Destination-Style Gambling

7/27/2019 Destination-Style Gambling

1/73


2/73


3/73

Destination-Style Gambling

A Review of the Literature Concerning the Reduction of Problem Gambling and RelatedSocial Harm Through the Consolidation of Gambling Supply Structures

Final Report Prepared for the Department of Justice, Victorian Government.

Martin Young, Bill Tyler & Waimei Lee

18th

May 2007

School for Social and Policy Research


4/73

2

Abstract

The goal of DSG concept is to reduce accessibility by vulnerable communities to conveniencegambling by concentrating these opportunities in fewer dedicated gambling venues that requiresome effort and deliberate intention to visit. A regime that includes fewer venues will reduce thelevel of convenience-related gambling at the local level. Thus, in the context of harmminimisation, the principle of convenience gambling reduction through DSG is likely to be asound policy. However, the effectiveness of DSG will depend on a meaningful reduction ofEGM availability in poorer areas. Simply reducing total EGM densities across an area is likely tohave limited effect. What is required is a spatial reconfiguration of supply, where gamblingopportunities are completely reallocated in a way that affects the level of accessibility (taking intoaccount space, time, and resource opportunities and constraints) within a vulnerable area. Inessence, the effectiveness of the DSG model will depend on this simultaneous reduction inavailability at the local level.

In terms of the DSG venues themselves it is to be expected that fewer venues will have a morepowerful and extensive effect on the areas in which they are located than the convenience venuesthey are designed to replace. As DSG venues are likely to occupy a new market, they willrepresent a case of supply-led growth. The extent to which DSG reaches new markets will

depend on a range of situational variables including product mix, range of facilities and attraction,location of complementary activities such as shopping or entertainment, degree of marketing, andgeneral amenity value. The real question is if this growth into new markets (and the harm causedby it, that is, the dispersal of problem gambling into new social groups) is to be offset by thereduction in convenience gambling.

What is important in the DSG model is its capability to socially reposition the burden of harm.The DSG markets are likely to be more affluent (given by the fact that DSG is predicated onincreased accessibility which means more spatial mobility which in turn requires wealth). Theincidence of problem gambling may increase in these new markets. Conversely, the accessibilityof the less mobile, lower socioeconomic groups who live in areas highly provisioned to gamblingopportunities may be reduced, resulting in a lowering of problem gambling. In essence this

amounts to a trade-off. DSG gaming venues may increase problem gambling but this will bediscounted by the reduction in convenience gambling.

The degree to which this trade-off occurs (i.e. an increase in the harm among new groups versusa decrease of harm in existing, lower socioeconomic groups) will be mediated by the ability oflarger DSG venues to implement effective harm reduction strategies. This is an advantage of thedestination concept. If we accept that DSG venues will be the diametric opposite of conveniencegambling, they will not only have the advantages of venue-based regulation and monitoring orproblems, they will also have a strong community attachment and involvement. This would placeDSG venues in a powerful position to implement preventative harm reduction measures(including issues of venue design), monitoring strategies, and amelioration programs that aresimply beyond the ability of smaller venues or convenience gambling styles.

Given that gambling operations (e.g. casinos and clubs) are increasingly positioned as socially-responsible corporations with responsibilities to regulators, the potential exists for DSG venuesto meaningfully involve local communities into the overall harm reduction framework. Thesupport of local communities depends not only on the facilities and amenities that DSG willprovide, but also on how the DSG as a harm reduction measure is marketed. The success ofDSG will depend in part on how well this ideology of harm redistribution is accepted by thecommunity whether they are seen as a meaningful restriction and control of supply or as amechanism for further EGM distribution.


5/73

3

Contents

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................41.1. Definingdestination-style gambling: from concept to strategy.............................................41.2. A Destination-style venue typology...............................................................................................51.3. Spatial structure and social outcome an organisational framework.......................................6

2. Problem Gambling and the Socio-Spatial Environment..................................................92.1 Accessibility, exposure and problem gambling.............................................................................9

2.1.1. Accessibility........................................................................................................................................92.1.2. Exposure and adaptation theory...............................................................................................102.1.3. Accessibility, exposure, and problem gambling....................................................................11

2.2 Convenience gambling and problem gambling...........................................................................122.2.1. Convenience gambling definition and impacts.....................................................................122.2.2 Convenience gambling case studies: from correlation to causation................................152.2.3. Gambling type and social outcome ..........................................................................................162.2.4. Gambling availability and problem gambling: the Australian experience ....................16

3. The Role of Venue Characteristics in Mediating Problem Gambling ........................... 183.1. Venue types, accessibility and problem gambling......................................................................18

3.1.1 Type of destination and market appeal ....................................................................................193.1.2. Distance to venue and participation.........................................................................................203.1.3. Distance to venue and problem gambling.............................................................................213.1.4. Social disadvantage and EGM location in Australia and NZ...........................................233.1.5. Social characteristics of venue catchments and problem gambling reduction............253.1.6. The issue of venue catchments..................................................................................................25

3.2. Venue-based gambling and social outcome................................................................................273.2.1 Economic impact of venue-based gambling..........................................................................283.2.2 Social impacts of venue-based gambling.................................................................................283.2.3 Harm minimisation and venue-based gambling....................................................................30

3.3 Venues and social harm a summary ............... ...................... ...................... ................... ............324. Regulation and Design: Towards a Destination-style Gambling Environment........33

4.1. Client types, levels of participation and vulnerability................................................................344.2. Venue characteristics......................................................................................................................36

4.2.1. Type of gambling...........................................................................................................................364.2.2. Number of EGMs .........................................................................................................................374.2.3. Distance from markets .................................................................................................................374.2.4. Facilities.............................................................................................................................................38

4.3. Community relationships, ownership and control ................... ..................... .................... ........384.4. Venue type, clientele and harm minimisation ................ ..................... .................... ................... 40

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................425.1. The social outcomes of a DSG model in Victoria.....................................................................425.2. The requirements for successful destination-style gaming.......................................................445.3. Recommended areas for research and monitoring....................................................................45

6. References .......................................................................................................................46Appendix A - Methodology.................................................................................................52Appendix B List of All References Collected ..................................................................59


6/73

4

1. Introduction

1.1. Defining destination-style gambling: from concept to strategy

As defined by the Taking Action on Problem Gambling: A Strategy for Combating Problem Gambling inVictoria (Department of Justice 2006, 31): Destination gaming is a style of gaming venue thatencourages pre-determined decisions to gamble. The rationale for promoting pre-determinedgambling is that it will reduce gambling behaviours by those who gamble based on impulse alone.

The aim of the strategy is to restructure the gaming industry in a way that makes gaming venuesless accessible to vulnerable communities, shifting towards more destination gaming venues, suchas racetracks, and resulting in fewer venues across Victoria. Thus the consolidation of gamblingopportunities in the less accessible, more specialised venues implied by the destination-stylegambling (DSG) model may be expected to reduce some of the major risk factors for problemgambling, particularly among vulnerable populations. The purpose of this literature review is toattempt to find out if a distribution or supply model based on destination-style gaming will resultin reduced social harm in comparison with the current regime. In other words, does the literaturesuggest that a DSG strategy will produce a net community benefit for the state of Victoria?

The first point to make is that neither the Project Brief, nor the supporting policy document,

provide a precise definition of the gambling model in question. As indicated above, DSG is asomewhat vague concept. As the concept is a newly emerged policy idea, it does not as yet have aparticular spatial expression of form with recognisable physical characteristics. In other words, weare unable to say X is a recognised example of destination-style gaming in the precise formbeing envisaged by the Victorian government. As a result, a definition of DSG must first beestablished in order to guide the review and its attendant policy implications. However, while notprecise, the supporting documents do, in a very general way, outline what is meant by DSG interms of spatial scale and destination characteristics. A close examination of the Project Briefmore makes it possible to interpret the scale and character of DSG venues (refer to Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of Proposed Destination-Style Venues for Victoria

Project Brief Authors Interpretation

Fewer, larger venues in specific locations They will be larger than club and pub venues and havegambling as the primary function.

that require pre-determined decisions totravel and participate in gambling

Access to these venues will usually involve travel anddeliberate choice - rather than providingconvenient orimpulse opportunities and motivations to gamble.

which offer a broad range of services andfacilities

They may have commercial or community functionsattached, as an adjunct to gambling activities.

