Placing Bets: gambling venues and the distribution of harm

Abstract

The liberalisation of gambling in Australia has resulted in the dispersal of 200 000 electronic gaming machines (EGMs) across the country, generating substantial revenues for State governments and the gambling industry as well as causing significant gambling-related harm. While the spatial distribution of EGM venues has been shown to follow a gradient of community disadvantage, little is known about the distinctions between the venues themselves (i.e. pubs, clubs, and casinos), either in terms of the catchments they service or the harm they produce. To this end, we constructed a sexpartite typology of EGM venues in the Northern Territory of Australia derived from venue location and licensing variables. We also conducted a geocoded mail survey (n 07041) of households in three urban centres to describe the composition of markets and problem-gambling outcomes across the six venue categories in the typology. Venues in accessible locations and those with a higher numbers of EGMs, particularly casinos and clubs located near supermarkets, were most closely associated with gambling-related harm, even when differing player sociodemographics were accounted for. We argue that gambling risk is a function of the interaction of geographic accessibility to markets on the one hand and venue effects on the other. An understanding of the geography of EGM gambling may help improve supply-side approaches to regulation, as well as shed insights into contemporary urban processes within Australia's regional settlements.

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

“…First, gambling venues in this study were predominantly located in low socio-economic areas, a finding that is consistent with trends reported in both the Australian (Young et al, 2012a;McMillen & Doran, 2006) and international literature (Pearce, Mason, Hiscock, & Day, 2008;Wheeler, Rigby, & Huriwai, 2006). This poses a significant challenge for public health authorities given the harms associated with gambling for vulnerable populations, including those from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Welte, Wieczorek, Barnes, Tidwell, & Hoffman, 2004;Welte, Wieczorek, Barnes, & Tidwell, 2006).…”

“…While significant research has focused on the role of individual pathology in the manifestation of problem gambling (Blaszczynski, Ladouceur, & Shaffer, 2004), much less has focused on industry tactics (Thomas, Lewis, McLeod, & Haycock, 2012), product designs (Dow-Schüll, 2012), and gambling environments (e.g. the clustering of gambling products and marketing for these products in specific environments) (Lindsay et al, 2013;Young, Markham, & Doran, 2012a). We know of no research to date that comprehensively considers how these factors work both independently and together to create and perpetuate problem gambling in communities.…”

Gambling behavior in alcohol-serving and non-alcohol-serving-venues: a study of electronic gaming machine players using account records

“…However, less is known about the relationship between type of venue, venue characteristics, and gambling behavior (Hing & Haw, 2010;Young et al, 2012). As all gambling venues differ, the individual has the opportunity to choose to gamble in a multitude of different settings, such as casinos, bingo halls, arcades, betting shops, clubs, and pubs.…”

Gambling expenditure predicts harm: evidence from a venue-level study

“…We included other licensing variables, such as venue type (i.e. hotel, club or casino) and the number of operational EGMs, as covariates as previous studies have shown these to be associated with rates of gambling-related harm [21]. All statistical analyses were determined prior to commencing analysis except for post-stratification weighting, which was conducted following the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer.…”

“…First, as the site at which most gambling actually occurs in developed countries, regulated gambling venues provide arguably the most important location at which harm minimization interventions can be targeted. Levels of harm among patrons vary between venues [21,22], suggesting that venue-specific factors may play a substantial role in mediating the riskiness of gambling. Secondly, an emerging body of literature has documented a relationship between heightened problem gambling risk and residential distance to gambling venues at the level of the individual gambler [23][24][25].…”