Running head: FOOD CHOICE i
Access to Healthy Food
in Philadelphia Neighborhoods:
How Corner Stores Impact Food Choices
Steve O’Connor
Master of Science Degree Candidate
Science, Technology, and Society
Department of History & Politics
Drexel University
Thesis Adviser: Professor Christian Hunold
March 2013
______
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Drexel University Department of History & Politics in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science ______
FOOD CHOICE ii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of my professors and classmates in the Science, Technology, and Society program for providing a wonderful learning experience over the last two years. I am also extremely thankful to everyone I have had the pleasure to work alongside or get to know through my experiences, and to the participants who agreed to be a part of this study.
To my thesis adviser Professor Christian Hunold, I greatly appreciate all of your help and encouragement throughout this process. Thank you for introducing me to the wonderful world of research and challenging and inspiring me.
I’d also like to thank Jen Britton and Katy Travaline for all of your advice, support, listening, and most importantly, introducing me to the STS program.
Finally, thank you to my family and friends, with special thanks to Kelly, my wonderful wife. Thank you for all your patience, proofreading, and the tremendous amount of support you have given me over the last few years. I am grateful.
FOOD CHOICE iii
Abstract
Over the last fifteen years, access to fresh and nutritious food has been recognized as a growing problem within the United States, specifically in low-income, urban neighborhoods. These areas are often described as “food deserts” in which healthy food options are not available within 0.6-mile walk. Typically, "food deserts" lack full service supermarkets. Residents instead have to make do with corners stores that specialize in processed foods while offering few, if any, fresh fruit and vegetables. The purpose of this study was to determine where and how residents of West Philadelphia obtain their food, specifically to better understand the role of corner stores in their food purchases. Using a mixed-methods approach of 100 quantitative surveys and 9 qualitative interviews this study found that residents of Mantua, West Powelton, and Belmont obtain most of their food from supermarkets located outside the neighborhood and do not rely on corner stores for the majority of their purchases. This paper finds that the Healthy Corner Store Initiative (HCSI) alone may do little to improve residents' diet since this program does not respond to how residents actually obtain their food. Coupling the HCSI with alternative food systems, such as urban gardens, can build social capital and stakeholder participation that has greater potential to increase the likelihood that residents will consume healthier foods.
FOOD CHOICE iv
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….…..1
Food Systems in the Literature………………………………………………....………...... 15
Research Design…………………………………………………………………...... …….22
Findings.………………………..…………………………………………………...... ……29
Discussion………………………..…………………………………………………...... ….51
Conclusion……………………………………………….………….…………...... ……….60
References………………………………………………………………...... ………….…...64
Appendix A: Quantitative Survey. ………………....………………....……….……...……..70
Appendix B: Qualitative Interview Summaries……………………………………………...78
FOOD CHOICE v
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Survey Breakdown………………………..………………………………...…..34
Table 2: Neighborhood Demographics…………..………………………………….…...34
Figures
Figure 1: Map of Neighborhoods…………………………………………….……...... 29
Figure 2: Corner Stores in the Neighborhoods…………….……...... 30
Figure 3: Healthy Corner Stores…………………………………………………...... 31
Figure 4: Neighborhood Gardens……………………………………….……..…...... 32
Figure 5: Total Walk Radius……………………………………….……...... 33
Figure 6: Emerging Qualitative Themes……………………………………….……..…39
Figure 7: Interview Participants Fruit and Vegetable Consumption………………...... 45
Figure 8: Corner Store Consumption……………………………………….……...... 51
Figure 9: Corner Store Inventory……………………………………….……...... 54 FOOD CHOICE 1
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction & Aims of the Study
Over the last fifteen years, food access has been recognized as a growing problem
within the United States, specifically in low-income areas that have a perceived lack of access to fresh and healthy foods. With the rise in what is referred to as “food deserts”— areas that lack access to healthy and adequate foods to maintain a nutritious diet—many
academics, policy makers, non-profits, and other organizations have developed initiatives
to expand access to healthy, affordable foods for residents of such areas. Studies show
that residents of food deserts are more likely to be at risk for chronic diseases, high-blood
pressure, some cancers, obesity, and other health issues, especially in low-income
communities (McKenna et al., 1998; Pi-Sunyer, 2002; Moreland, 2006; Blanck et al.,
2007; Beaulac et al., 2009). One initiative right here in Philadelphia, the Healthy Corner
Stores Initiative, proposes to fill the nutritional gap by supplying neighborhood corner
stores with healthy food options. However, we cannot be certain that providing access to
healthy food increases the likelihood that residents of a “food desert” will consume a diet
consisting of healthier foods. Fueling this uncertainty is our limited knowledge about
how and where residents obtain their food to begin with.
In this context, the purpose of this research study was to determine how residents
in three low-income West Philadelphia neighborhoods obtain access to food. A mixed-
methods research design of 100 quantitative surveys and 9 qualitative interviews sought
to identify where residents obtained their food as well as barriers to that access and,
guided by content analysis techniques, to identify themes across and within respondent
groups. The findings suggest that most residents obtain the majority of their food from FOOD CHOICE 2
supermarkets with minimal difficulty. Furthermore, the study participants report
accessing food from the corner stores only occasionally for snacks, drinks, “emergency”
items, and deli items and have negative impressions of the quality of the stores, which
could impact the adoption of initiatives to sell fresh fruits and vegetables within these
stores. The study also found that the majority of residents believe that it is difficult to
obtain fruits and vegetables within their neighborhood, and significant opportunities exist
to provide residents with resources and training to participate in community gardens.
The purpose of this study is to fill in the knowledge gap on how low-income people in West Philadelphia food deserts obtain food by measuring and analyzing how residents navigate their neighborhood to purchase food. The results could
• improve individual nutrition and general health as well as the physical
environment in low-income neighborhoods,
• help evaluate the effectiveness of programs such as the Healthy Corner Store
Initiative, and
• inform efforts to address food inequalities by building social capital.
