Tobacco litter costs and public policy: A framework and methodology for considering the use of fees to offset abatement costs

Tobacco Control

Volumn 20, Issue 1 SUPPL, 2011, Pages 36-42

  Schneider, John E ^a,b   Andrew Peterson, N ^c   Kiss, Noemi ^a   Ebeid, Omar ^a   Doyle, Alexis S ^d  

^a ICON PLC   (United Kingdom)

^b DREW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; DANGEROUS GOODS; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEE; HAZARDOUS WASTE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; SMOKING; UNITED STATES; WATER POLLUTION;

CALIFORNIA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FEES AND CHARGES; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HAZARDOUS WASTE; HUMANS; SMOKING; WATER POLLUTION;

EID: 79960624459     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: 14683318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2010.041707     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Coase RH. The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
2. Diamond PA. Consumption Externalities and Imperfect Corrective Pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 1973;4:526-538.
3. Hines JR. Taxing consumption and other sins. J Econ Perspect 2007;21:49-68
4. USDA. Tobacco Outlook. Electronic Outlook Report from the Electronic Research Service TBS-263. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 2007.
5. Novotny TE, Zhao F. Consumption and production waste: another externality of tobacco use. Tob Control 1999;8:75-80.
6. Bator R, Bryan A, Schultz PW. Who Gives a Hoot? Intercept Surveys of Litterers and Dosposers. Environ Behav. Published online first 19 Oct 2010. doi:10.1177/ 0013916509356884.
7. Ocean Conservancy. A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris: Report of the 2009 International Coastal Cleanup. Washington, DC: Ocean Conservancy, 2009.
8. Atwater KM. Anti-littering campaign targets cigarette butts. Government Product News 2005;44:3.
9. Jeff H. The week; tobacco trash dominates Haul at State Shoreline. New York Times 2006:2.
10. Johnson J. Where there's smoke, there's litter. Waste News 2006;11:36.
11. Moriwaki H, Kitajima S, Katahira K. Waste on the roadside, "poi-sute" waste: Its distribution and elution potential of pollutants into environment. Waste Manag 2009;29:1192-1197.
12. Novotny TE, Lum K, Smith E, et al. Cigarette butts and the case for an environmental policy on hazardous cigarette waste. Int J Res Public Health 2009;6:1691-1705.
13. Kaufman L, Cullotta KA, Wollan M, et al. Cigarette butts: tiny trash that piles up. New York Times 2009:12.
14. Marais M, Armitage N, Pithey S. A study of the litter loadings in urban drainage systemsemethodology and objectives. Water Sci Technol 2001;44:99.
15. Al-Hamdan AZ, Nnadi FN, Romah MS. Performance reconnaissance of stormwater proprietary best management practices. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 2007;42:427-437.
16. Keep America Beautiful, Beck RW. Literature RevieweLitter: A Review of Litter Studies, Attitude Surveys, and Other Litter-Related Literature. Stamford, CT: Keep America Beautiful & R.W. Beck, 2007.
17. BBC News. Litter Rubbishes Tourism Trade. BBC News 2004. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk.
18. Derraik JGB. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2002;44:842-852.
19. Klein EG, Forster JL, McFadden B, et al. Minnesota Tobacco-Free Park Policies: Attitudes of the General Public and Park Officials. Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Oxford University Press/UK, 2007:49-55.
20. Kozak M, Bigne E, Gonzalez A, et al. Cross-cultural behaviour research in tourism: a case study on destination image. In: Crouch GI, Perdue RR, Timmermans HJP, et al, eds. Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality, and Leisure: Volume 3. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing, 2004.
21. Leous JP, Parry NB. Who is responsible for marine debris? the international politics of cleaning our oceans. J Int Affairs 2005;59:257-269.
22. Lundie S, Dwyer L, Forsyth P. Environmental-Economic Measures of Tourism Yield. Journal of Sustainable Tourism: Multilingual Matters 2007:503-519.
23. Moore CJ. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ Res 2008;108:131-9.
24. Butterfield C, Myers D, Hilker E, et al. The Florida Litter Study: Economic Impacts of Litter on Florida's Businesses. Gainesville, FL: Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (for the Florida Legislature and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1999.
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by children. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep 1997;46:125.
26. Ellaway A, Morris G, Curtice J, et al. Associations between health and different types of environmental incivility: a Scotland-wide study. Public Health 2009:708-713.
27. JAMA. Ingestion of cigarettes and cigarette butts by childreneRhode Island, January 1994-July 1996. JAMA 1997;277:785.
