GAMBLING ENVIRONMENT FACTOR

Table of Contents
1 Gambling Environment 3

1.1 Economics 4

1.2 Socio-Political Environment 7

1.3 Public Policy 8

1.4 Culture of Social Responsibility 11

1.5 Responsible Gambling 11

1.6 Social and Economic Impacts 13

1.7 Low-Risk Limits 15

 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 3

1 GAMBLING ENVIRONMENT and failures. Consequently, more research is needed

on the macroeconomic, microeconomic, and socio-
The environment in which a person lives can have
political forces that shape gambling provision.
an impact on the nature and frequency of gambling
activity, which also impacts the degree of resulting Gambling is a commercial activity that is largely
gambling-related harm. In this section we discuss controlled and regulated by governments, but also
the gambling environment, which covers a broad driven to some extent by complex market forces that
set of factors including economics, the socio- determine supply and demand and, ultimately, the
political environment, public policy, and culture of nature, availability, and accessibility of various forms
social responsibility. It is important to note that each of gambling within a specific jurisdiction. State-owned
jurisdiction is subject to different policies and regulations gambling companies have to meet the challenge of
that can vary both within and between countries. balancing responsible provision of gambling (which in
What follows describes policies and issues that are the European Community (EC) legislative framework is
relatively common among many western countries. one of the acceptable reasons for national restrictions of
the gambling market) and commercialism, which enables
To date there has not been sustained research attention
competition with foreign-based, privately-owned Internet
paid to links between factors related to the gambling
gambling companies. The practices and procedures
environment and levels of harmful gambling. This
adopted by the industry in developing, configuring,
can be attributed – at least partially – to the fact that
advertising, and marketing gambling products are often
government and industry resources dedicated to
at odds with corporate social responsibility objectives.
reducing harm from gambling have largely been focused
Economic tensions exist between the commercial reality
on the individual, rather than on the community or
of gambling’s intra- and inter-sector competition, and
society in general. A systematic review of socioeconomic
community pressures to reduce gambling-related
impact studies of gambling identified 492 studies (only
harms on individuals, families, and the wider society.
60% of these were empirical investigations), which
mainly examined government revenue, employment, Exposure to gambling is dependent upon a number
harmful gambling, and non-gambling business revenue.1 of factors. Online gambling is readily available to
Fewer than 10% of the studies examined impacts in anyone with an internet connection and a mobile
the areas of regulatory costs, infrastructure, quality phone, computer, or tablet. In some jurisdictions, online
of life, inequality, property values, or business starts gambling constitutes a large part of the gambling market.
 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

In Sweden, for example, half of the market was online There is evidence that gambling harm is more common
gambling in 2018. Close to 70% of those who called
2
in areas closer to land-based gambling venues.
the Swedish helpline for problem gamblers in 2017 had Further, research reveals an almost linear relationship
problems specifically with online casinos and online between density of Electronic Gambling Machines
slots. For land-based forms of gambling, factors related
3
(EGMs) and disadvantaged socioeconomic regions.
to exposure can include the geographic distribution and Changes that may contribute to reduced harms
density of gambling outlets; the physical characteristics include reducing the per capita density of EGMs
of venues (including attractiveness, safety, and social and gambling outlets; restricting the distribution of
acceptability of venue surroundings); the types of gambling opportunities to a limited number of venues;
gambling products offered at venues; and the kinds of restricting hours of operation; and limiting smoking
additional recreational facilities co-located with gambling and alcohol availability to gambling patrons.
venues. These concepts are discussed in detail in Section
2.2 Gambling Exposure.

1.1 ECONOMICS appears to be a key determinant of casino adoption in

the United States,6 and economic development related
MACROECONOMICS stress, such as unemployment, explains casino adoption
Macroeconomics refers to the general analysis of elsewhere in the world.7
economic variables within an economy or large group
of individuals, as well as government policies that may As legalized gambling spreads across North America

affect them. Macroeconomic variables are aggregates, and the rest of the world, our understanding of the

such as unemployment rates and economic growth. macroeconomic impacts of gambling continues to

In the gambling literature, studies have examined the change. In order to understand how the industry

economic growth effects of casinos and their impacts on has developed recently, and its impact on regional

employment, wages, and tax revenues. Other types of economies, it is useful to have a foundation in the

legalized gambling, such as horse racing, typically have economics of lotteries and casinos. A paper by

relatively minor impacts, and have not been the focus of Clotfelter and Cook8 and another by Eadington9 provide

substantial economic research. such foundations for lotteries and casinos, respectively.

Policy makers typically look to gambling as a public policy Casinos began their spread in the United States in

tool to create economic development, employment, the early 1990s. This spread was a catalyst for much

and tax revenues. Several studies have examined the of the early research on the economic impacts of

factors that explain the adoption of legalized gambling, casinos. Many of the early studies that shaped the

particularly in the United States. There is a vast literature literature and political debate focused on how casinos

that has examined the adoption of state lotteries.4 The may “cannibalize” other industries, resulting in no net

literature has shown that lotteries are typically designed economic benefit in jurisdictions that adopt casinos.10-13

in a way to maximize revenue to the state.5 Fiscal stress These studies presented strong conclusions about the
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 5

likely negative impacts of casinos, but did not provide than for most other consumer goods and services. As
any meaningful empirical evidence. Despite these a result, politicians can expect positive revenue effects
warnings, governments continued to legalize casinos. from casino legalization. However, some research
has examined the net impact of casinos, given there
Given the spread of casinos, the academic research on is likely to be some substitution with other types of
their impacts is surprisingly sparse. Several studies have gambling, particularly lotteries.22 The findings from
examined general or aggregate economic effects of such analyses imply that casinos ultimately increase
casinos, including economic growth effects and effects state-level tax revenue. However, one study that
on housing and business prices.14-16 The literature here examined all U.S. states found that casinos might
suggests that casinos have at least a modestly positive actually lead to a slight decline in total tax revenue.23
impact on economic growth and property prices. This Evidence has suggested that very low-tax jurisdictions
evidence contradicts many of the claims made by casino could substantially increase casino tax rates without
critics such as Goodman and Grinols. a large negative impact on casino employment.24

Policy makers are often concerned with casinos’ impacts It can be argued that lottery and casino taxes
on employment and wages. Again, on this issue, the represent “optional” taxes, and that such taxes
literature is somewhat thin. The most comprehensive are a politically popular way to help delay or avoid
study to date in the United States suggests that casinos government spending cuts or tax increases. However,
have a modestly positive impact on employment, there is a large amount of evidence from the lottery
especially in more rural counties. Recent evidence from
17
literature that the “lottery tax” falls disproportionately
Canada, however, suggests that any positive impacts on the poor, as they spend a higher proportion of
from casinos on employment should be considered to their incomes on the lottery.8 The same is typically
be short-term.18 The impact of casinos on wage rates has assumed to be true of casino taxes, but there has
been found to be insignificant at an aggregate level. 17
yet to be good empirical evidence to confirm this.

