Secondhand effects of student alcohol use reported by neighbors of colleges: the role of alcohol outlets

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00259-3Get rights and content

Abstract

This is a study of the secondhand effects of student alcohol use experienced by residents of neighborhoods near college campuses. We examined the relationship of a college's level of binge drinking and the number of alcohol outlets in the immediate area, to lowered quality of neighborhood life through such secondhand effects. Adults from 4661 households in the United States were interviewed through a stratified list-assisted random digit dialing telephone survey. The interview schedule included questions about residents’ experiences of secondhand effects of alcohol use such as noise, vandalism or public disturbances. Reports about the quality of neighborhood life provided by respondents residing near colleges were compared with those of respondents who did not live near colleges; and reports of neighbors of colleges with high rates of binge drinking were compared with those of neighbors of colleges with lower rates. The presence of alcohol outlets in these areas was also compared. Residents near colleges and particularly near colleges with heavy episodic drinking reported the presence of more alcohol outlets within a mile. Those neighborhoods were characterized by lower socioeconomic status. Neighbors living near college campuses were more likely to report a lowered quality of neighborhood life through such secondhand effects of heavy alcohol use as noise and disturbances, vandalism, drunkenness, vomiting and urination. A path analysis indicated that the number of nearby alcohol outlets was an important factor mediating the relationship between colleges, especially those with high rates of binge drinking, and such secondhand effects. The results suggest that neighborhood disruptions around colleges due to heavy alcohol use may be reduced by limiting the presence of alcohol outlets in those areas, and the marketing practices that this engenders.

Introduction

In 1993, the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) found that two in five US college students were binge drinkers (Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994) and this rate remained constant in two follow up surveys (1997 and 1999) over a 6-year period (Wechsler, Dowdall, Maenner, Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998, 2000a). Among the problems associated with these high levels of alcohol use are what we have termed “secondhand” effects. Wechsler, Moeykens, Davenport, Castillo, and Hansen (1995b) found that non-binge drinking students residing on campuses where more than half of students were binge drinkers were twice as likely to experience secondhand effects than non-binge drinkers living on campuses with fewer binge drinkers. These secondhand effects include having sleep or study interrupted, having to take care of a drunken student, being insulted or assaulted, being the victim of unwanted sexual advances, or having personal property vandalized.

Heavy alcohol consumption by college students and others may be encouraged by a “wet” environment, that is, an environment in which alcohol is prominent and easily accessible (Edwards et al., 1995). Physical, social, and economic availability of alcohol is associated with alcohol consumption among the general population (Parker, Wolz, & Harford, 1978; Rush, Steinberg, & Brook, 1986; Abbey, Scott, Olinsky, Quinn, & Andreski, 1990; Abbey, Scott, & Smith, 1993; Gruenewald, Madden, & Janes, 1992; Gruenewald, Miller, & Treno, 1993) and among young adolescents and older teenagers (O’Malley & Wagenaar, 1991; Wagenaar, 1993; Wagenaar et al., 1996; Jones-Webb et al., 1997). High density of alcohol outlets has been found to be associated with higher rates of alcohol-related health and social problems such as homicide (Scribner, Cohen, Kaplan, & Allen, 1999), assaultive violence (Alaniz, Parker, Gallegos, & Cartmill, 1996; Alaniz, Cartmill, & Parker, 1998; Gorman, Speer, Labouvie, & Subaiya, 1998a; Scribner, MacKinnon, & Dweyer, 1995; Speer, Labouvie, & Ontkush, 1998), domestic violence (Gorman, Labouvie, Speer, & Subaiya, 1998b), traffic safety outcomes (Rabow & Watts, 1982; Jewell & Brown, 1995; Scribner et al., 1994), and mortality, morbidity and economic costs (Tatlow, Clapp, & Hohman, 2000; Mann, Smart, Anglin, & Adlaf, 1991; Rabow & Watts, 1982; Scribner, Cohen, & Farley, 1998; Gorsky, Schwartz, & Dennis, 1988; Smart, Mann, & Suurvali, 1998). Alcohol outlets and advertising appear to be over-concentrated in ethnic minority communities (Alaniz, 2000; Hackbarth, Silvestri, & Cosper, 1995; Altman, Schooler, & Basil, 1991; LaVeist and Wallace, 2000), implying that it is necessary to understand the socio-demographic and economic background of a community in coping with drinking problems.

