An Ecological Approach to Electronic Gambling Machines and Socioeconomic Deprivation in Germany

Abstract

In Germany, gambling research has primarily focused on the broader population in prevalence studies, neglecting the importance and influence of the local socioeconomic context in the development and maintenance of gambling disorders. To analyze the interplay between contextual and compositional factors in the market for electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Germany, we assessed the EGM densities and socioeconomic deprivation in 244 local communities within Baden-Wuerttemberg. Our results suggest that EGM density is statistically associated with 3 socioeconomic determinants: The shares of migrants, unemployed, and high-school-educated people in the communities are statistically significant variables in our linear regression model, whereas younger age, male gender, and marital status exhibit no statistical associations with EGM density. The share of unemployed people is the only variable of statistical and practical significance. Our analysis advocates area-based policy measures to minimize gambling-related harm. By decreasing EGM densities in communities with high levels of unemployment, we expect to protect at-risk population strata that are most vulnerable to gambling exposure.

The impact of casino proximity on northeast urban communities: a literature review

“…There is some evidence in the literature that frequent gambling in casinos could increase the risk of gambling-related problems such as problem gambling or gambling disorder (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2012;Conway, 2015;Philander, 2019;Stansbury et al, 2015;Tolchard, 2015;Tong and Chim, 2013). Several authors have also reported that casino proximity could increase the likelihood of gambling participation based on the measure of proximity (Philander, 2019;Welte et al, 2017;Welte et al, 2016aWelte et al, , 2016bWelte et al, 2004;Xouridas et al, 2016). However, the construct casino proximity has not been extensively evaluated in an urban casino study.…”

“…Under the exposure theory framework, Shaffer et al (2004) referred to casinos as a toxin, which, when placed into the environment could result in infections such as gambling-related problems. Other researchers (Conway, 2015;Welte et al, 2017;Welte et al, 2016a;Welte et al, 2016b;Welte et al, 2004;Xouridas et al, 2016) investigated casino proximity and also reported that accessibility and availability as constructs were linked to gambling-related problems such as problem gambling. Though limited, literature in the field further indicated a higher prevalence of problem gambling due to casino accessibility and casino proximity (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2012;Barnes et al, 2013;Conway, 2015;Tong and Chim, 2013;Welte et al, 2016a;Welte et al, 2016b).…”

“…Research studies that explored casino accessibility and availability in the context of casino proximity found an association between the constructs (accessibility and availability) and problem gambling or other gambling-related problems (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2012;Conway, 2015;Martin et al, 2011;Tolchard, 2015;Tse et al, 2012;Welte et al, 2016a;Welte et al, 2016b). Several researchers (Philander, 2019;Welte et al, 2017;Welte et al, 2016a;Welte et al, 2016b;Welte et al, 2004;Xouridas et al, 2016), who have studied casino proximity have also reported that this construct could increase the likelihood of gambling participation based on the measure of proximity. While many of those studies occurred before the influx of casinos in major northeast cities, accessibility and availability, or the convenience of urban casinos could create potential gambling problems, such as economic distress, mental disorders, and health problems (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2012;Conway, 2015;Martin et al, 2011;Stansbury et al, 2015;Tolchard, 2015;Tong and Chim, 2013) for casino patrons and the broader community.…”

Schadensbegrenzung beim Glücksspiel

“…Daneben lassen sich Spielstätten in der Regel überzufällig häufig in Gebieten vorfinden, die als sozialstrukturell unterprivilegiert gelten. Infolgedessen überraschen Befunde aus Baden-Württemberg nicht, nach denen ein deutlicher Zusammenhang zwischen der Dichte an Geldspielautomaten und dem Anteil an arbeitslosen Personen auf Gemeindeebene besteht [50]. Schließlich erleben nicht nur die Betroffenen selbst, sondern auch ihr soziales Nahumfeld wie die Familie mannigfaltige Belastungen.…”

Gambling spaces: a sociological analysis of the production of space, of risk and of the prevention of problem gambling

“…Dans certains pays européens, la distance géographique est devenue un des critères de la prévention du jeu problématique et de la protection des groupes de population vulnérables. En Allemagne, dans le land de Bade-Wurtemberg, une distance minimale (de 500 mètres) entre les salles de jeux, et entre ces salles et les lieux d'accueil collectif pour les enfants et les jeunes tels les crèches et les écoles s'impose (Xouridas et al, 2016). En Italie, selon la législation de la région du Piémont, les machines à sous ne peuvent pas être placées à moins de 500 mètres des « lieux sensibles » comme les écoles, les églises, les communautés thérapeutiques et les guichets automatiques…”