Although most of the economics research on the The research on the harms associated with problematic
gambling industry has focused on North America, studies gambling has come mostly from the psychology and
have also examined other large jurisdictions, such as the public health perspectives. Little research has been
United Kingdom and Australia.19-21 Obviously, gambling done, however, on how problem gambling can affect a
industries also operate in many other countries. However, local economy. The exception is with respect to social
in many European countries, for example, the brick- costs, discussed in the Microeconomics section below.
and-mortar industry is small and likely has a relatively
insignificant economic impact. As a result, the research is Overall, the empirical evidence from the literature
much more limited than in other markets. suggests that casinos likely have a modestly positive
impact on their local and regional economies. There
As noted above, one key reason policy makers look is little evidence to support the notion that casinos
to casinos is because of fiscal stress. Whether casinos negatively affect the local economy, or that there is a
are state- or privately-owned, the government’s take substantially negative substitution effect with other
from casino revenues is a much higher percentage local industries.
 6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

MICROECONOMICS unclear. One comprehensive study from the United States

Microeconomics refers to the study of individual found that casinos have a large effect on increasing
consumers or businesses, and of government policies crime.29 However, other studies have found a much
that affect particular markets or industries. Many of the weaker relationship or no relationship at all.30
microeconomic studies on gambling relate to impacts How casinos affect crime appears to hinge on
of gambling on individuals, particularly the “social costs how the crime rate is defined. Studies that find
of gambling.” Many of the social costs of gambling casinos cause higher crime rates exclude tourists
are attributed to people with gambling problems, and when calculating the population, while studies
include crime and bankruptcy. Aside from analyzing that find no crime effect of casinos usually include
the social impacts of gambling, some studies from the tourists in their population measure.31
1990s attempted to estimate the monetary value of
social costs. However, the studies that attempted to do Without question, individuals with a gambling disorder
this in the 1990s had many methodological problems. can cause harm to themselves and others. Perhaps
the most interesting literature in the “economics
The relationships between different types of gambling of gambling” area has related to the social costs
industries have received recent attention because of of gambling, which include the bankruptcy and
the development of online gambling technologies. crime issues discussed above, but also “costs”
Although the various types of gambling are often such as unpaid debts, decreased work productivity,
seen as substitutes, the relationships among gambling treatment, and stress on personal relationships. Most
industries are not always consistent across jurisdictions. researchers acknowledge a distinction between
Nevertheless, the two key industries – casinos and these “social impacts” and “economic impacts,” such
lotteries – have been shown to be substitutes for each as employment, wages, and economic growth.
other. There is still little evidence on how online
25

gambling will affect the traditional casino industry.26 The social costs of gambling are of critical importance
because they typically represent the “downside”, to be
Many of the problems associated with too much considered along with economic benefits from casinos
gambling are financial in nature. For example, there have (e.g., employment and tax revenues). Since these are
been several studies that have examined state-level essential for policy makers to consider, researchers
bankruptcy rates and how they have changed as a result have attempted to provide monetary estimates of the
of casino legalization. The findings from the literature social costs of gambling. One of the most successful
suggest that casinos have contributed to modestly attempts at this measurement estimated the annual
higher bankruptcy rates, particularly in counties nearest social cost per pathological gambler (in 1997) at about
to casinos.27 However, recent evidence suggests that $9,600 USD.32 However, monetary estimates have varied
this impact has diminished since the mid-1990s. 28
greatly, likely due to the fact that different researchers
approach the question using different methodologies.33
A much larger literature has examined the relationship
between casinos and crime rates. Individuals who Social cost studies have been controversial because
have a gambling problem are more likely to engage in there is little agreement on the definition and proper
crime to finance their gambling. However, whether the measurement of social costs.34 The issue has been the
introduction of casinos leads to higher crime rates is
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 7

catalyst for several Canadian conferences (one in Whistler Other papers have examined how people’s views of
in 2000, and one in Banff in 2006) and research reports. 1,
money affect the harmful consumption of gambling.39, 40
35, 36
One persistent difficulty with accurately estimating
the social costs of gambling is comorbidity. Studies that More recently, Richard Thaler’s contributions to
have attempted to estimate the social costs of gambling behavioural economics (e.g., see Thaler41) earned him
typically do not acknowledge the issue, or if they do, the 2017 Nobel Prize. The result of this is likely to be
have not found a way to partition social costs among the increased attention to the concepts of behavioural
various problems a disordered gambler may experience.37 economics, many of which have potentially interesting
Therefore, many social cost estimates are likely to over- applications for understanding gambling and problematic
value the actual costs attributable solely to gambling gambling behaviours. In Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein42
problems. Future research will likely examine the impacts use the example of casino self-exclusion programs
of casinos on individuals and markets, as well as the (where people enter into an agreement with a gambling
effectiveness of policy changes related to legal casinos. venue to ban themselves from entering for a specific
time period). Although these programs have been
A different thread of research has focused on how adopted widely to promote responsible gambling
individuals view money and gambling. Gambling can (see Section 2.1.5), research on their effectiveness is
be seen differently than many other consumer goods, limited. As Volberg has commented,43 they could be
as some people develop financial stress as a result of promoted and monitored more aggressively so that
their gambling. Research has examined how the price of policymakers, operators, and gamblers have more data
gambling can affect its consumption. 38
to understand how well these programs are doing.

