Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
-
Upload
indonesia-tobacco -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
1/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 1
Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of
Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry includes studiesproduced to 31 January 2008*
Produced by Michelle Scollo and Anita Lal,
VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Melbourne, Australia
February 2008
VicHealth Centre for Tobacco ControlThe Cancer Council Victoria
100 Drummond StCarlton Vic 3053Australia61 3 9635 5351
http://www.vctc.org.au/tc-res/Hospitalitysummary.pdf
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
2/84
http://www.tobaccoarchive.com/http://www.pmoptions.com/ -
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
3/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
4/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 4
Connolly et al (2005) [15]
Cowan (2004) [16]
Cowling & Bond (2005) [17]
Dai et al (2004) [18]
* Dresser (1999) [19]Evans & Hyland, 2005 [20]
Luk et al (2006) [21]
Glantz & Charlesworth (1999) [22]
Glantz & Smith (1994) [23]
Glantz & Smith (1997) [24]
Glantz (2000) [25]
Glantz & Wilson-Loots (2003) [26]
Goldstein & Sobel (1998) [27]
Hayslett & Huang (2000) [28]
Huang & McCusker (2004) [29]
Huang et al (1995)[30]
Hyland et al (1999)[31]a
Hyland (2002) [32]
Hyland et al (2003) [33]
Maroney et al (1994) [34]
Moseley & Schmidt (2003) [35]
Sabry & Patton (2007) [36]Pacific Analytics (2001)[37]
Parker & Chiang 2007[38]
Pope & Bartosch (1997)[39]
Sciacca & Ratliff (1998)[40]
Stoltz & Bromelkamp (2007) [41]
Styring (2001) [42]
Taylor Consulting (1993)[43]
Wakefield et al (2002) [44]
Equalization (1998)[45]
* City of Boulder (1996) [46]
Edwards et al (2008) [47]
Engelen et al 2006 [48]
Fletcher (1998) [49]
Harrison et al (2006) [50]
* Lawless (2005) findings do notallow one to say [51]
New York City Department ofFinance (2004) [52]
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
5/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 5
No effect, or positive effect Negative effect No effect, or positive effect Negative effect
Sales data other Bourns & Malcomson (2002) [53]
Felmingham et al 2003 [54]
Lal et al (2003) [55]Lal et al (2004) [56]
Mandel, 2005 [57]NZ Ministry of Health 2005 [58]
* Dresser et al (1999) [59]
* Thomson & Wilson (2006) [60]
Lund (2006) [61, 62]
Employment levels (Alpert et al 2007[7])
* Bourns & Malcomson (2001) [63]
(Connolly et al (2005)[15])(*Dai et al (2004)[18])
(Evans and Hyland, 2005 [20])
Hahn et al (2005) [64]and Pyles et al 2007
[65]
* Hild et al 2001[66]
* Hyland & Cummings (1999) [67]b
Hyland et al (2000) [68]
* Hyland & Tuk (2001) [69]
(Hyland (2003)[33])
New York City Department ofHealth and Mental Hygiene (2003)[70]
(New York City Department ofFinance (2004)[52])
(* Thomson & Wilson (2006) [60])
Number of
establishments
* (Hyland & Cummings (1999) [67])b
(Hahn et al (2005)[64])(New York City Department ofFinance (2004) [52]
Number of
restaurant/bar permits
applications
(New York City Department ofFinance (2004)[52])
Bankruptcy data (Bourns & Malcomson 2001[63])
(Bourns & Malcomson 2002)[53]
Number of employment
insurance claims(Bourns & Malcomson 2001[63])
(Bourns & Malcomson 2002)[53]
Financial stress score Price (2004) [71]
Value of business on
saleAlamar & Glantz, (2004)[72] and
2007[73]
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
6/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 6
Studies for which funding source is unknown
Taxable sales receipts Stolzenberg and DAlessio, 2007 [74]
Employment levels Adams & Cotti 2006 [75]
Sales Data Evans M (2005) [5] * Clower & Weinstein (2004) [76]
Pakko (2005) [77] and (2006)[78]
Pakko (2005) [79]and (2006) [80]
Pakko (2007)[81] and (2008) [82]
* Pubco (2002) [83]Thalheimer Research Associates(2005) [84]
Employment figures * Phelps 2006 [85]
Studies conducted by organisations or consultants with links to the tobacco industry
Taxable sales receipts * Centre for Economics and BusinessResearch Ltd 2005 [86]
* Lilley & De Franco (1996) b [87]
Kjona 2007 [88]
Kuneman 2004 [89]
* Kuneman and Mc Fadden 2005[90]
* Masotti & Creticos (1991)*[91] Studies funded by tobacco companies or industry groups supported by the tobacco industry
Taxable sales receipts * Laventhol et al (1990) [92]
Sales data other * Applied Economics (1996)[93]
Deloitte & Touche LLP 2003 [94]
Employment levels * Lilley & De Franco (1999)[95]
* Lilley & De Franco (1996) [96]a
Number of
establishments
* (Lilley et al 1999)[95])
Bold type = peer reviewed; * Use discrete rather than continuous data prior to and after the introduction of policies; Only weak evidence of connection with the tobacco
industry; High-lighted yellow = study includes both an objective and a subjective component
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
7/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 7
Table 2. Studies using subjective measures to assess the economic impact of smoke-free policies in thehospitality industry
Control for economic
conditions
Do not control for economic conditions
No effect orpositive effect
Negativeeffect
No effect or positive effect Negative effect
Studies funded from sources other than the tobacco industry
Public self-reported intentions or actual
patronage of restaurants/bars
Allen & Markham (2001) [97]
August & Brooks (2000) [98]
Biener & Fitzgerald (1999) [99]
Biener & Siegel (1997) [100]
Biener et al (2007) [101]
Corsun et al (1996) [102]
Decima Research (2002) [103]
Decima Research (2001)[104]
Dresser et al (1999)[59]
Engelen et al (2006) [48]
Field Research (1998)[105]
Field Research (1997) [106]
Blackley, M (2005) [107]
Hyland & Cummings (1999)
d
[108]Lam (1995)[109]
Lund (2006) [61, 62]
McGhee 2002 [110]
Miller & Kriven (2002) [111]
Miller & Kriven (2002) [112]
Shapiro, (2001)[113]
Styring (2001)[42]
Tang et al, 2003 [114]
TNS Mrbi for the Irish Office of TobaccoControl, 2004 [115]
* Thomson & Wilson (2006) [60]
Wakefield et al 1999 [116]
Adda et al (2007) [117]
Proprietor predictions/ perceptions of sales
changes
Hyland &
Cummingsc
(1999)[118]
(Allen & Markham (2001)[97])
Binkin et al (2007) [119]
Cremieux & Oulette (2001) [120]
(Dresser et al (1999)[59])
Edwards (2000)[121]
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
8/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 8
Huron County Health Unit 1999 [122]
Jones et al (1999) [123]
Markham & Tong (2001) [124]
Parry et al (2001) [125]
Sciacca & Eckram (1993) [126]Sciacca (1996)[126]
Stanwick (1998)[127]
The Conference Board of Canada (1996)[128]
Van Walbeek et al 2007 [129]
Yorkshire Ash (2001) [130]
Proprietor predictions/perceptions of cost (Cremieux & Oulette (2001)[120])
(The Conference Board of Canada
(1996)[128])
Douglas County CHIP (2001) [131]
Estimated numbers of overseas visitors Hodges & Maskill (2001) [132]
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
9/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 9
Studies for which funding source is unknown
Proprietor predictions/ perceptions of sales
changesEconomists Advisory Group (1998) [133]
Federation of Licensed Retail Trade (2005)
[134]International Communications Research[135]
PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2005 [136]
Pubco (2001) [137]
The Publican (2001) [138]
No effect or
positive effect
Negative
effect
No effect or positive effect Negative effect