As the term destination suggests, DSG incorporates notions of a premeditated decision to travelfor the specific purpose of gambling. In other words, this style is intended to promote intent andconsidered choice, as opposed to impulse-based decision-making which may be associated withthe visual stimuli of gambling opportunities. Therefore, the DSG strategy is based on thepremise that problem gambling is associated with impulse control and the ready availability ofgambling opportunities in local environments - so-called convenience gambling. It follows thatthe prevalence of problem gambling behaviours in a community could be reduced if the supplystructure was modified. This modification of supply structure is at the heart of the destinationgambling concept. Essentially, a reduction in and/or a centralisation of supply of gamblingopportunities into fewer, larger venues, presumably located away from what we may termvulnerable communities for current purposes (i.e. communities with low socioeconomic status(SES)), may reduce the level of problem gambling associated with convenience gambling and


7/73

5

associated impulse control. In this sense, the exploration of the DSG concept is not aboutparticular destinations or facilities (these were not been specified in the brief), but about therelationship between spatial structure and social outcomes.

From this perspective we may interpret the Brief in the following terms:

DSG implies a modification of supply structure based on geographic scale, that is, the consolidation of gambling

opportunities into fewer larger venues, with the purpose of producing particular social outcomes, in this case reducingthe harm to consumers associated with gambling.

The purpose of the current report is to review the available published literature in Australia andoverseas to determine what information already exists about the relationship between spatialstructure and social outcomes as manifested in various regimes of gambling service provision andconsumption. It will use the literature as a platform from which to critically assess the DSGprinciple. In particular, the review will focus on the relationship between gambling accessibilityand problem gambling as mediated by a range of structural (e.g. venue type, location, gamblingmodes, range of facilities, transport connectedness), process (e.g. regulatory controls, marketingstrategies) and outcome variables (e.g. client characteristics, community structure and wellbeing).

This conceptualisation of DSG as a move towards consolidation of supply structures (i.e. as the

opposite of convenience gambling) as opposed to a specific physical form enables theconsideration of various supply configurations from around the world. It allows theconsideration of different scales and patterns of gambling venues and their social impacts. Theseexperiences may then be distilled to a set of key principles based on research finding that may beused to provide a list of recommendations for supply-consolidation initiatives for Victoria.

1.2. A Destination-style venue typology

Given that examples of the envisioned destination-style gambling venues do not exist, somesuppositions will be made based on the principles drawn from their differences from other venuetypes. Some of the closest equivalents are the larger service and sporting clubs in Australia, urban

casinos and racinos (a term used in the United States to describe racetracks with additionalgambling facilities such as electronic gambling machines (EGMs) (see Thalheimer and Ali 2003).Discriminating between venue types is problematic as there is considerable confusion about what

various venue descriptors mean in different places. For example, in the US the term casino refersto both specialised casino destination venues (as in Las Vegas) as well as urban casinos, which are

venues with more than 30 EGMs. In Australia, on the other hand, the latter describes a modestsporting club venue.

To circumvent this problem with nomenclature, a simple typology of venue types wasconstructed by the authors by positioning the proposed destination-style venues along two-dimensional space (see Table 2). On one hand, venues may be described in terms of theiraccessibility, defined as the ease, in the sense of both time and distance, with which venues may

be visited. This includes distance from normal day to day activities (i.e. work, recreation,shopping) of the venue clientele. Along a second dimension, gambling venues may be alsocategorised on the basis of their levels of involvement in, or engagement with, the hostcommunity. This second dimension refers to the degree ofembeddedness in (or isolation from)the activities of the host community (e.g. whether the community feels a sense of identification

with, or ownership, of the venue).


8/73

6

Table 2. A Typology of gambling venues

Physical Accessibility

Community Involvement Low High

Low Casino Resorts Shopping Mall Parlours, Gaming Arcades

High Destination-style Venues Sporting Clubs, Neighbourhood Pubs

In the terms of their position in the typology of Table 2, DSG venues would appear to be hybridsof casinos (physically remote, socially isolated) and local suburban clubs and pubs (accessible,embedded) rather than as a unique and original type of outlet. They are far-removed both fromthe extremes of the socially remote casino resort destinations (e.g. Las Vegas and Macau) andfrom the ubiquitous opportunities ofconvenience gambling in shopping malls, local arcades,and hotels. The exact positioning along these two dimensions will, of course need to be furtherspecified. The links with local community (e.g. along the lines of the large outer-suburban clubsin New South Wales) and spatial location (e.g. whether on racetracks or other sites) can takemany forms and have many possibilities. Regardless, this typology can act as an organising toolfor defining the conceptual space in which the DSG venue principle can be developed.

1.3. Spatial structure and social outcome an organisational framework

As specified in the Terms of Reference, the DSG principle will be investigated through referral tospecific required tasks, listed below:

To conduct a comprehensive literature review which will consider published articles andreports in Australian and international jurisdictions relevant to the topic.

To compare and contrast the definition and structure of destination-style gamingarrangements in Australian and international jurisdictions in relation to that literature.

To compare and contrast the manner in which harm reduction is defined in the contextof destination-style gaming examples in Australian and international jurisdictions.

To consider any indicators/measures utili sed to measure the presence or level of harmreduction within a destination-style gaming context in Australian and internationaljurisdictions.

To consider, discuss and analyse issues impacting upon the levels of harm reductioninvolved in various forms of destination-style gaming examples, drawn from both

Australian and international jurisdictions. To undertake a critical assessment of the common features/arrangements of destination-

style gaming venues that are considered successful in terms of yielding harm reductionoutcomes and the factors contributing to this.

To undertake a critical assessment of the common features/arrangements of destination-style gaming venues that are considered unsuccessful or less than satisfactory in terms ofyielding harm reduction outcomes and the factors contributing to this.

In effect all these tasks may be positioned within a conceptual framework that relates spatialstructure (i.e. the number, characteristics, and location of venues) to social outcomes (i.e. variousmeasures of harm-minimisation, with particular reference to the prevalence of problem gambling)(Fig. 1). This framework also takes into account the social processes that mediate thisrelationship, that is, government policy, regulatory measures, and community engagementstrategies that have demonstrably affected social outcomes.


9/73

7

The model displayed in Figure 1 sets out the conceptual framework for this review by illustratingthe set of relationships between the proposed DSG model and expected social outcomes. Thisfigure is based on the interplay between two dimensions running along the columns and downthe rows respectively:

a) The columns set out a causal framework for exploring the effects of industry structures on thevarious kinds of social impact or outcome of the proposed DSG model. The effects of structureon outcome are indirect, mediated and shaped by government legislation, regulatory controls andsocio-spatial processes such as accessibility, social class uptake and time-related patterns ofgambling.

(b) The rows set out the levels of analysis in a more spatial sense. Here the DSG-style ispositioned between the macro structures of ownership, government policy and communityresponse and the micro structures of the market, patterns of participation and social andeconomic impact.

The whole model therefore pivots around the middle cell on both dimensions (i.e. the celllabelled Regulatory Framework). The problem for this review is to specify how differentaspects of this model can inform the development of a regulatory framework for DSG to ensureminimisation of harm, whether communal, personal or socio-economic. In this context, problemgambling is documented as the primary social harm associated with gambling.

The term problem gambling is defined in different ways in the gambling research literature.According to the Australian national definition recently developed by Neal et al.(2005) (2005, p.i):Problem gambling is characterized by difficulties in limiting money and/or time spent on gambling which leads toadverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community. This report uses the term problemgambling in this sense, a categorisation made necessary by the various specific definitions in theliterature. The term harm, on the other hand, is used to refer to a more general set of harms, in

addition to problem gambling, that are potentially associated with gambling venues. These maybe, for example, indirect effects of problem gambling on family, friends, and the community atlarge; increased regressive fiscal burden on vulnerable populations, local crime, increased trafficand congestion, changing property values. The term harm is therefore used in this report as amore general measure of social consequence than the term problem gambling.


10/73

8

The review is structured in the following way:

Chapter 2 will explore what current literature reveals about the link between the distribution ofopportunities to gamble (e.g. in terms of exposure, accessibility, availability) and levels ofproblem gambling.

