HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morrison, L. Articles by McBean, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morrison, L. Articles by McBean, C.

Achieving compliance with pool fencing legislation in New Zealand: a survey of regulatory authorities

¹ Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand
² Water Safety New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand

Correspondence to:
Dr Chalmers.

Objectives—To identify the status of compliance and enforcement of New Zealand's Fencing of Swimming Pools Act (FOSP Act), 10 years after its introduction, and to identify methods for improving both compliance with the act and the process of enforcement.

Methods—A postal questionnaire was sent to all 74 authorities in New Zealand in which they were asked questions about their enforcement of the FOSP Act. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 authorities to supplement the data obtained in the postal survey.

Results—Based on responses to the survey, it was estimated that there are over 59 000 domestic swimming pools in New Zealand, giving rates of 46 pools/1000 dwellings and 16 pools/1000 persons. The authorities reported that 44% of pools complied with the act, and a further 4% had been granted exemptions. Nineteen per cent of pools were reported to not comply with the act, and the compliance status of a further 33% was not known, or not stated by the authority. Only 9% of authorities had procedures for locating and inspecting pools, while 28% had a programme of reinspection to ensure that pools continued to comply. Pool owner resistance was considered to be the main difficulty with enforcing the act, and nearly half of the authorities believed publicity or education was needed to overcome these barriers. Fifty two per cent of authorities had publicised the act during the 12 months preceding the survey.

Conclusions—Due to ambiguities within the legislation, and differing levels of commitment by authorities to locate pools and monitor compliance, compliance with the FOSP Act is not consistent nationally. If the act were less ambiguous, there would be greater consistency and more enforcement.

Keywords: drowning; legislation; evaluation; pool fencing

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Scott Drowning prevention and knowledge transfer Inj. Prev., August 1, 2007; 13(4): 218 - 219. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Langley International comparisons: we need to know a lot more Inj. Prev., December 1, 2001; 7(4): 267 - 269. [Full Text] [PDF]