Studies conducted by organisations or consultants with some links to the tobacco industry
Proprietor predictions/ perceptions of sales
changes Masotti & Creticos (1991)[91]
CCG 1996 [139]
Charlton Research (1994) [140]
Economist projections of jobs, wage
payments and gross state product as a result
of predicted impact of bans
Ridgewood Economic Consultants (2004)[141]
Studies funded by tobacco companies or industry groups supported by the tobacco industryPublic self-reported intentions or actual
patronage of restaurants/barsAuspoll (2000)[142]
Decima research (1988)[143]
Fabrizio et al (1995) [144]
KPMG Barents Group LLC (1997)[145]
Marlow (1999)[146]
National Restaurant Association(1993)[147]
Sollars et al (1999) [148]
Public self-reported spending/time spent (Fabrizio et al (1995) [144])
Martin Associates (1999) [149]
Proprietor predictions/ perceptions of sales
changes
Advantage Marketing Info. (1997) [150]
Applied Economics (1996)[151]
CCG 1995 [152]
Chamberlain Research Consultants (1998)[153]
Dunham & Marlow (1998) [154]
EMRS 2001[155]
Fabrizio et al (1996)[156]
Gambee (1991) [157]^
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
10/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 10
KPMG (2001) [158]
KPMG Peat Marwick (1998) [159]
(Marlow (1999)[146])
Marlow (1998) [160]
Mason-Dixon Market Research(1996)[161]Penn & Schoen (1995) [162]
Price Waterhouse LLP (1993)[163]
Price Waterhouse LLP (1995) [164]
Roper Starch (1996) [165]
The Craig Group Inc (1998) [166]
The Eppstein Group (1997) [167]
Proprietor estimates of impact on
employment
(Advantage Marketing Info. (1997)[150])
(Applied Economics (1996) [151])(Fabrizio et al (1996) [156]
(Marlow (1998)[160])
(Price Waterhouse LLP (1993)[163])
(Roper Starch (1996)[165])
(Sollars et al (1999)[148])
(Chamberlain Research Consultants (1998)[153]
(The Eppstein Group (1997) [167]
Proprietor predictions/perceptions of cost(Sollars et al (1999)[148])
Proprietor predictions/perceptions of profitDunham and Marlow, 2003 [168]
Bold type = peer reviewed; underline = Study based on estimates of predicted changes rather than estimates of actual changes; * not a random survey;
Only weak evidence of connection with tobacco industry High-lighted yellow = study includes both an objective and a subjective component
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
11/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 11
Table 3: Tally of studies classified according to quality indicators and conclusion:1988 to January 2008
Reported a negative impact?Type of data Methodological
quality
Peer reviewed?
No Yes
Total
Yes (n =21) 20 1[6]Met all four Siegelcriteria (n=49) No (n=28) 27 1[5]
Total for all studiesmeeting all four Siegel
criteria (n=49)
47 2 49
Yes (n=3) 3 0
Objective(n=86)
Met some of Siegelsfour criteria (n=37) No (n=34) 15 19
Total for all studiesmeeting only some ofSiegels criteria (n=37)
18 19
37
Total objective 65 21 86
Yes (n=9 ) 8 1Patron/consumersurveys (n=34) No (n= 25) 19 6
Total consumer (n=34) 27 7
34
Yes (n=10 ) 9 1
Subjective(n=79)
Owner/Managersurveys(n=45) No (n= 35) 10 25
Total owner/manager
(n=45) 19 26
45
Total subjective 46 33 79
Total objective plus subjective(n=1653)
Total objective andsubjective
111 54 165
3
Note that the following tables include 165 records related to 158 studies. Seven studies (marked yellow in Tables 1 and 2) included both objective and subjectivecomponents. These are counted as two separate studies in the above tally.
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
12/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 12
Attachment Table 1: Objective studies
Listed alphabetically, commencing with those funded by sources other than the tobacco industry
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/updated
Studies funded from sources other than the tobacco industry
Alamar and Glantz2004[72] and2007[73]
1994 onwards
United States, variouslocalities
Various policies, includingsmoke-free restaurants
JA Contemporary EconomicPolicy
Researchers work at the Centrefor Tobacco Control Research andEducation, University ofCalifornia at San Francisco
NF O
Price to salesratio (recordsof thepurchaseprice ofrestaurants
that are sold,divided bylatest annualgross sales)
Y Y Y Restaurants in smoke-free locations sold forhigher prices than restaurants with the samesales in smoking locations. This smoke-freepremium indicates that business in smoke-free locales operate at a higher margin. Theaverage difference was around $15,300 or16%
N Henderson argues thatthe price to sales ratiocould be higher becausecompetition would belower if there were fewerrestaurants oncejurisdictions adoptedsmoke-freepolicies.[169]
141
11/07
Alpert et al 2007 [7]
2004, July
Massachusetts, US
Smoke-free workplaces includingrestaurants and bars
JA Journal of Community Health
Researchers from the HarvardSchool of Public Health and theRoswell Park Cancer Institute,with funding from the FlightAttendant Medical ResearchInstitute
NF O
Taxable salesof food fromDepartmentof Revenue
Employmentin foodservices anddrinkingplaces datafrom USBureau ofStatistics
Y Y
Linearregressionanalysis,analysed with
Stata package
Y No change in trend occurred in meals taxcollections or sale with implementation ofthe law. The number of workers employed inthe accommodation industry increased butthe effect was not statistically significant.
N Authors note thatmany Massachusettstowns and cities havealready enactedcomplete and partiallocal smoking
regulations prior tothe implementation ofthe state law.
Y 136
11/07
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
13/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 13
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureof
relationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Bartosch, 2002 [8]
1998, September 30
City of Boston,Massachusetts US
Smoke-free restaurants
CR Report by HealthEconomics Research Incsubcontracted by ArnoldWorldwide Inc, for the
Commonwealth of MassachusettsDepartment of Public Health
MDPH Tobacco Control Program
NF O
Taxable sales
Y Y
Ordinary leastsquares(OLD)regression
analysis
Y Bostons taxable meals receipts (and mealsreceipts per capita) grew as theMassachusetts economy thrived through the19902 with no measurable deviation from theunderlying trend following implementationof the Citys smoking policy. Nor was thereany significant difference in Bostons shareof the states meals receipts or any evidenceof a shift of business to neighbouringlocalities.
N These findingscontradict the Sollarsand Ingram study(1998) [148]whichanalysed data fromsurveys of restaurants
and patrons shortlybeforeimplementation of thepolicy.
Y 130
11/07
Bartosch & Pope, 1995[9]
1994, JulyBrookline,Massachusetts US
Smoke-free restaurants
GP - Report by Health EconomicsResearch Inc for theMassachusetts Department of
Public Healths Tobacco ControlProgram
Health Protection Fund
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts forrestaurants in
Brookline,fourcomparisoncities and thestateaggregate
Y Y
MultipleRegression
Y Between 2nd & 3rd qtrs of 1994 Brooklines
taxable sales receipts followed normalseasonal variations dropping 2.5%. Thisdecrease is consistent with changes in thesame qtrs in previous years. This drop was
also evident in 4 other cities. In 1994Brooklines ratio of taxable meal receipts totaxable sales receipts was stable between 2nd& 3rd qtr consistent with 1992 & 1993.
