restaurant. CMS includes monitoring

every element of service and of the production delivery processwith quantifiable measurements to enhance customer satisfac-

tion, improve employee satisfaction, and increase profitability.

Quain et al. (1998) and Muller (1999) identified managerial fac-

tors that may improve the efficiency of restaurants; those factors

include defining profit centers, dispersing demand, reducing oper-

ating hours,and decreasing service time by improvingefficiency, as

much as possible, of restaurants’ operations. Similarly, Kimes et al.

(1999) suggested recommendations for the application of restau-

rant RM such as training employees,developing standard operating

procedures, and improving table management to increase the effi-

ciency of restaurant operation. Thompson (2002, 2003) f ocused on

restaurants that do not allow reservations and found that having

appropriately sizedtables in positions to allowrearrangementwith

other tables to serve larger parties can yield additional revenue at


3/11

318 C.Y. Heo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 316–326

virtuallyno added cost.Bertsimasand Shioda (2003) developedtwo

classes of optimization models to maximize revenue for a restau-

rant. The two-step procedure proposed included using a stochastic

gradient algorithm to decide, a priori, how many future reser-

vations to accept, and using approximate dynamic programming

methods to decide, dynamically, when to seat an incoming party

during the operational day. Susskind et al. (2004) f ound that cus-

tomers are willing to shift their dining times to off-peak hours in

exchange for discounted pricing. Dickson et al. (2005) suggested

incentive strategies with a reservation system that can manage

shifting demand so that arrivals match capacities.

Other researchers focused on fairness perceptions of various RM

techniques in restaurants. For example, Kimcs and Wirtz (2002)

examined perceived fairness of five types of RM pricing in restau-

rants and found that framing demand-based pricing as discounts

rather thanas surcharges madeconsumers perceive RM practicesto

be fairer. However, only a fewstudies explored RM from customers’

perspectives. These studies focused on fairness perceptions for RM

techniques or the influence of the techniques on customers’ sat-

isfaction. Although demand-based variable pricing has proven to

be successful in other service businesses such as airlines and hotels

wherecustomersfind demand-based pricing to be moreacceptable

or fair, restaurants have greater constraints in use of demand-

based, variable pricing (Kimes and Chase, 1998). However, Kelly

et al. (1994) suggested demand-based menu pricing as a method of

managing revenue, by arguing that a 1% increase in price can yield

as much as a 20% improvement in profits. They also claimed that a

demand-based approach to menu pricing is predictable from cus-

tomers’ perceptions of a restaurant’s valuebecausecustomersfocus

more on value than on price. Kelly et al. suggested that for future

menu-pricing strategies, restaurants should consider the demand

fluctuation. Heide et al. (2008) also investigated different pricing

strategies for restaurants and concluded that a potential exists

for increased use of various revenue-enhancing strategies such as

pricediscrimination,peak-loadpricing,and bundling.However,the

depth of extant studies on RM practices applied to restaurants is

fairlyshallow (Bertsimas and Shioda, 2003). A theoretical approach

would identify the underlying factors that form perceptions of fair-ness among customers to advance restaurants’ RM practices.

2.2. Commodity theory and perceived value

Commodity theory explains how individuals respond to scarcity

by claiming thatvalues of commodities reflectthe extent of unavail-

ability (Brock, 1968). Hypothetically, a commodity represents

anything capable of being possessed, has use, and is transferable

from one person to another (Brock, 1968) and encompasses both

material goods and intangible services. Value refers to increases

in perceived utility or perceived desirability (Brock and Brannon,

1992). Unavailability refers to scarcity and other limits on avail-

ability. Typically, the concept has been interpreted as limits in

supplyor inthe numberof suppliers, costsin acquiringor providing,restrictions limiting possession, and delays in providinga commod-

ity (Lynn, 1991). In the literature, the terms “unavailability” and

“scarcity” are commonly interchangeable.