As Gruenewald and others (1995) have pointed out, most of these studies find relationships between outlets, demographics, and drinking patterns, but most do not provide a theoretical basis for understanding such interrelations. One such theoretical approach receiving increased attention recently is the “routine activities” theory (Fox & Sobol, 2000). Most commonly applied to crime victimization, routine activity theorists find that more frequent “going out” increases one's risk of victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). In the context of college drinking, one might argue that high rates of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems among college students are “simply” the result of their frequent and routine activity of going out, particularly to bars and nightclubs. Thus, just as time spent walking the street increases exposure to risk of (one type of) assault, time spent in bars increases exposure to the risk of experiencing secondhand effects of heavy drinking. The point remains, however, that a high density of bars and clubs around campuses may encourage heavier drinking among students.

Alcohol use rates and related problems have been reduced by strategies to restrict alcohol availability. Coate and Grossman (1988) reported that as alcohol excise taxes increased, youth drinking rates and deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents significantly decreased. O’Malley and Wagenaar (1991) found that as states increased minimum drinking age laws, alcohol use and problems associated with it significantly decreased. Chiu, Perez, and Parker (1997) reported that an alcohol ban, its lifting, and its re-imposition had statistically significant effects on the number of alcohol-related outpatient visits in a geographically isolated community. Restrictive alcohol control policies significantly affected injury death rates in a population with extremely high injury mortality (Berman, Hull, & May, 2000).

Colleges with large numbers of binge drinkers are characterized by greater visibility and availability of alcohol in their environment. College students’ binge drinking is associated with the degree of ease of access to alcohol (Wechsler, Kuo, Lee, & Dowdall, 2000b), location of a bar within a mile from campus (Wechsler et al., 1994), price (Chaloupka, Grossman, & Saffer, 1998; Wechsler et al., 2000b), and state alcohol control policies (Chaloupka et al., 1998).

Clearly, drinking levels and rates of alcohol-related problems are associated with state and local policies as well as alcohol availability, price, and marketing practices. For many dimensions of the policy and marketing environment (e.g., alcohol taxes, drinking age), we know that the causal influence runs from policy to drinking. For others (e.g., outlet density), the causal influences may be reciprocal, with the environment encouraging drinking, and heavy drinking encouraging deterioration of the community environment. The current study examines the interrelationships between a community environment that encourages drinking and a concentration of heavy drinkers (on college campuses) that shape the community environment. Specifically, we used surveys of community residents around colleges, along with surveys of student behavior on those campuses to answer the following questions:

  • Are there more alcohol outlets in neighborhoods near colleges than in similar neighborhoods which are not near colleges?

  • Do residents living in communities near a college experience more secondhand effects of alcohol use than residents of similar areas not near a college?

  • Are the increased secondhand effects related to more alcohol outlets near a college?

  • Do residents of areas near colleges with high levels of binge drinking experience more secondhand effects than residents of areas near colleges with low levels of binge drinking?

Section snippets

Study procedure

We conducted a telephone survey of adult residents of the contiguous United States plus the District of Columbia using a stratified list-assisted random digit dialing (RDD) sample purchased from Genesys Sampling Systems.1 The list-assisted method used covers an estimated 96.5% of all households with telephones (Brick, Waksberg, & Starer, 1995). Actual coverage may be higher because the sample was selected at multiple points in

Community Background

Income was significantly lower among respondents living within a mile than those living more than 1 mile from a college (Table 1). More African Americans, fewer whites, and, as expected, more young people aged 18–24 lived within a mile from the college. Areas within a mile of a college had a lower prevalence of homeowners.

On-premise (bars/nightclubs) and off-premise (liquor stores) alcohol outlets were more often located within a mile from a college. Ninety-two percent of residents living

Discussion

A survey of a national sample of households revealed significant correlations between the distance from the nearest college and such secondhand effects of heavy alcohol use as noise, litter, and vandalism. Respondents residing near a college were at higher risk of experiencing such secondhand effects. They were also more likely to have alcohol outlets located near them. Path analysis indicated that residing near a college does not appear to be sufficient for experiencing high rates of

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Elissa R. Weitzman in the development of the survey questionnaire. This study was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

References (62)

  • Alaniz, M. L., Parker, R. N., Gallegos, A., & Cartmill, R. S. (1996). Alcohol outlet density and Mexican American youth...
  • D.G Altman et al.