N This study examinesthe short term impacti.e. 3-month impact ofBrooklines smokefree ordinance
N 1
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
14/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 14
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Bartosch & Pope, 1999[10]
1993
Massachusetts, US
Smoke-free restaurants
JA -Public Health Management
Practice
Health Protection Fund
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts fromall eating anddrinking
establishments. Alsoincludedsome storesthat are notprimarilyengaged inselling mealsbut contain asection from
which mealsare sold
Y Y
Multivariateregressionanalysis
Y The adoption of a local smoke-free restaurantpolicy did not cause a statistically significantchange in town taxable sales receipts.
N Y 2
10/01
Bartosch & Pope, 2002[11]
1996
Massachusetts, US
Smoke-free restaurants
Center for Health EconomicResearch for the MassachusettsDept of Public Healths TobaccoControl Program
JA - Tobacco Control
Massachusetts Department ofPublic Health, Tobacco ControlProgram and the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts of alleating anddrinkingestablishments compared
to non-adoptingcommunitiesfrom 1992-1998
Y Y
Fixed effectsregression
Y Local restaurant industries are notsubstantially affected by highly restrictiverestaurant smoking policies
N Y 3
07/02
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
15/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 15
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Bialous & Glantz,1997 [12]
1997, October
Arizona, US
Smoke-free restaurants
URProduced by the Institute ofHealth Policy Studies, School ofMedicine, UCSF
Supported by National Cancer
Institute, American CancerSociety and Brazilian Ministry ofSciences
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts ofrestaurants
Y Y
MultipleRegression
Y An increase of 2% in restaurant revenues N N
10/01
Bourns & Malcomson2001 [63]
2001, August 1
Ottawa, Ontario,Canada
Smoke-free restaurants, bars andpubs
CRKPMG
Funded by City of Ottawa
NF O
Employmentfigures
Number ofemployment
insuranceclaims
Bankruptcyandinsolvencystatistics
N N NEmployment in the Ottawa accommodationand food services sector appears to have risen6.5% from June to October 2001 despite adecline in total employment. EmploymentInsurance claims declined by 9% in Octoberover a year previous. Bankruptcy andinsolvency statistics for the period August to
November 2001 are lower than they havebeen for the previous 2 years
N N 87
02/02
Blecher 2006 [13]
2001
South Africa
Smoking restrictions inrestaurants
JASouth African Journal ofEconomics
Author acknowledges financialsupport of Research forInternational Tobacco Control, theAmerican Cancer Society and theCanadian Tobacco ControlResearch Initiative.
NF O
Restaurant
revenuecalculatedfrom taxcollectionsand adjustedforimprovementin collectionrate
Y Y
Pooled and
fixed effectsanalysis ofdata for nineSouth Africanprovincesusing paneldata in
LIMDEPeconometricspackage
Y Restrictions N Y 135
11/07
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
16/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 16
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Bourns & Malcomson2002 [53]
2001, August 1
Ottawa, Ontario,Canada
Smoke-free restaurants , bars andpubs
CR KPMG
Funded by City of Ottawa
NF O
Number ofestablishments, beer sales,number of
bankruptcies
Y N N An increase of 33 more bars and restaurantssince the law was implemented. The numberof insolvencies for restaurants is consistentwith previous years. Th e level ofinsolvencies for bars taverns and nightclubsincreased the year before the by law andincreased again in the past year. 10%decrease in beer sales in Ottawa
N The economic contextindicates a disruption intwo key elements of itseconomy- business traveland massive lay offs inthe high technologyindustry
N 98
Californian StateBoard of Equalization1998, [45]
1998, January
California, US
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
GP- Californian State Board ofEqualization (state taxationauthority)
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts ofsmallest barsandrestaurants in
1997, 1998,and 1999
Y N N Increase of 7% in each of two yearsfollowing bans, greater than increases inprevious years.
N N 5
10/01
City of BoulderColorado, 1996 [46]
1995, November
Boulder, Colorado US
Smoke-free restaurants
GP - The Ontario Campaign forAction on Tobacco, quotingAssociated Press story
City of Boulder, Colorado
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts fromeatingplaces
Y N N Increased by 4% between Jan & Octfollowing ordinance.
N N 6
10/01
Collins, 2005 [14]
2004 March
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Smoke-free public places
UP Center for Business andEconomic Research, University ofArkansas
Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition
NF O
Hotel/motel/restaurant(HMR) taxcollections
Y Y Smoke-free ordinance has had no statisticallysignificant effect on the amount of HMRtaxes collected.
N Small number of datapoints therefore viewresults with caution
N 112
6/05
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
17/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 17
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economi
ctrends?||
Findings
Conclusi
onof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Connolly et al, 2005[15]
2004, July
Massachusetts, US
Smoke-free bars
UR Division of Public HealthPractice, Harvard School ofPublic Health
NF O
Meals tax,alcoholexcise tax,employment
figures, Kenosales
Y Y
Regression,analysis ofvariance
N Monthly meals tax collections wereunchanged with implementation of the law.No statistically significant change wasobserved in the alcoholic beverages excisetax collections. No statistically significantchanges in no. of workers employed in foodservices and drinking places. No statistically
significant change in net Keno sales
Convenience sampleused
N 111
6/05
Cowan et al, 2004 [16]
2003, June
Maryville, MissouriUS
Smoke-free restaurants
GP Missouri Department ofHealth and Senior Services
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts foreating anddrinkingplaces
Y N N Taxable sales receipts increased after theenactment of smoke-free ordinance
N Pakko [79] finds nostatistically significanteffect on bar andrestaurant sales seeentry 149. Increase assocwith opening of newrestaurant chain see
entry 149 below. DavidKuneman fromsmokersclub has alsocriticized thisreport.[170]
N 115
7/05
Cowling & Bond 2005[17]
1995 and 1998,January
California, US
Smoke-free restaurants thensmoke-free bars
JA Health Economics
Tobacco Control Section,
California Department of HealthServices
NF O
Taxable salesforrestaurants
and for bars,andproportionthat barsector makesup of total
Y Y
Regressionanalysis ofquarterly
reports from1990 to 2002,at state andcounty level
Y The smoke-free restraint law appears to haveled to a modest decrease in the bar share oftotal eating and drinking. The smoke-free barlaw led to an increase in bar share and had apositive effect on revenue
N California has thelongest standing policyrestricting smoking inbars.
Y 142
11/07
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
18/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 18
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economi
ctrends?||
Findings
Conclusi
onof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Peer
Reviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Dai, 2004 [18]
2003, July
Florida US
Smoke-free workplace laws inhotels, restaurants and tourism
UR - Bureau of Economic andBusiness ResearchWarrington College of Business
Administration, University of Florida
NF O
Gross salesofrestaurants,lunchrooms,
cateringservices,taverns, nightclubs, bars,liquor storesandrecreationaladmissionsfor Florida.
Employment
data
Y Y
Multivariateregression
Y There was no significant negative effect ofthe smoke-free law on sales and employmentin the leisure and hospitality industry inFlorida. Fraction of retail sales fromrestaurants, lunchrooms and cateringservices, fraction of employment in drinkingand eating places and in the leisure and
hospitality industry went up. Fraction ofretail sales from taverns, night clubs, barsand liquor stores, recreational admissions andemployment accommodation have nosignificant changes.
