Casino effect definition

This review presents relevant literature supporting the topic, the impact of casino proximity on northeast urban casino communities. Literature to support the contextual constructs appropriate to the research topic is presented and separated into three major areas: (i) historical overview of gambling including an overview of casino gambling and major northeast gambling outlets, (ii) constructs of casino proximity, and (iii) theoretical underpinnings of exposure and adaptation frameworks within the casino-gambling literature. Gambling disorder, which is relevant in casino proximity studies, is briefly presented as a fourth area in this review.

Historical overview of gambling

As far back as BC, gambling has been used as a form of wager (Ferentzy and Turner, ). Shaffer et al. () referred to gambling as “different games of chance” that had restricted access by “geography and legal status” (p. ). In most states where gambling is legal, an activity is defined as gambling if it meets all three of the following criteria: “(a) something of value wagered and at-risk (consideration), (b) the opportunity to receive something of value in return (reward or prize), and (c) the element of chance” (Tidwell et al., , p. 14).

Tidwell, Welte, Barnes, and Dayanim () identified 24 types of legalized gambling ranging from state-run lotteries and state-run keno-style games to casinos (destination, Indian-run, pari-mutuel), to racetracks, and online gambling:

State-run lotteries and state-run keno-style games; four types of charitable gaming (bingo, raffles, pull-tabs, and other charitable gaming, such as Casino or Las Vegas Nights); various forms of pari-mutuel wagering (horse racing, dog racing, simulcast racing, off-track betting, jai alai, instant/historical horse racing, and advance deposit wagering); three types of non-Indian casino-style gambling (commercial or state-run casinos, riverboat or cruise ships, and racinos); two forms of Indian gaming (tribal bingo parlors and tribal casinos); cardrooms; social gambling; sports betting; Calcutta pool; video or electronic gaming machines; and online gambling (p. 14).

The District of Columbia and every state participate in at least two types of gambling. Utah and Hawaii are the exception and engages in one kind of gambling each (Welte et al., b).

Nevertheless, gambling was not always an appealing activity and predominately associated with individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Braverman and Shaffer, ; Tolchard, ). To this end, several states banned gambling in the early s, including Nevada’s anti-gambling legislation in (Petry and Blanco, ). Yet, as a way to generate income following the Great Depression, the State of Nevada opened the first on-land casino in (Tidwell et al., ). Forty-six years later, in , the Resorts Casino opened in Atlantic City. Since then, legalization and regulation, proliferation of casinos, and new modes of gambling have evolved, including South Dakota’s “small-stakes casinos” in (Wenz, , p. ), and Iowa riverboat casinos in (Wenz, ). Colorado also began to operate casinos in , followed by Mississippi in , Louisiana in , and Michigan in (Nower et al., ; Tidwell et al., ).

At the turn of the twenty-first century, new and additional modes of gambling were on the rise. Online or Internet casino gambling was first to emerge, followed by sports betting (Nower et al., ). Although online gambling saw an upward trend from to , online gambling was not authorized by any state until , when Delaware was permitted to offer online casino gambling. Nevada and New Jersey subsequently began online casino gambling in (Nower et al., ). With this additional mode of casino gambling, Gainsbury et al. () indicated that while online gamblers also tend to participate in on-land gambling, Nower et al. () posited that these higher gambling activities were difficult to assess. Nower et al. () asserts that it is not known whether online gambling is a substitute for on-land gambling or just another mode of gambling without further research. Hodgins and Petry () also noted that online gambling accounts for a small percentage of the overall commercial gambling revenue despite increases in that mode of gambling.

On the other hand, legal sports betting, which was previously “confined to Nevada” (AGA, , p. 32), expanded to seven more states at year-end Commercial casinos in four northeast states (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island), Mississippi, and West Virginia gained approval to offer sports betting on property. However, only Nevada, New Jersey, and West Virginia offer mobile and online sports betting statewide in addition to on-property sports betting at commercial casinos. Mississippi also offers sports betting in tribal casinos, and New Mexico became the eighth state to offer on-property sports betting in that state’s tribal casinos in October (AGA, , p. 14).

