Smoking in apartment buildings – Spatiality, meanings and understandings

Health & Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health and Place journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Smoking in apartment buildings – Spatiality, meanings and understandings Nicola Willand a, *, Megan Nethercote b a

School of Property, Construction and Project Management, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia b School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia

A B S T R A C T

Increased higher density urban living may exacerbate exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Using a social practices lens, this research explored the locations, experiences and governance of smoking in apartment buildings in Melbourne, Australia, through semi-structured interviews in high-rise buildings ranging from subsidised housing to luxury apartments. Tacit rules on acceptable locations, building rules and smoke alarms in public areas consigned smoking to balconies and building entrances. The perceived health threat from second hand smoke and mental stress due to invasion of olfactory and visual privacy undermined the full enjoyment of the home environment. Interventions may benefit from targeting the link between smoking and balconies.

1. Introduction An emergent trend in tobacco control research is the integration of sociological theories and approaches in order to inform the design of interventions and to improve the effectiveness of these. This paper en­ gages with this reorientation and aims to extend its theoretical reach by deploying theories of social practices to explore smoking in the context of apartment buildings. Based on a qualitative study of buildings in Melbourne, Australia, we reveal new insights into how smoking itself is enacted and supported as a daily routine, and we suggest opportunities to assist in disrupting the reproduction of smoking in multi-unit buildings. The reduction of exposure to tobacco related pollutants in the home is a key concern for health policy makers and the public in Australia and elsewhere. Even people in non-smoking households may be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) through second hand smoke (SHS) with negative health impacts (Kim et al., 2018; Matt et al., 2011). As there are no safe levels of exposure, any inhalation of smoke related pollutants represents a health risk (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). The risk of being exposed to ‘neighbour smoke’ or second hand smoke has proven to be higher in multi-unit buildings than in detached houses (Bonevski et al., 2014; Grace and Tumini, 2017; Koster et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2011). In Australia, as in other high income countries, tobacco control aims at lowering demand through increased pricing, smoking restrictions, advertising laws and regulation and supply-side interventions (Shibuya et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2012). These approaches are rooted in

psychosocial models of behaviour, which assume individual choices and position smokers as rational actors driven by reasoning, alert to tobacco’s harms, and motivated by fear of illness and death and their own best interests. However, the effectiveness of these interventions varies (Wilson et al., 2012), leading scholars and public health advocates to call for alternative research agendas that shift away from individu­ alistic approaches. In their place, they urge investigations of the envi­ ronmental, spatial and social conditions that shape smoking patterns on the grounds that different epistemologies and models may offer alter­ native avenues to protect public health (Blue et al., 2014; Borland et al., 1999; Debchoudhury et al., 2019; Echeverria et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2018; Maller, 2015; Moon et al., 2018; Robinson and Kirkcaldy, 2007; Saito et al., 2018). This paper responds to such calls by exploring the social practices of smoking in apartment buildings. Our novel focus on smoking, rather than on the smoker, enables us to explore how, why and when smoking practices are enacted within the confines of apartment buildings. Such an approach has the potential to offer a more holistic approach that takes into consideration the spatiality of smoking, its meanings and the understandings of it. Research to date on smoking in multi-unit housing has covered both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. However, it has focused less on the activity of smoking per se than on attitudes and perceptions of apartment dwellers. North American quantitative research has shown that although smoking is often restricted in multiunit homes, residents frequently experience smoke infiltration across all socio-economic levels (Chu et al., 2019; Delgado-Rendon et al., 2017; Kraev et al., 2009). Recent qualitative studies on multi-unit housing and

* Corresponding author. School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, Victoria, 3001, Australia. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Willand), [email protected] (M. Nethercote). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102269 Received 22 August 2019; Received in revised form 22 November 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019 1353-8292/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Nicola Willand, Megan Nethercote, Health & Place, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102269

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

smoking have shown general concern among householders about the health effects of second hand smoke (Kaufman et al., 2018) and shed light on the contextual barriers to smoke free policy adoption (Baez­ conde-Garbanati et al., 2011; Kaufman et al., 2018). Building-wide smoking bans were generally supported by householders and tended to reduce second hand smoke exposure but perfect compliance and enforcement were difficult to achieve (Hernandez et al., 2019; Hollar et al., 2017; Kegler et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2017; Lefevre et al., 2016; MacNaughton et al., 2016; Snyder et al., 2016). This previous research has been informed by theories of social cognition and rational choices and provided important implications for behaviour change in­ terventions which target the individual and in particular the smoker. However, to our knowledge, no other studies have adopted a social practices approach to examine smoking routines in multi-unit housing. In contrast with prevailing research in this area, we take smoking itself as the unit of analysis in order to offer novel insights into patterns of (re) production and how these may be disrupted. This risk to public health from smoke pollution coincides with the trend towards higher density urban living (Burton et al., 2003). As Australia is experiencing a rapid increase in apartment living (ABS, 2017), the Australian Cancer Council has called for stronger laws and regulations to prevent smoke infiltration in multi-unit buildings (Cancer Council Australia, 2019). However, as cigarette smoking in the home is not prohibited in any Australian state or territory (Department of Health, 2019), the rights of the non-smoking community to protect their health conflicts with individual rights of liberty and property of smokers (Katz, 2005). Although Australia is regarded as one of the world leaders in anti­ smoking legislations (Studlar, 2005; The Lancet, 2018), environmental tobacco smoke in private homes is seldom regulated nor is it monitored. Health is a housing design consideration in Australia’s National Con­ struction Code (ABCB, 2018), however it does not cover smoke drift. Australia’s National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018 lists smoke drift in homes as one priority area (Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs, 2012). However, responsibility for action falls to states and non-governmental organisations (Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs, 2012), and the interim review fails to report on smoke infiltration (AIHW, 2016). In contrast to the USA and Canada (ANRF, 2018; Bell et al., 2018; Snyder et al., 2016), there are no state or national legal restrictions on smoking in private homes in Australia (Department of Health, 2019). Previous research in Australia has explored smoking in detached homes rather than in shared buildings (Daly et al., 2010; Jochelson et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2015; Rumchev et al., 2008). Subsequently, we know very little about the Australian experience of smoking in multi-unit buildings. Most new multi-unit buildings in Australia are strata schemes. Strata schemes combine the individual ownership of the housing units with common ownership of shared spaces. Unit owners form the owners corporation which manages the building. Such properties are governed by strata law, which varies among the eight states and territories in Australia. Only strata regulations in the state of New South Wales acknowledge second hand smoke as a nuisance and health risk, allowing by-laws restricting smoking in new strata schemes (Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ; Strata Schemes Management Regula­ tions 2016-501 (NSW)). In the state of Victoria, where this study was undertaken, health is one of the main aims of the Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS) (OVGA, 2016). Nonetheless, these standards do not acknowledge health and liveability concerns associated with second hand smoke. The BADS considers olfactory privacy regarding the smell of waste, but not of smoking (DELWP and OVGA, 2016). As smoking in private homes is a complex regulatory challenge, novel ways of investigating its preconditions and impact on co-located residents are needed to devise alternative pathways to instigate change. This paper responds to the call to apply social practices theories to this public health challenge to provide a better understanding of the conditions that shape smoking routines (Blue et al., 2014; Kirkcaldy