N N 120
7/05
Dresser et al, 1999 [59]
1998, July
Corvallis, Oregon US
Smoke-free bars
GP- Report by the PacificResearch Institute for the OregonHealth Division
Measure 44 (Oregon TobaccoControl Program)
NF O
Aggregatesales ofdistilledspirits, salesof maltbeveragesfrom a
commercialsupplier,video salesandcommissions,alcohol andfood sales
N N
T tests forcontinuousvariables andchi squaretests forcategoricalvariables,
ANOVA forpre-postordinanceeconomicdata
N The smoking ban in Corvallis has had littleor no economic impact on mostestablishments, and has produced nomeasurable impact on overall alcohol sales. Itdoes appear to be associated with reducedpoker revenues, which have effected a fewestablishments to a small extent. Somemigration of smokers to nearbyestablishments seems to have occurred as
expected but the economic impact of thisappears to be offset by increased patronageby non-smokers
N N 7(O)
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
19/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
20/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 20
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/up
dated
Felmingham et al,2003 [54]
2001, September 1 and2006, January 1
Tasmania, Australia
Smoke-free hospitality venueswith and without exemptions forbars that do not serve food
NF OSales(seasonallyadjusted) inhotels andclubs as
reported inAustralianBureau ofStatisticsRetail Tradesurveys
Y Y
Multipleregressionmethodsapplied to
quarterly timeseries
Y No measurable revenue impact on hotels andclubs has been found attributable to theintroduction of partial smoking ban. Theextension of the smoking ban to bar areas inhotels and clubs will, based on theestimation have not measurable long termnegative effect on hotel and club revenue.
N 131
11/07
Fletcher, 1998 [49]
1997, JanChico, California US
Smoke-free bars
AR - Report prepared forAmerican Lung Association of
California
Californian Department of HealthServices grant
NF O
Sales taxreceipts fromeating anddrinkingestablishments
Y N N Total sales tax receipts for all 118 Chicoestablishments holding licenses to servealcohol declined by 4% in 1996 over 1995,but increased by 10.3% in 1997 over 1996.
All of the 1997 increase was fromestablishments that serve beer and wine Incontrast, establishments which serve beer,wine & liquor have been experiencing asteady decline in sales tax receipts since1995. The decline began prior toimplementation of the ordinance.
N Other variables arelikely to havecontributed to this
decline since it beganprior toimplementation of theordinance
N 9
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
21/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 21
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/updated
Glantz &Charlesworth, 1999[22]
1994, 95 & 96
US states (3)(California; Utah &Vermont); and 6 UScities (Boulder, Colo;Flagstaff, Ariz, LosAngeles, Calif; Mesa,Ariz, NewYork, NYand San Francisco CA.
Smoke-free restaurants
JA - Journal of the American
Medical Association
National Cancer Institute and giftfrom E & H Everett
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts
As a measureof tourism Hotel roomrevenues andhotelrevenues as afraction oftotal retailsalescompared
with pre-ordinancerevenues andoverall UShotelrevenues
Y Y
Multivariatelinearregression
Y Statistically significant increase in rate ofchange of hotel revenue in 4 localities, nosignificant change in 4 localities, and asignificant slowing of rate of increases (butnot a decrease) in 1 locality.
N Dire predictions weremade prominently inmedia in each of theselocations before theimplementation ofsmoke-free policies.
In no case werepredictions accurate.In no case has eitherthe hospitality or thetobacco industryreported on actualsales.
Y 10
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
22/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 22
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuo
us
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/updated
Glantz & Smith 1994[23] and 1997
Various from 1985 to1992
California andColorado US (15cities)
Smoke-free restaurants
JA - American Journal of Public
Health
Cigarette and Tobacco SurtaxFund of California (Tobacco
Related Diseases ResearchProgram, administered by theUniversity of California)
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts forrestaurant
and retailsales
Y Y
Multipleregressionincluding timeand a dummy
variable forthe ordinance
Y Ordinances had no significant effect on thefraction of total retail sales in communitieswith ordinances and sales in comparisoncommunities. Ordinances requiring smoke-free bars had no significant effect on thefraction of revenues going to eating anddrinking places that serve all types of liquor.
N Otto Mueksch ofCalifornians for SmokersRights has claimed thatrestaurant and barpermits decreased by3.3% after the policywas introduced while
permits for fast foodoutlets increased 12.7%[172]. No detail isprovided aboutestablishmentclassification methodsover the period, and noanalysis is providedabout wider nationaltrends in consumerpreferences towards fast
food.
Y 11
12/01
Glantz & Smith, 1997[24]
Various from 1985 to1992
California andColorado (15 cities)
Smoke-free restaurants
JA - American Journal of PublicHealth
National Cancer Institute grant
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts
Totalrestaurantsales were
analysed asfraction oftotalrestaurantand retailsales
Y Y
Multipleregressionincluding timeand dummyvariables forwhether anordinance was
in force
Y Ordinances had no significant effect on thefraction of total sales that went to restaurantsor on the ratio of restaurant sales incommunities with ordinances compared withthose in the matched control communities.
N Erratum published inresponse to critics(Evans from NSA1996) finding errorsin effective dates ofordinances. This ledto only minor changesin the results.
Y 12
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
23/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 23
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobacco
industry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordn
o.mm/yy
added/updated
Glantz 2000 [25]
1998
California, US
Smoke-free bars
JL - Tobacco Control
National Cancer Institute grant
NF O
Totalrevenuesfrom eating
and drinkingestablishments licensed toserve allforms ofalcohol
Y Y
Multiplelinearregressionanalysis
Y No significant effect of the restaurantprovisions of the law on bar revenues as afraction of total retail sales. There was asmall but significant positive change in barrevenues as a fraction of retail salesassociated with the bar provisions going intoeffect. Implementation of the smoke-free
restaurant provisions was associated with anincrease in the fraction of all eating anddrinking establishment revenues that went tovenues with liquor licenses, and a largerincrease following implementation of smoke-free bar provisions.
N N 13
10/01
Glantz & Wilson-Loots2003 [26]
Various
Massachusetts, US
Smoke-free bingo halls
JL - Tobacco Control
National Cancer Institute grant
NF O
Netprofits/lossesfrom games
Y Y
General linearmodel
implementation of a timeseries analysis
Y While adjusted profits fell over time,this
effect was not related to the presence of anordinance.The analysis in terms of thefraction of the population livingin
communities with ordinances yielded thesame result.
N Y 106
12/03
Goldstein & Sobel,1998 [27]
1993, July
North Carolina, US
Separate non-smoking areas inrestaurants
JA - North Carolina MedicalJournal
No funding source stated. Authorsare affiliated with the Departmentof Family Medicine. U of NorthCarolina School of Medicine
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts as a
fraction ofrestaurantsales/retailsales
Y Y
Paired t- testsand regressionanalyses
Y Little fluctuation in fraction of restaurantsales to retail sales over 5 years in countieswith and without ETS ordinances. Noconsistent changes in restaurant sales of 10counties after ETS ordinances took effect.
N Nth Carolina is thenumber one tobacco-producing state.
Y 14
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
24/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
25/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 25
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/updated
Hild et al 2001[66]
July 2000
Anchorage, Alaska US
Smoke-free eating and drinkingplaces
UR Institute for CircumpolarHealth Studies, University ofAlaska, Anchorage
Funded by Municipality ofAnchorage
NF O
Employmentfigures
N Y
Mean andstandarddeviation ofpercentchange inemployment
N Those establishments that changed theirsmoking status to non-smoking after theordinance grew 10%. Relative growth ratesnot significantly different to those whoallowed smoking before and after theordinance
N N 83
2/02
Huang & McCusker2004 [29]
January 2002
El Paso, Texas US
Smoke-free bars and restaurants
JL Morbidity and MortalityWeekly
NF O
Sales taxreports andbeverage taxreceipts
Y Y
Multiplelinearregressionanalysis
Y No decline in total restaurant and barrevenues occurred after the ban wasimplemented.
