Secondhand smoke in apartment buildings: Renter and owner or manager perspectives

Abstract

This study explored the views of Minnesota renters and apartment owners or managers about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) transfer between units in multifamily buildings and about smoke-free housing. A convenience sample of 49 decision makers who manage 27,116 rental units in Minnesota were aware of some ETS transfer in their buildings, but most felt it was rarely or never a significant factor in tenants' decisions to rent or to move. Most of those who had never designated a building smoke free had little or no interest in doing so, due to concerns that it would increase vacancy rates, constitute discrimination, or engender costs for enforcement. Owners who had already designated smoke-free buildings, however, had seen mostly neutral or positive effects on vacancies, turnover, and time required to manage the buildings, and planned to continue offering them. A total of 48% of households in a random sample of 405 reported that at times ETS enters their apartment from elsewhere; 10% said this occurs often or most of the time. Of those experiencing ETS transfer, 37% said it bothered them a lot or so much that they were thinking of moving. Only a small fraction of renters currently live in smoke-free buildings, but nearly half would be extremely or very interested in doing so. Interest is high across ethnicities, income levels, rent levels, and age groups and regardless of whether the household has children. 54% of respondents would be very likely to choose a smoke-free building, all other things being equal, and 34% would be willing to pay more to live in one.

Assessment of Residents’ Attitudes and Satisfaction Before and After Implementation of a Smoke-Free Policy in Boston Multiunit Housing

“…20 Other studies have also found that building managers and operators considering smokefree policies perceive monitoring and enforcement as the biggest barriers to implementing smoke-free building policies, alongside concerns of losing tenants and increases of vacancy and turnover rates. 19,21,22 These findings have important policy implications. Information campaigns by the housing authority are effective for increasing resident awareness and support.…”

Cost Savings Associated with Prohibiting Smoking in U.S. Subsidized Housing

“…25 Nonetheless, smokefree policy prevalence remains low, and many multiunit housing operators have misconceptions about implementation barriers. [26][27][28] Therefore, efforts are needed to educate these individuals about the health and economic benefits of prohibiting smoking in this environment.…”

Prevalence and predictors of smoke-free policy implementation and support among owners and managers of multiunit housing

“…Population-based surveys of MUH residents previously conducted by Hennrikus et al (2003) and Hewett et al (2007) have shown high demand for smoke-free buildings, with 64% and 72% of respondents reporting that they were either strongly or somewhat interested in living in a smoke-free building, respectively. Therefore, advocacy efforts should focus on promoting smoke-free building policies among MUH tenants and urging these individuals to request that such policies are implemented in their buildings.…”

“…Although there is currently an extensive amount of literature documenting smoke-free policy support and implementation in public areas (ANR, 2009;Borland et al, 2006;Hyland et al, 2009), literature assessing these issues with respect to homes, and more specifically MUH, is limited (Hennrikus et al, 2003;Hewett et al, 2007). To our knowledge, only one study has assessed MUH owners' and managers' preferences and practices regarding smoke-free building policies.…”