et al., 2019; Maller, 2015; McQuoid et al., 2019). In common language, practices are habitualised activities of people in everyday life. Reckwitz defined a ‘practice’ as “a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and moti­ vational knowledge.” (Reckwitz, 2002) Individual practices become social practices when they are perceived as social phenomena, when the activities are performed by a group of people, as opposed to being exhibited by an individual, and when they have shared social or cultural meanings (Schatzki, 2012; Spaargaren, 2011). In social practice theory, the focus of enquiry is on practices as expression of collective knowledge, meanings and understandings (Schatzki, 2012; Shove et al., 2012a). Researchers distinguish between’ practice as performance’ and ‘practice as entity’ (Shove et al., 2012a). Performances are the observable actions - ‘what’ householders do which are called behaviours in non-social practices literature. Entities are the essences composed and (re)produced by the things, settings, skills and significances of practices. Questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ acknowledge that practices are framed by location, time and social environment (Spaargaren, 2011), that they are dependent on or inter­ secting with other practices, forming so-called ‘bundles’ and that they change over time (Shove et al., 2012a). Non-smokers consenting to, observing and reacting to smoking in apartments may also be also regarded as carriers or coproducers of the practice of smoking, even they do not perform the practice themselves. Following Shove et al. (2012b) seminal work, Blue and his colleagues (2014) positioned smoking practices as being bound by materials, meanings and competences and focused their examination on socially shared routines rather than individual choices. This novel positioning of smoking led the reserachers to argue for a shift in thinking about public health policies and programs (Blue et al., 2014). In this paper we simi­ larly adopt this social practice lens to empirically investigate domestic smoking sites, smoking-related nuisance and the governance of smoking in apartment buildings, with the aim of identifying new policy ap­ proaches to discourage smoking in multi-unit residences. 2. Methodology This paper draws on qualitative data collected in Melbourne for a multi-disciplinary study into the lived experience of apartment design quality (Centre for Urban Research, 2016). Apartment complexes built between 2010 and 2016 were selected. Selections were focused on three urban locations: the central business district (CBD), the surrounding inner city and the suburban middle ring in order to incorporate the main sites of Melbourne’s recent high-rise development. The broader study’s interest in contemporary design led us to focus on recently built de­ velopments and especially those built in the rush of high-rise develop­ ment in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Within these areas, we shortlisted all new developments and then selected from these to provide representation of infill typologies (mix of apartment types, tower heights and amenities), housing market products (aimed at high, mid and low income households) and tenure mix (including owner-occupiers, private renters, and social housing tenants). Levels of affordability were important as housing costs in Australia reflect the size of apartments and, thus, possibly the concentration of indoor air pol­ lutants. Our requirement to obtain architectural plans for a design analysis component of the project placed a further limitation on selec­ tion, as these were not readily available for all shortlisted buildings. Apartment residents within each of the selected buildings were then recruited using Expression-of-Interest flyers dropped into apartment letterboxes. We offered a AU$ 50 gift voucher to incentivise responses. In total, 66 participants were recruited from 62 households in 14 2

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

mid-to high-rise buildings across inner and middle ring locations be­ tween September 2016 and April 2017. The semi-structured interviews predominantly took place in participants’ homes and were themed around the new state government apartment design guidelines and householders’ practices related to everyday apartment living. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Where permission was given, units were photographed. The issue of second hand smoke and its impact on the liveability of apartments was a dominant focus in one of the final interviews we conducted. The participant in question, a resident owner of a luxury apartment, was highly distressed by smoke from a neighbouring unit constantly infiltrating his new apartment. He was upset by the discom­ fort of the smell and, cognisant of the health risk, frustrated by the lack of response by the developer. During the interview this resident appeared despondent, as he described how a change in his financial circumstances prevented him from moving home, though he deemed this a highly desirable option. The participant admitted that he had sought participation in the research in the hope to voice his grievances and have his despair acknowledged. He only responded to the scheduled questions after having vented his anger and frustration. This extreme case prompted the exploration of smoking across the full dataset. All interview transcripts were imported into the qualitative data analysis software NVivo, and a text-based query was run with the search terms “smoke” or “cigarette” including stemmed words and covering a broad context. Framed by the theory of social practices (Shove et al., 2012b), the analysis took a phenomenological approach (Ambrose et al., 2017; Ginev, 2018; Madsen and Gram-Hanssen, 2017) to explore householder smoking routines and experiences. The identi­ fied text excerpts were coded thematically by the first author. Deductive and inductive themes around the practices and experiences of smoking were developed. Deductive themes reflected those derived from the literature such as rules around smoking and smells. Inductive themes emerged by reflections on statements that were surprising, such as smoking as the prime purpose of the balconies, the bundling of smoking with drinking (tea or alcohol) and having visitors and the role of win­ dows and natural ventilation in the manifestation of annoyance. The second author reviewed the search results and contributed to their in­ terpretations and analysis. Participant identifiers (i.e. unique codes consisting of the letter m for Melbourne and the number of the inter­ view) are used for all direct quotations in our results section.