Based on the commodity theory, the influence of scarcity on

the valuation of goods has been studied extensively (Lynn, 1991,

1992; Mittone and Savadori, 2009; Verhallen, 1982; Vehallen

and Robben, 1994). Building on the commodity theory, several

researchers tested four propositions: A product or service will be

more attractive (1) when the numbers of suppliers are limited;

(2) when a supplier imposes a restriction on availability; (3)

when a consumer has to wait to gain the product, and (4) when

the consumer needs to exert extra effort to obtain the product

(Brock, 1968; Brock and Mazzocco, 2004). Researchers in psychol-

ogy and marketing found that knowledge of a product’s scarcity

affects consumers’ perceptions and evaluations of the attractive-

ness, desirability, expensiveness, quality, and tasteof a product. For

example, Verhallen (1982) f ound that people showed greater pref-

erence for a recipe book perceived to be scarce. Lynn (1989) also

found that artwork perceived as scarce was more desirable than

paintings perceived to be readily obtainable. Recently, Aggarwal

et al. (2011) tested the relative effect of two types of scarcity mes-

sages (limited-quantity and limited-time) on customers’ purchase

intentions and found that the limited-quantity messages are more

effective than limited-time messages in influencing the purchase

intentions of consumers.

Several researchers examined the influences of perceived

scarcity on customers’ perceptions of pricing. Lynn and Bogert

(1996) examined the effect of scarcity on an anticipated price

appreciation and foundthat scarcity increased the anticipated price

appreciation of collectible products. They argued that although

scarcity does not affect the actual potential of a product for price

appreciation, news reports of scarce collectibles that have appre-

ciated in value might lead people to develop naive economic

theories and associate scarcity with price appreciation. Suri et al.

(2007) examined how perceived scarcity influences consumers’

processing of pricing. During scarcity, consumers’ perceived qual-

ity and monetary sacrifice showed different patterns in responses

that depended on the relative price level and motivation of con-

sumers to process information (Suri et al., 2007). The study found

that a high price along with high-motivation, perceived quality

and value as well as purchase intentions increased during scarcity,

supporting the hypothesis that motivation to process information

moderates the effects of scarcity on information processing. The

researchers argued that an increase in perceived value of an offer

depends on whether or not application of pricing serves a greater

role to evaluate perceived sacrifice or perceived quality.

However, a few researchers argued that the appeal of scarcity

does not necessarily result in favorable perceptions for the scarce

product because potentialpurchasers scrutinizean offermore thor-

oughly(Brannon andBrock, 2001; Brock andBrannon,1992; Inman

et al., 1997). A liberalization of the commodity theory proposed by

Brock and Brannon (1992) included three modifications: (1) exten-sion ofthe domainfromany conveyable andpossibleobject totraits

and skills, (2) extension to negative objects, and (3) identification

of cognitive elaboration as a mediator between scarcity and eval-

uative polarization. Brock and Brannon (1992) argued that when

negatively valenced objects, for which an individual might have a

clear aversion, are scarce, the original notion of usefulness is dis-

carded. Moreover, a negatively valenced experience gains greater

aversive perceptions to the extent of its rarity.

Based on the commodity theory, the findings of the majority of

the research suggest that when individuals perceive a scarce prod-

uctas uniqueor valuable,scarcitywill elicitpositivefeelings forthe

product. From the positive perspective of scarcity, the commodity

theory should predict an increase in attractiveness of a restau-

rant’sscarce capacity andperceivedvalue of the dining experience.Therefore, this study proposes the hypothesis:

H1: The perceived scarcity of capacity in a restaurant will pos-

itively influence the perceived value of that restaurant’s expected

offering.

2.3. Equity theory and fairness perception

The equity theory, proposed by Adams (1965), focuses on an

individual’s perception of fairness with respect to a relationship.