N N 107
4/04
Huang et al 1995 [30]
1993, June
West Lake Hills(suburb of) Austin,Texas US
Smoke-free restaurants
JL Morbidity and MortalityWeekly
No funding source stated (authorswork at the Texas Department ofHealth)
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts
Y Y
Linearregressionmodel
Y The regression coefficient for the ordinancevariable was positive suggesting total sales ofrestaurants did not decrease afterimplementation of the ordinance.
N Y 15
10/01
Hyland & Cummings1999 [67]
1995, April 10
New York City,boroughs ofManhattan, Bronx,Brooklyn, Richmond,Queens
Smoke-free indoor dining area inrestaurants with more than 35indoor seats. Smoking permittedin separate bar areas ofrestaurants.
JA - Journal of Public HealthManagement Practice
Robert Wood Johnson Foundationgrant
NF O
Number ofrestaurants,employmentrates
Y N
Comparisonsof absoluteand relativecountyspecificchanges in thenumber ofrestaurantsand restaurant
employees
Y Increase in number of restaurants in 9 out of10 locations. Increase in number of restaurantemployees in all locations.
N Y 16
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
26/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 26
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/updated
Hyland & Tuk, 2001[69]
March 2001
New York City, NewYork US
Smoke-free indoor restaurants
JL - Tobacco Control
No Funding Source Stated
Author advises, National CancerInstitute, Comprehensive CancerCenter Core Grant for the RoswellPark Cancer Institute.
NF O
Number ofemployees
N N N22,000 additional employees were employedbetween 1994 and 1999 and per capitaemployment increased by 18%.
N N 17
10/01
Hyland et al 1999 [31]
1995, April 10
New York City, New
York US
Smoke-free indoor dining area inrestaurants with more than 35indoor seats. Smoking permittedin separate bar areas of restaurants
JA - Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice
Robert Wood Johnson Foundationgrant
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts
Total taxablesales fromeating anddrinkingestablishments.
Total taxablesales fromhotels
Y Y
Multivariatelinearregression
Y Real taxable sales from eating and drinkingplaces and hotels in NYC increased by 2%and 37% respectively. Real taxable sales foreating and drinking venues and hotels in therest of the state experienced 4% decrease and2% increase in sales respectively.
N Policies extended tomost indoor publicplaces; did not coverpublic bars.
Y 18
10/01
Hyland et al, 2000 [68]
1997, 1998
Erie County, NewYork US
Smoke-free restaurants
JA - Journal of Public HealthManagement Practice
National Cancer Institute,Comprehensive Cancer Center CoreGrant for the Roswell Park CancerInstitute.
NF O
Number ofemployees
Y Y
Multivariatemodelling
Y No significant change in the number orpercentage of employees. Numbers increasedrelative to other counties.
N Higher unemploymentin winter months.
Y 19
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
27/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 27
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Hyland, 2002 [32]
1995 2000
New York City,Suffolk, Erie, Monroeand Westchester
Smoke-free dining areas inrestaurants unless area has aseparate ventilation system
AR- Roswell Park CancerInstitute
Robert Wood Johnson Foundationand New York State Departmentof Health
NF O
Taxable salereceipts ofeating and
drinkingestablishments
Y Y
Multivariatelinearregression
Y The presence of smokefree legislation wasnot associated with changes in taxable salesfrom eating and drinking establishments inall five counties
N N 92
6/02
Hyland et al 2003 [33]
1995 1999
New York City,Suffolk, Erie, Monroeand Westchester
Smoke-free dining areas inrestaurants unless area has aseparate ventilation system
JA Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly
Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation, the New York StateDepartment of Health, the FlightAttendants Medical ResearchInstitute
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts ofrestaurants.
Hotel
Employment
Y Y
Multivariatelinearregression
Y In all 5 counties, smoke-free legislation wasnot associated with adverse economicoutcomes in restaurants and hotels
N Y 99
7/03
Lal et al 2003 [55]
July 2001
Victoria, Australia
Smoke-free restaurants
JL Australian and New ZealandJournal of Public Health
VicHealth Centre for TobaccoControl
NF O
Self report ofsales
Y Y
Interruptedtime seriesanalysis
Y The results suggest that the smoke-freepolicy in restaurants and cafs has hadno negative impact on sales turnover inthese venues
N N 105
12/03
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
28/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 28
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureo
frelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continu
ous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Lal et al 2004[56]
2001, September
Tasmania (island
state), Australia
Smoke-free enclosed placesincluding restaurants and bars, butwith exemptions for bars andgaming areas not serving food
JL Tobacco Control
VicHealth Centre for TobaccoControl
NF O
Monthlysales asreported totheAustralianBureau ofStatisticsRetail TradeSurvey
Y Y
Interruptedtime seriesanalysis
Y Smoke-free policy had no negativeimpact on monthly turnover either inrestaurants and cafes or in pubs andclubs
N N 122
11/07
Lal and Siahpush 2008[6]
2002 September
Victoria, Australia
Smoke-free policies in areascontaining electronic gamingmachines
JA J Epidemiol Community
Health
NF O
Net monthlyexpenditureon electronic
gamingmachines
Y Y Y The smoke-free policy resulted in anabrupt long-term decrease in the level ofEGM expenditure. Mean expenditurefell by 14%
Y Some of the long-termdecline would have beendue to other measuresintroduced shortly afterthe ban that were also
intended to reduceproblem gambling.
Y 156
02/08
Lawless 2005[51]
2005, March 31
Hennepin County,Minnesota
Smoke-free bars and restaurants
GPOffice of Budget and Financeof the Hennepin County
Hennepin County Board ofCommissioners
NF O
Sales insecondquarter of2003, 2004and 2005 andnumber ofbusiness
N N
Comparisonof changes insales between2003 and 04and 2004 and05
N Overall liquor sales grew less between2004 and 2005 than between 2003 and2004
Y/N As the authoracknowledges, theanalysis performed wasnot sufficiently powerfulto determine any effectsof the policy.
N 123
11/07
Lund 2006[61] andLund & Lund 2006[62]
Jun 2004
Norway
Smoke-free bars and restaurants
UR SIRUS Norwegian Institutefor Alcohol and Drug Research
NF O
Sales
N N
None
N 6% decrease in beer sales to bars andrestaurants
Y As statistical analysiswas not undertaken theseresults should be viewedwith caution. Authorsnote decrease may alsobe due to other factors.Contradicts other resultsof subjective measures.See results in subjective
measures section
N 113 (O)
7/05
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
29/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
30/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
31/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 31
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacc
oindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continu
ous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Pacific Analytics2001[37]
1 Jan 2000
British Columbia,Canada
Smoke-free hospitality and publicentertainment venues includingstand-alone and hotel basedrestaurants, pubs, cabarets
GP Report by Pacific AnalyticsInc for the WorkersCompensation Board of BritishColumbia
No Funding Source Stated, butassume WCBBC
NF
No links withtobacco industrycould be establishedin search ofdocuments
O
Cost data formonthlyliquor
purchases,monthlytaxableaccommodation revenues,restaurant,caterer andtavernreceipts,number of
employmentinsurancerecipients
Y Y
Ordinary leastsquaresregression
Y A negative impact was apparent in totalhotel/resort alcohol purchases, total diningestablishment alcohol purchases and totalMarine and neighbourhood pub purchasesduring Jan 2000 but not in months of Feb orMar. Being close to a border did not result ingreater loss of business. No long-term loss of
business in another jurisdiction that hadsimilar ordinance since Jan 99. Therefore inthe longer term, no measurable impact oneither employment or sales would be likely.Some regions in the province would beaffected to a greater degree, however thesame conclusions are apparent: some shortterm impacts but generally no longer-termeffects.
