DOI: 10.5061/dryad.nzs7h450m
title: Accumulation and re-accumulation of commercial tobacco, electronic cigarette, and cannabis waste in San Diego County

description: We investigated the amount and distribution of waste generated by
 commercial tobacco, electronic cigarette, and cannabis (TEC) use to inform
 policy options aimed at mitigating the environmental harm caused by these
 products. Using disproportionate stratified random sampling, we selected
 60 census blocks from the eight largest cities in San Diego County,
 California. We twice surveyed publicly accessible areas in these blocks to
 quantify TEC waste accumulation and its re-accumulation. All collected
 items were photographed, classified, geocoded, counted, and properly
 discarded. We identified demographic, land use, and behavioral data from
 public sources and direct observations. We modeled total cigarette butt
 quantities for all census blocks across the eight cities and found similar
 results for Round 1 (8.63 million) and Round 2 (8.66 million) collections.
 Single-use plastic cigarette filters were the primary contributor to TEC
 waste (94%). Total TEC waste counts and cigarette butt counts showed
 strong linear associations (r=+0.86 and r=+0.91). The area surveyed, land
 use category, resident demographics, smoking prevalence, and walkability
 explained 78% of the variance in cigarette butt count. The interval
 between Round 1 and 2 counts did not affect re-accumulation counts,
 suggesting that baseline TEC waste levels were re-established within 1-2
 months after cleanup. Annually, we estimate up to 200 million cellulose
 acetate plastic filters may be discarded in public areas of the eight
 cities. Given the continuous deposition, vast quantity, heterogeneous
 distribution, and rapid re-accumulation of TEC waste after cleanup,
 increasing removal efforts alone are financially untenable and impractical
 downstream solutions for TEC waste. Community-wide policies (e.g., filter
 bans, outdoor smoking restrictions) and individual behavior changes (e.g.,
 reduced smoking rates, proper disposal of cigarette butts) are necessary
 to effectively mitigate the environmental impact of TEC waste in urban
 settings.
description: Using disproportionate stratified random sampling, we selected 60
 census blocks from the eight largest cities in San Diego County,
 California. We twice surveyed publicly accessible areas in these blocks to
 quantify TEC waste accumulation and its re-accumulation. All collected
 items were photographed, classified, geocoded, counted, and properly
 discarded. We identified demographic, land use, and behavioral data from
 public sources and direct observations.
description: ## Accumulation and re-accumulation of commercial tobacco, electronic
 cigarette, and cannabis waste in San Diego County
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nzs7h450m](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nzs7h450m) ## Description of the data and file structure ## Census block sampling We selected the eight largest cities in San Diego County for this study: Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Escondido, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista. These cities are part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) PLACES data set that includes detailed local information about smoking prevalence and other health behaviors. Based on their 2010 boundaries, these cities comprise 16,914 census blocks with 2.39 million residents in 2022. Census blocks are the smallest geographic area for which the U.S. Bureau of the Census collects and tabulates decennial census data.[25] Census blocks were stratified by six land use and two community-level socioeconomic categories. Based on the San Diego Area Governments (SANDAG) land-use coding system [26], we created the following six census block-level land use categories: 1- Low-Density Residential Alone; 2- Mixed High/Low Density Residential; 3- Mixed Entertainment Residential; 4- Mixed Park Residential; 5- Mixed Residential Miscellaneous; 6- Mixed Nonresidential Miscellaneous. We used a principal component analysis of socioeconomic characteristics collected in the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) to create an index of socioeconomic status (see the online supplemental material S1 for additional information).[27] Areas with index scores above the mean were identified as having “high,” while those at or below the mean were identified as having “low” socioeconomic status. Following a disproportionate stratified sampling design, five census blocks were randomly selected from each of the 12 strata for a total sample size of 60 census blocks. Two census blocks were found inaccessible for data collection and were replaced with randomly selected blocks from the same strata. We determined population sampling weights to estimate mean and total counts in linear models. ## Community engagement We approached this project as an opportunity to engage communities in identifying and addressing the neighborhood problem of tobacco product waste. To do so, we developed and implemented a strategy to involve a broad range of stakeholders in the project. In each of the eight cities in which data collection was planned, we sent an introductory e-mail and invited city council members, city managers, and relevant city offices (e.g., Public Works, Parks and Recreation) to meet and learn more about the project. In addition, we invited community groups, tobacco control programs, environmental organizations, business districts, and other stakeholders. Regular one-on-one meetings with stakeholders and annual updates maintained interest in the project. Throughout the study, volunteer participation in data collection was actively encouraged. All volunteers received an online orientation to the project and on-site training in advance of TEC waste collection that was led by trained research staff. At the conclusion of data collection, we prepared a summary and hosted a series of community discussions of preliminary findings and possible solutions. ## TEC waste survey protocol We developed the collection protocol based on a review of previous tobacco product waste studies in urban and coastal areas [28-31] to establish reproducible methods for locating, identifying, and quantifying TEC waste across different urban environments. The complete protocol is available in the online supplemental material (S2) and addresses the following steps: 1) Training of staff and volunteers; 2) Employing tools and equipment for locating, identifying, and recording TEC waste; 3) Assessing safety and census block characteristics; 4) Determining boundaries and measuring areas to be surveyed; 5) Developing strategies to survey different types of surface areas; 6) Establishing guidelines for locating TEC waste in