Table 2.

Case study 3a: evaluation of the impact of new LLG and increased inspections on selected outcomes, as well as results of temporal and spatial falsification tests for observed effects.

Monthly number of reported incidents	12‐month average impact	95% Credible Interval	Posterior tail‐area probability
Drunk and disorderly behaviour	−42%	−109%, +23%	0.10
Sexual offences	+5%	−95%, +90%	0.44
Antisocial behaviour	−12%	−95%, +36%	0.40
Domestic violence	+0.7%	−28%, +30%	0.48
Temporal falsification for drunk & disorderly behavioura	12‐month average impact	95% Credible Interval	Posterior tail‐area probability
6 months earlier	−1%	−95%, +91%	0.49
6 months later	−27%	−115%, +61%	0.27
Spatial falsification for drunk & disorderly behaviourb	12‐month average impact	95% CrI	Posterior tail‐area probability
Control area 1	−9%	−64%, +43%	0.36
Control area 2	−53%	−119%, +14%	0.06
Control area 3	−46%	−183%, +89%	0.23
Control area 4	+27%	−106%, +156%	0.33
Control area 5	+329%c	−148%, +821%	0.08
Control Area 6	−64%	−196%, +60%	0.15

^aThe time‐point of the intervention was artificially moved forwards or backwards.

^bEach control area was artificially assigned as the intervention area.

^cThis percentage is misleading because it is based on very small incidence.

CrI = credible interval; LLG = local licensing guidance.