Assessing Supermarket Access:
Analyzing the Importance of Spatial Proximity and
Mobility to Healthy Foods
Daniel Kim
Capstone Summer 2012
M.S. Urban Environmental Systems Management
Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment
Pratt Institute
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisors, colleagues, and family members that have helped me
complete this project. I have learned a great detail about food systems and policy from the government
perspective throughout this process at Pratt Institute. Specifically, I would like to thank Jaime Stein and
Alec Appelbaum for their guidance as capstone advisors. Additionally, I want to thank Olga Abinader
and Jodi Byron from the Department of City Planning for their insight.
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
II.
Limitations of Scope
III.
Current Food Access and Health
IV.
Supermarket Trends and FRESH Development
V.
Analysis for Accessibility
VI.
Case Studies of FRESH Stores
VII.
Recommendations – Policy Related
VIII.
Conclusion
IX.
References
I.
Introduction
The connection between food access with spatial proximity, mobility, and public health are
essential in low-income and underserved areas that lack healthy food options, such as fruits and
vegetables, in New York City. Food access not only encompasses healthier food options made available
but also addresses the capability of people reaching new options. With spatial barriers and limited
mobility resources, health-related problems are prevalent in underserved areas. According to the World
Health Organization (WHO), underserved areas or food insecure are defined as “When all people at all
times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious foods to maintain a healthy and active life” (WHO).
Additionally, many food activists consider access to healthy foods a basic human right and insist that
policies that affect the food system should be enacted accordingly to ensure that everybody has access
to healthy foods (Opfer, P).
Food accessibility in underserved areas, in terms of spatiality and mobility, is overshadowed by
the incentives to provide greater availability of foods. While additional availability has become one of
the answers to accessibility, it requires more investigation and policy adjustments.
Availability
addresses the idea to provide greater fresh food options and have them readily available in certain
distances (Nikhanj, S). However, availability neglects to address whether there are resources necessary
for residents in underserved areas that battle with potential physical and spatial barriers, including long
distance walkability and limited public transportation options.
Therefore, accessibility includes
availability and the determination of resources needed to get to healthy food options in afflicted
communities. Many underserved residents lack a range of healthy, affordable food options and are in
constant battle with spatial factors and barriers.
Food access policy in New York City fails to acknowledge whether underserved residents could
effectively reach fresh food availabilities. Currently, city policy establishes to reach a goal of healthy
food availabilities by increasing a general city-level square footage of available products from 15,000
square feet per 10,000 people to 30,000 square feet per 10,000 people (DCP). The lack of focus on
strategic, site-specific supermarket placement in underserved areas, in terms of spatiality and mobility
options, is problematic. The push to add more healthy food options does not completely address food
accessibility because minimal focus is placed on access barriers in underserved areas. As a result, there
continues to be a lack of knowledge whether underserved residents could effectively reach potential
healthy food options.
This paper explores the concept of fresh food accessibility in underserved areas and the
importance of evaluating accessibility in relation to health benefits. Two case studies were analyzed to
evaluate whether supermarkets under the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) policy in
certain areas are considered effectively accessible in afflicted communities and have impacted the
accessibility landscape. A standard metric of assessment could be applied to an urban environment in
terms of distance and time between supermarkets and supermarkets to bus routes and subways. An
effective distribution (spread out and not clustered) of supermarkets is essential to allow greatest access
to stores, which can create less supermarket disparity. Therefore, a metric buffer of a ¼ mile or a 7-10
minute walk between existing stores and between existing stores with public transit options is
suggested for further policy research to possibly improve current FRESH policies.
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a setup of a sample study area with a ¼ mile or 7-10 minute walking buffer between a
potential supermarket and various routes. Through a more site-specific analysis, physical and spatial
accessibility could be assessed to determine whether residents are capable to reach new stores. While
providing greater availability is one positive step towards serving underserved areas, greater focus
needs to be placed on the spatiality and mobility of residents to FRESH stores.
II.
Limitations of Scope
Food accessibility could include many factors. Other possible issues that affect food accessibility
may include costs of healthy foods provided under FRESH, personal taste and cultural preferences, or
education about healthy foods in the community. For this analysis, I intend to specifically focus on
spatial proximity and mobility/transportation in underserved areas. Further analysis could lead to
future connections to other factors and potential changes to the city’s food system.
III.
