Destination-Style Gambling

A Review of the Literature Concerning the Reduction of Problem Gambling and Related Social Harm Through the Consolidation of Gambling Supply Structures A Taking action on problem gambling initiative May 2007

Authorised by Penny Armytage, Secretary Department of Justice 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne 3000 March 2008 Copyright State of Victoria, Department of Justice, 2008 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. ISBN-13: 978-1-921028-59-5 ISBN-10: 1-921028-59-9 The views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Justice.

Justice

Destination-Style Gambling
A Review of the Literature Concerning the Reduction of Problem Gambling and Related Social 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

Abstract
The goal of DSG concept is to reduce accessibility by vulnerable communities to convenience gambling by concentrating these opportunities in fewer dedicated gambling venues that require some effort and deliberate intention to visit. A regime that includes fewer venues will reduce the level of convenience-related gambling at the local level. Thus, in the context of harm minimisation, the principle of convenience gambling reduction through DSG is likely to be a sound policy. However, the effectiveness of DSG will depend on a meaningful reduction of EGM availability in poorer areas. Simply reducing total EGM densities across an area is likely to have limited effect. What is required is a spatial reconfiguration of supply, where gambling opportunities are completely reallocated in a way that affects the level of accessibility (taking into account space, time, and resource opportunities and constraints) within a vulnerable area. In essence, the effectiveness of the DSG model will depend on this simultaneous reduction in availability at the local level. In terms of the DSG venues themselves it is to be expected that fewer venues will have a more powerful and extensive effect on the areas in which they are located than the convenience venues they are designed to replace. As DSG venues are likely to occupy a new market, they will represent 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, and general amenity value. The real question is if this growth into new markets (and the harm caused by it, that is, the dispersal of problem gambling into new social groups) is to be offset by the reduction 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 on increased accessibility which means more spatial mobility which in turn requires wealth). The incidence of problem gambling may increase in these new markets. Conversely, the accessibility of the less mobile, lower socioeconomic groups who live in areas highly provisioned to gambling opportunities 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 be discounted by the reduction in convenience gambling. The degree to which this trade-off occurs (i.e. an increase in the harm among new groups versus a decrease of harm in existing, lower socioeconomic groups) will be mediated by the ability of larger DSG venues to implement effective harm reduction strategies. This is an advantage of the destination concept. If we accept that DSG venues will be the diametric opposite of convenience gambling, they will not only have the advantages of venue-based regulation and monitoring or problems, they will also have a strong community attachment and involvement. This would place DSG venues in a powerful position to implement preventative harm reduction measures (including issues of venue design), monitoring strategies, and amelioration programs that are simply beyond the ability of smaller venues or convenience gambling styles. Given that gambling operations (e.g. casinos and clubs) are increasingly positioned as sociallyresponsible corporations with responsibilities to regulators, the potential exists for DSG venues to meaningfully involve local communities into the overall harm reduction framework. The support of local communities depends not only on the facilities and amenities that DSG will provide, but also on how the DSG as a harm reduction measure is marketed. The success of DSG will depend in part on how well this ideology of harm redistribution is accepted by the community whether they are seen as a meaningful restriction and control of supply or as a mechanism for further EGM distribution. 2

Contents
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 1.1. Defining destination-style gambling: from concept to strategy.............................................4 1.2. A Destination-style venue typology...............................................................................................5 1.3. Spatial structure and social outcome an organisational framework.......................................6 2. Problem Gambling and the Socio-Spatial Environment ..................................................9 2.1 Accessibility, exposure and problem gambling.............................................................................9 2.1.1. Accessibility........................................................................................................................................9 2.1.2. Exposure and adaptation theory ...............................................................................................10 2.1.3. Accessibility, exposure, and problem gambling....................................................................11 2.2 Convenience gambling and problem gambling...........................................................................12 2.2.1. Convenience gambling definition and impacts .....................................................................12 2.2.2 Convenience gambling case studies: from correlation to causation ................................15 2.2.3. Gambling type and social outcome ..........................................................................................16 2.2.4. Gambling availability and problem gambling: the Australian experience ....................16 3. The Role of Venue Characteristics in Mediating Problem Gambling ........................... 18 3.1. Venue types, accessibility and problem gambling......................................................................18 3.1.1 Type of destination and market appeal ....................................................................................19 3.1.2. Distance to venue and participation.........................................................................................20 3.1.3. Distance to venue and problem gambling .............................................................................21 3.1.4. Social disadvantage and EGM location in Australia and NZ...........................................23 3.1.5. Social characteristics of venue catchments and problem gambling reduction............25 3.1.6. The issue of venue catchments ..................................................................................................25 3.2. Venue-based gambling and social outcome................................................................................27 3.2.1 Economic impact of venue-based gambling ..........................................................................28 3.2.2 Social impacts of venue-based gambling .................................................................................28 3.2.3 Harm minimisation and venue-based gambling ....................................................................30 3.3 Venues and social harm a summary ..........................................................................................32 4. Regulation and Design: Towards a Destination-style Gambling Environment........33 4.1. Client types, levels of participation and vulnerability................................................................34 4.2. Venue characteristics......................................................................................................................36 4.2.1. Type of gambling ...........................................................................................................................36 4.2.2. Number of EGMs .........................................................................................................................37 4.2.3. Distance from markets .................................................................................................................37 4.2.4. Facilities.............................................................................................................................................38 4.3. Community relationships, ownership and control ....................................................................38 4.4. Venue type, clientele and harm minimisation ............................................................................40 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................42 5.1. The social outcomes of a DSG model in Victoria.....................................................................42 5.2. The requirements for successful destination-style gaming.......................................................44 5.3. Recommended areas for research and monitoring....................................................................45 6. References .......................................................................................................................46 Appendix A - Methodology................................................................................................. 52 Appendix B List of All References Collected ..................................................................59

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 in Victoria (Department of Justice 2006, 31): Destination gaming is a style of gaming venue that encourages pre-determined decisions to gamble. The rationale for promoting pre-determined gambling 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 venues less accessible to vulnerable communities, shifting towards more destination gaming venues, such as racetracks, and resulting in fewer venues across Victoria. Thus the consolidation of gambling opportunities in the less accessible, more specialised venues implied by the destination-style gambling (DSG) model may be expected to reduce some of the major risk factors for problem gambling, particularly among vulnerable populations. The purpose of this literature review is to attempt to find out if a distribution or supply model based on destination-style gaming will result in reduced social harm in comparison with the current regime. In other words, does the literature suggest 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 a somewhat vague concept. As the concept is a newly emerged policy idea, it does not as yet have a particular spatial expression of form with recognisable physical characteristics. In other words, we are unable to say X is a recognised example of destination-style gaming in the precise form being envisaged by the Victorian government. As a result, a definition of DSG must first be established in order to guide the review and its attendant policy implications. However, while not precise, the supporting documents do, in a very general way, outline what is meant by DSG in terms of spatial scale and destination characteristics. A close examination of the Project Brief more 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
Fewer, larger venues in specific locations that require pre-determined decisions to travel and participate in gambling which offer a broad range of services and facilities

Authors Interpretation
They will be larger than club and pub venues and have gambling as the primary function. Access to these venues will usually involve travel and deliberate choice - rather than providing convenient or impulse opportunities and motivations to gamble. They may have commercial or community functions attached, as an adjunct to gambling activities.

As the term destination suggests, DSG incorporates notions of a premeditated decision to travel for the specific purpose of gambling. In other words, this style is intended to promote intent and considered choice, as opposed to impulse-based decision-making which may be associated with the visual stimuli of gambling opportunities. Therefore, the DSG strategy is based on the premise that problem gambling is associated with impulse control and the ready availability of gambling opportunities in local environments - so-called convenience gambling. It follows that the prevalence of problem gambling behaviours in a community could be reduced if the supply structure was modified. This modification of supply structure is at the heart of the destination gambling concept. Essentially, a reduction in and/or a centralisation of supply of gambling opportunities into fewer, larger venues, presumably located away from what we may term vulnerable communities for current purposes (i.e. communities with low socioeconomic status (SES)), may reduce the level of problem gambling associated with convenience gambling and 4

associated impulse control. In this sense, the exploration of the DSG concept is not about particular destinations or facilities (these were not been specified in the brief), but about the relationship 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 reducing the harm to consumers associated with gambling. The purpose of the current report is to review the available published literature in Australia and overseas to determine what information already exists about the relationship between spatial structure and social outcomes as manifested in various regimes of gambling service provision and consumption. It will use the literature as a platform from which to critically assess the DSG principle. In particular, the review will focus on the relationship between gambling accessibility and problem gambling as mediated by a range of structural (e.g. venue type, location, gambling modes, range of facilities, transport connectedness), process (e.g. regulatory controls, marketing strategies) 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 the consideration of various supply configurations from around the world. It allows the consideration of different scales and patterns of gambling venues and their social impacts. These experiences may then be distilled to a set of key principles based on research finding that may be used 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, some suppositions will be made based on the principles drawn from their differences from other venue types. 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 additional gambling 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 refers to 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 modest sporting club venue. To circumvent this problem with nomenclature, a simple typology of venue types was constructed by the authors by positioning the proposed destination-style venues along twodimensional space (see Table 2). On one hand, venues may be described in terms of their accessibility, 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 also categorised on the basis of their levels of involvement in, or engagement with, the host community. This second dimension refers to the degree of embeddedness 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).

Table 2. A Typology of gambling venues

Physical Accessibility Community Involvement

Low High Low Casino Resorts Destination-style Venues High Shopping Mall Parlours, Gaming Arcades Sporting Clubs, Neighbourhood Pubs

In the terms of their position in the typology of Table 2, DSG venues would appear to be hybrids of 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 from the extremes of the socially remote casino resort destinations (e.g. Las Vegas and Macau) and from the ubiquitous opportunities of convenience gambling in shopping malls, local arcades, and hotels. The exact positioning along these two dimensions will, of course need to be further specified. The links with local community (e.g. along the lines of the large outer-suburban clubs in New South Wales) and spatial location (e.g. whether on racetracks or other sites) can take many forms and have many possibilities. Regardless, this typology can act as an organising tool for 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 to specific required tasks, listed below: To conduct a comprehensive literature review which will consider published articles and reports in Australian and international jurisdictions relevant to the topic. To compare and contrast the definition and structure of destination-style gaming arrangements in Australian and international jurisdictions in relation to that literature. To compare and contrast the manner in which harm reduction is defined in the context of destination-style gaming examples in Australian and international jurisdictions. To consider any indicators/measures utilised to measure the presence or level of harm reduction within a destination-style gaming context in Australian and international jurisdictions. To consider, discuss and analyse issues impacting upon the levels of harm reduction involved 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 destinationstyle gaming venues that are considered successful in terms of yielding harm reduction outcomes and the factors contributing to this. To undertake a critical assessment of the common features/arrangements of destinationstyle gaming venues that are considered unsuccessful or less than satisfactory in terms of yielding harm reduction outcomes and the factors contributing to this.

In effect all these tasks may be positioned within a conceptual framework that relates spatial structure (i.e. the number, characteristics, and location of venues) to social outcomes (i.e. various measures 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 this relationship, that is, government policy, regulatory measures, and community engagement strategies that have demonstrably affected social outcomes.

The model displayed in Figure 1 sets out the conceptual framework for this review by illustrating the set of relationships between the proposed DSG model and expected social outcomes. This figure is based on the interplay between two dimensions running along the columns and down the rows respectively: a) The columns set out a causal framework for exploring the effects of industry structures on the various kinds of social impact or outcome of the proposed DSG model. The effects of structure on outcome are indirect, mediated and shaped by government legislation, regulatory controls and socio-spatial processes such as accessibility, social class uptake and time-related patterns of gambling. (b) The rows set out the levels of analysis in a more spatial sense. Here the DSG-style is positioned between the macro structures of ownership, government policy and community response and the micro structures of the market, patterns of participation and social and economic impact. The whole model therefore pivots around the middle cell on both dimensions (i.e. the cell labelled Regulatory Framework). The problem for this review is to specify how different aspects of this model can inform the development of a regulatory framework for DSG to ensure minimisation of harm, whether communal, personal or socio-economic. In this context, problem gambling 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 to adverse consequences for the gambler, others, or for the community. This report uses the term problem gambling in this sense, a categorisation made necessary by the various specific definitions in the literature. 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 may be, for example, indirect effects of problem gambling on family, friends, and the community at large; increased regressive fiscal burden on vulnerable populations, local crime, increased traffic and congestion, changing property values. The term harm is therefore used in this report as a more general measure of social consequence than the term problem gambling.

The review is structured in the following way: Chapter 2 will explore what current literature reveals about the link between the distribution of opportunities to gamble (e.g. in terms of exposure, accessibility, availability) and levels of problem gambling. Chapter 3 will explore the factors (e.g. type of gambling, venue type and size, marketing, socioeconomic status of client community, relationships with the local community, location and accessibility) that have been shown to moderate, reduce or increase the strength of the relationship between the distribution of gambling opportunities and levels of social problem gambling. Chapter 4 will examine how the relationships between venue type (i.e. supply structure) and problem gambling (i.e. social outcome) may be used to inform the type, design and location of the proposed destination gambling venues for Victoria. Chapter 5 will draw conclusions from the research and policy literature to distil a set of recommendations for the introduction of a successful DSG model in Victoria.

2. Problem Gambling and the Socio-Spatial Environment

In its simplest form, the core premise of DSG is that the physical structure of the gambling environment can affect gambling behaviour, and hence the social and psychological consequences of gambling. In terms of general explanations for gambling behaviour, the various approaches 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 previous gambling research has focussed on internal processes, and only recently has the environmental and social dimensions of problem gambling causation been addressed. This relative neglect is difficult to explain for, as Marshall (2005) points out, concentration, size and number of gambling facilities, socio-economic characteristics of local populations, type of gambling product, opening hours, ease of access and cultural acceptancehave all been implicated as external determinants influencing gambler behaviour. This imbalance is unfortunate because gambling policy development would usefully address external influences on gambling behaviour given that regulators and policy makers have some control over these parameters. Indeed, the introduction and expansion of commercial gambling has resulted in higher levels of problem gambling (Productivity Commission 1999), demonstrating that many gambling problems may be addressed through 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 connection between gambling availability (in its social and spatial dimensions) and social outcome in this case social harm measured as the prevalence of problem gambling. To do this it is necessary to review some of the assumptions (and at times confusions) which inhabit the links between geographical space and the social, cultural and psychological influences associated with exposure to gambling opportunities. 2.1 Accessibility, exposure and problem gambling 2.1.1. Accessibility Exposure 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 the circumstances 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 to individuals (i.e. affected by their employment status, level of family duties etc), the money available for transport, the existing transport links to the venue, the closeness of the venue to existing daily patterns (e.g. on the way to work or at the local shopping centres) and its social match (i.e. some pubs will not be attractive to some people thus while gambling is available it is not accessible). Thus accessibility is a function of a range of what may be termed geographical considerations (i.e. where things are in relation to each other and how easy and/or desirable they are to get to given the circumstances of the individual). These geographic considerations consist of transport routes, location of facilities, transport availability to individual households, time budgets 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 venues that offers social accessibility to some groups and not others (see for example Foote 1996). All these are likely to affect overall accessibility, and hence overall exposure, to gambling opportunities. As summarised by the Productivity Commission (1999, 8.6), gambling accessibility is 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 9

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

Exposure to 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 gambling opportunities (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, a community may have a high number of poker machines per head of population, but exposure to most of the community will be low if accessibility is constrained on the basis of social class. One may suggest a white enclave golf or bowls club in a primarily Indigenous region may be an instance of this. The main point is that an examination solely of gaming machine numbers in a community may be a misleading indicator of exposure because of the issues associated with degrees of social accessibility. Put another way, it is necessary to know how accessible gaming machines are to certain groups in order to determine exposure, and hence the risk of problem gambling. 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 geographical point, accessibility at the individual level is heterogeneous, since travel time variations (e.g. due to congestion and varying business hours) lead to spatially uneven reductions in accessibility. This accords time a potentially more important role than distance in individual accessibility (Weber and Kwan 2002). Accessibility may therefore be conceptualised as a combination of distance from 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 theory In terms of theoretical perspectives to frame these associations, the gambling literature is dominated 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 approach views gambling as a potential environmental toxin, one that increases the prevalence of problem gambling (i.e. as a causal factor in a related disease) among exposed populations. Exposure is therefore measured by dose (the total number of gambling opportunities), potency (the concentration of different gambling forms) and duration (a measure of time), and indices may be constructed for particular geographic regions (Shaffer et al. 2004a). Exposure theory suggests problem gambling increases due to the novelty of the new gambling opportunities to which the new and existing groups are exposed. The theory also suggests that problem gambling will decrease if the number of convenience gambling locations are reduced (that is the dose is reduced). If these are not reduced, then the addition of new establishments will increase both the dose, as well as the potency (the number of gambling opportunities) of gambling exposure, and therefore result in an increase in the levels of problem gambling. As Shaffer et al (2004a) found, the evidence for the exposure model is contradictory. Evidence from Nevada, for example, suggested exposure theory may explain increases in problem gambling rates with the introduction of gambling venues. However, over time, individuals adapt to the new opportunities and change their behaviour in response, resulting in a lowered participation (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 gambling in the context of new gambling opportunities, it fails to account for the reduction in problem gambling over time when the supply of gambling opportunities is held constant. In order to 10

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 through experience with the new venues. As a result exposure and adaptation theory need to be viewed simultaneously. Shaffer et al. (2004b), in a review of these relationships, suggest that while exposure effects may be related to novelty and will therefore diminish over time, the evidence supporting adaptation is mixed, suggesting a possible weak trend in that direction. Obviously more 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 role of human agency in the constructing the gambling environment. 2.1.3. Accessibility, exposure, and problem gambling However, for the purposes of this review, it is necessary to dwell on the issues of accessibility and exposure. If a causal link can be established in the literature between either of these factors and problem gambling, then one would expect the reduction of gambling opportunities to be associated with a reduction in the level of problem gambling. If the introduction of destination style 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 problem gambling, not only should problems increase with increased availability, problems should diminish when availability decreases. In the context of EGMs, Abbott (2006) comprehensively reviews the available evidence linking accessibility to problem gambling and finds the association to be more complex and multidimensional than exposure theory suggests: Gambling research within a population health paradigm is at a rudimentary stage of development. This is reflected in the typically crude and varied ways in which aspects of exposure have been selected and measured This variability, along with the paucity of studies 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, while associations may be disproven by negative results, they cannot be proven by positive ones. The logic behind this dilemma suggests that there are many other variables at work which intervene between the structure of the gambling environment and its social and psychological impacts. The epidemiological models of exposure, with their homogeneous assumptions about the social environment, are inadequate as predictive models. While there is a relationship between EGM availability and problem gambling, it appears that this link is multidimensional and by no means inevitable, since environmental and situational factors play 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 decreased availability (Abbott 2006, 34). If availability is expressed through exposure (and perhaps adaptation), then it is apparent that the features of the social environment must also be included in any predictive model of problem gambling prevalence. The role played by context will be particularly relevant to the exploration of the predicted effects of destination gambling, since the relationships between distance, exposure and accessibility on which the model is premised appear to not be simple or linear, but rather dependent on the many complex interactions between accessibility and social context.