N N 21
10/01
Parker and Chiang,2007 [38]
1995 then 1998
California, USA
Smoke-free restaurants and thensmoke-free bars
JA Applied Economic Letters
Work undertaken by academicsworking at Graduate College ofBusiness New Mexico StateUniversity and Department ofEconomics Florida AtlanticUniversity
NF O
Restaurantand barrevenuesfrom 298cities
between1991 to 2003
Y Y Y Revenue was affected by employment,income and age composition of population,but not by the imposition of smoke-freepolicies. Introduction of smoke-free policiesin bars resulted in a significantly positiveincrease in revenue.
N Analysis of data overthis long period, withmuch various betweencities included over3,495 dataobservations.
This is an extremelypowerful study.
Y 134
11/07
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
32/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 32
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacc
oindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continu
ous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pee
rReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Price 2004 [71]
2003, Dec
Ohio, US
Smoke-free bars, restaurants andbowling alleys
UR Department of PublicHealth, University of Toledo
Ohio Tobacco Use and Prevention
and Control Foundation
NF O
Financialstress scorebased onhistoricalpayment info,
type ofindustry,size,corporatestructure, netprofit,financialratios.
Y Y
Repeatedmeasuresanalyses ofvariance
N Toledo compared to its control city and 3suburban communities had no significantdifference in financial stress pre or postordinance for bars, bowling alleys orrestaurants. The same as found for bowlinggreen compared to its control city.
N Limitations due to nolong term historicaldata
N 114
7/05
Pope & Bartosch 1997[39]
Various from 1992-1995
Massachusetts
Smoke-free restaurants
GPReport by Health EconomicsResearch for Massachusetts Deptof Public Health Tobacco ControlProgram
Health Protection Fund
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts
Y Y
Multivariateregression
Y All models indicate that smoke-freerestaurant restrictions increased restaurantreceipts in towns adopting smoke-freepolicies by 5 to 9%
N N 22
10/01
Sabry & Patton 2007[36]
2007, January 2
Village of Tinley Park,Illinois US
Smoke-free restaurants and barsCRReport for Tinley ParkCouncil
NF OTaxable salesreceipts
Y YNot clear
YApparent decline in sales immediately afterban s were introduced in comparablecommunities were generally not significantand were in line with seasonal patterns. Bysecond quarter after ban, sales recover.
N N152
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
33/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 33
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacc
oindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continu
ous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Sciacca & Ratliff 1998[40]
1993, June
Flagstaff, Arizona andsix Arizonacomparison areas
Smoke-free restaurants
JAAmerican Journal of Health
Promotion
Center for Prevention and HealthPromotion, Arizona Dept of
Health Services
NF O
Taxable salesreceipts ratioof restaurant
sales to totalretail sales,hotel/motelsales.
Y Y
Least squaresregressionlines asindicators ofsales trends.
Y All analyses resulted in same conclusions:prohibiting smoking in restaurants did notaffect restaurant sale.
N Flagstaff was the firstcity in Arizona torequire restaurants tobe smoke-free.
Y 23
10/01
Stoltz & Bromelkamp2007 [41]
Beltrami (2005January), Hennepin(2005 March 31) and
Ramsay (2005 March31) County, and Citiesof Bloomington (2005March 31), GoldenValley (2005 March31), Minneapolis(2005 March 31), andMoorhead (2004November 15) all inMinnesota, US
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
AR Minnesota Institute of PublicHealth
ClearWay Minnesota
NF O
Aggregatesales andnumber ofestablishments
Y No
Data graphedand comparedto total retailsales
N/Y
No apparent economic impact in any of theareas studied.
N Data adjusted forinflation andexpressed per capita,but not expressed as apercentage of total
retail sales
N 151
11/07
Styring, 2001[42]
Jan 1999
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Smoke-free restaurants
CRHudson Institute
Smokefree Indiana and theCenters for Disease Control
NF O
Food andbeverage taxcollections
Y Y
MultipleRegression
Y The existence of a restaurant smoking bancannot be said to have had any impact onAllen County restaurant sales.
N Results are consistentwith the second partof this reportexamining customerestimates of patronage
N 90 (O)
06/02
T f li i d ( d ib d O t
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
34/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 34
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (as describedin study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwith
tobacc
oindustry
-refer
codes
Outcome
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continu
ous
data
before
andafte
r
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Taylor ConsultingGroup 1993 [43]
1990, August
San Luis Obispo,California
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
GP Report by Taylor ConsultingGroup
For the City of San Luis ObispoSmoking Ordinance Economic
Steering Committee
NF
No links withtobacco industrycould be established
insearch ofdocuments
O
Taxable salesreceipts
Y Y
Regression
Y No significant effects on the profitability ofrestaurants and bars. No impact on sales taxrevenues.
N Although no impacton sales, smokers aregoing to out of townrestaurants while non-smokers more likelyto go to San Luis
Obispo venues. Theshifts offset eachother.
N 24
10/01
Thomson & Wilson2006 [60]
2004, December
New Zealand
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
JA BMC Public Health
Department of Public Health,Wellington School of Medicineand Health Science, University ofOtago with funding from theWellington Division of the CancerSociety of New Zealand
NF O
Retail salesdata andemploymentnumbersfrom
StatisticsNew Zealand
N N NSeasonally adjusted sale change littlebetween the first three quarters of 2004 andof 2004. Compared to the same period in2004, average employment during the firstthree quarters of 2005 was up 24% for pubs,taverns and bars up 9% for caf/restaurantsand down 8% for clubs.
N Y 143 (O)
Wakefield et al 2002[44]
1999, Jan
South Australia
Smoke-free restaurants
JA Australian & New ZealandJournal of Public Health
Department of Human Services ofSouth Australia
NF O
Restaurantsales data
Y Y
InterruptedTime SeriesAnalysis
Y There was no significant change in the ratioof a) Sth Aus. restaurant turnover to Sth Ausretail turnover or b) Sth Aus restaurantturnover to Australian turnover.
N Y 25
11/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
35/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
36/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 36
Pubco, 2002 [83]
2001, Sept
Ottawa, Ontario,Canada
Smoke-free enclosed publicplaces including bars.
AR Report done on behalf of thePub and Bar Coalition of Ontario
No funding source stated
UK O
Beer Salesprovided by the
Brewers of Ontario
N N NAn average decline in sales of 10.5% whencompared to the same 10 months a yearearlier
Y N 95
8/02
Stolzenberg andDAlessio, 2007 [74]
1995, January 1restaurants
1998 January 1 barsand casinos
California, US
Smoke-free workplaces includingrestaurants from 1995 and barsand casinos from 1998
JA Evaluation Review
No funding source stated
UK O
Taxable sales offood and alcohol inalcohol and non-alcohol servingrestaurants, 99quarters from Jan1980 to Sept 2004
Y Y
Univariateanalysis usingARIMAmodel
N Non-alcohol serving restaurants were notaffected at all. The ban had a short-livednegative effect on alcohol-servingrestaurants. Revenues returned to preexistinglevels rather quickly.