The increase in casinos across the country resulted in entertainment rivalry as casinos entertainment started to attract adults. Hence, gambling revenues especially casino-gambling revenues surpassed theme parks and movie theatres and moved casino gambling into the mainstream of American entertainment (Conway, ; Kerber et al., ; Martin et al., ; Stansbury et al., ; Thompson and McNeilly, ; Tse et al., ). Despite this growth, casino-gambling tax revenues are not the same across all states. The number and types of gambling outlets and the state’s geographic location determine gambling tax revenues.

For instance, New York’s gambling tax revenue did not include any commercial casino taxes for the reporting period, yet the state ranked highest in total gambling tax revenue at $ billion (Walker and Jackson, ). Illinois ranked second at $ billion, while New Jersey ranked third at $ billion. In contrast, Nevada ranked the highest in commercial casino tax revenues for the same period reporting $ million, and New Jersey followed in second place with $ million in commercial casino taxes (Walker and Jackson, ). The reported commercial casino tax revenues for both Nevada and New Jersey were consistent with established destination casino-gambling outlets in the U.S.

As a consequence, legalization and casino expansion successfully contributed to the steady growth in casino revenues between and until revenues saw a decline from to (AGA, ). However, at year-end , the AGA (), reported that the U.S. casino industry saw its highest revenues of $ billion from consumer spending, a percent increase from (p.6). Significant contributors to the rise in casino revenues include urban-area casinos in three major metropolitan cities (New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore). Standalone northeast urban casinos in the megalopolis reported revenues that ranked in the top ten commercial casino-gambling revenues outside of Nevada. Undoubtedly, accessibility and availability of casinos have had a significant effect on commercial casino revenues.

The Resorts World Casino New York City (RWCNYC), an urban racino in the New York metro area, reported the highest commercial casino gaming revenue at $ million in for a standalone casino outside of Nevada (AGA, ). RWCNYC, located just 14 miles from metropolitan New York City, held onto its first place. The urban and destination casino MGM National Harbor (MGM), which sits between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., reported just above $ million in gaming revenues in third place. At the same time, Parx Casino and Racing (Parx), just outside of Philadelphia, ranked fifth with approximately $ million. Live Casino and Hotel (within proximity to the Baltimore metro area) ranked eighth with reported gaming revenues slightly below $ million (AGA, , p. 86). Given the positive economic benefits for the casinos and their respective state governments, urban casinos in the northeast have made considerable contributions to host states and the overall U.S. commercial casino revenues. However, it is unclear how these economic benefits translate into positive outcomes for the local host urban communities.

Casino-gambling overview

The prominent Las Vegas Strip of high-end casino resort hotels where food, entertainment, and gambling are always in abundant supply has been a steady factor in commercial casino revenues. As the primary destination for adult gambling and entertainment in the U.S., Las Vegas, the first legal hub for gambling (Tidwell et al., ; Wenz, ), has been the number one commercial casino market for years generating and reporting the highest commercial casino revenues (AGA, ). In , the Las Vegas Strip reported gaming revenues of $ billion with the Atlantic City market in second place at $ billion. The Chicago gambling market with established casinos ranked third with $ billion. In contrast, two relatively new northeast commercial casino markets, Baltimore-Washington, D.C., and New York City, ranked fourth and fifth with revenues of $ billion and $ billion, respectively (AGA, , p. 18). The Philadelphia casino market ranked seventh with reported revenues of $ billion, while the Connecticut market did not make the list of top 20 commercial casino markets.

Before nationwide gambling legalization, overall gambling, and in particular casino gambling, was not always an acceptable activity since gambling activities had connotations to organized crime (Tolchard, ). However, this perception started to shift with legalization and regulation (Petry and Blanco, ), which helped to change casino gambling into a socially acceptable activity for adults (Ashley and Boehlke, ). Findings from a AGA commissioned study indicated that 49% of American adults saw the casino-gambling industry as acceptable. This was the highest rate of acceptability recorded by the AGA for the casino gaming industry and represented a 4-percent increase from

An examination of the literature revealed that gambling and casino participation had increased due to accessibility, availability, and acceptability—the three As—of gambling establishments (Ashley and Boehlke, ; Conway, ; Shaffer et al., ). The ecological predictors or three As (Conway, ; Tanner and Mazmanian, ; Tolchard, ) create additional opportunities for casino gambling, and when opportunities for casino gambling exist; the risk for gambling-related problems could likely increase (Conway, ; Martin et al., ; Philander, ; Tolchard, ; Tong and Chim, ). Gambling-related problems such as economic distress, mental disorders, and health problems, could potentially increase from increased gambling participation. However, gambling-related problems have not been explicitly correlated to the proximity of urban casinos.