11

Thus there is an important distinction to be made between general availability, as exposure theory suggests, and accessibility. Many of the concerns about the spread of commercial gambling have emerged not just as function of the number of opportunities, but rather from the convenience or ease with which they can be accessed. As we have seen, accessibility cannot be reduced to a single dimension of distance, nor, as exposure theory postulates, to more complex indictors of availability (concentration, duration of opening hours etc.), but rather to their interaction with the characteristics of their social and environmental context. 2.2 Convenience gambling and problem gambling 2.2.1. Convenience gambling definition and impacts The complexity of the relationship between accessibility and problem gambling may be better illustrated by reviewing the evidence from studies of the effects of convenience gambling, which may be seen in many ways as the polar opposite of destination gambling (see Table 2). To an extent this is also necessitated by the limited usage of the term destination gambling in the literature, which makes it profitable to construct destination negatively, and reviewing the extensive 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 of problem gambling on the other. An examination of the literature on convenience gambling can therefore be seen as a backdrop against which some of the predicted effects of destination gambling may be reasonably inferred. The National Gaming Impact Study Commission of the United States (1999) defined convenience gambling as the placement of slot machines or video poker terminals in restaurants, bars, drugstores, and other retail businesses meant to attract local residents, as opposed to tourists (cited in Ungar 2000, p.1). They also noted the terms convenience gaming and retail gaming which have been used to describe legal, stand-alone slot machines, video poker, video keno, and other EGDs (electronic gaming devices added) that have proliferated in bars, 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 gambling with 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 or engage 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 location of gambling machines and the lack of opportunities for surveillance that this entails. Because convenience gambling is proximate to residential and consumer orientated sites, gaming machines (referred to generically as EGMs in this report) are encountered as part of daily life. In particular, they do not involve a specific purpose of visit (i.e. like a racetrack or casino) (NGISC 1999, 2-5). This highlights the distinction between convenience and destination gambling, the latter incorporating notions of consumer choice. The association of interest to this review is between convenience gambling (i.e. gambling that is highly accessible) and harm (i.e. problem gambling). If convenience gambling is associated with problem gambling, then modification of supply may lead to a reduction in its reduction (qualified by 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 reduces problem gambling? These questions are pivotal because if convenience gambling proves to be benign, then DSG is likely to be ineffectual as a strategy because the reduction in convenience gambling it implies will have little impact on problem gambling prevalence. 12

The literature has reported a strong association between accessibility and problem gambling for some time (Campbell and Lester 1999; Lester 1994). Indeed, most studies take the relationship between accessibility, gambling and problem gambling almost as a given. For example, in a review of the trends in problem gambling the US and Canada, Shaffer et al. (1999, 62) write: As gambling has become more socially accepted and accessible during the past 2 decades, adults in the 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 replication surveys that associate the general liberalisation and with increases in problem gambling. For example, Lesieur (1992) suggested that in the US where there are more gambling opportunities 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 than 0.5% of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers. In states where legal gambling has been available for more than 20 years, approximately 1.5% of the adult population were classified as probable pathological gamblers. Another early American study found the opportunity to gamble at casinos, on slot machines, sports betting, jai alai and teletheatres was associated with a greater incidence of GA chapters (Lester 1994). A further study of 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 in Quebec, Canada by Ladouceur et al. (1999) found that gambling participation and problem gambling 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 by causality. As Ladouceur et al. (1999) point out Because of methodological limitations (use of transverse samples and absence of a control group) definitive causal relations cannot be firmly established. However, mounting evidence clearly suggests that opportunities for gambling affect the 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 been questioned due to increasing impacts The scandal-ridden industry has come under fire for perceived social ills including police corruption, rampant tax evasion, involvement with organised crime, personal bankruptcies, child fatalities from negligent pachinkoholic parents, and its role as 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 all doubt, the available evidence suggests the increased availability of gambling facilities, particularly EGMs, is likely to result in increased prevalence of problem gambling (Productivity Commission 1999, 8.1). The general concern with the social impact of convenience gambling is summarised by Eadington (1998, 62): The widespread placement of gaming devices leads to greater negative social impacts caused by excessive gambling. With destination resort casinos, distance provides a buffer, however imperfect, to protect customers who would get into trouble with excessive gambling. Urban casinos lose the geographic buffer but can still adopt policies of self-banning or selective exclusion, as is done in Holland, Quebec, and Australia. With widely dispersed gaming devices, the ability to impose protections is far more limited, however. To the extent that casinostyle gambling creates social problems, non-casino gaming devices provide fewer policy options to address those problems. Indeed the findings in Australia linking EGM availability with differential social impact across disadvantaged populations have led to calls by non-government organisations (NGOs) for reduction in accessibility to machines (Ronalds 2002). This has 13

produced strategies that reduce the number of machines placed those in transition zones such as around shopping centres and train stations in routes to and from work (Ronalds 2002, 270). In other words, convenience gambling is increasingly recognised as problematic largely because it exists in largely unregulated space. However, there is an issue with the sheer proliferation of gambling venues, which in themselves may 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 community into an oversized casino, and that a casino the size of a whole state is a land of trouble, of rising bankruptcies, disintegrating families, escalating crime, damaged productivity and lost opportunity. The actual costs of this trouble is (sic) borne in the first instance by the poor, the uninformed 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 finding attributed 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 be increased by convenience gambling in Norway. However, Lund (2006) points out that problem gambling is low in Norway despite significant convenience gambling. Problem gambling (lifetime measure using DSM-IV based lifetime measure) is 1.4% in Norway despite the wide accessibility of casino-type gambling in public areas with no age control (e.g. petrol stations, supermarkets and 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 gambling legislation, it has banned international casinos. The games normally found in casinos such as roulette and poker are very limited and this may offset any increase associated with convenience gambling machines (due to a narrowed choice of games). Second, Lund suggests the absence of casinos has limited the social structures and contexts that can develop around gaming. This could be 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 is generally not provided and machines were often placed near shop doorways which are exposed to the weather), and location in alcohol and smoking restricted areas. As a result, this contexts of gambling is not conducive to sustained immersion. The important point is that the impacts of convenience gambling per se are 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 of machines 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 peer environments, 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 social relations 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 to be associated with increased levels of problem gambling, this is not always the case in particular settings or local environments. To understand these patterns more fully, some attention needs to be focused on the issue of causation.

14

2.2.2 Convenience gambling case studies: from correlation to causation A dramatic example of the association between availability and prevalence of problem gambling was witnessed in the case of South Carolina reported by (Bridwell and Quinn 2002). South Carolina possessed no large venues (i.e. casinos), but did introduce convenience gambling in the form of video poker machines. In the words of the authors South Carolina compensated for its lack 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 and Quinn 2002, 697). As a result, the opportunity to gamble was the highest of any US state including 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 banned in 2000, the number of active GA groups fell from 32 to 16 with several groups reporting smaller meeting sizes - from an average of forty to one or two. The gambling help hotline reported the calls per month falling from over two hundred to zero. In a similar vein Abbott (2006) cites the case of South Dakota which shut down EGMs for three months while leaving other forms of gambling unaffected. During the closure period, the number of calls from people seeking help from treatment centres reduced from 68 to 10, with the number increasing to 24 per month after the ban. These cases do illustrate the linkage between availability and problem gambling, at least in 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 ineffectual in reducing the level of problem gambling largely because the caps were too small to reduce the availability of EGMs (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies 2005). This suggests that to be effectual the availability needs to be greatly reduced. In a more clinical fashion, the question of the effect of EGM accessibility on problem gambler self-control control was assessed through focus groups and a laboratory-based experimental design by Ladouceur et al. (2005). The majority of problem gamblers interviewed suggested that estricted 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 promote control. However, this subjective response was not supported by a laboratory experiment. Based on 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), and 4. allow new venues to introduce problem gambling-minimisation programs such as selfexclusion (Ladouceur et al. 2005, 151). However, this work was carried out in a contrived setting, and the external applicability of results is questionable. The evidence is based on the opinion of probable problem gamblers that may not find a real-world expression. Unfortunately, few examples exist of what actually happens in practice 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 the conclusions that may be drawn. Thus the available research into the casual factors affecting the relationship between convenience gambling and problem gambling is limited. The extant research identifies a range of confounding variables that mediate the relationship between gambling opportunity and problem gambling. In other words, both the type and context of gambling is important. The next section looks more closely at gambling type.

15

2.2.3. Gambling type and social outcome The idea explored by this section is that different modes of gambling will affect groups in different ways. Put another way, certain types of gambling may be more closely associated with problem gambling than others. This has implications for the DSG concept in that the type of gambling offered within venues may affect the social outcome, that is, the level of problem gambling. For example, initial studies of problem gamblers have found a male bias, although more 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 e motivations for pathological gamblers differ between gambling forms. For example, Bonnaire et al. (2006) found the problem gambler who bet at racetracks was more interested in sensationseeking than those who played games in cafes. Even within problem gamblers there are different subgroups. A study by Fabian (1995) of GA members in Germany found that there were differences between casino gamblers and German-slot machine gamblers. The former spent more and displayed more intense gambling problems and psychosocial consequences, indicating that the 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 other international 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 as measured 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 in Rhode Island, US (1.1 v 3.6 years, which is the time gap between regular play and problem gambling 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 more rapid problem gambling-onset in machine gamblers occurs because of the geographic proximity and convenience of machines for many of our patients. Other studies also single out the powerful effects of EGMs on gambler behaviour. For example, high-stakes EGMs are increasingly important in Nevada (Clark County, US) where monthly revenue varies with regard to 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 the more traditional table games. It appears from these assorted studies that the type of gambling will directly affect gambler behaviour, including the level of problem gambling. Most of the documented harm (in the form of problem gambling) appears to be associated with EGMs of some description, a gambling form which continually evolves through technological advances such as jackpot linking. 2.2.4. Gambling availability and problem gambling: the Australian experience These overseas findings resonate powerfully with the Australian experience. At a jurisdictional level for example, the state of Western Australia, has been found to have a much lower level of problem gambling than other jurisdiction largely because it has restricted access to EGMs outside of 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, were found to have exacerbated existing problems and brought new ones. The introduction of EGMs effectively resulted in a shift in the expenditure from existing residents to the benefit of hotel owners, one that broadly disadvantaged of the rest of the community in that economic benefits and multipliers did not spread beyond the industry as anticipated (Marshall 1998). The general experience in Australia was described by the Productivity Commission (1999) who identified a relationship between increasing gambling availability and problem gambling, 16

particularly in the context of EGMs. There is ample evidence that increased EGM availability at a population level has been associated with rising levels of problem gambling. The South Australia Independent Gambling Authoritys Inquiry into management of gaming machine numbers (p. 2), for example, concluded that there is a causal relationship between the accessibility of gaming machines and problem gambling and other consequential harm in the community. An Appendix to this report prepared by Paul Delfabbro of the University of Adelaide found what the author described 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 EGM density and expenditure, areas which were identified with high socioeconomic disadvantage. There was also an association between distribution of problem gambling clients and density of EGMS. 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 the problem gambling in Australia is related to EGMs and their consumption represented a search for 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 are mainly 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 the venue-based mode as a form of convenience gambling. In other words, while Australia may not have the sort of convenience gambling discussed above in the overseas examples, we do have a form of convenience gambling based on the proliferation of gambling venues, a style of venuebased convenience gambling. Some gambling destinations, for example pubs and clubs, may be relatively 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 reference to new groups). In applying these criteria to the DSG model, it is important that the majority of patrons 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 move venues away from convenience routes and areas of social congestion. In order to explore the mechanisms that link the origins and destinations of gambling behaviours, the review now turns to the literature on the local and venue-specific predictors of problem gambling.

17

3. The Role of Venue Characteristics in Mediating Problem Gambling

The examination of convenience gambling has provided a kind of benchmark case for interrogating its opposite, the proposed destination-style model gambling. However, in order to gauge the potential effect of the DSG model, we need to know how the distinctions between availability, accessibility, exposure interact with the local and venue specific factors that are associated with problem gambling. While there is a well-documented macro-level association in the Australian case between exposure and problem gambling prevalence, this observation may mask the complex ways in which intervening local factors operate to either produce or suppress levels of problem gambling. Given the DSG model is built around the expectation that reduced proximity and exposure will lower levels of problem gambling prevalence, it is necessary to tease out the effects of these factors at a local level in order to maximise the social and community benefits 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, becoming significant gambling destinations in their own right. However, the pub and club category contains considerable diversity as venues range from small local, convenience venues near supermarkets to significant suburban developments with hundreds of EGMs. In Australia and NZ clubs have become what Austrin and Curtis (2004, 44) describe as defacto suburban casinos. These are characterised 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 from casinos in several ways. They have a not for profit status, membership requirements and social benefit objectives. These features underpin the legitimacy of NSW clubs to be major EGM providers (Hing 2006). However expansion and profitability have subordinated community benefit 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, who have moved from a social to a commercial imperative, yet have ironically justified increased EGM 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 been identified in NZ by Austrian and Curtis (2004) who argue that over the past decade the combination of EGMS with wagering in pubs and clubs has resulted in them becoming entertainment complexes or suburban casinos run ostensibly for community purposes (Austrin and Curtis (2004, 42). These clubs are the equivalent of suburban casinos in terms of the number of machines they contain. Here the definitional problem of casino reappears. To place 18

Australian clubs in context, a recent paper by Griswold and Nichols (2006) defined casinos in America 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 classified as casinos by this definition. In addition, there is a trend towards similarity or convergence the blurring of traditional social distinctions between types venues. This change of role and mission has been termed desegregation by Austrin and Curtis (2004) who point out that technology (i.e. networked random number generator) may be driving what they identify as a merging of gambling media, a process that makes possible one-stop gambling venues where different gambling media are combined in a single site (Austrin and Curtis 2004, 41). This process results in the emergence of homogenised venues characterised by a single form of gambling. In essence, these are one-stop gambling venues in which all products are available to consumers at a single site. Desegregation appears to be common across jurisdictions, as evidenced by the homogenisation of gambling media in the UK identified by Miers (1996). In this context, it may be that the technological forces of desegregation will naturally result in DSG venues. As Miers (1996) points out, this may parallel a shift in policy from harm reduction through segregation of gambling forms, to revenuegeneration through combination of forms, where venues actually stimulate rather than respond to demand. 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 diverse and 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 DSG model cannot therefore be tied to any one system of nomenclature, but as suggested in Chapter 1, 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 between venues, making them more alike in the range of gambling products they offer. If a single homogenised 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 would suggest (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 be required if overall accessibility was to be reduced. It is therefore instructive to examine the more specific local effects of venue location and levels of participation. 3.1.1 Type of destination and market appeal Barr and Standish (2002) studied the effects of location of casinos in South Africa based on a gravity model, a combination of size and distance. This study indicated a combination of factors predicted participation levels: the willingness of people to gamble (which includes level and distribution of income); the distance to venue and willingness to travel; the conditions and safety of 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 between destination 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 local markets increase. A study by Shoemaker and Zemke (2005) found that out of a list of items describing reasons for visiting a casino in Las Vegas easy drive from where I live was the most important. 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 the effect of casino promotions. These studies suggest that distance is more important than marketing strategies. However, the quality of the venue proved to be important a so-called amenity value. This amenity is central to the attractiveness to local clientele and has important implications for community relationships and acceptance (Table 2). Thus a primary point from 19

the literature review is that different aspects of a venue appeal to different groups. The attractiveness of DSG venues will depend largely on accessibility, but also on the market appeal of 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 reasons for 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 an empirical leisure-based framework. The venue characteristic most closely associated in the literature with gambling participation is the number of EGMs. There is an apparent relationship between density of machines and expenditure. 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 in highly provisioned areas, and they do so more frequently and spend more money than their gambling counterparts in less provisioned areas. Marshall found 83.5% of EGM users frequented their most regular venue hence aggregate venue expenditure is largely sourced from local clientele. 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 range of 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 of machines. Destinations with an attractive set of extra facilities and a favourable location will increase gambling participation. It suggests that location of venues close to centres of commercial activity may simulate the effects of convenience gambling, at least in increased levels of participation. 3.1.2. Distance to venue and participation Studies from Australia and overseas indicate that gambling venues have a range of impacts on the populations close to where they are located. This is inevitable given that distance to markets is the 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 hour travel time to delineate market range of gambling venues, a factor that clearly describes a form of destination 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 in understanding the distribution pattern of Indian gaming-there is a close correlation overall between 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 is likely to hold for DSG venues. Therefore, it is not surprising that findings emphasising the importance of proximity in making locational decisions permeate the literature. Ali and Thalheimer (1997) explored the relationship between 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 was sensitive to travel costs (wagering could be increased by reducing travel costs), which in turn could be achieved by increasing the number of wagering sites and locating them strategically, by increasing the number of racing days, or by reallocating racing days among different locations. In other words, demand was related to accessibility of a gambling form other than EGMs. This does not, of course, measure problem gambling, merely the amount wagered. However, this finding does show that proximity, accessibility and demand levels may be closely related. Demand to riverboat casinos and racinos (Iowa, Illinois and Missouri) has also been related to accessibility of market to venue. A ten percent increase in access resulted in an increased slot machine taking of 20

4% (Thalheimer and Ali 2003, 914). Further, Garrett and Marsh (2002) found that cross-border shopping for lottery tickets in the US can lead to reduction in lottery revenues (i.e. that competition occurs between jurisdictions), which indicates that the demand for all gambling products has an important spatial component. At the local level of analysis, Marshall et al. (2004) examined the catchments of eight clubs in the Tuggeranong 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 were found to have an uneven radius. This suggests the picture is more complex than a simple linear gravity model approach would suggest. Clubs with extensive catchments were located near areas of community congregation, while clubs with small catchments were located further away, often in lower SES suburbs (Marshall et al 2004, 98). In addition, patrons were prepared to travel different 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) with substantial proportion of patrons travelling 5-10km. Only three clubs had tight catchments where patrons travelled less than 3km (Marshall et al 2004, 101). In terms of accessibility then, the Marshall et al (2004, 130) study suggested that proximity of gaming venues to places of community congregation (e.g. shopping centres) and the location relative to socio-economic disadvantage 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 to gaming venues and expenditure on gambling in that people who lived closer to venues were bigger spenders. This study of the Richmond-Tweed area found that centres with the greatest per capita concentrations of EGMs also had the highest EGM participation, a factor that must be recognised 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. The number 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 problem gambling in the population, the findings of major geographical variations in the level of gambler activity should serve as an indicator that similar patterns may be evident with regard to problem gamblers. Indeed, the relationship between accessibility and problem gambling is a complex one as the next section will show. 3.1.3. Distance to venue and problem gambling Delfabbro and Le Couteur (2006, 158), in commenting on the association between problem gambling and venue proximity, state that : These correlations suggest that a substantial proportion of problem gamblers appear to gamble very close to where they live, so that (all things being equal) areas with a higher concentration of EGMs will tend to provide greater opportunities 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 to gamble on EGMS, and this figure could be used to assess the range of impact of EGM clubs on local communities. However, this assessment is at off with the work by Marshall cited above who found varying catchment sizes. It is equally unclear if people living close to venue (and who spend more as the study by McMillen and Doran 2006 found) are more likely to be problem gamblers. There is some obvious mismatch between the identification of proximity as a risk factor in the total population (in which problem gambling is relatively rare) and the overwhelming presence of proximity to a gambling venue as common characteristic among identified problem gamblers. 21

The casino-based studies of links between proximity and problem gambling are particularly relevant 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 and often 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 the higher 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 development were more likely to visit the development frequently (12 or more times) compared to people who lived 16-30 miles from the establishment. The National Opinion Research Centre study (Gerstein et 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. This finding is similar to the difference in the overall level of past-year casino gambling (40 percent of adults 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 spatial structure 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 only some facilities are problematic, potentially ones that encourage a wide clientele, or clientele which has not been previously exposed. These authors found that the number of casinos in the region did not increase the risk of problem gambling over and above the effect a single casino had. The availability 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. This study looked at gambling and problem gambling by Canadian university students, based on the university (n=4) proximity to a casino. Students of the two universities closest to a casino manifested more serious problem gambling than students in universities located far from a casino. In fact eighty percent of the students categorised as pathological gamblers (SOGS score 5+) 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-Tweed area of NSW. This model found that gambling behaviour was a function of the time spent gambling. Average EGM gamblers spent 40 minutes gambling per session and visit once per fortnight the average trip distance was 4.24km and the return trip time was 0.5h. The involved gamblers (identified by average expenditure of $16,653 p.a. on EGMs) spent 104 minutes gambling 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 and accessibility of venues increases the propensity for involved gambling. In the opposite sense, reducing the number and accessibility of gambling venues (including reducing opening hours) will decrease 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 in problem gambling is a moot point, as no firm or definitive causal link between the two has been established 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 trading hours. The important intervening factor here, as the review explores later, may be the links 22

between accessibility (including exposure) and the relatively higher participation levels of economically disadvantaged populations. In other words, while proximity to all kinds of gaming venues may have exposure or accessibility effects in populations across countries with similar cultural and social features to those of Australia, the strength of this relationship is highly susceptible to contextual variations. On the one hand, while participation levels are certainly related to concentration, proximity, and accessibility, the link between proximity and problem gambling 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 those contexts and subpopulations found to be most vulnerable to increased levels of exposure and accessibility. 3.1.4. Social disadvantage and EGM location in Australia and NZ The overseas findings about distance to venue and gambling participation are supported in the results 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, and number of EGMs in different areas (Vic, Qld, NSW and SA). The Commission reported a negative and significant relationship between income and the number of EGMs in Victoria, New South 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 of gaming machines in a location and the amount of money spent on them, so the greater density of gaming machines in low income areas is not necessarily being compensated for by a lower spend per machine (Productivity Commission, 10.42). Paradoxically, it was only in South Australia that there was found to be a positive significant relationship between income levels and the total amount spent on gaming machines. The Productivity Commission (1999, 10.42) concluded that it remains the case that, in two of the four States studied, gaming machines are higher in economically disadvantaged areas and that, in turn, is likely to mean that people in those areas spend 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 of ATSI, and higher proportion of dwellings rented from the Housing Trust) and higher EGM expenditure areas. This study compared Victoria and South Australia with Western Australia, which limits gaming machines to the Burswood Casino (South Australian Centre for Economic Studies 2005). The study indicated a much higher incidence of problem gambling (up to five times) 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 least at 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 that subsequent work has confirmed the association between EGM density, expenditure and problem gambling. 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 relationship between poker machine concentration and social disadvantage (Marshall 1999; Marshall and Baker 2001b; Marshall and Baker 2002; Productivity Commission 1999; South Australian Centre for Economic Studies 2005). A similar pattern was found in NZ by Wheeler et al. (2006) who found that the non-casino gaming machines were disproportionately located in the most deprived areas (using an index of income, unemployment, amenity access and education) with fifty-three percent of machines located in the most deprived thirty-three percent of census area units. In addition, Maori and 23