Background
In a 2010, the Centers for Disease Control released a report stating that almost 36
percent of the population (78 million adults and 12 million children) is overweight or
obese and at a higher risk for diabetes, hypertension, and other health related issues
(Ogden et al. 2012). The USDA, along with the World Health Organization, claims that
the increase in obesity and negative health issues relates directly to poor diets (USDA,
2009; WHO, 2002). In 2001, the US Department of Human Services argued that in the FOOD CHOICE 3
US, healthy foods were not adequately accessible and that the public relied on a variety
of snack foods, sugary beverages, fast-foods, and other types of food that were high in sugar, fat, and calories, especially in low-income urban settings (USDHHS, 2001; Cohen
& Farley, 2008). This has led to the idea that urban areas that lack access to healthy foods are essentially “food deserts. “
Food Deserts
According to Cummins and Macintyre (2002), the term “food desert” was first used in the early 1990s to describe a Scotland housing project that lacked close, affordable access to nutritious foods. A clear consensus on the definition of a food desert has not emerged, however. Many scholars agree on the lack of food as the major criterion, but definitions vary. Morton and Blanchard (2007) consider food deserts as counties in which all residents must drive more than 10 miles while Larsen and Gilliland
(2008) argue that grocery stores should be within a 0.6-mile walk or a single bus ride that
includes a 0.3-mile walk. Other scholars classify food deserts by the number of grocery
stores and employees (Hendrickson, 2006). The USDA similarly classifies a food desert
as “a low-income census tract where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store” (USDA, 2012). The USDA considers the area low-income when the 20 percent or more of the population within the census tract is below the poverty line and food access low when the area is more than one mile from the closest supermarket (USDA, 2012). These varying definitions overlap in their emphasis on a “food desert” being a low-income area with limited access to healthy foods.
There are two main schools of thought on how food deserts came into existence.
According to the first explanation, there was mass adoption of private automobiles after FOOD CHOICE 4
World War II and, in the wake of urban deindustrialization in the 1960s and 1970s, large
portions of the urban population moved from the city to the suburbs (Blanck et al., 2007;
Larsen & Gilliland, 2008; Mead, 2008). In this basically benign interpretation, food deserts were the unintended consequence of urban outmigration enabled by a
combination of technological and economic change. The second, more pointed
explanation argues that a demographic shift where affluent white people moved from the
city to the suburbs created a form of economic segregation (Chavez et al. 2007; Guthman,
2000 and 2008). This “white flight” created an economic crisis in urban areas where
people of color tended to remain. Supermarkets followed the affluent consumers out of
the cities, creating a food system born of racism, poverty, and inequality (Firth, 2012).
Perceptions around the cause of the lack of healthy foods influence the resulting policy decisions. The first school argues that the lack of healthy food was an unintended result of the changes in the urban landscape. This explanation is much less complex and the policy solutions also become simpler to implement. If the reason for inadequate access is simply the lack of an urban population, an increase in the population would significantly improve the likelihood of access to a supermarket or providing healthy foods at smaller venues such as corner stores. However, the second school of thought shows that urban areas were designed to lack access to healthy foods and that this intentional form of structural segregation would require much more complex policy solutions. With this school of thought, which is more likely the cause of the urban food desert, policies must address the perception of structural segregation and just adding a grocery store or selling fruits and vegetables will have a minimal effect on improving the overall health of areas within a food desert. FOOD CHOICE 5
Philadelphia Policies and Initiatives
Across the country, cities have begun to take steps to address the proliferation of food deserts and lack of access to healthy food. Here in Philadelphia in 2003, the city’s
Neighborhood Transformation Initiative program, the main program responsible for revitalizing neighborhoods in Philadelphia, adopted the Green City Strategy –
“reclaiming vacant land, community greening, and long-term landscape management”
(PHS, 2011) - and granted a $4 million contract to the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society
(PHS) to begin its implementation (Pennsylvania Horticultural Society Launching the
Green City Strategy, n.d.). In 2010, the City of Philadelphia released its Vacant Land
Management Report comprising 40,000 properties (Econsult Corporation and Penn
Institute for Urban Research, 2010) while PHS was continuing its “The Green City
Strategy,” which “promotes the enhancement of community gardens… to teach gardening skills to city residents and…support the creation of 20 new community gardens” (PHS, 2011) to revitalize the city - both socially and economically. The cooperation between PHS and the city reflects the growing importance in Philadelphia politics and policy of “green,” sustainable initiatives.
Outlined in Section 3 of Greenworks Philadelphia, Target 10 is to Bring Local
Food within 10 Minutes of 75 percent of Local Residents. Due to increasing level of interest in local food initiatives, in 2008, Mayor Michael Nutter published the
Philadelphia Food Charter. The goal of this charter is to:
Facilitate the development of a sustainable city food and urban agriculture system—one that contributes to community, economic, health and environmental goals; encourages local production, protecting our natural and human resources; recognizes access to safe, sufficient, culturally appropriate and nutritious food as a basic right for all Philadelphians; fosters community gardens and farming; creates economic opportunities for neighborhood residents; encourages FOOD CHOICE 6
collaboration and builds upon the efforts of existing stakeholders throughout the city and region; and celebrates Philadelphia’s multicultural food traditions.” (p. 51)
The Mayor has also established a Food Policy Advisory Council that will create a
Sustainable Food Policy Plan in which the City will collaborate with partners on local food initiatives. The initiatives under Greenworks Philadelphia Target 10 are as follows:
• Increase Access to Fresh Food: expand the number of neighborhood farmers markets, publicize local food source efforts, provide technical assistance, leverage vacant land, foster school-based efforts, • The City call for the creation of an additional 59 food producing gardens, 12 farms and 15 farmers’ markets (a map on page 53 of the Greenworks document shows neighborhoods that lack access to fresh food) • Create Demand for Locally Grown Foods: foster commercial farming, encourage distribution of healthy food in neighborhood stores, and support food cooperative expansion • Entrepreneurship and Workforce Development Opportunity and Needs: support green kitchen development • Combating Hunger and More Immediate Needs: create and urban agriculture workforce strategy to grow green jobs, integrate anti-hunger efforts into food and urban agriculture goals (GreenWorks, 2009).
Given that many residents must travel long distances to local supermarkets, many residents are perceived to be dependent on corners stores to obtain food. The Healthy
Corner Store Initiative, part of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s Get
Healthy Philly initiative, designates $30 million for communities that lack supermarkets where families depend on corner stores for food purchases and currently has over 600 stores participating, with 83 percent of stores meeting basic participation requirements
(The Philadelphia Food Trust, 2012). Historically, there have been many difficulties in getting fresh foods into low-income urban areas. Corner store owners are unlikely to start selling fruits and vegetables due to the cost, while and supermarkets are often able to get produce at a much cheaper rate than a corner store. The corner store passes this increase FOOD CHOICE 7
in cost on to the consumer, which makes the food undesirable. The Healthy Corner Store
Initiative recognizes that in order for the residents to have access, the corner stores need
to offer healthy foods at competitive prices. Part of the HCSI plan is to set up a network of partnerships so organizations and stores can obtain produce in bulk from local sources for the same cost that larger supermarkets are likely to spend (The Food Trust, 2012). In addition, store owners have been given over 480 hours of training, with 80 percent of the
owners attending at least one training to learn how to make selling healthy foods
profitable (The Food Trust, 2012). The stores also need and receive infrastructure and display changes (such as shelving and new energy efficient refrigeration units in order to increase the space to shelve the food). These renovations, averaging $1,390 per store,
have resulted in the average store stocking 44 new healthy food choices (The Food Trust,
2012).