1.2 SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT The adoption of gambling in a jurisdiction is the

result of social, cultural, and political forces.45 These
Although people may embrace gambling once they
forces influence whether gambling is considered a
are given the opportunity, commercial interests
legitimate product, the extent to which gambling is
usually drive the introduction of gambling venues.
made available, and the degree to which communities
There is little evidence that community members
may oppose its introduction on the grounds of
lobby for the introduction of gambling without the
immorality or harm. These concepts are discussed in
involvement of industry interests. Consistent with
more detail in Section 3.1.3 Socio-Cultural Attitudes.
microeconomic processes, industry operators decide
which products are supplied, and through effective Politics play a crucial role in shaping the gambling
marketing stimulate a demand for them. Consumers environment. Bearing in mind differing political and
then sustain the supply by using the gambling products. economic contexts, decisions continue to be influenced
Historically, even if state-owned companies did not by economic pressures, such as responding to
promote gambling (as in Sweden from 1930-1980), international competition or the desire to retain on-shore
demand for gambling remained strong. This happens revenue from online gambling facilities. This is especially
even when some forms of gambling are outlawed.44 the case when increasing numbers of licensed Internet
 8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

operators are attracting cross-border participants, and When new forms of gambling become legal, they
thereby fueling a global expansion of Internet gambling. reach into society in ways that enhance their legitimacy
and acceptance. This is not merely a matter of the
Political and economic systems are extremely important de-stigmatization of a formerly “deviant” activity, or
in shaping where and how commercial gambling will be a new acceptance of gambling by individuals and
offered, as well as which groups are most likely to be communities. Legalization of new forms of gambling
labelled as problem gamblers. Unlike other consumer is accompanied by major institutional shifts; for
products, legal gambling has been influenced by example, gambling operations and oversight become
government decisions rather than economic need. Since part of the routine processes of government.
the 1980s, some jurisdictions’ reluctance to raise taxes
has led to the rapid expansion of some forms of gambling Some retail operators such as restaurants, hotels, and
to provide an alternative revenue stream. Like some other social clubs, may also come to depend on revenue
trends in wealth redistribution, the upward diffusion from gambling to operate profitably. Finally, in some
of wealth through commercial gambling has been countries gambling industry executives and political
accompanied by a downward diffusion of responsibility action committees became key sources of funding for
and victimization as people with fewer financial resources political parties, elections, and ballot initiatives.46, 47
(that could buffer the adverse effects of gambling losses)
are more likely to be labelled as problem gamblers.46

1.3 PUBLIC POLICY should include a broad statement of purpose or intent

about the role of gambling within the public domain, and
Some governments have adopted a broad public clear goals to prevent and reduce harm, and to support
health approach for developing gambling policy and and treat those harmed by gambling. Policies should also
regulation. This builds on the success of harm-reduction include methods to monitor implementation and have
efforts for products such as alcohol and tobacco. Still, in a structure for and commitment to formal evaluation.
many cases, the emphasis continues to be on the need Finally, good evidence-based public policies aim to
to identify and treat people with gambling problems, address the scope of gambling activities, types of games,
rather than on the community or policy environment. limits on availability, and jurisdictional authority.48, 49
To be effective, healthy public policy needs to be
centered on promoting the health and well-being of There are considerable challenges to developing
the community as a whole, and be based primarily on healthy public policy, including the key issue of
prevention and reduction of harm. It should also be gambling revenue. A focus on generating revenue
grounded in evidence, be reflective and responsive for both government and the private sector may
to public opinion, and foster public discourse to help hinder good policy development. The EU, for
improve the community’s health and well-being. instance, has recognized this conflict and has
enacted legislation that forbids monopolies that are
Elected officials, governmental bodies, and/or regulations plainly intended to generate revenues for the state.
should all play a part in the promotion of evidence-based Monopolies are only accepted for public health
public policy related to gambling harm. Such policies reasons and for minimizing economic crime, etc.
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 9

Studies of gambling expenditure in different jurisdictions ›› Influence on how the problem or research
have shown that a disproportionately high percentage question is framed, e.g., a focus on the
of overall gambling revenue comes from people person with gambling problems, rather than
with moderate to severe gambling problems. 49-51
The on structural characteristics of machines;
development of strong policies to reduce gambling harm
is improved with sufficient separation from political,
›› Restrictions on publishing, including
lag times before researchers can
tax, and commercial influences. In practice, this could
make their results public; and,
mean that policy development and regulation could be
handled at a different level of government than gambling ›› A lack of disclosure of funding sources.
revenue management. In other words, decisions on
On the other hand, there may be benefits to working
how to allocate gambling revenues (to education,
closely with the gambling industry. These could include
social services, charities, etc.) should be separate from
stronger relationships to translate and act on research
decisions on how to regulate gambling operators.
findings, and for access to participants and data,

A parallel issue relates to funding gambling research which increases the opportunity for on-site studies.55

and concerns about whether funding comes from the The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists56

same sources that rely on and/or benefit from gambling provides guidance for any study: respect for dignity

revenue. Some researchers suggest that receiving of persons (e.g., disclosure of funding sources in the

research funds from gambling industries is morally and informed consent); responsible caring (do benefits

ethically problematic,52, 53 particularly when considering outweigh potential risks?); integrity in relationship

that a disproportionate amount of gambling revenue (e.g., clearly outline terms of funding including

comes from people with gambling problems.49 Although any restrictions); and responsibility to society (e.g.,

a study by Miller and Michelson54 did not find direct freedom to disseminate, recognizing potential for

evidence of the gambling industry trying to influence misuse of results). Further, a number of international

or censor research results or how they are shared, gambling researchers are working toward a common

researchers should carefully consider the ethical issues. code of ethics for gambling researchers.57

Kim and colleagues55 outline potential concerns:

In some jurisdictions such as Canada, research funding

›› Conflict of interest, including explicit or flows through an intermediary body in order to

implicit pressure to provide results that favour reduce potential influence on the research; however,

continued access to resources such as funds, this may present challenges related to obscuring the

data, and access to gambling venues; ultimate source of the funds and potentially masking
related ethical considerations. Making funding for
›› Suppression of research, specifically findings gambling research and evaluation completely separate
that are unfavourable to the gambling industry; from gambling revenue generation and collection

