Impact of smoke-free housing policy lease exemptions on compliance, enforcement and smoking behavior: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the impacts of smoke-free housing policies on compliance, enforcement and smoking behavior. From 2012 to 2014, we studied two affordable housing providers in Canada with comprehensive smoke-free policies: Waterloo Regional Housing that required new leases to be non-smoking and exempted existing leases, and Yukon Housing Corporation that required all leases (existing and new) to be non-smoking. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with 31 housing and public health staff involved in policy development and implementation, and qualitative interviews with 56 tenants. Both types of smoke-free policies helped tenants to reduce and quit smoking. However, exempting existing tenants from the policy created challenges for monitoring compliance and enforcing the policy, and resulted in ongoing tobacco smoke exposure. Moreover, some new tenants were smoking in exempted units, which undermined the policy and maintained smoking behavior. Our findings support the implementation of complete smoke-free housing policies that do not exempt existing leases to avoid many of the problems experienced by staff and tenants. In jurisdictions where exempting existing leases is still required by law, adequate staff resources for monitoring and enforcement, along with consistent and clear communication (particularly regarding balconies, patios and outdoor spaces) will encourage compliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".