Abstract
The aims of this project were to map the location and density of gambling machines in Britain; to explore whether geographic areas with higher densities of machines exist and to examine the socio-economic characteristics of these areas relative to others. Using geospatial analysis of premises records, we identified 8861 Machine Zones which were areas with a 400 meter radius around gambling machine venue and 384 High Density Machine Zones (HDMZ) with 1 or more gambling machine per hectare. There was a significant correlation between machine density and socio-economic deprivation. HDMZs had greater levels of income deprivation, more economically inactive people and a younger age profile than other areas; 37 % of those living in HDMZs were economically inactive compared with 33 % of those in non-machine areas. HDMZs were in seaside locations but also New Towns or satellite towns to major urban areas. Area affluence explains some of this pattern; of the New Towns with HDMZs, 78 % were in New Towns with a high proportion of low income areas. We therefore concluded that the distribution of gambling machines in Great Britain, in line with other international jurisdictions, displays a significant association with areas of socio-economic deprivation. The profile of the resident population living in HDMZs mirrors the profile of those most at-risk of experiencing harm from gambling. This spatial pattern has important implications for assessing the relationship between gambling availability and gambling-related harm, and for the future development of policy, harm-prevention and treatment strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Full technical details about how the number of machines per venue were estimate are given in Wardle et al. 2011a. Alternatively, please contact the authors for a copy or further discussion of methods.
Output Areas are continuous area units covering the UK, built for and used to represent census-based and other demographic statistics. They are demographically designed to have similar population sizes and be as socially homogenous as possible and they allow for finer resolution of data analysis. In 2001 the minimum threshold population was 100.
Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) are akin to Output Areas (OAs). They are built from blocks of Output Areas and have a mean population of 1,500.
Population-weighted OA centroids are point locations of OA situated towards where the majority of people within that area live `on the ground'.
Defined as the 27 British towns created under the New Towns Act 1946 or rapidly expanded under its provisions or the replacement 1964 Act.
This used the 74 largest resorts in England by population based on Department for Communities and Local Government benchmarking study; no equivalent listing exists for Wales or Scotland.
References
Abbott, M., Volberg, R., Bellringer, M., & Reith, G. (2004). A review of research on aspects of problem gambling: Final report. Auckland: AUT University.
Chuang, Y. C., Cubbin, C., Ahn, D., Winkleby, M. A. (2005). Effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029041.
Cummins, S., Curtis, S., Diez-Roux, A. V., & Macintyre, S. (2007). Understanding and representing ‘place’ in health research: A relational approach. Social Science and Medicine, 65(9), 1825–1838.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2005). Gambling Act: 2005. London.
Ellaway, A., Macdonald, L., Forsythe, A., & Macintyre, S. (2010). The socio-spatial distribution of alcohol outlets in Glasgow city. Health & Place, 16(1), 167–172.
Gambling Commission. Industry Statistics 2011. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.
GamCare. (2010). Statistics 2009/2010. http://www.gamcare.org.uk/publications.php. Accessed 27 March 2012.
Harman, H. (2011). The problem of betting shops blighting our high street. http://www.harrietharman.org/uploads/d2535bc1-c54e-6114-a910-cce7a3eff966.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2012.
Korn, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(4), 289–365.
Light, R. (2007). The Gambling Act 2005: Regulatory containment and market control: The Gambling Act 2005. Modern Law Review, 70(4), 626–653.
Livingstone, C. (2001). The social economy of Poker Machine Gambling in Victoria. International Gambling Studies, 1(1), 45–65.
Livingstone, C., & Adams, A. (2010). Harm promotion: Observations on the symbiosis between government and private industries in Australasia for the development of highly accessible gambling markets. Addiction, 106(1), 3–8.
Macdonald, L., Cummins, S., & Macintyre, S. (2006). Neighbourhood fast food environments and area deprivation—substitution or concentration? Appetite, 49(1), 251–254.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Planning policy statement 6: Planning for town centres. London: Annex A.
Orford, J. (2010). An unsafe bet: the dangerous rise of gambling and the debate we should be having. Oxford: Wiley.
Orford, J., Wardle, H., Griffiths, M. D., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2010). The role of social factors in gambling: Evidence from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. Community, Work and Family, 13(3), 257–271.
Pearce, J., Mason, K., Hiscock, R., & Day, P. (2008). A national study of neighbourhood access to gambling opportunities and individual gambling behaviour. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 862–868.
Rainham, D., McDowell, I., Krewshi, D., & Sawada, M. (2010). Conceptualising the healthscape: Contributions of time geography, location technologies and spatial ecology to place and health research. Social Science and Medicine, 70(5), 668–676.
Robitaille, E., & Herjean, P. (2008). An analysis of the accessibility of video lottery terminals: The case on Montreal. International Journal of Health Geographics. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-2.
Scribner, R. A., Cohen, D. A., & Fisher, W. (2000). Evidence of a structural effect for alcohol outlet density: A multilevel analysis. Alcohol Clinical Experimental Research, 24(2), 188–195.
Shaffer, H., & Hall, M. N. (2001). Updating and refining prevalence estimates of disordered gambling behavior in the US and Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 168–172.
Storer, J., Abbott, M., & Stubbs, J. (2009). Access or adaptation? A meta analysis of surveys of problem gambling prevalence is Australia and New Zealand with respect to the concentration of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 9(3), 225–244.
Storer, J., & Stubbs, J. (2007). Submission to statutory review of the gaming machines Act 2001. Sydney.
Wardle, H., Keily, R., Thurstain-Goodwin, M., Astbury, G. (2011a). Machines Research 1: Mapping the social and economic characteristics of high density machine locations. Responsible Gambling Fund (Available from authors on request).
Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Griffiths, M., et al. (2011b). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Welte, J. W. (2004). The relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling behaviour and pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(4), 405.
Welte, J. W., & Barnes, G. M. (2007). Type of gambling and availability as risk factors for problem gambling: A tobit regression analysis by age and gender. International Gambling Studies, 7(2), 183–198.
Welte, J. W., Wieczoeck, W. F., Barnes, G. M., & Tidwell, M. C. O. (2006). Multiple risk factors for frequent and problem gambling: Individual, social and ecological. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1548–1568.
Wheeler, B. W., Rigby, J., & Huriwai, T. (2006). Pokies and poverty: Problem gambling risk factor geography in New Zealand. Health and Place, 12(1), 86–96.
Wilson, D. H., Derevensky, J., Gilliland, J., Gupta, R., & Ross, N. (2006). Video lottery terminal access and gambling among high school students in Montréal. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 202–206.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the support of the Responsible Gambling Fund who sponsored a program of research into gambling machines in Britain, of which the work reported in this paper was part.
Conflict of interest
Heather Wardle and NatCen has received funding for a number of research projects from the Responsible Gambling Fund, a charitable body who funds its research programme based on donations from the gambling industry. NatCen has also undertaken work for an online gambling company to help them improve their social responsibility practice. Ruth Keily and Gaynor Astbury have received funding from the Responsible Gambling Fund as well as other commercial clients not related to the gambling industry. Gerda Reith has received joint funding from the Responsible Gambling Fund and the ESRC. She is also a member of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board which advises the Responsible Gambling Fund about research issues.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wardle, H., Keily, R., Astbury, G. et al. ‘Risky Places?’: Mapping Gambling Machine Density and Socio-Economic Deprivation. J Gambl Stud 30, 201–212 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9349-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9349-2