›› Risk to the researchers’ reputations would support a comprehensive, policy-oriented

for being impartial; research agenda. An example of such separation is

the Australian Gambling Research Centre (AGRC)
within the Australian Institute of Family Studies (an
 10 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

independent statutory body). The AGRC is funded The evidence base itself would ideally be constructed
by the Australian Commonwealth Government, from multiple data sources. The use of multiple
which receives no direct revenue from gambling. data sources and methods of analysis enhances the
validity and transferability of findings.64 However, it is
The level of control of gambling operations also varies. important to acknowledge that this type of rigorous
In some regions, state-controlled gambling companies evidence can be difficult to construct, and it is unlikely
have a monopoly or near monopoly over the supply of that any single piece of evidence will be sufficient.
some types of gambling products (e.g., Canada, Norway, Further, even if such evidence existed, policy decisions
Finland). Some politicians and regulators believe that may still be made with imperfect evidence.62
state-controlled gambling companies with a monopoly
are more effective in minimizing harmful gambling than The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) – an
private companies in a competitive market. This belief independent research agency that provides advice to
rests upon the assumption that a state-owned company governments on social, economic, and environmental
will prioritize responsible gambling measures since it issues – suggests that the level of evidence needed to
does not need to maximize profit. There are also some support a policy initiative should be more akin to the
important lessons from the alcohol field, where the balance of probability, such as required in civil law, rather
evidence suggests that monopolistic and/or government than the criminal standard of proof ‘beyond all reasonable
involvement in alcohol provision is associated with less doubt’.21 The Commission has also argued that gambling
harm to the public (e.g., Miller, Snowden, Birckmayer, and harm-reduction policy should focus on two broad
Hendrie; Popova et al.; and, Wagenaar and Holder ).
58 59 60
areas: (a) enhancing self-responsibility by strengthening
individual capacity for informed choice, and (b)
If the government receives a substantial amount of reducing the risk by adjusting features of the gambling
revenue from gambling, however, it may constrain environment that have been shown to be hazardous.21
public policy that aims to reduce harm. This is Further, the commission emphasizes harm prevention/
especially likely if other tax revenue is limited. In reduction and consumer protection for all gamblers.
contrast, there are also arguments for effective harm
reduction through appropriate regulation of private Gainsbury and colleagues reviewed evidence related to
gambling companies in a competitive market. While best practice policies to recommend international harm
both positions may have merit, there is currently minimization guidelines for land-based and Internet
no research that supports either of them. 61
gambling.65 Their recommendations include (1) imposing
age limits (at least 18 years, preferably 21-25 years), for
Policies are likely to be more effective if they are based on both land-based and Internet gambling; and, (2) licensing
credible evidence, and there are examples from around systems that require responsible gambling and consumer
the world to support this view.21, 62, 63 Good policies protection and encourage data sharing for both land-
would be based on comprehensive, rigorous, research based and Internet gambling. They also found evidence
evidence and evaluation to ensure that (a) measures of low-to-moderate effectiveness for pricing practices to
introduced are effective, (b) benefits outweigh the costs, minimize losses (e.g., bet size and limit setting) for both
and (c) unintended consequences are minimized. land-based and Internet gambling; taxation levels that
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 11

allow legitimate Internet gambling operators to compete

with the illegal market; and, making brief intervention
treatment for people with gambling problems available in
person and online. Information was inconclusive around
hours of operation, particularly for Internet gambling.

1.4 CULTURE OF SOCIAL (which can impair judgment). They should also

RESPONSIBILITY be responsible for identifying signs of excessive/

harmful gambling and for intervening in a timely
Corporations involved in marketing and selling manner to prevent excessive losses. Although not
gambling products with the potential to create established by law in some countries, there is a moral
harm have a responsibility to maintain standards of obligation for corporations and operators to maintain
ethical practice. This means adopting a corporate a duty of care to not exploit vulnerable people.
philosophy that balances economic expansion and
profits with socially-responsible practices that reduce Overall, attitudes toward social responsibility depend
harm. This includes manufacturers of products such on the local economic frameworks and political
as gaming machines and Internet-based gambling, structures. Capitalist economies emphasize free-
and operators of venues and marketing companies. market competition and individual responsibilities,
and are less likely to support regulatory policies that
Manufacturers are confronted with the dilemma of restrict economic expansion. Governments that favour
designing and constructing devices that are popular but free markets tend to support interventions that aim
do not lead to addiction. Research shows that sounds, to manage harm by influencing demand (or consumer
lights, near misses, and losses disguised as wins are behaviour) rather than by changes to supply.45 Similarly,
features of gaming products that serve to generate they often promote responsible gambling and consumer
excitement and contribute to continued gambling. protection through regulation and by funding treatment
services. They focus on a culture of responsibility that
Similarly, venue operators have a corporate
promotes self-regulation and personal responsibility
responsibility to ensure that people are not offered
for decision making. A broader focus would include
incentives to gamble, or provided with alcohol
personal, corporate, and social responsibility.

1.5 RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING and prevent access to children. Governments have also
legislated and regulated other aspects of gambling
The global expansion of gambling during the past and its promotion. During this period, community
three decades occurred with relatively little regard for organizations, clinicians, and academics, among others,
effective consumer protection and responsible gambling increasingly called for the introduction of measures
safeguards. The primary legislative concerns were to to reduce gambling-related harm. Governments
keep gambling activities free from criminal involvement and gambling providers responded and have
 12 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

implemented policies and practices with this intent.66 informed choices about their gambling activities
Approaches include information and education and avoid harm. Additionally, people who gamble,
campaigns, helpline and treatment services, self- governments, gambling industries, and researchers
exclusion programs, behavioural tracking, warning are expected to collaborate to promote responsible
messages, venue staff training and intervention with gambling. Gamblers are seen as having responsibility
at-risk gamblers, participant pre-commitment, and for learning about gambling and participating in a
the modification of EGM parameters. In Scandinavia, way that they can afford. Gambling industries have a
two gambling companies have recently introduced duty of care. This includes an expectation that they
fixed loss limits for their customers: Norsk Tipping will provide information about gambling products
(about CAD 3,100 per month) and the international and encourage gambling within affordable limits. It
company PAF (about CAD 44,500 per year). extends to an expectation that vulnerable citizens will
not be exploited. Governments are considered to have
Responsible gambling (RG) is a broad and somewhat responsibility for regulating some industry practices
vague term.67 It is generally applied to aspects of and support measures to help people with gambling
gambling provision that are intended to help reduce problems and promote responsible gambling. The
harm to participants and the wider community. A role of researchers is to evaluate RG initiatives to
particular approach to RG, the Reno Model, has had ensure that they are effective and don’t undermine the
a major influence on measures taken by governments, enjoyment of people without gambling problems.
regulators, and the gambling industries. A recent
review concluded that although RG programmes have It remains unclear precisely what role the Reno Model
been widely introduced, their effectiveness and impact played in the adoption of RG and other approaches
remains uncertain. In large part this is because only
68
to reduce gambling-related harm. However, it seems
a small number of methodologically sound evaluations highly likely that the Reno Model influenced gambling
have been conducted. Reviews of the wider prevention legislation in many jurisdictions and, to varying degrees,
and RG literature 51, 66
also conclude that the evidence has been widely adopted by gambling providers. It
base is thin. These reviews additionally conclude that also appears to have strongly influenced the direction
the most commonly implemented measures appear to of research on gambling and problem gambling. The
be those least likely to be effective. On a positive note, most commonly introduced responsible gambling
they add that most are likely to be effective to some measures include education and public awareness
extent and that multiple interventions sustained over campaigns, counselling and other support services,
time may work together and have greater impact. and modification of gambling environments.

