Beyond Neighborhood Food Environments: Distance Traveled to Food Establishments in 5 US Cities, 2009–2011

Abstract

IntroductionAccurate conceptualizations of neighborhood environments are important in the design of policies and programs aiming to improve access to healthy food. Neighborhood environments are often defined by administrative units or buffers around points of interest. An individual may eat and shop for food within or outside these areas, which may not reflect accessibility of food establishments. This article examines the relevance of different definitions of food environments.MethodsWe collected data on trips to food establishments using a 1-week food and travel diary and global positioning system devices. Spatial-temporal clustering methods were applied to identify homes and food establishments visited by study participants.ResultsWe identified 513 visits to food establishments (sit-down restaurants, fast-food/convenience stores, malls or stores, groceries/supermarkets) by 135 participants in 5 US cities. The average distance between the food establishments and homes was 2.6 miles (standard deviation, 3.7 miles). Only 34% of the visited food establishments were within participants’ neighborhood census tract. Buffers of 1 or 2 miles around the home covered 55% to 65% of visited food establishments. There was a significant difference in the mean distances to food establishments types (P = .008). On average, participants traveled the longest distances to restaurants and the shortest distances to groceries/supermarkets.ConclusionMany definitions of the neighborhood food environment are misaligned with individual travel patterns, which may help explain the mixed findings in studies of neighborhood food environments. Neighborhood environments defined by actual travel activity may provide more insight on how the food environment influences dietary and food shopping choices.

Scale effects in food environment research: Implications from assessing socioeconomic dimensions of supermarket accessibility in an eight-county region of South Carolina

“…In investigating this issue, many studies have shown significant associations between the neighborhood food environment, diet and obesity (Caspi et al, 2012; Morland and Everson, 2009; Wang et al, 2007); however, many other have suggested that no significant relationship exists (Hattori et al, 2013). Inconsistencies between findings could perhaps be due to how neighborhood and local food environments have been defined (Liu et al, 2015). …”

“…Less discussed is the choice of appropriate “neighborhood” boundaries or scale and the geographic context in which to operationalize food environment data (Liu et al, 2015; Fan et al, 2014; Larson et al, 2009). Many geographical boundaries have been used to define neighborhood food environments, ranging from egocentric buffer distances of 100 meters to 2.5 kilometers (~1.6 miles) around individual residential, worksite or school addresses or using administrative-based units, e.g., census tracts or block groups (Liu et al, 2015; Fan et al, 2014; Caspi et al, 2012; Charreire et al, 2010).…”

“…Many geographical boundaries have been used to define neighborhood food environments, ranging from egocentric buffer distances of 100 meters to 2.5 kilometers (~1.6 miles) around individual residential, worksite or school addresses or using administrative-based units, e.g., census tracts or block groups (Liu et al, 2015; Fan et al, 2014; Caspi et al, 2012; Charreire et al, 2010). However, there is no consistent methodology with which food environment researchers have agreed to construct geographic measures.…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, scale effects have not been well explored in food environment research, although one of the most probable contributors to the many mixed findings relating neighborhood food environments to diet and/or weight is the choice of geographic scale (Liu et al, 2015; Fan et al, 2014). To date, only one study has explicitly examined the effect of geographic scale on detecting relationships using a neighborhood food environment measure (Fan et al, 2014).…”

Right Here, Right Now: Situated Interventions to Change Consumer Habits

“…Labrecque et al 2016;Ji and Wood 2007;Verplanken and Wood 2006;Wood and Neal 2009;). Experience sampling research shows, for example, that approximately 43% of a consumer's actions are performed daily, often in the same context (Wood, Tam, and Witt 2002; see also Liu, Han, and Cohen 2015). Consumers tend to buy the same brands, purchase similar amounts across shopping episodes, and consume similar types of food at mealtimes (for a discussion, see Wood and Neal 2009).…”