Before stating the Criteria for policy alternatives and supplement policies, it is important to reiterate the primary concerns of this project, these are:
- Is there a better policy alternative on the hours of operation for licensed premises in Auckland CBD compared to the current 24 hour policy? (mutually exclusive)
- What other policies should be adopted alongside the policy of operation hours for the purpose of reducing alcohol related harm? (not mutually exclusive)
As mentioned earlier, there are two sorts of policies that need to be evaluated i.e. operation hours and supplement strategies. The criteria to measure the credit of the policies from both categories are not necessarily different given as they share the same goal. First, the effectiveness in combating alcohol related harm should be included. Note that, the previous section discussed a variety of negative consequences of alcohol for the city such as violence, traffic accidents, burden it impose on public resources and other minor disorderly/antisocial behaviors. Naturally each of these harms should be employed as an evaluation criterion. However, this is not a feasible task. There is no sufficient resource that enables a detailed evaluation of any specific policy in terms of each of the alcohol related harm. Therefore I shall measure the effect in reducing alcohol related harm in general terms. Second, as indicated earlier, a poorly or narrowly designed policy would have adverse effects, a practical policy designed to reduce alcohol related harm cannot generate more harm of a different sort nor it should simply transfer the same problem to other regions. (e.g. from Auckland CBD to Albany). Third, the drain of public resources should also be included in the criteria. One negative aspect of the 24 hour policy is that the hospital and police resources are being severely stretched, so this issue should be emphasized by having its own criteria separate from the general ‘adverse effects’. Note the valuation of each policy in terms of the criteria is given in relative terms (as oppose to absolute terms) due to the nature of the issue.
In sum, the criteria are:
- Effectiveness in reducing alcohol related harm
- Degree of adverse effects
- Cost on public resources: implementation or consequence.