Thetheory postulates that individuals consider what they putintoa

given situation relative to what they gain from it andthen compare

the evaluation with the inputs and outcomes of others. If the rela-

tionships are inferentially inequitable or unfair, individuals may


4/11


5/11


andWiner, 1995). According to the adaptation-level theory, assess-

ments of stimuli differences depend on the magnitude of the

standard against which the assessments are made, and behavioral

responses of individuals to stimuli represent modes of adapta-

tion to environmental and organismal forces (Helson, 1964). In

a pricing context, the adaptation-level theory suggests that price

perceptions rely on the actual price and on the reference price or

adaptation level of the customer. Furthermore, the adaptation level

is a function of the magnitude of a series of stimuli, the range of

stimuli, and the dispersion of stimuli from the mean.

Second, the assimilation-contrast theory (Sherif and Hovland,

1958) states the existence of regions that are internal to peo-

ple’sperceptual judgments,namely,latitudeof acceptance,latitude

of rejection, and latitude of non-commitment. A new stimulus

that falls within the latitude of acceptance may be acceptable,

and consequently assimilate, while the stimulus that falls within

the latitude of rejection is unacceptable or objectionable. In the

context of price evaluations, latitude of acceptance consists of

an acceptable price range encompassing a reference point; lat-

itude of rejection translates into an unacceptable price range,

and latitude of non-commitment constitutes a range of neither

acceptable nor unacceptable prices. Thus, the assimilation-contrast

theory suggests that the price differences falling within con-

sumers’ acceptable price ranges are either accepted or assimilated

(Blair and Landon, 1981; Liefeld and Heslop, 1985). In other

cases, when price differences fall outside the acceptable price

range, they are contrasted or rejected (Monroe and Petroshius,

1981).

When a restaurant charges different prices for the same menu

on different days of the week, consumers may perceive the qual-

ity of food and service to be the same, but the prices are different.

As a result, as the price difference increases, the perceived value

will decrease. The price difference will also have a negative influ-

ence on fairness perceptions toward RM practices in restaurants.

The assimilation-contrast theory suggests that price differences

outside the acceptable range are contrasted or rejected (Monroe

and Petroshius, 1981). Therefore, if the price during high-demand

periods fallsoutside the acceptable range, thatconditions may neg-atively affect the perception of fairness toward the restaurant’s RM

practices. Therefore, this study proposes the hypotheses:

H3: The price difference between low-demand and high-

demand periods willnegativelyinfluencethe perceived valueof the

restaurant’s expected offerings. In otherwords, the higherthe price

difference is, the lower is the perceived value of the restaurant’s

expected offerings.


demand periods will negatively influence perceptions of fairness of

the restaurant’s RM practices. In other words, the higher the price

differenceis, thelowerthe perception of fairness perceptions of the

restaurant’s RM practices.

In addition, Brock and Brannon (1992) argued that consumers

tend to assume scarce things are more expensive than availableones, and that expensive things are often assumed to be of bet-

ter quality and reflect higher status than inexpensive commodities.

Although Brock and Brannon did not empirically test the relation-

ships, the study proposed perceived expensiveness as a moderator

of scarcity effect. Therefore, the positive relationship between

perceived scarcity and perceived value of the restaurant’s expected

offerings may be stronger when price differences between low-

demand and high-demand periods are large than when price

differencesare small. In addition,the positive relationship between

perceived scarcity and perceptions of fairness of the restaurant’s

RM practices may be stronger when the price differences are large.

Therefore, the current study proposes hypotheses:


demand periods will moderate the relationship between perceived

Table 1

Experimental design.

Constructs Levels

PS (perceived scarcity) No Low High

PD (price difference) 10% 20% 30% 40%

scarcity of capacity in the restaurant and the perceived value of the

restaurant’s expected offerings.H6: The price difference between low-demand and high-

demand periods will moderate the relationship between perceived

scarcity of capacity in the restaurant and perceptions of fairness for

the restaurant’s RM practices.

The basic assumption of these hypotheses, however, is that

a restaurant in this study faces capacity limitation during high-

demand periods. Restaurants unconcerned with limited dining

space (for example, takeout restaurants that market the meal itself

rather than space and time) may not be appropriate considerations

for this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Design of the study

This study used three (scarcity of capacity: No, Low, or High) by

four (price difference: 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%) factorial, between-

subjects design to test the hypotheses (Table 1). More specifically,

the study adopted factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to

examine not only main effects but also moderating effects.

