ScolloSummaryEcoSFpo liciesHosp

25 %
75 %
Information about ScolloSummaryEcoSFpo liciesHosp
Travel-Nature

Published on March 12, 2008

Author: Beverly_Hunk

Source: authorstream.com

The likely economic impact of extension of smoke-free policies in the Australian hospitality industry:  The likely economic impact of extension of smoke-free policies in the Australian hospitality industry I. Evidence on economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry:  I. Evidence on economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry 1. Criteria for assessing quality of studies 2. Evidence available to date 1. Guide to assessing study quality:  1. Guide to assessing study quality 1. Is it measuring what people feared would happen or what actually happened? 1. Predicting the future or measuring concern?:  1. Predicting the future or measuring concern? 1. Selection bias 2. Campaigns to oppose policies increase negative beliefs 3. Fear of change reduces validity of estimates Studies assessing proprietor estimates:  Studies assessing proprietor estimates I. Guide to assessing study quality:  I. Guide to assessing study quality 2. Are the data based on perceptions/predictions (subjective data) or actual sales or employment data (objective data), independently collected and audited or subject to audit? Tasmanian proprietor reports of effects on business of smoke-free policy implementation in Sept 2001 :  Tasmanian proprietor reports of effects on business of smoke-free policy implementation in Sept 2001 “54% believed that smoke-free policy had an effect on business, 49% reporting falling sales” EMRS, October 2001 Actual sales, pubs and clubs, Tas September 2000 to December 2001:  Actual sales, pubs and clubs, Tas September 2000 to December 2001 ABS retail sales data, monthly Sept 2000 - Dec 2001 I. Guide to assessing study quality:  I. Guide to assessing study quality 3. Are the data continuous, for a reasonable period before & after policy implementation? Revenue in hotels and bars, SA December 2001 c.f. December 2000:  Revenue in hotels and bars, SA December 2001 c.f. December 2000 Source: ABS Retail Trade data, monthly receipts, 2002 Revenue in hotels and bars, SA April 2002 c.f. April 2001:  Revenue in hotels and bars, SA April 2002 c.f. April 2001 Source: ABS Retail Trade data, monthly receipts, 2002 Sales, pubs and clubs, SA 1998 -2002:  Sales, pubs and clubs, SA 1998 -2002 Source: ABS Retail Trade data, monthly receipts, 2002 I. Guide to assessing study quality:  I. Guide to assessing study quality 4. Has the study controlled for random fluctuation, seasonal variation and changing economic conditions? Sales, pubs and clubs, SA 1998-2002:  Sales, pubs and clubs, SA 1998-2002 Source: ABS Retail Trade data, monthly receipts, 2002 I. Hierarchy of study quality:  I. Hierarchy of study quality 4. Proprietor predictions of impact on revenue 3. Proprietor reports of impact on revenue Patron predictions of patronage 2. Patron reports of changes in patronage 1. Employment, sales tax data Objective, controlled studies that are peer-reviewed Objective studies that control for random fluctuation, seasonal variation & changing economic conditions Evidence on economic impact of smoke-free policies:  Evidence on economic impact of smoke-free policies 1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls 2. Evidence from studies that use objective data 1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls:  1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls 1. Patrons nominate smokiness as the thing they hate most about pubs (Sweeney, 2001). Slide18:  Main Weaknesses of Pubs and Hotels Sweeney Research, 2000 1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls:  1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls 2. Only 9% (4%) say that bars (gaming areas) would be less enjoyable without smoking (SA Tobacco Control, Research and Evaluation, 2002) Predicted changes to enjoyment, SA, Nov 2001:  Predicted changes to enjoyment, SA, Nov 2001 SA Tobacco Control, Research and Evaluation, 2002 1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls:  1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls 3. More Australians say they would be more likely to attend bars and gaming venues that were smoke-free than Australians who say they would be less likely. Predicted changes in patronage, SA, Nov 2001:  Predicted changes in patronage, SA, Nov 2001 SA Tobacco Control, Research and Evaluation, 2002 1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls:  1. Suggestive evidence from public and patron opinion polls 4. The % of Californians reporting increased likelihood of attending bars also increased over time. Reported likelihood of Californian bar patrons to visit smoke-free bars:  Reported likelihood of Californian bar patrons to visit smoke-free bars Now that smoking is prohibited in bars, are you more likely, …, to visit them? August 98 & October 2000 studies conducted by the Field Poll Corporation for the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section. Percent 2. Evidence from objective studies of policies in the hospitality industry:  2. Evidence from objective studies of policies in the hospitality industry 1. How many of the studies used in support of or to oppose bans rely on objective data? Comparison of study quality - hospitality industry overall:  Comparison of study quality - hospitality industry overall 2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry:  2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry 2. What happened to restaurant sales following smokefree restaurant bans in South Australia? Ratio of SA Restaurant Sales to SA Retail Sales*, April 1991 to April 2001:  Ratio of SA Restaurant Sales to SA Retail Sales*, April 1991 to April 2001 Wakefield et al, 2002 2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry:  