|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1
|
Previous Council Report
|
ITEM NUMBER 9.8
SUBJECT Proposed Outdoor
Smoking Policy
REFERENCE F2004/10350 - D01537193
REPORT OF Manager. Regulatory Services
|
PURPOSE:
To report to Council on a draft Outdoor Smoking Policy as requested by
Council’s resolution of 27 July 2009
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That in accordance with Section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council resolves to ban smoking on the
following Council owned and managed spaces through the erection of signs/notices:
(i) in
and within 10 metres of children's playground areas; and
(ii) in and within 10 metres of sporting
fields and sports facilities.
(b) That in view of the findings of surveys undertaken within Parramatta and
across NSW which disclose a level of community support for a range of
bans on smoking in outdoor areas including:
(i) within aquatic
facilities;
(ii) during Council run and sponsored events;
and
(iii) in and within 10 metres of Council owned or managed
buildings (including balconies or covered areas);
(c) That, where Council resolves to place
restrictions on smoking in public places under it's control,
(i) this be incorporated into relevant
policies, agreements with users and the design of place signage; and
(ii) appropriate community coverage and education be given to this decision.
(d) That Council support:
(i) $
15,000 being allocated to the parks improvement budget for the erection of signage in sporting fields
and playgrounds , over the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 financial years; and
(ii) $
5,000 being allocated toward development of an education program to inform
the local community of restrictions.
(e)
Further, that Council trial a
voluntary project with local restaurants to evaluate the financial impacts of
smoke free alfresco dining areas.
|
BACKGROUND
1. Council
at its meeting of 27 July 2009 resolved:
“(a) That Council develop a
Smoke-Free Outdoor Areas policy relating to a ban of smoking in and around
Council's children's playgrounds and within 10 metres of sporting venues and
its benefits.
(b) Further, that Council also consult the
following organisations for input on the abovementioned proposed policy in
terms of supporting legislation, local enforcement, signage, communication,
education, cost 1 to Council, and possible
alternative options for smokers (if any):
1 Action
on Smoking and Health
2 Heart Foundation
3 Australian
Medical Association (NSW)
4 Local
Government Association of NSW
5 The Cancer
Council.”
2. Council has previously
considered whether to implement bans in outdoor areas, specifically in alfresco
dining precincts under its Outdoor Dining Policy.
3. The Smoke Free Environment
Act 2000 and related Smoke Free Environment Regulation 2007 ban smoking
from enclosed or substantially enclosed areas, including restaurants, schools
and universities, professional trade, commercial and other business premises,
places of worship and community halls, theatres and cinemas, libraries and
galleries, public transport, hospitals and community health centres, shopping
centres, sporting facilities, malls and plazas.
4. Unlike similar legislation enacted in other states, this Act
does not confer any restrictions on
partially enclosed or unenclosed outdoor areas. The legislation does
include a section (Duty to prevent smoke), which deals with preventing spread
of smoke from an area where smoking is elsewhere allowed from penetrating a
designated smoke-free area. This section of the Act is used by NSW Health to
enforce provision of adequate open ventilated space in designated smoking
areas, particularly in relation to licensed premises (ie pubs/clubs) and some
commercial properties.
5. The other legislation of relevance is the Public Health
(Tobacco) Act 2008. The object of this Act is to reduce the incidence of smoking
and other consumption of tobacco products and non-tobacco smoking products,
particularly by young people. This regulates packaging, display and supply of
products as well as prohibiting smoking of tobacco in vehicles while juveniles
are present.
6. There are no provisions
currently within these Acts to extend restrictions to other areas.
7. Council's regulatory powers
Previous legal advice has been provided confirming
Council is empowered,
under the Local Government Act, to control activities such as smoking by erecting notices. Examples of such notices already
exist in many of Councils public areas, where activities such as riding
motor bikes and allowing unleashed dogs are not permitted.
8. Under the Act, Council has power to
· erect notices under S. 632;
· serve penalty notices under S.
679;
· demand details from offenders
under S. 680; and
· remove offenders from community
land under S. 681.
9. Enforcement can also be undertaken under
the Protection of the Environment Act, with on the spot fines imposed for littering
in public areas.
10. It is intended that a key mechanism for
compliance is peer pressure from the community, who use facilities that may be
impacted by introduction of restrictions and who are, as demonstrated elsewhere
in this report, in majority support for implementing bans in a range of areas.
While some initial low level rejection and non-compliance can be anticipated,
community support can be encouraged through consistent messaging explaining the
improvements to health and reduction in littering that can be achieved,
supported by physical presence of signage and supplementary educational
material.
11. Council may also impose restrictions on users of Council leased
and licensed areas, such as events and hirer of halls, public areas and outdoor
dining areas through agreements for use.
12. Council recently reviewed the Outdoor Dining policy and in
adopting this policy resolved not to prohibit smoking in designated alfresco
dining areas. It considered recommendations indicating that restaurant patrons
could make choices of venues according to smoking status, and that those
businesses that wished to offer patrons a
smoking area in outdoor dining facilities be free to do so subject to
displaying signage advising whether or not smoking is permitted within the
outdoor dining area.
13. It is recommended that through Council’s partnership with the Sydney West Area Health Service that the
financial impacts of smoke free outdoor dining be explored through a voluntary trial by interested businesses.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
14. Health
Impacts
The NSW Health Population Health survey 2008 found that 18.4 % of the
adult population smoked. The level of current smokers has declined from over
30% in 1987, and 24% in 1997. The rate of smoking in western Sydney is slightly higher than the state
average, at 19.2% of the population. The same survey identified 87.5% of
western Sydney
homes as smoke free.
15. The
impacts of smoking on health have been well documented and state, national and international
health service providers and agencies have all reported on the health impacts and costs of smoking on the smoker as
well as secondary smoking affects on non-smokers.
16. More recent studies on the impact of smoking have addressed the
potential impact of effects of second hand smoke (SHS) on non-smokers. The 2006
Surgeon General's report established that even brief exposure to SHS may have
adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and on severity of asthma
attacks. Children exposed to SHS are at an
increased risk of asthma, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute
respiratory infections and ear problems.
17. In 2007 a survey of 69 outdoor dining areas
in Melbourne
was undertaken on
behalf of the Cancer Council of Victoria. The intent was to establish the magnitude
of second hand smoke (SHS) exposure when people smoked in outdoor dining
areas. It reported that when individuals
sit in outdoor dining venues where smokers are present, it is possible that
they will be exposed to substantial SHS levels. The report concluded that the
role of outdoor smoking restrictions in minimising exposure to SHS must be
considered.
18. In 2004 Manly Council banned
smoking in alfresco dining areas, in July 2009 they conducted a survey of all
alfresco dining operators renting Council land. The phone survey of 36 out of
40 businesses was conducted to assess how
the implementation of the outdoor smoking ban has been received by
business operators and diners alike. The results showing an overwhelmingly
positive response to the introduction of the ban.
19. Environmental
The extent of litter created directly by cigarette butts is estimated at
7.25 million butts annually across Australia. Butts are easily
identifiable, and constitute the most common item of litter, representing
around 50% of waste items. Butts can have significant physical and chemical
impact in waterways and on ground environments, and can take up to 5 years to
decompose. Strategies to restrict entry of
litter such as cigarette butts into waterways were introduced by Council
some years ago, with installation commencing of a series of pollutant traps
into street drainage systems.
20. In response to the notice of motion and analysis of surveys undertaken, the options
available to Council are:
Option 1 Take no action;
Option 2 Consider introducing bans in Council owned
and managed space, including recreational facilities such as children's
playgrounds and sporting fields;
Option 3 In addition to Option 2,
consideration be given to the implementation of bans in other outdoor areas
under Council's control. This reflects community support for implementation of
smoke free zones disclosed through a number of surveys undertaken in recent
years, including those undertaken within Parramatta in 2006/7 and 2009;
Option 4 In
conjunction with local business owners trial a voluntary a smoke free outdoor
dining scheme to monitor the financial impact on restaurants.
The recommendation to Council is to
adopt options 2, 3 and 4. The
recommended draft policy is as Attachment
1.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
21. Surveys undertaken in recent years of public attitudes to smoking
have found increasing levels of support for restrictions on smoking activity. A
survey of restaurant patron's attitudes to smoke free dining was undertaken in Parramatta in 1997 prior
to the introduction of state legislation banning smoking within premises. This identified strong support for restricting
smoking in enclosed areas including restaurant dining areas, which at
the time were not regulated.
22. This survey was used as the basis for a
Council initiated survey of community attitudes in 2005 and 2007 which reflected current legislation, and
monitored attitudes to those changes. Two parallel surveys were done, one for
proprietors of businesses which utilise outdoor dining on public land and one
for their patrons. The results of this survey were discussed in a Councillor
workshop in 2007. Of note were responses to questions on opinions to applying
smoking restrictions to other areas. 85% of patrons and 93% of restaurant
proprietors supported bans in playgrounds, while 58% of patrons and 48% of
proprietors supported bans at sports fields. Results of this survey are
included in Attachment 2.
23. Residents
Panel health and wellbeing survey 2009.
A survey of members of the residents panel was
undertaken in the latter part of 2009. This covered a range of questions about health and wellbeing
of residents, and in part
sought opinions on a range of questions on attitudes to smoking behaviour. There were 637
respondents to the survey.
Tables showing all the responses to questions asked are appended as Attachment 3. To inform a debate on policy in this area key extracts from the
responses are outlined below.
|
85%
|
agreed that making outdoor public places
smoke free would make a positive improvement by reducing littering from
cigarette butts
|
|
80%
|
agreed that making
outdoor public places smoke free would support the health of pregnant women, children and
the chronically ill
|
|
94%
|
supported children's
playgrounds being smoke free zones
|
|
78%
|
supported smoke free zones around Council
buildings
|
|
81%
|
supported sportsfields being smoke free
|
|
84%
|
supported smoke free sports facilities
such as tennis, basketball and netball courts
|
|
89%
|
supported public swimming pools being
smoke free
|
|
87%
|
supported Council events being smoke free
|
|
87%
|
supported alfresco dining/outdoor dining
areas being smoke free
|
24. Following completion of this survey, internal consultation with
departments managing various property assets has been undertaken.
25. A petition has recently been forwarded to Council from the
Western Sydney Regional Cancer Advocacy
Network, calling for Council to adopt a smoke free environment policy.