Research studies that focus on urban casinos and urban casino-gambling-related problems are limited (Conway, ; Tolchard, ). There is even less research on the impact of urban casinos of socio-economic levels in host communities. Furthermore, Hodgins and Petry () posited that although overall gambling research had increased, limited funds (Blaszczynski, ), discrepancies between government, various stakeholders, and academic researchers, remain barriers extending gambling research. Hence, this literature review is poised to advance urban casino-gambling literature.

Major northeast casino-gambling outlets

For more than a decade, the U.S. observed an influx of urban casinos. As more cities began to adopt casinos, opportunities for casino gambling moved closer to major metropolitan areas; hence, closer to homes and workplaces of casino patrons (Conway, ; Hing and Nisbet, ; Tong and Chim, ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b). Legalized gambling, casino proliferation, and social acceptability of casino gambling in the U.S. have created more opportunities for casino participation in urban areas, such that casinos are available to adults for entertainment and socialization (Ashley and Boehlke, ; Conway, ; Martin et al., ; Moore et al., ; Petry and Blanco, ; Stansbury et al., ; Thomas et al., ; Tolchard, ). However, urban casinos, as the newest type of on-land casinos, have not been fully explored in the literature (Conway, ).

Commercial casinos in the northeast currently include resort-style destination casinos and racinos. Resort-style casinos are also known as destination casinos because they are in destinations or major casino markets such as Atlantic City, Connecticut, and Las Vegas. Hence, destination casinos offer full-service amenities: hotel accommodations, spas, dining options, entertainment options, and several gaming options, including live dealers (American Casino Guide, n.d.; Economopoulos, ). Some resort-style casinos like the tribal Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos are not classified as commercial casinos even though they provide full-scale amenities. However, only a few destination casinos are reasonably close to major metropolitan cities; many are generally found in rural or suburban areas. The MGM on Maryland’s National Harbor was the first destination resort-style casino to open on the northeast corridor and sits within proximity, approximately 14 miles (Google Maps, n.d.) of the Washington, D.C. metro area.

Initially, commercial casinos such as racinos were opened in rural or suburban areas (Conway, ; Tolchard, ); but since the mids, several of the urban casinos or racinos found along the northeast corridor were opened in New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore (American Casino Guide, n.d.; Conway, ). Since racinos are a hybrid of a racetrack and a casino (Kelly and Catania, ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b), these gambling outlets are injected into environments that already have an existing culture of gambling (Barnes et al., ; Redmond, ; Welte et al., b), or where individuals are likely to be vulnerable to problem gambling (Conway, ; Welte et al., b). However, as a new phenomenon, little research is reported that examines problem gambling in relation to the proximity of urban casinos (Conway, ).

Northeast corridor urban casinos

Although New York and Pennsylvania were permitted to operate casinos in (Tidwell et al., ), the Philadelphia metro area surpassed New York City with three urban casinos: Harrahs Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack, and Parx, and Sugarhouse Casino, which opened in and , respectively (Conway, ). It would take Maryland six more years to obtain permits and licenses to operate casinos (Tidwell et al., ). Still, the Baltimore metro area did not host its first urban-area casino until , when Live Casino (Live) opened. Two years later, Baltimore City opened the Horseshoe Casino Baltimore (Horseshoe) in August

In between the metro Philadelphia and Baltimore casinos, New York City opened its first urban casino and racino, the RWCNYC, in October Within less than a year of operation, RWCNYC’s slot revenue had surpassed the tribal casinos and the land-based destination casinos in Connecticut and Atlantic City, respectively (Bagli, ). RWCNYC received considerable media coverage in the mainstream news media, ranging from The New York Times and the New York Daily News to other local and regional media outlets. RWCNYC also outranked Philadelphia’s three urban casinos (Conway, ) and the Live in the Baltimore metro area. Another racino, the Empire City Casino (Empire City), previously opened in in Yonkers, New York, has easy access to/from New York City (Google Maps, n.d.), although Yonkers is not considered part of metropolitan New York City, Empire City was also outranked. Neither the Connecticut shoreline nor the Boston metro area hosts urban casinos.

