December 10th, 2018
We systematically evaluated smoking-related costs in multiunit housing. From 2008 to 2009, we surveyed California multiunit housing owners or managers on their past-year smoking-related costs and smoke-free policies. A total of 27.1% of respondents had incurred smoking-related costs (mean $4935), and 33.5% reported complete smoke-free policies, which lowered the likelihood of incurring smoking-related costs. Implementing statewide complete smoke-free policies may save multiunit housing property owners $18 094 254 annually.
Approximately 10.6 million Californians live in multiunit housing (MUH),1 where units with smoke-free policies can be affected by environmental tobacco smoke morbidity and mortality effects through shared air spaces and ventilation or drifting from outside.2,3 Lack of information on MUH smoking-related costs (e.g., cleaning, replacement) may contribute to MUH owners’ and managers’ reluctance to implement smoke-free policies.4,5 We surveyed California MUH owners and managers to determine (1) the smoking-related costs borne by MUH owners, (2) the smoking-related costs prevented in MUH as the result of smoke-free policies, and (3) the economic benefits of all MUH implementing complete smoke-free policies.
METHODS
Between July 2008 and February 2009, we conducted a computer-assisted telephone interview survey among 343 California Apartment Association (CAA) members who owned or managed MUH, with an overall response rate of 22.4% and an overall cooperation rate of 40.5%.6 CAA members were randomly selected and were sent presurvey notification letters proportionate to sizes of the 20 regional CAA chapters and to the small and large properties within each chapter (we defined “large” as ≥ 16 units, which requires an on-site property manager).
We used survey items and categories adapted from the Property Owners and Managers Survey7 to ask respondents to estimate smoking-related costs beyond standard operations that were incurred during the preceding 12 months for the entire property with the most recently vacated unit. Categories included cleaning, repairs and maintenance, painting and decorating, trash collection, fire damage, property insurance, fire insurance, other insurance, legal costs, administrative costs, and other operating costs. We asked respondents whether the property had a complete smoke-free policy, which was defined as no smoking permitted anywhere on the property, including both in private units and in public (common) places. We then asked those who responded “no” whether any buildings, public places, or units on the property were smoke-free. If yes, we designated the property as having a partial smoke-free policy. If all responses were negative, we designated the property as having no smoke-free policy. Other domains of the survey included property, building, and unit characteristics and personal characteristics and beliefs of the respondent. Poststratification weights for the final sample reflected the overall statewide CAA member sampling frame.
We used Stata version 10.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) to perform all statistical analyses, using 2-tailed significance levels. We analyzed a zero-inflated negative binomial model 8,9 of property smoking-related costs predicted by
smoke-free policy status,
the number of units,
an on-site owner or manager,
rent regulation,
shared ventilation,
shared furnaces, and
respondent smoking status.
We used recycled predictions10 to estimate the base case and smoke-free scenarios for all California MUH by multiplying the predicted prevalence and amount of smoking-related costs with the total units in structures with ≥ 2 units in California from the American Community Survey from 2005 to 2007.1
RESULTS
One third of properties had a complete smoke-free policy, but nearly half had no smoke-free policy. Small properties had more than a threefold higher rate of having a complete smoke-free policy compared with large properties (Table 1). More than one quarter of properties (27.1%) experienced smoking-related costs; large properties had nearly a threefold higher rate of smoking-related costs compared with small properties.