Current Food Access and Health
The relationship between the neighborhood environment and diet quality is apparent and can
result in negative effects in underserved areas. In 2008, the Department of City Planning released a
study called “Going to the Market,” which presented areas where healthier food options were most
needed. The analysis showed a widespread shortage of supermarkets in the city. A Supermarket Need
Index (SNI) was created to determine the most underserved areas. High need areas were based on
population density, access to a car at the household level, household incomes, rates of diabetes and
obesity, consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, share of fresh food retail, and capacity for new
stores (DCP).
Figure 2
Source: Department of City Planning
Figure 2 shows that areas of high diabetes and obesity rates tend to correlate with highly
underserved areas (or supermarket high need areas) of New York City. A lack of access capabilities, due
to ineffective and insufficient spatial arrangements of fresh food items, could be one contributing factor
to higher health-related issues.
Many studies show that mobility and spatiality continue to influence public health. A study of
13,102 New York City residents found that proximity to healthy food outlets was inversely associated to
Body Mass Index (Rundle, A). Residents in greater spatial proximity to healthy food choices tend to have
healthier diets.
Generally, proximity to supermarkets, greater transit options, and reasonable
walkability has been associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake and better diet quality among
residents in underserved areas (Rundle, A). Weight related issues increases a person’s risk of developing
many conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, some types of cancer, and
heart disease (Pi-Sunyer, F). Many studies have concluded that access to nutritious food is limited or
made difficult by factors such as cost or the distance traveled to obtain it.
IV.
Supermarket Trends and Development
Market Locations
Developers of grocery stores face significant barriers when determining supermarket
locations. Many retailers decide not to sell fresh produce, meat and fish because of higher business
costs associated with selling these products. Other regulations, such as zoning, parking, and store size
requirements, can prevent developers into certain areas (DCP). Additionally, several factors could sway
the decisions for potential locations of supermarkets. Some factors that are measured by developers
are the median income of area residents and the population density of the area. Unfortunately for lowincome areas that rely on public transit and walk to most destinations, a high median income has a
stronger correlation to store location. This correlation attracts more developers to higher median
income areas since residents are capable of purchasing more expensive products and neglects lower
income areas. However, this has led to growing concern for healthier food options in lower income
neighborhoods and the city has taken initiative to attract developers to low-income areas through
FRESH’s financial and zoning incentives.
The lack of options and choices in fresh foods has been blamed for high obesity rates and the
city has taken greater initiative to address this issue. Unable to access healthy alternatives, many of
these individuals are often forced to choose from cheap and readily available options. Many cases, the
choices are unhealthy alternatives. Underserved neighborhoods often have blocks and blocks of fast
food and liquor, and convenience stores selling unhealthy, high-fat, high-sugar foods and rely on these
types of food products (Thomas, B). This disparity of food options has resulted in a growing food gap
between affluent or food secure and low-income or food insecure individuals.
FRESH Program
In response to the concerns of limited fresh food options in underserved areas, financial and
zoning incentives were created by the city to attract developers to help reach the citywide supermarket
ratio goal. The FRESH initiative was created to incentivize the establishment of full-service grocery
stores in low-income underserved areas, defined by high need areas established by earlier studies done
by the Department of City Planning. These areas would otherwise have been considered unfavorable
for most developers. To qualify for the incentives, developers could construct and/or expand brand new
stores, or convert a layout of an existing supermarket.
Figure 3
Source: Department of City Planning
Figure 3 shows areas that are eligible for various zoning, financial, or a combination of both types of
incentives. To qualify for any incentives, a potential FRESH store must be at least 6,000 square feet, 50%
of products are made for home cooking, 30% are perishable foods, and 500 square feet of space is
dedicated to fresh produce (DCP). However, these criteria, particularly the space requirements, pertains
more towards space availability and not completely accessibility. Under FRESH, location determinations
for supermarket development lacks specific site accessibility investigations due to barriers of limited
transportation and/or long distances to the nearest market. Overall, areas outlined for potential
development in underserved areas remains broad.
V.
Analysis for Accessibility
Mobility, Spatial Proximity, and Public Health
One key element in the relationship between underserved areas and food accessibility is
mobility and distance for travel to supermarkets.
Residents of lower income and minority
neighborhoods in most urban areas face barriers that limit their access to fresh and healthy foods.
While supermarkets may not be readily accessible (due to the limited number of stores), mobility to the
already limited supermarkets becomes a key factor when addressing food accessibility. Studies have
consistently shown that there are fewer full service food markets per capita in neighborhoods with
predominately low-income, minority, or immigrant residents (UEPI). Without adequate and easily
accessible transportation options, many residents are denied equitable access to fresh foods that all
people are entitled to.