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 lottery terminal) in Montreal reflected local socioeconomic disadvantage. VLTs were also more prevalent 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 the DSG concept. Marshall (1999) found a relationship between spatial availability of EGMs, expenditure, and socio-economic status of area in Adelaide. In other words, while accessibility plays a role, also of importance was the socio-economic status of areas, with poorer regions associated with increased expenditure. Marshall and Baker (2001a) examined the relationship between machine concentration and socio-economic disadvantage across two geographic scales in Melbourne - Local Government Areas (LGAs) and Collection Districts (CDs). The results of this study demonstrated a pattern of machine concentration in the least advantaged LGAs, as well as a corresponding lower concentration in the wealthiest LGAs. Moreover, this pattern also held at the local CD level, for the three case study LGAs selected, when measured in terms of proximity and accessibility. Specifically, Boroondara, the most advantaged LGA, with just 30 percent of CDs less than one kilometre from a (gaming machine) venue, is clearly the least covered in terms of spatial penetration while in the least advantaged LGA, 68 per cent of Maribyrnong s CDs had such local access to a venue (Marshall and Baker 2001a, 30). This polarising pattern of high provision in poorer areas and lower provision in more advantaged areas has also appeared to be strengthening since 1992, when gaming machines were introduced into Victoria (Marshall and Baker 2001a, 32). Marshall and Baker (2002) also conducted a comparative study between the Melbourne and the more mature Sydney gaming machine market, where licensed gaming machine venues had been operating city-wide since 1956. This study found a similar concentration in disadvantaged areas in each metropolis, although there was a slightly different evolutionary pattern. Specifically, the Melbourne market moved rapidly from an initial random allocation to one which reflected the lower-income concentration of Sydney areas. This was explained in terms of the interaction between effects of clustering, which describes a positive relationship between machines numbers per venue and average machine profit, and recent legislative history in the shape of a limit on the number of permissible machines. The evidence from this study suggested that the legislated placement of machine caps in Victoria during the 1990s encouraged providers to maximise profits by relocating machines to low income areas. This process accelerated the concentration in areas of social disadvantage and produced the familiar pattern which closely resembled that of the more mature Sydney market (Marshall and Baker 2002, 238). Marshall and Baker (2001a) explain these observed patterns in Victoria in term of the interactions of supply and demand in combination with some other influential factors including government policy (restrictions on supply), local political action, ethnic and cultural variations in host areas, and the historical pattern of development. Socio-demographic characteristics of areas that predicted high EGM expenditure in Sydney included membership of an ethnic minority group, low educational qualifications and unemployment (lower class NESB) (Breen et al. 2002). This relationship between socio-economic location and exposure to gambling opportunities, if it holds consistently over all jurisdictions, has important social wellbeing and policy/regulation implications. In a critique of the social-economy of gambling in Victoria, Livingstone (2001b, 54) wrote: The growth of poker machine gambling, its unhindered exploitation of areas of comparative disadvantage . and the increasing dependence of state government on its revenues will readily occur in a public policy environment where action by government

24

to enhance the material and social wellbeing of the disadvantaged is not a primary consideration. In a similar vein, Doughney ((2002), commenting on the distribution of EGMS in low SES areas in Victoria, pointed to the consequently regressive nature of EGM taxation. Doughney (2002, 153) argues that: Income is effectively, very effectively, being redistributed away from low income areas, and its flow back effects are at best marginal. However, the relationship between low SES areas and local gambling expenditure is not as robust as it may appear. The catchments of venues, as we have seen earlier, are varied and this leaves room for attenuation in the relationship between local populations (vulnerability) and local venues (exposure). 3.1.5. Social characteristics of venue catchments and problem gambling reduction Club patrons have been found to have distinctive gambling profiles (Marshall et al. 2004). Specific clubs, for example have distinctive EGM patron profiles, particularly in terms of age and income while different venue clienteles vary in social characteristics to the point of appearing demographically distinct. This pattern is evident, even between different types of casino resorts (Kim et al. 2004; Morrison and Braunlich 1996). A study conducted in Alberta, for example, found local patrons are usually economically less well off, less educated, and tend to gamble for more specifically gambling-related reasons (Hinch and Walker 2005). It follows from this that the incidence of problem gambling will be demographically patterned. Indeed, research in the UK by Fisher (2000) indicated that while casinos could be sustained by regular gamblers with a high prevalence of problem gambling, the harm is concentrated among particular groups. This study also indicated that problem gamblers in casinos were demographically distinct from other gambling forms, specifically, they were more likely to above 30 and come from an ethnic minority, particularly Asian, than other problem gamblers (Fisher 2000). Fishers study also indicated that as the venue type changes, so will the patrons, and those experiencing problem gambling. As venues tend to dependent on regular local customers, these constitute the group that are most likely to experience problem gambling. This variation may explain the difficulties of identifying risk factors at an individual or local level from proximity alone. Indeed, the lessons learned from casinos and other venues have important implications for the development of the DSG model. While the harmful effects of proximity in the case of larger, specific gambling venues can be stated in general terms, they have been found to vary across different social groups and gambler profiles. Less clear are the socio-spatial processes associated with non-convenience gambling venues that incorporate the characteristics of the client population. This is one of the most controversial areas of gambling policy, subsuming as it does issues of social justice, economic management and social repair. 3.1.6. The issue of venue catchments Unfortunately, it is not always possible to establish a clear link which shows that expenditure is derived from specific local areas of disadvantage. Indeed, the relationship between machine density and SES has been specifically questioned by recent research at the local level. McMillen and Doran (2006) found no direct or uniform relationship between gaming machine density and SEIFA measures in three separate Victorian study areas Maribyrnong, Central Melbourne, and greater Geelong. The relationship between gambling machine density, EGM concentration, and SEIFA disadvantage was found to vary considerable within the study areas, illustrating a complexity masked by analyses at a broader scale. Other factors apart from SES were identified which could explain variation in expenditure patterns including location and accessibility to a wide catchment, seasonality, and venue type. McMillen and Doran (2006, 15), in the case of Maribyrnong, suggest that expenditure patterns could be affected by size and type of venue, location near shopping centres, residential areas or transport corridors, range of other facilities offered, marketing campaigns, opening hours and local strategies to ameliorate gambling impacts. 25

In other words, a range of venue-specific factors are important in affecting social outcomes. This ground-breaking study shows that there is significant variation from place to place, even at the smallest scale, in the relationships between social context and gambling outcomes. The reason for this variation between EGM density and social characteristics of local areas lies in the fact that some people may travel to particular venues not in their local area venues have varying and overlapping catchments. In addition, it is also unclear whether increased expenditure in a venue is due to more people gambling from the local area or increased participation by the current clientele. To illustrate, Hing and Breen (1996) have shown that clubs may have very large, even cross-border catchments, depending up where they are located. These authors describe the pokie tours from southern Queensland to Northern New South Wales Clubs. These often include a substantial number of interstate visitors (i.e. senior citizens reliant on government benefits). Large catchment areas, caused by lack of local availability, have been an historical pattern in these regions (Queensland did not license community venues until 1992, the Northern Territory in 1996). It follows that for the proposed DSG venues, access would perhaps become more organised if it is to be restricted, particularly by poorer groups such as senior citizen who are reliant on organised coach trips. This is effect, would impose a new structure on existing gambler pre-commitment strategies (i.e. the ways gamblers budget their expenditure) identified by the Ministerial Council on Gambling (2006). Thus the new spatial structures that emerge from the DSG approach would be likely to transform the gambling behaviour of people whose access to gambling venues is altered. This point is expanded in section 4.1. The social impact of DGVs will therefore depend on venue-specific factors (i.e. location relative to other infrastructure and markets (spatial), opening hours (temporal), venue type, style and attractions (social), marketing (promotional), product mix (structural/modal)). As for the Northern Territory no relationship was found between the location of clubs and hotels and the social disadvantage of their local areas (SLAs) (Young et al. 2006). In fact, because of historical location of hotels and the unique demographic features of this jurisdiction, the relationship was found to be a negative one in that licensed venues were more typically located in the more affluent areas of urban and regional centres. To untangle the relationships between socioeconomic status and gambling opportunities more research is required on the characteristics of clientele (i.e., socioeconomic status, location of residence, gambling behaviour, and problem gambling). Unfortunately, although the research reveals a certain amount about the characteristics of machine players generally (Boreham and Dickerson 1996; Breen et al. 2002; Hing and Breen 2001; Hing and Breen 2002), the volume of research in this area is thin. However, its is important in a harm-reduction context. As Marshall et al (2004, 131) concluded strategies to minimise the harmful impacts of gambling will, in order to be effective, need to be relevant to the lifestyles of the various subgroups exhibiting higher levels of EGM gambling. These findings necessitate an appreciation and understanding of the social contexts within which gambling behaviour occurs and the general level of social harm, over and above the issues related to the prevalence of problem gambling. Marshall and Baker (2001a, 88) state that: Leaving problem gambling aside, the simple issue of increased gambling expenditure is also important, regardless of whether individuals develop problems. Besides the direct costs of persons with gambling problems (e.g. personal debt, mental health and associated support services), there are also likely to be a range of indirect costs to local communities (e.g. crime and family breakdown). Furthermore, the societal costs of this, who is suffering them, where they are occurring and who is paying for them are further issues of central concern here. For these reasons, the social outcomes generated by specific local linkages between client populations, venue types and sociospatial processes deserve further examination, particularly as they may apply to the proposed model of destination-style gambling.

26

3.2. Venue-based gambling and social outcome The majority of studies on social impact of community-based gambling have looked at the relationship between accessibility per se and problem gambling (see exposure and adaptation theory above). Fewer studies, however, have looked at the relationship between particular gambling venues and problem gambling. Where venues appear, studies of the impacts of casinos dominate the literature. Since the classification of casino is often inconsistent , they cannot be excluded from the consideration of the proposed DSG venues, since many Australian destinations have the same characteristics in terms of number of machines (i.e. more than 30 ) as many North American casinos. By this definition, many of these venues are similar to Australian clubs and their impacts have definite implications for the design and location of DGVs. Since we are talking about different styles of venues the casino is a misleading term in a comparative, international contest. There are three scales of venues in the empirical literature: destination resorts; urban clubs and casinos; and convenience localities (i.e. shopping centres, arcades and malls) (see also Table 2). Research on all of these types therefore can inform the policies on which the proposed DGVs will be developed if they are put against the underlying dimensions of accessibility and community relationships (Table 2). In Australia, casinos are dominated by EGMs, as is the case in NZ, where casinos are described by Austrin and Curtis (2004, 44) as large-scale commercial gambling venues (combining machine gaming and table gaming on a 12.5:1 ratio). The literature search revealed that the terms such as destination or destination-style gambling are rarely used (Appendix A). When they are, they refer to tourism-gambling destinations such as Las Vegas or Macau which are large enough (i.e. have enough of a geographic pulling power or range) to attract visitors for surrounding regions and countries. For example, the term destination gambling was used by Goss (2002) in a report to the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce to describe riverboats and resorts, which generate local jobs and economic development, contrasted with convenience gambling which refers to video poker machines tucked in the corner of a gasoline service station (Goss 2002, 35). An earlier report by Gibbs (2000, 369) on the state of gambling and its potential for destination gaming resorts in Anchorage, Alaska, defines these large gambling resorts: not a form of gambling per se, but rather to a specific type of gambling facility and the accompanying gambling experience. These casino-based resorts include hotels and other facilities that attract tourists and day visitors. Entertainment and tourist services in these venues are highly concentrated, providing all facilities of high-end tourism places plus gambling. Specifically, they draw money from non-locals. In term of the character of venues, casinos vary from place to place. At the top of the tree we have Las Vegas, globally positioned. the dramatic economic success of Las Vegas is part and parcel of the citys image, reputation, and identity as the planetary gambling capital (Raento and Berry 1999). Tailored to high rollers and vacationers in search of luxury and exclusivity, this is the model for the new mega-resorts. In this sense, the catchment for Las Vegas is global. However other casinos and casino resort cities use other approaches, using gambling as part of the attraction in a natural environment (i.e. scenic and historic attractions) such as Reno (Raento and Berry 1999). A classic example of a casino in Australia is the Melbourne Crown casino - an entertainment complex anchored by a casino modelled on the Forum Shops of Caesars Palace (Flannigan 1997). This is the model of a multi-function complex including shopping, entertainment and gambling that could to be seen as form of DSGV depending on time of day (i.e. gambling versus shopping peaks). Because the characteristics of DSG venues are similar in many ways to venues described as casinos overseas, and given the lack of the usage of the term destination-style gaming in the 27

literature, a considerable amount can be learned from the research literature on casino-oriented destination gambling for formulating desirable features of the proposed DSGVs. Indeed, as Eadington (1998) pointed out, different types of casino-style gambling (destination resort casinos, urban casinos, and widely dispersed gaming devices) have differential social impacts, the research on all forms of destination gambling must be considered as input for policy formation. Areas of investigation include (3.2.1) economic impact (3.2.2) community impacts including crime and income distribution and (3.2.3) harm minimisation strategies. 3.2.1 Economic impact of venue-based gambling Research carried out in the US has looked primarily at riverboat casinos in terms of economic impact and ability to attract consumers, while the rest of the impact work has examined their effects on crime and problem gambling prevalence, where it appears that causation has been difficult to establish (Kearney 2005). Again, the evidence for economic benefits has been mixed. Entertainment functions, for example have resulted in a redistribution of revenue rather than creation of new expenditure (Siegel and Anders 1999). This is because increased competition reduces the economic benefits of revenue from tourism and employment whose effects will depend on the fiscal regimes of particular jurisdictions (Mason and Stranahan 1996). For example, riverboat gambling in Illinois was found not to have not stimulated economic development to the extent the pundits predicted (Truitt 1996). In addition, riverboat gambling was found to displace other forms of entertainment. Destination casino-resorts appear to produce the strongest economic benefit from job creation and investment through additional functions (including hotels, restaurants, recreation etc) rather than from gambling per se. In Las Vegas, as competition increases, the role of amenities in attracting people and keeping them on site become important (coffee shops and restaurants) as users of those facilities will be expected to spend more gambling (Roehl 1996). Casino-resorts are also best able to monitor and potentially mitigate the consequences of problem gambling. Urban casinos, on the other hand which evolved in the 1980s (in Holland, Australia, Canada and more recently the US) are more accessible to where people live and exhibit a lower ability to support non-gambling activity. As most customers are local, job creation and gambling export are reduced, leading to fewer economic benefits. The spread of gaming opportunities (e.g. EGMs, Keno) outside casinos through convenience gambling also maximises the availability of casinostyle gambling to a local population that may undermine the net economic benefits from existing urban casinos, thus creating relatively few jobs. Furthermore, it appears that, as host markets become saturated with gambling opportunities, image, reputation and amenities replace distance and convenience in attracting market share, suggesting that after a certain scale, and for more affluent clientele, distance is less important than a marketed image. It is important to note that economic impact studies do not generally examine the distribution of impact. In particular, it appears the revenue and benefits of casino development do not flow into local communities, but flow externally. A study in Israel by Felsenstein and Freeman (1998) showed that the income and employment gains are captured outside the region and that localised impacts are small. A study of the impact of casino development in Atlantic City highlighted the bizarre juxtaposition of glitzy, multimillion dollar casinos directly across the street from the worst of the urban slums (Teske and Sur 1991, 130). These developments have winners and losers. Who wins and who loses is dependent on a range of contextual factors which mediate the social impact of destination venues. Such notions of equity and resource distribution lie at the heart of the social consequences of gambling venues. 3.2.2 Social impacts of venue-based gambling A resort-based casino such as Foxwoods Resort Casino in Conneticut, which employs 10,000 local residents, have been shown to have broad social impacts typical of other large 28

developments, such as increased traffic and changed character of the region, as a trade-off for unemployment (Peppard Jr. 1995). The basic notion is that venues which recruit clientele from outside traffic will have fewer adverse revenue effects on local population. In short, the destination resort is a net exporter of gambling impacts; while an urban casino attracts most of its patrons locally with more of a negative impact balance felt locally (Barron et al. 2002). However, evidence relating to the recruitment and composition of gambling clientele (i.e. local versus tourist or cross-border) suggests that the social gains are small. Indeed, the argument that tourism is a leading benefit of casinos in Australia and New Zealand is hard to sustain (Leiper 1989). In Australia, it was appreciated early in the piece that casinos were predominantly supported by locals, supplying seventy-five percent of the clientele and sixty-five percent of the expenditure (McMillen 1990). It is these urban casinos which may be most closely aligned with the DSG concept. In other words, it is likely that DSG venues will be more akin to local or urban casinos than resort-based casinos in term of their social impacts. These social impacts are likely to be felt locally as the evidence from studies of casinos suggest that they draw there clientele from the local area rather than from farther afield (as would a resort-casino). For example, deregulation of riverboat gambling casino venues in Iowa was shown to result in existing gamblers losing more money rather than increasing the number of gamblers (Nichols 1998). Market saturation of a particular type of gambling was evident, with cross-border substitution occurring. Given this, the net social impact will depend on the extent to which convenience gambling is reduced through the consolidation process underpinning the DSG concept (this key point is elaborated in section 4.4.). In a more specifically social and community context, a recent paper by Griswold and Nichols (2006) examined the spread of casino gambling in the US on social capital (i.e. a measure of social cohesiveness, networking, trust and reciprocity) in 300 metropolitan statistical areas across the US. These researchers found that social capital of a community is reduced when a casino is located within 15 miles. This relationship was directly attributable to this effect of casinos on social capital, there being no significant difference in the social capital of areas before the introduction of casinos. This work showed that, beyond 15 miles (26 kms), there was no significant effect social capital. Thus gambling per se in a whole societal context was found not as important as location, which defines the limits of social impact which are generally confined to employment generation and increases in problem gambling. However, there are also broader social effects of gambling venue location which are less frequently examined. Barron et al (2002, 440) found that proximity to casino appears to be associated with higher bankruptcy rates, exerting significant local effects, although at the national scale the rise of gambling did not explain much of the total rise in bankruptcies. Another study of residential location decisions by residents in Las Vegas found that location close to a casino was an important concern (although of less concern than crime, industrial plants, and potential nuclear waste location) but more important than shopping centres and fast food restaurants (Thompson et al. 1993). In the case of New Zealand, Curtis and Wilson (2002) argue that communities are excluded from gambling decision-making and from the benefit, while experiencing the brunt of the impacts. They argue that restricting community gambling (including machine gambling in pubs and clubs) while purportedly in the community good, actually act to disempower communities. The authors argue that sanctioning community forms of gambling would allow the redistribution of resources to the communities that support gambling. Community involvement and consultation is therefore an important issue. However, this process has been lost from the agenda of Australian clubs, as pointed out by Hing (2006), commercialism has replaced community interest or benefit.

29

A more commonly-researched issue is the positive association between problem gambling and crime (Andrew and et al. 1997; Brown et al. 2005; Sakurai and Smith 2003), particularly the relationship between gambling venues (usually casinos) and increased levels of local area crime (Ochrym 1990; Piscitelli and Albanese 2000; Wilson 2001). While generally established, this relationship is by no means consistently expressed (Moufakkir 2005). For example, Lynch (2002), examining the relationship in the NZ context, argues that the existence of casinos (and other larger venues), allows for proactive measures of crime reduction to be adopted that effectively minimize criminal activity, while simultaneously leading to the closure of illegal card games and casinos, effecting criminal elements and increasing government taxation revenue. Lynch also argues that higher levels of criminality have been associated with non-casino gambling, particularly EGMs, than with casinos. An investigation of Sydney Harbour Casino, for example, did not find any significant increases in crime in the casino precinct due to appropriate regulatory structure, enforcement of regulations, prohibiting of pawn brokers, location of the casino away from main thoroughfares, constructive community relations, and 24 hour security surveillance (Lynch 1999, 255). These studies indicate that larger venues (DSGVs) have the capacity to control impacts in the local area to a greater degree than smaller venues, which in turn has the potential to be a key mitigating factor in the reduction of problem gambling generated by their establishment. 3.2.3 Harm minimisation and venue-based gambling It appears that the introduction of new facilities may increase the level of harm among the vulnerable, including existing problem gamblers. Jacques and Ladouceur (2006) used a longitudinal design to assess the impact of a casino in Hull, Quebec, at 1 year, 2 year and 4 year periods. After one year, gambling activities and amount lost increased in the local area. However, this increase was not maintained at the follow up periods. This suggest that the exposure model is not applicable, and the authors contextualise the results in terms of the regional exposure model of Shaffer et al. (2004a), which allows for social adaptation to exposure (discussed in section 2.2). A separate study has shown that the introduction of a new casino (Niagara Falls) impacted on a specific high-risk population (i.e. substance abusers who gambled), increasing problem gambling (measured by the South oaks Gambling Screen) among this group (Toneatto et al. 2003). Research by Pasternak and Fleming (1999) showed an association between gambling disorders (measured through a patient survey) in Wisconsin and proximity to a casino. Problem gambling was identical at each of three clinics surveyed, however there was a trend (not a statistically significant one) of probable pathological gambling being related to casino proximity. However, it appeared that all the clinic patients were relatively close to a casino and distance may have not been far enough away to display an effect. On the other hand, Govoni et al (1998) found an absence of one year effects in rate of problem gambling following opening of a casino in Ontario, Canada. While the evidence is inconsistent, it does appear that the introduction of gambling venues can increase the level of problem gambling among local, vulnerable populations, at least in the short to medium term. Quinn (2001) suggests that, to limit the potential increase in pathological gambling, casinos should be free-standing and provide only gambling activities. The reduction of services (i.e. no shopping malls, restaurants, nightclubs, convention centres, concert halls and amusement parks) would likely attract fewer gamblers for less time and hence reduce the pool of gamblers. Quinn argues that casinos could limit the development of pathology by distancing themselves from population centres and becoming gambling destinations (Quinn 2001), along the lines suggested in the Project Brief. However, smaller and geographically ill-located casinos are less able to compete effectively for gambling dollars, so locations that reduce problem gambling are likely to reduce income.