3. Results Smoke, smoking or cigarettes were mentioned unprompted in half of all householder interviews in 13 buildings (Table 1). Almost half of these households were negatively affected by other people’s tobacco use. Smoking occurred in twelve households, either by the residents them­ selves or by visiting friends. Sixteen participants had observed neigh­ bours’ smoking and reported adverse impacts. Participants’ in five households shared experiences with smoke alarms. Smoking, either by householders, visitors, neighbours or other building users was reported in almost all buildings regardless of whether the building was a luxury or relatively more affordable development, or indeed social housing. Smoked substances included cigarettes, cigars and marihuana. Below we present our findings in relation to the sites where smoking occurred or was experienced, resident experiences of smoking and building-level governance of smoking. 3.1. Domestic smoking sites In general, smoking did not happen inside the building proper but on balconies and in front of street-level main entrances. All interviewed resident smokers reported smoking on their balconies, regardless of whether they were living alone or not. In many households the balcony’s main purpose seemed to be to enable smoking. In seven households, smoking was cited initially in response to a general question about the resident’s use of the balcony and cited before functions such as relaxa­ tion or entertaining were mentioned. This included statements such as “that’s my smoking area”, “she is a smoker, so she’s out there a lot” and “that’s for people who smoke” Together, these suggested many partici­ pants made very strong association between balconies and smoking, as well as a potential spatial segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, at least when the smoker was smoking at home. The provi­ sion of a designated place to smoke, such as a balcony, was also referred to in terms of being a gesture of hospitality towards visitors to the apartment. The location of balconies relative to other private domestic spaces, rather than the size of the balconies, appeared to inform how balconies were implicated in smoking practices. In one apartment with three balconies of equal size, only the balcony adjacent to the living area was used for smoking. In another building, a Juliet balcony (i.e. a very narrow ledge of around 30 cm in depth surrounded by balustrading outside full-height windows/doors) afforded smoking:

Table 1 Overview of buildings, participating households and household experiences covered in this paper. Building pseudonym differentiated by location

Affordability of housing

No of storeys

No of participating households

No of households and participants covered in this paper

No of households … … in which smoking occurred

… in which smoking was only observed and/or impacts were experienced

… in which smoke alarms were mentioned

CBD1 CBD2 CBD3

Subsidised Regular Regular

8 17 34

8 3 8

3 3 5

3 2 1

– 1 2

– – 2

Regular Regular Regular Luxury

12 4 5 39

8 1 4 10

4 1 5

– – – –

3 – 1 5

1 – – 1

Regular Regular Regular Subsidised Regular Regular Regular

10 9 7 7 4 4 4

2 4 3 8 1 1 1

1 2 1 3 1 1 1

– 2 1 1 – 1 1

1 – – 1 1 1 –

– – – 1 – – –

62

31

12

16

5

Inner City Inner City Inner City Inner City Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle Middle

1 2 3 4

Ring 1 Ring 2 Ring 3 Ring 4 Ring 5 Ring 6 Ring 7

14

CBD Central Business District. 3

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

They call it a ‘half-balcony’. It’s tiny, but it’s just like enough to step into and have a cigarette or have a look, but you can’t even sit here.

balcony and inhibited its use: I don’t really [use the balcony]. It’s really messy at the moment. Neighbours throw cigarette butts on it […]

(m44, male, 33 years, CBD2, shared household, private renter, 2 bedrooms 1 bathroom, smoking visitors)

(m51, female, 30 years, Inner City 4, couple, private renters, 1 bedroom – 1 bathroom, non-smoking household)

The practice of smoking was linked to the practice of observing and surveilling the surrounding environment. Quiet enjoyment, as exem­ plified by “I go outside and have my cigarette and look over the balcony and see that the road is wet” or “then I take my cigarette, and I sit in the balcony, and I just daydream”, appeared beneficial to the wellbeing of the smoker. However, non-smoking participants were mindful that smoking on balconies encouraged breaches of privacy with smokers often leaning over balconies while they smoked, allowing them full view into the homes of neighbouring residents. Where building rules prohibited smoking inside, compliant smokers resorted to smoking on the street in front of their apartment entrance. One exception to the tacit rule of smoking outside was reported by the extreme case with one neighbour and his friends reportedly smoking within the confines of the apartment. Despite his distress, the participant who neighboured this inside smoker home expressed sympathy for his neighbour’s plight, referring to smoking as an addiction, and even tried to rationalise his behaviour by suggesting how the small size of his balcony and the windy conditions on the 30th floor would make smoking outside unfeasible. Such excuses for his neighbours’ smoking practices, revealed a degree of tolerance towards the addiction despite being negatively impacted by second hand smoke. The quote below highlights how the physical distance between the apartment and the street was shaping how he rationalised his neighbours’ disagreeable smoking practices in high-rise apartments:

In another apartment, cigarette filters discarded by careless smokers got trapped between the two panes of a window and a glass balustrade, causing unsightliness and irritating some residents. This was especially so as the design prevented these being cleaned out. Protruding balconies appeared to be exposed to more butt litter than styles that were stacked vertically. On the other hand, living on the top (or higher) floors pro­ tected residents from such risks, with one resident commenting: “our balcony is the highest, so we’re lucky we don’t get any [butts]”. Even just witnessing such littering was grounds for repulsion for many residents: I’ve seen people on the next building smoking and doing that with their cigarette, like flicking it over the edge of the building, and I think that is just totally disgusting. (m60, male, 63 years, Inner City 4, couple, private renters, 3 bed­ rooms – 2 bathrooms, non-smoking household) But notwithstanding their repulsion, our data suggests that residents tended not factor in smoking and its deleterious and undesirable impacts as part of their criterion in choosing the apartment. This may reflect the relative novelty of apartment living in Australian cities, and many households’ subsequent lack of previous experiences of such issues.

He can’t help it, […]. They’re heavy smokers, and so they try and open up their windows and do what they can, but really, they can’t stop smoking. And you can’t really expect people to go downstairs to smoke.