The Reno Model was outlined in a series of articles Recently the Reno Model has been criticised for a variety
published between 2004 and 2015. 69-72
The model of reasons. The most comprehensive critique is provided
rests on a number of assumptions. These include by Hancock and Smith.73 While acknowledging that the
the view that gambling is an acceptable leisure or model helped raise awareness of the need to develop
recreational activity, that a small number of people responsible gambling measures and contributed to
develop gambling problems, and that policies their implementation, they concluded that it has major
and practices are required to help people to make deficiencies. Shortcomings include its narrow focus,
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 13

which places emphasis on individual responsibility and authors,74 who maintain that “the facts of the Reno
people with gambling problems. They also believe Model remain unassailable” and “endorse their original
the model has insufficient concern for public safety premises and postulates,” these responses have generally
and deflects attention from harmful gambling policies, agreed with their critique. Some endorsed the stronger
formats, and environments. The focus on people with consumer protection and public health emphasis that
gambling problems is also seen as a means to distract incorporated existing RG approaches.75, 76 Others were
attention from a much wider spectrum of gambling- of the view that the reformulated approach does not
related harm. Hancock and Smith go further and maintain go far enough in addressing gambling-related harm
that the narrow emphasis has played into the hands of and that the Reno Model is either not redeemable or
governments and the gambling industries that have a would require major transformation of its underlying
vested interest in maximising profits and taxation while assumptions.77, 78 Abbott75 supported the call for greater
giving the appearance of doing something to reduce emphasis on regulation and changing gambling products,
harm. This assessment appears to be in keeping with industry operations, and practices, but maintained that
reviews that conclude the most widely implemented reducing gambling exposure and participation through
measures are those least likely to be effective. supply and demand reduction are unlikely to be sufficient
on their own. In a number of jurisdictions with mature
Hancock and Smith73 call for responsible gambling to gambling markets, participation has dropped markedly
be reformulated with consumer protection and safety but harm has plateaued. Further harm reduction may
at the core. This RG-Consumer Protection approach require interventions that address the wider spectrum
has a wider focus that includes addressing structural, of risk and protective factors including economic and
power, and vested interests. Additionally, it incorporates social disparities, deprivation, employment, educational
major public health principles, consumer protection, attainment, housing, and social capital. These factors
regulatory transparency, and independent research. also contribute to associated harms and morbidities
including mental health and substance misuse disorders.
A number of people responded to Hancock and Smiths’
critique of the Reno Model and their RG-Consumer
protection alternative. Apart from the Reno Model

1.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Hundreds of studies of the impacts of changes in
the availability of gambling have been conducted
Impact studies are often carried out to assess the
internationally since the 1970s. However, many of these
effectiveness of new policies or initiatives on a group
studies have been theoretically or methodologically
of people or organizations. Impact studies typically
flawed. A systematic review of socioeconomic impact
focus on changes within the economic or social realms
studies identified 492 such studies, but found that
that occur as a result of new policies or initiatives.
only 293 were empirical investigations and only 51 of
These studies can inform policy makers about the
the studies could be rated as good or excellent.1
effects of new policies on people’s everyday lives.
 14 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

Analysis of the 293 empirical investigations found Different impacts are associated with different types
that the most reliable positive impact of gambling of gambling.
across all forms is an increase in government revenue.
Enhancement of public services (e.g., health, education, ›› Forms of gambling that generate the most revenue
social security) is another fairly reliable impact of (e.g., casinos, EGMs) and that are most likely to
gambling introductions. The introduction of new be delivered by government (e.g., lotteries) have
gambling venues reliably increases infrastructure value, the most reliable positive impacts on government
and often has beneficial impacts on other businesses revenue and accompanying public services. Still,
in the local area. Overall employment may also be forms of gambling delivered by government tend
improved (as long as a significant portion of the to have more regulatory and administrative costs.
patron base is from outside the local area). Gambling There is not yet enough research to indicate
introductions reliably increase the entertainment and whether this is true of online gambling as well.
leisure options available to people. Finally, they can
›› Forms of gambling that are venue-based are the
occasionally contribute to an increase in property values.
only gambling types with the potential to add
infrastructure value and impose infrastructure
The main negative impact of the introduction of new
costs. Destination casinos have the greatest
gambling opportunities is an increase in problem
potential to create broad economic benefits
gambling and its related harms (e.g., bankruptcy,
by bringing in revenue from outside the local
divorce, suicide, treatment numbers). The bulk of
area, while EGMs and lotteries have greater
these impacts tend to be non-monetary in nature,
potential to negatively impact local businesses
because only a minority of people with gambling
by diverting money from these businesses.
problems seek or receive treatment or have involvement
with police, child welfare, or employment agencies. ›› Continuous forms of gambling (e.g., casino
The impact of gambling on crime is particularly table games, EGMs, Internet gambling)
difficult to disentangle and the results are mixed. have greater potential to increase
Research is also somewhat mixed when it comes to problem gambling, while casinos have the
understanding the impact of gambling introductions on greatest potential to increase crime.
socioeconomic inequality, quality of life, and attitudes
toward gambling. Among the most predictable
›› EGMs are the least likely to increase overall
employment while horse racing and casinos are
negative impacts of the introduction of gambling are
the forms most likely to increase employment.
increases in regulatory and infrastructure costs.
›› EGMs and Internet gambling have
the greatest potential for negatively
affecting attitudes toward gambling.
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 15

Destination casinos have the greatest potential of additional or new forms, and whether patrons and
for improving the quality of life for impoverished revenues are locally derived or come from outside
communities, while non-destination casinos and EGMs the jurisdiction. Other factors include the type and
have the greatest potential for decreasing quality of life. extent of gambling opportunities in neighbouring
jurisdictions, the strength and effectiveness of policies
The impacts of gambling also vary considerably between and programs intended to mitigate the negative
jurisdictions and depend on a number of factors. effects of gambling, baseline levels of community
These factors include the extent to which gambling impoverishment, the level at which the impacts are
opportunities have increased, the type of gambling examined, the length of time that impacts are evaluated,
being introduced, the length of time that gambling and how gambling revenues are ultimately distributed.
has been legally available prior to the introduction