Chapter 3 will explore the factors (e.g. type of gambling, venue type and size, marketing, socio-

economic status of client community, relationships with the local community, location andaccessibility) that have been shown to moderate, reduce or increase the strength of therelationship between the distribution of gambling opportunities and levels of social problemgambling.

Chapter 4 will examine how the relationships between venue type (i.e. supply structure) andproblem gambling (i.e. social outcome) may be used to inform the type, design and location ofthe proposed destination gambling venues for Victoria.

Chapter 5 will draw conclusions from the research and policy literature to distil a set ofrecommendations for the introduction of a successful DSG model in Victoria.


11/73

9

2. Problem Gambling and the Socio-Spatial Environment

In its simplest form, the core premise of DSG is that the physical structure of the gamblingenvironment can affect gambling behaviour, and hence the social and psychologicalconsequences of gambling. In terms of general explanations for gambling behaviour, the variousapproaches may be grouped into internal (i.e. processes within the person) and external (i.e.environmental contexts of behaviour) determinants (Marshall 2005, 66). The bulk of previousgambling research has focussed on internal processes, and only recently has the environmentaland social dimensions of problem gambling causation been addressed. This relative neglect isdifficult to explain for, as Marshall (2005) points out, concentration, size and number ofgambling facilities, socio-economic characteristics of local populations, type of gambling product,opening hours, ease of access and cultural acceptancehave all been implicated as externaldeterminants influencing gambler behaviour. This imbalance is unfortunate because gamblingpolicy development would usefully address external influences on gambling behaviour given thatregulators and policy makers have some control over these parameters. Indeed, the introductionand expansion of commercial gambling has resulted in higher levels of problem gambling(Productivity Commission 1999), demonstrating that many gambling problems may be addressedthrough a reduction in the availability of gambling opportunities in particular regions. Therefore,it is important to establish which external factors are linked to gambling participation and the

incidence of problem gambling. The first step towards this goal is to examine the connectionbetween gambling availability (in its social and spatial dimensions) and social outcome in thiscase social harm measured as the prevalence of problem gambling. To do this it is necessary toreview some of the assumptions (and at times confusions) which inhabit the links betweengeographical space and the social, cultural and psychological influences associated with exposureto gambling opportunities.

2.1 Accessibility, exposure and problem gambling

2.1.1. AccessibilityExposure to gambling opportunities is closely related to the notion of accessibility, which is at

the heart of the DSG proposal. Accessibility is a broad construct that takes into account all thecircumstances that either enable or constrain an individual in expressing a decision to gamble.

Accessibility to a venue may be affected by the opening hours of a venue, the time available toindividuals (i.e. affected by their employment status, level of family duties etc), the moneyavailable for transport, the existing transport links to the venue, the closeness of the venue toexisting daily patterns (e.g. on the way to work or at the local shopping centres) and its socialmatch (i.e. some pubs will not be attractive to some people thus while gambling is available it isnot accessible). Thus accessibility is a function of a range of what may be termed geographicalconsiderations (i.e. wherethings are in relation to each other and how easy and/or desirable theyare to get to given the circumstances of the individual). These geographic considerations consistof transport routes, location of facilities, transport availability to individual households, timebudgets available to particular households, location of venues in the context of key transport

corridors, venue restrictions (i.e. gate-keeping and opening hours), and the social mix of venuesthat offers social accessibility to some groups and not others (see for example Foote 1996). Allthese are likely to affect overall accessibility, and hence overall exposure, to gamblingopportunities. As summarised by the Productivity Commission (1999, 8.6), gambling accessibilityis affected by a range of factors defined by the:

total number of gaming opportunities and the spatial distribution of opportunities, ease of access (how much effort is involved to go), number of opportunities in any given venue, and


12/73

10

venue characteristics including opening hours, conditions of entry, ease of use, initialoutlay required, social accessibility (i.e. the sense in which the venue provides a non-threatening and attractive environment to groups which may otherwise feel excluded).

Exposureto gambling will depend on how the mix of these factors play out in a given situation.Thus exposure is a function of accessibility rather than a function of just the total of gamblingopportunities (i.e. dot point one above). Exposure is determined more broadly by the way a

venue fits into a local community (i.e. dot points two through four above). For example, acommunity may have a high number of poker machines per head of population, but exposure tomost of the community will be low if accessibility is constrained on the basis of social class. Onemay suggest a white enclave golf or bowls club in a primarily Indigenous region may be aninstance of this. The main point is that an examination solely of gaming machine numbers in acommunity may be a misleading indicator of exposure because of the issues associated withdegrees of social accessibility. Put another way, it is necessary to know how accessible gamingmachines are to certain groups in order to determine exposure, and hence the risk of problemgambling. This is why the location of venues in relation to the community characteristics,including spatial behaviour, is a fundamental consideration.

It is important also to note that accessibility, because it is a multidimensional construct,

incorporates notions of time-usage as well as distance (see Delfabbro and LeCouteur 2006, 156).Because each individual will have a different ability to travel and from any particular geographicalpoint, accessibility at the individual level is heterogeneous, since travel time variations (e.g. due tocongestion and varying business hours) lead to spatially uneven reductions in accessibility. Thisaccords time a potentially more important role than distance in individual accessibility (Weberand Kwan 2002). Accessibility may therefore be conceptualised as a combination of distancefrom venue(s), time available to travel and gamble, and attractiveness of individual venues. This,in turn, will determine the relative exposure each individual has to gambling opportunities.

2.1.2. Exposure and adaptation theoryIn terms of theoretical perspectives to frame these associations, the gambling literature isdominated by references to what may be termed exposure theory. This epidemiological approach is

less about distance and accessibility, and more about exposure to risk factors. The approachviews gambling as a potential environmental toxin, one that increases the prevalence of problemgambling (i.e. as a causal factor in a related disease) among exposed populations. Exposure istherefore measured by dose (the total number of gambling opportunities), potency (theconcentration of different gambling forms) and duration (a measure of time), and indices may beconstructed for particular geographic regions (Shaffer et al. 2004a). Exposure theory suggestsproblem gambling increases due to the novelty of the new gambling opportunities to which thenew and existing groups are exposed. The theory also suggests that problem gambling willdecrease if the number of convenience gambling locations are reduced (that is the dose isreduced). If these are not reduced, then the addition of new establishments will increase both thedose, as well as the potency (the number of gambling opportunities) of gambling exposure, andtherefore result in an increase in the levels of problem gambling.

As Shaffer et al (2004a) found, the evidence for the exposure model is contradictory. Evidencefrom Nevada, for example, suggested exposure theory may explain increases in problemgambling rates with the introduction of gambling venues. However, over time, individuals adaptto the new opportunities and change their behaviour in response, resulting in a loweredparticipation (as social learning enables adaptation to the novelty of the new opportunity)(Shaffer et al 2004a, 42). Thus, while exposure theory explains the increase of problem gamblingin the context of new gambling opportunities, it fails to account for the reduction in problemgambling over time when the supply of gambling opportunities is held constant. In order to


13/73

11

explain why prevalence levels in response to a new gambling opportunity decrease over time,adaptation theory suggests that social learning allows people to modify behaviours throughexperience with the new venues. As a result exposure and adaptation theory need to be viewedsimultaneously. Shaffer et al. (2004b), in a review of these relationships, suggest that whileexposure effects may be related to novelty and will therefore diminish over time, the evidencesupporting adaptation is mixed, suggesting a possible weak trend in that direction. Obviouslymore research on the link between exposure and adaptation is needed. In particular, neither the

exposure nor the adaptation models take into account the internal factors at an individual level(e.g. propensity towards problem gambling), nor the cultural dimensions of gambling, or the roleof human agency in the constructing the gambling environment.

2.1.3. Accessibility, exposure, and problem gamblingHowever, for the purposes of this review, it is necessary to dwell on the issues of accessibility andexposure. If a causal link can be established in the literature between either of these factors andproblem gambling, then one would expect the reduction of gambling opportunities to beassociated with a reduction in the level of problem gambling. If the introduction of destinationstyle gambling venues (DSGVs) results in a reduction in levels of both accessibility and exposure(despite their adding to the variety of gambling options and perhaps the total number of EGMs),then they could be expected to reduce overall levels of problem gambling. In the words of

Abbott (2006, 22): If there is a causal relationship between gambling exposure and problemgambling, not only should problems increase with increased availability, problems shoulddiminish when availability decreases.