30

In a harm minimization context, casinos (as could DSGVs) perhaps provide the most obvious examples for devising primary destination gaming strategy at it most institutionalised form. The recent introduction of unlimited stakes in Switzerland in April 2000 was limited strictly to casinos where each casino is required to implement and carry out a social concept with detailed problem gambling prevention measures, staff training, and evaluation research (Dombrowski et al. 2001). In this model destinations become the central component of a harm minimisation strategy, one that could not be achieved by smaller venues. This apriori approach, if adopted by Australian casino developments, may have equalised the burden of costs in increased the equality of benefits (McMillen 1990). As a strategic approach, La Brie et al (2007) carried out research on the distribution of casino self-excluders in Missouri, focussing on the relationships between gambling proximity, availability and exclusion rates. Their results suggest that exclusion can be an effective harm minimisation strategy in the context or problem gambling because people with problems are more likely to live locally. However, the same authors cite the SACES (2003) survey of ninety-three gambling venues the majority of whom said it was difficult to identify a self-excluder, which suggests a need for better methods for self-exclusion. There is also the issue of multiple venues within an area to deal with if this strategy is to work in a casino context. Indeed, it is in the public relations interest of the casino to conduct socially responsible gambling and to foster community engagement and support (Pitcher 1999). As we have noted above, communities have been largely excluded from decision-making process, however they experience the brunt of the impacts (Curtis and Wilson 2002). The United Kingdom government has been addressing these issues of venue type and social harm in an environment of gambling liberalisation paved by the Gambling Review Report (Gambling Review Body 2001). This report was concerned with what was termed ambient gambling (equivalent to convenience gambling), defined as gambling that that is incidental to a non-gambling activity, for example the location of gaming machines in cafes and taxicab. As the report was critical of the widespread availability of ambient gambling, the response of the government was to create four machine categories, each corresponding to a type of venue. Casino slots were confined to casinos, jackpot machines to registered clubs, adult gaming machines to licensed bingo clubs, betting shops and adult gaming centres, and amusement with prize machines to family entertainment centres and non-gambling premises (takeaways etc) (Miers 2003). This specialisation of strategy was therefore an effort to match risk with accessibility, a similar concept to that envisaged by the DVG model. The result of these reforms in the UK (among a raft of other liberalisation strategies) would be to change the nature of casinos (as more slot machines are allowed 80 per table) and a substantial increase in the total number of gambling machines (as the restrictions of casino numbers will be lifted) (Miers 2003). The impacts are difficult to predict (as would be the impact of DGVs without the specific contexts). However, the UK experience does show that a concern with convenience gambling can be translated into a regulatory regime for destination-based gambling that dramatically increases the type and extent of total gambling opportunities. One could suggest that increased availability would lead to increased prevalence of problem gambling, a link identified in Australia by the Productivity Commission (1999). One could also speculate that under such conditions gambling may become more imbedded in popular consumer culture in effect entrenching itself more firmly in daily life, as has been witnessed by the rise of poker machine gambling in Australia. The UK government has also used the spatiality of gaming establishments as a management tool, along much the same as the proposed DGV model. The Gambling Act 2005 permits 17 new casinos at different scales (i.e. different venues types) all of which require a pre-meditated 31

decision to gamble (McMahon and Lloyd 2006). These are 1 regional casino, 8 large casinos and 8 small casinos, which vary in size in terms of floor area (5000m2; 1500m2 and 750m2) as well as the number of the different type of gaming machines (from jackpot, to 150 B1 and 80 B1). These are expected to have different regional development impacts. For example, the casinos are expected to leverage hotels, entertainment and restaurants. However this is at the expense of ambient gambling, the pubs and convenience establishments which currently make up a large part of the market, which will be significantly reduced with associated resistance by these groups or industry sectors. The fact that the increase in problem gambling anticipated by the different venue types in the UK will be offset by a reduction in convenience gambling is a key point. For DSG to be effective in Victoria, a significant restructure will be required, one that convincingly reduces the accessibility of EGMs to local and vulnerable populations. The rationale for this statement is that if DSG venues are introduced without a reduction in the level of convenience gambling, then total gambling availability will increase, and it is likely that problem gambling will also increase, thus defeating the purpose of DSG (assuming of course the purpose of DSG is to reduce problems associated with convenience gambling/high accessibility). Without a reduction in convenience gambling, DSG will potentially attract a new market while not reducing exposure of gambling to the existing market. For DSG to be effective, assuming its goal of harm reduction, convenience gambling will need to decrease. The alternative offers a simple expansion of gambling through the introduction of new markets, a strategy which would most likely increase the incidence of problem gambling among the population. An expansion of this argument is contained in sections 4.4. and 5.1. 3.3 Venues and social harm a summary This review reveals a basic tension that spatial relocation introduces into the market structure of gambling which has implications for any harm minimisation strategy. On the one hand, if DGVs are to be established, the extra problem gambling they may cause due to their appeal to different and existing markets would need to be offset by a reduction in convenience gambling and local access. On the other hand, since research has shown a machine caps policy to be largely ineffectual when minor reductions in gaming machines numbers are made (McMillen and Doran 2006), the relocation to destination venues will need to attract a sufficient volume of less vulnerable clients to justify its social impact. The research on venues of different styles and location suggests that the market attractiveness of these destination-style venues would depend on high levels of community acceptance as well as their amenity value in terms of the range of non-gambling facilities and functions that they offer to both local and non-local clients. While the concentration of gambling activities in fewer locations provides more opportunities of regulation and management of problem gambling, the popularity of new venues might merely displace the problems associated with widespread exposure (particularly to EGMs) into other sites. The task ahead therefore is to design a destination-style venue model which maximises attractiveness, particularly to less vulnerable populations, while simultaneously balancing the levels of accessibility and exposure in the total market environment in such a way that the economic and social benefits that may flow from the proposed new regime. This is the concern of the following chapter.

32

4. Regulation and Design: Environment

Towards a Destination-style

Gambling

As we have seen the conceptual position of the destination-style gambling model set out in Table 2 is by no means as clearly defined as this Table suggested. In reality the concept is shifting and blurred, depending very much on the context of usage and the relative structure of the gambling industry in each jurisdiction or country. However, the regulatory environment which will define this space will need to be precise and its terms evidence-based. This section will therefore present what is known about the relationships between spatial distribution of gambling opportunities (e.g. venue type and characteristics), consumer groups, and social harm, in order to distil a set of key recommendations for DSG development (presented in summary in the final section). One of the important findings from the review of the literature is that, while mass exposure to gambling opportunities indicates a crude relationship at the jurisdictional level, for the purposes of regulation such a finding is not very helpful in predicting the local and institutional effects of different regimes. This is true at each level of scale. Though the exposure theory suggests a firm basis for reducing problem gambling, it has been found to be of limited use in terms of informing regulatory policy, as indicated by the relative ineffectiveness of the EGM capping policy it inspired (McMillen and Doran 2006). Levels of exposure and proximity need to be redefined in terms of accessibility, and accessibility in turn needs to be related to the socio-spatial features of client groups. Adding to this complexity, the gambling behaviours of client groups are diverse, fragmented and volatile, in terms of gambling age, gender, ethnicity and resources. Therefore, prediction of problem gambling based on the characteristics of identified problem gambler groups can be particularly misleading, especially when these indicators are applied to entire populations, or even to particular areas. Since only a small proportion of those who live near gambling venues in disadvantaged areas actually become problem gamblers, attempts to reengineer a gambling environment in broad population terms may be unproductive. Since human activity is often dynamic and unpredictable, the introduction of a new element into the gambling system (e.g. new venue) may be quickly absorbed into a cultural pattern and, like exposure to a new virus, lead to a general immunity in a population (this is the general thrust of adaptation theory). Thus the processes of medium to long-term adaptation to changing levels of exposure adds a time dimension to the socio-spatial matrix. Unfortunately, a model that is premised on simplistic equation of: exposure + vulnerability = problem gambling does not do credit to the complexity and adaptability of social life. To do this more sophisticated conceptual modelling is required that takes into account factors including the variability of spacetime costs, community perceptions, and regulatory compliance, to name but a few. While on the demand side client behaviour is becoming more complex and unpredictable, on the supply side there is evidence that there is increasing convergence or desegregation (Austrin and Curtis 2004) in the forms in which gambling opportunities are distributed. Leaving aside the problems with nomenclature, clubs are becoming more like casinos, casinos more like social and community-conscious corporations, hotels more like sites for convenience gambling, and forms of convenience gambling (e.g. keno, lotteries, scratchies, internet gambling) permeate many aspects of everyday life. This trend towards convergence of gambling forms tends to dissolve the distinctions between convenience and venue gambling as modelled in the typology of Table 2 and to blur the distinctiveness of the destination-style gambling model being proposed. In other words, as gambling venues increasingly offer a similar product mix (see section 3.1), the contrast between them and DSG venues is not always clearly distinguishable. However, given the 33

characteristics of other venue types overlap to some extent with DSG venues, particularly in terms of the gambling products offered, its is possible to draw some relevant conclusions from our knowledge of these other three venue types (i.e. casinos, clubs and convenience gambling) that may be relevant to a more general supply-based regulatory system. What then are the regulatory lessons to be learnt from the review of the research literature for the purposes of designing and locating a destination-style venue? Finding a preferred model that matches client groups to varying levels of gambling exposure and to venue types under varying patterns of ownership, control and community embeddedness may seem a difficult, if not impossible, task. As an alternative to the abstraction of each particular finding from the literature review, it may be preferable to abstract from this literature a limited set of themes or problem areas which engage the processes and dynamics of market relationships. These are represented by the linking arrows of Fig. 1 rather than the properties of the individual boxes that these may connect. These themes may be identified in terms of: 4.1. Client types, levels of participation and vulnerability 4.2. Venue characteristics 4.3. Community relationships 4.4. Venue type, clientele and harm minimisation 4.1. Client types, levels of participation and vulnerability The most sophisticated research on the relationships between client types, levels of participation and market structure is perhaps to be found in the model-based investigations of Baker and Marshall (2005). This research shows how the basic premises of exposure theory need to be supplemented by more detailed understandings of the way that space and time variables mediate the effects of changes in gambling supply. These models suggest that strategies which match gambler profiles (i.e. demand) to a re-engineered supply structure (i.e. decreasing accessibility to vulnerable groups), could eliminate the undesirable effects of socio-economic status on gambling participation without diminishing overall revenue. In this context, Baker and Marshall suggest that it is not the frequency of gambling that leads to market capture, but rather the time spent gambling per trip (p. 391). Of direct relevance to the DSG concept is the extent to which these models can predict the levels of social harm, notably the prevalence of problem gambling. In particular, how would a reengineering of participation levels through DSG that increases penetration to more affluent households redistribute problem gambling? Figure 2 illustrates these complicated linkages in a way that attempts to combine the Baker and Marshall (2005) model with a social outcome. This model, which links the social origins of gambling to the prevalence of problem gambling, positions that socio-spatial factors and gambler profiles as described by Baker and Marshall inside a more conventional exposure model that depends on the distribution of machine density. The main difference suggested by the model is found in the signs of the paths or links between the affluence of an area as measured by the Index of Economic Resources (IER) and the exposure to gambling opportunities (density of machines in a given area).

34

Figure 2 sets out the causal processes of the pathways that generate patterns of problem gambling in order to show how just a small change in the sign of one early relationship can affect the whole complexion of social and personal harm. In this case this diagram suggests that a reemphasis on the positive relationship between the economic resources of neighbourhoods and the concentration of machines can radically restructure of both spatial and temporal patterns of machine gambling, thus achieving one of the most important objectives of the whole DSG project. This restructuring can be explained in the following stages: 1. The crucial first or top left (i.e. positive) link between locality IER (economic resources) and trip activity space denotes the wider accessibility of more affluent households to destination-style gambling venues due to superior mobility and greater disposable income. In other words, higher economic resources will enable greater spatial choice and movement, which in turn may lead to increased participation in DSG venues. 2. The negative link between IER and density of machines, on the other hand, reflects the well-documented concentration of machines in lower socio-economic areas. This is largely the present situation in the larger metropolitan centres, as this review has shown. 3. Should a DSG strategy weaken the value or strength of this negative link (through decreasing EGM accessibility), and simultaneously strengthen the link between affluence and trip frequency through the time- capturing strategies suggested by Baker and Marshall (such as longer opening hours, attracting the weekend rather than the weekday gambler), the character of the pathways to problem gambling would be radically reconfigured. If these links were to be assigned different values through industry restructuring, instead of the present well-documented evidence of an empirical relationship between proximity to gambling venues and social disadvantage (which tends to produce the impulsive gambler pathway), we would find greater prominence of a path from affluence through a wider trip activity space and time-capturing predicated on regular, de-localised and intentional decisions to gamble. The model, as specified here, therefore suggests both policy and regulatory directions on which the DSG model can be productively developed and its main objectives achieved. The links between participation and problem gambling are, as we have seen, sometimes problematic (which is why they are represented with dotted lines). As the Independent Gambling 35

Authority of South Australia (2003, 25) has noted: The Productivity Commissions conclusions were not without qualification. While there was a clearly established link between density of gaming machines and gaming expenditure, the link between density and problem gambling was less strong, though it noted a link between the accessibility of gaming machines and demand for problem gambling services. In other words, if a DSG strategy were to penetrate the higher income groups (perhaps the aspirational classes in the newer suburbs), it may indeed result in redistribution both of participation levels across socio-spatial categories as well as of the prevalence of problem gambling. This effect would be reinforced by the superior attraction of these venues to involved rather than the recreational gambler profiles. Licensing policies in this case would aim at a redistribution of gambling participation away from the more random, daily visits of local recreational gamblers (i.e. convenience gambling) towards the increased participation more time-focussed (particularly on weekends) and affluent involved gambler (i.e. DSG). Whether such a restructuring in the spatial and temporal distribution of exposure levels would expand the overall rate of problem gambling is difficult to say at this stage. As a destination-style-oriented policy takes time to settle in, there may be necessary trade-offs between the social fall-out from expanding the rate of heavier participation among more affluent households on the one hand and the dispersion of problem gambling prevalence away from the more vulnerable members of the community. In this case the adaptation processes will need to be more precisely modelled, perhaps by estimating the short- and long-term elasticities of demand and supply for each of the two distinctive gambler profiles. While the market forces underpinning a possible destination-style revue may be delineated by such a modelling procedure, however well specified, the experience of clientele depends almost entirely on the attractiveness of specific venues, the inducements they offer, and the way that they are presented to local and international communities. We move therefore to consider how systems of regulation may interact with the characteristics of venue to maximise community benefit and to minimise levels of social harm. 4.2. Venue characteristics As suggested by the initial model (Fig. 1), the literature review revealed that certain venue characteristics may have particular social outcomes or be associated with different degrees of social harm. The salient venue characteristics in this context will depend on the definition of social harm used. At the broadest level, a certain amount of social harm is caused simply due to the development and situation of a new infrastructural development. For example, the negative effects on a local community of a large gambling venue extend beyond a concern with problem gambling. The review of the impacts of destination venues revealed a range of possible social consequences including traffic and noise, crime, visitation and tourism, impacts on surrounding businesses including entertainment substitution, change in land values and residential amenity, and changes in community cohesiveness and levels of social capital. The main point here is that DSG venues are likely to have a range of impacts beyond problem gambling that will depend very much on the nature of the development, including its ownership structure and embeddedness in the local community. These impacts are less obvious with convenience gambling, or gambling in small venues. However, of more specific concern to this review is the extent to which venue characteristics may affect the level of problem gambling in the local area, an issue at the heart of the DSG concept. Four characteristics of venues stood out in the literature review. 4.2.1. Type of gambling EGM gambling has consistently proven to be associated with problem gambling in Australia and overseas. This is the gambling type of core concern. Indeed, the debate about gambling 36

regulation is essentially a debate about EGM regulation, as reflected in Victorias capping regime. In addition, the desegregation of gambling form tends to centre gambling opportunities around the EGM base. This has lead to the blurring of venue type with casinos similar to large clubs, which in turn are effectively suburban casinos. Given the dominance of EGMs, should DSG venues take the same route then there may be little to distinguish them between either small casinos are large clubs. This is where the community relationships and arrangements for ownership and control are relevant (section 4.3). The main point in terms of problem gambling is that the type of gambling is salient because some types (i.e. EGMs) are more associated with problem gambling than others. Indeed, the proportion of EGMs in any DSG venue will be likely to affect the level of problem gambling associated with the venue. Determining high risk proportions is problematic as there is no linear relationship between the number of machines in a venue and the level of problem gambling (as the next section sets out). However, it is likely that a DSG venue dominated by EGMs would pose a different risk configuration to a non EGM gambling venue. Put plainly, venues which offer more EGMS are likely to be riskier venues in the context of problem gambling. In short, the level of risk associated with DSG venues will be, at least in part, related to the gambling modes which constitute them. This does introduce the possibility that DSG venues, if EGM based, may be more risky than mini-casinos that provide other gambling opportunities (such as table games). However, a comparative empirical of problem gambling among the respective clientele at different venue will answer this question reliably. At this point we can only point to the possibilities based on the existing evidence. 4.2.2. Number of EGMs The number of EGMS in a local area and the level of problem gambling in that area in the context of socio-economic status involves a complex set of relationships that have dominated supply-led approaches to gambling management in Australia. This research has uncovered an inverse relationship between machine density and socioeconomic status (i.e. higher density of machines is associated with lower SES). This relationship is most evident at the larger scale (across metropolitan regions). It is less clear at the small scale (i.e. density and SES within particular suburbs) where the individual pictures are more complex. When examined at the smaller scale (in terms of trends within particular suburbs) this relationship is by no means clear cut, and it is evident that many other factors affect the spatial relationship between EGM numbers and problem gambling. These include levels of accessibility, history of venue location, existing transport corridors and developments, and the structure and range of venue catchments, to list a few. Because of these complexities, a reduction in the number of EGMs in an area will not lead to a proportional decrease in the level of problem gambling, as suggested by exposure theory. This is because while a simple linear association is evident at the larger scale, the causal factors determining the relationship at the smaller scale are complex and varied. Therefore, one needs to be wary when using generalised relationships to inform regulation at the level of the local area. A more nuanced understanding will need to incorporate concepts of accessibility (in terms of time-space budgets and social desirability) applied to the local population. 4.2.3. Distance from markets The number of EGMs is important in determining the catchment area of a venue, that is, the maximum distance which the majority of clientele are prepared to travel to visit. Smaller venues have smaller catchments, and hence their effects are more localised. Larger venues, such as DSG venues, are likely to have large catchments, attracting patrons from proportionately father afield than their more modest counterparts. Due to the size of the catchment of a larger venue, most of the patrons within it will not have high levels of accessibility to that venue, thus reducing the level of convenience or impulse gambling associate with it. Obviously, total gambling accessibility for an area will not decrease if convenience gambling is still available. This is because convenience gambling venues (e.g. pubs and clubs) tend to be heavily dispersed throughout the community, provisioning lower SES areas more heavily, and resulting in high levels of gambling 37

exposure by disadvantaged groups. If, as the concept suggests, DSG venues consolidate these smaller venue and effectively reduce the availability of opportunities (not just a reduction in machines) at the local level, then it is likely that problem gambling will be reduced. This in theory will start to shift the burden of problem gambling away from relatively immobile lower-class groups who gamble within their local environment (or within their activity spaces to use a term from behavioural geography). In other words, if the accessibility of particular vulnerable groups to EGMs is reduced then the incidence of problem gambling may be expected to decrease. The crucial factor here is the reduction in accessibility. The authors of this report wish to emphasise that the concept of DSG as a harm-reduction device will only be successful should the number of convenience gambling venues be reduced in a way that actually decreases accessibility of gambling opportunities in a significant number of local areas. This entails not just a reduction in the number of machines with the same pattern of distribution, but reconfiguring the pattern of distribution to limit access to vulnerable populations that have already been identified by the Victorian Government. 4.2.4. Facilities The review of destination venues revealed that a range of facilities were added to gambling opportunities to encourage visitors in a highly competitive marketplace. These included, for example, entertainment, food and beverages, accommodation, retail, childminding, and local tours. The facilities offered by a venue, translating into its general amenity value, affect the attractiveness of a venue and hence increase both its catchment size, and importantly, the type of patrons who visit. It has been documented for example that destination venues can provide safe and attractive spaces for otherwise socially marginalised groups (Morris et al. 2006). In terms of catchment size, destination venues seek to maximise their range and facilities are a large part of this. In terms of the association with problem gambling, a multi-function venue is likely to alter the gambling behaviour of patrons. Specifically, an increased range of facilities may encourage people to stay and gamble for longer periods, or to have several gambling sessions within the parameters of a single visit. This is enabled by the provision of necessary service such as food and beverages which may themselves become substantial attractions (e.g. renowned restaurants). Without knowing exactly what is proposed within a DSG venue it is difficult to predict the effects of the range of facilities on gambling behaviour. It could be expected that increased facilities will provide an enabling role towards gambling, potentially increasing gambling frequency and duration amongst those that visit as suggested by the empirical model constructed by Baker and Marshall (2005). As a counterbalance, venues may be better placed to implement effective harm minimisation strategies, an area discussed in section 4.4. below. 4.3. Community relationships, ownership and control DSG is essentially about the best business model to protect the community from the adverse effects of commercial gambling while simultaneously maintaining profitability. DSG therefore raises the choices between private or consortium ownership, club or community-type, or not-forprofit ownership and control. Perhaps the preferred model will be some mix of both, either by private/government partnerships with some inclusion of local community voice. Inevitably the location of proposed venues will raise political issues of economic impact on surrounding businesses and other gambling outlets, environmental concerns such as traffic, noise and pollution, criminal activity, not to mention changes in land values and the social and community benefits and costs. These questions are to some extent better settled with reference to the positioning of the proposed destination-style venues in Table 2, where they are seen to be on the higher side of community embeddedness in relation to both convenience gambling and casinos, which are the 38