3.3. Governance of smoking The theme of governance emerged through references to rules on tacit and body corporate by-laws on smoking, the identification of resident problems around smoking, possible responses, responsibility for action and enforcement of regulation. Relevant regulation on smoking targeted the home environment and public areas. The reasons for the widespread practice of smoking outside rather than within the apart­ ment proper were typically not clearly articulated but are suggestive of unspoken and cultural/social expectations and norms around smoking. Statements such as “there’s no smoking inside” may have referred to the individual household’s or the building’s rule, or personal perceptions of these. Participants emphasised that smoking happened outdoors by re­ petitive and parallel sentence structures, such as “I don’t smoke indoors. I smoke outdoors” or generalisations such as “everyone goes out there to smoke”. These statements indicated that participants wanted to demonstrate their awareness of (perceived) socially acceptable practices relating to smoking to the interviewer. Sensitive smoke alarms may also have encouraged smoking out­ doors. Smoke alarms are a regulatory requirement in all new and existing dwellings in Australia (ABCB, 2018). Many residents com­ plained about oversensitive smoke alarms within small units, which could be set off by fumes from cooking and even steam from showering. Considering such complaints, it is likely that the alarms would have readily detected tobacco smoke and, therefore helped displace smokers from the apartment proper in order for them to avoid inadvertently setting off alarms. In the extreme case, larger apartment sizes seemed to mitigate the triggering of ‘false’ fire alarms, for example from burnt toast. Inadvertently, these same de-sensitivites of smoke alarms may have enabled the neighbours to smoke in their relatively larger apart­ ments without triggering any alarm. By-laws, which regulate apartment life, variously attempted to control smoking practices. In at least three buildings participants re­ ported smoke free building policies. In one of these, signs in the entrance hall and lift declared the building to be smoke-free. Nonetheless, the interviews strongly suggested that violation of such rules were common.

(m66, male, 64 years, Inner City 4, single, owner occupier, 3 bed­ rooms – 2 bathrooms, non-smoking household) 3.2. Experiences of smoking Seven non-smokers expressed their annoyance or distress as a result of second hand smoke, which infiltrated from neighbouring dwellings or from the smoke drift from smokers positioned near entranceways. The data revealed how these apartment residents adapted their ventilation practices accordingly. Participants reported smoke permeating through windows and over the balconies. Participants were annoyed by the smell and tended to close their windows in response. In the extreme case, however, where the offending smoke seemed to infiltrate through leaks between the units, the participant described fully opening the windows to enable a thorough exchange of air in the bedroom before he went to bed. Smoking in front of a building’s entrance had the unintended consequence of exposing people to intense smoke when accessing the building. While in Victoria smoking is prohibited within 4 m of public buildings and places where children play (Tobacco Act 1987 incorpo­ rating amendments as at 1 August 2017), this rule does not extend to residential buildings. Often when I need to go through [the smokers] to come home, I will have to go through their cigarette smoke. There are also a lot of people who live in this building, they smoke on the street just outside the entrance of the building. Yeah, that’s a public health issue. (m55, male, 26 years, CBD3, shared, private renter, 2 bedrooms – 1 bathroom, non-smoking household) Discarded cigarette butts proved cause for annoyance for four householders. In one household, the litter prevented enjoyment of the 4

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Participants in two buildings reported that smoking in public areas regularly triggered fire alarms. Such incidents were particularly annoying for residents when they required the building to be evacuated. The nuisance of tobacco smell in public areas was exacerbated by a lack of natural ventilation in the shared corridors in one building. Enforce­ ment of by-laws proved difficult and possible remedial actions by householders were limited. One participant expressed her frustration about the open defiance of an offending smoker and her lack of power to interfere:

(m66, male, 64 years, Inner City 4, single, owner occupier, 3 bed­ rooms – 2 bathrooms, non-smoking household) The despondent householder mentioned at the outset of this article surmised that better weatherproofing would remedy smoke drift prob­ lems. The householder understood that any remediation was at the discretion of the developer. The lack of social relations among the building occupants made it difficult for him to rally other parties affected by second hand smoke and to find strength in numbers to pursue building-level solutions.

“There’s not allowed smoking in this building, but people are smoking in the elevator, like that guy, he’s impossible to stop, I don’t know. Sometimes he’s got a cigar in his hand.”

4. Discussion This paper has departed from the common public health research focus on individual behaviours to qualitatively capture social practices of smoking in apartment buildings in Melbourne, Australia. The study has revealed how the key social practices elements of materials, com­ petences and meanings influenced where people smoked, how people perceived smoking and how smoking was managed. The elements comprised: (1) the materiality of the buildings, such as balconies and smoke alarms; (2) householder competencies, such as understandings of ETS health risks, tacit knowledge around acceptable smoking locations and apartment by-laws, and (4) socially shared meanings, such as tolerance of smoking as an addiction, evidence of hospitality and in­ terpretations of cigarette butt litter. This theoretical perspective on smoking practices provides valuable insights for policy makers, owners corporations and researchers. First, smoking emerged as a practice with the potential to create a spatial segregation between smokers and non-smokers, at least during the practice itself. Smoking bans displaced smokers to street entrances and the space of the balcony, and the identity of the smokers appeared bound. Smoking emerged as “bordering, ordering and othering” (Van Houtum and Van Naerssen, 2002) as a practice of spatial and human differentiation. This finding echoes previous research that has high­ lighted space-related smoking practices in homes and conflicts arising from physical boundaries (Robinson and Kirkcaldy, 2007). However, in our study, the confinement of smoking to defined places seemed to interrupt social cohesion and to result in subversion and behaviours that were interpreted as anti-social. As smokers segregated themselves, they were physically distanced from people inside the apartment and/or formed groups with other smokers. Smoking on balconies meanwhile also extended the physical imposition of the apartment residents, both visually by more extensive surveillance of the street and neighbouring apartments, and physically by enabling butts to be ejected from the apartments, including onto other balconies. Hence, apartment stake­ holders may need to weigh up further the potential for (perceived) nuisance as well as associated social divisions that may be fostered through allowing smoking in certain areas. Second, our findings corroborated butt littering as a form of public nuisance and risk for wellbeing (Sajan and Nicole Johnston, 2015) and expanded our understanding of this to an important new urban site—the apartment building. While the smell of tobacco caused immediate annoyance, mental distress, and raised fear of future health impacts, butts evoked disgust and displeasure and created unsightly rubbish that was not always easily cleaned up. Cigarette butt litter is a hazard to human, animal and environmental health (Novotny et al., 2009, 2011), may cause life-threatening fires (Badrock, 2016), and littering butts constitutes a criminal offence in Victoria (Litter Act 1997). Other anti-social practices linked to smoking such as intruding on others’ vi­ sual privacy and defying antismoking rules in public areas impinged upon the psychosocial benefits of a home of privacy and safety (Kearns et al., 2000). This suggests decision-makers and researchers should potentially consider not only the physiological, but also the wellbeing risks of allowing smoking in apartments buildings. Third, our findings raise concerns about the likely exacerbation of the problem in the move to denser and more energy efficient city living.

