Our verification efforts, confined to 47 delivery businesses serving 4 diverse block groups, found that only half actually delivered to designated locations. Cao et al. show value in combining listings from multiple crowd sourced platforms plus official license listings to increase sensitivity and specificity, but the address search function appears unique to Weedmaps: official license listings and other websites do not indicate the region to which each retailer delivers. Duplicative listings were also more common for delivery retailers than for brick-and-mortar outlets. Listings of delivery services may therefore require special de-duplication procedures. Retailers reporting to deliver statewide—and those operating exclusively through websites, apps, or text messaging—may require additional verification. Further, missingness must be assessed: although Weedmaps’ name recognition means that businesses are strongly incentivized to list themselves, some delivery businesses may not register on Weedmaps, and reported availability of home delivery should be compared to that from individual companies offering home delivery . The challenges for measuring cannabis delivery are also conceptual. Standard methods assume that availability is fixed in space and time, drain trays for plants based only on physical proximity between residential addresses and brick-and-mortar outlets. Yet we found that home delivery varies dynamically as a function of staffing levels, order sizes, time of day, competition, and demand.
Researchers will therefore need to adopt standard definitions sensitive to this variation in availability, along with differences in price between the two sources. In the absence of fixed geographic delivery zones, researchers must think carefully about how to operationalize cannabis availability in light of home delivery by revising existing conceptual models . Different conceptualizations of cannabis availability for brick-and-mortar versus delivery may also have differing implications for cannabis use and related harms. Whether such differences exist and why should be evaluated. In future research, consumer surveys of cannabis purchasing patterns should be used to quantify variation in home delivery utilization and to validate Weedmaps data. Such surveys, although costly, should also examine the implications of home delivery for enforcement of public health regulations. As a proprietary business, Weedmaps could change its data on delivery services at any time. Researchers should therefore encourage state regulatory agencies to monitor the geographic footprint of cannabis delivery businesses by incorporating defined delivery zones as a component of licensing. Other states permitting home delivery do so only with restrictions such as these. Monitoring the scale of the cannabis home delivery is warranted because more states are legalizing cannabis. Growing availability of cannabis through home delivery could translate into increases in cannabis-related benefits and harms. Methodological work to measure home delivery also has implications for other commercial substances, including alcohol and tobacco, for which home delivery is also increasingly common, understudied, and challenged by measurement.
Generalizabilty of this study may be limited because the scale of home delivery in California is unique. Thus, varying contexts must also be evaluated, as the accuracy of our method may vary by social context and cannabis market characteristics.Humboldt County has been an epicenter of cannabis cultivation for decades, and an element of social division has characterized the region: the “back-to-the-landers” versus the born-and-raised locals, the “hippies” versus the “rednecks,” and the pot growers versus the loggers and ranchers . However, as cannabis cultivation has been decriminalized in California, the social dynamics around cannabis have become more complex. Over the last 20 years, new growers from different parts of California, the United States and even outside the United States have moved to Humboldt County and surrounding areas to grow cannabis — a so-called green rush of growers hoping to strike it rich . Growers have come from a host of countries beyond the United States, including Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico and nations in Southeast Asia . Some work independently while others work together in operations that may qualify as more organized. For many Humboldt County residents — “mom-and-pop” cannabis growers and more traditional agricultural producers alike — the near-exponential growth of the industry has been a shock, and it has unleashed numerous social, economic and environmental concerns.This situation is not unique to Humboldt — cannabis cultivation has increased rapidly throughout rural California . California voters, when they legalized cannabis for adult recreational use in 2018, created conditions for competition among agricultural interests and changes in rural social dynamics.