Corner stores must comply with four phases to become part of the HCSI. First,
stores must offer four healthy food choices from two separate categories; they have three
months to begin stocking these choices (The Food Trust, 2012). The Food Trust, a non-
profit started in 1992 to promote the availability of healthy food, offers several types of
healthy foods for the store owners to stock including fresh fruits and vegetables, fruits
and vegetables, dairy, whole wheat grains, and proteins (2012). The second phase is the
Healthy Food Identification Campaign that markets and guides the residents to these
products, increases awareness, and identifies the store as a member of the HCSI (2012).
The third phase educates owners on selling and marketing healthy foods; business
management training with a minimum of one required session is mandatory (The Food
Trust, 2012). Finally, if a store meets the first three phases, it may be selected to receive FOOD CHOICE 8 capital investments up to $5,000 to complete infrastructure remodeling to better market healthy foods (2012). Currently there are seven HCSI stores in the 19104 zip code, the focus of this study (2012).
The HCSI plans to increase public access and demand as well as participation by corner stores in several ways. Using defined food groupings, they hope to develop a minimum standard of healthy foods a store must carry to standardize the initiative (The
Food Trust, 2012). The HCSI will continue to support current stores, increase conversions by 200, and complete major conversions for five stores (The Food Trust,
2012). HCSI’s goal is to improve food access and food choices by neighborhood residents. The corner stores offer a community asset to provide nutritional education and the stores will also be able to provide data on purchasing choices by the consumer to determine the impact the initiative has on the neighborhoods (The Food Trust, 2012).
Currently, 83 percent of enrolled stores offer four or more healthy food choices,
90 percent offer at least one fruit or vegetable item, 73 percent offer a low fat dairy item,
84 percent have a whole grain product, and 82 percent introduced healthy beverages or snacks (The Food Trust, 2012).
Alternative Food Sources – Community Gardens
Historically, city residents have obtained a portion of their fruits and vegetables from alternative sources such as urban farms and gardens. Although Philadelphia has participated in urban gardening and farming since the l890s, it is only recently that these projects have started to be viewed as long-term, sustainable urban practices.
Beginning with the Vacant Lot Cultivation Association (VLCA) in 1897,
Philadelphia residents began urban farming as a way to gain access to locally grown FOOD CHOICE 9
food. The primary focus of the VLCA was for local residents to have access to cheap
foods during the depression of the 1890s (Goldstein, 1997; Lawson, 2004; Vitello, 2009).
The VLCA provided access to land on empty lots in promotion of for-profit food gardens that also provided education on gardening to children (Goldstein, 1997; Vitello, 2009).
These lots, totaling approximately 27 acres, produced $61 of food per lot and every dollar put into lots yielded $3 in return (Spears, Lindsay, & Kirkbride, 1898, pg. X). The depression period began to subside and the gardens became a hobbyist activity (Lawson,
2009). While VLCAs were instituted in other places such as New York and Detroit, the
Philadelphia VLCA was unique because it lasted well into the 1920s (Lawson, 2004).
The US involvement in World War I also played a pivotal role in the development of urban farms. Vitello (2009) argues that because food (as well as other products) was scarce, people depended upon localized urban gardens. Relatedly, Lawson (2004) argues that the government promoted community gardens to allow for the export of food for the war effort in Europe. The community gardens also helped support local neighborhoods through the Great Depression, but lacked overall support until the “Victory Gardens” during WWII. As in the earlier conflict, this was in an effort to decrease national demand for food in order to support the war abroad (Lawson, 2004). For example, posters by the
USDA depicted families working in gardens with slogans like “Uncle Sam says: ‘Garden to cut food costs’” (United States Department of Agriculture, 1917) and “Plant a victory garden: our food is fighting: a garden will make your rations go further” ("United States,
Office of War Information, 1943). These Victory Gardens supplied a large percentage of food for households and one of these gardens still exist in Philadelphia today (Vitello,
2009). FOOD CHOICE 10
During the 1950s and 60s support started to wane for urban farms, but then began to refocus, specifically in Philadelphia, during the 1970s. Philadelphia’s economy was dependent upon industry and during the 1970s, 100,0000 manufacturing jobs were lost and Philadelphia’s population decreased, leading to vacant properties and derelict land
(Vitello, 2009). In 1974, the Philadelphia Horticultural Society’s (PHS) “Philadelphia
Green Program” was a grassroots campaign initiated to claim these lots in an effort to beautify neighborhoods by growing vegetables (Philadelphia Horticultural Society,
2011). While the PHS provided access to land, compost, and fencing, the Penn State
Urban Gardening Program (a 6-city USDA program in 1977) provided technical training and seeds to potential urban farmers (Vitello, 2009).
These two programs along with a handful of others led to over 500 lots in
Philadelphia that were actively growing food. Vitello (2009) shows that during this time, almost $2 million of vegetable crops were being produced per year. Even with the modest success of the PHS and Penn State, in 1996, the USDA cut funding for urban programs while PHS simultaneously shifted funds away from gardening initiatives (Vitello, 2009).
Due to the lack of funding, coupled with Philadelphia’s high demand for real estate, almost half of the community gardens had ceased to exist by 2000 (Vitello, 2009). While the City of Philadelphia acquired some of this land through its Neighborhood
Transformation Initiative (NTI) for redevelopment, private development increased as neighborhoods changed (including Powelton Village, Northern Liberties, and Queen’s
Village) and became more affluent. In other circumstances, many of these gardens were simply abandoned as the older generation passed away, people relocated out of the city, or as their life situations changed (Vitiello, 2009). Philadelphia today has close to 240 FOOD CHOICE 11 urban gardens that produce food and fourteen large-scale urban farms (Hunold &
Travaline, 2010).
With several sources for food within Philadelphia – from grocery stores to farmers markets – and with recent programs and initiatives to improve access to food for all Philadelphians, it is imperative to understand where and how neighborhood residents travel through their environment to obtain food.
Research Question & Importance
In light of the current challenges to healthy food access and the recent initiatives designed to address these challenges, this study seeks to answer a question of fundamental importance if successful interventions are to be designed and implement and existing programs to be evaluated: How do West Philadelphia residents obtain their food?
Does the bulk of their food come from grocery stores, corner stores, or other sources? Do they identify barriers to accessing healthy food, and what are those barriers? Has the
HSCI or any of the emerging community gardens helped improve access to healthy food?