(m24, female, 34 years, Middle Ring 6, couple, private renters, studio apartment, husband was resident smoker) The smoke-free rule in this building seemed to exclude balconies, as this participant regarded smoking on her own balcony as permissible. This highlights the ambiguity around this semi-private and private space in apartment buildings. Identifying who was smoking on balconies or littering proved diffi­ cult. Eye witnessing of offenses was often inhibited by façade designs intended to ensure visual privacy. Sourcing the location of smoke smells often proved near impossible. As a result, residents’ complaints could only be vague and action through the building management only tar­ geted a general audience: If I sometimes am opening the window and someone is smoking, I can smell it. […] But I don’t know which apartment exactly, so I can’t go tell the manager. Once they sent us emails saying that people are complaining about smoking, so you’re not allowed. If you just want to smoke, you have to go like in front of the building or something. They’re not allowed. (m52, female, 23 years, CBD3, single, private renter, 1 bedroom – 1 bathroom, non-smoking household) By contrast, in the luxury apartment complex of the extreme case, the owners corporation reportedly refused to restrict or inhibit smoking: As the chairman said: you can’t stop people smoking in their own apartment. (m66, male, 64 years, Inner City 4, single, owner occu­ pier, 3 bedrooms – 2 bathrooms, non-smoking household) The building management had reportedly asked the smoking neighbours to “go outside to smoke”, but seemingly to no avail. Since occupation of the unit two years prior to the interview, the developer had refused to accept any accountability, claiming compliance with the Construction Code and instead shifting responsibility to the owners corporation. New homeowners and owners corporations in Victoria are protected from bad workmanship for 10 years by a builder warranty (CAV, 2019a, b). However, as building regulations or design standards do not include criteria of air (or smoke) infiltration performance, smoke drift cannot be considered a construction defect, and aggrieved apart­ ment owners do not have grounds for legal action. Hence, remedial action would be at the discretion of the owners corporation. Nonethe­ less, after a second complaint from another neighbour on that floor, the developer investigated the incident. The developer’s motivation is un­ known, but it may have been a gesture of goodwill intended to appease the complainants. The diagnosis was still tentative and the diagnostic tools (“photos”) questionable: [The representative of the developer] thinks that the smoke is going out an open window from the apartment next door, travels along the façade of the building until it finds a gap in the window framing, and it goes in that gap, and that gap leads to, can go between the walls that separates the two apartments.

5

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Our analysis corroborates evidence that tobacco smoke may travel be­ tween apartments and through open windows (Kim et al., 2017; Kraev et al., 2009; Russo et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2011). Higher density living implies taller buildings, higher balconies and more windy conditions, which may displace smokers from balconies back inside. Energy efficient building design in heating climates requires increased air tightness to retain winter warmth. This may also increase ETS pollution (Wilkinson et al., 2009) and more contaminated smoke drift penetrating adjoining units through internal pathways. The promotion of natural ventilation to reduce reliance on air conditioning may also allow smoke penetration from the outside, i.e. from balconies and open windows, and inadver­ tently compromise indoor air quality. Considering that there is consensus among engineers and researchers that the prevention of smoke drift is currently technologically not possible (ASHRAE, 2010; Bohac et al., 2011), designs of energy efficient and naturally ventilated multi-unit housing developments may need to be combined with a comprehensive smoking ban, including smoking on balconies, public areas and in front of the buildings. Last but not least, this paper raises concerns about the common understanding of smoking on the balconies of higher density housing as being socially acceptable. There seems little public awareness of the risks of ETS from smoking on balconies. Householders in whose units smoking occurred seemed to believe that smoking on balconies was “the right thing to do” and ethically correct. This may reflect a general atti­ tude prevailing in Australian apartments, as supported by anecdotal evidence. In an Australian survey on smoking locations in homes the answer option of “smoking is completely banned” included the qualifi­ cation “(including smoking is allowed outside only)” (Walsh et al., 2002). Similarly, at the time of writing a short stay accommodation apartment in the inner city explained that in a “strictly non-smoking” suite, “smoking must be on the balcony” (Fig. 1). The promotion of smoking on balconies is likely to increase health risks by making it seem safe and acceptable for people to indulge in the habit rather than to have to refrain from smoking altogether. Given that the smell of second hand smoke may trigger smoking (Anthony et al., 2019), smoking on balconies may even counterproductive to cessation campaigns. In addition, considering that research has shown that smoking on balconies only reduces the level of exposure but does not eliminate harmful pollution and associated health risks (Rumchev et al., 2008), a public awareness campaign on the health risks seems an obvious intervention. In summary, our findings suggest that policy makers and owners corporation may think more broadly about the practices and health impacts of smoking to garner public support and compliance for smok­ ing bans in multi-unit buildings. The findings provide a nuanced