Racinos, unlike destination casinos, are not a new form of gambling, but racinos operating in major urban cities, particularly in northeastern metropolitan cities, are a new phenomenon (Conway, ). For example, New York State’s Fingerlakes Gaming and Racetrack in Farmington, and Batavia Downs Casino in Batavia, were traditional racetracks that were re-branded when casinos were added and respectively (Kelly and Catania, ). The RWCNYC in metropolitan New York and Empire City in Yonkers, New York, are extensions of existing racetracks with a culture of racetrack gambling. The RWCNYC and Empire City’s proximities and ease of access from New York metro area, 15 to 20 min drive or min ride on public transportation (Google Maps, n.d.), from mid-town Manhattan, could eliminate the two-hour drive to Atlantic City or Connecticut’s Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun casinos.

Similarly, close to the Philadelphia metro area, Parx, which initially opened as the Keystone Racetrack in , went through several transitions before Parx officially opened in December (Conway, ), as a commercial casino. Harrahs Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack in Chester, approximately miles from Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station (Google Maps, n.d.), also began as a racino in , but in live table games were permitted (Conway, ; Parmley, ). Sugarhouse Casino, now called Rivers Casino Philadelphia, is an urban standalone commercial casino without a racetrack in the Philadelphia metro area.

On the other hand, the Baltimore metro area does not host any racinos. Still, in December , the MGM graced the Maryland National Harbor skyline and joined the ranks as both an urban casino and a resort-style destination casino. The MGM was the first northeast urban resort-style casino to open within proximity, approximately 14 miles from the Washington D.C. metro area (Google Maps, n.d.) to a major MSA. Baltimore metro also hosts the Horseshoe, an urban casino located in downtown Baltimore, approximately 13 miles from the Live in Hanover, which is only five miles from the BWI Amtrak Rail Station. Although neither the Live nor the Horseshoe has a racetrack, they are within a 10 to mile radius, respectively, of the Laurel Racetrack (Google Maps, n.d.), which has had a mode of horseracing since Overall, racinos provide more gambling opportunities based on their well-established gambling culture of racetrack betting. Still, there is a lack of research on urban casinos, albeit racinos or not. There is even less research, on how the proximity of northeast urban casinos impacts their host communities.

On the whole, gambling legalization and regulation helped to change gambling perceptions, such that legal gambling activities were seen more favorably (Ashley and Boehlke, ; Petry and Blanco, ). Lottery and scratch-off tickets, which were borne out of legalization, are still readily available in many local establishments as a part of daily activities for many American adults (Petry and Blanco, ). The influx of casinos including the new mode of urban casino gambling (Conway, ) are factors that also helped to move overall casino gambling into the mainstream of America entertainment (Martin et al., ; Stansbury et al., ; Thompson and McNeilly, ; Tse et al., ).

Urban casino gambling is even more accessible, available, and acceptable in the northeast; yet, the risks of increased urban casino-gambling participation, which could potentially impact the prevalence of gambling-related problems such as economic distress, mental disorders, and health problems (Ariyabuddhiphongs, ; Conway, ; Martin et al., ; Stansbury et al., ; Tolchard, ; Tong and Chim, ; Turner et al., ) for casino patrons and the community-at-large have not been exhausted in the literature. Hardly any research on urban casinos and how they impact host environments in major metropolitan cities were uncovered. Therefore, this article extends the understanding of northeast corridor urban casino gambling.