embodiment of corporate styles of ownership and control. The review of the literature pointed out the deficiencies of each of these styles, deficiencies which are potentially offset within the DSG model. By limiting accessibility, as the DSG proposes, a new and hybrid form of gambling venue is envisaged, part club, part casino, but incorporating the most desirable aspects. In this case we would be looking for the ownership and management structures which maximize community responsiveness and sense of involvement of ordinary clients. This structure will simultaneously be dependent on a market orientation towards intentions to gamble which minimize the impulsive patterns associated with high exposure in economically disadvantaged areas. The task of balancing market and social responsibility, demand and supply, ownership and control will be the responsibility of government if the destination-style model is to achieve community acceptance. This potentially complex, if not insoluble, task is made simple to some extent by the contradictory trends noted above which are now characterizing the organisation of the gambling industry. While markets become more fragmented and differentiated into myriad niches, the organistion of supply has become increasingly homogenized (nothing is more ubiquitous and standardized than the EGM, however programmed) and corporatised, often by large multinational companies such as MGM or the Packer group in Australia. This tendency has provided a unique role for the state to act as a counter-force to the potential social harm of liberalized gambling while at the same time being increasing reliant on the revenues it has generated. The task of regulation would therefore appear to be central to the balancing act between these countervailing forces, even in situations where a neo-liberal government would normally avoid state intervention for fear of causing market distortion. The proliferation of agencies, both state and Commonwealth, into the gambling industry is perhaps unprecendented in an age which has favoured deregulation in English-speaking countries and has demonstrated the unique power of the juridicio-legal apparatus of the state to shape the gambling industry by often untypically heavy-handed measures (such as the banning of forms of Internet gambling in Australia and the US, the licensing of various forms of sportsbetting, or the direct ownership of gambling machines (as in the Northern Territory), or even the extreme of banning a thriving business of EGMs in the State of South Carolina. It would appear that the degree of community acceptance and responsiveness to a new form of venue depends on two main principles: (a) whether communities are able to share the economic benefits (job creation, benefit funds from profits, sports and club sponsorship) generated by the introduction of gambling businesses ; (b) whether they have a sense of empowerment and attachment to the gambling industry as recognized stakeholders with influence on the governance and management of the venues that impinge on their social life. Models of ownership of gambling facilities, as distinct from their regulation and control, range from state ownership of lotteries and casinos through to corporate, individual citizen and not-for profit club ownership of local hotels, clubs and other outlets such as gaming machine parlours. Another dimension is added in the separation of venue from machine ownership and operation, which can also range from state ownership of machines (as in the Northern Territory) to consortium ownership (Victoria). The Canadian experience (Campbell and Smith, 1998, 25), for example, indicated that all of these models have commercial viability. Casinos in the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec are owned and operated by crown corporations under models of governance interpreted from the Canadian Criminal Code, while the private sector has contracted as operators of provincial government-owned casinos in Ontario and Nova Scotia as commercial casinos similar to those in Nevada. An example of such hybrid public-private partnership is provided by the Casino Windsor, a joint-venture between the Ontario government and three American casino operators. In this arrangement the casino is owned by the government but managed by the private consortium. Other versions of the public-private partnerships been 39

replicated in other provinces as in Nova Scotia where the provincial Gaming Corporation as the business arm has contracted out the management of casinos in Halifax and Sydney to the Sheraton group, while in Saskatchewan, the Regina casino was privately developed and then leased to the provincial government where it is operated as a crown corporation. Similar variations are to be found in Australian states, though here government involvement tends to be limited to the development phase including the stimulation of demand, with much lower levels of public ownership. This is also the pattern in the United Kingdom following the recent legislation that liberalized the establishment of casinos and access to a range of other gambling products as outlined in the previous section. This second principle, that of community involvement, tends to have been an unrecognized element in the spread of commercialized gambling over the past two decades. Curtis and Wilson (2002, 107) define community forms in the context of gambling as both a source of expenditure (i.e. the client population) and a recipient of the resulting profits. They make the case that, in the New Zealand experience, the community form, in which profits are shared among the contributing gamblers, has been marginalized in practice in favour of corporate forms where profits are dispersed to shareholders or distant stakeholders. This critique could also be applied to many developments in Australian jurisdictions. Curtis and Wilson conclude, as result of this trend, that communities experience the worst of both worlds in that they bear the negative consequences of the gambling industry such as increased levels of addiction and impoverishment, but at the same time are largely excluded from the decision-making process (p. 116). The experience of exclusion, as we have seen, runs through the literature, with the consequence of political backlash against the spread of EGM and localized reaction to the establishment of casinos and other gambling facilities. While governments attempt to offset community damage and rejection by redistribution mechanisms such as community benefit funds and the celebration of gamblings fiscal benefits such as lower state taxes. The DSG venue proposal leaves open the question of community involvement (or embeddedness) while inviting suggested strategies for achieving combination of state, community, and corporate forms of ownership and control. The challenge is to develop a strategy that could avoid the inherent contradictions between the declared intention to produce community benefit while at the same time managing some of the negative consequences which liberalization and expansion entail. 4.4. Venue type, clientele and harm minimisation One of the most important impacts of DSG venues in a harm minimisation context is the extent to which such venues may introduce gambling to particular groups that have remained relatively unexposed. Gambling is a producer-driven market, one that creates demand by encouraging consumption (Baker and Marshall 2005; Marshall 2005). As set out in section 4.2.4, larger venues have the ability to provide added non-gambling attraction such as meals, entertainment, shopping, and leisure activities. These multi-function venues attract a wider client group than smaller, gambling-specific venues. As a result, larger venues may offer a higher amenity value, and attract a broader range of consumers than smaller venues. Thus larger venues have the potential to reach new markets by virtue of their product mix, range of attractions, and promotional and marketing potential. In other words, given that DSG venues will require a decision to gamble and effort in travel, it could be expected that they would appeal to a more affluent, mobile, suburban middle-class than those currently gambling at EGM venues in their local area. The empirical basis for this assumption resides in the Baker and Marshall (2005) model described in section 4.4. This new cohort will be exposed to gambling in a form designed to be attractive, particularly to the new markets, who may logically be expected to experience the effects of problem gambling. In other words, the social harm associated with gambling may be distributed among the new sociodemographic market targeted by larger venues (DSG venues among them). Thus the overall 40

prevalence levels may increase due to the increased availability of gambling opportunities to a wider group of potential consumers. The degree to which the overall prevalence rate changes will depend largely on the extent to which convenience gambling is reduced in the population. However, it is likely that a redistribution of problem gambling will occur in association with supply consolidation. If convenience gambling is reduced, particularly through fewer opportunities for EGM gambling at the local level, then problem gambling is likely to fall among the lower SES groups who are most likely to use EGMs at the local level. If the DSG venues do target the more affluent (suburban) classes, than problem gambling will be increased among these groups. What is likely if DSG venues are introduced and convenience gambling is meaningfully reduced is a redistribution of the burden of problem gambling from poorer to more affluent classes. The degree to which problem gambling prevalence throughout the population reduces depends primarily on the reduction of convenience gambling. This would entail not a reduction of number of EGMs, but a reduction in EGM accessibility by a greater proportion of the population. This would mean fewer venues rather than the same number of venues with fewer machines. Without such a meaningful reduction in the level of convenience gambling the DSG approach is likely to simply raise problem gambling prevalence levels and introduce problem gambling into new social groups. Thus the introduction of DSG venues, should they be accompanied with a less than commensurate decline in convenience gambling, may result in a market expansion. This expansion may in turn be associated with an overall increase in the prevalence of problem gambling. Obviously, it is the intention of the DSG concept that the market is actually restricted through a reduction in convenience gambling. In this case total problem gambling may be expected to decline as the problem gambling risk associated with convenience gambling will be reduced. However, the restructure of gambling into larger venues in itself has the potential to reduce problem gambling levels by venue-based strategies. The same power associated with scale that allows a large venue to promote itself also may also be used to implementing effective problem gambling programs. A range of mechanisms are available to larger venues that smaller venues may find difficult to implement. These include adhering to mandatory and voluntary codes of practice, self exclusion programs, tracking of customers through loyalty card data, information and awareness strategies). In other words, larger venues may be able to better identify and manage problem gambling than smaller businesses. As a case in point, the implementation of voluntary codes of practice in Queensland clubs based on venue size was investigated by Breen et al (2005). This study found that small venues (less than 25 machines) had a lower implementation rate (56%) than large (more than 25 machines) gaming venue (85%). This research indicated that larger venues had the connections, managerial structures, access to resources, and familiarity with process that enables adoption of the code. From this perspective, if problem gamblers truly are compulsive, they will be filtered out of convenience settings into DSGVs. The venues may then have a hold on the entire problem gambling market. This obviously leaves great opportunity both for social harm amelioration on one hand, and exploitation on the other.

41

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The primary question this literature review has attempted to answer, as far as the available evidence will allow, is the extent to which a DSG model, if implemented in Victoria, would lead to a reduction in the level of social harm (i.e. problem gambling) associated with gambling. In other words, is DSG likely to deliver a net community benefit to Victoria in comparison to existing regulatory arrangements? Our ability to provide a definitive answer to these questions has been limited by two factors. First, the DSG concept as presented by the project brief and supporting document is not specifically defined. In particular, the exact nature of DSG venues (in terms of facilities, proposed locations, gambling mix, ownership/control, community involvement, media and marketing presence) is unknown at this stage. As a result, DSG has been approached as a regulatory strategy by this review, rather than as a preconceived set of particular venues. The definition of DSG used by this review is reiterated below: 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 reducing the harm to consumers associated with commercial gambling. Second, the concept DSG does not appear under that label in the published literature. The exhaustive literature search (Appendix A and B) revealed no articles on DSG venues specifically, and very few on the general principle underlying the DSG regulatory concept. Therefore, we positioned DSG in a typology (Table 2) from convenience gambling on one hand, through to clubs and pubs as convenience gambling venues, to suburban and resort-based destination casinos on the other. This type of continuum approach was required as inconsistencies with nomenclature made direct comparison between jurisdictions even with the same venue type problematic. More importantly, this approach allowed us to combine the DSG principle cited above with the processes that affect gambling venues at different spatial scales of analysis (i.e. from the global gambling destination, through the national, to the regional and local). From this we were able to conceptually model DSG (Figure 1) in a way that related spatial structure to social outcome as mediated by regulation. This model enabled us to integrate the often tangential and superficial references to the ideas behind the DSG concept into the key argument we have presented to date. The conclusions are summarised in section 5.1 below. 5.1. The social outcomes of a DSG model in Victoria There appears a tendency of supply structures towards a convergence or desegregation of gambling modes into one primary type of gambling centred on the EGM-based venues that include casinos, suburban clubs, and hotels. Evidence from overseas and Australia indicates a steady liberalisation of gambling opportunities at the local level as reflected in the increasing availability of convenience-based venues. This liberalisation has resulted in growing concern with the social harm (most notably the rise in problem gambling) associated with gambling availability. As a result, much of the debate has concerned mechanisms for harm reduction, where the state has played an instrumental role as interventionist agency. Indeed, a tension that permeates is the liberalization of accessibility combined with tendency to monitor and intervene through state control. This convergence and control of supply intersects with a demand side that is increasingly fragmented and diverse. The characteristics of supporting markets range from the dedicated or involved gambler through to the convenience or impulse gambler, and while EGM densities are highest in poorer areas, the gambling market attracts a broad cross section of the adult population. 42

The goal of DSG concept is to reduce accessibility to EGM convenience gambling at the local level in communities identified as vulnerable (on an index of economic deprivation) by concentrating these opportunities in fewer dedicated gambling venues that require some effort and deliberate intention to visit. Because of the geographic relationship (expressed as sociospatial accessibility) between venue and problem gambling, a regime that includes fewer venues will reduce the level of problem gambling at the local level. Thus, in the context of harm minimisation, the principle of convenience gambling reduction through DSG is likely to be a sound policy. However this statement needs to be qualified. The effectiveness of reducing EGM availability in poorer areas in order to decrease problem gambling will depend on the nature of the reduction. Effectively, because convenience gambling reduces the time and space constraints on gambling it provides more people with the opportunity to gamble, hence increasing gambling participation at the local level (Marshall 2005). Simply reducing total EGM densities across an area is likely to have limited effect. What is required is a spatial reconfiguration of supply, where gambling opportunities are completely removed in a way that is designed to affect the level of accessibility (taking into account space, time, and resource opportunities and constraints) within a vulnerable area. In essence, the effectiveness of the DSG model will depend on this simultaneous reduction in availability at the local level. In terms of the DSG venues themselves, without knowing their exact characteristics, we need to focus on their general principles, processes, and likely social outcomes given certain parameters. These are the relationships described in the structural model (Figure 1). It is to be expected that fewer venues will have a more powerful and extensive effect on the areas in which they are located and beyond than the convenience venues they are designed to replace. As DSG venues are likely to occupy a particular market niche (Table 2), they will represent a case of supply-led growth into new markets. This may be associated with an increase in problem gambling among these new market segments. Should this scenario eventuate, the effectiveness of DSG in reducing total social harm associated with gambling will be dependent on a proportionately greater reduction in the harm associated with convenience gambling. To a large extent this will depend on the reduction of convenience gambling outlined in the above paragraph. The extent to which DSG reaches new markets may 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, and general amenity value. If DSG is successfully implemented it is likely that problem gambling will increase among the new markets reached. The gambling exposure of new markets may result in increased penetration of problem gambling across the population, potentially increasing total problem gambling. However, while the prevalence of problem gambling may increase, its incidence may be redistributed away from economically disadvantaged groups towards a more mobile affluent consumer group. Because the new DSG markets are likely to be more affluent (given by the fact that DSG is predicated on increased accessibility which means more spatial mobility which in turn requires wealth) then the burden of problem gambling may be shifted from the poorer to better off groups. In other words, with fewer convenience venues in poorer suburbs the level of problem gambling is likely to decrease in these lower SES groups. This assumes also that these groups have more restricted time-space-mobility profiles and will be unlikely to transfer their gambling patterns to DSG venues to the same extent. However, those groups with higher mobility, economic resources, and discretionary time are more likely to visit DSG venues. It is this group which in essence will be most at risk. In essence this amounts to a trade-off. DSG gaming venues may increase problem gambling but this will be discounted by the reduction in convenience gambling. What is more likely to happen than changes in prevalence levels, is the redistribution of harm away from the disadvantaged areas that are over-provisioned with EGMs in convenience venues (who are less able to access DSG venues), towards the more affluent new 43

market who will receive gambling exposure in its new destination-gambling form. This is essence is a social equity argument. DSG may result in the redirection of harm away from the poor towards the better-off, although this may not be expressed by changes in total prevalence. The degree to which this trade-off occurs (i.e. an increase in the harm among new groups versus a decrease of harm in existing, lower socioeconomic groups) will be mediated by the ability of larger DSG venues to implement effective harm reduction strategies. This is the real advantage of the destination concept. If we accept that DSG venues will be the diametric opposite of convenience gambling (as set out in Table 2), they will not only have the advantages of venuebased regulation and monitoring or problems, they will also have a strong community attachment and involvement. This would place DSG venues in a powerful position to implement preventative harm reduction measures (including issues of venue design), monitoring strategies, and amelioration programs that are simply 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 venues to meaningfully involve local communities into the overall harm reduction framework. The support of local communities depends not only on the facilities and amenities that DSG will provide, but also on how the DSG as a harm reduction measure is marketed. The success of DSG will depend in part on how well this ideology of harm redistribution is accepted by the community whether they are seen as a meaningful restriction and control of supply or as a mechanism for further EGM distribution. 5.2. The requirements for successful destination-style gaming The success or otherwise of the DSG concept in the context of harm reduction will depend on: 1. A reconfiguration of the supply of convenience venues to reduce accessibility in vulnerable areas (this means reducing the number of at risk individuals who have immediate access to any EGMs through removal of EGMs from venues rather than an overall level reduction with the same spatial configuration a policy that has proved to be ineffectual). 2. Location of DSG venues in areas of low vulnerability (as measured by social indicators) and the under-representation of particular at risk groups identified by previous studies. 3. Limitation of the accessibility profile of the DSG venue to vulnerable groups as determined by location, existing and new transport infrastructure (distance constraints), opening hours (time constraints), and associated transport costs (budgetory constraints). 4. The extent to which new markets and sociodemographic groups are introduced into, and embrace, the gambling configurations presented in DSG venues (greater market penetration is likely to result in elevated problem gambling). 5. The extent to which the potential configurations of DSG venues, including product mix, size, numbers of EGMs, complementary facilities, general amenity, and marketing/ promotion influence gambling participation, frequency and duration, attract new markets. 6. The degree to which problem gambling is prevented, monitored, and ameliorated through venue-based strategies. 7. The extent and the nature of the involvement of the local community (including the degree to which any economic benefits flow to the community and to which the community has a voice in harm minimisation strategies and venue configuration). 8. The extent to which the community embraces the DSG concept as a meaningful supplyside harm minimisation policy designed to redistribute the costs associated with gambling away from the lower SES areas into a more regulated and less accessible set of destinations that offer substantial community benefits. 44

9. The extent to which the state is actively involved in harm-reduction measures or to which corporate ownership results in proactive social responsibility. 5.3. Recommended areas for research and monitoring Several strategies for monitoring or evaluating DSG may be recommended: 1. Impacts on the local area through the pre and post examination of social indicators (e.g. debt, crime, divorce, suicide); as well as surveys of community perceptions and attitudes, need to be monitored. Given the potential of social adaptation to exposure, assessments need to be long term. 2. Visitation survey (pre and post) to determine who visitors are, where they are from, and their sociodemographic profiles and motivations are recommended. These surveys need to identify the ratios of vulnerable groups (e.g. young people, ethnic minorities, pensioners, unemployed) in the client base compared to their representation in the broader population. Given the supply side convergence (note the merging of venue types in Table 2) into one relatively homogeneous form we need to understand the demand side more deeply. In particular, comparative studies with casinos, pubs, and convenience gambling types will enable us to predict the distribution of social harm more accurately. 3. It would be useful to study the time budgets of gamblers through an onsite behaviour survey to determine the type of gambling, frequency, duration, and expenditure. This would help determine the proportions of gambler types in particular venues, whether involved (high risk) or recreational (low risk). 4. Given the evidence in the literature on social adaptability to exposure we recommend that follow-up studies in term of gambling prevalence needs to be carried over time. In other words, the nature of the impacts change over time as the gambling environment and the client groups change. The longer term outcomes are unknown (i.e. 5- 10 years) and strategies need to be in place to document this and allow opportunity for response at the venue and governmental level. 5. Little is known about the effectiveness of harm reduction programs. The DSG framework would provide excellent opportunity for the implementation and evaluation of such programs, particularly given the socially-responsible positioning of venues and the power of larger venues to monitor and implement such programs.

