Bringing Fresh Produce to Corner Stores in Declining Neighborhoods: Reflections from Detroit FRESH

Abstract

The paper reports and reflects on an action research project to increase availability and sales of fresh produce in 26 neighborhood corner stores in Detroit, Michigan. Through analysis of neighborhood, store-related, and supply-chain characteristics, I identify factors in successful operations as well as challenges confronted by stores between 2009 and 2012, when many Detroit neighborhoods lost population due to tax foreclosure and abandonment. Neighborhood distress was reflected in challenges experienced by a majority of stores, including those that dropped out of the project prematurely (five out of seven), or participated only inconsistently (seven out of 10). Nine stores supplied fresh produce consistently. Operators with high levels of performance tended to be in zip codes experiencing population losses at a lower rate than the citywide average, be more committed to their store-neighborhood, have more experience with fresh produce sales, and be more willing to test alternatives. This paper reflects on the challenges of implementing corner store strategies in rapidly depopulating neighborhoods without ongoing subsidy. It also demonstrates the lessons in implementing them as action research projects including with students and community partners.

Systematic review: a systems innovation perspective on barriers and facilitators for the implementation of healthy food-store interventions

“…Consumer characteristics mainly presented barriers. Frequently, retailers perceived a higher demand for unhealthy than for healthy products [20–24, 27–29, 31, 33, 36–41], and thus regarded unhealthy products as more profitable [20]. They often attributed this to customers perceiving healthy products as expensive [23, 24, 38, 40, 42], personal habits [23, 28] or taste preferences [23].…”

“…They often attributed this to customers perceiving healthy products as expensive [23, 24, 38, 40, 42], personal habits [23, 28] or taste preferences [23]. In one case, a declining customer base led to decreasing demand [31]. Retailers often believed that consumers lacked interest in [23, 36, 40, 42, 43], and knowledge of [23, 42] health.…”

“…Community relations seemed most relevant for single stores. Interventionists frequently perceived strong community relationships as potential motivators for retailers [23, 27, 31, 40], or a way to gather community support [41, 46]. In two cases, retailers perceived robberies as a threat to their own and interventionists’ safety [21, 40]; turning the community into a barrier.…”

“…Multi-store competitors were perceived as a barrier, as they could offer promoted products for better prices [36, 41], or present an alternative for dissatisfied customers [37], leading to customer loss. Furthermore, some single-store retailers believed a lack of competition to contribute to intervention success [31, 35, 41]. Instability in the competitive environment seemed to deter single-store retailers from participation [43].…”

“…Conflict between commercial interests and intervention interests sometimes presented a barrier [27, 28, 49, 50]. In various other cases, food stores exhibited a culture of innovation and experimentation, possibly making them more open to interventions [24, 26, 31, 33, 47, 51].…”