The petition contains over 1000 signatures, with about one quarter resident of Parramatta. (See Attachment
4)
26. The Cancer Council has a
policy statement on the health risks of passive smoking. This recommends in
part, that public places and popular outdoor venues
such as al fresco dining and leisure and cultural settings be completely
smoke free. (Rev. Sep. 2008)
27. It
undertook a survey in NSW during 2006 seeking community response on attitudes
to smoking. Among the outcomes there was strong support for outdoor smoking
bans. 92% of respondents supported bans in childrens’ playgrounds, 85% outside
workplace entrances, 80% in sports stadiums and 69% in outdoor dining areas. A
resource kit was subsequently released for local government in May 2007.
28. The Australian Medical Association has campaigned to bring about
lower levels of smoking in Australia
and improved protection for non-smokers. In a submission to the Preventative
Health Taskforce in 2008 it supported tighter enforcement of legislation to
protect against exposure to second-hand smoke.
29. The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA)
recognises that although significant reductions in tobacco smoking rates have
occurred in recent years tobacco smoking remains the leading single cause of
mortality and morbidity in NSW. It notes that many Councils have implemented
restrictions and that key advantages of these policies is that they address the
risk to the community caused by exposure to
second-hand smoke, particularly for children. The policies also reduce
the harm to the environment associated with butt litter.
30. The
LGSA contributed to the resource kit for Smoke-free policy in outdoor areas
published by the Heart Foundation. This kit is being increasingly used by NSW
Councils to implement smoke free outdoor areas.
31. In 2009 the Heart Foundation released an updated kit for local
government, to assist in developing policy around smoke-free outdoor areas. The
kit contained results of a survey undertaken across all NSW Councils regarding
smoking policies. This found that 38% of Councils (58 of 152) had implemented
some form of policy. Results of this survey and the resource kit are appended
as Attachments 5 and 6.
32. Thirty (30) of those Councils were metropolitan. 95% (55) of
Councils had policies covering children's playgrounds and 78% (45) covered
sports fields. Nine had implemented a policy in respect of alfresco dining
areas. Recent discussion with the Heart Foundation indicates almost 70 Councils
have now developed policies restricting smoking in outdoor areas. The Heart
Foundation has undertaken advocacy leading to many of these local policies
being implemented.
33. Almost all Councils
surrounding Parramatta and across western Sydney have implemented a
policy banning smoking in playgrounds. Of those, all but one also has policy in
regard to sports fields.
34. Since this last survey by the Foundation, several more councils
have considered policy in this area. The
City of Sydney
had resolved in September 2009 to develop a policy on managing smoking
in the public domain. The resolution indicated restrictions would be implemented
in children's playgrounds, community centres, and in covered seating areas and
grandstands at City sports facilities.
35. A number of other councils, including Warringah, Waverley and Leichhardt
have extended existing policy on areas including smoking bans in playgrounds,
sportsfields and beaches to include other recreation areas including outdoor
dining areas.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL
36. There
will be costs associated with the implementation of this policy primarily
associated with education and the signage. The recommendation to the Council
includes $15,000 for signage in park and other public space and $5,000 for
education.
37. There
may be some cost reductions associated with reduced cleaning up of litter
caused by smoking, but this is hard to quantify.
Laurie Whitehead
Manager Regulatory Services
Attachments:
|
1
|
Draft Policy
|
2 Pages
|
|
|
2
|
Survey on Community studies to smoking
restrictions in alfresco dining and/or public places (Will be distributed
under separate cover. Copies available by contacting Laurie Whitehead)
|
36 Pages
|
|
|
3
|
Residents Panel Health and Wellbeing Survey
Final Report
|
50 Pages
|
|
|
4
|
WSRCA petition
|
91 Pages
|
|
|
5
|
Heart Foundation Survey Result(Will be
distributed under separate cover. Copies avilable by contacting Laurie
Whitehead)
|
16 Pages
|
|
|
6
|
Heart Foundation Resource Kit (Will be
distributed under separate cover. Copies available by contacting Laurie
Whitehead)
|
16 Pages
|
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1
|
Previous Council Report
|
Survey of community attitudes towards smoking
restrictions in alfresco dining and other public places
Parramatta City Council
By
Tony Gleeson
Yara Mrad
Veth Guevarra (Epidemiology, SWAHS)
Helen Achat (Epidemiology, SWAHS)
Andi Andronicus (Health Promotion, SWAHS)
Denise Oakes (Health Promotion, SWAHS)
Final version 25/7/2007 Amd
Contents Page
Tables 4
Figures 6
Acknowledgments 7
Executive summary 8
Patron characteristics 9
Patron opinions 9
Proprietor characteristics 10
Proprietor opinions 10
Background 12
Method 15
Sample 15
Procedure 16
Main findings 18
Patrons 18
Restaurant owners and managers (proprietors survey) 28
Discussion 31
Recommendations 34
References 35
Appendices 36
Table 1 Characteristics of the surveyed
restaurant patrons,
December 2006 – April 2007 18
Table 2 Characteristics of Parramatta
and non-Parramatta residents,
December 2006 – April 2007 19
Table 3 Opinion
of patrons about allowing smoking in alfresco dining areas
of cafes/restaurants where food is served 20
Table 4 Opinions of patrons about
allowing smoking in alfresco dining areas of cafes/restaurants
where food is served, by frequency of dining out 20
Table 5 Opinion of patrons about
preferred seating when dining out 21
Table 6 Opinion of patrons on preferred
seating when dining out,
by age group and frequency of
dining out 22
Table 7 Opinion of patrons on whether
patrons ask to be seated in a non-smoking area 23
Table 8 Patrons choice of
restaurant/café based on their smoking status 24
Table 9 Patrons choice of
restaurant/café based on their smoking status,
by residency and frequency of
dining out 25
Table 10 Opinion of restaurant patrons on
the possible effects of the ban on smoking
in restaurants following introduction of the
Smoke Free Environment Act 26
Table 11 Opinion of restaurant patrons on
the impact to business if smoking restrictions
were to be introduced in
outdoor public areas such as alfresco footpath dining 26
Table 12 Opinion
of restaurant patrons on possible introduction of smoking restrictions in other
outdoor public areas 27
Table 13 Type of dining facilities within
participating restaurants (30) 28
Table 14 Presence of smoking restrictions
within participating restaurants (27) 28
Table 15 Opinion of proprietors on estimated
percentage of patrons who would like
smoking restrictions in
alfresco areas 29
Table 16 Opinion of proprietors on the
possible effects of the bans on smoking
in restaurants following introduction of the
Smoke Free Environment Act
29
Table 17 Opinion of proprietors on the
impact to business if smoking restrictions
were to be introduced in
outdoor public areas such as alfresco footpath dining 30
Table 18 Opinion of proprietors on possible
introduction of smoking restrictions in
other outdoor public areas 31
.......
Figures
Page
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of participation
rate of restaurants and cafes
with alfresco dining areas
within the Parramatta LGA 16
Figure 2 Opinion of restaurant patrons on
allowing smoking in alfresco dining
areas of restaurants and cafes where food is
served, by dining out frequency 21
Figure 3 Opinion of restaurant patrons on
preferred seating in restaurants and cafes
when dining out, by residency status 23
Figure 4 Opinion of restaurant patrons
about whether or not patrons ask to be seated
in a non-smoking area, by
gender 24
Parramatta City Council
thankfully acknowledges the involvement of the restaurant managers and patrons who
participated in the survey.
The authors would like
to acknowledge Sydney West Area Health Service for their assistance by
providing information on the survey conducted with restaurant managers and
patrons in Parramatta
1997, on which this survey is based.
Parramatta is one of the main business centres in western Sydney and has positioned
itself as the second CBD of Sydney. It includes an active central restaurant
precinct utilising footpath areas for outdoor (alfresco) dining. Outdoor dining
is also offered by some cafes and restaurants in regional shopping centres
elsewhere in the Parramatta
local government area.
A sample population of Parramatta’s business
owners and their patrons were invited to participate in a written survey. The survey sought community response and opinions regarding smoking in alfresco
dining areas and whether or not they believe smoking restrictions should be
placed in these outdoor and other public areas.
· In December 2006, 61 of 65 restaurants and cafés/coffee
lounges with approved outdoor dining (alfresco dining) in Parramatta LGA were
invited to participate in the survey.
· A total of 17 businesses completed the patron survey.
· Fourteen restaurants/cafes agreed to participate in both
patron and proprietor surveys.
· In addition, 13 proprietors agreed to participate in the
proprietor survey only. In total, 27
managers or owners (44%) agreed to participate in the proprietor survey.
· Three proprietors agreed to the patron survey only. In total between December 2006 and March
2007, 17 of the 61 invited restaurants undertook patron survey.
· Of the 48 restaurants and cafes/lounge in Parramatta CBD,
52% participated in either the patron or proprietor survey. Of the 13 restaurants and cafes/lounge
outside of Parramatta CBD, 38% agreed to participate in either the patron or
proprietor survey.
· Based on observation and manager’s report, during the
scheduled survey dates, there were a total of 630 patrons dining in these 17 restaurants. Of these 630 patrons, 320 individuals
completed the patron survey (51% participation rate).
· Of the 320 patrons, 50% were females. About a third of the patrons were aged
30-49 years and a quarter were in
each of the 18-24 and 25-29 year age group.
· Sixty-three per cent of the participating patrons were
seated inside the restaurants while the rest (37%) were seated in the alfresco
dining areas.
· Twenty–two per cent of the patrons were daily smokers,
similar to the smoking rates in NSW (21.9%) and Parramatta (21.4%).
· Of the 320 patrons, two-fifths (41%) lived in Parramatta
LGA. Compared to the other patrons,
residents of Parramatta were more likely to be daily smokers, aged 25-29 years
and less likely to dine out more than once a week.
· Of the 320 patrons, 42% dined out more than once a
week. Another 38% dined on a weekly
basis.
· Seventy-four per cent of patrons thought that there should
be some smoking restriction in the alfresco dining area of a restaurant/cafe
where food is served. Of these, 26%
reported that smoking should not be allowed anywhere (26%) and a further 48%
stated that smoking should be allowed in areas that are well separated from
other diners.