45

6. References
Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Gambling Research, 18, 7-38. Adams, G. R., Sullivan, A.-M., Horton, K. D., Menna, R., & Guilmette, A. M. (2007). A study of differences in Canadian university students' gambling and proximity to a casino. Journal of Gambling Issues, 9-17. Ali, M. M., & Thalheimer, R. (1997). Transportation costs and product demand: Wagering on parimutuel horse racing. Applied Economics, 29, 529-542. Andrew, N., & et al. (1997). Who's holding the aces?: There is a frightening link between compulsive gambling and crime. Alternative Law Journal, 22, 268-272. Austrin, T., & Curtis, B. (2004). The desegregation of gambling media and the emergence of a single form of gambling. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 21, 41-48. Baker, R., & Marshall, D. (2005). Modelling gambling time and economic assignments to weekly trip behaviour to gambling venues. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7, 381-402. Barr, G., & Standish, B. (2002). Modelling the Economics of Gaming in South Africa. Journal of Gambling Studies, V18, 371-397. Barron, J. M., Staten, M. E., & Wilshusen, S. M. (2002). The Impact of Casino Gambling on Personal Bankruptcy Filing Rates. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 440-455. Bonnaire, C., Bungener, C., & Varescon, I. (2006). Pathological gambling and sensation seeking How do gamblers playing games of chance in cafes differ from those who bet on horses at the racetrack? Addiction Research & Theory, 14, 619-629. Boreham, P., & Dickerson, M. (1996). What are the social costs of gambling?: The case of the Queensland machine gaming industry. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 31, 425-442. Breen, H., Buultjens, J., & Hing, N. (2005). Evaluating Implementation of a Voluntary Responsible Gambling Code in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 3, 15-25. Breen, H., Hing, N., & Weeks, P. (2002). Machine Gaming in Sydney Clubs: Characteristics of the Supporting Resident Populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 293-312. Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid Onset of Pathological Gambling in Machine Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31-43. Bridwell, R. R., & Quinn, F. L. (2002). From mad joy to misfortune: The merger of law and politics in the world of gambling. Mississippi Law Journal, 72, 565-729. Brown, R., Killian, E., & Evans, W. (2005). Gambling attitudinal and behavioral patterns and criminality in a sample of Las Vegas area detained youth. Journal of Gambling Issues. Campbell, F., & Lester, D. (1999). The Impact of Gambling Opportunities on Compulsive Gambling. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 126-127. Curtis, B., & Wilson, C. (2002). Gambling with communities. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. 105-117). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Davis, J. A., & Hudman, L. E. (1998). The History of Indian Gaming Law and Casino Development in the Western United States. In A. A. Lew & G. A. Van Otten (Eds.), Tourism and Gaming on American Indian Lands. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Delfabbro, P., & LeCouteur, A. (2006). Australasian Gambling Review. Adelaide: Report Prepared for the Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia. Department of Justice (2006). Taking Action on Problem Gambling : A Strategy for Combating Problem Gambling in Victoria (pp. 48). Melbourne: Office of Gaming and Racing, State of Victoria. Dombrowski, D., Uchtenhagen, A., & Rehm, J. (2001). Casino gambling in Switzerland The legal situation, politics and prospects for prevention and harm reduction. Journal of Gambling Issues. 46

Doughney, J. (2002). Socioeconomic banditry : poker machines and income redistribution in Victoria. In T. Eardley & B. Bradbury (Eds.), Competing Visions: Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001 (pp. 23). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre. Eadington, W. R. (1998). Contributions of casino-style gambling to local economies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Gambling: Socioeconomic Impacts and Public Policy, 556, 53-65. Fabian, T. (1995). Pathological gambling: A comparison of gambling at German-style slot machines and "Classical" gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 249-263. Felsenstein, D., & Freeman, D. (1998). Simulating the impacts of gambling in a tourist location: Some evidence from Israel. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 145-156. Fisher, S. (1993). The pull of the fruit machine: a sociological typology of young players. Sociological Review, 41, 446-474. (2000). Measuring the Prevalence of Sector-Specific Problem Gambling: A Study of Casino Patrons. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 25-51. Flannigan, N. (1997). The biggest game in town? Tirra Lirra, 7, 4-8. Foote, R. J. (1996). Aboriginal Gambling: A Pilot Study of Casino Attendance and the Introduction of Poker Machines into Community Venues in the Northern Territory. Darwin: Centre for Social Research, Northern Territory University. Fung, D., & Wilkes, S. (1998). A GIS approach to casino market modeling. Journal of Applied Business Research, 14, 77-88. Gambling Review Body (2001). Gambling Review Report. Norwich: Department for Culture, Media and Sport (GRB, DCMS). Garrett, T. A., & Marsh, T. L. (2002). The revenue impacts of cross-border lottery shopping in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 32, 501. Gerstein, D., Volberg, R. A., Murphy, S., & Toce, M. (1999). Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion and Research Centre, the University of Chicago. Gibbs, A. G. (2000). Anchorage: Gaming Capital of the Pacific Rim. Alaska Law Review, 17, 343378. Gilliland, J. A., & Ross, N. A. (2005). Opportunities for Video Lottery Terminal Gambling in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, 55-59. Goss, E. (2002). The Economic Impact of An Omaha, Nebraska Casino. Omaha: Creighton University. Govoni, R., Frisch, G. R., Rupcich, N., & Getty, H. (1998). First Year Impacts of Casino Gambling in a Community. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 347-358. Griffiths, M. (2003). Fruit machine addiction in an adolescent female: A case study. Journal of Gambling Issues. Griswold, M. T., & Nichols, M. W. (2006). Social Capital and Casino Gambling in U.S. Communities. Social Indicators Research, 77, 369-394. Hallebone, E. (1997). Saturday night at the Melbourne casino. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 32, 365-390. Hinch, T., & Walker, G. J. (2005). Casino markets: A study of tourist and local patrons. Tourism & Hospitality Research, 6, 72-87. Hing, N. (2006). A History of Machine Gambling in the NSW Club Industry: From Community Benefit to Commercialisation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7, 83-107. Hing, N., & Breen, H. (1996). Day tripping in the Tweed: An empirical investigation of 'pokie tours' from southern Queensland to northern New South Wales clubs. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3, 1-13. (2001). Profiling Lady Luck: An Empirical Study of Gambling and Problem Gambling Amongst Female Club Members. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 47-69.

47

 (2002). A Profile of Gaming Machine Players in Clubs in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Gambling Studies , 18, 185-205. Howat, P., Maycock, B., & Slevin, T. (2005). Community health advocacy to prevent social and health problems associated with gambling: a case study. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 11, 32-39. Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia (2003). Inquiry Into Management of Gaming Machine Numbers (pp. 141). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia. Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2006). A Prospective Study of the Impact of Opening a Casino on Gambling Behaviours: 2- and 4-Year Follow-Ups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 764773. Kearney, M. S. (2005). The Economic Winners and Losers of Legalized Gambling. National Tax Journal, 58, 281-302. Kim, W. G., Cai, L. A., & Jung, K. (2004). A profile of the Chinese casino vacationer to South Korea. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11, 65-79. LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Caro, G., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Missouri casino self-excluders: Distributions across time and space. Journal of Gambling Studies , 23, 1-13. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Giroux, I. (1999). Prevalence of problem gambling: A replication study 7 years later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 802. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Sevigny, S., & Cantinotti, M. (2005). Impact of the Format, Arrangement and Availability of Electronic Gaming Machines Outside Casinos on Gambling. International Gambling Studies, 5, 139-154. Leiper, N. (1989). Tourism and gambling. GeoJournal, 19, 269-275. Lesieur, H. R. (1992). Compulsive gambling. Society, 29, 43-50. Lester, D. (1994). Access to gambling opportunities and compulsive gambling. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1611-1616. Levitzky, I., Assane, D., & Robinson, W. (2000). Determinants of gaming revenue: extent of changing attitudes in the gaming industry. Applied Economics Letters, 7, 155-158. Livingstone, C. (2001a). Regional caps on poker machine numbers: Impacts, potential impacts, and issues. Discussion paper prepared for the City of Darebin (pp. 28p). Melbourne: Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe Universtiy. (2001b). The social economy of poker machine gambling in Victoria. International Gambling Studies , 1, 45-65. (2005). Desire and the consumption of danger: Electronic gaming machines and the commodification of interiority. Addiction Research and Theory , 13, 523-534. Lund, I. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Norway: What part does the gambling machine play? Addiction Research & Theory, 14, 475-491. Lynch, R. (1999). Crime in relation to the Sydney Harbour Casino. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10, 237-258. (2002). Gambling and Crime. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. 167-179. bibl, table). Palmerston North, N.Z: Dunmore Press. Marshall, D. (1999). Adelaide's pokie geography: distribution of, and expenditure on, electronic gaming machines in Adelaide. South Australian Geographical Journal, 98, 19-29. (2005). The Gambling Environment and Gambler Behaviour: Evidence from RichmondTweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5, 63-83. Marshall, D., & Baker, R. (2001a). Unfair odds? Factors influencing the distribution of electronic gaming machines in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 19, 77-92. Marshall, D. C. (1998). Missing the jackpot? The proliferation of gambling in Australia and its effect on local communities. Australian Geographical Studies, 36, 237-247.

48

Marshall, D. C., & Baker, R. G. V. (2001b). Clubs, spades, diamonds and disadvantage: the geography of electronic gaming machines in Melbourne. Australian Geographical Studies, 39, 17. (2002). The evolving market structures of gambling: case studies modelling the socioeconomic assignment of gaming machines in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. Journal of Gambling Studies , 18, 273. Marshall, D. C., McMillen, J., Niemeyer, S., & Doran, B. (2004). Gaming Machine Accessibility and Use in Suburban Canberra: A Detailed Analysis of the Tuggeranong Valley. Canberrra: The Centre for Gambling Research, Australian National University. Mason, P. M., & Stranahan, H. (1996). The effects of casino gambling on state tax revenue. Atlantic Economic Journal, 24, 336. McMahon, L., & Lloyd, G. (2006). "Rien ne va Plus" casino developments and land use planning? Planning Practice & Research, 21, 257-266. McMillen, J. (1990). Casino policies: have Australians had a fair deal? Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 3-29. McMillen, J., & Doran, B. (2006). Problem gambling and gaming machine density: socio-spatial analysis of three Victorian localities. International Gambling Studies, 6, 5-29. Miers, D. (1996). Objectives and systems in the regulation of commercial gambling. In J. McMillen (Ed.), Gambling Cultures (pp. 43-64). London: Routledge. (2003). Gaming Machines in Great Britain: A Century of Change. Gaming Law Review, 7, 131147. Ministerial Council on Gambling (2006). Analysis of Gambler Pre-commitment Behaviour. Melbourne: Office of Gaming and Racing, Victorian Governmnet Departmnet of Justice. Morris, M., Young, M., Barnes, T., & Stevens, M. (2006). Indigenous Gambling Scoping Study: A Summary. Darwin: School for Social and Policy Research, Charles Darwin University. Morrison, A. M., & Braunlich, C. G. (1996). A profile of the casino resort vacationer. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 55. Morrison, L. (2004). Pokie gambling and Maori women: Friend or foe? Journal of Gambling Issues. Moufakkir, O. (2005). An Assessment of Crime Volume Following Casino Gaming Development in the City of Detroit. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 9, 15-28. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O'Neil, M. (2005). Problem Gambling and Harm: Towards a National Definition. Melbourne: Report prepared for the National Gambling Research Program Working Party. Nichols, M. W. (1998). Deregulation and Cross-Border Substitution in Iowa's Riverboat Gambling Industry. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 151-172. Ochrym, R. G. (1990). Street crime, tourism and casinos: An empirical comparison. Journal of Gambling Studies, V6, 127-138. Olason, D. T., Skarphedinsson, G. A., Jonsdottir, J. E., Mikaelsson, M., & Gretarsson, S. J. (2006). Prevalence estimates of gambling and problem gambling among 13- to 15-yearold adolescents in Reykjavk: An examination of correlates of problem gambling and different accessibility to electronic gambling machines in Iceland. Journal of Gambling Issues, 39-55. Pasternak, A. V., & Fleming, M. F. (1999). Prevalence of Gambling Disorders in a Primary Care Setting. Arch Fam Med, 8, 515-520. Peppard Jr., D. M. (1995). In the shadow of Foxwoods: Some effects of casino development in Southeastern Connecticut. Economic Development Review, 13, 44. Piscitelli, F., & Albanese, J. S. (2000). Do Casinos Attract Criminals? A Study at the CanadianU.S. Border. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 445. Pitcher, A. (1999). Responsible Promotion of Gaming and Dealing with Problem Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 149-159. Productivity Commission (1999). Australia's Gambling Industries: Inquiry Report No.10. Melbourne: Productivity Commission. 49

Quinn, F. L. (2001). First Do No Harm: What Could be Done by Casinos to Limit Pathological Gambling. Managerial & Decision Economics, 22, 133-142. Raento, P., & Berry, K. A. (1999). Geography's Spin at the Wheel of American Gambling. Geographical Review, 89, 590. Roehl, W. S. (1996). Competition, Casino Spending, and Use of Casino Amenities. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 57-62. Ronalds, P. (2002). Who's the addict? : the need for pokie reform in Victoria. Alternative Law Journal, 27, 267-270, 286. Sakurai, Y., & Smith, R. G. (2003). Gambling as a motivation for the commission of financial crime, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 1-6). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Bilt, J. V. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369-1375. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., & LaPlante, D. (2004a). Laying the Foundation for Quantifying Regional Exposure to Social Phenomena: Considering the Case of Legalized Gambling as a Public Health Toxin. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 40-48. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Stanton, M. V. (2004b). The Road Less Travelled: Moving From Distribution to Determinants in the Study of Gambling Epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 49, 504-516. Shoemaker, S., & Zemke, D. M. V. (2005). The "Locals" Market: An Emerging Gaming Segment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 379-410. Sibbitt, E. (1997). Regulating gambling in the shadow of the law: Form and substance in the regulation of Japan's pachinko industry. Harvard International Law Journal, 38, 568-586. Siegel, D., & Anders, G. (1999). Public Policy and the Displacement Effects of Casinos: A Case Study of Riverboat Gambling in Missouri. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 105-121. South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (2003). Evaluation of self-exclusion programs Part A: Evaluation of self-exclusion programs in Victoria (no. 2). Victoria: The Victorian Gambling Research Panel. (2005). Community Impacts of Electronic Gaming Machine Gambling (Part A). Melbourne: Department of Justice, State of Victoria. Spears, D. L., & Boger, C. A. J. (2002). Residents' perceptions and attitudes towards Native American Gaming (NAG) in Kansas: Proximity and number of trips to NAG activity. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 6, 13-27. Teske, P., & Sur, B. (1991). Winners and losers: Politics, casino gambling, and development in Atlantic City. Policy Studies Review, 10, 130-137. Thalheimer, R., & Ali, M. M. (2003). The demand for casino gaming. Applied Economics, 35, 907918. Thompson, W. N., Schwer, R. K., Hoyt, R., & Brosnan, D. (1993). Not in my backyard: Las Vegas residents protest casinos. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 47-62. Toneatto, T., Ferguson, D., & Brennan, J. (2003). Effect of a New Casino on Problem Gambling in Treatment-Seeking Substance Abusers. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 40. Truitt, L. J. (1996). Casino gambling in Illinois: Riverboats, revenues, and economic development. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 89-96. Ungar, B. L. (2000). Convenience Gambling: Information on Economic and Social Effects in Selected Locations: GAO-01-108., GAO Reports (pp. 1): U.S. Government Accountability Office. Volberg, R. A. (1994). The prevalence and demographics of pathological gamblers: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 237-241. Weber, J., & Kwan, M. P. (2002). Bringing time back in: A study on the influence of travel time variations and facility opening hours on individual accessibility. Professional Geographer, 2, 226-240. 50

Welte, J. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M.-C., & Hoffman, J. H. (2004). The relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling behavior and pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 405-423. Wheeler, B. W., Rigby, J. E., & Huriwai, T. (2006). Pokies and poverty: Problem gambling risk factor geography in New Zealand. Health & Place, 12, 86-96. Wilson, D., Gilliland, J., Ross, N., Derevensky, J., & R., G. (2006). Video lottery terminal access and gambling among high school students in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97, 202-206. Wilson, J. M. (2001). Riverboat gambling and crime in Indiana: An empirical investigation. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 610. Young, M., Abu-Duhou, I., Barnes, T., Creed, E., Morris, M., Stevens, M., & Tyler, B. (2006). Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey 2005. Darwin: School for Social and Policy Research, Charles Darwin University.

51

Appendix A - Methodology
Defining search terms A search for relevant literature was performed using utilising the suite of online electronic databases available to Charles Darwin University, supplemented with searches using the world wide web. Pilot searches using the terms destination gambling/gaming revealed that they are uncommonly used, particularly in scholarly works. Very few articles utilised them explicitly in the sense outlined in the terms of reference. Many of the results generated were tangentially related returning, for instance, articles on holiday destinations where gambling is available, such as Macao. As there were insufficient works examining destination gambling specifically, those works that could shed any light on the relationship between characteristics of supply structure and harm were sought. Thus terms which pertain to the locational aspects of gambling venues were included. Further terms relating to accessibility were included given the accessibility of a venue is not dependent solely on its geographic location relative to the consumer (it includes, among other things, the time available to the consumer, relatively affluence, social amenity of the venue, and transportation opportunities and constraints). This search added significantly to the number of relevant articles for the review. A preliminary examination of the articles revealed that while accessibility to gambling opportunities featured in the considerations of most authors, it was less often the focus and infrequently discussed beyond the introduction. The literature search therefore broadened its scope to include those works investigating the harm associated with various arrangements of gambling supply/opportunities. Examination of the convergences and divergences further illuminated those supply structure factors associated with harmful consequences (notably in the contrast between venue based gambling and convenience gambling). The relevant search terms related to different types of venues, as well as regulatory and harm issues relating to those venues. The initial search terms were used consistently across all databases. However, the exact search method varied slightly between databases according to the number of matches returned for a given set of search terms. Adaptations were necessary to ensure neither too many, nor too few matches were generated. As a rule of thumb searches returning more than 200 articles were deemed too large to practically appraise. Therefore they were refined to narrow the focus and reduce the number of articles in the list. Searches producing articles outside the focal area were repeated with a synonym of the key word to accommodate for idiosyncratic use of key words by author or database. For example, using totalizer agency board instead of TAB or racecourse versus racetrack. If searches using the initial set of key words failed to return more than a few articles, or omitted important areas, then terms were added or removed as appropriate to widen the scope of the search. The specific steps of each search are outlined below. Searching the databases Searches of Academic Search Premier, Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre, Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, SocINDEX and SocINDEX with full text were performed via EBSCOhost. Several basic searches were made of the key terms destination gambling and convenience gambling (summarised in Table 1). These searches yielded few results.
Table A1: Basic searches performed on EBSCOhost.

Search term Convenience gambling Destination gambling Urban planning

Limits set none none urban planning AND urban environments 52

The advanced search method was utilised to find articles containing both the word gambling and a second keyword (summarised in Table 2). In the majority of searches this generated a very high number of matches (up to 7,500), many of which were not scholarly in nature (e.g. magazine articles) and which would therefore not contribute substantively to the review. In these cases the first step in refining the scope of articles returned was to limit the results to scholarly or peer reviewed only. A second technique used to narrow results lists was to select one or more of the terms offered by EBSCOhost to narrow the selection. All limits used are summarised in Table 2.
Table A2: advanced searches performed on EBSCOhost. Under limits set the terms appearing in indicate terms offered by EBSCOhost to narrow the focus of results. Where AND appears between terms this indicates a search using both terms. Where AND does not appear between terms parallel narrowings of the original search is indicated.

gambling and: Second key world

Access Accessibility Arcade Canada Casino Club Community

Consolidation
Density Destination Distance EGMs Exposure Fruit machine Geographic Geography Hospitality Land use Location Norway Opportunities Opportunity Poker machines Pokies Policy proximity Pub Racecourse Racetrack

regulation
Resort Retail AND land use Retail AND urban planning

Limits set Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed AND canada Scholarly/peer reviewed AND law & legislation Scholarly/peer reviewed AND gambling club Scholarly/peer reviewed AND pathological gambling compulsive gambling gambling none Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed none Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed AND government policy law &legislation Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed AND trade regulation Scholarly/peer reviewed none none

53

Shopping Sites South Africa Spatial Supply TAB Transport Tourism Transport UK Urban planning Venue Venue type

Scholarly/peer reviewed AND pathological gambling Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed gambling industry Scholarly/peer reviewed gambling industry Scholarly/peer reviewed none Scholarly/peer reviewed Scholarly/peer reviewed Limits set city planning mixed-use developments

retail and: Second key world

Land use Urban planning

The next sets of searches were performed using Informit. The terms used and the databases used are summarised in Table 3.
Table A3: summary of searches on Informit highlighting terms and databases used.

Database SAGE AUSPORT ATSI health Indigenous Australia ARCH e-library ARCH e-library CINCH APA-FT Family and Society Plus

Type of search standard

Search terms gambling

standard guided

gaming Gambling AND:

Access Accessibility Arcade Club Community Density Destination Distance Exposure Geography Hospitality Location Opportunities Opportunity Pub Resort Shopping

54

Sites Spatial Supply Tourism Venue type

CINCH APA-FT Family and Society Plus

standard

e-library APA-FT CINCH ANZBiP Family and Society plus Austrom

guided

Casino EGMs Fruit machine Poker machines Pokies Pub Racecourse TAB Gambling AND

Land use AND Urban planning AND

Consolidation Land use Retail Urban planning Retail Urban planning Access Accessibility Retail Transport

Subsequent searches were carried out within three mainstream gambling journals. These were the Journal of Gambling Studies, International Gambling Studies and the Journal of Gambling Issues. This ensured thorough appraisal of their contents for relevant articles, and also served as a check of the completeness of results returned by other search engines. The majority of relevant articles were found to have been identified by the searches already performed. Fewer terms were used in searching the Journal of Gambling Issues because of the very high number of inappropriate matches returned. Therefore only those terms relating most closely to the topic were retained. Table 4 summarises the terms used for the search of each journal.

55

Table A4: terms used in searching three gambling journals.