understanding of the circumstances around which smoking in apart­ ments transpires, and we offer several suggestions on how defection from smoking may be supported. Unlike behaviour-change based in­ terventions, interventions based on social practice theories derive from an intention to change the configurations among the elements or bun­ dles of practices rather than the behaviour of individuals (Shove et al., 2012a). Hence, changing a routinised activity such as smoking will variously target the elements in combination or the connections that link these parts: the material components such as the physical built envi­ ronment; the meanings that we attribute to the practice in question; and the mechanisms that support this practice such as rules, resources, timings and bodily skills. For example, breaking the link between smoking and balconies may establish new norms of social tolerance of smoking. This may be ach­ ieved by altering social attitudes towards the accommodation of others’ smoking habits, from current association with hospitality towards an association with the irresponsible encouragement of risky routines, or by highlighting the association of smoking with anti-social patterns of conduct. In this context, it would be interesting to explore whether two recent apartment fire incidents in Melbourne which were caused by smouldering cigarette butts on balconies (Badrock, 2016; Knobb, 2019) have shifted social norms around smoking on balconies and safety since the conduct of the present study. Similarly, it would be interesting to ascertain whether the installation of smoke alarms on covered apart­ ment balconies, which have recently become mandatory in Victoria (ABCB, 2018) and represent a change in the materiality of the home, may constrain smoking on balconies in the future. In addition, it is suggested that building regulations acknowledge the inability of design and construction technologies to protect apartment dwellers from smoke drift. This may open up interdisciplinary research and stakeholder dialogue around the practices and health risks of smoking and lead to revisions to apartment design guidelines. Smokefree design standards for apartments may raise expectations of general smoke-free environments in new and existing homes and a shift in the social acceptability of smoking. It must be noted, though, that smokefree rules as an isolated intervention, as common in North American jurisdictions (ANRF, 2018), are likely to change the patterns of smoking. A recent ethnographic study from the US has provided clues into the changes of smoking practices due to the introduction of a smoke-free policy (Anthony et al., 2019). Smokers in an apartment building with a newly implemented smoking prohibition worked to displace the ac­ tivity from the outside where they could easily be observed to indoors, restricted smoking spatially to parts of rooms with high ventilation, and altered when smoking occurred to times when there was less surveil­ lance and control by the building management. This may have had the unintended consequence of increasing exposure to ETS again (Anthony et al., 2019). Further research with a focus on social practices may provide deeper insights into how smoking, or the attempted conceal­ ment of smoking, is configured. This investigation was limited by the small number of interviews and the focus on households in only one city. Smoking was not the focus of the primary study but emerged during data analysis. The majority of householders interviewed for this study were critical of smoking, but these findings cannot be considered in any way representative of apartments dwellers in general. It is perfectly possible that those households who did not mention smoking practices during their in­ terviews hold different, potentially less negative or neutral views, than those householders for whom smoking was deemed largely problematic. Our findings may well have differed substantively therefore, if all households had been prompted to comment on smoking. On the other hand, given that smoking is a contentious issue and smokers are often stigmatised (Warner, 2009), our use of broader questions focused on apartment living in general rather than on smoking specifically, may have reduced social desirability bias. As questions were framed around design criteria and daily routines, householders’ experiences of smoking were implicated in the construction of their responses and language

Fig. 1. Non-smoking notice in a short stay apartment in Melbourne. Source: First author. 6

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

rather than having been consciously evoked beforehand or directly prompted during the interviews.

implementation in low-income housing: enhancing resident compliance. Am. J. Health Promot. 33, 107–117. ASHRAE, 2010. ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Reaffirmed 2016, 29 June 2016 Ed. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia. Badrock, G., 2016. Post incident analysis report: lacrosse docklands, 25 november 2014. MATEC Web Conf. 46, 1–10. Baezconde-Garbanati, L.A., Weich-Reush� e, K., Espinoza, L., Portugal, C., Barahona, R., Garbanati, J., Seedat, F., Unger, J.B., 2011. Secondhand smoke exposure among Hispanics/Latinos living in multiunit housing: exploring barriers to new policies. Am. J. Health Promot. 25, S82–S90. Bell, J., Dale, B., Kameron, C., Havill, M., 2018. Sharing the air: the need for strata law reform to reduce second-hand smoke exposure in multiunit housing in Australia. J. Law Med. 25, 465–488. Blue, S., Shove, E., Carmona, C., Kelly, M.P., 2014. Theories of practice and public health: understanding (un)healthy practices. Crit. Public Health 26, 36–50. Bohac, D.L., Hewett, M.J., Hammond, S.K., Grimsrud, D.T., 2011. Secondhand smoke transfer and reductions by air sealing and ventilation in multiunit buildings: PFT and nicotine verification. Indoor Air 21, 36–44. Bonevski, B., Paul, C., Jones, A., Bisquera, A., Regan, T., 2014. Smoky homes: gender, socioeconomic and housing disparities in second hand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure in a large population-based Australian cohort. Prev. Med. 60, 95–101. Borland, R., Mullins, R., Trotter, L., White, V., 1999. Trends in environmental tobacco smoke restrictions in the home in Victoria, Australia. Tob. Control 8, 266–271. Burton, E., Jenks, M., Williams, K., 2003. The Compact City: a Sustainable Urban Form. Taylor & Francis Group. Cancer Council Australia, 2019. Position Statement - Addressing Smoke Infiltration in Multi-Unit Housing. Cancer Council Australia. CAV, 2019. Developers’ Obligations to Owners Corporations. Consumer Affairs Victoria, Melbourne. CAV, 2019. Implied Warranties and Domestic Building Insurance - Checklist. Consumer Affairs Victoria, Melbourne. Centre for Urban Research, 2016. Infill Developments_ Housing Outcomes Metrics and Evaluation (Project Home). RMIT University, Melbourne. Chu, A.K., Kaufman, P., Chaiton, M., 2019. Prevalence of involuntary environmental cannabis and tobacco smoke exposure in multi-unit housing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16. Daly, J.B., Wiggers, J.H., Burrows, S., Freund, M., 2010. Household smoking behaviours and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among infants: are current strategies effectively protecting our young? Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 34, 269–273. Debchoudhury, I., Ling, P., Sacks, R., Farley, S.M., 2019. Smoking social norms among young adults in New York City. J. Community Health 44 (4), 772–783 published online 12 April. Delgado-Rendon, A., Cruz, T.B., Soto, D., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Unger, J.B., 2017. Second and thirdhand smoke exposure, attitudes and protective practices: results from a survey of hispanic residents in multi-unit housing. J. Immigr. Minority Health 19, 1148–1155. DELWP, OVGA, 2016. Better Apartments Design Standards. Department of Land Water and Planning, Melbourne. Department of Health, 2019. Smoking and Tobacco Laws in Australia. Australian Government Department of Health, Canberra. Echeverria, S.E., Gundersen, D.A., Manderski, M.T., Delnevo, C.D., 2015. Social norms and its correlates as a pathway to smoking among young Latino adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 124, 187–195. Ginev, D., 2018. Towards a Hermeneutic Theory of Social Practices. Routledge, London and New York. Grace, C., Tumini, V., 2017. 15.6 Smoking bans in domestic environments. In: Scollo, M., Winstanley, M. (Eds.), Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne. Hernandez, D., Swope, C.B., Azuogu, C., Siegel, E., Giovenco, D.P., 2019. ’If I pay rent, I’m gonna smoke’: insights on the social contract of smokefree housing policy in affordable housing settings. Health Place 56, 106–117. Hollar, T.L., Cook, N., Quinn, D., Phillips, T., DeLucca, M., 2017. Smoke-free multi-unit housing policies show promise in reducing secondhand smoke exposure among racially and ethnically diverse, low-income seniors. J. Immigr. Minority Health 19, 1281–1289. Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs, 2012. National Tobacco Strategy 2012-2018. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra. Jochelson, T., Hua, M., Rissel, C., 2003. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of caregivers regarding children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among Arabic and Vietnamese-speaking communities in Sydney, Australia. Ethn. Health 8, 339–351. Katz, J.E., 2005. Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation. Tob. Control 14 (Suppl. 2), ii31–37. Kaufman, P., Kang, J., Kennedy, R.D., Beck, P., Ferrence, R., 2018. Impact of smoke-free housing policy lease exemptions on compliance, enforcement and smoking behavior: a qualitative study. Prev. Med. Rep. 10, 29–36. Kearns, A., Hiscock, R., Ellaway, A., MaCintyre, S., 2000. Beyond four walls. The psychosocial benefits of home: evidence from West Central Scotland. Hous. Stud. 15, 387–410. Kegler, M.C., Lebow-Skelley, E., Lea, J., Haardorfer, R., Lefevre, A., Diggs, P., Herndon, S., 2019. A qualitative study of the process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in privately-owned affordable housing. BMC Public Health 19, 1071. Kelly, B.C., Vuolo, M., Frizzell, L.C., Hernandez, E.M., 2018. Denormalization, smokefree air policy, and tobacco use among young adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 211, 70–77.

