An analysis of the accessibility of video lottery terminals: the case of Montréal

Abstract

Background: Researchers and public health officials in Canada, the United States and Australia have for some time noted broader geographic accessibility to gambling establishments, above all in socioeconomically underprivileged communities. This increase in availability could lead to more and more gambling problems. This article focuses, in an ecological perspective, in particular on a spatial analysis of the geographic accessibility of sites possessing a VLT permit in the Montréal area, i.e. Montréal Island, the South Shore and Laval, from the standpoint of the development of an indicator of the vulnerability (socioeconomic components and demographic components) to gambling of populations at the level of certain neighbourhood units (dissemination areas). With the recent development of geographic information systems (GIS), it is now possible to ascertain accessibility to services much more accurately, for example by taking into account the configuration of the road network.

‘Risky Places?’: Mapping Gambling Machine Density and Socio-Economic Deprivation

“…There is no recognised standard of the distance from a gambling venue which represents greater or lesser access to gambling. Studies in Australia, Canada and the USA have used various distances with radii ranging from 300 metres (m) to 16 kilometres (km) (Wilson et al, 2006;Robitaille & Herjean, 2008;Welte & Barnes, 2007). Given the more compact and densely populated nature of Great Britain, a distance of 16km was not judged as appropriate.…”

Gambling and the Multidimensionality of Accessibility: More Than Just Proximity to Venues

“…Australia and Canada, with people often travelling only a few kilometres to gamble (KPMG Consulting 2000;Marshall 2005;Robitaille and Herjean 2008).…”

Shaping pathways to gambling consumption? An analysis of the promotion of gambling and non-gambling activities from gambling venues

“…(Gaming Technologies Australia, 2015, p. 2) EGMs are also the product most commonly associated with problem gambling (Storer, Abbott, & Stubbs, 2009), reflecting both their design and accessibility (Australian Productivity Commission, 2010). EGMs are clustered in areas of socio-economic disadvantage, with higher annual expenditure in poorer areas (Doran, McMillen, & Marshall, 2007;Robitaille & Herjean, 2008;Young, Markham, & Doran, 2012b), thus placing a disproportionate burden of harm on some of the most vulnerable communities.…”