Casino proximity

A review of the broader literature revealed no clear definition of casino proximity. Griswold and Nichols () found that when casino proximity was defined greater than 15 miles from an MSA, the variable (casino proximity) size decreased and became statistically insignificant (p. ). Similarly, the time/distance that an individual or a population used/traveled to get to a casino were also used in studies that defined casino accessibility and casino proximity (Conway, ; Robitaille and Herjean, ). Some literature defined casino proximity as “the physical distance or driving distance between [participant’s] residing home and nearest casino” (Tong and Chim, , p. 4; Welte et al., ), whereas other studies indicated that distance from casino gambling venues and individuals’ homes vary by researchers’ definitions of casino proximity (LaPlante and Shaffer, ; Tong and Chim, ).

One nationally conducted study for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission reported that casinos located within 50 miles from individuals’ homes contributed to gambling-related problems (Gerstein et al., , p. 10; Welte et al., a, p. 2). An earlier study reported that 10 miles from individual homes indicated a likelihood of gambling-related problems (Welte et al., ). Tong and Chim () also found that the lack of a standard definition, measurement, or tool to define casino proximity, resulted in the terms high and low casino proximity that varied across the studies analyzed in their systematic review. However, those studies occurred before the vast influx of urban casinos or racinos (Tong and Chim, ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b), and specifically focused on rural or destination casinos in the analyses.

Conway’s () Philadelphia urban casino proximity case study used vulnerability modeling to focus on the vulnerability of problem gambling in commercial casinos in Philadelphia. A Geographic Information System (GIS) vulnerability model was developed to determine access based on the measure of proximity to casinos by those individuals who were most vulnerable to problem gambling. The study was limited to the use of secondary data even though the findings indicated that the three Philadelphia urban casinos were located in areas where individuals were vulnerable to problem gambling. As the first known study to report on one aspect of urban casino gambling in the largest metropolitan city in the megalopolis, the study provided a framework for examining problem gambling vulnerability in urban casino communities in Philadelphia. Conway () asserted that the spread of casinos to large metropolitan cities was a deviation from the past when casinos were located in small to mid-sized towns; hence, gaps in the literature on geographic research (p. 21).

Proximity to casinos was also investigated in a qualitative gambling study where the researchers (Thomas et al., ) reported that individuals who resided closer to casinos were most likely to be problem gamblers. As one of the correlates of casino proximity, accessibility was regarded as multidimensional even though Thomas et al. () posited, “it is still poorly understood” (p. 88). These results indicated that reliance on gambling establishments such as casinos could potentially lead to problem gambling. However, participants in the study saw gambling as a safe social activity.

There is some evidence in the literature that frequent gambling in casinos could increase the risk of gambling-related problems such as problem gambling or gambling disorder (Ariyabuddhiphongs, ; Conway, ; Philander, ; Stansbury et al., ; Tolchard, ; Tong and Chim, ). Several authors have also reported that casino proximity could increase the likelihood of gambling participation based on the measure of proximity (Philander, ; Welte et al., ; Welte et al., a, b; Welte et al., ; Xouridas et al., ). However, the construct casino proximity has not been extensively evaluated in an urban casino study.

Exposure and adaptation theories

Two ecological constructs of casino proximity (accessibility and availability) were investigated with the perspectives of exposure theory framework (LaPlante and Shaffer, ), and linkages between casino proximity and problem gambling were found. Under the exposure theory framework, Shaffer et al. () referred to casinos as a toxin, which, when placed into the environment could result in infections such as gambling-related problems. Other researchers (Conway, ; Welte et al., ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b; Welte et al., ; Xouridas et al., ) investigated casino proximity and also reported that accessibility and availability as constructs were linked to gambling-related problems such as problem gambling. Though limited, literature in the field further indicated a higher prevalence of problem gambling due to casino accessibility and casino proximity (Ariyabuddhiphongs, ; Barnes et al., ; Conway, ; Tong and Chim, ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b).

The earliest account of exposure theory in the gambling literature dates back to Shaffer, LaBrie, and LaPlante’s () article, which sought to define the regional exposure model (REM) that would quantify gambling research during its developing stage as a new topic of study. According to Shaffer et al. (), exposure theory posits that environmental toxins could increase the likelihood of diseases related to such toxins. Gambling-related problems, the researchers found could impact the health and well being of communities and society as a whole from exposure to environmental toxins, such as casinos (LaPlante and Shaffer, ; Philander, ).