Journal Journal of Gambling Studies International Gambling Studies

Search terms
Access Accessibility Arcade Britain Canada Casino Club Community Density Destination Distance EGMs Exposure Fruit machine Geographic Geography Hospitality Location Norway Opportunities Opportunity Poker machines Pokies Pub Racecourse Racetrack Resort Shopping Sites South Africa Spatial Supply TAB Totalizer agency board Tourism UK Venue Venue type

Journal of Gambling Issues

Norwegian Access Accessibility Destination Distance Geography Geographic Location Proximity Shopping Spatial Supply Venue

Several gambling related websites were perused for relevant publications. Emphasis was put upon the Australian context. These websites are listed below in Table 5.

56

Table A5: names and addresses of the gambling related websites explored

Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation Department of Justice (Victoria) Centre for Gambling Research (Australian Natioal University) Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (Western Australia) Tasmanian Gaming Commission Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner (South Australia) Independent Gambling Authority (South Australia) Office of Gaming Regulation (Queensland) ACT Gambling and Racing Commission Northern Territory Racing, Gaming and Licensing The NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing Lottertwest (Western Australia) Gambling Research Australia Department of Health and Human Services (Tasmania),) National Opinion Research Centre (University of Chicago National Gambling Impact Study Commission (USA) The Department of Internal Affairs (New Zealand)

www.vcgr.vic.gov.au www.justice.vic.gov.au http://gambling.anu.edu.au/ www.orgl.wa.gov.au/m/index.php www.treasury.tas.gov.au www.olgc.sa.gov.au/splash.shtm www.iga.sa.gov.au/ www.qogr.qld.gov.au/ www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au www.nt.gov.au/justice/licensing//gaming.shtml www.olgr.nsw.gov.au www.lotterywest.wa.gov.au/index.php www.gamblingresearch.org.au www.dhhs.tas.gov.au www.norc.org/channels http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/index.html www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf

Searches were also performed using Web of Science (Science Citation Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index). Results revealed a high rate of redundancy with few new relevant articles located. Therefore, the search was limited to those terms with the closest relevance to destination gambling and the associated areas that the CI identifies as requiring more substance. The searches are summarised in Table 6. The Google search engine was also used with the advance scholar function. Searches were made for destination gambling, destination gaming, gambling and gambling AND geography. Results from three subject categories were selected to find matches within, business, administration, finance, and economics , engineering, computer science, and mathematics and social sciences, arts, and humanities. Both related articles and cited by options were followed for two links. Initial searches revealed a very high rate of redundancy, with only one new article of possible interest being found in appraisal of approximately one hundred. Given these results in the context of the time constraints a more exhaustive search was not conducted. Finally, further articles of interest were identified when cited in works found through the original searches. These were obtained and included in the project database. These methods produced a total of 357 articles which were of initial relevance to the topic. Of these, 272 were obtained and used as the basis of the review. These 272 articles are listed 57

references in Appendix B. In addition, the authors personal library was consulted in the light of the authors knowledge of the field and of key publication that were worthy of inclusion. As articles were read new references and material came to light and were accessed or obtained to include in the review. The list of 272 articles in Appendix B represent the starting point for the review in reality it was more encompassing.
Table A6: Advanced searches on Web of Science.

First term gambling

Convenience gambling Retail

Second term Access Accessibility Arcade Consolidation Convenience Density Destination Distance Exposure Geographic Geography Land use Location Proximity Pub Regulation Shopping Urban planning Venue Venue type none Urban planning

58

Appendix B List of All References Collected

Author unlisted (1999). Gambling on the future. Economist 1999/06/26/, pp. 27-28. Aasved, M. J., Schaefer, J. M., & Merila, K. (1995). Legalized gambling and its impacts in a central Minnesota vacation community: A case study. Journal of Gambling Studies, V11, 137-163. Abbott, D. A., & Cramer, S. L. (1993). Gambling attitudes and participation: A Midwestern survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 247-263. Abbott, M. (2005). Disabling the Public Interest: Gambling Strategies and Policies For Britain: A Comment on Orford 2005. Addiction, 100, 1233-1235. (2006). Do EGMs and Problem Gambling Go Together Like a Horse and Carraige? Gambling Research, 18, 7-39. Abbott, M. W., & Clarke, D. (2007). Prospective Problem Gambling Research: Contribution and Potential. International Gambling Studies, 7, 123-144. Abbott, M. W., Voiberg, R. A., & Ronnberg, S. (2004). Comparing the New Zealand and Swedish National Surveys of Gambling and Problem Gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 237258. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The Measurement of Adult Problem and Pathological Gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6, 175-200. Adams, G. R., Sullivan, A.-M., Horton, K. D., Menna, R., & Guilmette, A. M. (2007). A study of differences in Canadian university students' gambling and proximity to a casino. Journal of Gambling Issues, 9-17. Ali, M. M., & Thalheimer, R. (1997). Transportation costs and product demand: wagering on parimutuel horse racing. Applied Economics, 29, 529-542. Allen, P. (1996). Inquiry into the social impact of the extension of video gaming machines beyond casinos in Tasmania. Battery Point, Tas: Tasmanian Council of Social Service. Anders, G. C. (1996). Native American casino gambling in Arizona: A case study of the Fort McDowell reservation. Journal of Gambling Studies, V12, 253-267. Andrew, N., & et al. (1997). Who's holding the aces?: There is a frightening link between compulsive gambling and crime. Alternative Law Journal, 22, 268-272. Austrin, T. (2001). Entangled improvisers: Punters, states, locales and betting. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. 119-132). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Austrin, T., & Curtis, B. (2004). The desegregation of gambling media and the emergence of a single form of gambling. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 21, 41-48. Baker, R., & Marshall, D. (2005). Modelling gambling time and economic assignments to weekly trip behaviour to gambling venues. Journal of Geographical Systems, 7, 381-402. Baker, V., & Warrilow, P. (1997). Implementing 24 hour child care, Children in the Balance: Australian Early Childhood Association National Conference: proceedings. (pp. 765-768). Melbourne, Vic: Families at Work N. S. W. Barr, G., & Standish, B. (2002). Modelling the Economics of Gaming in South Africa. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 371-397. Barron, J. M., Staten, M. E., & wilshusen, S. M. (2002). The Impact of Casino Gambling on Personal Bankruptcy Filing Rates. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 440. Bauman, Z. (2007). Collateral Casualties of Consumerism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7, 25-56. Becona, E., Labrador, F., Echeburua, E., & Ochoa, E. (1995). Slot machine gambling in Spain: An important and new social problem. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 265-286. Blaszczynski, A. (2005). To Formulate Gambling Policies on the Premise That Problem Gambling is an Addiction May Be Premature. Addiction, 100, 1230-1232. Blaszczynski, A., Dickerson, M., Sagris, A., & Walker, M. B. (1999). Psychological aspects of gambling behaviour : an Australian Psychological Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 34, 4-16. 59

Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Nower, L. (2007). Self-exclusion: A Proposed Gateway to Treatment Model. International Gambling Studies, 7, 59 - 71. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A Science-Based Framework for Responsible Gambling: The Reno Model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301-317. Bonnaire, C., Bungener, C., & Varescon, I. (2006). Pathological gambling and sensation seeking How do gamblers playing games of chance in cafes differ from those who bet on horses at the racetrack? Addiction Research & Theory, 14, 619-629. Boreham, P., & Dickerson, M. (1996). What are the social costs of gambling?: The case of the Queensland machine gaming industry. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 31, 425-442. Brady, M. (2004). Regulating social problems: the pokies, the Productivity Commission and an Aboriginal community: Australian National University. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Breen, H., Buultjens, J., & Hing, N. (2005). Evaluating Implementation of a Voluntary Responsible Gambling Code in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 3, 15-25. Breen, H., Hing, N., & Weeks, P. (2002). Machine Gaming in Sydney Clubs: Characteristics of the Supporting Resident Populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 293-312. Breen, H., & Innes, K. (2006). Strategic Management of External Change in NSW Registered Clubs. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7, 155-175. Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid Onset of Pathological Gambling in Machine Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31-43. Bridwell, R. R., & Quinn, F. L. (2002). From mad joy to misfortune: The merger of law and politics in the world of gambling. Mississippi Law Journal, 72, 565-729. Brown, R., Killian, E., & Evans, W. (2005). Gambling attitudinal and behavioral patterns and criminality in a sample of Las Vegas area detained youth. Journal of Gambling Issues. Brown, S., Johnson, K., Jackson, A. C., & Wyn, J. (1998). Healthy, wealthy and wise?: The health implications of gambling for women. Australian Journal of Primary Health Interchange, 4, 156162. Caldwell, G., Dickerson, M., McMillen, J., & Young, S. (1988). The impact of a casino on the character of Canberra ": Chapter 7 from Social Impact Study: Civic Section 19 development and casino, National Association for Gambling Studies. National Conference (3rd) The proceedings of a bicentennial Conference on Australian Gambling / edited by Mark Dickerson. Canberra : NAGS, 1990; 323-330. Caldwell, G., Young, S., Dickerson, M., & McMillen, J. (1996). Long Term Study into the Social Impact of Gaming Machines in Queensland: for the Queensland Departmnet of Families, Youth and Community Care. Campbell, C., & Smith, G. (1998). Canadian gambling: Trends and public policy issues. Annla of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 556:, 22-35. Campbell, F., & Lester, D. (1999). The Impact of Gambling Opportunities on Compulsive Gambling. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 126-127. Clarke, D., Tse, S., Abbott, M., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., & Manaia, W. (2006). Key Indicators of the Transition from Social to Problem Gambling. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 4, 9-10. Cosgrave, J., & Klassen, T. R. (2001). Gambling against the State: The State and the Legitimation of Gambling. Current Sociology, 49, 1. Cox, B. J., Yu, N., Afifi, T. O., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). A National Survey of Gambling Problems in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 213-217. Curtis, B., & Wilson, C. (2002). Gambling with communities. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. Dunmore Press, 2002; 105-[117]. bibl). Palmerston North, N.Z. Daniels, S. (2005). Losing the Lottey: Why the State Should Not Enter the Gambling Business, North Carolina Family Policy Council (pp. 2-4). Davis, J. A., & Hudman, L. E. (1998). The History of Indian Gaming Law and Casino 60

Development in the Western United States. In A. A. Lew & G. A. Van Otten (Eds.), Tourism and Gaming on American Indian Lands. New York: Cognizant Communitcation Corporation. Delfabbro, P. (2000). Gender differences in Australian gambling: a critical summary of sociological and psychological research. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35, 145-158. (2002). The distribution of electronic gaming machines and gambling related harm in metropolitan Adelaide, Inquiry into the management of gaming machine numbers in South Australia (pp. 99-134). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia. Delfabbro, P. H. (2005). Population gambling trends in South Australia 2001-2004: a secondary analysis of health monitor survey data (pp. 23p, tables, figures, Online (515K)). Adelaide SA: Department for Families and Communities. Dense, J. (2004). The Socioeconomic Impact of Gaming in the Virgin Islands. Gaming Law Review, 8, 175-188. Dickerson, M. (1993). Internal and external determinants of persistent gambling: Problems in generalising from one form of gambling to another. Journal of Gambling Studies, V9, 225245. Dombrowski, D., Uchtenhagen, A., & Rehm, J. (2001). Casino Gambling in Switzerland The Legal Situation, Politics and Prospects for Prevention and Harm Reduction. Journal of Gambling Issues. Doughney, J. (2002). Socioeconomic banditry : poker machines and income redistribution in Victoria. In T. Eardley & B. Bradbury (Eds.), Competing Visions: Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001 (pp. 23p.). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre. (2004). Living off immoral earnings: an ethical critique of the Victorian poker machine partnership. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 6, 20-35. Eadington, W. R. (1995). Economic development and the introduction of casinos: Myths and realities. Economic Development Review, 13, 51. (1998). Contributions of Casino-Style Gambling to Local Economies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Gambling: Socioeconomic Impacts and Public Policy, 556, pp. 53-65. (1999). The Economics of Casino Gambling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 173-192. Eadington, W. R., & Siu, R. C. S. (2007). Between Law and Custom - Examining the Interaction between Legislative Change and the Evolution of Macao's Casino Industry. International Gambling Studies, 7, 1 - 28. Economic, N. I. o., & Industry Research (1997). The impact of the expansion in gaming on the Victorian retail sector: a report for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Melbourne: Spiller Gibbins Swan Pty Ltd, Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Fabian, T. (1995). Pathological gambling: A comparison of gambling at German-style slot machines and "Classical" gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, V11, 249-263. Felsenstein, D., & Freeman, D. (1998). Simulating the Impacts of Gambling in a Tourist Location: Some Evidence from Israel. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 145. Ferentzy, P., Skinner, W., & Antze, P. (2006). Recovery in Gamblers Anonymous. Journal of Gambling Issues. Fernie, J. (1986). Service Uses in Shopping Areas, Development Control Policy Note 11: A Comment. Service Industries Journal, 6, 241-245. Fisher, S. (1993). The pull of the fruit machine: a sociological typology of young players. Sociological Review, 41, 446-474. (2000). Measuring the Prevalence of Sector-Specific Problem Gambling: A Study of Casino Patrons. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 25-51. Fisher, S., & Griffiths, M. (1995). Current trends in slot machine gambling: Research and policy issues. Journal of Gambling Studies , V11, 239-247. Flannigan, N. (1997). The biggest game in town? Tirra Lirra, 7, 4-8. Friedman, J., Hakim, S., & Weinblatt, J. (1989). Casino Gambling as a 'Growth Pole' Strategy and 61

its Effect on Crime. Journal of Regional Science, 29, 615-623. Fung, D., & Wilkes, S. (1998). A GIS Approach to Casino Market Modeling. Journal of Applied Business Research, 14, 77-88. Garrett, T. A., & Marsh, T. L. (2002). The revenue impacts of cross-border lottery shopping in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 32, 501. Gerstein, D., Volberg, R. A., Murphy, S., & Toce, M. (1999). Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion and Research Centre, the University of Chicago. Giacopassi, D., Nichols, M., & Stitt, B. G. (1999). Attitudes of Community Leaders in New Casino Jurisdictions Regarding Casino Gambling's Effects on Crime and Quality of Life. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 123-147. Giacopassi, D., Stitt, B. G., & Nichols, M. (2006). Motives and Methods of Under-Age Casino Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 413-426. Gibbs, A. G. (2000). Anchorage: Gaming Capital of the Pacific Rim. Alaska Law Review, 17, 343378. Gilliland, J. A., & Ross, N. A. (2005). Opportunities for Video Lottery Terminal Gambling in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, 55-59. Goss, E. (2002). The Economic Impact of An Omaha, Nebraska Casino. Omaha: Creighton University. Govoni, R., Frisch, G. R., Rupcich, N., & Getty, H. (1998). First Year Impacts of Casino Gambling in a Community. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 347-358. Griffiths, M. (2003). Fruit machine addiction in an adolescent female: A case study. Journal of Gambling Issues. Griffiths, M., & Delfabbro, P. (2001). The Biopsychosocial Approach to Gambling: Contextual Factors in Research and Clinical Interventions. eGambling. Griffiths, M., Scarfe, A., & Bellringer, P. (1999). The UK National Telephone Gambling Helpline -Results on the First Year of Operation. Journal of Gambling Studies , 15, 83-90. Griswold, M. T., & Nichols, M. W. (2006). Social Capital and Casino Gambling in U.S. Communities. Social Indicators Research, 77, 369-394. Hallebone, E. (1997). Saturday night at the Melbourne casino. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 32, 365-390. Hames Sharley Victoria (1997). Patron profile of a major casino operating in a metropolitan environment, December 1997, Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, 1977, 107p, tables, figures. Melbourne, Vic. Hansen, M. (2006). Treatment of problem & pathological gambling in the Nordic countries: Where we are now and where do we go next? Journal of Gambling Issues. Heater, J., & Patton, D. (2006). Gender differences in problem gambling behaviour from helpline callers. Journal of Gambling Issues. Hinch, T., & Walker, G. J. (2005). Casino markets: A study of tourist and local patrons. Tourism & Hospitality Research, 6, 72-87. Hing, N. (1998). Responsible gambling in NSW clubs: opinions, opportunities and obstacles. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 5, 23-35. (2006). A History of Machine Gambling in the NSW Club Industry: From Community Benefit to Commercialisation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7, 83-107. Hing, N., & Breen, H. (1999). A profile of Sydney club members: implications for strategic management in a competitive environment. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 6, 25-44. (2001). Profiling Lady Luck: An Empirical Study of Gambling and Problem Gambling Amongst Female Club Members. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 47-69. (2002). A Profile of Gaming Machine Players in Clubs in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Gambling Studies , 18, 185-205. 62

Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2005). Gambling Amongst Gaming Venue Employees: Counsellors' Perspectives on Risk and Protective Factors in the Workplace. Gambling Research , 17, 2546. Hing, N., & Mackellar, J. (2004). Challenges in Responsible Provision of Gambling: Questions of Efficacy, Effectiveness and Efficiency. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 8, 43-58. Hing, N., & Mattinson, A. (2005). Evaluation of the NSW ClubSafe Responsible Gambling Program: Opportunities and Challenges for New Zealand Clubs. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 3, 61-69. Hing, N., & McMillen, J. (2002). A Conceptual Framework of the Corporate Management of Social Impacts: The Case of Problem Gambling. Business & Society Review, 107, 457-488. Holland, L. (2001). Malaysia's Next Big Thing. Far Eastern Economic Review, 164, 61. Horton, S. (2005). The Gambler: (re)placing the desire of money. New Zealand Geographer, 61, 187202. Howat, P., Maycock, B., & Slevin, T. (2005). Community health advocacy to prevent social and health problems associated with gambling: a case study. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 11, 32-39. Hoye, R. (2005). A Sure Bet: Privatisation of the Victorian TAB. International Gambling Studies, 5, 85-94. Hraba, J., & Lee, G. (1995). Problem gambling and policy advice: The mutability and relative effects of structural, associational and attitudinal variables. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 105-121. Huxley, J., & Carroll, D. (1992). A survey of fruit machine gambling in adolescents. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 167-179. Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia (2003). Inquiry Into Management of Gaming Machine Numbers (pp. 141). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia. Jacobs, D. F. (2000). Juvenile Gambling in North America: An Analysis of Long Term Trends and Future Prospects. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 119-152. Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2006). A Prospective Study of the Impact of Opening a Casino on Gambling Behaviours: 2- and 4-Year Follow-Ups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 764773. Jacques, C., Ladouceur, R., & Ferland, F. (2000). Impact of Availability on Gambling: A Longitudinal Study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 810. James, K. C., Bible, W. A., Dobson, J. C., Lanni, J. T., Leone, R. C., Loescher, R. W., McCarthy, L. T., Moore, P. H., & Wilhem, J. W. (1999). National Gambling Impact Study Commission: Final Report. Washington. Janes, P. L., & Collison, J. (2004). Community Leader Perceptions of the Social and Economic Impacts of Indian Gaming. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 8, 13-30. Janke, J., & Gerlach, J. (2002). Native American Casino Gambling in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Focus on Geography, 47, 14. Johnson, D. (1998). Shedding the wowser image: gambling in Victoria. Australian Social Monitor, 41-45. Johnson, S. (1999). The impact of gaming machines on the racetrack, the North American perspective, World Trotting Conference (pp. 7). Sydney, Aus. Jones, P., & Hillier, D. (1994). Back street to side street to high street: The changing geography of betting shops. Geography, 79, 122. Ka-Chio Fong, D., & Ozorio, B. (2005). Gambling Participation and Prevalence Estimates of Pathological Gambling in a Far-East Gambling City: Macao. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 9, 15-28. Kalischuk, R. G., Nowatzki, N., Cardwell, K., Klein, K., & Solowoniuk, J. (2006). Problem Gambling and its Impact on Families: A Literature Review. International Gambling Studies , 6, 31-60. 63

