Written by: Lenik Chakma (Research Assistant)
In some restaurants, the “No Smoking” sign was there, neatly placed on a wall. The smell told a different story. In transport hubs, the rules were visible on paper, but the pace and crowd made enforcement feel like an afterthought. That gap, between what the law says and what people breathe, is what our fieldwork set out to understand.
Secondhand smoke (SHS) is the smoke inhaled by people who are not actively smoking, a mix of smoke from burning tobacco and smoke exhaled by smokers. It is involuntary exposure, and it is harmful. Globally, secondhand smoke contributes to serious heart and lung diseases and is linked to around 1.6 million premature deaths each year(World Health Organization, 2025). In Bangladesh, evidence suggests the burden is also substantial: one study estimated roughly 25,000 deaths annually due to SHS exposure, with major productivity losses from premature mortality (Faruque GM et al., 2020).
Against this backdrop, ARK Foundation is implementing the Tobacco Free Cities implementation research project in Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) and Narsingdi Sadar Municipality, with support from the University of York and funding from the Global Alliance for Chronic Disease (GACD). The purpose is practical: to understand what makes enforcement difficult, and what contextual barriers shape compliance with the Tobacco Control Act in everyday public settings, particularly restaurants and transport hubs.
Where we worked, and what we looked for
To reflect different urban realities, we conducted observations in Banani, Mirpur, and Narsingdi. Banani represented an upscale, highly commercial area with a dense restaurant environment. Mirpur represented a mixed-income setting within a growing entertainment and commercial zone. Narsingdi provided a semi-urban comparison.
In each area, we observed restaurants (at least one hour) and transport hubs (at least three hours). We focused on a few clear indicators that any visitor would notice: whether “No Smoking” signs were present and visible, whether active smoking was observed, and whether there were clear signs of smoke exposure such as ashtrays, cigarette butts, or a persistent smell.
What the field made clear
The biggest lesson was that collecting reliable evidence in real public spaces is rarely straightforward. In restaurants, long observation periods were sometimes disrupted by peak-hour crowds and staff expectations that observers should place orders or explain their presence repeatedly. In more sensitive settings, such as shisha venues and bars, access and documentation were complicated by security and operating restrictions.
Across both restaurants and transport hubs, ethical and privacy considerations also limited photography. Even when active smoking was visible, capturing images inside premises was often not appropriate. This meant our documentation relied heavily on careful observation, structured note-taking, and consistency across data collectors.
Talking to people: the survey reality
After observations, we conducted brief interviews with restaurant owners, managers, staff, and customers to understand what they knew about the law, how they viewed it, and what they practiced in daily operations. Since each interview took 15–20 minutes, participation was not always easy. Owners and staff were often unavailable during busy hours, while customers cited time constraints, leading to refusals or incomplete interviews. Some restaurants had irregular operating hours, requiring repeated schedule adjustments.
One moment captured the “field reality” perfectly. During a visit to a restaurant near a college at around 5:00 PM, an interview with the manager was interrupted by a sudden rush of students after classes ended. The manager was the only staff member and had to switch immediately to serving customers. We could not shift to interviewing customers either, because most were uniformed students under 18 and ineligible under our ethics protocol. We returned after 9:30 PM, once the rush had passed, to complete the interview.
Why this matters
These observations are not just background details. They show how compliance is shaped by crowd dynamics, business pressures, venue type, and what is realistically enforceable in public spaces. In the field, smoke-free policy is not a checkbox. It is a series of small decisions, made in busy places, that determine whether people are protected or exposed.
Originally published in ThinkSpace Vol:1 (February, 2026)
References:
Faruque GM, Ahmed M, Huq I, Parven R, Wadood SN, Chowdhury SR, Hussain AKM G, Haifley G, Drope J, & Nargis N. (2020). The Economic Cost of Tobacco Use in Bangladesh: A Health Cost Approach.
World Health Organization. (2025). Tobacco. https://www.who.int/health-topics/tobacco#tab=tab_1