5. Conclusion In the context of increasing density of housing in cities worldwide and the associated risk of household exposure to the deleterious impacts of smoking practices, there is an urgent need to find ways of protecting domestic environments from harmful tobacco-related chemicals. Cur­ rent construction technologies cannot solve the problem. A top-down comprehensive smoking ban may be compelling, but it remains a controversial option and difficult to enforce. Investigations into social practices provide information into how smoking is carried out, in which configurations of settings, time, material elements and meanings, and how it combines with other activities. Changing the links between the elements that constitute practices may disrupt smoking practices, and result in a defection from the practice. Our findings have shown that public health efforts and rules aimed at controlling ETS could benefit from more consideration of the interactions between building design, technologies, meanings and householder competences and how they shape smoking routines in multi-household, higher-density housing. Multi-disciplinary efforts across housing, social sciences and health may inform new bottom-up ways in which smoking may be framed and discouraged. Funding This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme; Project LP150100089 Infill De­ velopments: Project HOME (Housing Outcomes Metrics and Evalua­ tion). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council. A version of the abstract of this paper has originally been published in the Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Energy and Environment of Residential Buildings 2018. Ethics approval The study was approved by the RMIT University’s Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval Number: 0000019987-03/16. Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the participants for sharing their everyday experiences. The authors are also grateful to the two anonymous re­ viewers, whose comprehensive and constructive feedback has helped to add clarity to the structure and content of the article. References ABCB, 2018. National Construction Code 2016. Amendment 1. Volume One. The Australian Building Codes Board, Canberra. ABS, 2017. 2071.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Reflecting Australia - Stories from the Census, 2016. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. AIHW, 2016. Tobacco Indicators: Measuring Midpoint Progress. Reporting under the National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018, Canberra. Ambrose, A., Goodchild, B., O’Flaherty, F., 2017. Understanding the user in low energy housing: a comparison of positivist and phenomenological approaches. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34, 163–171. ANRF, 2018. U.S. Laws and Policies Restricting or Prohibiting Smoking in Private Units of Multi-Unit Housing. American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, Berkeley, California. Anthony, J., Goldman, R., Rees, V.W., Frounfelker, R.L., Davine, J., Keske, R.R., Brooks, D.R., Geller, A.C., 2019. Qualitative assessment of smoke-free policy

