gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Impact <strong>of</strong> Gambl<strong>in</strong>g Proximity on Problem Gambl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Another analysis bear<strong>in</strong>g on the issue <strong>of</strong> the relationship between <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> availability and<br />
problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> concerns the statistical association between driv<strong>in</strong>g distance to the nearest<br />
cas<strong>in</strong>o (from the person’s residence) and problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> prevalence. This relationship is<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Table 44. An analysis <strong>of</strong> driv<strong>in</strong>g distance data earlier <strong>in</strong> this report documented<br />
that cas<strong>in</strong>o proximity is related to both cas<strong>in</strong>o patronage and expenditure, with cas<strong>in</strong>o gamblers<br />
who live with<strong>in</strong> 5 km contribut<strong>in</strong>g 1.54 times more revenue than their population prevalence.<br />
The present table also documents an association between cas<strong>in</strong>o distance and problem<br />
<strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> prevalence, albeit nonsignificant because <strong>of</strong> the small number <strong>of</strong> pairs (r = .32, p = .15,<br />
1 tail, N = 13). On an <strong>in</strong>dividual basis, the correlation between cas<strong>in</strong>o distance category and<br />
PPGM problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> status was much weaker, but statistically significant. In 2008 the<br />
correlation was .04 (p = .006, 1 tail, N = 8431) and the correlation for 2009 was .03 (p = .013, 1<br />
tail, N = 5634).<br />
Table 44: Driv<strong>in</strong>g Distance to the Nearest Cas<strong>in</strong>o as it<br />
Relates to Prevalence <strong>of</strong> Problem Gambl<strong>in</strong>g (2008 and 2009).<br />
Distance N<br />
PPGM Problem<br />
Gambl<strong>in</strong>g Prevalence<br />
0 - 5 km 3353 3.01%<br />
5.1 - 10 km 2816 3.07%<br />
10.1 - 20 km 1598 2.50%<br />
20.1 - 30 km 827 2.48%<br />
30.1 - 40 km 738 1.23%<br />
40.1 - 50 km 888 2.19%<br />
50.1 - 60 km 306 3.38%<br />
60.1 - 70 km 466 1.53%<br />
70.1 - 80 km 362 1.97%<br />
80.1 - 90 km 432 1.89%<br />
90.1 - 100 km 254 2.83%<br />
100.1 - 200 km 572 1.06%<br />
200.1 km + 146 2.82%<br />
Total 12758 2.56%<br />
Characteristics Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g Problem Gamblers from Non-Problem Gamblers<br />
A f<strong>in</strong>al approach to understand<strong>in</strong>g the importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> availability to problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>volved conduct<strong>in</strong>g a logistic regression to determ<strong>in</strong>e the relative importance <strong>of</strong> cas<strong>in</strong>o<br />
distance to problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> status relative to other variables that are plausibly related to<br />
problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> and/or have been identified as correlates <strong>in</strong> other research. This<br />
multivariate approach is superior to the typical cross-tabular presentation <strong>of</strong> demographic<br />
correlates <strong>of</strong> problem <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> that has been done <strong>in</strong> previous studies, as it illustrates the<br />
relative importance <strong>of</strong> different variables and also shows the importance <strong>of</strong> variables when<br />
172
Change language