This study used written scenarios to manipulate the perceived

scarcity of capacityin restaurants and theprice differencesbetween

high- and low-demand periods. A sample scenario appears in

Appendix A. Fromthe literature, unavailabilityrefers to scarcityand

other limits on availability (Lynn, 1991); thus, these terms provide

the basis for the concept of perceived scarcity of a restaurant’s

capacity. The survey used in the study includes two question-

naireitems, limitedness and availability, to perform a manipulationcheck for the perceived scarcity construct.

This study developed a questionnaire for the context of dining

in a casual restaurant and uses a design with relevant constructs

based on scales adopted from previous research. Some adjust-

ments to the questionnaire were necessary to reflect the specific

characteristics of restaurants, and. employs a seven-point Likert

scale to measure each item in the questionnaire. Perceived value

represents “consumers’ overall assessment of the utility of a prod-

uct based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”

(Zeithaml, 1988, p.14). The survey includes three direct measures

to capture customers’ perceived value, adopting measures from

Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) with modifications for the context

of restaurants. Consistent with the studies by Kukar-Kinney, Xia,

and Monroe (2007), measures for procedural fairness and distribu-tive fairness use a set of four items: fair, acceptable, unfair, and

satisfactory. Kukar-Kinney et al. (2007) adapted this measure from

the study of Campbell (1999) and added additional items to mea-

sure pricing policy, fairness (procedural fairness), and pricefairness

(distributive fairness).

In addition to the main factors, the current study includes three

covariates in factorial ANCOVA to enhance the internal validity:

tolerance-of-crowding, familiarity with RM, and gender. Perceived

scarcity of capacity in a restaurant may relate to customers’ per-

ceptions of crowding. Therefore, a tolerance-of-crowding measure,

adopted from Machleit et al. (1994), was included as a covariate in

the factorial ANCOVA. Moreover, previous research found that the

familiarity of customers with RM practices has an impact on fair-

ness perceptions toward RM (e.g., Taylor and Kimes, 2010; Wirtz


6/11


and Kimes, 2007). Wirtz and Kimes (2007) suggested that as cus-

tomers become more familiar with RM practices, the unfairness

perceptions decline, over time, because familiarity tends to adjust

customers’ reference-points for transactions and prices, resulting

in lower or even no impact on perceptions of pricing fairness. Thus,

the familiarity of customers with RM practices (that is, a demand-

based pricing policy: weekdays-versus-weekends) in restaurants

was included as another covariate in the factorial ANCOVA. Last,

Beldona and Namasivayam (2006) examined gender differences

in relation to perceived price fairness and subsequent repurchase

intentions. Beldona and Namasivayam found that females’ percep-

tions of fairness were significantly lower throughout all pricing

scenarios which framed both discount and surplus situations.

Accordingly, the model in this study incorporates gender as the

third covariate.

The survey, initiated with a brief introduction to the nature of

the study, proceededwith participants reading scenarios.The ques-

tionnaire includes two questions for perceived scarcity of capacity

and one question for perceived price difference. Second, the par-

ticipants answered questions regarding their perceived value of

the restaurant’s expected offerings and their fairness perceptions

for the variable representing demand-based pricing policy (proce-

dural fairness) and the price difference (distributive fairness). For

the final portion, questions measured respondents’ tolerance for

crowding and familiarity with RM practices in restaurants. Demo-

graphic questions such as gender, age, ethnicity, and education

concluded the survey.