· Of the 82 patrons (26%) who thought that smoking should not
be allowed anywhere in the alfresco dining area of cafes/restaurants where food
is served, 45% dined out more than once a week and another 38% dined out
weekly. Similarly, of the 45 patrons who
thought that smoking should be allowed anywhere, the majority (69%) dined out
more than once a week.
· More than half of all patrons (54%) preferred to be seated
in a non-smoking area; a further 22% did not have a seating preference and 24%
preferred a smoking area.
· Of the 134 patrons who dined more than once a week, 55%
preferred to be seated in a smoke free area when dining out in
restaurants/cafes.
· When booking their dining seats, 47% of patrons reported
that they request a non smoking area sometimes (27%) or always (22%).
· One hundred and eleven (35%) of the 320 patrons reported
they would try to choose a smoke free restaurant/café with a smoke free
alfresco dining area, compared to 25% who stated that they would choose a restaurant/café
which allows smoking in outdoor areas.
· Of the 320 patron
respondents who were asked about the possible effects of the Smoke Free
Environment Act 2000, 78% agreed that there is currently
a healthier environment for customers and staff and 55% agreed that the food is
better appreciated.
· Thirty-eight per cent of patrons disagreed that the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 resulted
in a loss of business and a further 34% did not know the consequence. In addition, 50% disagreed that smoking bans
caused inconvenience on the part of the customers and 25% did not know the
effect.
· When asked about the impact on businesses if smoking
restrictions were to be introduced in outdoor public areas such as alfresco
dining, 46% of the 320 patrons either stated that it would result in an
increase (11%) or no change (35%) in business.
· One hundred and eighty-five patrons (58%) supported a
smoking ban in sporting fields and 272 (85%) patrons supported a smoking ban in
children’s play areas.
· Of the thirty proprietors who participated in either the
proprietor or patron survey, 50% managed or owned restaurants, 40% managed
café/coffee lounge and 10% managed other type of businesses.
· Twenty-seven of the 61 invited restaurants/cafes completed
the proprietor’s survey.
· Nine (69%) of restaurant proprietors estimated that <25%
of their patrons would like smoking restrictions in their outdoor areas.
· The majority of café/coffee lounge proprietors (73%) and
restaurant proprietors (62%) stated that <25% of their patrons would like a
total smoke free restaurant.
· Of the 27
proprietors who were asked about the possible effects of the Smoke Free
Environment Act 2000, 78% agreed that there is a
healthier environment for customers and staff and 52% agreed that the food is
better appreciated.
· Forty-four per cent of proprietors disagreed that smoking
ban of the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 resulted in a loss of business and 15% could not respond
on its consequences. In addition, 48% disagreed that a smoking
bans caused inconvenience on the part of the customers.
· When asked about the impact on businesses if smoking
restrictions were to be introduced in outdoor public areas such as alfresco
dining, of the 27 proprietors, 78% thought that their business would decrease.
· 13 proprietors (48%) supported smoking ban in sporting
fields and 25 (93%) supported smoking ban in children’s play areas.
There is general
community awareness that tobacco smoking is harmful, though the impacts on
length and quality of life are not always well known by the public. According
to the National Public Health Partnership (2000), the majority of Australians
are aware of the health risks of passive smoking and supportive of measures to
control Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in enclosed public places
and workplaces.
According to the NSW
Department of Health Tobacco Action Plan (2005), the leading single cause of
mortality and morbidity in Australia
is caused by tobacco smoking. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure occurs
in a variety of settings, including the hospitality industry, where exposure to
ETS results in 73 to 97 deaths of workers annually.
According to Patterson
(2005) a 12-month study on the effects of introducing legislation regarding
smoke free venues in New
Zealand found:
• It
had not resulted in an overall loss of profits in the hospitality industry and
did not appear to have had an affect on employment or overseas visitor numbers;
• A 97% compliance rate among bars and
taverns;
• There
was strong public support for restrictions being placed on bars and
restaurants;
• Restricting
smoking in indoor workplaces appeared to have prompted an increased number of
people to consider quitting smoking.
Engelen et al. (2006)
stated that there were evidences to show that significantly more bar patrons
and bar owners and staff favoured
California’s ban on indoor smoking than did when it initially went into effect
in 1998. Taxable sales receipts in California
for bars and restaurants have increased since the smoke free bar law took
effect. In addition, total employment at bars and restaurants has also
increased every year since 1997.
The NSW Smoke Free
Environment Act, introduced in 2000, prohibits smoking in indoor areas of
publicly accessible buildings such as restaurants. The legislation does not
currently extend to outdoor environments such as alfresco dining areas
providing they are not enclosed. Alternate legislative powers exist that may
allow control of this activity under the Local Government Act, 1993, subject to
adequate signposting where prescribed activities are prohibited or otherwise
restricted.
The NSW government has,
until July 2007 exempted bars and clubs from a total smoking ban, unlike the
Irish, New York, California,
and New Zealand
governments that have smoking bans in all public places, according to
Bryan-Jones and Chapman (2006).
Scollo et al. (2003)
described an international review of 106 studies that compared the quality and
funding source of a variety of studies of smoke-free workplace laws. They concluded
that the best designed studies reported either no impact or a positive impact
of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. They recommended
that policymakers could act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in
secondhand smoke, confident in rejecting industry claims that there would be an
adverse economic impact.
The Parramatta City
Council (PCC), by resolution at its meeting on 13 December 2005, resolved that
consideration of a proposal to restrict smoking in outdoor dining areas be
deferred for 6 months for consultation with businesses i.e. restaurants/cafes
and the local community i.e. patrons. This led to the proposal to undertake a
survey on community and businesses' attitudes on whether or not restrictions
should be placed on smoking in outdoor areas.
The PCC had considered
at that December meeting a proposal to prohibit smoking of tobacco in alfresco
dining areas where food is served. This specifically involves those areas of
public land, such as footpaths, used by restaurant/cafes pursuant to a
development approval and license agreement issued by Council. Council
acknowledges through its Outdoor Dining Policy that it is committed to
enhancing urban life and promoting the continuance of outdoor dining.
In considering the
proposal to prohibit smoking, Council had sought legal advice that it had both
the power to prohibit the activity and take enforcement action to give effect
to the decision to limit or prohibit smoking in these areas. However a resolution was undertaken for any
decision be deferred, pending a community consultation process.
It was determined that
the method of assessing community opinion would be to undertake a population
survey of Parramatta’s
business owners and their patrons. By using this approach a mix of opinions
from residents and business workers from within Parramatta LGA and elsewhere
could be captured. The survey would seek response regarding attitudes toward smoking
in alfresco dining areas and whether there was support for placing smoking
restrictions in outdoor and other public areas.
It was anticipated that
the results of the survey would provided information from which Council could draw to make an informed
decision on whether to introduce smoking restrictions in areas under it’s direct
ownership and control. This includes alfresco dining areas and other public
places.
The survey of the
community and businesses involved questions seeking a response on:
• Restricting smoking in alfresco dining
facilities;
• Preference of seating allocation when
dining;
• Preference for a spatial separation for
smoking areas;
• Whether
the availability of an area to smoke within a restaurant/cafe affects patrons’
decision to dine;
• The impact on business of restricting
smoking in alfresco areas; and
• Whether
or not smokers have the right to smoke in other outdoor spaces the public have
access to.
The results of the
survey would indicate community attitudes on:
• Whether
or not smoking should be allowed anywhere food is served such as alfresco
dining areas;
• Preferences for allocated seating
according to smoking status;
• Verification
whether smoking status of a restaurant/cafe affects patrons' decision to dine;
• The impact on business of restricting
smoking in alfresco areas; and
• Whether
or not smokers should be able to smoke in other designated public places.
The survey of
proprietors and patrons used a questionnaire for each group which provided
quantitative and qualitative data. Two different surveys were created: a survey
for restaurant and café owners who occupy Council’s footpath for outdoor dining
and another survey for the patrons of these premises.
A sample of 320 people
dining in 17 restaurants in Parramatta’s
LGA completed a short questionnaire. The numbers of patrons that dined during
the scheduled survey dates were determined to allow the calculation of a
response rate for patrons could be determined. Of the 630 observed patrons, 51%
who dined out at the participating restaurants completed the survey.
Based on the Council’s
list of outdoor dining approvals, at the time of the surveys there were 65
restaurants and cafes/coffee lounges with alfresco dining in the Parramatta
LGA. Of the 65 restaurants and cafes/coffee
lounges on the list, four businesses were not in operation and the remaining 61
were invited to participate in the survey. Of these, 30 proprietors agreed to participate
in either the proprietors or patron survey (Figure 1).
Twenty seven
proprietors (managers/owners) agreed to participate in the proprietor survey
(44 % response rate). Fifty-two per cent
of Parramatta CBD restaurants and cafés (25) participated in either the patron
or proprietor survey. Thirty eight per
cent of all Parramatta
restaurants and cafés outside of CBD (5) participated in either the patrons or
proprietors’ survey. Seventeen
restaurants/cafes allowed their patrons to participate in the patron survey (28%
response rate from all the 61 restaurants).
Figure
1 Schematic diagram of the
participation of 61 Parramatta LGA restaurants and cafés/coffee lounges with
alfresco dining area
In December 2006,
contact was initiated with cafes and restaurants that had approved alfresco
dining areas by visiting each of the premises. A survey package containing the
following was left at each site:
Proprietor survey
(Appendix 1) and return slip;
Letter of explanation
(Appendix 2);
Invitation letter
(Appendix 3) addressed to the business manager.
The project officer subsequently
visited all premises in receipt of the letter. Business managers/owners were
requested to participate in the proprietors and/or patron survey. An incentive to participate was provided for
business owners and patrons with the offer of a chance to win one of a number
of dining vouchers that could be redeemed at the restaurant in which the
questionnaire was completed. Follow up
calls were undertaken to restaurant managers/owners who agreed to participate
in the proprietors’ survey.
Once business managers/owners
confirmed their interest to conduct the patrons’ survey, the project officer
finalised scheduled survey date and time. Information packages that included patron
survey forms (Appendix 4) and instructions (Appendix 5) to managers and their
assistants were sent to all participating restaurants. To ensure a good sample size and
participation from targeted groups, the managers/owners and project officer
agreed on the survey date, which was chosen for each individual restaurant (lunch/dinner
and weekday/weekend) based on advice of anticipated activity.
On the survey date,
managers or their assistants placed a questionnaire form at each dining place
(indoor or in the alfresco dining areas) and collected them as the diners left.