7

N. Willand and M. Nethercote

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx Robinson, J., Kirkcaldy, A.J., 2007. Disadvantaged mothers, young children and smoking in the home: mothers’ use of space within their homes. Health Place 13, 894–903. Rumchev, K., Jamrozik, K., Stick, S., Spickett, J., 2008. How free of tobacco smoke are ’smoke-free’ homes? Indoor Air 18, 202–208. Russo, E.T., Hulse, T.E., Adamkiewicz, G., Levy, D.E., Bethune, L., Kane, J., Reid, M., Shah, S.N., 2015. Comparison of indoor air quality in smoke-permitted and smokefree multiunit housing: findings from the Boston Housing Authority. Nicotine Tob. Res. 17, 316–322. Saito, J., Shibanuma, A., Yasuoka, J., Kondo, N., Takagi, D., Jimba, M., 2018. Education and indoor smoking among parents who smoke: the mediating role of perceived social norms of smoking. BMC Public Health 18, 211. Sajan, J., Nicole Johnston, M., 2015. Design implications for multi-owned properties from a household survey. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 8, 502–518. Schatzki, T.R., 2012. A primer on practices. Pract. Educ. Work Soc. 6, 13–26. Shibuya, K., Ciecierski, C., Guindon, E., Bettcher, D.W., Evans, David B., Murray, C.J.L., 2003. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: development of an evidence based global public health treaty. BMJ 327, 154–157. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice, the Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 1–20. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Snyder, K., Vick, J.H., King, B.A., 2016. Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature. Tob. Control 25, 9–20. Spaargaren, G., 2011. Theories of practices: agency, technology, and culture. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, 813–822. Studlar, D.T., 2005. The political dynamics of tobacco control in Australia and New Zealand: explaining policy problems, instruments, and patterns of adoption. Aust. J. Pol. Sci. 40, 255–274. The Lancet, 2018. Progress towards a tobacco-free world. The Lancet 392. Tobacco Act 1987 Incorporating Amendments as at 1 August 2017, 2017. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, Georgia. Van Houtum, H., Van Naerssen, T., 2002. Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 93, 125–136. Walsh, R.A., Tzelepis, F., Paul, C.L., McKenzie, J., 2002. Environmental tobacco smoke in homes, motor vehicles and licensed premises: community attitudes and practices. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 26, 536–542. Warner, J., 2009. Smoking, stigma and human rights in mental health: going up in smoke? Soc. Policy Soc. 8. Wilkinson, P., Smith, K.R., Davies, M., Adair, H., Armstrong, B.G., Barrett, M., Bruce, N., Haines, A., Hamilton, I., Oreszczyn, T., Ridley, I., Tonne, C., Chalabi, Z., 2009. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy. The Lancet 374, 1917–1929. Wilson, K.M., Klein, J.D., Blumkin, A.K., Gottlieb, M., Winickoff, J.P., 2011. Tobaccosmoke exposure in children who live in multiunit housing. Pediatrics 127, 85–92. Wilson, L.M., Avila Tang, E., Chander, G., Hutton, H.E., Odelola, O.A., Elf, J.L., Heckman-Stoddard, B.M., Bass, E.B., Little, E.A., Haberl, E.B., Apelberg, B.J., 2012. Impact of tobacco control interventions on smoking initiation, cessation, and prevalence: a systematic review. J. Environ. Publ. Health 2012, 961724.

Kim, J., Lee, K., Kim, K., 2017. Factors associated with secondhand smoke incursion into the homes of non-smoking residents in a multi-unit housing complex: a crosssectional study in Seoul, Korea. BMC Public Health 17, 739. Kim, J., Lee, E., Lee, K., Kim, K., 2018. Relationships between secondhand smoke incursion and wheeze, rhinitis, and eczema symptoms in children living in homes without smokers in multi-unit housing. Nicotine Tob. Res. 21, 424–429. Kirkcaldy, A., Fairbrother, H., Weiner, K., Curtis, P., 2019. Young people’s perspectives of e-cigarette use in the home. Health Place 57, 157–164. Knobb, S.F., 2019. How Hundreds of Lives Were Thrown into Chaos when Neo 200 Caught Fire. The Age (The Age). Koster, B., Brink, A.L., Clemmensen, I.H., 2013. ’Neighbour smoke’–exposure to secondhand smoke in multiunit dwellings in Denmark in 2010: a cross-sectional study. Tob. Control 22, 190–193. Kraev, T.A., Adamkiewicz, G., Hammond, S.K., Spengler, J.D., 2009. Indoor concentrations of nicotine in low-income, multi-unit housing: associations with smoking behaviours and housing characteristics. Tob. Control 18, 438–444. Lefevre, A., Kegler, M.C., McDonald, B., Liang, L., Haard€ oerfer, R., 2016. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding smoke-free policies in multi-unit housing in Georgia. J. Ga. Publ. Health Assoc. 6. Litter Act 1987. Act No. 54/1987. Version Incorporating Amendments as at 1 July 1997, 1997. MacNaughton, P., Adamkiewicz, G., Arku, R.E., Vallarino, J., Levy, D.E., 2016. The impact of a smoke-free policy on environmental tobacco smoke exposure in public housing developments. Sci. Total Environ. 557–558, 676–680. Madsen, L.V., Gram-Hanssen, K., 2017. Understanding comfort and senses in social practice theory: insights from a Danish field study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29, 86–94. Maller, C.J., 2015. Understanding health through social practices: performance and materiality in everyday life. Sociol. Health Illn. 37, 52–66. Matt, G.E., Quintana, P.J., Destaillats, H., Gundel, L.A., Sleiman, M., Singer, B.C., Jacob, P., Benowitz, N., Winickoff, J.P., Rehan, V., Talbot, P., Schick, S., Samet, J., Wang, Y., Hang, B., Martins-Green, M., Pankow, J.F., Hovell, M.F., 2011. Thirdhand tobacco smoke: emerging evidence and arguments for a multidisciplinary research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 1218–1226. McQuoid, J., Thrul, J., Ozer, E., Ramo, D., Ling, P.M., 2019. Tobacco Use in the Sexual Borderlands: the Smoking Contexts and Practices of Bisexual Young Adults. Health Place, p. 102069. Moon, G., Barnett, R., Pearce, J., Thompson, L., Twigg, L., 2018. The tobacco endgame: the neglected role of place and environment. Health Place 53, 271–278. Novotny, T.E., Lum, K., Smith, E., Wang, V., Barnes, R., 2009. Cigarettes butts and the case for an environmental policy on hazardous cigarette waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6, 1691–1705. Novotny, T.E., Hardin, S.N., Hovda, L.R., Novotny, D.J., McLean, M.K., Khan, S., 2011. Tobacco and cigarette butt consumption in humans and animals. Tob. Control 20 (Suppl. 1), i17–20. Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), 2015. Strata Schemes Management Regulations 2016-501 (NSW), 2016. OVGA, 2016. Better Apartments for Victorians. Office of the Victorian Government Architect. Phillips, A., Monaem, A., Newman, C., 2015. A qualitative study of smoking within a Western Sydney Arabic-speaking community: a focus on men in the context of their families. Health Promot. J. Aust. 26, 10–15. Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 5, 243–263.

8