3.2. Pretest

The questionnaire underwent a pilot test, which involved 66

undergraduates in a hospitality program at a university on the east

coastof the United States. Afterexcluding unqualifiedand/orincon-

sistent responses, 55responses(83.3%)remainedfor analysis of the

pilot test. Among the respondents, 18.2% were males, and 81.8%

were females. Assessment of the scales included checks for inter-

nal consistency and unidimensionality (Traub, 1994). The average

variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was above the recom-mended value of .50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For all constructs,

reliability was above the suggested cut-off point of .70 (Nunnally,

1978). The t-test revealed that respondents perceived price differ-

ences between weekdays and weekends for “10% vs. 40%” to be

different (t -value: −5.09, p-value: .00). However, post hoc anal-

ysis shows that manipulations for perceived scarcity of capacity

did not elicit responses consistent with the hypothesis. A revised

description, “The tables are always unavailable on Friday and Sat-

urday” clarified the notion of perceived scarcity of capacity in the

“High” scarcity situation. The description of a restaurant in the

“Low” scarcity situation had similar revision from “The tables are

sometimes unavailable on Friday and Saturday” to “The tables are

normallybut not always availableon Friday and Saturday.” Another

pre-test, using the edited questions, evaluated the revised manip-ulations for perceived scarcity of capacity, resulting in appearance

of significant differences in perceived scarcity of capacity among

the three scenarios.

3.3. Data collection

The final data, collected during May 2010, represent subjects

from a general population, who requested tourism information for

Arizona, Florida, and Texas. Twelve thousand emails were divided

into twelve groups and allocated to each of the twelve scenarios.

Each respondent was asked to participate in one scenario (scarcity:

No, Low, or High; price difference: 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%). Two

reminder emails, after 7 days and15 days from theinitialinvitation,

attemptedto enhance therate of response.From the 12,000 emails,

Table 2

Sample’s demographics.

Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 119 24.7

Female 362 75.3

Age 20–29 27 5.6

30–39 75 15.6

40–49 119 24.7

50–59 148 30.8

60 and over 112 23.3Income US$ 20,000 or under 31 6.7

US$ 20,001–35,000 42 9.1

US$ 35,001–50,000 77 16.6

US$ 50,001–75,000 102 22.0

US$ 75,001–100,000 107 23.1

US$ 100,001 or more 104 22.5

Education High school or Less 116 24.1

Associate 105 21.8

Bachelors degree 158 32.8

Masters 84 17.5

Doctorate degree 18 3.7

Ethnicity Caucasian 419 86.7

African American 19 3.9

Hispanic 8 1.7

Asian 17 3.5

Other 20 4.1

549 respondents participated in the survey (4.6% response rate),

and the response rate for each scenario varied from 3.5% to 5.5%.

Of the 549 participants, 44 incomplete questionnaires disqualified

those responses, resulting in, 505 responses remaining for analysis

(4.2% valid response rate).

Asseenin Table 2, the sample(n= 505) in theanalysisrepresents

75.3% females (n= 362). The ages of respondents ranged from 20 to

85, with a median age of 49.3 years. Respondents aged 50–59years

old (30.8%) and 20–29 years old (5.6%) accounted for the largest

and smallest proportions of respondents, respectively. In terms of

income, the respondents were fairly evenly distributed, with the

largest group (23.1%) reporting incomes between US$ 75,000 and

US$ 100,000, and with the smallest group (6.7%) reporting incomes

of US$ 20,000 or under. In terms of education, the largest category

was holders of bachelor’s degrees (32.8%), followed by high school

diplomasor less(24.1%).Last,86.6% of respondents wereCaucasian;

the remainder were African-American (3.9%) and of other ethnici-

ties (3.9%).

4. Analysis and results

Manipulation checks included a series of one-way ANOVAs to

determine whether or not the experimental treatments led to the

desired significant differences in the various conditions (results

appear in Tables 3 and 4). The study used two questions (PS1 and

PS2) to check thedifference in perceivedscarcitybetween High and

Low, and Low and No, and results of the two questions show sig-nificant differences between both High and Low, and Low and No

(Table 3). The perceived price difference among 10% (mean: 4.10),

20% (mean: 5.04), and 30% (mean: 5.75) was also significant, but

Table 3

Manipulation checks for perceived scarcity.

Level N Subset for alpha = .05

1 2 3

PS1 High 173 2.20 – –

Low 167 – 2.66 –

No 165 – – 5.83

PS2 No 165 2.33 – –

Low 167 – 4.57 –

High 173 – – 5.60


7/11


8/11


Table 8

ANOVA analysisof theeffects of perceived scarcity on perceivedvalue.