2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry 3. What are the findings, overall, of objective studies properly designed objective studies and peer-reviewed, properly designed studies? Findings of objective studies - hospitality industry :  Findings of objective studies - hospitality industry * 9 peer-reviewed Scollo and Lal, 2002 Are Smoke Bans Bad for Business?:  Are Smoke Bans Bad for Business? Without exception, every objective study using actual sales data and appropriate statistical controls finds that smoke-free legislation has no adverse impact on restaurant, bar, hotel and tourism receipts. (Studies conducted in US - California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Texas, Utah, Vermont, North Carolina; Australia - SA; and Canada - British Columbia.) Two of the 16 studies found an initial decline in receipts in the first 1-2 months following enactment, but no overall or aggregate decline in the longer term. Several studies find smoke-free legislation is good for business as non-smokers eat and drink out more often. Extracts from study conclusions:  Extracts from study conclusions “Smoke-free restaurant ordinances did not hurt, and may have helped, international tourism” From tourism/hotel sales in 6 U.S. States “Nine months after tough anti-smoking legislation was imposed in B.C.’s capital, business remains steady and liquor sales are up….” Victoria, B.C. 1999 From reviews of study conclusions...:  From reviews of study conclusions... “Legislators and government officials can enact health and safety regulations to protect patrons and employees in restaurants and bars from the toxins in secondhand tobacco smoke without fear of adverse economic consequences.... these data further discredit tobacco industry claims that smoke-free bar laws are bad for the bar business. Quite the contrary, these laws appear to be good for business.” Glantz 1997 and 2000 (California) Slide34:  “The statistical results strongly confirm that there are no long-term impacts from restrictive smoking regulations.” CRD, BC, 2000 “In one study after another, covering multiple states within the US, analysts have found no adverse effect of smoking restrictions, including complete bans, on local restaurants’ business. Indeed, several of the studies have found a tendency for smoking restrictions to increase business. Similar findings derive from analysis of the effects of smoking restrictions on bars ...(and) tourism.” Warner, 2000 “Restaurateur Fears Unfounded”:  “Restaurateur Fears Unfounded” A survey of Arizona restaurateurs before smoke-free legislation found 44% concerned that customers would be upset. Afterwards, the same restaurateurs reported that most customer reactions were positive. Only 15% found negative reactions. 88% said the law was positive or neutral for staff, and 94% said it was easy to enforce. Sciacca 1996 2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry:  2. Evidence from studies of policies in the hospitality industry 3. What about in those studies that looked at policies covering bars? Comparison of study quality - studies including bars:  Comparison of study quality - studies including bars Scollo and Lal, 2002 Findings of objective studies - studies of policies that cover bars :  Findings of objective studies - studies of policies that cover bars Scollo and Lal, 2002 II. Evidence of economic impact of smoke-free policies:  II. Evidence of economic impact of smoke-free policies 4. What has been the impact of smoke-free bar legislation in California? 4. Evidence from study of smoke-free bars, California :  4. Evidence from study of smoke-free bars, California From California Board of Equalization (BOE) from Q1 of 1990 to Q4 of 2000 Categorized as follows: Eating and drinking establishments that serve all types of liquor (about 25% stand-alone bars) Eating and drinking establishments that serve beer and wine Eating and drinking establishments that serve no alcoholic beverages Eating establishment’s taxable annual sales in California by liquor license type, 1992-1999:  Eating establishment’s taxable annual sales in California by liquor license type, 1992-1999 Billion Dollars Smoke-free Restaurants Smoke-free Bars Source: California State Board of Equalization. Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001. Primary “On-Sale” Alcohol License Types:  Primary “On-Sale” Alcohol License Types Type 40: On-Sale Beer (Beer Bar) - 1,510 Type 41: On-Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place (Pizza Place) - 20,113 Type 42: On-Sale Beer and Wine Public Premises (Beer and Wine Bar) - 1,202 Type 47: On-Sale General Eating Place (Full-Service Restaurant) - 10,966 Type 48: On-Sale General Public Premises (Stand-Alone Bar) - 3,261 These numbers are from June 30, 2000 and these five types constitute 94-96% of all On-Sale licenses in California annually No. Eating and Drinking Establishments in California by Major License Type: 1991-2000*:  No. Eating and Drinking Establishments in California by Major License Type: 1991-2000* Data reflects mid-year count of establishments. * Data missing for 1995 due to computer failure and loss of data. Source: State of California, Alcohol Beverage Control (5/00) Year Smoke-free Restaurants Smoke-free bars Establishments Number of Individuals Employed in Eating and Drinking Places in California: 1992-2000 Annual Average Labor Force:  Number of Individuals Employed in Eating and Drinking Places in California: 1992-2000 Annual Average Labor Force Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Force Statistics (4/01) Year Number of Employees Smoke-free Restaurants Smoke-free Bars Increase of 19.5% in 9 years as compared to a 13.5% increase for all employment statewide over the same period. Tourism in California California Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000:  