The patron survey forms were colour coded to determine where respondents had
been seated (blue forms for outdoor and white forms for indoor patrons). An observer was in the restaurant/café to
observe the number of diners being served during the survey period nominated.
The participating
restaurants were required to return all the survey forms on the next available
business day to the project officer, attaching advice as to the total number of
diners who attended the restaurant on the survey date.
Of the 320 patrons who participated in the survey, 37% were seated
in the alfresco dining area while 63% were seated indoors (Table 1).
There was almost an even mix of gender responses representing 50%
of females and 48.1% of males. Most of
the respondents were aged between 30-49 years (32%). Another 26% were aged 18-24
years. Of the respondents, 41% lived in
the Parramatta LGA compared to 53% outside the Parramatta LGA.
Based on the NSW Health
Survey 2002 and 2003 (Fung, Achat & Close, 2005), smokers accounted for 21.4% of Parramatta’s population. Similiarly,
the survey showed that 21.6% of our respondents were daily smokers.
Patrons were asked how often they dined out and the majority
stated that they dined out either more than once a week (42%) or weekly (38%). Seventeen per cent of the respondents dined
out monthly and another four per cent dined out less often than three monthly.
Table 1 Characteristics of the surveyed
restaurant patrons,
December 2006-April -2007
There were slightly
more female respondents living outside of Parramatta LGA . In addition (Table 2), there were more
non-Parramatta residents dining out more than once a week (46% compared to
39%). However, 25% of Parramatta residents were daily smokers
compared to 21% from non-Parramatta residents.
About 31% of Parramatta
residents were aged 25-29 years compared to 20% of non-Parramatta
residents.
Table
2 Characteristics of the Parramatta and non-Parramatta residents,
December 2006-April -2007
Of the 320 respondents, 48% thought that smoking in the
alfresco dining areas of cafes/restaurants where food is served should only be
allowed in areas that are well separated from other diners (Table 3). However,
26% believed that smoking should not be allowed anywhere in the alfresco dining
area.
Table 3 Opinion of restaurant patrons about allowing smoking in
alfresco dining areas of cafes/restaurants where food is served
Of the 82 patrons who
think that smoking should not be allowed anywhere in the alfresco dining area
of cafes/restaurants where food is served, 45% dined out more than once a
week and another 38% dined out weekly (Table
4).
Of the 152 patrons who
think that smoking should be allowed only in well separated areas from the
diners, 43% dined out weekly.
Table 4 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about allowing smoking in alfresco dining areas of
cafes/restaurants where food is served by the frequency of dining out
Of the 120 patrons who dined out on a weekly basis, 54%
believe that smoking in alfresco dining areas should be allowed only in well
separated areas (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about allowing smoking in alfresco dining areas of
cafes/restaurants where food is served by the frequency of dining out
Of the 320 respondents, 54% prefer to be seated in a smoke free
area when dining out in restaurants/cafes (Table 5).
Table 5 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about preferred seating when dining out in restaurants/cafes
In response to the
preferred seating when dining out, the majority of respondents preferred a
smoke free area, irrespective of age (Table 6).
When dining out in
restaurants/cafes, regular (weekly or more often) and less frequent diners
alike preferred a smoke free area. Of
the 254 patrons who dined out weekly or more often, 56% preferred to be seated
in a smoke free area. (Table 5).
Respondents who dined out monthly were as likely (53%) to prefer a smoke
free area.
Table 6 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about preferred seating when dining out restaurants/cafes by
age group and frequency of dining out.
The majority of both Parramatta
LGA (53%) and non-Parramatta LGA (56%) residents preferred to be seated in a
smoke free alfresco dining area (see Figure 3)
Figure
3 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about preferred seating when dining out restaurants/cafes by
residency status
Of the 320 respondents,
almost half (49%) always or sometimes asked to be seated in a non-smoking area
when making a restaurant/café booking, while forty-one per cent never ask and
10% could not recall (Table 7).
Table 7 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about whether or not patrons ask to be seated in a
non-smoking area
Of the 71 respondents who always request to be seated in a non-smoking
area, 55% were males (Figure 4). The proportion of females who always requested a non-smoking area was
lower (43%).
Figure 4 Opinion of
restaurant patrons about whether or not patrons ask to be seated in a
non-smoking area by gender
Of the 320 patron respondents,
35% indicated the place they would dine based on its smoke free status while
40% not influenced by the smoking status of the restaurant. A quarter of
respondents reported they tried to choose a restaurant or café/coffee lounge
that allows smoking in outdoor areas (Table 8).
Table 8 Patrons choice of restaurant/cafe based on their smoking
status
Of the 111 patrons who preferred a smoke free restaurant with
an outdoor smoke free areas, 58% were non Parramatta
residents. The majority (84%) of the 111 patrons who preferred a total smoke
free restaurant dined out either weekly or more often (Table 9).
Table 9 Patrons choice of restaurant/cafe based on smoking status
of alfresco dining area, by residency and frequency of dining out.
The respondents were
asked to state their views about the possible effects of the Smoke Free
Environment Act 2000, which now restricts smoking in indoor areas of restaurants
and cafes. Of the 320 respondents, 78% agreed that there is a healthier environment
for customers and staff, and 55% agreed that the food is better appreciated. When questioned as to the possibility that
the smoking ban resulted in a loss of business
38% of patrons disagreed and 34% did not know. In addition, when responding on the question
as to whether the legislation had caused inconvenience on the part of the
customers, while one quarter agreed, half (50%) disagreed and a further 25% stated they did not know (Table
10).
Table 10 Opinion of restaurant patrons on the
possible effects of the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 that ban smoking on
restaurants
When questioned as to
opinions on possible impact on business if smoking ban were to be introduced in
outdoor public areas such as outdoor dining on footpaths one hundred and eleven
patrons (35%) thought that there would be no change in business and another 11%
thought there would be an increase in business (Table 11). Approximately half of respondents (53%) thought that business
would decrease.
Table 11 Opinion of restaurant patrons on the impact on
businesses if smoking restrictions were to be introduced in outdoor public
areas such as alfresco dining on footpaths
Of the total
respondents, 185 (58%) supported a smoking ban in sporting fields and a
majority (85%) supported a smoking ban in children’s play areas (Table 12).
Patrons were also asked
to specify any other areas they thought should be smoke free. The most common
responses were:
• Train stations/platforms
• Places that children occupy i.e.
playgrounds, schools
• Park lands
• Bus stops
• Cafés, i.e. outside dining area
• All areas
• Cars
• Entrances and surroundings to all
buildings, e.g. office building, Function Centre.
Table 12 Opinion of restaurant patrons on smoking
restrictions in other outdoor public areas
Thirty proprietors (restaurant managers or owners) agreed
to participate in either the proprietor or patron survey. The proprietor survey
was completed by 27 managers or owners.
Half of all the
proprietors managed restaurants, 40% managed a café/coffee lounge and 10%
managed other types of businesses (Table 13).
With one exception, restaurants
and cafes/lounges had no smoking restrictions in their alfresco dining area (Table 14).
Table 13 Type
of dining facilities of the 30 participating restaurants
Table 14 Presence
of smoking restrictions within the 27 restaurants
The proprietors were
asked to estimate the percentage of patrons who would like smoking restriction
in their alfresco area (Table 15). The views of the proprietors of cafés/coffee
lounges and restaurants differed. The majority of the restaurant proprietors
(69%) but 36% of café/coffee lounge proprietors felt that few of their patrons
would like smoking restrictions in alfresco dining areas.
When proprietors were
asked about total smoke free restaurant, both restaurant and café/coffee lounge
proprietors felt that few of their patrons would like a total smoke free dining
place.
Table
15 Opinion
of the 27 proprietors on what total percentage of their patrons would like smoking
restrictions in their restaurants
The proprietors were
asked to state their views about the possible effects of the legislation
introduced in 2000 (Table 16). The majority (78%) agreed that there is a
healthier environment for customers and staff. Of the 27 managers, fourteen (52%) agreed that
food is better appreciated by patrons.
Proprietors were more likely to report that the ban on smoking was not
associated with a loss of business (44%) or inconvenience on the part of the
customer (48%) than agree that these negative effects had occurred (33% and 26%
respectively.
Table
16 Opinion of 27 proprietors
on the possible effects of the Smoke Free Environment Act 2000 that ban smoking
in restaurants
If restrictions were introduced that prohibited smoking in
outdoor public areas such as alfresco dining on footpaths, 78% of the managers
and owners believed that their business would decrease, while 18% thought that their
business would no be effected (Table 17).
Table
17 Opinion of the 27 proprietors on the impact on businesses if smoking restrictions were to
be introduced in outdoor public areas such as alfresco dining on footpaths
Of the 27 managers and
owners, equal numbers of managers were in favor of or opposed smoking restrictions
in other outdoor environments such as sporting fields (Table 18).
The majority (93%) of
managers and owners thought that smoking ban should be placed in children’s
play areas.
Managers were then
asked if they could specify other public areas they felt should be smoke free.
The most common responses included the following areas:
• All children areas such as schools and
child-care centres
• Public transport areas
• Train stations
• Large venues e.g. races
Table
18 Opinion of the 27 proprietors on smoking restrictions in other outdoor public areas
· Survey analysis
shows a 48% support for smoking restrictions in
alfresco dining areas by patrons of those facilities. Further, 54% of patrons indicated
a preference for seating allocation in a smoke free area. Of the 82 patrons (26%) who think that smoking should not be allowed
anywhere in the alfresco dining area of cafes/restaurants where food is served,
45% dined out more than once a week and
another 38% dined out weekly.
· Analysis
of the responses in the 2006-2007 survey indicate that patrons dining in
Parramatta felt that smoking in restaurants could be further restricted in
addition to existing indoor only bans required under the Smoke Free Environment
Act. Responses from smokers sitting indoors and the majority of non-smokers
sitting outdoors showed a preference for being seated in a smoke free outdoor area
when eating at a restaurant or café. This result suggests that while the
majority of business proprietors (96%) do not currently have smoking
restrictions in these areas they should consider implementing smoke free
outdoor areas to reflect patron preference.