Price difference

10% 20% 30% 40%*

F -value 1.31 .20 .55 3.11

P .27 .82 .58 .05

* It indicates two-tailed significance at 0.05 level.

Table 9

Post hoc analysisof the effects of perceived scarcity on perceived valuefor the40%

price difference scenario.

Subsetfor alpha= 0.05

N 1 2

Low 35 3.31 –

No 35 3.74 3.74

High 35 – 3.94

Table 10

ANOVA analysis of the effects of perceived scarcity on fairness perceptions.

Price difference

10% 20% 30%* 40%

F -value .21 .67 3.53 .02

P .89 .52 .03 .98

* It indicates two-tailed significance at 0.05 level.

capacity does not influence customers’fairness perceptions toward

the restaurant’s RM practices, and that the price difference influ-

ences customers’ fairness perceptions. Two covariates, familiarity

with RM practices (F -value: 108.18, p-value: .00) and gender (F -

value: 14.07, p-value: .00), were found to be significant, suggesting

that familiarity with RM practices and gender affect customers’

fairness perceptions of a restaurant’s RM practices. No difference

appears for perceptions of difference between the 30% and 40%.

Hence, the data from the 40% scenarios were omitted from thefactorial ANCOVA. However, additional analysis including the 40%

of the price difference scenarios provided the qualitatively same

results.

This study performedone-wayANOVA to investigatewhetheror

not the effects of perceived scarcity of capacity on perceived value

and fairness perceptions differ for each price difference scenario.

As presented in Table 8, no significant effects for perceived scarcity

of capacity appeared for the 10%, 20%, and 30% price differences,

but for the 40% price difference situation, the effect of perceived

scarcity of capacity on theperceived value was significant (F -value:

3.11, p-value .05). Post hoc analysis revealed that the difference

in perceived value appeared to be between Low and High scarcity

situations (Table 9).

Table 10 shows that no significant effects from perceived

scarcity of capacity on fairness perceptions appear for the 10%,

20%, and 40% of price differences; the effect of perceived scarcity

of capacity was significant only for the 30% of the price difference

situation (F -value: 3.53, p-value: .03). Consistent with the resultfor

Table 11

Post hoc analysis of the effects of perceived scarcity on fairness perceptionsfor the

30% price difference scenario.

Subsetfor alpha= 0.05

N 1 2

Low 35 2.62 –

No 35 2.72 2.72

High 35 – 3.33

perceived value, the differential for perceived scarcity of capacity

was present between Low and High scarcity situations, as shown

in Table 11.

5. Discussion

The main purpose of this study is to examine the effects of

perceived scarcity of capacity and the price difference on cus-

tomers’ perceived value for a restaurant’s offerings and their

fairness perceptions regarding a restaurant’s RM practices. In addi-

tion, an empirical investigation considers the interaction effect of

the scarcity of capacity andprice difference, proposed by Brock and

Brannon (1992). Factorial ANCOVA tested six hypotheses.

According to the commodity theory, knowledge of a product’s

scarcity affects consumers’ perceptions and evaluations of attrac-

tiveness, desirability,expensiveness, quality, and tasteof a product.

However, the results of this study do not support the hypothesized

positive effect of customers’ perceived scarcity of capacity for a

restaurant on the perceived value of the restaurant’s offerings. In

addition, the equity theory proposed by Adams (1965), suggests a

positive effectof scarcity of capacity on customers’ fairness percep-

tions in the context of a restaurant’s RM (H2). However, this study

finds an insignificant effect.

Although thecommodity theoryhas thesupportof many empir-

icalstudies,several researchersarguedthat the scarcity of a product

does not have a positive effect on consumers’ evaluations of the

product in allcases.Some studies argued that the appealof scarcity

led consumers to scrutinize an offer more thoroughly and did not

necessarily result in favorable perceptions for the scarce product

(Brannon and Brock, 2001; Brock and Brannon, 1992; Inman et al.,

1997). Brock and Brannon (1992) argued that for scarce, negatively

valenced objects, for which an individual might have a clear aver-

sion, the original notion of usefulness is discarded. Moreover, a

negatively valenced experience will be regarded as more aversive

to the extent that it is considered rare, because people confronting

scarcity have motivation to think about the message. Thus, scarcity

can also render negative evaluations more extreme (Brannon andBrock, 2001).