In the context of EGMs, Abbott (2006) comprehensively reviews the available evidence linkingaccessibility to problem gambling and finds the association to be more complex andmultidimensional than exposure theory suggests:

Gambling research within a population health paradigm is at a rudimentary stage ofdevelopment. This is reflected in the typically crude and varied ways in which aspects ofexposure have been selected and measured This variability, along with the paucity ofstudies meeting criteria that enable strong causal inferences to be drawn, mean that

findings must be interpreted with caution (Abbott 2006, p. 29).

Abbotts (2006) review concluded that proving causation is particularly difficult, since, whileassociations may be disproven by negative results, they cannot be proven by positive ones. Thelogic behind this dilemma suggests that there are many other variables at work which intervenebetween the structure of the gambling environment and its social and psychological impacts. Theepidemiological models of exposure, with their homogeneous assumptions about the socialenvironment, are inadequate as predictive models.

While there is a relationship between EGM availability and problem gambling, it appears that thislink is multidimensional and by no means inevitable, since environmental and situational factorsplay an important role. Abbott concludes that at present too little is known, in any particular

context, to be able to predict with certainty the consequences of increased or decreasedavailability (Abbott 2006, 34). If availability is expressed through exposure (and perhapsadaptation), then it is apparent that the features of the social environment must also be includedin any predictive model of problem gambling prevalence. The role played by context will beparticularly relevant to the exploration of the predicted effects of destination gambling, since therelationships between distance, exposure and accessibility on which the model is premised appearto not be simple or linear, but rather dependent on the many complex interactions betweenaccessibility and social context.


14/73

12

Thus there is an important distinction to be made between general availability, as exposure theorysuggests, and accessibility. Many of the concerns about the spread of commercial gambling haveemerged not just as function of the number of opportunities, but rather from the convenience orease with which they can be accessed. As we have seen, accessibility cannot be reduced to a singledimension of distance, nor, as exposure theory postulates, to more complex indictors ofavailability (concentration, duration of opening hours etc.), but rather to their interaction with thecharacteristics of their social and environmental context.

2.2 Convenience gambling and problem gambling

2.2.1. Convenience gambling definition and impactsThe complexity of the relationship between accessibility and problem gambling may be betterillustrated by reviewing the evidence from studies of the effects of convenience gambling, whichmay be seen in many ways as the polar opposite of destination gambling (see Table 2). To anextent this is also necessitated by the limited usage of the term destination gambling in theliterature, which makes it profitable to construct destination negatively, and reviewing theextensive literature on its opposite (i.e. convenience gambling). In other words, by examining

what destination gambling is not, we may be able to extract important findings as to the

relationships between availability, accessibility social context on the one hand and levels ofproblem gambling on the other. An examination of the literature on convenience gambling cantherefore be seen as a backdrop against which some of the predicted effects of destinationgambling may be reasonably inferred.

The National Gaming Impact Study Commission of the United States (1999) definedconvenience gambling as the placement of slot machines or video poker terminals inrestaurants, bars, drugstores, and other retail businesses meant to attract local residents, asopposed to tourists (cited in Ungar 2000, p.1). They also noted the terms convenience gamingand retail gaming which have been used to describe legal, stand-alone slot machines, videopoker, video keno, and other EGDs (electronic gaming devices added) that have proliferated inbars, truck stops, convenience stores, and a variety of other locations across several states

(NGISC 1999, 2-4). This definition has a strong locality element, one that connects gamblingwith environments that people travel through in the course of their daily lives (i.e. to drink, shop,eat etc). In these situations, people do not have to make a pre-meditated decision to gamble orengage in a concerted effort to reach a gambling venue. There are few barriers to consumption,

which is largely effortless. The most controversial feature of convenience gambling is the locationof gambling machines and the lack of opportunities for surveillance that this entails. Becauseconvenience gambling is proximate to residential and consumer orientated sites, gamingmachines (referred to generically as EGMs in this report) are encountered as part of daily life. Inparticular, they do not involve a specific purpose of visit (i.e. like a racetrack or casino) (NGISC1999, 2-5). This highlights the distinction between convenience and destination gambling, thelatter incorporating notions of consumer choice.

The association of interest to this review is between convenience gambling (i.e. gambling that ishighly accessible) and harm (i.e. problem gambling). If convenience gambling is associated withproblem gambling, then modification of supply may lead to a reduction in its reduction (qualifiedby type venue, characteristics of populations, processes of regulation, marketing etc). In other

words, the task is to determine if there is any evidence that convenience gambling (accessibility)leads to problem gambling. Conversely, is there any evidence that reducing accessibility reducesproblem gambling? These questions are pivotal because if convenience gambling proves to bebenign, then DSG is likely to be ineffectual as a strategy because the reduction in conveniencegambling it implies will have little impact on problem gambling prevalence.


15/73

13

The literature has reported a strong association between accessibility and problem gambling forsome time (Campbell and Lester 1999; Lester 1994). Indeed, most studies take the relationshipbetween accessibility, gambling and problem gambling almost as a given. For example, in areview of the trends in problem gambling the US and Canada, Shaffer et al. (1999, 62) write: Asgambling has become more socially accepted and accessible during the past 2 decades, adults inthe general population have started to gamble in increasing numbers. Evidence presented for

the ensuing link to problem gambling usually takes the form of prevalence studies and replicationsurveys that associate the general liberalisation and with increases in problem gambling.

For example, Lesieur (1992) suggested that in the US where there are more gamblingopportunities the prevalence of pathological gambling is higher. This claim echoed by Volberg(1994, 239): In states where legal gambling has been available for less than 10 years, less than0.5% of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers. In states wherelegal gambling has been available for more than 20 years, approximately 1.5% of the adultpopulation were classified as probable pathological gamblers. Another early American studyfound the opportunity to gamble at casinos, on slot machines, sports betting, jai alai andteletheatres was associated with a greater incidence of GA chapters (Lester 1994). A further studyof the relationship between presence and expenditure of video-poker gambling machines and GA

chapters in Louisiana found a slight but significant association (Campbell and Lester 1999).

In terms of studies outside America, a seven-year (1989 and 1996) replication study conducted inQuebec, Canada by Ladouceur et al. (1999) found that gambling participation and problemgambling increased alongside increased gambling accessibility (in terms of video lottery terminals

which increased from 0 to 14 644 as well as and 3 casinos. Prevalence of gambling increased 9%and problem gambling increased 75%. These associations are to some extent qualified bycausality. As Ladouceur et al. (1999) point outBecause of methodological limitations (use oftransverse samples and absence of a control group) definitive causal relations cannot be firmlyestablished. However, mounting evidence clearly suggests that opportunities for gambling affectthe frequency of gambling (Ladouceur et al. 1999, 803). Across the Pacific, in Japan the game of

pachinko, a form of convenience gambling, has grown phenomenally (around 4% of Japans GNP)

in part due to questionable legality and selective regulation and enforcement. It has beenquestioned due to increasing impactsThe scandal-ridden industry has come under fire forperceived social ills including police corruption, rampant tax evasion, involvement with organisedcrime, personal bankruptcies, child fatalities from negligent pachinkoholic parents, and its roleas a supplier of foreign currency to North Korea (Sibbitt 1997, 568). Further south in Australia,the Productivity Commission (1999) stated that while causation is hard to prove beyond alldoubt, the available evidence suggests the increased availability of gambling facilities, particularlyEGMs, is likely to result in increased prevalence of problem gambling (Productivity Commission1999, 8.1).

