Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesIn the wake of the gaming's expansion, New Zealand's residents are concerned regarding the effects of problem gambling on individuals, their families, and others (Wheeler, Rigby, and Huriwal 2006). Both the human concern and the potential changes such concern could cause for the casino business in Hamilton became the impetus for this study, which attempts to gauge perceptions of the local community in Hamilton. The study also assesses the extent to which differences in opinions are based on whether individuals have visited the local casino.
Methodology
Hamilton's casino had been in operation for about five years when we conducted our survey. The survey questionnaire comprised three sections: the first section had twenty-four 7-point Likert-style questions with a scale of 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree, as well as 0 = "not applicable/don't know/have no opinion." Section 2 asked the respondents about the number of occasions they visited the casino and how much they spent, along with related questions; and the third section asked demographic questions such as age, gender, income or wage, and whether the respondent was an employee of the casino.
We printed and distributed 6,000 surveys, adopting a random selection of suburbs using a grid map that coordinates throughout Hamilton. The survey forms were placed in mail boxes with a freepost return envelope. We received 945 usable responses.
The main objectives of this study are to assess
* the residents' perception of the social and economic impact of the Hamilton casino business,
* differences in the opinions of residents who "have" or "have not" visited the local casino, and
* impact of demographic variables on casino visits.
As a background to the demographic analysis, New Zealand comprises the following main groups: approximately 74.5 percent of the population is classified as New Zealand European, 9.7 percent are Maori, 4.6 percent are considered "other European" 3.8 percent are Pacific Islanders, and 7.4 percent are Asian or another ethnic group. As seen from these percentages, the most significant minority group is the indigenous Maori people (New Zealand Ethnic Groups 2006). Although there are clear differences among the various ethnic groups, this study focuses on the population as a whole and their perceptions.
Data Analysis
We analyzed responses using Cronbach's alpha for reliability, which resulted in a value of .875--the Cronbach's alpha split-half was .851 and .847; each of these tests indicated that the data were suitable for analysis. Exhibit 1 gives the demographic information about the survey participants. As illustrated, 22 percent of participants had a household income of between NZ$20,000-$40,001 (approximately US$15,200-$30,400), with the smallest number, 11.1 percent, having a household income of greater than NZ$100,000 (US$76,000). The largest age group was comprised those over the age of 60 years (25.1 percent), and the smallest comprised those aged less than 20 years (2.6 percent). With regard to education, "high school graduate or less" constituted the largest group of respondents, at 49.7 percent. Two-thirds of the survey respondents were women. Of particular note was that 1.1 percent of the survey participants indicated that they had taken professional advice for a gambling problem.
Well over two-thirds of the respondents had visited the casino, but most of those visitors had been there only once or twice. Of our 945 respondents, 649 (69.3 percent) had been to the casino, while 288 (30.7 percent) indicated that they had not. By a large percentage, the most times the respondents had visited were one or two times (71 percent), followed by three to four times (17 percent). Just 12 percent had visited five or more times. As shown in Exhibit 2, the typical visit lasted between one and two hours.
On balance, our respondents thought people gamble more than they can afford (see Exhibit 3, which combines responses for all survey participants whether they had visited the casino or not). Of the twenty-four statements on the questionnaire, the highest level of agreement was for the statement, "People gamble more than they can afford" (mean = 5.68); this is followed by "The Hamilton casino will increase the number of people with gambling problems" (mean = 5.49) and "Casino's control and monitoring of gambling problems should be better" (mean = 5.31). The item with the lowest level of agreement was the statement, "Having the casino in Hamilton will encourage me to spend more on gambling" (mean = 2.31).
To further analyze these responses, we subjected the responses to factor analysis. A check of the data using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test found the data to be suitable for analysis, with a score of .923. For the factor analysis varimax and principal component analysis was used. The scree plot indicated that there were four factors, which are classified and named as below (see Exhibit 4):
1. "negative impacts of the casino" which accounted for 33.187 percent of variance;
2. "positive impacts of the casino," which accounted for 10.177 percent of variance;
3. "personal perceptions of the casino," which accounted for 8.387 percent of variance; and
4. "other issues," which accounted for 4.388 percent of variance.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
We dropped item 4 in subsequent analysis, because of the strength and clear differences of the underlying first three factors (see Exhibit 4).
We analyzed the negative items found in the first component using an independent sample t-test, this time dividing those who had visited the casino and those who had not done so. The results, in Exhibit 5, reveal a statistically significant difference between these two groups, with those who had not visited the casino having a higher mean and thus a more negative view of the casino than those who had been inside. For example, the statement, "Having a casino in Hamilton means that there is more of a chance that children will be influenced to gamble," recorded a mean of 4.72 for those who had been in the casino and 5.37 for those who had not.
As shown in Exhibit 6, an analysis by gender of the negative factor items using the independent sample t-test revealed statistically significant differences for six of the nine items. For all the questions women had a higher mean score, meaning that women are more concerned than men about the casino's potential negative influence.
We then conducted the same t-test with the positive underlying factors from Exhibit 4. As shown in Exhibit 7, we found a statistically significant difference in the attitudes of those who had visited the casino and those who had not done so. For example, to the statement, "The casino will bring more international tourists to Hamilton" those who had visited the casino had a mean agreement of 4.23, while those who had not visited the casino had a mean of 3.68.
Analyzing the positive aspects by gender again found a consistent outcome (see Exhibit 8). In all cases women had a lower level of agreement with the positive survey questions than did men. As illustrated, three of the seven items in the survey showed a statistically significant difference by gender.
Spending Levels
As part of the survey we asked participants how much on average they spent on gambling when visiting the Hamilton Casino and their annual household income. Not surprisingly, a cross-tabulation of these two items (presented in Exhibit 9) indicated a relationship between the two sets of data. (1) As a person's income changes, so does the amount spent on gambling, although the relationship is not directly proportional. It is illegal in New Zealand for a person under the age of twenty to gamble in the casino, although Exhibit 9 shows that some respondents under that age indicated that they had spent money on gambling. Note that for each of the divisions in income the highest percentage spend is highlighted. The data in Exhibit 9 need to be viewed taking into consideration the totals of the "x" and "y" data. For example, although 50 percent of respondents who have an annual household income of greater than NZ$100,000 spend NZ$200-$299, this represents a small overall number of persons. The data in Exhibit 9 were also analyzed looking at the number of visits in addition to the amount spent and family income. The results for this are not shown as they did not add any insight. As could be anticipated, there was a large number of people who made multiple visits to the casino, but these tended to be low-income families who typically spent small amounts of money on each visit.
Exhibit 10 presents the cross-tabulation of the age of the survey participants and the amount that is spent per visit. The Pearson chi-square = .250, which indicates that there is not a relationship between the two sets of data. It is of note from Exhibit 10 that the number of participants gambling increases with age; to some degree, the higher amount spent is also related to the higher age groups.
Discussion and Managerial Implications
This study assesses divergent attitudes of people on the casino operations in Hamilton. The random sample of 945 respondents is considered to be representative of the population, despite the dangers of response bias. To underscore some of our findings, it appears that respondents' social and economic perceptions include that people gamble more than they can afford, Hamilton Casino will increase the number of gambling problems, and it will influence the children to gamble. On the economic front, respondents perceive that more jobs exist because of the casino, and it will bring more tourists. Furthermore, the majority of those who frequent the casino do so not just for gambling. They are also interested in other entertainments offered by the casino. That said, the typical visit lasts around two hours. It is of note that respondents give a lowest score to the proposition that having a casino will encourage them to spend more on gambling (see Exhibit 3).
FEED