· Some
differences in findings were established between the 2006-07 Parramatta Survey and
that conducted in 1997. The initial survey indicated a vast majority of support
(98%) for implementing smoking restrictions where food is served. It also
established that the majority (57.5%) attempted to choose a restaurant that either
offered smoking restrictions in dining areas or was totally smoke free. The
subsequent survey found only 35% support for this by patrons. This variation is
explained by the differences in legislative landscape that existed at the time
of the 1997 survey (ie before introduction of the Smoke Free Environment Act) where
no bans applied to indoor or outdoor areas. The later survey was conducted in a
time some 6 years post this legislation where capacity to offer smoke free area
indoors is an obligation for proprietors of restaurants.
· A
key finding of these results was establishing frequency of dining and the
association with smoking status of patrons. Of those people who identified as eating
out weekly or more frequently, 79% were ex or non-smokers. This compares
closely to findings in the 1997 Parramatta where 73% of the dining population surveyed
identified as dining out weekly or more frequently were ex or non-smokers. This
indicates that the non-smoking community, who increasingly outnumber smokers,
eat out on a more regular basis and bring more business for restaurants and
cafes. This lends support to overseas findings that have found that business
will not suffer sustained decrease in trade following the implementation of
smoking restrictions and may increase.
· A
majority of respondents (78%) agreed that since the introduction of the SFEA in
2000 had resulted in a healthier environment for customers and staff. This included
most) patrons (64%) and 73% of proprietors who were smokers. The majority (55%)
of patrons believed the food is better appreciated, and a similar number of
business owners (52%) held the same view.
· When
questioned as their opinion on impact on business 44% of managers and 38% of
patrons believed there had not been a loss of business. Further, 48% of customers
and 50% of proprietors agreed that changes to legislation had not caused any
inconvenience on the part where of business.
· The
vast majority (83%) of ex or non- smokers thought business will increase if
smoking bans were implemented in outdoor areas and 82% of ex or non-smokers
thought that there will be no change in business. The most common reasons given
for this were that people will enjoy dining out regardless if restriction were
introduced (56%) and ‘people need to eat’.
· It
was noted during the survey period that the majority of patrons who indicated
they were smokers were seated in indoor areas of the restaurant/cafés, where smoking is now prohibited
under the SFE Act.
· Most
managers (70%) and patrons (61%) agreed that smokers do not have the right to
smoke in all public places. Of the managers who responded on this issue 82% were
smokers and 62% ex or non- smokers while patrons accounted for 22% of smokers
and 76% of ex or non- smokers. 61% of patrons that held this view lived within
Parramatta’s LGA. This not only shows
that the majority of respondents believe that smokers do not have such rights,
members of the public living within the LGA also hold this view, and the
majority of them dine out more often than weekly.
· The
majority (58%) of patrons similar to 50% of proprietors held the view that bans
should be placed in sporting fields. 72% of patrons and 63% of business owners
that thought as such were ex or non-smokers. The majority of patrons (85%) as
well as (93%) of managers support that view that smoking bans should be placed
in other outdoor environments such as children’s play areas. This shows that
there is an increasing demand for smoke free outdoor places such as in places
that occupy children and sporting venues as the majority support a smoking ban
in such places.
· These
survey results show that there is community support for extending smoke free
areas in the Parramatta LGA, such as alfresco dining areas, children’s
playgrounds and sporting fields. It indicates members of the community are
aware of the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke on themselves and
others.
Association of this survey with other survey
findings
· Across
NSW as a whole, community support for smoking restrictions and bans is also
strong. A survey conducted by the NSW Cancer Council in December 2006 revealed
that 92% of respondents supported smoking bans on children’s playgrounds, 80%
supported bans in sports stadiums, and 69% supported bans in outdoor dining
areas.
· A
large community newspaper group has conducted an online survey nationally in
2007. This reported that 83% of respondents supported smoking bans in outdoor
dining areas, 79% supported smoking bans in parks with playgrounds, and 65%
supported bans in all parks.
· Results
of such surveys suggest that community opinion may be well ahead of legislative
requirements and current policy in regard to smoke free areas in public places,
and that support exists for revision of current legislation governing the areas
where smoking is allowed . A number of studies and surveys now show support for
an increase in restrictions and bans on smoking in public places, especially in
relation to outdoor dining areas, children’s playgrounds and sporting fields.
Previous research has also demonstrated that restaurant managers underestimate
their patrons preference for non-smoking areas, as found in this survey.
· In
contrast to much of the latter half of the twentieth century, non-smokers outnumber smokers by an increasing margin. Over 60% of
survey respondents identified as non-smokers and only about a fifth (21.6%)
indicated a daily smoking habit.
· Demand
for access to environments free from tobacco smoke is a consequence of this
behavioural change. The strong community preference for initiating outdoor
smoking bans around recreation areas where children congregate may be an
extension of a broader expectation that harm minimisation approaches to protect
children are instigated. This appears to be reflected in part by the
resolutions of 35 NSW councils who have implemented policy on smoke free
outdoor areas.
· While
the current state legislative framework on tobacco control includes a range of
mechanisms to minimise access to and harm from the use of such products, there
are constraints in application and enforcement, much of which relates to
restricting displays and preventing juveniles from being able to purchase. The
introduction of bans on smoking in a range of enclosed areas under the amended
Smoke Free Environment Act has resulted in further reducing physical exposure
to active smoking. Extending the areas to which this legislation can apply is
not available to local government. While lobbying the state government for this
to occur can be undertaken on an individual basis, and collectively through
agencies such as the Local Government and Shires Association, other means can
be explored by councils who intend to respond to increasing community demand
for smoke free outdoor environments under their control.
· Although
not currently evidenced by strong enforcement, the impact of tobacco smoke in
an occupational health and safety setting, including the hospitality industry,
is now being felt. This was demonstrated in the Marlene Sharp litigation case,
and the possibility that future claims arising from exposure by workers in
settings which include alfresco dining areas cannot be dismissed.
Recommendation
The following actions are recommended in
relation to creation of smoke free areas in Parramatta.
· Council consider minimising exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) from outdoor public areas under it’s control by using powers
available under Section 632 of the Local Government Act to erect signage and provide
for a smoke free environment in the following locations:
- All Council owned
outdoor dining areas;
- Within 10 metres of
recreation facilities frequented by children such as playgrounds or play
equipment, on sporting fields and within aquatic facilities.
· Requirements to maintain smoke free
environments in these areas be incorporated into leases and hiring agreements
where applicable.
· Implementation of an
education program for all members of the community to promote awareness of
Council’s decision.
1. Barry,
M. and Veatch, N. (2006). Smoke-Free Laws do not Harm Business at Restaurants
and Bars. Tobacco Free Kids. Washington
2. Bryan-Jones,
K., and Chapman, S. (2006). Political Dynamics Promoting the Incremental
Regulation of Secondhand Smoke: A Case Study of New South
Wales, Australia.
BMC Public Health, 192(6), 8.
3. Engelen,
M., Farrelly, M., and Hyland, A. (2006). The Health and Economic Impact of New York's Clean Indoor
Air Act. New York State Department of Health. NY.
4. Fung S.C., Achat H., and
Close G., Cross-sectional view of
health indicators: the new Sydney West Area Health Services-2005, EIRE, Editor. 2005, SWAHS: Parramata. (Access at http://westnet/services/dsdph_we/EIRE/Publicat/Profile9.pdf)
5. Herman, R. (2006). Irish Pubs Under
Smoke-free Law in Ireland Show 91% Lower Indoor Air Pollution Than "Irish
Pubs" in Cities Around the World. Retrieved on 13th August 2006 from the World Wide Web:
http://hsphsun3.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03162006.html
6. Lee,
N., Monaem, A., Weston, P., Filocamo, K., Chapman, S., Chan, J. (1997) Survey
of Parramatta Restaurant Patrons’ Attitudes to Smokfree Dining. Western Sydney
Area Health Promotion Centre; Sydney.
7. National
Public Health Partnership (2000). National Response to Passive Smoking in
Enclosed Public Places and Workplaces. Background Paper. Canberra: Biotext.
8. NSW
Adult Health Survey 1997, NSW Adult Health Survey 1998, NSW Adult Health Survey
2002, NSW Adult Health Survey 2003, NSW Adult Health Survey 2004 (HOIST).
9. NSW
Department of Health (2005). NSW Tobacco Action Plan 2005-2009. Background
Paper. NSW Department of Health. Sydney,
8.
10. Patterson,
J. (2005). Aotearoa New Zealand Smokefree
Workplaces: A 12-month Report. Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand.
Wellington: New Zealand.
11. Scollo,
M., Lal, A., Hyland, A., and Glantz, S. (2003). Review of the quality of
studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality
industry. Tobacco Control, 12(1), 13-20.
12. Centre
for Health Research and Psycho-oncology(2007). Tracking NSW community attitudes
and practices in relation to tobacco. A biennial telephone survey. Cancer
Council NSW (2007) Unpublished report by the Cancer Council NSW.
13. The
Blacktown
Advocate (May 30, 2007) ‘Push to widen bans’. Cumberland Newspaper Group.
14. Cancer
Council Victoria (1997)Quit Evaluation Studies no.9 1996-1997. The cancer
Council Victoria.
15. WHO.
Policy recommendations 2007 “Protection from exposure to second-hand tobacco
smoke”
These documents have
been scanned in PDF:
Invitation Letter to
Restaurant Proprietors
Letter to Manager
Letter to
waiter/waitress
Proprietor survey
Patron survey
Participation
certificate
|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1
|
Previous Council Report
|
Parramatta City Council
Health and Wellbeing Report
Major
consultation
November
2009
Contents
1.
Executive Summary ………………………………………….. Page 2
·
Main
messages Page 2
2.
Findings ……………….………………………………………. Page
3
· Physical Activity
Page 3
· Nutrition
Page 9
· Your Height and
Weight
Page 11
· Healthy Food
Choices
Page 13
· Smoking
Page 18
· Healthy
Community
Page 40
3.
Demographics……………………………………………….. Page 41
4. Survey…………………………………………………………. Page 43
Executive Summary
This report analyses responses from 637
Resident Panel members that completed a Health and Wellbeing survey in November-December
2009.
The survey sought to find out information
on residents health and wellbeing, specifically:
- Residents physical
activity (including recreational activity)
- Residents eating
behaviour
- Smoking behaviour
- Residents opinion
on what would make their community healthier
The survey also asked questions on
perceptions to smoke free zones.