The general concern with the social impact of convenience gambling is summarised byEadington (1998, 62): The widespread placement of gaming devices leads to greater negative

social impacts caused by excessive gambling. With destination resort casinos, distance provides abuffer, however imperfect, to protect customers who would get into trouble with excessivegambling. Urban casinos lose the geographic buffer but can still adopt policies of self-banning orselective exclusion, as is done in Holland, Quebec, and Australia. With widely dispersed gamingdevices, the ability to impose protections is far more limited, however. To the extent that casino-style gambling creates social problems, non-casino gaming devices provide fewer policy optionsto address those problems. Indeed the findings in Australia linking EGM availability withdifferential social impact across disadvantaged populations have led to calls by non-governmentorganisations (NGOs) for reduction in accessibility to machines (Ronalds 2002). This has


16/73

14

produced strategies that reduce the number of machines placed those in transition zones such asaround shopping centres and train stations in routes to and from work (Ronalds 2002, 270). Inother words, convenience gambling is increasingly recognised as problematic largely because itexists in largely unregulated space.

However, there is an issue with the sheer proliferation of gambling venues, which in themselvesmay be seen as convenience gambling opportunities because the barriers to use in terms of space,

time and effort are relatively low. In the dramatic words of Bridwell and Quinn (2002, 721):Modern technology allows scores of compact gambling machines to convert any communityinto an oversized casino, and that a casino the size of a whole state is a land of trouble, ofrising bankruptcies, disintegrating families, escalating crime, damaged productivity and lostopportunity. The actual costs of this trouble is (sic) borne in the first instance by the poor, theuninformed and the young, and in the final instance by the taxpayer (Bridwell and Quinn 2002,729).

There are however cases where convenience gambling has not translated into problem gambling.A survey conducted in Norway found one third of 13-15 year olds had played EGMS, a findingattributed to their relative accessibility (Olason et al. 2006). These are low stakes EGMs in kiosks,fast-food restaurants, and video stores. Since young people are less likely to play in adult venues

(i.e. arcades, bars and licensed restaurants) than public places, youth gambling problems may beincreased by convenience gambling in Norway. However, Lund (2006) points out that problemgambling is low in Norway despite significant convenience gambling. Problem gambling (lifetimemeasure using DSM-IV based lifetime measure) is 1.4% in Norway despite the wide accessibilityof casino-type gambling in public areas with no age control (e.g. petrol stations, supermarketsand shopping centres) and with some gambling venues available 24 hours per day (Lund 2006,488). Lund explains this in two ways. First, while Norway has liberal convenience gamblinglegislation, it has banned international casinos. The games normally found in casinos such asroulette and poker are very limited and this may offset any increase associated with conveniencegambling machines (due to a narrowed choice of games). Second, Lund suggests the absence ofcasinos has limited the social structures and contexts that can develop around gaming. This couldbe due to the location of machines in convenience areas, as opposed to gambling venues. Abbott

(2006) explains this same finding in the low number of machines per venue, lack of anonymity(machines are in full view of people doing other things such as shopping), low comfort (seating isgenerally not provided and machines were often placed near shop doorways which are exposedto the weather), and location in alcohol and smoking restricted areas. As a result, this contexts ofgambling is not conducive to sustained immersion. The important point is that the impacts ofconvenience gamblingper seare mediated by social and environmental context.

The importance of the social contexts of gambling is displayed by the fruit-machines of the UK,a type of slot machine with a skill component available to minors. The widespread availability ofmachines has been linked to problem gambling amongst youth in the UK, particularly males(Gambling Review Body 2001). As the arcades in which they are located are social or peerenvironments, these structures results in various forms and expressions of gambling behaviour

(Fisher 1993; Griffiths 2003). In other words, gambling has as much to do with the socialrelations between individuals as it does with the exposure of a particular individual to a machine.

Thus while patterns appear evident at the broader level, that is, convenience gambling appears tobe associated with increased levels of problem gambling, this is not always the case in particularsettings or local environments. To understand these patterns more fully, some attention needs tobe focused on the issue of causation.


17/73

15

2.2.2 Convenience gambling case studies: from correlation to causationA dramatic example of the association between availability and prevalence of problem gamblingwas witnessed in the case of South Carolina reported by (Bridwell and Quinn 2002). SouthCarolina possessed no large venues (i.e. casinos), but did introduce convenience gambling in theform of video poker machines. In the words of the authors South Carolina compensated for itslack of a true destination casino by licensing bars, car washes, restaurants, night clubs,laundromats, bus stations, convenience stores, hair salons, truck stops, bowling alleys, coffee

shops, gas stations and even business offices to operate video poker machines (Bridwell andQuinn 2002, 697). As a result, the opportunity to gamble was the highest of any US stateincluding Nevada. A survey conducted by the authors found that 62% of players cited having a

video machine close to home as an inducement. Within 90 days of video machines being bannedin 2000, the number of active GA groups fell from 32 to 16 with several groups reporting smallermeeting sizes - from an average of forty to one or two. The gambling help hotline reported thecalls per month falling from over two hundred to zero. In a similar vein Abbott (2006) cites thecase of South Dakota which shut down EGMs for three months while leaving other forms ofgambling unaffected. During the closure period, the number of calls from people seeking helpfrom treatment centres reduced from 68 to 10, with the number increasing to 24 per month afterthe ban. These cases do illustrate the linkage between availability and problem gambling, at leastin the short term. While other cases of severe reductions are not available, Australian jurisdictions

have introduced EGM caps (particularly Victoria) although these have been generally ineffectualin reducing the level of problem gambling largely because the caps were too small to reduce theavailability of EGMs (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies 2005). This suggests that tobe effectual the availability needs to be greatly reduced.

In a more clinical fashion, the question of the effect of EGM accessibility on problem gamblerself-control control was assessed through focus groups and a laboratory-based experimentaldesign by Ladouceur et al. (2005). The majority of problem gamblers interviewed suggested thatestricted EGM availability (i.e. having fewer in bars, racetracks, and gambling rooms replaced

with one or two venues with more EGMs) would we likely to reduce attractiveness and promotecontrol. However, this subjective response was not supported by a laboratory experiment. Basedon these limited results the authors listed four key benefits of reducing the number of EGM

venues and grouping them in fewer venues. They suggested this approach would:1. decrease the frequency of gambling, loss of control and excessive gambling,2. reduce the proximity of the population to gambling sites,3. reduce the exposure of non-gamblers to EGMs and enable filtering of clientele (e.g.

limits access by minors), and4. allow new venues to introduce problem gambling-minimisation programs such as self-

exclusion (Ladouceur et al. 2005, 151).

However, this work was carried out in a contrived setting, and the external applicability of resultsis questionable. The evidence is based on the opinion of probable problem gamblers that maynot find a real-world expression. Unfortunately, few examples exist of what actually happens inpractice when supply structures are rearranged. The examples that do exist are affected by

confounding variables which complicate the picture, and hence limit the strength of theconclusions that may be drawn. Thus the available research into the casual factors affecting therelationship between convenience gambling and problem gambling is limited. The extant researchidentifies a range of confounding variables that mediate the relationship between gamblingopportunity and problem gambling. In other words, both the type and context of gambling isimportant. The next section looks more closely at gambling type.


18/73

16

2.2.3. Gambling type and social outcomeThe idea explored by this section is that different modes of gambling will affect groups indifferent ways. Put another way, certain types of gambling may be more closely associated withproblem gambling than others. This has implications for the DSG concept in that the type ofgambling offered within venues may affect the social outcome, that is, the level of problemgambling. For example, initial studies of problem gamblers have found a male bias, althoughmore recently this gender difference has been reduced with the advent of EGMs, a technology

more friendly to females (Abbott 2006; Productivity Commission 1999). Ii is also clear that the emotivations for pathological gamblers differ between gambling forms. For example, Bonnaire etal. (2006) found the problem gambler who bet at racetracks was more interested in sensation-seeking than those who played games in cafes. Even within problem gamblers there are differentsubgroups. A study by Fabian (1995) of GA members in Germany found that there weredifferences between casino gamblers and German-slot machine gamblers. The former spent moreand displayed more intense gambling problems and psychosocial consequences, indicating thatthe type of gambling was important, which in turn locates the problem in particular venues.

The relationship between gambling type and gambling behaviour is corroborated by otherinternational studies. A study of Brazilian gamblers from different settings (bingo, video poker,horse-racing clubs) found that the demographic profile differed between gambling activity types

(i.e. video poker players were more likely to be young and single and were more at risk asmeasured by South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) scores). In the context of EGMs, Morrison(2004) reported negative impacts specifically on Maori women. Breen and Zimmerman (2002)found EGMs to be associated with a shorter onset of problem gambling among outpatients inRhode Island, US (1.1 v 3.6 years, which is the time gap between regular play and problemgambling diagnosis). Again, some of these results may be explained by reference to availability.

