ABSTRACT
Aim To describe the smokefree status and signage of outdoor pedestrian-only plazas/malls/boulevards in 10 New Zealand local government (council) areas.
Methods The 10 council areas were a convenience sample. Council websites were examined for smokefree policies and a systematic attempt was made to identify the five largest pedestrian-only sites with permanent seating in each council area (10 sites each for two larger cities). Field visits were conducted to all selected sites.
Results Smokefree policies with components covering smokefree outdoor plazas/malls/boulevards were common (80%; 8/10 councils), albeit with some gaps (eg, around signage and vaping policy). A total of 60 relevant pedestrianised sites with permanent seating were identified and surveyed. Of these 63% were officially designated smokefree. Smokefree signage was only present in 15% (9/60) of all the sites and in 24% (9/38) of the designated smokefree sites. In these designated sites the average number of smokefree signs was only 1.4 (range: 0 to 14). Issues identified with the signs included small size, being only a small part of a larger other sign, limited use of te reo Māori wording, and not covering vaping. At sites where tables were present, 12% had ash trays on the tables (none where smokefree).
Conclusions Smokefree plazas/malls/boulevards in this survey had multiple policy and signage deficiencies that are inconsistent with achieving the national smokefree goal for 2025. There is scope to address these issues with an upgrade to the national smokefree law.
INTRODUCTION
One mechanism to make progress towards reducing the enormous health burden from tobacco smoking, is to expand smokefree public areas. For many high-income countries, this now means an increased focus on outdoor public settings, where smokefree policies are much less common than for indoor public settings. Such policies are intended to reduce the exposure of workers and the public to tobacco smoke pollution and contribute to the denormalisation of smoking by reducing its visibility.1,2 A perception of smokefree parks or outdoor dining policies has been associated with increased quit attempts,3 and not being exposed to smoking in Ontario bar/restaurant outdoor areas increased quit attempts and decreased smoking relapses.4 In New York, smokefree policies for parks and beaches were followed by reduced tobacco-related litter, observed smoking and public perceptions of smoking.5,6 In the Netherlands the introduction of an inner-city outdoor smokefree zone was associated with a substantial decline in the number of smokers in the zone.7
There is often majority public support for a number of types of outdoor smokefree areas (eg, based on surveys in the USA and Canada,8 Spain,9 Australia,10,11 and the UK12). There is even majority support for some outdoor smokefree areas by smokers (eg, in New Zealand,13 Spain,9 Italy,14 Australia,11 and North America8).
Internationally, the most progress towards outdoor smokefree policy has generally been made in areas explicitly associated with children (eg, schools, playgrounds, urban parks),15 along with some movement with outdoor hospitality areas (eg, outside bars and cafés).16 However, smokefree policies for central urban pedestrian areas have increased in California,17 and some larger Australian cities.18 New York has smokefree policies for ‘Pedestrian plazas such as those at Times Square and Herald Square’.19
In New Zealand, exposure to second-hand smoke is a serious problem with an estimated 347 premature deaths per year in 2019.20 When morbidity from this smoke is also considered, this health loss amounted to an estimated 9022 lost disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019.20 Fortunately, there has been some progress with voluntary or ‘educational’ outdoor smokefree areas over the last two decades.21-23 Nevertheless, various issues have been identified in terms of the extent of coverage and quantity/quality of the signage (eg, hospitality settings,24 schools,25 childrens’ playgrounds,26 hospital grounds,27 racecourses and sports facilities,28 railway stations,29 airports,30 and various other settings31). These limitations are problematic in the context of the country having a Smokefree Goal for the year 2025.32
Despite the research mentioned above, there has been little work in New Zealand on evaluating the extent of smokefree pedestrian-only areas (plazas/malls/boulevards). In Rotorua’s pedestrian “Eat Street”, in 2019 a count of smokers 12 months after the adoption of a smokefree policy found relatively few people smoking (0.6% of those observed; ie, 36/6530; personal communication). The measurement of the prevalence of smoking in a few such places has occurred in Wellington, either before or after the adoption of smokefree policies.33,34
Given this background, and the revived New Zealand Government interest in progressing tobacco control,35,36 we aimed in this study to describe the smokefree status and signage of outdoor pedestrian-only plazas/malls/boulevards in 10 New Zealand local government (council) areas.