The REM was therefore designed to examine various social phenomena, in particular, gambling, by linking physical accessibility to gambling establishments and individuals’ responses to such exposures (Shaffer et al., ; Vasiliadis et al., ). Further, Shaffer et al. () also explained that in addition to environmental factors, various social settings could also influence and contribute to gambling participation that could have an adverse effect on individuals and communities. Examples include the proximity of gambling establishments to gambling patrons’ communities and neighborhoods, and being employed by a casino or other gambling establishment could potentially increase levels of toxicity or infection brought about by exposure to gambling (Shaffer et al., ; Vasiliadis et al., ). Prentice and Zeng () also cited gambling advertising as a factor in gambling participation.

Adaptation theory

Although adaptation theory complements exposure theory, it also competes with its counterpart. Introduced into the gambling literature just over a decade ago (Prentice and Zeng, ), adaptation theory suggests that resistance to toxins and adaptation could occur over time. A concept referred to as the “adaptation effect,” which accounts for adjustments in “mature gambling markets” (Hodgins and Petry, , p. ; Shaffer, ). Prentice and Zeng () posited that those individuals, who were exposed to new environmental toxins could over time, adapt, especially as the market reached saturation.

Accordingly, adaptation theory proposes that after the initial increase in adverse reactions (gambling-related problems) from exposure to those new environmental toxins (casinos), symptoms subsequently decrease as adaptation and resistance to the toxins are achieved (LaPlante and Shaffer, ) over time (Hodgins and Petry, ; Prentice and Zeng, ). Welte et al. (), in an earlier study, explained that individuals who live in mature gambling communities (such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City) for more than ten years gamble less than those who do not. This hypothesis has been postulated for destination casinos in mature gambling communities (Hodgins and Petry, ; Shaffer, ); however, urban casino communities have not been empirically tested using the perspectives of adaptation theory due to the newness of this phenomenon.

Increased exposure to the toxins (casinos) does not necessarily lead to an increase in gambling participation even though the initial contact with the toxins (casinos) could result in infection (LaPlante and Shaffer, ; Prentice and Zeng, ; Shaffer et al., ). However, several studies (Welte et al., ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b; Welte et al., ; Xouridas et al., ) have also reported that casino proximity could increase the likelihood of gambling participation based on the measure of proximity. On the contrary, Prentice and Zeng () established that conclusive relationships between gambling exposure and problems associated with increased exposure had not been reported.

The dual framework of exposure and adaptation theories reported limited application in empirical studies or studies with primary data (Shaffer et al., ; Welte et al., a; Welte et al., b). While exposure theory perspectives have been used in limited casino proximity and other gambling studies, fewer studies used adaptation theory perspectives (Prentice and Zeng, ; Welte et al., a, b). Recently, the aspects of adaptation theory reported minimal application in the casino and gambling literature with empirical data (Philander, ).

Philander () examined the regional impacts of casino availability on gambling participation and the development of gambling-related problems. Philander () found that both gambling participation and problem gambling risk increased after increased exposure to casinos. Focusing the study with exposure and adaptation theories perspectives, the study’s large sample (n = 50,) covered four Canadian provinces and tested the perspectives of each theory. Based on the results, Philander () reported that the “empirical findings provide evidence for exposure and adaptation forces as described by LaPlante and Shaffer ()” (p. ). However, the large sample size posed limitations such as generalizability for other future studies.

Gambling disorder

Gambling disorder and its apparent relationship to casino proximity warranted discussion in this literature review. Gambling disorder, previously termed pathological gambling was renamed to gambling disorder and reclassified from an impulse control disorder to the category of “Substance-related and Addictive Disorders” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition ([DSM-5], American Psychiatric Association, ; Hodgins and Petry, ; Rash and Petry, ; Stinchfield et al., ; Temcheff et al., ).

Problem gambling is defined as the second most severe form of disordered gambling (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition, Text Revision ([DSM-IV-TR], American Psychiatric Association, ). Problem gambling is typically associated with activities such as participating in more than one type of gambling activity and over-spending monies intended for other purposes (Barnes et al., ). Since participating in any kind or mode of gambling could potentially increase the prevalence of gambling-related problems, both gambling disorder and problem gambling are essential constructs in casino and gambling research studies.