Food access is an important area of research for several reasons. The continued increase of high caloric foods along with the rise in obesity and negative health outcomes continue to negatively impact individuals and communities. Understanding how people access food can help inform strategies designed to improve access to healthy foods to decrease individual and community health concerns.
In Philadelphia, 28 percent of the population meets the guidelines for an annual income of 150% below the poverty line, or less than $12,000 a year (Public Health
Management Corporation, 2011). For people of color in Philadelphia, 40 to 45% are FOOD CHOICE 12
below the poverty line and African-Americans are more likely to have diabetes, high
blood pressure and other diet related chronic illnesses (ibid). Furthermore, 71% of
Philadelphia African Americans are either overweight or obese (ibid). According to
recent studies of food access, low-income people of color lack access to healthy food and
need to travel further to obtain healthy food options. The importance of this study is that
it seeks to understand how low-income people of color obtain food so that potential
solutions can increase access, health, and equality.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for several reasons. First, most residents travel outside of
their neighborhood using two main supermarkets and 60 percent of residents use a corner
store weekly, but do not rely on them for access to healthy foods. Second, most residents
who participated in this study claim having little difficulty obtaining food, but also
believe that it is difficult to obtain fruits and vegetables in the neighborhood. Many
residents also stated they would be willing to participate in community gardens.
However, most respondents did not meet the requirement for the suggested daily intake
of fruits and vegetables. The residents reported exercising and good to excellent health,
but the majority of respondents were overweight or obese.
This study has also begun to lay the groundwork for future research on this topic
in West Philadelphia. This work has identified several emergent themes that can be used to inform future research and to serve as a baseline for comparison. The limitations
identified in this study can also be used, when possible, to enable these issues to be
addressed in future iterations of research.
FOOD CHOICE 13
Limitations of this Study
Conducting interviews and surveys presents several challenges, including determining the accuracy self-reported answers and interpreting the respondents’ understanding of questions. The low participation rate (%) and sample size (#) are also possible limitations to the study. This study would benefit from completing a broader range of interviews with community organizers, community garden participants, store owner, the Food Trust, and policy makers.
In addition, it is important to acknowledge that this analysis focused on specific neighborhoods and may not represent other Philadelphia neighborhoods. The solution to construct a food system that implements both community gardens and the HCSI is a potential solution, but an economic analysis of the costs associated with implementing a plan was not completed. Also, policy makers prefer solutions that are cost effective while benefiting the majority of a large population, and while this plan may be feasible in areas with a large amount of vacant space, other areas may not have the available land for this hybrid project.
Outline
This thesis is divided into six sections beginning with this introduction. The following section examines the existing literature related to the research question and the literature on food access. More specifically, how do supermarkets and corner stores shape the built environment? How does an alternative food system emphasizing community gardens affect the urban “foodscape” in Philadelphia? And finally, how do GIS systems shape our understanding of the food system? FOOD CHOICE 14
The next section then describes the research design and rationale for this study,
detailing the construction of the research project as a mixed method approach. The data
collection method is comprised of one hundred quantitative surveys and nine semi-
structured interviews with local residents in three Philadelphia neighborhoods – Belmont,
Mantua, and West Powelton. The data analysis used SPSS to ascertain frequencies, descriptive statistics, and cross-tabulations for quantitative data. Content analysis was used to find emerging themes from semi-structured interviews. The choice to study these three neighborhoods is also explained and justified.
The subsequent section presents the findings of the study, organized by the data collection method and provides relevant linkages to the literature and related discussion.
These findings suggest that residents in this environment, which is considered a food desert, do not have difficulty obtaining food. Findings also suggest that the corner stores are not used for the majority of household food purchases. Finally, the last section concludes with a summary of key points, a discussion of the study’s significance and limitations, and some directions for future research.
FOOD CHOICE 15
Chapter 2: FOOD SYSTEMS IN THE LITERATURE
The literature on food access and individuals largely falls into two categories:
literature focusing on the lack of grocery stores in low-income settings where residents
become more likely to shop at corner stores; and literature focusing on low-income
African-American neighborhoods that are more likely than other neighborhoods to lack
access to fresh, healthy foods. The first section of this literature review will highlight recent studies around access to foods via supermarkets and corner stores with an emphasis on how African-American urban communities are affected. The next section will discuss the literature around alternative food systems, such as urban gardens’ potential role in filling the gaps in communities that are perceived as food deserts.
Finally, the last section focuses on literature on how a geographic information system
(GIS) can increase access by analyzing, interpreting, and understanding the data to reveal relationships, patterns, and trends.
Supermarkets and Corner Stores
As supermarkets have left urban areas, studies examining the impact that this has had on low-income communities have proliferated. Areas that lack supermarkets are thought to contribute to higher risk factors for obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other conditions in low-income, largely non-white areas (McKenna, T., Taylor, W.,
Marks, J., and Koplan, J., 1998; Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, and Cummins S., 2009). The built environment - the features of a person’s habitat that are created by people and are not naturally occurring – is pivotal, scholars argue, in the creation of a food desert and a foundation of an individual diet (Giang et al., 2008). FOOD CHOICE 16
In a 1995 Philadelphia study, the highest-income neighborhoods had 156 percent
more supermarkets than the lowest-income neighborhoods (Weinberg, 1995) and among comparable cities Philadelphia had the second lowest number of supermarkets (Cotterill
and Franklin, 1995). With the lack of supermarkets, residents were found to be more
likely to be dependent on traveling to a store via car or public transportation, presenting a
choice to the consumer to either go to the supermarket or use a local corner store (Giang
et al., 2008). Giang et al., (2008) identified that the choice between using public
transportation and using the corner stores is often not even a choice; rather, time, convenience, and financial concerns limit the ability to travel, especially if a person needs to transfer buses. These neighborhood residents that may lack transportation to and from the healthy food locations are limited to the number of products they can carry (Clifton,
2004).
This study found that the communities that lack grocery stores are more reliant on small corner stores, which lack fresh foods and stock high caloric foods, for various reasons: unsafe neighborhoods, single parent households, demanding work schedules, and lack of time (Giang et al., 2008; Rundle, et al., 2009). These communities lacking grocery stores and other alternatives for fresh and healthy foods were in turn found to rely on corner stores that sell convenient or highly processed foods that are shelf stable for long periods of time (Mikkelson et al., 2007).
