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


2/84
http://www.tobaccoarchive.com/http://www.pmoptions.com/


3/84


4/84


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]


5/84


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]


6/84


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


7/84


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]


8/84


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]


9/84


Studies for which funding source is unknown


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


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]


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]^


10/84


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


11/84


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.


12/84


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


13/84




Location




Natureof

relationshipwith

tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


14/84




Location





tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


Type of analysis

Economictrends?||

Findings

Conclusionof-ve

Impact?

Comments

Peer

Reviewed?**

Recordno.mm/yy

added/up

dated


1993

Massachusetts, US


JA -Public Health Management

Practice


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


1996

Massachusetts, US


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


15/84




Location





tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


16/84




Location





tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


Type of analysis

Economictrends?||

Findings

Conclusionof-ve

Impact?

Comments

Peer

Reviewed?**

Recordn

o.mm/yy

added/up

dated

Bourns & Malcomson2002 [53]

2001, August 1


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


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


17/84




Location





tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


18/84




Location





tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


19/84


20/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


21/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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.


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


22/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuo

us

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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)


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)


JA - American Journal of PublicHealth

National Cancer Institute grant

NF O


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


23/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobacco

industry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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



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


24/84


25/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


JL Morbidity and MortalityWeekly

No funding source stated (authorswork at the Texas Department ofHealth)

NF O


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


26/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


Total taxablesales fromeating anddrinkingestablishments.

Total taxablesales fromhotels

Y Y


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


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


27/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


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


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


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


28/84




Location




Natureo

frelationshipwith

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continu

ous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


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


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


29/84


30/84


31/84




Location





tobacc

oindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continu

ous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


32/84




Location





tobacc

oindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continu

ous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


GPReport by Health EconomicsResearch for Massachusetts Deptof Public Health Tobacco ControlProgram


NF O


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


33/84




Location





tobacc

oindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continu

ous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


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


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


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


34/84




Location





tobacc

oindustry

-refer

codes

Outcome

Measure


Description

Continu

ous

data

before

andafte

r

olic

intro?


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


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


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


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


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


35/84


36/84


Pubco, 2002 [83]

2001, Sept


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


37/84

A th d Y P bli h dType of policy examined (as described

hOutcome

Statistical


38/84




Location

yp p y (in study)



Nature

ofrelationshipwith

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


ARReport by In Context Inc, forthe Empire State Restaurant andTavern Association


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


39/84




Location

in study)



Nature

ofrelationshipwit

tobaccoindustry

-refer

codes

Measure


Description

Continuous

data

before

andafter

olic

intro?


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


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


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


40/84




Location

in study)



Nature

ofrelationshipwit

tobaccoindustry

-refe

codes

Measure


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


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


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


42/84


y ,1996 [96]

Massachusetts, USA

AR Report by In Context Inc,for the Massachusetts RestaurantAssociation


, ,

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


43/84


Attachment Table 2 Subjective studiesListed alphabetically, commencing with those funded by sources other than the tobacco industry



Location

Type of policy examined (asdescribed in study)

Report type* and Publisher


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?


44/84



Location

described in study)



Nature

ofrelationshipw

tobaccoindustry

-ref

codes


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


45/84


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


47/84



Location

described in study)



Nature

ofrelationship

tobac

coindustry

-re

codes


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


48/84

Author and Year Published Type of policy examined (asdescribed in study)

pwith

refer

Outcome Measure


Statistical analysisto test for

i ifi f

Findingsp

act?

Comments


49/84



Location



Nature

ofrelationship

tobac

coindustry

-r

codes


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

Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry

Documents

Transcript of Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies in the Hospitality Industry