With greater emphasis on mobility and physical/spatial arrangement of food stores, targeted
residents have the potential to utilize potential fresh food options. Several studies have been done
indicating that people walk to markets that are readily accessible, which can create healthier lifestyles.
In which, spatial arrangement of options then becomes important. First, a study completed by Bernick
and Cervero found that people who live in a pedestrian-oriented environment were more likely to go by
foot to the market for fruits and vegetables (Bernick, M). Second, a study done by the American
Planning Association found that people who live in areas with good neighborhood accessibility are more
likely to walk and use transit (Krizek).
Similarly, another study found that residents that live in
traditional urban neighborhoods have also been found to make two to four more walk/bicycle trips-perweek to neighborhood stores (Handy).
Therefore, effective accessibility options could significantly
impact health. Strategic placement of supermarkets is essential in underserved areas with little public
transportation and long distances between stores and residents. Creating greater accessibility has the
potential to allow residents to make more frequent trips to grocery stores with healthy options.
Effective proximity could lead to greater healthy food intake. A study performed by Kimberly
Moorland in 2001 indicated that for each supermarket in their census tract [in Maryland], white
American residents increased their fruit and vegetable intake by an average of 11 percent and African
American residents increased their intake by 32 percent (Morland, K). Additionally, another study
performed by Public Health Nutrition concluded that easy access to supermarkets was associated with
increased household (84 grams per adult equivalent per day with a 95% confidence interval) (Rose, D).
Proximity to a supermarket has been associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake and better diet
quality among low-income households (Rose, D). This indicates that creating greater access in areas
with low-income neighborhoods is essential to boost healthy food intake. These underserved areas lack
accessibility for the creation of fresh and healthy diets.
Few public transportation systems have planned their routes to ensure convenient direct access
to grocery stores for transit users.
Inner city residents have less food access due to restricted
transportation options (Gottlieb, R). Transportation options become limited as underserved residents
lack automobile ownership when compared to more affluent communities. In New York City, the
poorest zip codes, as defined by percentage of households receiving public assistance, had car
ownership rates of less than 40% (Gottlieb, R). Additionally, ineffective public transit options can create
greater obstacles. Bus lines rarely are designed to serve intra-neighborhood food shopping patterns and
usually planned around commuter routes (Gottlieb, R). This can create more difficulties for residents to
carry grocery bags from stores to homes. Many types of residents, including elderly and disabled, may
not be capable to reach potential new food destinations if public transportation becomes a problem.
Since transportation barriers and long distances comes into play, many may opt to choose the most
convenient and nearby options. In underserved areas, options available may only be at the closest
convenience store which would most likely not carry healthy items. As a result, distance becomes an
additional factor in food shopping, which can result in inadequate and unhealthy food choices.
FRESH and the Incomplete Picture of Accessibility
Currently, city policy under FRESH does not address how residents will access potential new
fresh food options. Residents of areas poorly served by supermarket options are also more likely than
the general public to be transit dependent, so it can be difficult for them to travel to food markets
located outside of their immediate neighborhoods. The FRESH initiative attempts to bring greater fresh
food availability to underserved areas but that only solves part of the picture of food accessibility.
As stated earlier, the city hopes to eventually reach a goal of increasing the citywide average
ratio of supermarkets to 30,000 square feet per 10,000 people from 15,000 square feet per 10,000
people (DCP). Increasing a square footage per person ratio shows the increase in availability for general
areas. However, there is no system to evaluate whether local residents could get to the extra options.
More options may not be enough to bring people to stores.
There is no universal system set up to assess whether people could effectively reach these
FRESH incentivized stores. Many researchers have devised a number of ways to measure food desert
presence and severity (Sparks, A). However, there is no consensus on which measures should be used
to assess whether a community's low-income residents have adequate access to fresh and affordable
foods (Sparks, A). Therefore, it is essential to create an evaluation system to assess whether current
FRESH stores and its policies have benefitted local residents, in terms of mobility and distance. The
metric of a ¼ mile or a 7-10 minute walk between food stores and food stores to public transit locations
(subway stops and bus routes) seems to be a reasonable approach in assessing food access in urban
areas. One study done by Larsen and Gilliland incorporated public transit into spatial accessibility
measures; points within a 500 meter walk to a supermarket were classified as having accessibility
(Larsen, K). Furthermore, for elderly, disabled, and individuals in poor health, access to healthy foods in
the surrounding built environment becomes more difficult. Shorter walking distances, for instance a
quarter mile rather than a half mile, may be indicated in measuring food access in urban areas
(Neckerman, K).