As Breen and Zimmerman (2002, 24) point out We should consider the possibility that a morerapid problem gambling-onset in machine gamblers occurs because of the geographic proximityand convenience of machines for many of our patients. Other studies also single out thepowerful effects of EGMs on gambler behaviour. For example, high-stakes EGMs areincreasingly important in Nevada (Clark County, US) where monthly revenue varies with regardto the number of machines (and table games), volume of tourists, and index of travel costs

(Levitzky et al. 2000). These high stakes slots were found to be drawing business away from themore traditional table games. It appears from these assorted studies that the type of gambling willdirectly affect gambler behaviour, including the level of problem gambling. Most of thedocumented harm (in the form of problem gambling) appears to be associated with EGMs ofsome description, a gambling form which continually evolves through technological advancessuch as jackpot linking.

2.2.4. Gambling availability and problem gambling: the Australian experienceThese overseas findings resonate powerfully with the Australian experience. At a jurisdictionallevel for example, the state of Western Australia, has been found to have a much lower level ofproblem gambling than other jurisdiction largely because it has restricted access to EGMs outsideof casinos, a policy influenced in part by a strong public health advocacy campaign (Howat et al.

2005). This protected WA towns from the experiences of jurisdictions such as South Australia,where the localised costs of EGMs, described by Marshalls (1998) study of Peterborough, werefound to have exacerbated existing problems and brought new ones. The introduction of EGMseffectively resulted in a shift in the expenditure from existing residents to the benefit of hotelowners, one that broadly disadvantaged of the rest of the community in that economic benefitsand multipliers did not spread beyond the industry as anticipated (Marshall 1998).

The general experience in Australia was described by the Productivity Commission (1999) whoidentified a relationship between increasing gambling availability and problem gambling,


19/73

17

particularly in the context of EGMs. There is ample evidence that increased EGM availability at apopulation level has been associated with rising levels of problem gambling. The South AustraliaIndependent Gambling Authoritys Inquiry into management of gaming machine numbers (p. 2), forexample, concluded that there is a causal relationship between the accessibility of gamingmachines and problem gambling and other consequential harm in the community. An Appendixto this report prepared by Paul Delfabbro of the University of Adelaide found what the authordescribed as reasonable evidence to support the existence of a positive association between

problem gambling and EGM numbers. This was based on a high correlation between EGMdensity and expenditure, areas which were identified with high socioeconomic disadvantage.

There was also an association between distribution of problem gambling clients and density ofEGMS. Livingstone (2001a), in a discussion paper for the Australian Institute for Primary Care,supported the idea of capping based on the evident association between density of EGMS,machine expenditure and socioeconomic status (SES) of local areas. He claimed that most of theproblem gambling in Australia is related to EGMs and their consumption represented a searchfor meaning, away from the alienating world of objectification, heteronomy and order(Livingstone 2005, 533).

Generally in Australia however, convenience gambling is not a problem as such. EGMs aremainly located in licensed venues. However, these venues vary in their accessibility, with the

recent proliferation of machines in many jurisdictions (e.g. pubs, clubs) arguably redefining thevenue-based mode as a form of convenience gambling. In other words, while Australia may nothave the sort of convenience gambling discussed above in the overseas examples, we do have aform of convenience gambling based on the proliferation of gambling venues, a style of venue-based convenience gambling. Some gambling destinations, for example pubs and clubs, may berelatively convenient if these are located next to shopping centres. This is a problem of definition- most venues are not large casinos - they are convenient to a varying extent to different groups.

The term club may also be misleading since it disguises the variety in location and social impact.As result destination gambling venues need to be assessed according to these criteria (i.e.clientele, residence of clientele, catchments, impact on clientele groups with particular referenceto new groups). In applying these criteria to the DSG model, it is important that the majority ofpatrons have made a premeditated decision to gamble. To encourage this, perhaps the

destination-style venues in the model will only be accessible by car, a strategy that would movevenues away from convenience routes and areas of social congestion. In order to explore themechanisms that link the origins and destinations of gambling behaviours, the review now turnsto the literature on the local and venue-specific predictors of problem gambling.


20/73

18

3. The Role of Venue Characteristics in Mediating Problem Gambling

The examination of convenience gambling has provided a kind of benchmark case forinterrogating its opposite, the proposed destination-style model gambling. However, in order togauge the potential effect of the DSG model, we need to know how the distinctions betweenavailability, accessibility, exposure interact with the local and venue specific factors that areassociated with problem gambling. While there is a well-documented macro-level association inthe Australian case between exposure and problem gambling prevalence, this observation maymask the complex ways in which intervening local factors operate to either produce or suppresslevels of problem gambling. Given the DSG model is built around the expectation that reducedproximity and exposure will lower levels of problem gambling prevalence, it is necessary to teaseout the effects of these factors at a local level in order to maximise the social and communitybenefits of this strategy. The local factors explored in this chapter include:

Venue type Venue size Type of destination and market appeal Distance to venue and participation

Distance to venue and problem gambling Social disadvantage and EGM location in Australia and NZ Social characteristics of venue catchments The limiting issue of catchments Venue-based gambling and social outcome Economic impact of venue-based gambling Social impacts of venue-based gambling Harm minimisation and venue-based gambling

3.1. Venue types, accessibility and problem gambling

In Australia many clubs have emerged as leading suppliers of EGM gambling, becomingsignificant gambling destinations in their own right. However, the pub and club category containsconsiderable diversity as venues range from small local, convenience venues near supermarkets tosignificant suburban developments with hundreds of EGMs. In Australia and NZ clubs havebecome what Austrin and Curtis (2004, 44) describe as defacto suburban casinos. These arecharacterised by a mix of gambling forms including EGMS, wagering, sportsbetting and keno.

They are the closest identifiable form to the DSG model. However, clubs are different fromcasinos in several ways. They have a not for profit status, membership requirements and socialbenefit objectives. These features underpin the legitimacy of NSW clubs to be major EGMproviders (Hing 2006). However expansion and profitability have subordinated communitybenefit interests to the interests of commercial gambling a type of commercial expansion built

on an implicit social contract (Hing 2006). Hing(2006) points to the change in NSW clubs, whohave moved from a social to a commercial imperative, yet have ironically justified increasedEGM numbers using the social and community benefit of the clubs official charter.

A trend towards the concentration of gambling facilities in specific sites has similarly beenidentified in NZ by Austrian and Curtis (2004) who argue that over the past decade thecombination of EGMS with wagering in pubs and clubs has resulted in them becomingentertainment complexes or suburban casinos run ostensibly for community purposes (Austrinand Curtis (2004, 42). These clubs are the equivalent of suburban casinos in terms of the numberof machines they contain. Here the definitional problem of casino reappears. To place


21/73

19

Australian clubs in context, a recent paper by Griswold and Nichols (2006) defined casinos inAmerica as venues with 30 slot machines or more, or with both table games and slot machines.This would mean that most sports clubs in Victoria and throughout Australia would be classifiedas casinos by this definition.

In addition, there is a trend towards similarity or convergence the blurring of traditional socialdistinctions between types venues. This change of role and mission has been termeddesegregation by Austrin and Curtis (2004) who point out that technology (i.e. networkedrandom number generator) may be driving what they identify as a merging of gambling media, aprocess that makes possible one-stop gambling venues where different gambling media arecombined in a single site (Austrin and Curtis 2004, 41). This process results in the emergence ofhomogenised venues characterised by a single form of gambling. In essence, these are one-stopgambling venues in which all products are available to consumers at a single site. Desegregationappears to be common across jurisdictions, as evidenced by the homogenisation of gamblingmedia in the UK identified by Miers (1996). In this context, it may be that the technologicalforces of desegregation will naturally result in DSG venues. As Miers (1996) points out, this mayparallel a shift in policy from harm reduction through segregation of gambling forms, to revenue-generation through combination of forms, where venues actually stimulate rather than respond todemand. The process of desegregation appears to occur despite differences in ownership of

gambling and the motivations of state agencies (i.e.UK v NZ).