It is intended that this information is to
be shared (with consent of Panel members) with Sydney West Area Health service
which are in partnership with the Council to assist in community health
planning.
The confidence level of these 2009 results
is 95%, plus or minus 3.87% based on 155 000 residents that are located in the
Parramatta LGA. The sample is broadly representative of the Parramatta LGA with
the exception of the 16-25 year old age group.
Main Messages
Those aged 56-69 tend to be more
active Walkers & Gardeners
· The more active
walkers (11+ times) are those persons aged
in the 56-69 category
· Persons aged 56-69
and 70+ were the main age group that were gardening 5+ more times a week and there tended to be more
males than females. The “no” gardening was the domain of the 19-25 year olds.
Most residents do not eat enough
vegetables per day
· It is apparent
that only 8% of residents are eating the recommended 5 or more vegetables per
day.
The majority of residents eat at least 2 pieces of
fruit per day
· There is a much
higher amount of residents eating the recommended serves of at least 2 serves
of fruit per day, 51% of all respondents indicated this.
Residents inline with Australian BMI averages for
weight
· According to the Department of Health and
Ageing: 40.5% of males
and 24.9% of females were overweight across Australia according to a previous
survey. For the Parramatta LGA 35% of males (on average) were overweight and
24% of females across the LGA that were also overweight.
· Further analysis suggest that around 1 in
3 residents maintain the category of overweight according to the BMI after this
point in time into the 70+ age bracket.
· Note that all healthy food options were
well supported to assist in healthier choices
Females tend to light up quicker than males, but males
smoke a lot more
· Analysis
shows that 30% of all males (that smoke) have 20 or more cigarettes per day compared
to 19% of all females (that smoke).
Males tend to be more resistant to initiatives to help
them
· For
every initiative in this survey, males were the main group stating “Not of
Benefit”.
Whilst the vast majority support smoke free zones
there are pockets of resistance
· There
was generally high support for different places becoming smoke free zones
across the LGA.
· 19-25
yr olds and 70+yr olds tended to be the main opposes for each of the smoke free
zones.
Findings
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Further analysis shows that those that
are aged 26-40 are the main age group that walk between 1 to 5 times a week
(60% of this age group). The more active walkers are those persons in the
56-69 category (11+ times). The suburb of Parramatta has a lot of solid walkers with
over 50% walking 11 or more times a week for a duration of 10 minutes or
more. Males tended to be more frequent walkers compared to females.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Persons aged 56-69 and 70+ were the main
age group that drove the 5+ category for gardening and they tended to be
males. The “no” gardening this was the domain of the 19-25 year olds.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
26-40 and 56-69 age groups tended to be
the more vigorous gardeners also they tended to be males (70% of the 5+ group
were in fact males). There was a good cross section of ages that stated that
they completed this at least once a week.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
The analysis shows that there was a
constant spread of ages across each of the number of times vigorous activity
was conducted. Males tended to complete more activities than females but not
by much.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Similarly to the previous question, the
analysis shows that there was a constant spread of ages across each of the
number of times vigorous activity was conducted.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
The analysis shows that the higher the
age (with the exception of 70+) the higher the amount of real time is devoted
to walking. It is notable that there is a trend that goes upwards with age.
Those that prefer the longer walks for recreation, exercise or to get from/to
places tend to come from places like North Parramatta, Telopea, Merrylands
and Epping and Parramatta.
Males also tended to be the longer walkers on average.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
|
Analysis
From the chart it is apparent that there
is a very large proportion of the residential population that relies on the
private car for travel/commuting purposes – over 50% of respondents use their
car 7 days a week with only 12% not using it at all.
Analysis shows that slightly more
females (55% of respondents) use their car 7 days a week and that the 41-55
yr and 56-69 yr olds tend to be the more
frequent drivers.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that only 8% of residents
are eating the recommended 5 (or more) vegetables per day. These persons
tended to be in the 56-69 yr old category and there were statistically more
females than males (on average around 60% of females). Those persons that
only ate vegetables once were headed up by the 41-55 age group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There is a much higher amount of
residents eating the recommended serves of at least 2 serves of fruit per day
(51%).
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
Body Mass Index Analysis
Question 4 asked how tall a person was and Question
5 asked how much does the respondent weigh.
Instead of directly reporting on this it was deemed
more valuable to calculate the Body Mass Index (BMI)
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
The analysis shows that 37% of all males
and females in the Parramatta LGA are at an acceptable weight range according
to the BMI. However males tended to be more prominent when it came to the
overweight category where 1 in 3 males were overweight compared to 1 in 4
females. For the obese category both males and females registered the same.
Below are averages across Australia for
BMI categories.
Source: The
Department of Health and Ageing
results for the Australian Population on the BMI
· Overall 32.6% of adults were
reported as overweight in 2004–05
· 40.5% of males and 24.9% of
females were overweight
· Overall 16.4% of adults were
reported as obese in 2004–05
· 17.8% of males and 15.1% of
females were obese.
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is deemed that (generally) a persons
culture/ ethnic background did not drive any of the above categories with the
exception for the category of “Underweight” where there were more persons
from Asian backgrounds (birthplace) found to be underweight.
|
|
|
|
Analysis
It is evident that the “Acceptable”
range according to this survey trends downwards after the 19-25 yr old age
bracket and is elipsed by the overweight range at the 41-55 old age bracket.
The results suggest that around 1 in 3 residents maintain the category of
overweight according to the BMI after this point in time into the 70+ age
bracket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that the age groups 26-40
and 41-55 tended to be the more prolific eaters of take out food. It is
deemed that location was not really a factor to consumption but gender was
with males having larger quantities of food from fast food outlets to their
female counterparts.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
The analysis provided a similar result
to the last question, which showed age groups 26-40 and 41-55 tended to be
the more prolific eaters of take out food. It is deemed that location was not
really a factor to consumption but gender was with males having larger
quantities of food from fast food outlets to their female counterparts.
|
PLEASE
NOTE THAT PER YEAR RESULTS FOR TAKE AWAY FOOD WERE DEEMED IN ACCURATE.
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that females are the
driving factor behind Strongly Support being as large as it is. 82% of all
females chose Strongly Support while 67% of all males chose Strongly Support.
There was also a trend that showed that as age increased Strong Support for
healthy food options decreased.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Whilst not high the analysis shows that
more males than females Strongly Oppose increased access to healthy food
choices at Restaurants/Cafes (5% of all Males, 2% of all Females). There was
also a trend that showed that as age increases Strong Support for healthy
food options decreased.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Males tended to drive the opposing camp
when it came to supporting healthy food choices at Pubs/Clubs, although in
comparison to Strongly Support it is not high. Analysis also shows that a
significant amount of females Strongly Support increased access to healthy
food options at Pubs/Clubs with 77% of all females indicating this compared
57% of all males. Age trend that was mentioned previously also occurred here.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
A significantly higher proportion of
males opposed healthy food options in Vending machines, 16% of all males
indicated this compared to 8% of all females. Interestingly the age trend
mentioned in previous areas healthy food locations did not occur here.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that males were the major
drivers of the opposition to increased access to healthy food options. In
terms of support there was no one particular age that were the drivers behind
the Strongly Support category all were within 5%.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that males were the major
drivers of the opposition to increased access to healthy food options at
Council meetings. In terms of support there was no one particular age that
were the drivers behind the Strongly Support category.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that females are
advocates for more healthy food options at Local Food outlets with 78% of all
females indicating Strongly Support, this is in comparison with 58% of males
who chose the same answer. In terms of age persons that are 70+ are the major
driver behind opposing greater access.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that almost 1 in 10 respondents
were not sure if they supported a traffic light system indicating possible
unawareness or requiring further education. This was not gender specific,
however it was apparent that as age increased so to did the amount of
responses for Not Sure.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Slightly more females (74%) to males
(70%) indicated that a traffic light labelling system would enable them to
make healthier food choices. All age groups (with the exception of 16-18)
were roughly around the 72% mark. 16-18 year olds registered lower however it
is deemed that this was not a representative sample for this group.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that there were almost
double the amount of males to females that indicated that they were in
fact Smokers. Daily and Smoke
Occassionally smokers platued at the 41-55yr old bracket for most persons
that smoked.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent through the analysis more
females that smoked tended to do so a lot quicker than their males
counterparts. 31% of all females (that smoked) reported that they smoked
their first cigarette within 30 minutes of waking up where 24% of males
reported they smoked in the same period. Those aged 41-55 are the main
drivers of both the categories of the Within 5 minutes and the 6 to 30
minutes.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Whilst females may smoke generally
quicker they do not smoke more than males. Analysis shows that 30% of all
males (that smoke) have 20 or more cigarettes per day compared to 19% of all
females (that smoke). In terms of age groups there are mixed results for the
higher frequency smokers with no apparent trend.
|
|
 Note: Not all
persons left a reason for smoking N=61
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Focusing on peer pressure it is apparent
that this is dropping significantly as a main reason for younger generations.
For example their were 13% of those in the 41-55 age category that stated
that this is the main reason for starting to smoke whilst 7% of those in the
26-40 category (almost half) indicated the same response. In terms of gender
peer pressure is as much an issue with females as it is with males with both
genders scoring similar results.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
As expected as age continued so did the
length of time for smoking indicating start up in adolescence/early twenties.
There was no real trend when considering gender.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Within the not quitting category there
are double the amount of males that are not quitting compared to females.
These persons tended to be in the 41-55 and older groups. Interestingly all
persons in 26-40 category indicated they were planning to quit at some stage
or have not smoked for the last 6 months.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Statistically there is more people in
the 26-40 age category that have attempted to quit then any other age
category. 3/4 of all people in this age group that smoke have at least
attempted to quit smoking. Quiting is not gender specific with both males and
females seeking to quit in similar numbers.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There were mixed results when trying to
analyse the results for this question. No major themes could be identified.
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
As can be seen above the main motivation
to quit for the majority of smokers that were surveyed was the impact on
fitness with cost being a secondary factor. A major demographic driver of
this was those that were aged 41-55. This was relevant across both genders.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent those that indicated that
further education would not assist them were evenly across both genders and
most age groups. The 56-69 age group were the major drivers of the very beneficial
category, statistically for the group they were well over double any other
group with 26% of persons 56-69 indicating that further education would be
very beneficial, the next closest age category was 70+ with 12% stating this
also.
