Planning guidance to limit hot food takeaways: Understanding the possible economic impacts
Author
Derbyshire, Daniel
Medina-Lara, Antonieta
Amies-Cull, Ben
Chang, Michael
Cummins, Steven
Hassan, Suzan
Keeble, Matthew
Liu, Bochu
Mytton, Oliver
Rahilly, John
Savory, Bea
Thompson, Claire
White, Martin
Adams, Jean
Burgoine, Thomas
Smith, Richard
Attention
2299/28511
Abstract
Local and national policymakers are seeking innovative solutions to create healthier food environments around the world. Between 2009 and 2017, 35 local authorities across England (UK) adopted planning guidance designed to limit the proliferation of hot food takeaways near schools. Whilst these policies are intended to improve population health, they are also likely to have economic impacts. Often a decision to introduce such policies comes down to consideration of whether the short-term economic imperatives of allowing new takeaway outlets to open outweighs the potential long-term public health implications and associated economic consequences. These potential negative and positive economic impacts have not previously been clearly described and are summarised here. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the potential economic impacts of takeaway management zones. In particular, we present a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) that outlines the possible economic impacts of takeaway management zones based on researcher knowledge of the interventions and the industry. Potential negative impacts fall across sectors and may include a loss of employment opportunities and reductions in local and national tax receipts, and may impact the economic vitality of local communities. In the longer term, there is the potential for positive impacts such as reductions in healthcare resource utilisation, social care expenditure and sickness-related absence from work. Part of a robust case would a better economic understanding, that would enable local authorities to improve understanding of the trade-offs associated with the policy, such as short-versus long-term, and business-related versus society-related health benefits and costs.