1.7 LOW-RISK LIMITS household income, high deprivation, exposure to

multiple life events, high psychological distress, and
The recent studies described in Section 5 Longitudinal
cannabis use. Many of these factors, like the gambling
Cohort Studies have extended findings from cross-
participation measures, can be modified and thus present
sectional surveys (i.e., surveys where information is
potential targets for harm prevention and reduction.
collected at one time-point only). They indicate that
a variety of gambling participation measures predict Given the consistent finding from longitudinal studies
future onset of at-risk and problem gambling behaviour. that intensity of gambling engagement per se is a
While non-gambling factors are also important, when strong predictor of future problems and harm, there
considered together in multivariate analyses, gambling is some interest in exploring whether or not ‘low-
participation measures are usually the leading predictors. risk’ or ‘safe’ gambling limits can be identified. Many
For example, in the New Zealand National Gambling countries have developed and promoted low-risk
Study (NGS) frequent gambling participation, especially alcohol consumption guidelines, though they vary
in continuous forms of gambling including EGMs, card across jurisdictions and include qualifications for
games, and sports betting, was a strong predictor of particular population groups. Currie et al.80 examined
at-risk and problem gambling across the four waves (i.e., how relationships between gambling intensity and
separate points in time when information is collected harm might be used to develop low-risk gambling
from the same people).79 Additionally, higher overall limits. They used three measures – gambling frequency,
gambling expenditure and longer average EGM sessions gambling expenditure, and percentage of household
were important predictors, as were making regular income spent on gambling – to develop risk thresholds.
short-term speculative investments and participation These thresholds were subsequently replicated in
in gambling-type games not for money. While these a separate study.81 Other investigators have also
two latter activities are not regarded as gambling for identified thresholds. They differ, to varying degrees,
regulatory purposes, they contribute to the development from those in the initial Canadian studies.82 A limitation
of at-risk and problematic gambling. Additional risk of these studies is that all used cross-sectional data.
factors included Maori and Pacific ethnicity, low
 16 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

Recently, Currie et al.82 derived a new set of low-risk limits Currently, when compared to the alcohol field,
using data from two Canadian longitudinal gambling assessing links between gambling ‘consumption’
studies. 83, 84
The findings from the two studies were very and the wide spectrum of gambling related harm is
similar. The optimal low-risk limits were approximately in its infancy. In particular, there is a lack of research
$75 CAN gambling expenditure per month, 1.7% of examining harms that accumulate and persist over long
household income spent on gambling, and gambling time-spans. Without this knowledge it would seem
eight times per month or less. Adults who exceeded premature to advocate the endorsement of low-risk
any of the low-risk limits were four times more likely guidelines. Additionally, the concept of guidelines
to experience harm in future. The optimal limits in implies that there are safe or relatively safe gambling
this study were higher than those obtained from the levels and, perhaps, that it is the responsibility of
investigator’s earlier cross-sectional studies and their participants to know and adhere to them. These
predictive power was lower. Together, the three factors beliefs are central to the Reno Model of responsible
explained less than 20% of the harm variance. gambling as described in Section 2.1.5 Responsible
Gambling. This model has been contested on the
While the foregoing research has contributed to grounds that its emphasis on individual responsibility
understanding relationships between gambling takes the focus away from the responsibilities of the
participation and harm, there are significant challenges gambling industries and governments to prevent
in identifying low-risk guidelines or limits. In contrast harm and exercise a duty of care. Regardless of these
to alcohol, there is no standard gambling unit. As considerations, including the possibility that there
mentioned, there is considerable variation between the are no safe or low-risk limits for many gambling forms
‘toxicity’ of various gambling forms. Gambling forms and population groups, research investigating limits is
and settings defy simple classification.85 Including addressing a neglected area and helping to increase
the level of participation in particular gambling forms our understanding of the risks associated with various
may be required to more accurately predict future gambling activities and participation intensities.
harm. Statistical analyses have found that both the type
of gambling and general gambling measures uniquely
predict at-risk and problem gambling behaviour.79,
86, 87
As mentioned, while participation measures are
generally the dominant predictors of harm, various
other non-gambling factors also contribute, in some
cases strongly so. It may be that different thresholds
apply to particular gambling forms and to different
population groups including people with past gambling
problems, and other high-risk groups such as people
experiencing mental health and addiction disorders,
youth, indigenous, and some migrant groups.
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 17

REFERENCES
1. Williams RJ, Rehm J, Stevens RMG. The social and economic impacts of gambling. Calgary, AB: Canadian Consortium for
Gambling Research; 2011. Available from: https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10133/1286/SEIG_FINAL_REPORT_2011.
pdf.

2. Lotteriinspektionen. Hälften av allt spel om pengar sker på internet [Half of all gambling takes place on the Internet]. 2018.
Available from: https://www.lotteriinspektionen.se/om-oss/statistik/statistiknytt/svenska-spel-tar-andelar-pa-marknaden-
for-spel-pa-internet/.

3. Centrum för Psykiatriforskning. Stödlinjen för spelare och anhöriga, årsrapport 2017 [The problem gambling helpline, yearly
report 2017]. Stockholm, Sweden; 2018. Available from: http://dok.slso.sll.se/CPF/Stodlinjen/Stodlinjens_arsrapport_2017
_180331.pdf

4. Alm J, McKee M, Skidmore M. Fiscal pressure, tax competition, and the introduction of state lotteries. National Tax Journal.
1993;46(4):463-76.

5. Garrett TA. The Leviathan lottery? Testing the revenue maximization objective of state lotteries as evidence for Leviathan. Public
Choice. 2001;109(1-2):101-17.

6. Calcagno PT, Walker DM, Jackson JD. Determinants of the probability and timing of commercial casino legalization in the United
States. Public Choice. 2009;142(1):69.

7. Richard B. Diffusion of an economic development policy innovation: explaining the international spread of casino gambling.
Journal of Gambling Studies. 2010;26(2):287-300.

8. Clotfelter CT, Cook PJ. On the economics of state lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1990;4(4):105-19.

9. Eadington WR. The economics of casino gambling. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1999;13(3):173-92.

10. Goodman R. Legalized gambling as a strategy for economic development. Amherst, MA: United States Gambling Study; 1994.
Available from: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/ds2/stream/?#/documents/67a55ebe-588f-4491-8d50-1c86b8ed7f19/page/1.

