Public Support for Smoke-Free Air Strategies Among Smokers and Nonsmokers, New York City, 2010–2012

Abstract

IntroductionFrom 2010 through 2012, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene engaged in multiple smoke-free-air activities in collaboration with community, institution, and government partners. These included implementing a law prohibiting smoking in all parks and beaches as well as working to increase compliance with existing Smoke-free Air Act provisions.MethodsWe investigated trends in awareness of existing smoke-free rules publicized with new signage and public support for new smoke-free air strategies by using 3 waves of survey data from population-based samples of smoking and nonsmoking adults in New York City (2010–2012). Analyses adjusted for the influence of sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsAmong both smokers and nonsmokers, we observed increased awareness of smoke-free regulations in outdoor areas around hospital entrances and grounds and in lines in outdoor waiting areas for buses and taxis. Regardless of smoking status, women, racial/ethnic minorities, and adults aged 25 to 44 years were more likely than men, non-Hispanic whites, and adults aged 65 years or older to support smoke-free air strategies.ConclusionNew signage was successful in increasing population-wide awareness of rules. Our analysis of the association between demographic characteristics and support for tobacco control over time provide important contextual information for community education efforts on secondhand smoke and smoke-free air strategies.

Effectiveness of Text versus Pictorial Health Warning Labels and Predictors of Support for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products within the European Union

“…This is consistent with previous findings showing relatively lower support among smokers for several other tobacco control policies such as smoke-free laws and tobacco tax increases [5,12,13,14,15,16]. It is interesting to note that while pictorial warnings were more likely to have elicited a behavioral response among former and current smokers in comparison to text-only warning labels, no significant differences between the two were noted in the context of a cognitive-only response.…”

National and State-Specific Attitudes toward Smoke-Free Parks among U.S. Adults

“…Irrespective of current tobacco use status, women, Hispanics, non-Hispanic racial/ethnic minorities, and adults with children aged ≤17 years in the household were more likely to favor smoke-free parks than were men, white non-Hispanics, and adults without children aged ≤17 years in the household, which is consistent with other studies [ 17 , 27 ]. Additionally consistent with other studies of cigarette smokers’ attitudes toward indoor smoke-free policies, as well as surveys of public favorability toward tobacco-related policies [ 8 , 38 ], “any combustible tobacco users” had lower levels of favorability toward smoke-free park policies than “noncombustible-only tobacco users” or “no tobacco users”.…”

“…As of October 2015, over 1100 municipalities in 46 states and the District of Columbia had enacted smoke-free park laws [ 16 ]. For example, New York City continues to generate success in denormalizing smoking in public places through the implementation of smoke-free laws, which has resulted in reduced smoking in parks and on beaches [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. In addition, at the state and territory level, Oklahoma prohibits smoking on all indoor and outdoor state-owned land, Hawaii prohibits smoking in state parks, and Puerto Rico prohibits smoking in all parks [ 16 ].…”

“…Although studies have assessed attitudes toward smoke-free policies in indoor areas and outdoor areas more generally [ 3 ], few studies have assessed attitudes toward smoke-free parks [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], and none have done so using national and state representative samples of U.S. adults. To address this gap, we assessed the national and state-specific prevalence of favorable attitudes toward smoke-free parks among U.S. adults, as well as sociodemographic correlates of favorable attitudes toward smoke-free parks overall and by current tobacco use at the national level.…”

Public policy and social norms: The case of a nationwide smoking ban among college students.

“…Public policy and social influence both regulate behavior. For instance, smoking behavior appears to be responsive both to public policy (e.g., Hamilton, Biener, & Brennan, 2008; Thrasher, Pérez-Hernández, Swayampakala, Arillo-Santillán, & Bottai, 2010; Waddell, Farley, Mandel-Ricci, & Kansagra, 2014) and to social influence (e.g., Shor & Williams, 1978; Vitória, Salgueiro, Silva, & De Vries, 2009; Wiium, Torsheim, & Wold, 2006). However, public policy and social influence relate to different human goals, and should have unique effects on behavior.…”