Distribution of legal retail cannabis stores in Canada by neighbourhood deprivation | Journal of Cannabis Research

Overall, the number of cannabis stores in Canada more than doubled over a 12-month period, from 3.7 per 100,000 individuals age 15 + in October 2020 (Myran et al. 2022) to 8.0 per 100,00 individuals 15 + in September 2021. In general, there were more stores per capita in provinces with a private or hybrid retail model than a public model.

When looking at the distribution of stores based on material and social deprivation, two trends emerged. Since the distribution of stores is based on quintiles for the dissemination areas, equitable distribution across deprivation levels would be equivalent to 20% of stores within each quintile. The pattern for material deprivation was very close to this, with a range of 16–20% within each of the five levels of deprivation. Data from Toronto and Vancouver, two of the three largest census metropolitan areas, revealed that in these areas more stores were located in the most materially privileged neighbourhoods. This is in contrast to previous work in Canada which reported that by October 2020 retail density of stores was greater in areas around low-income neighbourhoods (Myran et al. 2022). As the current study did not assess density of stores, but rather distribution of stores across levels of material deprivation, methodological differences may account for the discrepant findings. In addition, given that the INSPQ measure of deprivation uses several factors to establish material deprivation, rather than income alone, this may in part account for the differences noted. Also, as we used retail data up to and including September 2021, the patterns of distribution may have changed during this period of substantial growth in retail availability.

The distribution of legal cannabis stores based on material deprivation of neighbourhoods in Canada contrasts with findings from legal markets in US states. Several studies have found that both medical cannabis dispensaries and recreational cannabis outlets were more likely to be located in low-income neighbourhoods (Mair et al. 2015; Amiri et al. 2019). It has been hypothesized that this may be attributable to zoning restrictions, demand for cannabis, and co-location with alcohol outlets as well differences in the availability to resources to deter the establishment of stores (Firth et al. 2020). In Canada, zoning regulations in most provinces allow for brick-and-mortar stores to be located where any other retail outlet could be located, provided some jurisdictional guidelines are followed. These regulations may result in the more equitable distribution across neighbourhoods which is driven by factors such as market demand, visibility, and consumer convenience.

Approximately 60% of cannabis stores were located within socially deprived neighbourhoods, which are characterized by more people living alone. Although there are no clear data available on how retailers have decided where to establish a store, it is not surprising that more stores would be found in areas with more people living alone, particularly as these areas tend to have younger adults with higher levels of educational attainment and employment, as well as more individuals living in high density housing (Tang et al. 2019). Large urban areas, such as Toronto, tend to have a greater proportion of people living alone than the national average, as well as higher levels of retail density (City of Toronto 2017; Draaisma 2021). The higher proportion of cannabis stores in these areas may be explained by higher rates of cannabis use among young people and higher levels of demand for cannabis stores in large urban centres. In addition, urban neighbourhoods may have more areas zoned for mixed commercial and residential land use. As stores would not be located in dissemination areas which are zoned for residential land use, and where couples and families with and without children may be more likely to reside, it is reasonable to find that there are fewer stores in more ‘socially privileged’ areas. Future research should examine whether there is higher demand for legal cannabis in more socially deprived neighbourhoods as well as the characteristics of these neighbourhoods, including the role of urbanization and population density. In addition, research should consider if those who reside in neighbourhoods which are more socially deprived are differentially impacted in terms of cannabis use and other potential harmful outcomes associated with exposure to cannabis retail stores. As one of the primary goals of legalization is to reduce the illicit market, ensuring that legal cannabis is available where demand is high must be considered against potential risks.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations. First, approximately 9% of stores were not classified by neighbourhood deprivation because of unmatched postal codes. Postal codes for non-residential areas, those in dissemination areas with smaller populations where no census income data is available, and new postal codes in areas which were developed after 2016 and thus not included in the 2016 census, are possible reasons for unmatched data. Second, the area delineated by dissemination areas may not precisely represent the area residents consider their ‘neighbourhood’ and defining ‘neighbourhood’ differently could result in different deprivation scores. This may be particularly relevant in rural areas where population density is less. Third, the measure of social deprivation likely reflects living situation rather than capturing elements of social support and community cohesion. Nonetheless, the social deprivation index does draw attention to factors outside of material deprivation which should be considered when assessing issues related to equity (Ross et al. 2013). Future research with individuals should include measures to assess social support and community connection when considering the impact of social deprivation on cannabis use outcomes. Fourth, the current work did not consider the availability of legal cannabis through online platforms. While this likely impacts accessibility, the focus of this study was to consider the distribution of physical stores and the potential impact this may have within neighbourhoods. Lastly, the current study did not examine the distribution of unlicensed cannabis outlets, which also has the potential to impact outcomes, particularly for those in more deprived neighbourhoods (Pedersen et al. 2021).