11. Grinols EL. Bluff or winning hand? Riverboat gambling and regional employment and unemployment. Illinois Business Review.
1994;51(1):8.

12. Grinols EL, Omorov JD. Development or dreamfield delusions: Assessing casino gambling’s costs and benefits. Journal of Law
and Commerce. 1996;16:49.

13. Kindt JW. The economic impacts of legalized gambling activities. Drake Law Review. 1993;43:51.

14. Walker DM, Jackson JD. New goods and economic growth: Evidence from legalized gambling. The Review of Regional Studies.
1998;28(2):47-70.

15. Wenz M. The impact of casino gambling on housing markets: a hedonic approach. Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
2007;1(2):101-20.

16. Wiley JA, Walker DM. Casino revenues and retail property values: The Detroit case. Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics. 2011;42(1):99-114.

17. Cotti C. The effect of casinos on local labor markets: A county level analysis. Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
2008;2(2):17-41.

18. Humphreys BR, Marchand J. New casinos and local labor markets: Evidence from Canada. Labour Economics. 2013;24:151-60.

19. Crane Y. New casinos in the United Kingdom: Costs, benefits and other considerations: University of Salford; 2006.

20. Forrest D. An economic and social review of gambling in Great Britain. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
2013;7(3):1-33.

21. Productivity Commission. Gambling. Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia; 2010.Report No.: 50 Available from: https://
www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2010/report.

22. Borg MO, Mason PM, Shapiro SL. The cross effects of lottery taxes on alternative state tax revenue. Public Finance Quarterly.
1993;21(2):123-40.
 18 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

23. Walker DM, Jackson JD. The effect of legalized gambling on state government revenue. Contemporary Economic Policy.
2011;29(1):101-14.

24. Philander KS, Bernhard BJ, Wimmer BS, Singh AK, Eadington WR. U.S. casino revenue taxes and short-run labor outcomes.
Journal of Policy Modeling. 2015;37(1):35-46.

25. Walker DM, Jackson JD. Do U.S. gambling industries cannibalize each other? Public Finance Review. 2008;36(3):308-33.

26. Philander KS. The effect of online gaming on commercial casino revenue. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal.
2011;15(2):23.

27. Barron John M, Staten Michael E, Wilshusen Stephanie M. The impact of casino gambling on personal bankruptcy filing rates.
Contemporary Economic Policy. 2008;20(4):440-55.

28. Grote Kent R, Matheson Victor A. The impact of state lotteries and casinos on state bankruptcy filings. Growth and Change.
2013;45(1):121-35.

29. Grinols EL, Mustard DB. Casinos, crime, and community costs. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2006;88(1):28-45.

30. Reece William S. Casinos, hotels, and crime. Contemporary Economic Policy. 2010;28(2):145-61.

31. Walker DM. Casinos and crime in the U.S.A: Chapter 17, Handbook on the economics of crime. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing; 2010. p. 488-517

32. Thompson WN, Gazel R, Rickman D. Social and legal costs of compulsive gambling. Gaming Law Review. 1997;1(1):81-9.

33. Grinols EL. Gambling in America: Costs and benefits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

34. Walker DM, Barnett AH. The social costs of gambling: An economic perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies. 1999;15(3):181-
212.

35. Anielski M, Braaten A. The socio-economic impact of gambling (SEIG) framework: An assessment framework for Canada: In
search of the gold standard. Canada: Inter-Provincial Consortium for the Development of Methodology to Assess the Social and
Economic Impact of Gambling; 2008. Available from: http://anielski.com/Documents/SEIG%20Framework.pdf.

36. Humphreys BR, Soebbing BP, Wynne H, Turvey J, Lee YS. Final report to the Alberta Gaming Research Institute on the socio-
economic impact of gambling in Alberta. Calgary, AB: Alberta Gaming Research Institute; 2011. Available from: https://prism.
ucalgary.ca/ds2/stream/?#/documents/51c1449b-5fc3-4870-9637-551d64ae89a3/page/1.

37. Walker DM. Methodological issues in the social cost of gambling studies. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2003;19(2):149-84.

38. Gallet CA. Gambling demand: a meta-analysis of the price elasticity. Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
2015;9(1):12-22.

39. Tabri N, Wohl MJA, Eddy KT, Thomas JJ. Me, myself and money: Having a financially focused self-concept and its consequences
for disordered gambling. International Gambling Studies. 2016;17(1):30-50.

40. Robillard C, Kairouz S, Monson E. Win or lose: Negotiating meaning of time and money within three gambling settings. Journal
of Gambling Issues. 2017;36:164-82.

41. Thaler RH. Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company; 2015.

42. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness: Penguin Books; 2009.

43. Volberg R. How can we improve gambling self-ban programs? A gambling addiction expert answers [Internet]. Blaz J, editor:
Penguin. 2009 May 8, 2009. [cited 2018]. Available from: http://nudges.org/?s=volberg.

44. Downs C. Selling hope: Gambling entrepreneurs in Britain 1906–1960. Journal of Business Research. 2015;68(10):2207-13.

45. Chambers K. Gambling for profit: Lotteries, gaming machines, and casinos in cross-national focus. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press; 2011.

46. Volberg RA, Wray M. Legal gambling and problem gambling as mechanisms of social domination? Some considerations for
future research. American Behavioral Scientist. 2007;51(1):56-85.

47. Abbott MW, Volberg RA. Gambling and problem gambling in the community: An international overview and critique. Wellington,
 GAMBLING RESEARCH EXCHANGE ONTARIO 19

New Zealand: Department of Internal Affairs Wellington; 1999. Report No.: 0478092482.

48. Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, Giesbrecht N, Graham K, et al. Alcohol: no ordinary commodity: Research and public
policy. 2nd Edition ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2010.

49. Productivity Commission. Australia’s gambling industries: Inquiry report, volume 2: Part D. Canberra, Australia: Government of
Australia; 1999 Report No.: 10 Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling/report/gambling2.pdf.

50. Rintoul AC, Livingstone C, Mellor AP, Jolley D. Modelling vulnerability to gambling related harm: How disadvantage predicts
gambling losses. Addiction Research and Theory. 2012;21(4):329-38.

51. Williams RJ, Wood RT. The proportion of Ontario gambling revenue derived from problem gamblers. Canadian Public Policy.
2007;33(3):367-87.

52. Adams PJ. Redefining the gambling problem: The production and consumption of gambling profits. Gambling Research: Journal
of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia). 2009;21(1):51-4.

53. Livingstone C, Woolley R. Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic gaming machines. International
Gambling Studies. 2007;7(3):361-76.