Indeed, because new cannabis farming is often conducted near traditional ranching and timber-producing lands , the potential for conflict — or collaboration — between traditional land uses and cannabis production has grown. But little research documents the effects of cannabis production on traditional agricultural producers, and therefore we know little about such producers’ adaptation to change. Understanding this dynamic is important for local governments as they develop land use policies to govern when, where and how much cannabis production is permissible . Cannabis production’s effects on neighbors is an important point for local government officials to consider as they develop and adopt new policies to encourage the transition of black-market cannabis operations into compliant operations. The effects of cannabis production on neighbors is also important to consider while formulating policies to mitigate unintended consequences — such as unwanted odors and nighttime lights — which can exacerbate land use and social conflicts. For example, should cannabis be allowed on lands zoned for timber production or prime agriculture? Should cannabis production be allowed in cities and in unincorporated towns? What areas are compatible or incompatible with cannabis? Increased cannabis production can directly or indirectly affect traditional agriculture and timber producers. Over the last decade, cannabis cultivation has expanded rapidly in rural communities, with many cannabis farmers having moved only recently to the areas where they grow . These new arrivals are sometimes described as green rush growers. Conflicts can arise if new growers, who are often unaware of community norms, don’t manage workers appropriately, control dogs, close gates, help maintain shared roads — or if, in other ways, they complicate operations for traditional agricultural producers. Likewise, even cannabis producers who have been in business for many years — including some whose families have grown cannabis for two generations — may hold different views of rural life than do traditional agriculture and timber producers . In addition, while cannabis is now legal in California, many cannabis farmers still grow outside the regulated system, and some traditional agricultural producers may retain the sense that illegal activity is negatively affecting their community. In recent years, the environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation have been a matter of increasing focus in California, and traditional agricultural producers and other community members have voiced concerns about water diversions , pollution from chemical fertilizers , the impacts of pesticides on wildlife , light pollution and forest fragmentation . Concerns have also arisen regarding negative impacts on local livestock producers and challenges for public land managers attempting to control trespass growing operations . At the same time, 4 x 8 grow tray cannabis cultivation can contribute to community well-being in a variety of ways. It can bring economic gains to rural areas where the timber, livestock and fisheries industries have experienced declines. For example, cannabis cultivation can provide new business opportunities to traditional agricultural producers in the form of heavy equipment work, firewood sales, trucking, forest management or construction services. In addition, cannabis production may help buffer population declines such as those experienced in many of California’s rural areas over the last 20 years; in particular, rural schools may benefit from the enrollment of cannabis growers’ children. More broadly, cannabis farmers can bring new energy to rural communities through engagement at schools, volunteer fire departments and other points of gathering. Traditional growers’ perceptions of cannabis farmers can vary based on several factors, including the scale at which cannabis farmers operate. Scales of operation have expanded greatly over the last 20 years. Some cannabis farmers produce a few plants for personal use, others augment their incomes by growing moderate amounts of cannabis and still others grow on an industrial scale, with multiple operations on numerous parcels. One might expect traditional agricultural producers to regard these different varieties of cannabis growers differently. But large landowners are themselves not homogenous — for example, some are absentees.
In this research we hypothesized that absentee landowners would have different experiences and perceptions of the cannabis industry than do traditional producers who live on their land. Humboldt County and many communities around California are currently setting ordinances to manage legal cannabis production. But as they do so, little is known about the potential interaction of cannabis with traditional agriculture and timber producers and whether these industries are compatible. Information about the effects of cannabis production on traditional agricultural producers may be helpful to policy makers because traditional producers are often important contributors to rural economies and stewards of public trust resources such as wildlife and clean water. We conducted this research with the goal of determining how larger landowners — who, in Humboldt County, are generally timber or beef producers — experience and perceive cannabis production. We surveyed by mail all landowners in Humboldt County who own at least 500 acres . We asked a series of questions about landowner experiences with the cannabis industry and how the industry directly affected landowners’ economic well-being, community, property and personal safety. We also asked how, in their view, the cannabis industry influences the community and the environment. We asked landowners to provide their views on grower demographics and on changes in their communities over time. In addition, we compared the experiences and perceptions of absentee and non-absentee landowners.Humboldt County has long been among the leading cannabis-producing regions in the United States . Located on the North Coast of California, Humboldt County is characterized by steep terrain and a Mediterranean climate; a climatic gradient runs from the cooler and wetter coastline to the drier and warmer in lands . Humboldt County’s agricultural and timber industries are significant in scale, with agricultural production amounting to $326 million in 2016 and timber production amounting to $70 million in the same year — although the timber numbers are down from a decade ago. These agricultural production numbers do not include cannabis production revenues, but recent estimates put cannabis production in the larger Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino region, known as the “Emerald Triangle,” at $5 billion annually . Humboldt County is home to numerous species of concern — including threatened and endangered salmonids, spotted owls, marbled murrelets, fishers and so on — that are protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act . Cannabis cultivation occurs within these species’ habitat areas, including in locations near and adjacent to old-growth redwood and Douglas fir forests.The intent of the survey was to understand how cannabis production in Humboldt County was affecting traditional agricultural producers, and therefore we focused only on landowners with enough property to derive a large percentage of their income from agriculture and timber activities. We identified landowners with at least 500 acres by combining land use and tax roll data. In total, 211 landowners fit this description. Landowners were mailed a paper survey, along with a stamped, pre-addressed envelope in which to return it, in January 2018. After 3 weeks, follow-up postcards were sent to landowners who had not returned their surveys. In total, 71 landowners responded to the survey . Of these, two landowners reported owning less than 500 acres and one landowner did not confirm meeting this minimum standard; we did not include these three surveys in our analysis. All survey responses were anonymous.Surveys were organized into three sections. One portion of the survey asked landowners about their direct experiences with the cannabis industry, asking them to agree or disagree with 22 statements that corresponded to four themes: how the cannabis industry has affected the economics of their operations ; how cannabis has impacted their local community ; how cannabis has affected their properties and how cannabis has affected their safety . The surveys asked landowners to respond to each statement using a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement . Respondents could also respond “NA” to statements that did not apply to them. Additionally, respondents were given space at the end of each subsection to provide comments or examples. In another section of the survey, we tested respondents’ perceptions of cannabis by asking them how they felt about certain cannabis-related issues and whether cannabis cultivation has had positive or negative impacts on their communities, specifying that their responses should not necessarily be based on their personal experiences.