Tourism in California California Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000 Source: California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism, October, 2001 “Total Payroll” definition changed in 1999 to include sole proprietors such as owners of Bed & Breakfasts and their family members instead of just the hired staff of such establishments. Destination Spending includes spending on accommodations, eating and drinking, groceries, ground transportation, recreation and retail sales. Total spending also includes air transportation and travel arrangement services. Billions of Dollars Tourism and Employment California Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000:  Tourism and Employment California Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000 Source: California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism, October, 2001 Avg. Per-Capita Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking Establishment Serving Alcohol vs. Eating and Drinking Group as a Whole in California: 1993-2000 for Second Quarter Only*:  Smoke-free Restaurants Smoke-free Bars Avg. Per-Capita Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking Establishment Serving Alcohol vs. Eating and Drinking Group as a Whole in California: 1993-2000 for Second Quarter Only* Source: State of California, Board of Equalization (12/01) Dollars Year Since 1995, per-capita sales for all eating and drinking increased by 27% and establishments serving both food and alcohol increased by 25%. Methodology:  Methodology Variables considered for modeling Quarter, Time Change in intercept and slope for smoke-free restaurants Change in intercept and slope for smoke-free bar law Autoregressive error terms “Proc Autoreg” in SAS V8 Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000:  Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000 Percentage Source: California State Board of Equalization. Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001. Smoke-free restaurant law Smoke-free bar law Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000:  Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000 Percentage Source: California State Board of Equalization. Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001. Smoke-free restaurant law Smoke-free bar law Bar/Retail Results:  Bar/Retail Results No change in intercept and slope after implementation of smoke-free bar law Change in intercept and slope after implementation of smoke-free restaurant law Conclusions:  Conclusions Bar patrons - spending more time in bars ? Smokers prefer smoke-free bars and restaurants 2. Overall conclusions from studies of policies in the hospitality industry:  2. Overall conclusions from studies of policies in the hospitality industry 1. Studies concluding -ve impact are lower quality. 2. Restaurant sales did not fall following bans in South Australia. 3. No properly designed study - including studies of policies covering bars - shows a -ve impact. 4. Bar bans in California did not have –ve impact. 5. ..in line with common sense predictions. What does evidence suggest will be ...:  What does evidence suggest will be ... Likely economic impact on I. the hospitality industry - neutral II. the tobacco industry? II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry:  II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry 1. Evidence from impact of workplace bans 1. Evidence from impact of workplace policies:  1. Evidence from impact of workplace policies Reduction in prevalence - Av. 3.8% Reduction in consumption per smoker - Av. 3.1 fewer cigarettes per day Estimated impact on total national consumption if all workplaces went smoke-free in 2002 - 7.6% in UK and 4.5% in US, costing P310 & $1.7b annually Fitchenberg and Glantz, BMJ, 2002 II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry:  II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry 2. Smokers report of likely impact of smoke-free hospitality bans Predicted impact of bans on Victorians who visit pubs and clubs > monthly:  Predicted impact of bans on Victorians who visit pubs and clubs > monthly 70% report smoking more in these venues 24% say they would be more likely to quit if bans Credible because those saying this are: younger smoke more in these venues more open to quitting more approving of bans Trotter, Wakefield and Borland (in press, Tobacco Control) II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry:  II. Likely economic impact - tobacco industry 3. Tobacco company assessments of likely impact 3. Evidence from tobacco company assessments:  3. Evidence from tobacco company assessments “The immediate implication (of smoking bans) for our business is clear: if our consumers have fewer opportunities to use our products they will use them less frequently and the result will be an adverse impact on our bottom line.” PM “The economic arguments often used by the industry to scare of smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public which isn’t surprising when you consider our dire predictions of the past rarely came true.” PM Laufer D, 8 July 1994, The likely economic impact of extension of smoke-free policies in the Australian hospitality industry:  The likely economic impact of extension of smoke-free policies in the Australian hospitality industry Poor quality literature on smoke-free bars and restaurants:  Poor quality literature on smoke-free bars and restaurants Survey of bar owners on predicted impacts or anecdotal information (21 of the 34 studies used to oppose bans) Bizarre time periods or inappropriate control groups for comparison (6 of the 6 objective studies used to oppose bans) Non-peer reviewed (33 of 34 studies used to oppose bans) Funded by sources not independent from the tobacco industry (34 of 34 studies used to oppose bans)

Add a comment

Related presentations