    Alcohol and cigarette advertising on billboards

    Health Education Research: Theory and Practice

    (1991)
  • P.M Bentler et al.

    Significance test and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1980)
  • M Berman et al.

    Alcohol control and injury death in Alaska native communitiesWet, damp and dry under Alaska's local option law

    Journal of Student Alcoholism

    (2000)
  • T Biglan et al.

    The value of interrupted time series experiments for community intervention and policy research

    Prevention Science

    (2000)
  • J.M Brick et al.

    Bias in list-assisted telephone samples

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1995)
  • Bureau of the Census. (2000). Projections of The voting age population for November, 1998. Report P25, 1132, Government...
  • F.J Chaloupka et al.

    The effects of price on the consequences of alcohol use and abuse

    Recent Developments in Alcoholism

    (1998)
  • A.Y Chiu et al.

    Impact of banning alcohol on outpatient visits in Barrow, Alaska

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1997)
  • D Coate et al.

    Effects of alcohol beverage prices and legal dinking ages on youth alcohol use

    Journal of Student Alcoholism

    (1988)
  • F.K Del Boca et al.

    Truth or consequencesThe validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions

    Addiction

    (2000)
  • Edwards, G., Anderson, P., Babor, T. F., Casswell, S., Ferrence, R., Giesbrecht, N., et al. (1995). Alcohol policy and...
  • J.G Fox et al.

    Drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behaviorA routine activities approach

    Deviant Behavior

    (2000)
  • L.R Frankel

    The Report of the CASRO Task Force on Response Rates

  • D.M Gorman et al.

    Alcohol availability and domestic violence

    American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse

    (1998)
  • D.M Gorman et al.

    Concentration of liquor outlets in an economically disadvantaged city in the Northeastern United States

    Substance Use and Misuse

    (1997)
  • D.M Gorman et al.

    Risk of aussaltive violence and alcohol availability in New Jersey

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1998)
  • P.J Gruenewald et al.

    Alcohol availability and formal power and resources of state alcohol beverage control agencies

    Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research

    (1992)
  • P.J Gruenewald et al.

    Alcohol availability and the ecology of drinking behavior

    Alcohol Health and Research World

    (1993)
  • P.J Gruenewald et al.

    Routine activities and alcohol use-constraints on outlet utilization

    Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research

    (1995)
  • D.P Hackbarth et al.

    Tobacco and alcohol billboards in 50 Chicago neighborhoodsMarket segmentation to sell dangerous products to the poor

    Journal of Public Health Policy

    (1995)
  • Cited by (119)

    • Negative alcohol-related consequences experienced by young adults in the past 12 months: Differences by college attendance, living situation, binge drinking, and sex

      2020, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      On the other hand, living on campus, in particular, increases exposure to peers and opportunities for socializing, including fraternities/sororities that are associated with higher alcohol use, high-risk drinking, and more frequent negative consequences (McCabe et al., 2005, 2018; Presley et al., 2002). Living on or near college campuses also is associated with higher alcohol outlet density and exposure to other pro-alcohol factors such as public drunkenness (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002). Exposure to social, residential, and market promotion of alcohol use has been linked to college student binge drinking (Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, & Lee, 2003; Weitzmann, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003).

    • Psychometric evaluation of the drinking refusal self-efficacy scale - revised with college students in the United States

      2018, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is estimated that over 80% of students have consumed alcohol at least once while in college, with nearly half engaging in heavy episodic drinking behaviors at least once over a two-week period (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA], 2012). The sheer volume of consumption brings cause for concern due to the variety of physical (e.g. hangovers and sexual victimization), mental (e.g. memory loss), and academic (e.g. missing class) alcohol-related negative consequences that can occur for college student drinkers and non-drinkers (Wechsler, Lee, Hall, Wagenaar, & Lee, 2002; White & Hingson, 2014). In response, alcohol researchers and interventionists endeavor to identify safe drinking behaviors and cognitions that can reduce consumption and alleviate consequences (Ehret, Ghaidarov, & LaBrie, 2013).

    • CHANGING THE CULTURE OF HIGH-RISK DRINKING

      2023, Creating and Maintaining Safe College Campuses: A Sourcebook for Evaluating and Enhancing Safety Programs
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text