There are two points to distill from this section. First, the characteristics of venues are diverseand these characteristics are not necessarily related to the venue label - be it casino, pub or club.

Thus, these labels do not usefully serve as categories for this review. As a consequence, the DSGmodel cannot therefore be tied to any one system of nomenclature, but as suggested in Chapter1, may be more fruitfully positioned in terms of the axes of social and spatial relationships (see

Table 2). Second, the nature of technological advance may be reducing the distinction betweenvenues, making them more alike in the range of gambling products they offer. If a singlehomogenised gambling style emerges, then more venues would be attractive to more people,increasing total accessibility and exposure in the community. In the Victorian context, this wouldsuggest (a) that the DSG concept is a natural expression of technological changes (i.e. merging) in

the gambling environment and (b) that a reduction in the total number of venues would berequired if overall accessibility was to be reduced. It is therefore instructive to examine the morespecific local effects of venue location and levels of participation.

3.1.1 Type of destination and market appealBarr and Standish (2002) studied the effects of location of casinos in South Africa based on agravity model, a combination of size and distance. This study indicated a combination of factorspredicted participation levels: the willingness of people to gamble (which includes level anddistribution of income); the distance to venue and willingness to travel; the conditions and safetyof roads; the range of facilities and their general attractiveness; the social acceptability of gaming;and the presence of competition. This suggests that market appeal is a negotiation betweendestination characteristics and local geographies, a point made in the earlier section about

accessibility. It is interesting to note that as competition increases, the importance of localmarkets increase. A study by Shoemaker and Zemke (2005) found that out of a list of itemsdescribing reasons for visiting a casino in Las Vegas easy drive from where I live was the mostimportant. This was followed by venue characteristics (i.e. friendly employees, feeling of safety,good place to take out-of-town guests, convenient parking). At the bottom of the list was theeffect of casino promotions. These studies suggest that distance is more important thanmarketing strategies. However, the quality of the venue proved to be important a so-calledamenity value. This amenity is central to the attractiveness to local clientele and has importantimplications for community relationships and acceptance (Table 2). Thus a primary point from


22/73

20

the literature review is that different aspects of a venue appeal to different groups. Theattractiveness of DSG venues will depend largely on accessibility, but also on the market appealof the facilities of the venue itself, something which is largely unknown at this stage. Indeed,these relationships are likely to be complex. This complexity is reflected in Hallebones (1997)sociologically-informed exploratory study of Melbourne Casino, which illustrated that the reasonsfor different preferences are socially constructed, dynamic, and gendered. In other words, a

venue is a site for the expression of meanings and identity indicating that the motivations for

visiting gambling venues are more complex and socially relevant than may be indicated by anempirical leisure-based framework.

The venue characteristic most closely associated in the literature with gambling participation isthe number of EGMs. There is an apparent relationship between density of machines andexpenditure. Marshall (2005) found that EGM density was related to frequency of EGM use,duration of EGM sessions and session expenditure. More people tend to gamble if they live inhighly provisioned areas, and they do so more frequently and spend more money than theirgambling counterparts in less provisioned areas. Marshall found 83.5% of EGM users frequentedtheir most regular venue hence aggregate venue expenditure is largely sourced from localclientele. Marshall (2005, 76-77) also found an interesting exception in the case of Banora point,

which has higher participation rates than its machine density would predict. He explained this in

context of the main venues location adjacent the main local shopping centre, as well as a rangeof facilities onsite including a golf course, swimming centre, bowling green, and tennis courts.

This finding is important, in that it shows that other factors are important beyond the number ofmachines. Destinations with an attractive set of extra facilities and a favourable location willincrease gambling participation. It suggests that location of venues close to centres of commercialactivity may simulate the effects of convenience gambling, at least in increased levels ofparticipation.

3.1.2. Distance to venue and participationStudies from Australia and overseas indicate that gambling venues have a range of impacts on thepopulations close to where they are located. This is inevitable given that distance to markets isthe primary factor in the location of casinos. For example, a catchment approach to market

modelling of casinos in Louisiana and Mississippi by Fung and Wilkes (1998) used a two hourtravel time to delineate market range of gambling venues, a factor that clearly describes a form ofdestination gambling. In general though, casinos are located near large urban populations. In the

words of Davis and Hudman (1998, 86) Accessibility is perhaps the most important key inunderstanding the distribution pattern of Indian gaming-there is a close correlation overallbetween population distribution and the number of Indian gaming operations in a region. Thus,proximity to large populations accounts for the basic spatial distribution of casinos, and this islikely to hold for DSG venues.

Therefore, it is not surprising that findings emphasising the importance of proximity in makinglocational decisions permeate the literature. Ali and Thalheimer (1997)explored the relationshipbetween demand for horse-race wagering and transportation costs (including time and money) in

New Jersey. Accessibility was reflected in product demand, in that the amount of wagering wassensitive to travel costs (wagering could be increased by reducing travel costs), which in turncould be achieved by increasing the number of wagering sites and locating them strategically, byincreasing the number of racing days, or by reallocating racing days among different locations. Inother words, demand was related to accessibility of a gambling form other than EGMs. This doesnot, of course, measure problem gambling, merely the amount wagered. However, this findingdoes show that proximity, accessibility and demand levels may be closely related. Demand toriverboat casinos and racinos (Iowa, Illinois and Missouri) has also been related to accessibility ofmarket to venue. A ten percent increase in access resulted in an increased slot machine taking of


23/73

21

4% (Thalheimer and Ali 2003, 914).Further, Garrett and Marsh (2002) found that cross-bordershopping for lottery tickets in the US can lead to reduction in lottery revenues (i.e. thatcompetition occurs between jurisdictions), which indicates that the demand for all gamblingproducts has an important spatial component.

At the local level of analysis, Marshall et al. (2004) examined the catchments of eight clubs in theTuggeranong Valley (suburban Canberra). Some spanned large areas, while others were tightly

defined. There proved to be no standard distance from venue to market, and catchments werefound to have an uneven radius. This suggests the picture is more complex than a simple lineargravity model approach would suggest. Clubs with extensive catchments were located near areasof community congregation, while clubs with small catchments were located further away, oftenin lower SES suburbs (Marshall et al 2004, 98). In addition, patrons were prepared to traveldifferent distances to reach their favourite clubs. Of clubs with extensive catchments (2 from 8)patrons were travelling from up to 20km away. Other clubs had medium catchments (n=5) withsubstantial proportion of patrons travelling 5-10km. Only three clubs had tight catchments wherepatrons travelled less than 3km (Marshall et al 2004, 101). In terms of accessibility then, theMarshall et al (2004, 130) study suggested that proximity of gaming venues to places ofcommunity congregation (e.g. shopping centres) and the location relative to socio-economicdisadvantage influence gambler behaviour. These findings tend to support the notion of induced

demand, or supply-lead growth in which distance is a key variable, though in accessibility terms,this was also affected by the social dimension in terms of client characteristics such as age,gender, income and marital status (Marshall et al 2004, 131).

In a subsequent study, Marshall (2005) found a strong relationship between distance travelled togaming venues and expenditure on gambling in that people who lived closer to venues werebigger spenders. This study of the Richmond-Tweed area found that centres with the greatest percapita concentrations of EGMs also had the highest EGM participation, a factor that must berecognised in any move to a DSG. If accessibility to EGM venues drives levels of participation,then DSG venues will attract local residents as well as those with easy accessibility, for example,

who may use connected transport infrastructure as part of the daily lives or activity spaces. Thenumber of these new patrons who become problem gamblers is a different question. Marshall

(2005) claims that: While this research did not seek to identify the prevalence of problemgambling in the population, the findings of major geographical variations in the level of gambleractivity should serve as an indicator that similar patterns may be evident with regard to problemgamblers. Indeed, the relationship between accessibility and problem gambling is a complex oneas the next section will show.

