Summary
1.1 Background
After 16 years of exceptions from §6 of the Act relating to prevention of the harmful effects of tobacco, the so-called Tobacco Act, a smoke-free regime was introduced at all hospitality venues from 1 June 2004. The previous regulations regarding smokefree areas in bars, pubs, cafés and restaurants were thereby superseded by an absolute ban on smoking indoors. The authorities' most important reason for revoking the exception was to afford employees in the hospitality industry the same protection against passive smoking as other employees had had since §6 of the Tobacco Act came into effect in 1988. Further, it is pointed out that hospitality venues, discotheques and the like were an important recruitment arena for smoking among young people. Importance was also attached to the fact that numerous individuals with asthma and allergies could not patronise hospitality venues due to the problems they suffered as a result of smoke-filled indoor air. Finally, it was pointed out that the regulations on smoke-free areas were difficult for the industry in terms of compliance.
The desire for an evaluation of the ban was expressed when the issue was discussed by the Storting's Standing Committee on Health and Social Affairs and was repeated during the subsequent parliamentary debate. The explanation was that the ban was controversial, and that there was doubt attached to the economic consequences for the hospitality industry as well as uncertainty associated with the general public's compliance and satisfaction. The evaluation was to be presented after three years at the latest. The Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) won the contract to conduct the evaluation as a link in a broader evaluation of the State's tobacco prevention work in Norway.
1.2 Changes in revenues, frequency of patronage, bankruptcies and employment in the hospitality industry
The evaluation has shown that the reported value-added tax (VAT) from the hospitality industry (restaurants, pubs and bars) to county tax offices was down by -0.8 per cent in the first 12 months after the ban was introduced compared with same interval the year before. In the restaurant segment of the industry, sales remained virtually unchanged (- 0.6%), while typical taverns such as bars and pubs, which have significantly lower sales than the restaurant industry, reported a somewhat more pronounced downturn (- 4.4%).
Food, wine, beer and soft drinks are the hospitality industry's best sellers. Figures for the sale of beer from breweries to the hospitality industry showed a decline of -6.2% after 17 months of smoke-free taverns, compared with a previous interval of the same duration. It has not been possible to obtain similar sales statistics for any of the other products. Since the change in the hospitality industry's total retail sales was marginal (-0.8%), the sale of these product groups has probably changed less than the decline in the sale of beer.
No major changes have been observed in breweries' sale of beer to food retailers subsequent to the ban. This may indicate that the decline in licensed serving of alcohol has not led to more consumption of beer in private settings. Nor was any pattern observed with a view to regional differences in the serving of beer between the northern and southern parts of the country, for example. Conversely, the decline in beer sales was somewhat higher during the coldest periods of the year.
It is difficult to determine how much of the decline in beer sales at taverns can be ascribed to the ban alone. Many conditions can affect the volume of beer served to guests at hospitality venues, such as price, the customers' purchasing power, climatic conditions, the price of beer from alternative sources (retail price) and availability (number of bars and business hours). The Norwegian Meteorological Institute reports that the first summer with smoke-free dining was colder and wetter than normal – except in the northernmost regions of the country. The summer before, on the other hand, was warmer than usual in large parts of the country. The weather was very different in the two summers in the present comparison of beer sales. In the longer term, SIRUS will make analyses that may make it possible to isolate the effect of the ban on sales from other likely contributing factors.
Besides sales statistics, data is available from surveys (undertaken before and after the ban) on the public's frequency of patronage at hospitality venues. No significant differences were observed in self-reported frequency of patronage among smokers or non-smokers during the period before and after the ban. Nonetheless, it is possible that the reported stability in frequency of patronage on the part of the patrons may also be a result of the question being worded somewhat imprecisely.
A longitudinal survey among hospitality industry staff showed that no less than 70% were of the opinion that the ban had led to no change (39%) or minor changes (31%) in the frequency of patronage at their place of work. Thus these responses
support what the sales statistics showed, i.e. a reduction of -0.8%. However, nearly one-third of the employees contended that the ban had led to far fewer guests. The responses to this question were strongly influenced by the attitude of the employees to smoke-free hospitality venues prior to the ban. Thus, as information on frequency of patronage, such data has limited validity.
The number of bankruptcies in the hotel and restaurant industry increased moderately during the two first quarters after the ban, then subsided. Meanwhile, the increase occurred during a season in which the number of bankruptcies has shown a rising tendency in previous years as well. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the observed increase is related to the introduction of smoke-free hospitality venues.
Employment in the hospitality industry displays seasonal variations. A slight decrease in the number of employees was observed in Q4 of the year in which the ban was introduced, compared with the same quarter in the two preceding years. Employment has since returned to a normal level. It is difficult to say whether the temporary dip can be related to the ban.
