Combs Todd, Chaitan Veronica, Golden Shelley, Ribisl Kurt, Henriksen Lisa, Luke Douglas
Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, United States.
Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, United States.
Health Place. 2025 Aug 18;95:103533. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2025.103533.
Multiple disparities exist in the built environment for retail tobacco. Disproportionate concentrations of retail outlets result in variation in the availability of tobacco products, consumer access, and exposure to tobacco marketing. Neighborhoods with higher tobacco retail density have higher tobacco use than neighborhoods with lower density. Local policies focused on reducing tobacco retail concentration can address systematic disparities in the built environment. Using census-based synthetic populations for 30 US cities and retail tobacco location data, we simulated the disparity-reducing potential of three retail reduction policies: capping the number of available retail tobacco sales licenses, and minimum distance requirements between schools and retail locations and between retail locations themselves. Outcomes included retail concentration in density (stores/km) and proximity for residents (km to nearest retail). We investigated differences across seven demographic and structural indicators in the tobacco retail environment including social, economic, and political dimensions. All the measures for retail concentration and demographic and structural context have considerable variation within and between cities. All three policies addressed disproportionate concentrations to varying degrees. The minimum distance requirements - 600m buffers around schools or retail locations - narrowed differences in the built environment for tobacco more so than halving the number of existing retail outlets through licensing caps. Policy effectiveness is context dependent. Buffer policies, for example, can be effective if retail locations are disproportionately concentrated near schools, near one another, or in low-income or racially/ethnically minoritized neighborhoods. Policy development should be informed not only by generalizable evidence but also by local data and familiarity with communities.
零售烟草的建筑环境存在多种差异。零售网点的分布不均衡导致烟草产品的可获得性、消费者的购买便利性以及接触烟草营销的机会存在差异。烟草零售密度较高的社区比密度较低的社区烟草使用率更高。旨在降低烟草零售集中度的地方政策可以解决建筑环境中的系统性差异。利用美国30个城市基于人口普查的合成人口数据和零售烟草位置数据,我们模拟了三种零售减少政策在减少差异方面的潜力:限制零售烟草销售许可证的数量,以及规定学校与零售场所之间以及零售场所之间的最小距离要求。结果包括零售集中度(商店/平方公里)和居民的接近程度(到最近零售场所的公里数)。我们调查了烟草零售环境中七个社会人口和结构指标的差异,包括社会、经济和政治层面。所有零售集中度以及人口和结构背景的衡量指标在城市内部和城市之间都有很大差异。所有三项政策都在不同程度上解决了分布不均衡的问题。最小距离要求——学校或零售场所周围600米的缓冲区——比通过许可证上限将现有零售网点数量减半更能缩小烟草建筑环境中的差异。政策效果取决于具体情况。例如,如果零售场所过度集中在学校附近、彼此相邻或低收入或种族/族裔少数群体社区,缓冲政策可能会有效。政策制定不仅应以可推广的证据为依据,还应以当地数据和对社区的了解为依据。