Attitudes of Business People to Proposed Smokefree Shopping Streets

Abstract

The modest support for introducing a smokefree streets policy by GM business people may reflect the negligible promotion of the idea in this setting. Nevertheless, the likely business impact of a smokefree streets policy was not a concern for the large majority of these business people, so this may not be a significant barrier to policy development. This type of study can contribute to the process for developing smokefree streets and other outdoor areas, by gauging sector support.

Measuring public opinion and acceptability of prevention policies: an integrative review and narrative synthesis of methods

“…Other studies in this category included five studies of policy actors, influencers or stakeholders, including an intercept survey of local retailers’ views about smoke-free shopping streets in Wellington, New Zealand [ 105 ]. The other four studies included a survey of political representatives’ support for obesity reduction policies in the United States [ 106 ].…”

The contribution of smokefree outdoor areas in achieving New Zealand's Smokefree 2025 goal

“…However, a review of 97 international studies concluded that smokefree policies have either no economic impact or a positive economic impact on businesses . In addition, NZ and international surveys have indicated strong public support for smokefree outdoor dining . However, at least 2 other NZ councils plan to make outdoor dining areas smokefree in the next few years, which may motivate other councils to implement similar policies, particularly if evaluations are undertaken .…”

Patrons’ views about smoking in outdoor areas of licensed premises in South Australia: a pilot study

“…In 2011, the SA Government announced its goal to achieve 100% smoke‐free outdoor eating and drinking areas in licensed premises in SA by 2016 2 . Successful implementation of and compliance with such strategies is contingent upon various factors, including the attitude and response of the public to policies that curtail personal behaviours 3 and engaging the support and cooperation of businesses affected by these measures 4 …”