54. Miller R, Michelson G. Fixing the game? Legitimacy, morality policy and research in gambling. Journal of Business Ethics.
2013;116(3):601-14.

55. Kim HS, Dobson KS, Hodgins DC. Funding of gambling research: Ethical issues, potential benefit and guidelines. Journal of
Gambling Issues [Internet]. 2016; (32)111-32 pp.]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2016.32.7.

56. Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Psychological Association; 2000.

57. AUT Gambling and Addictions Research Centre. Enriching and growing gambling studies - Gambling studies code of ethics.
Think Tank Newsletter [Internet].[cited:6. Available from: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b75a2666bec4495a3747fd7cd/files/321de837-
3b69-4dce-9b82-cf63305611ac/Think_Tank_2018_Newsletter_16_23052018.pdf.

58. Miller T, Snowden C, Birckmayer J, Hendrie D. Retail alcohol monopolies, underage drinking, and youth impaired driving deaths.
Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2006;38(6):1162-7.

59. Popova S, Patra J, Sarnocinska-Hart A, Gnam WH, Giesbrecht N, Rehm J. Cost of privatisation versus government alcohol
retailing systems: Canadian example. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2012;31(1):4-12.

60. Wagenaar AC, Holder HD. The scientific process works: seven replications now show significant wine sales increases after
privatization. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1996;57(5):575-6.

61. Planzer S, Wardle H. The comparative effectiveness of regulatory approaches and the impact of advertising on propensity for
problem gambling. London, UK: Responsible Gambling Fund; 2011.

62. Banks G. Evidence and social policy: The case of gambling. Adelaide, AU: South Australian Centre for Economic Studies; 2011.
Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/evidence-and-social-policy-gambling/evidence-and-social-policy-
gambling.pdf.

63. Livingstone C, Rintoul A, Francis L. What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues? Evidence Base.
2014;2:1-24.

64. Creswell, JW Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage Publications; 2009.

65. Gainsbury SM, Blankers M, Wilkinson C, Schelleman-Offermans K, Cousijn J. Recommendations for international gambling harm-
minimisation guidelines: comparison with effective public health policy. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2014;30(4):771-88.

66. Williams RJ, West BL, Simpson RI. Prevention of problem gambling: A comprehensive review of the evidence and identified
best practices. Guelph, ON: Gambling Research Exchange Ontario; 2012. Available from: https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/
handle/10133/3121.

67. McMillen J, McAllister G. Responsible gambling: legal and policy issues. 3rd National Gambling Regulation Conference …. 2000.

68. Ladouceur R, Shaffer P, Blaszczynski A. Responsible gambling: A synthesis of the empirical evidence. Addiction Research
and Theory. 2017;25(17):225-35. Plain language summary available at http://www.greo.ca/Modules/EvidenceCentre/Details/a-review-
of-existing-evidence-for-responsible-gambling-practices
 20 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HARMFUL GAMBLING

69. Blaszczynski A, Collins P, Fong D, Ladouceur R, Nower L, Shaffer HJ, et al. Responsible gambling: general principles and
minimal requirements. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2011;27(4):565-73.

70. Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Nower L, Shaffer HJ. Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Journal
of Gambling, Business and Economics. 2008;2(1):103-18.

71. Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Shaffer HJ. A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno Model. Journal of
Gambling Studies. 2004;20(3):301-17.

72. Collins P, Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Shaffer HJ, Fong D, Venisse JL. Responsible gambling: Conceptual considerations.
Gaming Law Review and Economics-Regulation Compliance and Policy. 2015;19(8):594-9.

73. Hancock L, Smith G. Critiquing the Reno Model I-IV international influence on regulators and governments (2004–2015)— the
distorted reality of “responsible gambling”. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2017;15(6):1151-76.

74. Shaffer HJ, Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R. Truth, alternative facts, narrative, and science: what is happening to responsible
gambling and gambling disorder? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2017;15(6):1197-202.

75. Abbott MW. Beyond Reno: A critical commentary on Hancock and Smith. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction. 2017;15(6):1177-86.

76. Delfabbro P, King DL. Blame it on Reno: A commentary on Hancock and Smith. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction. 2017;15(6):1203-8.

77. Orford J. The gambling establishment and the exercise of power: A commentary on Hancock and Smith. International Journal
of Mental Health and Addiction. 2017;15(6):1193-6.

78. Young M, Markham F. Rehabilitating Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction. 2017;15(6):1187-92.

79. Abbott M, Bellringer M, Garrett N. New Zealand National Gambling Study: Wave 4 (2015) (Report number 6). Auckland, New
Zealand: Auckland University of Technology, Gambling and Addictions Research Centre; 2018.

80. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Wang J, El‐Guebaly N, Wynne H, Chen S. Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a
function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction. 2006;101(4):570-80.

81. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Wang JL, el-Guebaly N, Wynne H, Miller NV. Replication of low-risk gambling limits using Canadian
provincial gambling prevalence data. Journal of Gambling Studies. 2008;24(3):321-35.

82. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey DM, el-Guebaly N, Smith GJ, Williams RJ, et al. Deriving low-risk gambling limits from
longitudinal data collected in two independent Canadian studies. Addiction. 2017;112(11):2011-20.

83. el-Guebaly N, Casey DM, Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Schopflocher DP, Smith GJ, et al. The Leisure, Lifestyle, and Lifecycle
Project (LLLP): A longitudinal study of gambling in Alberta. Final report. Calgary, AB: Alberta Gambling Research Institute; 2015.
Available from: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/50377.

84. Williams RJ, Hann R, Schopflocher D, West B, McLaughlin P, White N, et al. Quinte Longitudinal Study of gambling and
problem gambling: Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre Guelph, ON 2015. Available from: http://
www.greo.ca/Modules/EvidenceCentre/files/Williams%20et%20al%20%282015%29Quinte_longitudinal_study_of_gambling_
and_PG.pdf.

85. Abbott MW. Commentary on Currie et al. (2017): Low-risk gambling limits—a bridge too far? Addiction. 2017;112(11):2021-2.

86. Quilty LC, Murati DA, Bagby RM. Identifying indicators of harmful and problem gambling in a Canadian sample through
receiver operating characteristic analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2014;28(1):229-37.

87. Abbott M, Bellringer M, Garrett N, Mundy-McPherson S. New Zealand National Gambling Study: Wave 2 (2013) (Report
number 4). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology, Gambling and Addictions Research Centre; 2015.