The Relationship of Ecological and Geographic Factors to Gambling Behavior and Pathology

The Prevalence of Problem Gambling Among U.S. Adolescents and Young Adults: Results from a National Survey

“…However, among gamblers, our results show a clear tendency for gambling involvement and negative consequences to increase as SES declines. We have elsewhere hypothesized that lower SES persons are more prone to gamble excessively because they see gambling as a reasonable method to improve their financial status (Welte et al 2004). Religion clearly influences the decision to gamble, with Mormons, Jews and Baptists less likely to have gambled than the reference group ("Other Protestants").…”

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

“…Welte (2004;2007) demonstrated that gambling problems were higher among those who lived in close proximity to a casino, whilst examination of machine density in Australia showed that high machine density accounted for 77% of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 variation in gambling expenditure per adult (Storer & Stubbs, 2007). Many studies have focused on the relationship between gambling machine availability and player behaviour.…”

The Development of a Multi-dimensional Gambling Accessibility Scale

“…The Productivity Commission identified nine dimensions of accessibility that comprised (1) the number of opportunities to gamble, (2) opportunities to gamble per venue, (3) the number of venues, (4) the opening hours of the gambling venue, (5) conditions of entry, (6) location of venues, (7) social accessibility, (8) cost of initial outlay and (9) ease of use. Most of the relevant research has broadly focused on the 3 first six of these by examining opportunities to gamble, particularly with regard to EGM density (Clarke, Tse, Abbott, Townsend, Kingi & Manaia, 2006;Delfabbro, 2002;Ladouceur, Jacques, Ferland & Giroux, 1999;Ladouceur, Jacques, Sevigny & Cantionotti, 2005;Livingstone, 2001;Marshall, 2005;Marshall & Baker, 2002) and venue proximity to home, work or other convenient locations (Adams, Sullivan, Horton, Menna & Guilmette, 2007;Barron, Staton & Wilshusen, 2002;Boardman & Perry, 2007;Chhabra, 2007;Doran, McMillen & Marshall, 2007;Hinch & Walker, 2005;Marshall, McMillen, Niemeyer & Doran, 2004;McMillan & Doran, 2006;Pearce, Mason, Hiscock & Day, 2008;Perese, Bellringer & Abbott, 2005;Shaffer, LaBrie, LaPlante, Nelson & Stanton, 2004b;Walker & Hinch, 2006;Welte, Wieczorek, Barnes, Tidwell & Hoffman 2004).…”