Note that for all charts there is a
trend that as age increases so to is the inclination to select the Decline to
Say category.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Those that were aged 26-40 were more
likely to indicate that Speaking to a Nurse would be very beneficial to help
them quit with 18% of this group indicating this to be so. The next closest
group was the 56-69 age group with 12%.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
1 in 3 males indicated that consulting a
health worker would be beneficial to them quiting, with 1 in 4 females
indicating this as well. In terms of age the 26-40 & the 56-69 age group
were the strongest supporters of this initiative being very beneficial to
helping them quit.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that males were not as
responsive to this initiative as were their female counterparts. Again in
terms of age the 26-40 & the 56-69 age group were the strongest
supporters of this initiative being Very Beneficial to helping them quit.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Analysis shows that males were not as
responsive to this initiative as were their female counterparts. Again in
terms of age the 26-40 were strong supporters of this initiative being very
beneficial to helping them quit and also those that were aged 41-55.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Again analysis shows that males were not
as responsive to this initiative as were their female counterparts. Those
aged 26-40 were much more likely to indicate that this would be beneficial
than any other group.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
1 in 3 females stated that this would be
Very Beneficial in helping them quit to 1 in 5 males that stated this as
well. Those that were aged either in the 41-55 or the 56-69 age groups were
the main drivers to this initiative to being very beneficial.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Again analysis shows that males were not
as responsive to this initiative as were their female counterparts. On
average 1 in 5 people in the following group: 26-40, 41-55 and 56-69
indicated that this initiative would help them to quit smoking.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that both genders have
similar responses when it comes to agreement on smoke free zones in outdoor
places. However support in terms of age differs, those that are aged 19-25
were the least likely to select agree or strongly agree (62% of this
group).
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that both genders have
similar responses when it comes to agreement on this aspect. Those that are
aged 26-40 are the strongest supporters with 74% of this age group strongly
agreeing.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that both genders have
similar responses when it comes to agreement on this aspect. Interestingly
13% of those aged 19-25 disagree with the above statement, this is almost
double the total rate. Those that are aged 26-40 strongly agree with the
above statement.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that both genders have
similar responses when it comes to agreement on this aspect. Interestingly
13% of those aged 19-25 and 41-55 disagree with the above statement, this is
much higher statistically than the total rate. Those that are aged 26-40
again strongly agree with the above statement.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that both genders have
similar responses when it comes to agreement on this aspect. Interestingly
13% of those aged 19-25 disagree with the above statement, this is much
higher statistically than the total rate. Those that are aged 26-40 again
strongly agree with the above statement.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed on this
question
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is apparent that those that are aged
19-25 are the main age group that promote a view that making outdoor places
smoke free will be too restrictive.
|
|
|
|
Analysis
Further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
In terms of opposition there is no
discreptancy between males and females. This changes when age is considered,
those that are aged 41-55, 56-69 & 70+ are the major drivers of the
opposition. Those that are aged 26-40 in turn are the major drivers behind
the Strongly Supporting this area becoming a smoke free zone.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
No further analysis completed.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Whilst most age groups supported this
unanimously there were 1 in 10 persons that were aged 70+ that were in
opposition to this area becoming a smoke free zone.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Females were the major driver of
opposition to Council events being smoke free zones with 15% of all females
stating this, males opposition was at 9%. It is also evident that the younger
and older age brackets thought that this might be a bit too restrictive with
almost 1 in 5 stating this to be so.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There was no discreptancy between males
and female who opposed Parks from being a smoke free zone. There was though a
higher percentage of those in the younger and older age brackets that were in
opposition. 43% of all 19-25 yr olds and 33% of all persons aged 70+ were in
opposition.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There was particularly strong support
from the 26-40 yr old age group, 80% of persons in this age group indicated
they strongly supported this.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There were a significant number of those
in particular age groups that were in opposition to Reserves being smoke free
zones. They were: 19-25 yr olds (37% of this age group were in opposition),
56-69 yr olds (23% of this age group were in opposition), 70+yr olds (29% of
this age group were in opposition)
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
1 in 5 respondents opposed making
recreation areas smoke free zones. There were a significant number of those
in particularly age groups that were in opposition to Reserves being smoke
free zones. They main opponents were 19-25 yr olds (31% of this age group
were in opposition).
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There were two main age groups that were
in opposition to Sportsfields being smoke free zones. They were: 19-25 yr
olds (25% of this age group were in opposition) and 70+yr olds (20% of this age group were in
opposition)
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
There were a significant number of those
in particular age groups that were in opposition to Reserves being smoke free
zones. They were: 19-25 yr olds (19% of this age group were in opposition)
and 70+yr olds (18% of this age group were in opposition).
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
1 in 4 males oppose this to 1 in 5
females. Again stronger opposition from those younger.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Whilst those that were aged 19-25 were
statistically the highest group that opposed the smoke free zone it was
apparent that all age groups had similar levels of opposition to this ie around 18% for each group.
|
|
|
|
Analysis
|
|
|
|
Analysis
|
Q24. What do you think will make your community
healthier - First Responses
coded
Note:
For open ended responses, rule of thumb is ant theme that is 2% or over is
significant.
|
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|
No Answer
|
169
|
26.5
|
|
Ban smoking /
cigarettes
|
21
|
3.3
|
|
Smoke free zones
/ in public areas
|
31
|
4.9
|
|
Less smoking
|
8
|
1.3
|
|
Education / campaigns concerning smoking
|
10
|
1.6
|
|
Increase tax on / cost of cigarettes
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Rewards / benefits for smokers to give up
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Healthier diet /
eating habits / promotion / education
|
67
|
10.5
|
|
Ban junk food / trans / saturated fats / reduction
of fast food
|
16
|
2.5
|
|
More healthy food
choices / options / outlets / access
|
20
|
3.1
|
|
Ban / less junk food advertising
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
More affordable healthier food / cheaper pricing
|
5
|
0.8
|
|
Food labelling
|
6
|
0.9
|
|
Tax on fast food / Subsidies for healthy food
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Exercise / promotion
|
8
|
1.3
|
|
Healthy lifestyle
/ promotion / information
|
25
|
3.9
|
|
Community / home vegetable gardens
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Access to /
cheaper exercise / programs / areas
|
27
|
4.2
|
|
Less / regulate drinking / restrictions on alcohol /
opening
|
4
|
0.6
|
|
Prohibit / get rid of drug use
|
1
|
0.2
|
|
More / better
walkways / footpaths
|
23
|
3.6
|
|
More / better
bike / cycle paths / lanes
|
21
|
3.3
|
|
Encourage / promote walking
|
9
|
1.4
|
|
Safer walkways / cycle paths
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
More access to / cheaper swimming pools / swimming
lessons
|
7
|
1.1
|
|
Cheaper / community gyms
|
9
|
1.4
|
|
More sporting facilities
|
5
|
0.8
|
|
More sporting activities
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Better / cheaper
health services / dentistry / hospitals
|
5
|
0.8
|
|
More parks / open spaces
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Weight loss / management / support
|
1
|
0.2
|
|
More trees
|
4
|
0.6
|
|
Subsidised / cheaper sport / support sport
|
1
|
0.2
|
|
More outdoor / activities / facilities
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
More recreational / activities / facilities
|
4
|
0.6
|
|
Clean air
|
6
|
0.9
|
|
Cleaner streets / footpaths
|
7
|
1.1
|
|
Ban spitting / on streets / fines
|
7
|
1.1
|
|
Cleaner environment / less pollution
|
9
|
1.4
|
|
Stop littering / fines
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Rubbish dumping / removal
|
4
|
0.6
|
|
Better public transport
|
8
|
1.3
|
|
Encourage public transport / less reliance on cars /
subsidies
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Less cars / buses / trucks / traffic
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Safety / more policing
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Education
|
6
|
0.9
|
|
Community
awareness / education / respecting others
|
13
|
2.0
|
|
Playground facilities
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Less stress / work / flexible work hours / more
sleep
|
2
|
0.3
|
|
Community support / services / events
|
4
|
0.6
|
|
Comes down to individual choice / responsibility /
common se
|
10
|
1.6
|
|
Other
|
15
|
2.4
|
|
DK
|
3
|
0.5
|
|
Total
|
637
|
100.0
|
Demographics
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
The representivity for the Residents Panel sample and the ABS Census
statistics for gender in the Parramatta LGA is virtually identical.
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
Representivity for persons born in Australia and
those that are born overseas is relatively close (within 7% for both
categories with the exception of undisclosed.
|
|
|
Residents’
Panel
|
ABS
|
|
Carlingford
|
2.8
|
2.73
|
|
Constitution Hill
|
1.4
|
3.45
|
|
Dundas
|
4.4
|
1.66
|
|
Dundas Valley
|
2.4
|
2.96
|
|
Eastwood
|
1.3
|
1.59
|
|
Epping
|
3.8
|
4.75
|
|
Ermington
|
3.3
|
5.52
|
|
Granville - Clyde
|
6.3
|
6.56
|
|
Guildford
|
4.1
|
7.46
|
|
Harris Park
|
2.4
|
2.92
|
|
Merrylands
|
2.4
|
4.09
|
|
North Parramatta
|
8.9
|
6.86
|
|
Northmead
|
5.3
|
2.47
|
|
Old Toongabbie - Pendle Hill
|
4.1
|
2.54
|
|
Parramatta
|
16.6
|
11.29
|
|
Rosehill
|
1.3
|
1.55
|
|
Rydalmere
|
2.2
|
4.78
|
|
South Granville
- Chester Hill
|
2.1
|
3.58
|
|
Telopea - Oatlands
|
3.3
|
4.71
|
|
Toongabbie
|
4.2
|
4.24
|
|
Undisclosed
|
0.8
|
0.00
|
|
Wentworthville
|
4.4
|
2.05
|
|
Westmead
|
3.1
|
4.74
|
|
Winston Hills
|
9.3
|
7.36
|
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.00
|
|
|
|
Analysis
All suburbs across the LGA are
represented through this survey. In terms of representivity most suburbs are
generally close with the exception of Guildford which is slightly under
represented and Parramatta
which is over represented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trend
Not Applicable
|
|
Analysis
It is evident that 16-18 and 19-25 yr
olds are under represented through this survey.
|
Introduction
Parramatta City Council appreciates your time and
effort in filling out the following survey.