Several research studies have included measures of public transit in studies of
neighborhood walkability (Hoehner, C).
The evaluation of whether residents in underserved communities effectively get to
supermarkets and take full advantage of potential new fresh food availabilities could lead to further
investigation in food policy, in regards to accessibility. Furthermore, city policy could address how
providing only greater food options is not enough to solve the food accessibility epidemic. Creating an
effective metric standard to assess different levels of accessibility is essential to determine whether it is
advantageous to place FRESH supermarkets in certain locations.
Some underserved areas may
specifically have adequate grocery stores in a particular area while a few blocks over there may be
nothing in over a ¼ mile area. By setting up a metric evaluation system, specific areas of underserved
communities that greatly lack modes of public transportation for easy access or have no grocery stores
over a ¼ mile could be analyzed for placement of potential supermarket options.
VI.
Case Studies of FRESH Stores
Bushwick South, Wyckoff Food Bazaar
Bushwick, an underserved area of Brooklyn (Community District 4), is one example of how the
FRESH program provided greater fresh food options but fell short in effective market distribution, in
terms of walkability. The area consisted of only 11 full service grocery stores (DCP). Wyckoff Food
Bazaar, mainly a produce and meat warehouse, is one full service grocery store in the neighborhood.
Beforehand, the store was already considered one of the largest and most diverse fresh food selections
in the neighborhood.
In 2009, the Wyckoff Food Bazaar was awarded with FRESH financial tax incentives. To receive
the FRESH incentives for tax-exemption, the store went through an expansion from its original state.
Larger areas were constructed and devoted to exotic produce, meat and seafood, and even an organic
food section. However, it did not effectively contribute to residents walking shorter distances to access
these goods. Availability wise, the expansion added more square footage to the overall citywide
average ratio of neighborhood grocery stores to residents. Even though this is one small step closer for
the city to reach its goal of increasing the citywide average ratio to 30,000 square feet per 10,000 people,
it does not directly affect mobility concerns for residents in the neighborhood. Therefore, more distant
residents (greater than a ¼ mile or 10 minute walk) in this underserved area would not benefit and food
accessibility remains the same with this expansion. In this particular case, the FRESH incentives did not
bring new resources to bring people to the store, in terms of reduced accessibility in walking.
Figure 4
Additionally, the Wyckoff store is also on a block adjacent to another Food Bazaar location on
Gates Avenue. While the borough line running between the two stores means that the neighboring
location is in Queens, the stores are actually less than 700 feet apart. Again, this is an example of how
creating more options is positive but does not alleviate the distance factor for residents living further
away. Figure 4 shows the Wyckoff store location (with a ¼ mile buffer in red) in relation to other current
stores and transportation modes. This figure also shows a potential area where specific studies could be
used since there are no supermarkets within the greater ¼ mile area. Residents in areas south of the
store buffer area lack any supermarkets but have transit options. Greater focus could be placed on that
area as residents in the southern portion of Bushwick must travel long distances for healthy foods.
South Bronx, Western Beef
The Western Beef store in the East Tremont section of the South Bronx (Community District 6)
became the first supermarket in the city to receive funding through the FRESH program. The area has
three grocery stores. The project, which involved tearing down an existing Western Beef store and
rebuilding an expanded store on a nearby lot, cost the chain more than $15 million — but through the
FRESH program, it also received $5.6 million in real estate and sales tax exemptions and a mortgage
recording tax waiver worth $154,000 (NYEDC). As a result, the store expanded by 3,000 square feet for
additional fruits and vegetables (NYEDC).
Additionally, other ethnic options were visible, including
calabaza (West Indian pumpkin), yucca, plantain, batata (sweet potato) and yautia.
Figure 5
However, similarly to the Bushwick situation, the project did not contribute to easing mobility
for distant residents. Figure 5 shows the store (with a ¼ mile buffer in red). The nearest subway station,
Tremont Avenue, was already greater than ¼ mile away from the Western Beef store. Additionally, one
bus route serves the immediate area and is on the border of the ¼ mile buffer. Multiple Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) bus lines run on the particular bus route, however, distance-wise
nothing has changed. One MTA bus route may not be sufficient for a food shopper who lives greater
than a ¼ mile or 10 minute walk north of the supermarket. Lack of a more direct route to the
supermarket may still cause physical barriers due to its location. With the expansion of the current
store, greater food options were introduced but the effect of accessibility remains unchanged. Other
potential areas (outlined in black) could be investigated using the ¼ mile metric. These areas do not
have any stores nearby and have not been changed, in regards to accessibility, with the introduction of
the new Western Beef store.