In addition, Suri et al. (2007) examined the influence of

perceived scarcity on consumers’ processing of price information

in the context of product and service purchases. The results of that

studyshowed that during scarcity, consumers’ perceptions of qual-

ity and monetary sacrifice exhibit different patterns of responses

depending on the relative price level and on consumers’ motiva-

tions to process information. According to Suri et al., motivation

to process information moderates the effect of scarcity. During

scarcity, a high price in a high- motivation condition, increase the

perceptions of quality and value, as well as purchase intentions. In

the current study, the respondents read a scenario and imagined

participating in the situation. However, their motivation to process

given information from the scenario is unknown, perhaps explain-ing the results of the insignificant effects of perceived scarcity of

capacity in this study.

The unexpected insignificant effects of perceived scarcity may

also associate with thetypeof scarcityand thetypeof product.Gierl

and Huettl (2010) argued that positive effects from evaluations of

products depend on the type of scarcity (i.e., scarcity due to sup-

ply vs. scarcity due to demand) and the type of products (i.e., high

vs. low suitability for conspicuous consumption). Gierl and Huettl

(2010) combined the types of scarcity and the types of products

and found that scarcity due to supplywould resultin more positive

attitudes toward products than scarcity due to demand for high-

conspicuous consumption conditions. The findings of the current

research support the notion that scarcity due to supply enhances

evaluations of products, but positive evaluations of the product


9/11


decline when attributing scarcity to high demand. Thus, in the cur-

rentstudy, customers’perceptions of a dining experienceat a casual

dining restaurant (whether conspicuous consumption or not) may

affect the results. If the respondents regarded having dinner at the

casual dining restaurant as conspicuous consumption, scarcity due

to high demand may not affect attitude.

Regarding the price difference factor, the current results sup-

port the negative effect of the price difference on customers’

fairness perceptions regarding a restaurant’s RM practices. These

results suggest that as theperceived price differencebetweenhigh-

demand and low-demandperiods increases, and customers tend to

perceive a restaurant’s RM practices to be unfair. However, incon-

sistent with the hypothesis, the results of the present study do not

support the negative effect of the price difference on customers’

perceived value for a restaurant’s offerings.

The findings of this study may provide restaurant managers

withsome practicalimplications.Based on the commodity theory, a

restaurant’s manager may prefera marketingmessage thatempha-

sizes the restaurant’s full capacity during high-demand periods.

However, based on this study’s findings, such information may

not positively affect customers’ perceptions regarding the value

of the restaurant’s offerings or the fairness of the restaurant’s RM

practices. In such a case, the manager may instead focus on other

features or information in advertising. Based on the finding of this

study, a manager may need to avoid sharing information of avail-

able discounts that differentiate high- and low-demand periods

with customerswho plan to dine or aredining duringhigh-demand

periods because such information may discourage patronage; cus-

tomers may likely forma negative perceptionof the restaurant’s RM

practices. An important issue for future research in this regard is to

discover the optimal level for price differences at which customers

will not consider the price as unfair, thus allowing restaurants to

maximize revenues.

This study performed several additional analyses and found

that for the 40% price difference scenario, the perceived scarcity

of capacity (between high and low) positively affects the perceived

value of a restaurant’s offerings. In other words, customers who

perceive a restaurant’scapacityas very scarce consider that restau-rant’s offerings more valuable compared with the customers who