identified areas; 7) Developing guidelines for identifying and recording different types of TEC waste and their locations; 8) Establishing guidelines for quantifying the amount of TEC waste; and 9) Establishing guidelines for reporting TEC waste. ## TEC waste definitions We assigned each item identified as TEC waste to one of the following six categories: ### Cigarette butts This category refers to the remains of a smoked or partially smoked commercial tobacco cigarette, whether filtered or non-filtered, regardless of the state of degradation or fragmentation. ### Other tobacco products This category includes any discarded cigar components, including tips; smokeless tobacco waste products, such as snus pouches; the packaging from any tobacco product, including tins and plastic wrapping; and commercial tobacco advertising elements and coupons. ### E-cigarettes This category includes any part of vaping or other electronic delivery systems, regardless of the product vaporized in the device (tobacco, cannabis, nicotine, THC, other material), as well as packaging, warning labels, and advertising materials. ### Cannabis products This category includes any commercial cannabis product, including cannabis-containing cigarettes, edibles, and their packaging and advertising. ### Dual use This category includes any products used to smoke tobacco, cannabis, or other materials, including lighters, rolling papers, and hand-rolled butts. ### Unsure This category includes suspected TEC waste that could not be assigned to one of the other categories. ## Data collection Each census block was surveyed twice. The Round 1 survey evaluated surface accumulated TEC waste and included the removal of all TEC waste items. This survey involved: a) pre-assessment to determine feasibility and boundaries; b) active assessment of block characteristics and surface area measurement; and c) collection, geocoding, identification, recording, and disposal of TEC waste items. The Round 2 survey assessed the re-accumulation of TEC waste since the Round 1 survey, repeating steps b) and c). ### Pre-assessment Each census block was first inspected using Google Maps to determine its boundaries (i.e., each street on the perimeter of the block), any interior areas that could be surveyed, and if TEC waste could be safely collected in publicly accessible areas. Census block boundaries were recorded using ArcGIS.[32, 33] Each census block could contain two types of survey areas – regular or irregular. Regular areas were defined as the sidewalk, curb strip, and gutter of streets on the perimeter or inside of the census block, as well as any alleys inside the census block. Irregular areas were defined as any additional publicly accessible, walkable areas inside the census block that could be safely surveyed, including parking lots, shopping areas, picnic areas, and hiking trails. ### Active assessment Prior to the TEC waste collection, each regular and irregular area was visually inspected to determine certain block characteristics, henceforth referred to as ‘Points of Interest.’ These included land use (e.g., housing, entertainment, parks, retail); city services (e.g., bus stops, storm drains, trashcans); and tobacco-related behaviors (e.g., observed smoking, smoking signage, butt receptacles). Research staff walked the perimeter and inside survey areas to photograph, classify, and record Points of Interest using ArcGIS and to take coordinates of the inside and outside boundaries of each surveyed area for surface area calculations. ### TEC waste survey All surfaces within the boundaries designated in the active assessment as regular and irregular areas were surveyed for TEC waste. Loose debris, including leaves or trash, was raked and inspected for any hidden items. Research assistants and volunteers worked in small teams of 4-6 using either the "snowplow" or the "lawnmower" methods (See the online supplemental material S2).[34] For "regular areas", every TEC waste item was photographed and geocoded where it was found; the type and number of item(s) on each photograph was entered into ArcGIS using the QuickCapture app; each item was picked up and sorted into containers by type; and each container was weighed. For "irregular areas", each TEC waste item was picked up, sorted by type, and counted. The total count of each type for an "irregular area" was entered into ArcGIS. ### Files and variables #### File: TECWasteSDCountyData241014.xlsx **Description** Data are reported for N=60 census blocks. ##### Variables | Variable name          | Variable label | | :--------------------- | :--------------------------------------- | | BlockID          | Block ID | | pweight2         | Sampling weight | | strata           | Strata 1-12 | | saream2reg       | Regular surface area (m2) | | saream2irr       | Irregulat3 surface area (m2) | | saream2\_tot      | Total surface area (m2) | | Days\_Passed      | Days passed between R1 and R2 | | R1\_B             | R1 Number of butts (count) | | R1\_T             | R1 Number of other tobacco items (count) | | R1\_C             | R1 Number of cannabis items (count) | | R1\_E             | R1 Number of Ecig items (count) | | R1\_D             | R1 Number of dual use items (count) | | R1\_U             | R1 Number of unsure items (count) | | R1\_tot           | R1 Total Number of items (count) | | R2\_B             | R2 Number of butts (count) | | R2\_T             | R2 Number of other tobacco items (count) | | R2\_C             | R2 Number of cannabis items (count) | | R2\_E             | R2 Number of Ecig items (count) | | R2\_D             | R2 Number of dual use items (count) | | R2\_U             | R2 Number of unsure items (count) | | R2\_tot           | R2 Total Number of items (count) | | logR1\_tot        | Log10 of R1 total count | | logR2\_tot        | Log10 of R2 total count | | logR1\_B          | Log10 of R1 butt count | | logR2\_B          | Log10 of R1 butt count | | totpop           | Population count in block | | landuse          | Land use category (1-6) | | ses              | Socioeconomic status (low, high) | | CSMOKING\_CrudPrev  | Current smoking prevalence (%) | | nhwht            | Nonhispanic White residents (count) | | nhblk            | Nonhispanic Black residents (count) | | aisn             | Asian residents(count) | | hisp             | Hispanic residents (count) | | mage             | Mean age (years) | | male             | Count of male residents | | fem              | Count of female residents | | area             | Census block area (m2) | | popd             | Population density | | Foreign\_Born     | Foreign born residents (count) | | Walk\_Index       | National Walkability Index (EPA, 2021) | | Norm\_Walk\_Index  | Normalized Walk Index | | trashcans        | Trash cans (count) | | buttrecept       | Butt receptacles (count) |