N Authors point out thatrecovery in revenue mayhave been achieved by acombination ofacceptance of policy orprovision of outdoorareas for smokers.
Y 138
11/07
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
37/84
A th d Y P bli h dType of policy examined (as described
hOutcome
Statistical
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
38/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 38
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
yp p y (in study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationshipwith
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclu
sionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/updated
Kuneman andMcFadden 2005 [90]
1998 onwards
Smoker-unfriendly USstates such as
California, New York,Massachusetts andUtah compared withsmoker-friendly statessuch as Alabama,Kentucky, Mississippi,and North Carolina
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
ARReport prepared by SmokersClub, a smokers rights group
The authors state they have no
links with established tobaccocompanies. They used their owntime and funds to prepare thereport. McFadden is a member ofthe Smokers Club an author of aguide to stopping a smoking ban.
It is not knownwhether theSmokers Clubreceives fundingfrom the tobacco
industry. Kunemandiscloses that heworked for 6 years1980s as chemistfor Seven-Up whicwas owned byPhilip Morris.
O
Total retailsales inbars andrestaurantsfrom US
Dept ofCommerce
Y N
Comparisonof averagegrowth insales insmoker-
unfriendlyversussmoker-friendly states
N
Smoking bans hurt restaurant and barbusinesses 80% of the time
Y N 127
11/07
Lilley & DeFranco,
1996 [96]
1995, April
New York City, NewYork
Smoke-free restaurants
ARReport by In Context Inc, forthe Empire State Restaurant andTavern Association
No Funding Source Stated
STF, EC
Evidence fromtobacco industrydocs reveal thatauthors collaboratedwith Philip Morrisin developingmethodology [177].Subsequent work byauthors was fundedby PM [95] TheNew York Times
reported that theTobacco Institutefunneled $443,072in lobbying moneythrough the EmpireState Restaurant andTavern Associationto wage its 1995clean indoor airpreemptioncampaign.[178]
O
Number ofrestaurantjobs fromJan 1993 toMar 96
N N N2,779 restaurant jobs lost or 4% of restaurant
job base
Y They attribute job
losses to policies buttheir data shows thatlosses came beforepolicyimplementation. Datafor periodimmediately prior tointroduction of policywas not reported.Other researchers
have queried qualityof Dun and Bradstreetlists to select retailers
N 26
10/01
Author and Year PublishedType of policy examined (as described
th rOutcome
Statistical
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
39/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 39
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
in study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationshipwit
tobaccoindustry
-refer
codes
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro?
Statisticalanalysiscontrolling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclu
sionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pe
erReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/updated
Masotti & Creticos1991[91]
1990
San Luis Obispo,California, US
Smoke-free eating and drinkingestablishments
UR Northwestern University
No Funding Source Stated
EC- weak; UK
Masottisubsequentlyreceivedhospitality fromPhilip Morris[179] [180]
O
Taxable salesreceipts 1989to 1990
N N
Comparisonof quarterlyfigures
N Decline in sales for eating and drinkingestablishments in last two quarters. Changesin tax receipts for apparel and generalmerchandise were less that those of eatingand drinking establishments
Y When several years ofdata were analysedand appropriatecontrols were used nonegative economicimpact is
revealed.[24] Part 2 ofthis study used asubjective measurewhich showed noadverse economicimpact
N 27 (O)
10/01
Pakko 2005[78, 181]
2002, 27 Nov
Delaware, US
Smoke-free gaming venues
CR Michael R Pakko
UK
Pakko is chair ofthe St. LouisCounty
LibertarianCentralCommittee whichhas links to TIhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.html
O
Revenuefrom
racinos(gamingfacilities atracetracks)
Y Y
Regression
Y Suggests that smoke-free policy resulted instatistically significant revenue losses at the 3racinos.
Y N 119
7/05
Pakko 2005 [79] and
2006 [80]
2003, June 9
Maryville, MissouriUS
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
CR Michael R Pakko
UK
Pakko is chair of
the St. LouisCountyLibertarianCentralCommittee whichhas links to TIhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.html
O
Taxable salesin bars andrestaurants
Y Y
Regressionanalysis
Y No significant effect of the smoking ban onbar and restaurant sales. Evident increase insales at end of study period corresponded toopening of new franchise outlet.
N Author notes that manyof largest bars wereexempted from law.
? 149
11/07
Author and Year PublishedType of policy examined (as describedi t d )
thrOutcome
M Statistical
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.html -
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
40/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 40
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
in study)
Report type* and publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationshipwit
tobaccoindustry
-refe
codes
Measure
Objective/Subjective
Description
Continuous
data
before
andafter
olic
intro? analysis
controlling fortrend &fluctuation?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclu
sionof-ve
Impact?
Comments
Pe
erReviewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/updated
Pakko 2007 [81] and2008 [82]
Columbia, Missouri
US
Smoke-free restaurants and bars
CR Michael R Pakko
UK
Pakko is chair ofthe St. LouisCountyLibertarianCentralCommittee which
has links to TIhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.html
O
Taxable salesin bars andrestaurants
Y Y
Regressionanalysis
Y A slowdown in dining tax receipts partlyrelated to a slow-down in overall generaleconomic activity and adverse weatherconditions
Y This analysis relates onlyto the first seven monthsof the policy.
N 154
Thalheimer &Associates Inc 2005[84]
2004, April
Lexington, KentuckyUSA
Smoke-free public buildingsincluding restaurants, bars, bingoparlours, pool halls, public areasof hotels/motels
CR Report by TRA Inc forLexington Fayette County Foodand Beverage Association
EC, UK Consultsfor AmericanGaming Assoc.
O
Beer salesfromwholesale
distributors
Y Y
Econometricmodel
N The smoke-free policy was estimated to haveresulted in a reduction of alcoholic beveragesales of 11%, 13.3% and 9.8%.
Y Data obtained from 3of 6 distributors, doesnot control fornational economicconditions
N 118
7/05
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.htmlhttp://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247094.html -
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
41/84
Lilley & DeFranco, Smoke-free restaurants TO, EC, STF O N N N During the period , 14 communities enacted Y Several of the towns N 31
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
42/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 42
y ,1996 [96]
Massachusetts, USA
AR Report by In Context Inc,for the Massachusetts RestaurantAssociation
No Funding Source Stated
, ,
Evidence fromtobacco industry docsreveal that authorscollaborated withPhilip Morris indevelopingmethodology[177].Subsequent work byauthors was funded byPM[95]. The RA hasadmitted that it hasreceived funds fromPhilip Morris and RJReynolds Tobacco Co.[183].