Kearney, C. A. (1997). Response to "A Methodological Critique of "Casino Gambling in Private School and Adjudicated Youngsters: A Survey of Practices and Related Variables"". Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 91-95. Kearney, C. A., Roblek, T., Thurman, J., & Turnbough, P. D. (1996). Casino gambling in private school and adjudicated youngsters: A survey of practices and related variables. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 319-327. Kearney, M. S. (2005). The Economic Winners and Losers of Legalized Gambling. National Tax Journal, 58, 281-302. Kim, W. G., Cai, L. A., & Jung, K. (2004). A Profile of the Chinese Casino Vacationer to South Korea. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11, 65-79. Kingma, S. (2004). Gambling and the risk society: the liberalisation and legitimation crisis of gambling in the Netherlands. International Gambling Studies, 4, 47-67. Korn, D., Gibbins, R., & Azmier, J. (2003). Framing Public Policy Towards a Public Health Paradigm for Gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 235-256. Korn, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). Gambling and the Health of the Public: Adopting a Public Health Perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 289-365. Kpmg Consulting (2000). Longitudinal Community Impact Study : 1999 report volume 2 (pp. 334p). Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Kpmg Consulting (2000). Longitudinal Community Impact Study : 1999 report volume 1 (pp. 184). Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Krizek, K. J. (2003). Neighborhood Services, Trip Purpose, and Tour-Based Travel. Transportation, 30, 387-410. Kwan, F. V. C. (2004). Gambling Attitudes and Gambling Behavior of Residents of Macao: The Monte Carlo of the Orient. Journal of Travel Research , 42, 271-278. Kyriakopoulos, V., & Dunstan, K. (1997). Yarra Babylon: gambling, Bulletin (Sydney) (pp. 14-16). LaBrie, R. A., Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. A., Peller, A. J., Caro, G., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Missouri Casino Self-Excluders: Distributions Across Time and Space. Journal of Gambling Studies . LaBrie, R. A., Shaffer, H. J., LaPlante, D. A., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Correlates of College Student Gambling in the United States. Journal of American College Health, 52, 53-62. Ladouceur, R. (1996). The prevalence of pathological gambling in Canada. Journal of Gambling Studies , V12, 129-142. Ladouceur, R., & Dube, D. (1995). Prevalence of pathological gambling and associated problems in individuals who visit non-gambling video arcades. Journal of Gambling Studies, V11, 361365. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Giroux, I. (1999). Prevalence of Problem Gambling: a Replication Study 7 Years Later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 802. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Sevigny, S., & Cantinotti, M. (2005). Impact of the Format, Arrangement and Availability of Electronic Gaming Machines Outside Casinos on Gambling. International Gambling Studies, 5, 139-154. LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2006). Men & Women Playing Games: Gender and the Gambling Preferences of Iowa Gambling Treatment Program Participants. Journal of Gambling Studies, V22, 65-80. Leiper, N. (1989). Tourism and gambling. GeoJournal, 19, 269-275. Lesieur, H. R. (1992). Compulsive gambling. Society, 29, 43-50. Lester, D. (1994). Access to gambling opportunities and compulsive gambling. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1611-1616. Levitzky, I., Assane, D., & Robinson, W. (2000). Determinants of gaming revenue: extent of changing attitudes in the gaming industry. Applied Economics Letters, 7, 155-158. Livingstone, C. (2001). Regional caps on poker machine numbers: Impacts, potential impacts, and issues. Discussion paper prepared for the City of Darebin (pp. 28p). Melbourne: Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe Universtiy. 64

Livingstone, T. (2004). Proximity to poker machines lures gamblers, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane). Lucas, A. F., & Santos, J. (2003). Measuring The Effect Of Casino-Operated Restaurant Volume On Slot Machine Business Volume: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27, 101-117. Lund, I. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Norway: What part does the gambling machine play? Addiction Research & Theory, 14, 475-491. Lynch, R. (1999). Crime in relation to the Sydney Harbour Casino. Current Issues in Criminal Justice , 10, 237-258. bibl, graph, map, table. Lynch, R. (2002). Gambling and crime. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. 167-179. bibl, table). Palmerston North, N.Z: Dunmore Press. MacDonald, M., McMullan, J. L., & Perrier, D. C. (2004). Gambling Households in Canada. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 187-236. MacLaurin, T., & MacLaurin, D. (2003). Casino gaming and tourism in Canada. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15, 328-332. Maddern, C., Horman, S., & Dickerson, M. (1997). Fifth community gambling pattern survey combined with second positive and negative perceptions of gambling survey: final report December 1977, Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority (pp. 237p plus appendices, tables, figures). Melbourne, Vic: Australian Institute for Gambling Research, University of Western Sydney. Marotta, J. J. (2003). Oregon's Problem Gambling Services: Public health orientation in a stepped-care approach. Journal of Gambling Issues. Marshall, D. (1999). Adelaide's pokie geography: distribution of, and expenditure on, electronic gaming machines in Adelaide. South Australian Geographical Journal, 98, 19-29. (2004). Gambling, public health and the role of the federal government. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 10, 56-63. (2005). The Gambling Environment and Gambler Behaviour: Evidence from RichmondTweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5, 63-83. Marshall, D., & Baker, R. (2000). No chance: electronic gaming machines and the disadvantaged in Melbourne. Geodate, 13, 5-8. (2001). Unfair odds? Factors influencing the distribution of electronic gaming machines in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 19, 77-92, tables, figures. Marshall, D. C. (1998). Missing the jackpot?: The proliferation of gambling in Australia and its effect on local communities. Australian Geographical Studies, 36, 237-247. Marshall, D. C., & Baker, R. G. V. (2001). Clubs, Spades, Diamonds and Disadvantage: the Geography of Electronic Gaming Machines in Melbourne. Australian Geographical Studies , 39, 17. (2002). The Evolving Market Structures of Gambling: Case Studies Modelling the Socioeconomic Assignment of Gaming Machines in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 273. Marshall, D. C., McMillen, J., Niemeyer, S., & Doran, B. (2004). Gaming Machine Accessibility and Use in Suburban Canberra: A Detailed Analysis of the Tuggeranong Valley. Canberrra: The Centre for Gambling Research, Australian National University. Mason, P. M., & Stranahan, H. (1996). The effects of casino gambling on state tax revenue. Atlantic Economic Journal, 24, 336. McCormick, K. (1997). In the clutch of the casinos. Planning, 63, 4. McGowan, V. (2004). How do we know what we know? Epistemic tensions in social and cultural research on gambling 1980 2000. Journal of Gambling Issues. McGowan, V., Droessler, J., Nixon, G., & Grimshaw, M. (2002). Recent research in the sociocultural domain of gaming and gambling: an annotated bibliography and critical overview. McKay, C. (2005). Double Jeopardy: Older Women and Problem Gambling. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 3, 35-53. Mcmahon, L., & Lloyd, G. (2006). "Rien ne va Plus" casino developments and land use 65

planning? Planning Practice & Research, 21, 257-266. McMillen, J. (1990). Casino policies: have Australians had a fair deal? Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 3-29. (1996). From glamour to grind : the globalisation of casinos, Gambling cultures (pp. studies in history and interpretation / edited by Jan McMillen. London : Routledge, 1996; 263-287. bibl). (2000). Online Gambling: Challenges to National Sovereignty and Regulation. Prometheus, 18, 391-401. (2002). New Zealand's gambling policy : comparative reflections. In B. Curtis (Ed.), Gambling in New Zealand (pp. 59-74. bibl). Palmerston North, N.Z: Dunmore Press. McMillen, J., & Doran, B. (2006). Problem gambling and gaming machine density: socio-spatial analysis of three Victorian localities. International Gambling Studies, 6, 5 -29. McMillen, J., & Eadington, W. R. (1986). The evolution of gambling laws in Australia. New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8, 167-192. McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Ahmed, E., & Wenzel, M. (2004). 2003 Victorian longitudinal community attitudes survey / prepared for the Gambling Research Panel by The Centre for Gambling Research, Australian National University. Melbourne: Australian National University. Centre for Gambling Research, Gambling Research Panel. McMillen, J., & Pitt, S. (2005). Review of the ACT Government's harm minimisation measures: Australian National University. Centre for Gambling Research. Mcmillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring Problem Gambling: Assessment of Three Prevalence Screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147-174. McNeilly, D. P., & Burke, W. J. (2000). Late life gambling: The attitudes and behaviors of older adults. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 393-415. McQueen, P. A. (2004). Racing industry gets a boost with VLT OK at OTBs. International Gaming & Wagering, 25, 10. McQueen, P. A., & Connor, M. (2005). Oklahoma slot rush. Casino Journal, 18, 10-12. Meyer-Arendt, K. J. (1995). Casino gaming in Mississippi: Location, location, location. Economic Development Review, 13, 27. Miers, D. (2003). Gaming Machines in Great Britain: A Century of Change. Gaming Law Review, 7, 131-147. Miller, W. J., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Casino gambling and street crime: American Academy of Political & Social Sciences. Minnesota Restaurant, H. R. A. (1993). Awash in Minnesota. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34, 92. Monash University. Centre for Criminology, & Criminal Justice (2000). The impact of gaming and crime statistics: a paper prepared for the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Morrison, A. M., & Braunlich, C. G. (1996). A profile of the casino resort vacationer. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 55. Morrison, L. (2004). Pokie gambling and Maori women: Friend or foe? Journal of Gambling Issues. Moufakkir, O. (2005). An Assessment of Crime Volume Following Casino Gaming Development in the City of Detroit. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 9, 15-28. Moufakkir, O., Singh, A. J., Moufakkir-van der Woud, A., & Holecek, D. F. (2004). Impact of Light, Medium and Heavy Spenders on Casino Destinations: Segmenting Gaming Visitors Based on Amount of Non-gaming Expenditures. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 8, 59-71. Muller, R. (2002). The Creation of Gambling as a Social Problem: The Application of Weiner's Model to the South Australian Treatment Industry. Counterpoints , 19-26. Nichols, M. W. (1998). Deregulation and Cross-Border Substitution in Iowa's Riverboat Gambling Industry. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 151-172. Nichols, M. W., Stitt, B. G., & Giacopassi, D. (2004). Changes in Suicide and Divorce in New 66

Casino Jurisdictions. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 391-404. Nixon, G., Solowoniuk, J., Hagen, B., & Williams, R. J. (2005). "Double trouble": The lived experience of problem and pathological gambling in later life. Journal of Gambling Issues. Noriega, P. B., & Lin, L.-C. (2003). A Comparison Study of the Behavior and Practices of Casino Gamblers as Compared to Those Gamblers of Sport Book Activities. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10, 181. Nykiel, R. A. (2004). A Special Look at Indian Gaming. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 8, 51-56. Ochrym, R. G. (1990). Street crime, tourism and casinos: An empirical comparison. Journal of Gambling Studies, V6, 127-138. O'Connor, J., & Dickerson, M. (2003). Impaired control over gambling in gaming machine and off-course gamblers. Addiction, 98, 53. Ohtsuka, K., Bruton, E., DeLuca, L., & Borg, V. (1997). Sex differences in pathological gambling using gaming machines. Psychological Reports, 80, 1051-1057. lason, D. T., Skarphedinsson, G. A., Jonsdottir, J. E., Mikaelsson, M., & Gretarsson, S. J. (2006). Prevalence estimates of gambling and problem gambling among 13- to 15-yearold adolescents in Reykjavk: An examination of correlates of problem gambling and different accessibility to electronic gambling machines in Iceland. Journal of Gambling Issues. Oliveira, M. P. M. T., & Silva, M. T. A. (2001). A Comparison of Horse-Race, Bingo, and Video Poker Gamblers in Brazilian Gambling Settings. Journal of Gambling Studies , 17, 137-149. Orford, J. (2005). Disabling the public interest: gambling strategies and policies for Britain. Addiction, 100, 1219-1225. (2005). Complicity on the Riverbank: the Search for the Truth About Problem Gambling: Reply to the Commentaries. Addiction, 100, 1235-1239. Oster, S. L., & Knapp, T. J. (1998). Sports betting by college students: Who bets and how often? College Student Journal, 32, 289-292. Paisley, E. (1993). Gambling, gangs and the sleepy Marianas. Far Eastern Economic Review, 156, 28. Palmer, R., & Mahoney, E. (2005). Winners and Losers: Segmenting a Casino Loyalty Programme. International Gambling Studies, 5, 271-287. Pannett, J. (1995). Social consequences of casinos. National Outlook , 17, 4-6. Parsons, K., & Webster, D. (2000). The consumption of gambling in everyday life. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24, 263. Pasternak IV, A. V., & Fleming, M. F. (1999). Prevalence of Gambling Disorders in a Primary Care Setting,. Arch Fam Med, 8, 515-520. Peacock, T. D., Day, P. A., & Peacock, R. B. (1999). At What Cost? The Social Impact of American Indian Gaming. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 10, 23-34. Peppard Jr., D. M. (1995). In the shadow of Foxwoods: Some effects of casino development in Southeastern Connecticut. Economic Development Review, 13, 44. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown Tourism and Resident Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gaming to Host Community Residents. Journal of Business Research, 44, 165-177. Persky, J. (1995). Impact studies, cost-benefit analysis and casinos. Journal of Gambling Studies, V11, 349-360. Piscitelli, F., & Albanese, J. S. (2000). Do Casinos Attract Criminals? A Study at the CanadianU.S. Border. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 445. Pitcher, A. (1999). Responsible Promotion of Gaming and Dealing with Problem Gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 149-159. Platz, L., Knapp, T. J., & Crossman, E. W. (2005). Gambling By Underage College Students: Preferences and Pathology. College Student Journal, 39, 3-6. Productivity Commission (1999). Australia's Gambling Industries :Inquiry Report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Queensland University of Technology. Program on Nonprofit Corporations (1995). The impact 67

of the introduction of gaming machines on charitable fundraising: executive summary, Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Brisbane, Qld: Queensland University of Technology. Quinn, F. L. (2001). First Do No Harm: What Could be Done by Casinos to Limit Pathological Gambling. Managerial & Decision Economics, 22, 133-142. Raento, P., & Berry, K. A. (1999). Geography's Spin at the Wheel of American Gambling. Geographical Review, 89, 590. Rafool, M. (2005). Gambling on gaming. State Legislatures, 31, 26-29. Ramdeen, C., & Fried, B. (2003). The Roles of Casino Controllers. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 7, 25. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1009. Ritzer, G., & Stillman, T. (2001). The modern Las Vegas Casino-Hotel: The paradigmatic new means of consumption. Management, 4, 83-99. Rivenbark, W. C., & Rounsaville, B. B. (1996). The Incidence of Casino Gaming Taxes in Mississippi: Setting the Stage. Public Administration Quarterly, 20, 129-142. Roehl, W. S. (1996). Competition, Casino Spending, and Use of Casino Amenities, Journal of Travel Research, 34, 57-62. (1999). Quality of Life Issues in a Casino Destination. Journal of Business Research, 44, 223-229. Ronalds, P. (2002). Who's the addict?: the need for pokie reform in Victoria. Alternative Law Journal,, 27, 267-270, 286. Ronnberg, S. (2005). Steps Towards Responsibility. Addiction, 100, 1232-1233. Room, R. (2005). The Wheel of Fortune: Cycles and Reactions in Gambling Policies. Addiction, 100, 1226-1227. Room, R., Turner, N. E., & Ialomiteanu, A. (1999). Community effects of the opening of the Niagara casino. Addiction, 94, 1449-1466. Rush, B., Moxam, R. S., & Urbanoski, K. A. (2002). Programs for the Treatment of Problem Gambling in Ontario. Journal of Gambling Issues. Ryan, N., & McMillen, J. (1996). The Cairns Casino: community attitudes and some employment impacts . Brisbane, Qld: Queensland University of Technology. Sakurai, Y., & Smith, R. G. (2003). Gambling as a motivation for the commission of financial crime, Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 2003. Schmelzer, C. D., Revelas, D., & Brown, D. O. (2002). Casino Gaming From a Border State Perspective: Impact on the Hospitality Industry. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 6, 29. Scott, J. E. (2001). "Everything's Bubbling, But We Don't Know What the Ingredients Are" Casino Politics and Policy in the Periphery. Journal of Gambling Issues. Searle, G., & Bounds, M. (1999). State Powers, State Land and Competition for Global Entertainment: The Case of Sydney[*]. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 23, 165-172. Shaffer, H. J. (2005). From Disabling to Enabling the Public Interest: Natural Transitions From Gambling Exposure to Adaptation and Self-Regulation. Addiction, 100, 1227-1230. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Bilt, J. V. (1999). Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling Behavior in the United States and Canada: A Research Synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369-1375. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., & LaPlante, D. (2004). Laying the Foundation for Quantifying Regional Exposure to Social Phenomena: Considering the Case of Legalized Gambling as a Public Health Toxin. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 40-48. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Stanton, M. V. (2004). The Road Less Travelled: Moving From Distribution to Determinants in the Study of Gambling Epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 49, 504-516. Shigley, P. (2005). In California, Indian Casinos Come to Town. Planning, 71, 35. 68

Shoemaker, S., & Zemke, D. M. V. (2005). The "Locals" Market: An Emerging Gaming Segment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 379-410. Sibbitt, E. (1997). Regulating gambling in the shadow of the law: Form and substance in the regulation of Japan's pachinko industry. Harvard International law Journal, 38, 568-586. Siegel, D., & Anders, G. (1999). Public Policy and the Displacement Effects of Casinos: A Case Study of Riverboat Gambling in Missouri. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 105-121. Siu, R. (2006). Evolution of Macao's Casino Industry from Monopoly to Oligopoly: Social and Economic Reconsideration. Journal of Economic Issues , 40, 967-990. Skitch, S. A., & Hodgins, D. C. (2004). Impulsivity, Compulsivity and Pathological Gambling: An Exploratory Study of Pathological Gambling as an Impulsivity-Compulsivity Spectrum Disorder. International Gambling Studies, 4, 176-189. Small, C. (1999). 'Gambling and the harms we choose to have'. National Gambling Regulation Conference 32 KB. Smith, G. J. (2006). Gambling Expansion and the Erosion of Community Well-Being. Transition, 36, 3-5. Smith, G. J., & Hinch, T. D. (1996). Canadian casinos as tourist attractions: Chasing the pot... Journal of Travel Research, 34, 37. South Australia. Independent Gambling Authority Study into the relationship between crime and problem gambling: report to the Minister. Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority, South Australia. Spears, D. L., & Boger, C. A. J. (2002). Residents' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Native American Gaming (NAG) in Kansas: Proximity and Number of Trips to NAG Activity. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 6, 13-27. Stitt, B. G., Giacopassi, D., & Vandiver, M. (2000). A minor concern? Underage casino gambling and the law. Social Science Journal, 37, 361-373. Teske, P., & Sur, B. (1991). Winners and Losers: Politics, Casino Gambling, and Development in Atlantic City. Policy Studies Review, 10, 130-137. Thalheimer, R., & Ali, M. M. (1995). The Demand for Parimutuel Horse Race Wagering and Attendance. Management Science, 41, 129-143. (2003). The demand for casino gaming. Applied Economics , 35, 907. (2004). The Relationship of Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Casino Gaming to Personal Bankruptcy. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22, 420-432. Thomas, S. A., & Jackson, A. C. (2004). Program findings that inform curriculum development for the prevention of problem gambling. Gambling Research, 16, [40]-51. Thompson, W., Lutrin, C., & Friedberg, A. (2004). Political Culture and Gambling Policy: A Cross-National Study. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 8, 1-12. Thompson, W. N., Lutrin, C., Wacker, R. F., & Vercher, E. (2005). A Consideration of Political Culture and Gambling Policy: Has Economics Triumphed Moralistic Politics? Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 17, 94-119. Thompson, W. N., Schwer, R. K., Hoyt, R., & Brosnan, D. (1993). Not in my backyard: Las Vegas residents protest casinos. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 47-62. Toneatto, T., Ferguson, D., & Brennan, J. (2003). Effect of a New Casino on Problem Gambling in Treatment-Seeking Substance Abusers. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 40. Truitt, L. J. (1996). Casino gambling in Illinois: Riverboats, revenues, and... Journal of Travel Research, 34, 89. Ungar, B. L. (2000). Convenience Gambling: Information on Economic and Social Effects in Selected Locations: GAO-01-108., GAO Reports (pp. 1): U.S. Government Accountability Office. Victorian State Government (1994). Review of electronic gaming machines in Victoria (pp. 2 v.). Melbourne, Vic:: National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (Australia). Volberg, R. A. (1994). The Prevalence and Demographics of Pathological Gamblers: Implications for Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 237-241. 69

 (2000). The future of gambling in the United Kingdom: Increasing access creates more problem gamblers. BMJ, 320, 1556-. (2002). Gambling and problem gambling in Nevada (pp. 75). Carson City, Nevada: Department of human resources. Volberg, R. A. (2002). Problem gambling - Summary of studies and background information. Nevada: Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. Wacker, R. F. (2006). Michigan Gambling: The Interactions of Native American, Detroit, and Canadian Casinos. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 373-380. Weber J, K. M. (2002). Bringing time back in: A study on the influence of travel time variations and facility opening hours on individual accessibility. Professional Geographer, 54 MAY, 226240. Weekly, A. D. A. (2005). Two studies show disparate triggers for gambling, 17, 1-4. Welte, J. W., Wieczorek, W. F., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M.-C., & Hoffman, J. H. (2004). The Relationship of Ecological and Geographic Factors to Gambling Behavior and Pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 405-423. Wheeler, B. W., Rigby, J. E., & Huriwai, T. (2006). Pokies and poverty: problem gambling risk factor geography in New Zealand. Health & Place, 12, 86-96. Wiebe, J. M. D., & Cox, B. J. (2001). A Profile of Canadian Adults Seeking Treatment for Gambling Problems and Comparisons With Adults Entering an Alcohol Treatment Program. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 418. Wilson, D., Gilliland, J., Ross, N., Derevensky, J., & R., G. (2006). Video lottery terminal access and gambling among high school students in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97, 202-206. Wilson, J. M. (2001). Riverboat Gambling and Crime in Indiana: An Empirical Investigation. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 610. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Kim, L. G. (1995). Monitoring adolescent gambling in Minnesota. Journal of Gambling Studies, 11, 165-183. Wynne, H. J., & Shaffer, H. J. (2003). The Socioeconomic Impact of Gambling: The Whistler Symposium. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 111-121. Yaffee, R. A. (1997). A Methodological Critique of Kearney et al.'s (1996) Casino Gambling in Private School and Adjudicated Youngsters: A Survey of Practices and Related Variables. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 85-90. Zilberman, M. L., & Tavares, H. (2003). Counselling Mary about her gambling problems: A selfreliant person. Journal of Gambling Issues.

70