A study completed in 2004 by Lucan, Karpyn, and Sherman (2010) showed that
19 corner stores in three Philadelphia neighborhoods provide children with at least 18-
44 percent of a day’s calories, fat, sugar, and sodium and as much 178-545 percent of daily calories, the majority of which come from snack foods. CH: Calories mentioned FOOD CHOICE 17
twice in the previous sentence. Clarify. This is furthered by a 2008 study (Borradaile,
Sherman, Vander Veur, 2009) that showed Philadelphia children spend about $1.06 a day
in corner stores and mostly purchase a bag of chips (33 percent), some type of candy
(21 percent), or a soft drink (18 percent). The other 25 percent of items consist of ice
cream, gum, pastries, and prepared foods (Borradaile, Sherman, Vander Veur, 2009).
Several studies also suggest that people of color, especially in low-income communities, are affected disproportionately compared to whites (Powell et al., 2007;
Zenk et al., 2005; Giang et al., 2008; Firch, 2012). Morland (2008) showed in Chicago that white neighborhoods had more supermarkets than did African-American neighborhoods. Another study argued that African-Americans had half as many groceries stores as white people (Powell et al., 2007). In Detroit, the distance to the nearest chain supermarket was found to increase with a higher proportion of African Americans, as much as 1.1 mile away, but remained similar across race in the affluent neighborhoods
(Zenk et al., 2005).
Another study found that fruit and vegetable consumption in low-income minority communities is proportionally lower than in middle-class white communities (Blanck et al., 2007). Corner stores that sell fruits and vegetables may increase consumption according to a study by Martin (2011). This study showed that residents of Hartford, CT were more likely to buy fruit if stores carried it and “for a one unit increase in the availability of varieties of fresh fruit, the likelihood that customers purchase fruit increased by 12 percent” (Martin, 2011. pg. 4). Along with adding fruits and vegetables, the placement of the products also impacted the choice of the consumer. In a study by FOOD CHOICE 18
Gittelsohn (2010), consumers were more likely to buy fruits and vegetables when they
were prominently displayed by the cashier.
While some studies show that increased access to fruits and vegetables, including
prominently displaying them in corner stores, increased consumption (Vallianatos,
Shaffer, and Gottlieb, 2001; Lucan, Karpyn, and Sherman, 2010; Borradaile, Sherman,
Vander Veur, 2009, Martin, 2011), other studies show that providing healthy eating
alternatives does not translate into healthy eating practices. A 2005 study showed that
“fruit and vegetable price, socio-economic deprivation and a lack of locally available
supermarkets, were not factors influencing fruit or vegetable intake” (White, M., Bunting,
J., Raybould, S., Adamson, A., Williams, L., and Mathers, J., 2005). Other studies
(MacDonald, L., Ellaway, A., Ball, K., and MacIntyre, S., 2009; Andreyeva, T.,
Middleton, A. E., Long, M. W., Luedicke, J., and Schwartz, M., 2011) show how
consumers with access to healthier foods did not exhibit a statistically significant difference between the demand for healthy and unhealthy foods.
The importance of a grocery store can be seen with Morland’s 2008 study in which he found that African-Americans are more likely to meet dietary guidelines for fruits and vegetables when they live in close proximity to a supermarket and that for each commercial market in a census tract, consumption can increase up to 32 percent. The same study showed an increase in 11 percent of low-income white communities
(Morland, 2008). In contrast to the majority of studies that focus on the corner store
impact or the lack of grocery stores, Morland offers empirical evidence on how the
proximity to a grocery store promotes positive, healthy eating habits.
FOOD CHOICE 19
Alternative Food Systems: Community Gardening
Many urban policy makers now see community gardens as a way to manage vacant land and develop a “greener,” more environmentally-friendly city. Authors such as Michael Pollan have brought national attention to the food industry. Pollan argues in
“The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual" that the modern industrial food system disconnects consumers from the food they consume and that policies need to shift toward a locally produced agricultural model (Pollan, 2007, 2009).
Scholars argue that community gardens are effective ways to provide access and increase fruit and vegetable consumption in city neighborhoods. In addition to providing access to healthy foods, gardens also provide benefits such as connecting families and neighbors, beautifying neighborhoods, and promoting health (Ottman, 2010). Other scholars show how gardens reduce crime (Armstrong, 2000), promote neighborhood participation (Teig, 2009), and improve mental health, nutrition, physical activity, and increase social capital (Wakefield, 2007).
A 2010 study by Colasanti and Hamm (2010) showed that community gardens could contribute 31 percent of Detroit’s need for vegetables and 17 percent for fruits.
Furthermore, using commercial gardens or farms could produce up to 76 percent of vegetables and 42 percent of fruit (Colasanti and Hamm, 2010). By using low biointensive fields or lots, 894 of the 4,848 acres available (18%) would be needed to produce this amount of fruits and vegetables (ibid).
The literature suggests that community gardens increase social capital; the more social the garden, the more people are likely to get and remain involved (Glover et al.,
2005; Kingsley & Townsend, 2006). Kingsley and Townsend (2006) show daily and FOOD CHOICE 20 weekly relationships lead people to developing stronger ties to the neighborhood.
Community gardens are also shown in studies to decrease crime and revitalize neighborhoods, and many neighborhoods start gardens to assist with these two areas
(Glover, 2005). Community gardens, therefore, scholars argue, can act as a source of local control over existing institutions such as police and cooperation between neighborhood members, non-profits, and institutions both enabling and stemming from the garden also give the neighborhood legitimacy (Glover, 2004).
Mapping the Food System
Scholars such as Dmochowski and Cooper from the University of Pennsylvania began a research study in December of 2010 titled “Using Multispectral Analysis in GIS to Model the Potential for Urban Agriculture in Philadelphia” that will locate, code, and assist “city planners, entrepreneurs, community leaders, and citizens [to] understand how urban agriculture can contribute to creating a sustainable food system in a major North
American city” (Dmochowski & Cooper, 2010). While Dmochowski and Cooper are seeking to find how geotagging vacant lots can improve the Philadelphia urban agriculture systems, other cities such as Hanoi, Vietnam have already completed this process. Thapa and Murayama (2007) showed how GIS can evaluate soil, land use patterns, road accessibility, water availability, and market accessibility to demonstrate what areas are feasible for urban agriculture and provide a framework for government officials to dedicate certain areas to agriculture, while utilizing other spaces for alternative ideas.
A centralized GIS also allows for the ability to compare the saturation of healthy and unhealthy food options within a specified area and determine which areas are in need FOOD CHOICE 21
of access to healthy foods. A study by Larsen and Gilliland (2008) calculated the impact
urban gardens and farms have on local residents. The study showed that residents of low-
income, inner-city neighborhoods have the poorest access to supermarkets and showed
that community gardens help residents obtain access to fruits and vegetables. As well as
mapping access to foods, a GIS system can help lower costs associated with
transportation and other energy efforts. The average supermarket’s produce traveled, on
average, 150 miles before reaching the refrigerator and then another five before landing
in a household (Future of Food, 2004).