METHODS
Sample selection
The 10 council areas were a convenience sample based on author living locations and travel plans (north to south the areas were: Hastings, Napier, Palmerston North, Masterton, South Wairarapa, Porirua, Upper Hutt, Hutt, Wellington in the North Island; and Queenstown-Lakes in the South Island). A systematic attempt was made to identify all of the outdoor pedestrian-only plazas/malls/boulevards with permanent seating in these council areas. We then selected the five largest of these by (measured by paved/gravel area) within each council area (or 10 in the case of councils with 100,000+ populations: Wellington and Hutt Cities).
Smokefree policies
The website of each council was examined to identify the smokefree policy. Key features of the each policy were documented, particularly how it related to the selected sites.
Site inclusion criteria
For the purposes of this study we used the following definitions for site inclusion in the survey:
An outdoor plaza with seating was an outdoor area that was at least 50% paved or gravel surfaced, had some distinguishing structures to prevent vehicle access (eg, bollards or planter boxes) and had at least one permanent seat. In some cases these plazas were still officially called “parks” eg, “Grey Street Pocket Park” in Wellington City. Also, we identified plaza areas within larger park settings, where the plaza was well defined by surrounding structures. Where a plaza or boulevard was an extended area (or series of connected areas) of the footpath, we required that the area including the extension was at least twice the width of the nearest normal width of footpath. We took a broad interpretation of seating to include seating with no back support (eg, concrete block or wooden benches that could be sat on).
A pedestrianised mall/boulevard was defined as an outdoor area that was fully pedestrianised for its entire width, was wider than a typical footpath and which had at least one permanent seat.
Site identification
For each city the following steps were performed:
We examined Google Maps, Google Street View, and undertook our own observations within each council area, to identify relevant sites.
We examined the City Council website for smokefree policies and these typically included mention of specific pedestrianised plazas, malls and boulevards (for references to website links see Table 1).
We conducted a Google search to identify news items around smokefree areas within each city. For example, some documents specifically identified city plazas (eg, for Hastings37).
Sites that were outside of a council’s jurisdiction were excluded (eg, on private land, university and hospital campuses, and part of national monuments etc). We also excluded any of the potential sites if construction was underway at the time of the field visit.
City Councils (CC) and District Councils (DC) in the sample and how their smokefree policies relate to outdoor pedestrian-only plazas/malls/boulevards
Data collection at site visits
On field visits to each site we identified the presence or absence of the features required for inclusion (see above). For sites meeting such criteria, we then collected data on:
The presence of all smokefree and vapefree signage (with photographs taken of all signs). For the study, we did not include data on smokefree signage which was in the corner of warning signs that were predominantly for other purposes such as “no alcohol” or “no skateboarding” signs. The latter applied to two sites, with a small smokefree logo in the corner of such signs. We also did not include smokefree signage on temporary tables at the site.
The presence or not of dining/drinking tables, including temporary ones associated with cafés, restaurants and pubs.
The presence or not of ash trays on any of the tables or special bins for cigarette butts.
Three sites were examined by two authors together to confirm the feasibility of the definitions and methods. Then the rest of the sites were examined by each of the authors alone, albeit with site photographs examined by the other authors. All site visits were conducted during business hours to ensure that any cafés/restaurants and pubs would have any tables set up outside. The survey covered the period 2 January 2021 to 13 May 2021. All the the raw data are available on request from the first author.
RESULTS
Of the 10 councils, all had details of smokefree outdoor policies on their websites (Table 1). There was also evidence of specific commissioned research on the topic that had been published.38 The average time since the smokefree policy was last updated was four years (ie, in 2017; range 2006 to 2020; Table 1). Policies with components covering smokefree outdoor plazas/malls/boulevards were common (80%; 8/10 councils), with the policy of one of the remainder being classified as “unclear”. But only five councils (50%) included a vapefree policy for the outdoor areas covered. Most councils (80%) had some policy around smokefree signage. In three of these (30%), the signage policy specifically mentioned signage in te reo Māori, but only two mentioned vapefree signage. The Hutt City policy specifically stated: “Signage does not include a ‘no vaping’ message”.
