Background: Advocacy, resources and intersubjective reasonable arguments are known as factors that contribute to smoke-free (SF) adoption and implementation in Chinese and Anglo-Saxon places. Less is known about how the implementation of smoking bans differs across European places. The aim of this qualitative comparative study is to identify and classify the SF policy implementation processes and types undertaken at the local level in seven European cities according to the views of local bureaucrats and sub-national stakeholders.
Method: Semi-structured expert interviews (n = 56) with local decision makers and stakeholders were conducted as qualitative part of the comparative SILNE-R project in Belgium (Namur), Finland (Tampere), Germany (Hanover), the Republic of Ireland (Dublin), the Netherlands (Amersfoort), Italy (Latina), and Portugal (Coimbra). Qualitative interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis.
Results: Implementation of SF environments predominantly focuses on indoor bans or youth-related settings. Progressive-hungry (Dublin), moderate-rational (Tampere), upper-saturated (Hanover, Amersfoort), and lower saturated (Namur, Coimbra, Latina) implementation types can be distinguished. These four types differ with regards to their engagement in enhancing SF places as well as along their level of perceived tobacco de-normalization and public smoking visibility. In all municipalities SF environments are adopted at national levels, but are differently implemented at the local level due national policy environments, enforcement strategies and the level of collaboration. Major mechanisms to expand SF regulations were found to be scientific evidence, public support, and the child protection frame. However, counter-mechanisms of closure occur if data on declining prevalence and new youth addiction trends trigger low prioritization.
Conclusions: This study found four SF implementation types two mechanisms of progressive expansion and defensive closure. Development and enhancement of smoking bans requires a suitable national policy environment and indirect national-level support of self-governed local initiatives. Future SF policies can be enhanced by laws pertaining to places frequented by minors.
Keywords: Cities; Framework analysis; Health policy; Implementation; Local level; Smoke-free; Smoking bans; Tobacco control.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. None of the authors have received funding from the (tobacco) industry.
Explaining Mechanisms That Influence Smoke-Free Implementation at the Local Level: A Realist Review of Smoking Bans.Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Nov 19;21(12):1609-1620. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty206. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019. PMID: 30285126
Exposure to car smoking among youth in seven cities across the European Union.Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Nov 1;204:107561. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107561. Epub 2019 Sep 18. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019. PMID: 31563096
Economic evaluation of five tobacco control policies across seven European countries.Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Jul 27:ntz124. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz124. Online ahead of print. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019. PMID: 31350556
Facilitators and Barriers of Smokers' Compliance with Smoking Bans in Public Places: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Literature.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Dec 11;13(12):1228. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13121228. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016. PMID: 27973436 Free PMC article. Review.
Impact of institutional smoking bans on reducing harms and secondhand smoke exposure.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 27;(5):CD011856. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011856.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27230795 Review.