VII.
Recommendations – Policy Related
Use a standard metric and set a city-wide goal to bring people within a certain number of minutes or
miles to a healthy food outlet
A way to assess beneficial supermarket accessibility could be by setting a definite metric for
analysis. The creation of a standard metric would be beneficial in supermarket feasibility and whether it
could address transportation and mobility barriers.
Governments could create standards for healthy food access, including a walkability standard.
For example, the City of Philadelphia’s Greenworks plan sets a target of “Bringing 75% of Philadelphians
within a 10 minute walk of healthy food” (Greenworks Philadelphia). This would require accurate and
comprehensive data on food outlets, small grocery stores, farmers markets, etc. and demographics as
well as sophisticated mapping and analysis resources. Thus, the creation of a walkability standard is
more effective if it is done in conjunction with a spatial food mapping process.
In some cases, a city-wide goal may be challenging. Some places for supermarket development
may not be allowed or cost of development may be too high in dense areas. However, by investigating
any underserved areas with a standard metric could lead to greater awareness and policy changes. The
initial metric introduced in this paper provides one direction that city government could use and further
investigate accessibility. Similarly to bringing every New Yorker within 10 minutes to a park, the same
mentality could be set for healthy foods.
Develop better information tools and standards to assess underserved areas
Create better resources to study and develop accurate and timely information databases.
To bridge the information gap in underserved communities, cities and community development
intermediaries around the country are developing sophisticated databases on property availability, local
demographics, and other indicators to inform development. The Urban Markets Initiative of the
Brookings Institution, for example, is partnering with the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership
and affiliated organizations in Baltimore, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Providence, and Washington, D.C., to
develop comprehensive information databases to guide investment decisions in these cities (Urban
Markets Initiative).
With effective information that is comparable to the local and federal level, more financial
incentives could be developed. Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture only recognizes a
small portion of Staten Island and portions of Queens near JFK airport as underserved food retail areas
(USDA). At the local level, much of Bronx, Brooklyn, central Queens, and northern Manhattan are
considered underserved. Creating a common system to effectively assess underserved communities at
both levels is critical for further city and federal links. If the federal level recognized the same areas as
the local level, more funding could be given from the federal level. The local government could
essentially provide site-specific details in underserved areas and work together at the federal level. The
Federal government could eventually provide more site-specific incentives, which could address mobility
even further.
Serving the community
Supermarkets can be incentivized to provide transportation to local residents. Grocery stores
can reduce costs that relate to the more frequent, smaller per-trip purchases of consumers by providing
free or low-cost return transportation to customers in exchange for minimum purchase sizes. In Los
Angeles, Numero Uno Market and Ralphs operate transportation services from some of their stores
(Urban Markets Initiative). The Ralphs located in the West Adams neighborhood adjacent to the
University of Southern California, for example, offers a free return trip to customers who spend $25. An
analysis of grocery shuttle services found that they can pay for themselves within 10 months (Urban
Markets Initiative). Through a FRESH program update, greater incentives could possibly be given for
stores that provide some type of transportation route for their customers. Currently, no such incentives
or policies are part of the FRESH program.
Expand FRESH to incorporate small grocery stores besides full-service supermarkets
In addition to current FRESH criteria, a smaller store version could be created and could be
directly applied for potential smaller sized stores who wish to carry greater fruits and vegetables.
Therefore, this would provide a greater number of locations for healthy food options.
Some
underserved areas may not be capable to support massive supermarkets due to their built environment.
Existing smaller stores could take advantage of a new FRESH small store criteria or special permitting
process and provide more fruits and vegetables for areas that are heavily influenced by surrounding
convenience stores.
VIII.
Conclusion
Availability neglects to address how residents in underserved areas access additional fresh food
options.
Accessibility includes availability and the evaluation of physical, spatial, and limited
transportation barriers. Despite the limited resources devoted to healthy food accessibility in the city,
this paper indicates a need for policy action and other intervention strategies to ensure more equitable
access to healthy foods in underserved areas with physical/spatial factors and barriers. Very few studies
have evaluated strategies for reducing disparities or improving physical access to healthy and affordable
foods.
Several strategies and policy actions, including FRESH, have been proposed to attract
supermarkets through incentives to underserved neighborhoods. Greater options are beneficial but if
spatial access barriers exist, then potential healthy foods that were made available would not be
consumed to targeted residents.