We would like to understand the broad health and
wellbeing of our residents. This will
help us to plan for policies and actions to help to improve general health
across our Local Government Area. Please
keep in mind that there are no right or wrong answers.
Council is also working with Sydney West Area Health
Service (SWAHS) – part of Health NSW.
Question S4 below seeks your approval for Parramatta City Council to
share your survey information with SWAHS.
Please note that your name and other identifiers will not be passed to
SWAHS - information provided will not identify you, in accordance with NSW Privacy
and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.
Summary results of this survey will be published on
the Parramatta City Council website in the Residents’ Panel section: http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/residentspanel
The survey should take you around 8-10 minutes to
complete. When you have finished the
survey please send it back to Parramatta City Council, 30 Darcy Street, Parramatta
NSW 2150. If you would prefer to
complete the survey on-line, please contact Residents’ Panel Staff on 9806
5084, and we will email you the web-link.
Screening Questions
S1. Please ensure that the following is
your first name and surname:
#
[computer generated identifiers – first name, surname, RPID etc]
r Yes, this
is correct
r No, this
is not correct (please call council
staff on 9806 5084.)
S2. We
would also like to confirm that you live in the Parramatta Local Government
Area (LGA)?
(Please select one answer
only)
r Yes I do
live within the Parramatta LGA
r No I do not live within the Parramatta
LGA. Unfortunately we cannot continue because you do not live in the Parramatta LGA. Thank you
for your interest in this survey. If you have any questions or are not sure if
you live in the Parramatta
LGA, please call Council staff on 9806 5084.
S3. Which
of the following best describes your situation?
(Please select one answer
only)
r I am currently a rate-payer
r I
currently rent the property that I live in
r I
currently live with family where a family member is a rate-payer
r I
currently live with family and we rent
r Other (Please
indicate) _______________________________
S4.
Parramatta City Council
works closely with many areas of State Government. Sydney West Area Health Service (NSW Health)
is one organisation that Council is working closely with on several projects.
Council wishes to provide them with statistical answers from this survey.
Do you
agree that statistical (not identifying) results from this survey be used in
this relationship?
r Yes, please share this information
r No, I do not wish Council to share this
information
Physical Activity
Q1. In the last week how many times have you:
(Please complete an answer for
each of the rows below)
|
Activities
|
Number of times in the
last week
|
Total time spent
exercising (hours/ minutes)
|
Don’t Know/ Can’t Say
|
Decline
to Answer
|
|
Walked continuously for at least 10 minutes for recreation or
exercise, or to get to or from places?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding gardening,
done any vigorous household chores, which made you breathe harder or puff and
pant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Completed
vigorous gardening or heavy work around the yard, which made you breathe
harder or puff and pant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding
household chores or gardening, done any vigorous physical activity which made
you breathe harder or puff and pant?
[For example: football, tennis, netball, squash, athletics, cycling, jogging,
keep-fit exercises, and vigorous swimming.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excluding
household chores or gardening, done any other moderate physical activity that
you haven't already mentioned?
|
|
|
|
|
Q2. In the last 7 days, how many days did you travel on the following
transportation …
(Please complete an answer for
each of the rows below)
|
Transport
|
Number
of days used
|
|
Train
|
Days
|
|
Transit-way/T-way
Bus
|
Days
|
|
Government Bus
|
Days
|
|
Private Bus
|
Days
|
|
Ferry
|
Days
|
|
Monorail
|
Days
|
|
Light rail
|
Days
|
|
Private car,
motor bike, motor scooter
|
Days
|
|
Taxi
|
Days
|
|
Truck
|
Days
|
Nutrition
Q3. How many serves
of the following foods do you normally eat?
(Please list number of serves below,
if Don’t Know or Decline to Answer please place a tick)
Note:
Vegetables: One serve = ½ cup
cooked or 1 cup of salad vegetables
Fruit: 1 medium piece or 2 small
pieces of fruit or 1 cup of diced pieces
|
Nutrition
|
Number of
serves per day
|
Number of
serves per week
|
Don’t eat it
|
Don’t Know/
Can’t Say
|
Decline to Answer
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fruit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Height and Weight
Q4. How tall are you without shoes?
______ centimetres or _____ feet ____ inches
r Don’t know
r Decline to answer
Q5. How much do you
weigh without clothes or shoes?
_______ kilograms or _____ stones_____ lbs
r Don’t know
r Decline to answer
Q6. How often do you
eat out/get take-away from fast food outlets?
(Please select one answer below)
_____x per week _____x per month _____x
per year r Don’t know r Decline to answer
Healthy
Food Choices
Q7.
To what extent do you support increased
access to healthy food choices at the following:
(Please tick a selection for each row)
|
Location
|
Strongly oppose
|
Somewhat oppose
|
Somewhat support
|
Strongly support
|
|
Work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restaurants/Cafes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubs/Clubs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vending machines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Community Events
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council meetings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local food outlets (service stations,
local shops
|
|
|
|
|
Q8. Do you support the introduction of a
‘traffic-light’ labelling system for food outlet menus (e.g. restaurants, takeaways and cafés) in Parramatta - where a
healthy choice is labelled green, moderate fat sugar or salt content is yellow,
and high fat sugar or salt content is red?
(Please select one answer only)
r r
r
r r r
Strongly oppose | Somewhat oppose |
Strongly support | Somewhat support | Not sure |
Decline to answer
Q9. If a traffic-light labelling system was
introduced would it enable you to make healthier choices when eating out?
(Please select one answer only)
r Yes
r No
r Don’t know
Smoking
Q10. Which of the following
best describes your smoking status? This includes cigarettes, cigars and
pipes: (Please select
one answer only)
r I smoke daily → Please go to Q11
r I smoke occasionally → Please go to Q11
r I don't smoke now, but I used to → Please go to
Q11
r I've tried it a few times but never smoked regularly → Please go to Q11
r I've never smoked → Please go to Q19
r Don't know → Please go to Q19
r Decline to answer → Please go to Q19
Q11. How soon after waking up do/did you smoke your first cigarette?
(Please select one answer only)
r Within 5 mins
r 6-30mins
r 31-60 mins
r 60+mins
r Decline to answer
Q12. How many cigarettes a day do/did you smoke?
(Please select one answer only)
r 10 or less
r 11 -20
r 21 - 30
r 31 or more
r Decline to answer
Q13. What was the main reason you started
smoking?
(Please indicate below)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Q14. How many years have you smoked?
(Please indicate below, if less than a year please write 0.5)
_____ (years)
Q15. Which of the following best describes how you feel/felt about your
smoking?
(Please select
one answer only)
r I am not planning on quitting within the next 6
months → Please go to Q16
r I am planning on quitting within the next 6 months → Please go to Q16
r I am planning on quitting within the next month → Please go to Q16
r I have not smoked in the last 24 hours but was
smoking 6 months ago → Please go to Q16
r I have not been smoking in the last 6 months → Please go to Q16
r Don't know → Please go to
Q19
r Decline to answer → Please go to Q19
Q16. Have you attempted to quit previously?
(Please select
one answer only)
r Yes, how many times: ____ →
Please go to Q17
r No → Please go to Q18
Q17. What are/were your primary motivations to quit?
(Please select all that apply)
r
Cost
r Impacts on my physical
fitness
r I’m suffering health problems
(Please detail)
___________________________________________________
r I don’t want second-hand
smoke to affect my children / family
r Environmental impacts
r Other __________________________________________________________
Q18. How beneficial would any of the following initiatives be in helping you
to quit?
(Please tick a selection for each row)
|
Initiatives
to help Quit Smoking
|
Not
at all Beneficial
|
Somewhat
Beneficial
|
Quite
Beneficial
|
Very
Beneficial
|
|
Receiving
information & education on tobacco & the risks of smoking
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking to
a Nurse, GP, Quitline, Chemist about
quitting smoking
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consulting a
health worker to assess your smoking level & provide you with quit
smoking advice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using nicotine
replacement therapy such as patches, gum, lozenges, sublingual tablet,
inhaler
|
|
|
|
|
|
Access to free
or subsidised nicotine replacement medication (Zyban, Champix)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attending a
quit smoking group
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smoke-free
places (work, home, pubs, clubs & restaurants & outdoor public places
[sports grounds, outdoor dining])
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support at
work from employer, such as quit smoking counselling & subsidised/free
nicotine replacement therapy
|
|
|
|
|
Q19. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
(Please tick a selection for each row)
|
Statement
|
Strongly
Disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neither
Agree nor Disagree
|
Agree
|
Strongly
Agree
|
Don’t
Know/ Cant Say
|
|
Smoke free zones should be implemented
for the community in outdoor public places
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor public
places in our LGA smoke free will make a positive improvement to our
environment by reducing littering from smoking butts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor
public places in our LGA smoke free will support the health of pregnant women
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor
public places in our LGA smoke free will support the health of the
chronically ill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor
public places in our LGA smoke free will support the health of children
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor
public places in our LGA smoke free will not make a difference to the health
of vulnerable groups in our community
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making outdoor
public places in our LGA smoke free will be too restrictive on those that do
smoke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q20. In your opinion, are there any challenges in creating smoke-free zones?
(Please list below if you believe there are
challenges, if not please go to the next question)
Q21. To what extent would you support the following areas as smoke free
zones:
(Please tick a selection for each row)
|
Areas
|
Strongly Oppose
|
Somewhat Oppose
|
Somewhat Support
|
Strongly Support
|
|
Alfresco dining /outdoor
dining areas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bus shelters
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children’s playgrounds
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Events
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public
Swimming Pools
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recreation
Areas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sports fields
(i.e. sporting grounds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sports
facilities (i.e. tennis, basketball,
Netball courts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golf courses
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within 10m of Council
buildings
|
|
|
|
|
Q22. Any other areas in the community that you would like see smoke free?
(Please list below if there are additional areas,
if not please go to the next question)
Q23 Are there any other comments that you would like to make about smoking
or smoke free zones?
(Please list below, if you have no other comments
please go to the next question)
Healthy Community
Q24 What do you think will make your community healthier?
(Please list below)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!
Parramatta City
Council appreciates your time in completing this survey. Resident Panel staff will keep all Panellists
informed of the outcomes through the Resident Panel Website: http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/residents/residents_panel,
and through newsletters and reports.
Please use the postage-free reply-paid envelope to
return this completed survey
–
thank you!