These systems have the ability to promote sustainable efforts using the triple- bottom-line approach (economic, environmental, and social health) that fosters communication and promotes education, community involvement, training, and support from how food is grown to the final product on the plate.
FOOD CHOICE 22
Chapter 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
In order to answer the question of how residents of Belmont, Mantua, and West
Powelton obtain access to food, the study used exploratory, information-gathering quantitative and qualitative research. The researcher sought to gauge the participants’ ability to provide nutritious foods for their families. This information can provide a deeper awareness of real and perceived barriers that inhibit people from accessing a nutritionally sound diet as well as demonstrate potential impacts of initiatives such as the
HCSI. The researcher interviewed nine participants and used an open-ended, semi- structured interview approach while also utilizing a quantitative survey of randomly selected participants from the three areas – Mantua, West Powelton, and Belmont.
Data Collection
A team of three researchers collected quantitative data to assess where families obtain the majority of their food, how they navigate through their activity space, how often they shop at neighborhood corner stores, how many fruits and vegetables they typically consume, and whether they would be willing to participate in alternative food systems such as community gardens.
Survey
The survey used in the study asked questions regarding demographics, community garden involvement and interest, food activity space, and health behaviors.
Demographic questions were taken from the Community Food Security Assessment toolkit. Community garden involvement and interest questions were modified from The
Community Food Security Coalition’s Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Security for FOOD CHOICE 23
the Inner City. Food activity space questions were modified from the Seeds for Change
strategies and the Public Health Management’s 2010 Southeastern Pennsylvania
Household Health Survey Documentation. Finally, the questions for health behaviors
were modified from the PHM’s 2010 Southeastern Household Health Survey and the
National Institute of Health’s Diet History Questionnaire. The survey was piloted for
readability and time to complete. From the pilot, the 55-question survey was found to
take between 10-20 minutes. The survey was entered into the Qualtrics software to allow
for completion via handheld mobile devices or electronic PDAs.
Sampling
The sampling was a random selection of 1,137 homes, which was weighted
between three neighborhoods and reduced to 540. Trained surveyors went door-to-door,
interviewing the first adult, ages 21 or older, who were available to come to the door, and
asked up to 55 questions, which collected information on family demographics,
supermarket and corner store usage, mobility, and community gardening. The surveys
also recorded fruit and vegetable intake where participants identified the weekly or daily
portions. Participants were asked to rate the difficulty of obtaining fruits and vegetables
in their neighborhood as well as difficulty of obtaining other types of foods. Each surveyor only gave input when asked by the participant. Surveyors completed surveying over a five-week period – twice a day between the hours of 9:30am and 8:00pm.
In Mantua, 43 street segments with 461 houses were numerically coded from 1 to
43. To obtain a random sample, a website (randomizer.com) was used to generate
41.6 percent of residential housing. Streets that did not have any residential houses were not included in the generated sample set. The first round of the randomly generated FOOD CHOICE 24 segments reduced the number of potential houses to 230 and the researchers completed a second round of reduction using 16 segments and again, randomly selected 14 of 16 segments for a total of 192 houses.
In West Poweltown, 36 street segments contained 388 potential residential housing units, and streets without residential housing were excluded from the sample set.
Again, using randomizer.com, 18 segments contained potentially 157 residential houses or 40.5 percent. Finally, in Belmont, 35 street segments consisting of 288 potential houses were reduced to 17 segments and 191 houses (66.3 percent) using the methods described above. A total of 540 houses from the three neighborhoods were included in the survey. Initial surveys began in Mantua, segment 45. This section was picked using the random generator. Each neighborhood segment was attempted on at least three separate occasions.
Interviewing Process
Prior to beginning the interview process, interviewers were trained on how to introduce the survey and perform an interview. This training involved examining each of the survey questions and identifying questions that interviewees might answer spontaneously and questions that might require probes. Possible frequently asked questions and answers regarding the survey were discussed. Training also included methods to use to identify the vacancy status of a selected home and safety precautions when in the field. The door-to-door method was used to invite sampled neighborhood households to participate in the study. Interviewers solicited participation Mondays through Fridays, between the hours of 9:00am – 11:30am and 3:00pm – 5:30pm. FOOD CHOICE 25
Interviewers returned to houses in which no one answered up to 3 times, during
varying dates and times. While going in pairs, interviewers introduced themselves and the
survey. Interviewers received verbal consent from participants to complete the survey.
Interviewers allowed residents to respond spontaneously and used probes only to select a
category range for participants’ responses. Upon completion of the close-ended survey,
participants were also asked to participate in an open-ended, semi-structured interview at a later date. Days of the week, times of days, emails, and or phone numbers were collected to possibly schedule semi-structured interviews.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews
The semi-structured interviews gained further insight on where residents obtain the majority of their food, the relationship between the residents and food purchases at the local corner stores, and what steps could be utilized to improve the overall diet within the household. In this study, the semi-structured interview questions provided an understanding of the participant’s ability to provide and purchase nutritious foods for their families with regards to their access to and knowledge of healthy foods. Interview participants were obtained through random sampling within each neighborhood boundary. In each neighborhood, three people were selected to participate in the semi- structured interviews that matched the neighborhood demographics. Persons who self- identified as the primary food shopper and prepared food for themselves or their family
(with a family being defined as at least 2 members), and were over age 21 were eligible. The individuals willing to discuss their perceptions about their access to food in a semi-structured interview were informed that their information would be kept FOOD CHOICE 26
confidential. All interviews were audio-recorded, and interviewers recorded field notes, and interview recordings were summarized.
GIS Mapping
The three neighborhoods were separated and color-coded using the neighborhood boundaries. Mantua comprises the area from Spring Garden Street to Mantua Avenue from north to south and from 32nd Street to 40th Street east to west. West Powelton, which
includes a small portion of the North Haverford section, extends from Market Street to
Lancaster Ave from south to north and from 40th Street in the east to 42nd Street in the
west. Belmont is situated between Lancaster Avenue in the south to Mantua Avenue in
the north and between 40th street and 44th Street east to west.
In each neighborhood, corner stores, supermarkets, gardens, and farmers’ markets were identified and labeled. Corner stores that are part of the “Healthy Corner Store
Initiative” received a different label than stores not participating in the HCSI program.
The maps also show, for each neighborhood, the radius a person can walk (averaging 12- minute mile) in 10 minutes. The boundary lines, symbols, and maps were generated with
ArcGIS software.
Inclusion Criteria
Persons who self-identified as the primary food shopper and preparer for their family (with a family being defined as at least 2 members) and who were over age 21 were eligible. The individuals were willing to discuss their perceptions about their access to adequate nutrition and they were informed that their information would be kept confidential.