3.1.3. Distance to venue and problem gamblingDelfabbro and Le Couteur (2006, 158), in commenting on the association between problemgambling and venue proximity, state that : These correlations suggest that a substantialproportion of problem gamblers appear to gamble very close to where they live, so that (allthings being equal) areas with a higher concentration of EGMs will tend to provide greateropportunities for people to gamble, and gamble to excess. A study by KPMG (2000) (reported

by Delfabbro and Le Couteur 2006, 158) found that Victorians typically travel only 2.5 kms togamble on EGMS, and this figure could be used to assess the range of impact of EGM clubs onlocal communities. However, this assessment is at off with the work by Marshall cited above whofound varying catchment sizes. It is equally unclear if people living close to venue (and whospend more as the study by McMillen and Doran 2006 found) are more likely to be problemgamblers. There is some obvious mismatch between the identification of proximity as a riskfactor in the total population (in which problem gambling is relatively rare) and theoverwhelming presence of proximity to a gambling venue as common characteristic amongidentified problem gamblers.


24/73

22

The casino-based studies of links between proximity and problem gambling are particularlyrelevant here, as these allow for variations on one dimension of the destination style model (see

Table 2). It has been claimed as well that urban casinos offer little as economic magnets andoften cannibalise the economy of their own community (Quinn 2001). Volberg (2002) (cited in(Abbott 2006)) found that the four Nevada counties with the most access to casinos had thehigher problem gambling prevalence rates than those with the least access. Spears and Boger

(2002) found that people who lived within 15 miles of a Native American Gaming developmentwere more likely to visit the development frequently (12 or more times) compared to people wholived 16-30 miles from the establishment. The National Opinion Research Centre study (Gersteinet al. 1999, ix)also found that the availability of a casino within 50 miles (versus 50 to 250 miles)is associated with about double the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers. Thisfinding is similar to the difference in the overall level of past-year casino gambling (40 percent ofadults living close to casinos versus 23 percent of adults living 50 to 250 miles away). This study,a time-series analysis from 1980-1997 of 1000 communities, was the first to bring the spatialstructure to general attention.

Despite the possible exception in the case of casino resort cities (e.g. Las Vegas and Macau),there is convincing evidence that proximity to a casino is associated with an increase in problem

gambling. Welte et al. (2004), identifies a distance effect and found that other competing facilities(card rooms, horse or dog tracks) did not moderate this effect. Welte et al. also suggest that onlysome facilities are problematic, potentially ones that encourage a wide clientele, or clientele whichhas not been previously exposed. These authors found that the number of casinos in the regiondid not increase the risk of problem gambling over and above the effect a single casino had. Theavailability of dozens of casinos had the same effect as one of these venues. In a similar vein,

Adams et al. (2007) found a proximity of casino effect on university students in Canada. Thisstudy looked at gambling and problem gambling by Canadian university students, based on theuniversity (n=4) proximity to a casino. Students of the two universities closest to a casinomanifested more serious problem gambling than students in universities located far from acasino. In fact eighty percent of the students categorised as pathological gamblers (SOGS score5+) were enrolled in universities near to casinos compared to 20% who were not near casinos.

In a definitive Australian study of accessibility and gambling behaviour, Baker and Marshall(2005) constructed a space-time model of trips to EGM gaming venues in the Richmond-Tweedarea of NSW. This model found that gambling behaviour was a function of the time spentgambling. Average EGM gamblers spent 40 minutes gambling per session and visit once perfortnight the average trip distance was 4.24km and the return trip time was 0.5h. The involvedgamblers (identified by average expenditure of $16,653 p.a. on EGMs) spent 104 minutesgambling at 2.9 times per week lived closer to the venue (2.05 km) (Baker and Marshall 2005,396-397). If this finding holds elsewhere, the implications are that expanding the number andaccessibility of venues increases the propensity for involved gambling. In the opposite sense,reducing the number and accessibility of gambling venues (including reducing opening hours) willdecrease the propensity for involved gambling. While this is not a measure of problem

gambling, one could infer a link, as most of the problem gamblers are sourced within this group.While this research supports the DSG concept, it only does so if other opportunities are removed- in other words, if the whole gambling environment were to be restructured.

Whether increases in gambling participation at the local level results in increased prevalence inproblem gambling is a moot point, as no firm or definitive causal link between the two has beenestablished in the literature. In a nutshell, where there are fewer constraints (spatial and temporal)more gambling results, although this is subject to the exposure terms of distance, size and tradinghours. The important intervening factor here, as the review explores later, may be the links


25/73

23

between accessibility (including exposure) and the relatively higher participation levels ofeconomically disadvantaged populations. In other words, while proximity to all kinds of gaming

venues may have exposure or accessibility effects in populations across countries with similarcultural and social features to those of Australia, the strength of this relationship is highlysusceptible to contextual variations. On the one hand, while participation levels are certainlyrelated to concentration, proximity, and accessibility, the link between proximity and problemgambling is more uneven, apparently mediated by the social and demographic characteristics of

the catchment area and, to a greater extent, of the client population. We now turn to define thosecontexts and subpopulations found to be most vulnerable to increased levels of exposure andaccessibility.

3.1.4. Social disadvantage and EGM location in Australia and NZThe overseas findings about distance to venue and gambling participation are supported in theresults from several Australian studies. There is an established link between social disadvantage,problem gambling and proximity to venues. At the state level, the Productivity Commission(1999) conducted an analysis of the relationship between income levels, total EGM spending, andnumber of EGMs in different areas (Vic, Qld, NSW and SA). The Commission reported anegative and significant relationship between income and the number of EGMs in Victoria, NewSouth Wales and South Australia, but not in Queensland, where no significant relationship was

found (Productivity Commission (1999) 10.41). The Commission also found that in Queensland,New South Wales, and South Australia there is a positive relationship between the number ofgaming machines in a location and the amount of money spent on them, so the greater density ofgaming machines in low income areas is not necessarily being compensated for by a lower spendper machine (Productivity Commission, 10.42). Paradoxically, it was only in South Australia thatthere was found to be a positive significant relationship between income levels and the totalamount spent on gaming machines. The Productivity Commission (1999, 10.42) concluded thatit remains the case that, in two of the four States studied, gaming machines are higher ineconomically disadvantaged areas and that, in turn, is likely to mean that people in those areasspend more on gaming machines than people in other areas.

However, a more recent study by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (2005)

found a link between lower incomes (explained by higher unemployment, higher proportion ofATSI, and higher proportion of dwellings rented from the Housing Trust) and higher EGMexpenditure areas. This study compared Victoria and South Australia with Western Australia,

which l imits gaming machines to the Burswood Casino (South Australian Centre for EconomicStudies 2005). The study indicated a much higher incidence of problem gambling (up to fivetimes) in those two states which license hotels, clubs and other community venues (South

Australian Centre for Economic Studies 2005). The evidence from these studies suggests, at leastat the broad regional level, a close association between disadvantage and EGM concentration.

A comprehensive review of Australian studies by Delfabbro and Le Couteur (2006)showed thatsubsequent work has confirmed the association between EGM density, expenditure and problemgambling. A number of other studies have identified a link between EGM density and

expenditure and socio-economic status. Several of these have found a positive relationshipbetween poker machine concentration and social disadvantage (Marshall 1999; Marshall andBaker 2001b; Marshall and Baker 2002; Productivity Commission 1999; South Australian Centrefor Economic Studies 2005).

A similar pattern was found in NZ by Wheeler et al. (2006) who found that the non-casinogaming machines were disproportionately located in the most deprived areas (using an index ofincome, unemployment, amenity access and education) with fifty-three percent of machineslocated in the most deprived thirty-three percent of census area units. In addition, Maori and


26/73

24

Pacific populations were more likely to reside in deprived areas. In Canada, both Wilson et al.(2006) and Gilliland and Ross (2005) found the spatial distribution of VLTs (video lotteryterminal) in Montreal reflected local socioeconomic disadvantage. VLTs were also moreprevalent near schools in worse off neighbourhoods compared with affluent neighbourhoods.

The relationship at the local level between disadvantage and EGMs is of great relevance to theDSG concept. Marshall (1999) found a relationship between spatial availability of EGMs,

expenditure, and socio-economic status of area in Adelaide. In other words, while accessibilityplays a role, also of importance was the socio-economic status of areas, with poorer regionsassociated with increased expenditure. Marshall and Baker (2001a) examined the relationshipbetween machine concentration and socio-economic disadvantage across two geographic scalesin Melbourne - Local Government Areas (LGAs) and Collection Districts (CDs). The results ofthis

Destination-Style Gambling

Documents

Transcript of Destination-Style Gambling