Number ofrestaurantjobs from1993-1995
g p100% smoking bans. Of those communities,71% lost jobs and 27% gained jobs. Theaverage job loss was 21%.
enacted their smoke-free law after thestudy period [186]
Studies using taxable
sales receipts inrestaurants show nonegative economicimpact [9, 10]
10/01
Notes associated with these tables:Report type (AR = report published by a hospitality industry of public health advocacy group; CR = Report published by a consultant or consultancy company; GP = Government publication; JA =article in a peer-reviewed journal; JL = letter in a peer-reviewed journal; ME = Media report,MR = Report produced by a market research company; UR = report produced by a University)
Financial relationship with tobacco industry (NF = Funding source other than tobacco industry specified, TF= funded by the tobacco industry; TO = funded by organisations in receipt of financialsupport from the tobacco industry); EC = Funding source not disclosed and not discovered, but evidence of collaboration with the tobacco industry; PTF = previous work funded by tobaccocompany; STF = subsequent work funded by a tobacco company; UK = Unknown
Objective v. Subjective measure (O = objective or actual data, S= subjective or survey data) Statistical analysis to test significance and control for trend and fluctuation in the data (Y = Yes, N = No)
|| Control for economic trends (Y = Yes, adequate control or adjustment for economic trend; N = No control or inadequate control or adjustment for economic trends) -ve Impact- Negative Impact found N = No (desired result), Y = Yes (i.e. an adverse effect). N/a = data presented, but no conclusion drawn.** Peer Reviewed? (Y = Yes, N = No)
Attachment Table 2 Subjective studies
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
43/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 43
Attachment Table 2 Subjective studiesListed alphabetically, commencing with those funded by sources other than the tobacco industry
Author and Year Published
Date policy implemented
Location
Type of policy examined (asdescribed in study)
Report type* and Publisher
Funding source indicated
Natureofrelationshipwi
th
tobaccoindustry
-refe
r
codes
Outcome Measure
Objective/ Subjective
Description
Prospectiveor
Retrospectivestudy?
Statistical analysis
to test forsignificance ofchange or
difference?
Type of analysis
Economictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionofvempact?
Comments
PeerReviewed?**
Recordno.mm/yy
added/updated
Studies funded from sources other than the tobacco industryAdda et al, 2007 [117]
2006, March 26
Scotland, UnitedKingdom
Smoke-free publichouses
JA InternationalJournal of EpidemiologyResearchers areemployed at theUniversity College, theInstitute of Fiscal Studies
and the London Schoolof Economics, all basedin London.
The study was fundedwith a grand from theNuffield Foundation andthe ESRC
NF S
Proprietors of publichouses reports onsales and numbersof customers
R Y N The Scottish ban led to a short-run 10%decrease in reported sales (p = 0.02, CI95% -19% to -2%) and a 14% decreasein the reported numbers of customers(p=0.02, 95% CI -26% to -2%).
Y As pointed out by Glantzin his critique of thisstudy,[187] proprietorreports are likely to benegatively biased,particularly so soon afterintroduction of a policy
Y 148
11/07
Allen & Markham,
2001 [97]
2002, Jan (review)
Western Australia
Smoke-free licensed
premises
AR Report byAustralian Council onSmoking and Health
ACOSH
NF S
Proprietor opinionsof effect on business
Patron predictions ofattendance rates
P N N 88% of proprietors believed theintroduction of smoke-free policywould have a detrimental effect on theirbusiness. 10% believed it may initiallyhave a negative effect but no significanteffect over time. 2% thought it wouldhave a positive effect.
Of the patrons, 72% said there wouldbe no change in patronage, 20% wouldgo more often and 8% less often
N N 32
11/01
Author and Year Published Type of policy examined (asd ib d i t d ) w
ith
er
Outcome MeasureStatistical analysisto test for
ct?
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
44/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 44
Date policy implemented
Location
described in study)
Report type* and Publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationshipw
tobaccoindustry
-ref
codes
Objective/ Subjective
Description
Prospec
tiveor
Retrosp
ectivestudy?
to test forsignificance ofchange or
difference?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclus
ionofvempac
Comments
PeerRe
viewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
August & Brooks2000 [98]
2000, July
California
Smoke-free bars
GP CaliforniaDepartment of HealthServices
CDHS grant
NF S
Patron estimates ofchange in frequencyof visiting bars
Patron approval ofsmoke-free barspolicy
R N N >90% of patrons either go more oftenor have not changed frequency.
Increase in approval among patronsfrom 59% in 1998 to 72% in 2000
N N 33
10/01
Biener & Fitzgerald1999 [99]
1996, August
Massachusetts
Smoke-free bars andrestaurants
JA Journal of Public
Health ManagementPractice
Health Protection Fund,MassachusettsDepartment of Health
NF S
Reported avoidanceof going to a publicplace
P N N 46% of non-smokers reported avoidingsmoky places. 31% had avoidedrestaurants, 22% bars, 14% gamblingplaces, 14% entertainment places, 2%concerts or arenas.
N Y 34
10/01
Biener & Siegel 1997[100]
1996, August
Massachusetts
Smoke-free restaurantsand bars
JA American Journal of
Public Health
Health Protection Fund,
MassachusettsDepartment of Health
NF S
Communityestimates oflikelihood of
patronizing
P Y
Chi-square
N 61% predicted no change in their use ofrestaurants, 30% predicted increaseduse, 8% decreased use. 69% predictedno change in patronage of bars, 20%predicted increased use and 11%decreased use.
N Results indicate thelikelihood of anincrease in overallpatronage of bars andrestaurants.
Y 35
10/01
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
45/84
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
46/84
Author and Year Published Type of policy examined (asdescribed in study) w
ith
efer
Outcome Measure
Obj ti / S bj ti
Statistical analysisto test for
Findings act?
Comments
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
47/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 47
Date policy implemented
Location
described in study)
Report type* and Publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationship
tobac
coindustry
-re
codes
Objective/ Subjective
Description
Prospectiveor
Retrosp
ectivestudy? significance of
change or
difference?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionofvempa Comments
PeerRe
viewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Decima Research 2001[104]
2001, Sept
Ottawa, Canada
Smoke-free bars
MR Decima ResearchInc
Independently funded (K.Neuman, email, 8 Nov
2001)
NF
PTF
Did a job forImperialTobacco in1988 seebelow.
S
Communityestimates ofpatronage
R N N Most (70%) residents say they aregoing to these establishments about asoften as they had before, while theremainder are evenly split betweenthose now going out less often (14%)and those going out more (13%)
N N 38
10/01
Decima Research Inc2002 [103]
2001, SeptOttawa, Canada
Smoking prohibited inenclosed smoke-freepublic places
MR- Decima ResearchInc
Independently funded (K.Neuman, email, 27August 2002)
NF
PTF
Did a job forImperialTobacco in1988 seebelow.
S
Community
estimates ofpatronage
R N N Overall, only 8 percent of area residentsspecifically identify the smoking by-law as a reason why they are spending
less time in Ottawa restaurants andbars, compared with 7 percent who saythis is a reason why they are visitingsuch establishments more often.
N N 96
08/02
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
48/84
Author and Year Published Type of policy examined (asdescribed in study)
pwith
refer
Outcome Measure
Objective/ Subjective
Statistical analysisto test for
i ifi f
Findingsp
act?
Comments
-
8/8/2019 Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry
49/84
Last record added 13 February 2008; Last minor revision to this paper: 21 February 2008 49
Date policy implemented
Location
Report type* and Publisher
Funding source indicated
Nature
ofrelationship
tobac
coindustry
-r
codes
Objective/ Subjective
Description
Prospectiveor
Retrosp
ectivestudy? significance of
change or
difference?
Type of analysis
Econom
ictrends?||
Findings
Conclusionofvemp
Comments
PeerRe
viewed?**
Record
no.mm/yy
added/u
pdated
Engelen et al 2006[48], same analysisreported in Farrelly etal 2005 [171]
2003, March 26
New York, New YorkUS
Smoke-free workplacesincluding bars,restaurants, bowlingfacilities, taverns andbingo halls
CR Research Triangle
Institute Internationalwith Roswell ParkCancer Institute
Prepared for the NewYork State Department ofHealth
NF S
Patron reports
R N N Percentage of New York adults whoreport being more likely to visit a bar asa result of the CIAA increased slightlyfro