FOOD CHOICE 27
Exclusion Criteria
Persons who did not meet all the inclusion criteria were excluded from this study.
People who did not self-identify as the person who is the primary food shopper and preparer for their families were excluded from this study. If a person did not want to be interviewed about their perception of access to nutritious foods, they were excluded. If a potential participant was under the age 21, they were not eligible. Additionally, people that had difficulty with communication, if a translator could not be obtained, were
excluded from the survey process.
Data Analysis
The quantitative surveys data was analyzed with SPSS software to ascertain
frequencies, descriptive statistics, and cross-tabulations. The qualitative interview data
were analyzed using content analysis methods to interpret major theme topics from
interviews; the coding was refined through initial coding of selected interviews. After
coding was complete, data from specific themes was extracted for interpretation. To
address the research question, the researcher identified all data related to the question of
how residents obtain food.
We will explore areas of congruence and incongruence between established
barriers and facilitators to access to nutritious foods and resident reports of the
components’ importance. We will report these findings in a multiple case study format,
identifying responses by group (age, race) for each identified barrier.
FOOD CHOICE 28
Setting Rationale
The setting was selected for several reasons. First, the three West Philadelphia
Neighborhoods (Mantua, West Powelton, and Belmont) are in an area identified by
Greenworks (2009) and the Food Trust (2010) as lacking access to food. The area is home to over 14,000 residents of whom approximately 85% identify as African-
American (US Census, 2011). Overall, these neighborhoods consist of about 1.3 square miles that contain 7,000 houses and over 2,000 vacant lots and buildings (Econsult
Corporation and Penn Institute for Urban Research, 2010) and almost 800 parcels are owned by the City of Philadelphia. The median household income is approximately
$20,000 per year ($12,500 per capita), and 49% of the population lives below the poverty line. These neighborhoods offer an opportunity to address the research question to inform future projects and initiatives.
FOOD CHOICE 29
Chapter 4: FINDINGS
The findings are reported in three sections: GIS Mapping, Quantitative and
Qualitative. The GIS mapping shows the neighborhood boundaries, points of access to potential food, and the 10-minute walk distance. The quantitative section discusses the findings of the survey and the qualitative section discusses the emerging themes from semi-structured interviews.
GIS Mapping
Figure 1 shows the boundaries for the three neighborhoods (Mantua is colored orange, West Powelton is colored green, and Belmont is colored blue).
Figure 1: Neighborhood Boundaries
The three neighborhoods host 38 corner stores. Mantua has the highest concentration of
stores with 14. Both West Powelton and Belmont each have 4 corner stores and the FOOD CHOICE 30
remaining 20 stores are on neighborhood border streets, such as Lancaster Avenue, which
intersects with all three neighborhoods. Figure 2 below shows the 38 corner stores within
the neighborhood areas. Stores outside of the color-coded area where not counted.
Figure 2: Corner Stores in Neighborhoods
The Food Trust shows that over 600 corner stores are participating in
Philadelphia’s Healthy Corner Store Initiative, yet these three neighborhoods only have five Healthy Corner Stores (one is outside of the boundaries) and Belmont lacks any healthy corner store program initiatives. Mantua, including one store one block outside of the boundary, hosts four healthy corner stores and West Powelton has one centrally
located healthy corner store. Figure 3 shows the location of corner stores that are
participating in the Healthy Corner Store Initiative. FOOD CHOICE 31
Figure 3: Healthy Corner Stores
Despite the lack of Healthy Corner Stores, West Philadelphia does have several community gardens and eight are located within the boundaries (six within the West
Powelton area). Gardens such as Holly St, Wiota Community Garden and Sloan St
Garden in West Powelton are growing gardens maintained by neighborhood residents. In addition, several “guerrilla gardens” have popped up since 2011. These gardens typically grow seasonal fruits and vegetables and have become a potential source for neighborhood fruit and vegetable access. The gardens range in size, but all of them are at least one city parcel in size and range up to almost a third of a block. Each garden was created in areas that neighborhood residents deemed vacant. FOOD CHOICE 32
Figure 4: Neighborhood Gardens
The area does not contain any large supermarkets. There are three main supermarkets (Shoprite at 52nd and Parkside, Aldi at 46th and Market, and Fresh Grocer at
40th and Chestnut), but none of them are within a 10-minute walk radius. In fact, the
Belmont neighborhood lacks any area stores that provide healthier food options within 10 minutes. Figure 5 below represents the area of each neighborhood and the radius of how far a resident can walk from the center of the neighborhood. The shopping carts represent the supermarkets, the green trees symbolize gardens, the C icon shows the corner store locations, and the green C is a healthy corner store. Finally, the milk and apple shows that there are six farmers’ markets in the area. The residents in these areas have few ways to obtain food from places other than the local corner store. According to scholars, this area meets the criteria to be considered a food desert. FOOD CHOICE 33
Figure 5: Total Walk Radius
Qualitative Surveys
In total, 996 houses were surveyed from all three neighborhoods. The researchers identified vacant homes by visual inspection using cues like boarded windows, City of
Philadelphia official notices, an abundance of mail and flyers, and relied on neighbors’
statements. Overall, the researchers identified 208 vacant homes. Interviewers made
contact with 148 individuals that were members of a household over the age of 21 years
old and completed 100 surveys. Each neighborhood represented about 1/3rd of the data. In
Mantua and West Powelton 34 surveys were completed and in Belmont 32 surveys were completed. In total, the project had a participation rate of 12.7 percent, but when residents were contacted, 58 percent completed the survey. The Mantua neighborhood has the lowest participation rate (9 percent) and Belmont had the lowest completion percentage FOOD CHOICE 34
once contact was established (55 percent). West Powelton had the highest participation
rate (14 percent) as well as the highest completion after contact (59 percent).
Table 1: Survey Breakdown
The majority of respondents were African-American women who headed
households that had at least one child under the age of 18. Only 17 percent reported
having a college degree, but only 8 percent lacked a High School Diploma. Residents
reported a 26 percent unemployment rate and 43 percent had an annual income under
$30k. Most households (95 percent) reported having at least two adults living inside the
house, but only 20 percent of the respondents claimed to be married. 80 percent identified as African-American and 11.7 percent identified as being white.
Table 2: Neighborhood Demographics
While 43 percent of respondents reported an annual income less than $30K a year, only 38 percent reported receiving food assistance such as SNAP (32 percent), WIC FOOD CHOICE 35
(3 percent), and school lunch and breakfast programs (3 percent). In order for a family of four to qualify for SNAP, the annual household income would need to be less than
$36,876 (Coalition Against Hunger, 2012). If a family of four qualifies, they would receive, at most, $668 a month.