One particular element of this larger food security issue revolves around transportation access
to local food retailers. Such access is particularly important for the poor and other transportation
disadvantaged who may lack mobility options (Clifton, K). Three elements could be suggested for the
city policy future: Research designed to evaluate proposed interventions, build broad support for their
implementation, and identify other effective means for improving neighborhood access to healthy foods.
Food accessibility is a complex issue but by addressing the importance of spatial proximity and mobility
barriers, the city could be another step closer to provide all residents the opportunity to take full
advantage of potential healthy foods.
IX.
References
Bernick, M. and R. Cervero. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. 1997. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Campbell, M. C. "Building a Common Table: The Role for Planning in Community Food Systems." Journal of Planning Education
and Research. 2004. 23(4): 341-355.
Clifton, K. J. "Mobility Strategies and Food Shopping for Low-Income Families: A Case Study." Journal of Planning Education and
Research. 2004 23(4): 402-413.
Cummins, Steven and Macintyre, Sally. “Food Environments and Obesity – Neighborhood or Nation?” International Journal of
Epidemiology. 2006. 35(1): 100-104.
Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH). New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Web 10 May 2012.
http://www.nycedc.com/program/food-retail-expansion-support-health-fresh.
FRESH Food Stores Overview. New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Web 3 May 2012. www.nyc.gov/dcp.
Gottlieb, R., Fisher, A., Dohan, M., O'Connor, L., Parks, V. “Homeward Bound: Food-Related Transportation Strategies in Low
Income and Transit Dependent Communities.” University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Research Center. 1996.
http://www.uctc.net/papers/336.pdf.
Greenworks Philadelphia. Mayor’s office of Sustainability. City of Philadelphia. Web 14 July 2012.
http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/.
Handy, S. University of California (System) Transportation Center (1995). Regional versus local accessibility : neo-traditional
development and its implications for non-work travel. Berkeley, University of California Transportation Center.
Hess, Daniel, Russell, Jessica. “Influence of Built Environment and Transportation Access on Body Mass Index of Older Adults:
Survey Results from Erie County, New York.” Transport Policy. March 2012. Volume 20, Pp. 128–137.
Hoehner CM, Ramirez LKB, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical
activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005; 28(2): 105-116.
Krizek, K. J. "Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel: Does Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form Matter?" Journal of the
American Planning Association. 2003. 69(3): 265-281.
Larsen K, Gilliland J. Mapping the evolution of 'food deserts' in a Canadian city: Supermarket accessibility in London, Ontario,
1961-2005. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2008. 7:16.
Morland, K, et al., “The Contextual Effect of the Local Food Environment on Residents’ Diets: The Atherosclerosis Risk in
Communities Study,” American Journal of Public Health 92. 2002. Pp. 1761-1767.
Neckerman, K, et al., “Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas.” Built Environment and Health. Columbia University. 2009
Nickhanj, Soma. “Alleviating Urban Food Deserts: Lessons from Literature.” Graduate School of Public Health. University of
Pittsburgh, 2010.
Opfer, Pamela. “Using GIS Technology to Identify and Analyze ‘Food Deserts’ on the Southern Oregon Coast.” Oregon State
University. June 2010.
Pi-Sunyer, F. The obesity epidemic pathophysiology and consequences of obesity. Obesity Research, 10 (Suppl 2) (2002), pp.
97S–104S.
Rose, D., & Richards, R. “Food Store Access and Household Fruit and Vegetable Use Among Participants in the US Food Stamp
Program.” Public Health Nutrition. 2007. 7(08). 1081-1088.
Rundle A, et al. “Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environmental Health
Perspectives.” 2009; 117(3): 442-7.
Sparks, Andrea. “Measuring Food Deserts: A Comparison of Models Measuring the Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in
Portland, Oregon.” Public Policy and Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon. June 2008.
Thomas, Brian J. “Food Deserts and the Sociology of Space: Distance to Food Retailers and Food Insecurity in an Urban
American Neighborhood.” International Journal of Human and Social Services. 2010. 5(6): 400-409.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food Desert Map. Web 9 July 2012. www.usda.gov.
Urban Markets Initiative. Web 17 July 2012. www.brookings.edu.
Van Wye G, Kerker BD, Matte T, et al. Obesity and diabetes in New York City, 2002 and 2004 . Preventive Chronic Disease 2008;
April 5(2): A48.
World Health Organization (WHO). Web 14 June 2012. http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/2009.