A total of 60 relevant pedestrianised sites with permanent seating were identified and surveyed (52 plazas, 6 malls, and 2 boulevards) (Table 2). Of these 63% were officially designated smokefree in the council’s smokefree policy. Smokefree signage was only present in 15% (9/60) of the total sites and in 24% (9/38) of the designated smokefree sites. In these designated sites, the average number of smokefree signs was 1.4 (range: 0 to 14; Table 2). In the sites with smokefree signage, 44% had at least some signs with te reo Māori wording (eg, Figure 1) and 22% had some signs where the smokefree message was just part of a larger sign (eg, Figure 2). There were no vapefree signs at any of the sites and no signs mentioned any enforcement details (eg, telephone numbers for complaints). Qualitative issues included some very small smokefree signs (under 10 cm by 10 cm in area; eg, Figure 2), and some signs were located where the intent was unclear (eg, on the side of a building where the sign could potentially be interpreted as indicating a smokefree indoor area).
Results for pedestrianised sites (plazas/malls/boulevards) in the 10 Council areas (with site specific details available on request from the authors)
At sites where tables were present, 12% had ash trays on the tables. But none of the designated smokefree sites had ash trays present on the tables.
DISCUSSION
A key finding of this survey was that all the 10 councils had details of smokefree outdoor policies on their websites and most (80%) of these policies had components that covered smokefree outdoor plazas/malls/boulevards. Nevertheless, out of the 60 pedestrianised sites with permanent seating that we examined, only 63% were officially designated smokefree (and in some cases this status was unclear or just applied to part of the site). Furthermore, only 24% of the designated smokefree sites had any smokefree signage. This signage was often suboptimal in terms of size, extent, and quality. Also, the 12% of the sites with tables that had ash trays potentially give a problematic pro-smoking signal.
These various problems that we found are inconsistent with the New Zealand Government’s Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Goal,32 as indeed are the extensive limitations with other outdoor smokefree areas in the country (see Introduction). They are also inconsistent with local government efforts to make their localities more attractive to workers, shoppers, and tourists; to have a healthier and more productive population;48 and to improve the environment with reduced tobacco-related litter and cleaning costs.49
Given these problems, there is a case for an upgrade to national smokefree legislation, as is used for indoor public and work places. Such legislation appears to have worked well for another type of outdoor area in New Zealand (ie, school grounds throughout the country23), and a national approach has recently been taken with smokefree vehicles.50 In contrast to local government initiatives, national legislation has the advantage of providing consistent messaging throughout the country, allowing integration with national smokefree media campaigns, and allowing for economies of scale with centralised sign production/distribution. Specific features of a new national law smokefree law that encompassed these sites could state that:
All outdoor pedestrianised plazas, malls and boulevards that have any permanent seating are smokefree and vapefree (along with a 10 metre zone from their boundaries).
All these sites are required to have smokefree signage that meet minimum government specifications (ie, for number of signs per area, size, use of te reo Māori, and messaging including “no vaping”).
Nevertheless, until a national approach is potentially adopted, local government can still take additional initiatives to upgrade their smokefree policies and build them into bylaws. The range of approaches for the use of locally-based laws for smokefree outdoor areas in New Zealand has been detailed previously.51
A strength of our study was that it appears to be the first survey (to our knowledge) of the smokefree status these type of outdoor pedestrianised areas in Australasia. Study limitations include the sample of just 10 council areas (out of a potential 67 territorial authorities in the country) and the sample being a convenience one, owing to this being an unfunded study. Also, within the council areas it is possible that we may have missed identifying some of the largest 5-10 sites, owing to our mechanisms for identifying them (eg, via Google Maps, Google Street View and local observations).
In summary, smokefree plazas/malls/boulevards in this survey had multiple policy and signage deficiencies that are inconsistent with achieving the national smokefree goal for 2025. There is scope to address these issues and others highlighted in research on smokefree outdoor policies in Aotearoa, with a major upgrade to the national smokefree law to help denormalise smoking and to help ex-smokers stay quit. This fundamental move on smokefree policies would be in line with the innovative ideas in the Government’s proposals for a Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.35
Data Availability
The raw data are available on request from the first author.
Competing interests
Nil.
Funding
Nil.