perceive a restaurant’s capacity as less scarce when the restau-

rant provides a 40% discount during weekdays. This finding may

suggest that the scarcity factor plays a significant role only when

substantial andnot marginal price differences arepresent between

low- and high-demand periods. A restaurant manager whose

restaurant enjoys full capacity during high-demand periods may

want to consider heavily discounting menu offerings only dur-

ing low-demand periods to enhance customers’ perceived value of

the restaurant’s offerings. This suggestion arises from the notion

that when the restaurant provides a marginal discount during

low-demand periods, the restaurant’s high occupancy during high-

demand periods (i.e., high scarcity of capacity) does not positively

affect customers’ perceptions of value.From exhaustive research, this study is the first to apply com-

modity and equity theories to the RM context, more specifically

for the context of restaurants. Although the results do not support

the hypotheses regarding perceived scarcity of capacity, this study

raises an important issue of consumers’ perceptions of scarcity of

service resourcesin thecontext of restaurants’ RM.In addition,pre-

vious RM research has provided little investigation of the effect of

the price differences between low- and high-demand periods on

perceived value and fairness perceptions, and the current study

fills this gap in the literature. Previous RM literature also found

that familiarity with RM practice is a considerable factor for fair-

ness perceptions of RM, and this study confirms the importance

of a respondent’s familiarity with RM practices in the restaurant

context.

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Several limitations ofthis studyshould benoted. First,giventhat

the respondents represent only one geographic region (i.e., U.S.),

findings ofthe studymay not generalizefor otherregions.However,

considering the representative sample of 505 respondents with a

wide range of backgrounds, as shown in profile of the sample (e.g.,

age, education, and income level) discussed in 3.3. Data Collection,

the sample may be an adequate proxy for the general restaurant

goers in the U.S. In addition, the nature of the scenarios, including

scarcity, might limit the generalizability of the results of the study,

which only analyzes the effects of scarcity in cases of no provided

information regardingother restaurant’s practicesand alternatives.

In a scenario of choosing a restaurant, information ofnearby restau-

rants may be a critical factor influencing customers’ interpretation

of signals of scarcity.

Second, the experiment in this study is scenario-based and did

not occur in a field setting. Online-based scenarios may not fully

represent a restaurant’s on-going situations in the field. Capturing

all of the nuances of the actual situation in a scenario is difficult,

and consequently, respondents may have difficultypredicting their

feelings (e.g., perceived scarcity of capacity and attitude toward

the restaurant’s RM practices) in a hypothetical situation. Specifi-

cally, the description of the high-scarcity situation (tables always

unavailable) may not be realistic. However, after the manipula-

tion check through the pre-test, the original manipulation for the

scarcity measure is, apparently insignificantly different among dif-

ferentsituations.Thus, thecase is intentionally extreme to ensurea

significant difference among the scenarios. Furthermore, the main

findings of theinfluenceof scarcityof capacity on value andpercep-

tions of fairness do not appear significant even with this extreme

case.

Third, regarding the measures for perceived value, different

aspects of value (e.g., hedonic vs. utilitarian values) may represent

extensions of this research in the future. Another constraint in this

study is the sole focus on customers’ perceptions of disadvanta-

geous situations, because the hypothetical plans of respondents

were for a visit to a restaurant on a Friday. Future research mayconsider examining the reactions of customers in advantageous

situations (e.g., obtaining discounts) to a restaurant’s RM practices

using scenarios of scarcity.

This study is experimental in nature and one of the first few

studies to explore the effects of perceived scarcity of capacity in

the context of restaurants’ RM practices. Although this study did

not find a significant effect from scarcity on perceived value and

fairness perceptions, additional research is necessary to investi-

gate the effects, using different settings and other factors. Future

research are encouraged to identify other factors that could influ-

ence consumers’ evaluations of price information to understand

further the impact of scarcity on the valuation of service offerings

from a restaurant. In addition, future research also can examine

cognitive procession as a mediator to understand better the under-lying mechanism for the effects of scarcity.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for

their constructive comments on improving an early version of this

paper. This project is partly supported by a research grant funded

by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Appendix A. APPENDIX. Sample Scenario

Imagine that you are planning to have a dinner with your

family on Friday. Your friend recommended several casual dining


10/11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4319(13)00077-7/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S02

capacity scarcity restaurant revenue management.pdf

Documents