A -0.8% decline in revenues in the Norwegian hospitality industry subsequent to the ban is in harmony with the results of a number of foreign surveys. Research literature has consistently shown that the introduction of smoke-free hospitality venues has had little impact on retail sales in the industry. Most of these surveys have nonetheless been performed in geographical units (countries, states, cities) where the percentages of smokers has been lower than in Norway, and where the climate has been warmer. With the somewhat less favourable starting point, it was therefore perhaps rather surprising that the ban on indoor smoking has had such a limited impact on the revenues of the Norwegian hospitality industry.
1.3 Changes in level of satisfaction when patronising hospitality venues
The reason the decline in sales has not been greater for the industry may possibly be that smokers failed to experience the expected reduction in satisfaction. Prior to the ban, 69% and 55% of those who smoke on a daily basis thought that smoke-free hospitality venues would reduce their satisfaction when patronising pubs/bars and restaurants, but a mere 38% and 32%, respectively, reported an actual reduction in satisfaction 18 months after the ban. This indicates that the ban did not turn out to be as bad as smokers initially feared. The result must be seen in the light of large parts of the hospitality industry having paved the way for outdoor smoking by several types of initiatives to raise the level of satisfaction. Among non-smokers, 81% and 82%, respectively, reported a higher level of satisfaction with pubs/bars and restaurants after the ban. One year after the ban, no fewer than three of four respondents stated that they would retain the scheme of smoke-free hospitality venues if given a hypothetical choice.
1.4 Changes in attitudes to smoke-free hospitality venues
The general public's attitude to passive smoking has changed since the Tobacco Act was implemented in 1988, effectively banning smoking in all workplaces (minus the hospitality business) and enclosed public areas. By the time hospitality venues
became smoke-free in 2004, far more people perceived passive smoking as a health problem than what had been the case in 1988. Support for the ban has increased steadily. The most recent survey (December 2005) indicated that three of four people
were positive to smoke-free hospitality venues.
The views of smokers and non-smokers were largely in harmony about the Tobacco Act in 1988, but in 2004 it appeared to be considerable differences in views on smoke-free hospitality venues. In 2005, 84% of non-smokers were positive to smoke-free hospitality venues, while just 45% of those who smoke on a daily basis shared the same opinion. Two years earlier, however, only 25% of those who smoke on a daily basis were positive to the idea, so support for smoke-free hospitality venues has grown quickly, not least among those in the most sceptical group. Steadily growing support for smoke-free hospitality venues has also been observed in a number of international surveys of attitudes.
1.5 Changes in air quality
While just one of ten guests reported very good indoor air quality in pubs/bars during the scheme with smoke-free areas, six of ten reported very good air quality after the ban. Similarly, the percentage reporting very good indoor air quality at restaurants increased from about 40% before the amendment to 75% afterwards.
1.6 Compliance and enforcement
Prior to the ban, smokers had reported a high degree of intended compliance with the ban on smoking. The patrons did not observe many problems with smoke-free hospitality venues either. Among the individuals with the highest frequency of
patronage to pubs/bars, a mere 3% had observed any serious enforcement problems during the 18 months of smoke-free venues. The comparable figure for restaurants was 2%. Even among smokers, only a very small percentage had observed or experienced any type of enforcement problems. Staff reported fewer unpleasant incidents and better compliance with the total ban of smoking than with smoke-free areas.
1.7 Other consequences of the ban
Nearly half the employees contended that the ban had led to more noise outside the premises. However, this had not entailed any more complaints from neighbours. There were also reports of more cigarette butts on the street near the front door, but
it was not clear whether this represented a serious and unexpected problem. Employees pointed out that the advantages of the ban included easier cleaning, work clothes that did not reek of smoke, a better state of health and better air quality.
The evaluation has shown that since the ban, the hospitality industry has become a sales channel for snus (a Scandinavian type of moist smokeless tobacco) and an arena for snus use. It is likely that the ban has accelerated the use of snus here in Norway. It is also likely that the ban has accelerated the decline in the percentage of smokers among the general public, although it is difficult to isolate one particular effect. Among smokers, nearly half the demographic from ages 18 to 20 reported that the ban had caused them to cut back on cigarettes, but the responses were biased by the attitude young people had to the ban on smoking and are thus not entirely valid. However, a survey from the USA showed that the progression from experimentation to becoming a regular smoker was significantly lower in regions with a ban on smoking in hospitality venues. Our data is not appropriate for determining whether the ban has contributed to the reduction in recruitment to smoking observed in Norway the latest years.