28. Micevska T, Warne MS, Pablo F, et al. Variation in, and causes of, toxicity of cigarette butts to a cladoceran and microtox. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2006;50:205-212.
29. Novotny TE, Hardin SN, Hovda LR, et al. Tobacco and cigarette butt consumption in humans and animals. Tob Control 2011;20(Supp 1):i16-i19.
30. Kep America Beautiful, MSW Consultants. National Visible Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study. New Market, MD: Keep America Beautiful/Mid-Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants, 2009.
31. Schultz PW, Large LB, Tabanico J, et al. Littering Behavior in America: Results of a National Study. San Marcos, CA: Action Research/Keep America Beautiful, 2009.
32. City of Baltimore. The Cost of Litter. Cleaner Greener Baltimore 2010.
33. Pitfield J, Rathbone G. City of Toronto Launches Litter Prevention Program. City of Toronto 2003.
34. New Scientist. Graffiti and litter lead to more street crime. New Scientist 2008;199:17.
35. Selby M. Understanding Urban Tourism: Image, Culture, and Experience. New York, NY: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2004.
36. Smith E. On the Jersey Shore, Business Crumbles Like a Sand Castle. BusinessWeek 1987. cover story.
37. Krisberg K. Cigarette Butt Pollution Project takes aim at tons of toxic waste. Nation's Health 2009;39:28.
38. Register K. Cigarette Butts as Litter: Toxic as Well as Ugly? Underwater Naturalist Bulletin of the American Littoral Society. 2000;25. http://www.cigarettelitter.org (accessed 28 May 2009).
39. Ahmad S, Franz GA. Raising taxes to reduce smoking prevalence in the US: a simulation of the anticipated health and economic impacts. Public Health 2008;122:3-10.
40. Carpenter C, Cook PJ. Cigarette taxes and youth smoking: new evidence from national, state, and local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. J Health Econ 2008;27:287-299.
41. Chaloupka FJ, Pacula RL. Sex and race differences in young people's responsiveness to price and tobacco control policies. Tob Control 1999;8:373-377.
42. Franz GA. Price effects on the smoking behaviour of adult age groups. Public Health 2008;122:1343-1348.
43. Gallus S, Schiaffino A, La Vecchia C, et al. Price and cigarette consumption in Europe. Tob Control 2006;15:114-119.
44. Lewitt EM, Coate D. The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking. J Health Econ 1982;1:121-145.
45. Zhang B, Cohen J, Ferrence R, et al. The impact of tobacco tax cuts on smoking initiation among Canadian young adults. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:474-479.
46. HDR. The City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re-Audit. Omaha, NE: HDR Engineering/ Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc./MGM Management, 2008.
47. McKenney M. Preliminary Report: San Francisco Super Site Data 2009. Osoyoos, BC, Canada: MGM Management & HDR Engineering, 2009.
48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2008 Tobacco Control Highlights: California. CDC State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009.
49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010.
50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Online access to U.S. National Health Interview Survey. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010. http://www.ihis.us/inis/index.shtml.
51. San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau. San Francisco Fact Sheet. San Francisco, CA, 2010.
52. US Bureau of the Census. Table 1: Leading Places on Percent Change in Daytime Population, by Size (Total Resident Population). Estimated Daytime Population and Employment-Residence Ratios: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.
53. US Bureau of the Census. PHC-T-40: Estimated Daytime Population and Employment-Residence Ratios: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.
54. San Francisco Department of Public Works. San Francisco Department of Public Works: Fiscal Year 2009e2010 Annual Report. San Francisco, CA, 2010.
55. US Department of Commerce. Overseas Visitors to Select U.S. Cities/Hawaiian Islands, 2001-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, 2003.
56. Farrow S, Toman M, Schmitz A, et al. Using Benefit-Cost Analysis to Improve Environmental Regulation. Applied Benefit-Cost Analysis: Elgar Reference Collection. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. vol. 231. Cheltenham, U.K., Northampton, MA: Elgar, 2008:405-417.
57. Greenstone M, Balleisen EJ, Moss DA. Effective Regulation through Credible Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Opportunity Costs of Superfund. Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010:52-91.
58. Hahn RW, Tetlock PC. Has economic analysis improved regulatory decisions? J Econ Perspect 2008;22:67-84.
59. Max W, Rice DP, Sung HY, et al. The economic burden of smoking in California. Tob Control 2004;13:264-267.
60. HDR. The City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re-Audit 2009. San Francisco, CA: HDR/ Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc. and MGM Management, 2009.