Neighborhood participants (94 percent) reported using a large grocery store at least once in the past week. Almost 40 percent shopped at the Shoprite on 52nd and
Parkside Streets and 41 percent at the Fresh Grocer on 40th and Chestnut Streets. Only
10 percent of respondents claimed to shop at the Aldi on 46th and Market Streets.
Residents from these neighborhoods also reported using the more distant Sav-a-lot on
56th and Vine (12 percent) and the Pathmark on Gray’s Ferry Avenue (4 percent).
Residents claim to travel as far as the Shoprite on Columbus Ave in South Philadelphia
and to stores on City Line Avenue such as Target and Pathmark. Only 9 percent reported
using Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Murray’s, a mid-sized market on 46th and
Lancaster, was used by 7 percent of residents. Residents also reported shopping at
specialty stores (12 percent) and food trucks (11 percent). 29 percent of residents shopped
at a local farmers’ market and 15 percent had shopped at warehouse stores such as Costco
or Sam’s Club. Also, 39 percent of residents had gone out to eat at a restaurant or had
ordered take-out in the month prior to the survey.
Neighborhood residents also reported the method of transportation used to get to
supermarkets. Of the respondents, 46 percent reported driving themselves to a
supermarket, 22 percent reported walking, 10 percent reported getting a ride, and
12 percent took public transportation. The respondents (70 percent) rated the
supermarkets good to excellent. Despite the lack of a grocery store within a 10-minute FOOD CHOICE 36
walk, 80 percent of the residents stated they did not have any problems obtaining food.
Twenty percent of the participants who had difficulty claimed that transportation was a
problem since the stores were too far away. Of the 20 residents that had difficulty,
60 percent believed that it is difficult to obtain for because of the distance and having a
lack of transportation. Financial concerns were also a difficulty for obtaining food
according to 10 percent of the respondents. Several residents also discussed how taking
public transportation was difficult because of the waiting between scheduled times and
delays, as well as paying friends and family members to take them back and forth to the store.
While 80 percent of the residents believed it was not difficult to obtain food,
61 percent did believe it was either difficult or very difficult to obtain fruits and vegetables in their neighborhood. The participants (78 percent) reported having one serving of vegetables a day, but only 8 percent met the dietary guidelines. This is slightly higher in terms of the consumption of fruit where 39 percent met the dietary guidelines.
While literature suggests that low-income residents rely on corner stores, in this survey, 46 percent used corner stores once a week and only 13 percent shopped at them daily. Of the respondents that used corner stores, 52 percent used them to purchase snacks and drinks, another 23 percent used them to by lunches from the deli, and
18 percent used them for “emergencies,” as when they run out of an item but are not quite ready for a complete shopping trip to the grocery store. Only 6 percent reported buying fruits and vegetables. Most residents who used corner stores used the one closest to them and walked. Also, residents rated the corner stores as much less desirable than the FOOD CHOICE 37
grocery stores. Only 13 percent of the residents reported that the quality of groceries
available at corner stores was good or higher.
Community gardening was also discussed in the survey. Twelve percent reported
being involved with community gardening and 68 percent reported a willingness to
participate in a community garden if resources, education, and training were provided.
Just over 54 percent of the respondents believed that lack of opportunity, resources,
training, and land would prevent them from beginning a garden. Other reasons for not
engaging in community gardens were feeling “too old” or physically unable (7 percent),
lack of interest (13 percent), and no time to participate (26 percent).
The survey shows that the neighborhoods do exhibit other signs of healthy
behaviors. A vast majority (83 percent) of the respondents reported being in good to excellent health and only 1 percent identified their health as poor. Almost nine out of ten
(88 percent) reported exercising at least once a week, and 71 percent more than 3 times per week. Residents also claimed that 77 percent of people did not smoke regularly and
82 percent drank less than 3 alcoholic beverages a week.
Qualitative Surveys
Qualitative survey participants were identified from quantitative survey interviews. The last question of the survey asked “Would you be interested in completing an additional 20 minute discussion based interview related to this topic,” and 63 percent were willing to participate in the semi-structured interviews. The purpose of these interviews was to delve more deeply into the questions presented by the completion of the quantitative surveys. FOOD CHOICE 38
The interviewees consisted of four men and five women; seven identified as
African-American and two identified as White. One interviewee had no GED or High
School Diploma, five had their High School diploma, and three had a college degree. The
median age was 43.3. A total of nine interviews were completed for a total of three from
each neighborhood (Belmont, Mantua, and West Powelton). All of the interviewees had
agreed to the semi-structured interview during the initial quantitative survey.
Several themes emerged from the interviews that affected access: convenience,
lack of grocery stores in the neighborhood, lack of fruits and vegetables, transportation,
higher costs, “emergency” foods, and race issues. All of the residents believed that
convenience and the lack of grocery stores in their neighborhood played a significant role
in their food choices. Only one resident lived within a 10-minute walk of a supermarket
and six of the ten admitted to shopping at the local corner store, but three of them claimed
doing so only rarely and mostly for obtaining “emergency” foods – such as one
ingredient for a meal, a gallon of milk, etc. Four residents discussed the lack of
transportation, specifically a vehicle that prevented them from shopping at stores they
preferred. They discussed the difficulty of carrying groceries on public transportation, on
a bike, or on foot. A large majority (seven) believed that prices in the area were inflated
within both at corner stores and supermarkets, and eight interviewers believed the neighborhoods lacked access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Finally, three people believed that other issues, mainly how race affects the neighborhoods, impact the choices that residents had when obtaining food. (See Figure 6 below). A brief summary of all the interviews is included at the end of this section. FOOD CHOICE 39
Figure 6: Emerging Qualitative Themes
Lack of Grocery Stores
The lack of grocery stores in the neighborhoods is the main issue surrounding access to food. The interviewees felt that their problems associated with obtaining foods revolved around the need for a grocery store centrally located in the neighborhood. All of the residents would like to see a competitively priced grocery store that is within a short distance from their home. Currently, the interviewees mostly shop at either the Fresh
Grocer or the Shop Rite and one interviewee completes the bulk of her family’s shopping at both Whole Foods and Fresh Grocer, while sometimes utilizing Trader Joe’s.
Interviewee Two, a 37 year-old, unemployed, married African-American woman living in the Mantua neighborhood claimed to walk from her home in Mantua to Whole
Food at least once a week. She said FOOD CHOICE 40
I do shop at the Fresh Grocer, but the quality of the produce is not nearly as fresh as Whole Foods and it is often more expensive. I try to make it to Whole Foods as much as possible. For me, walking the mile or so to Whole Foods is worth it – I get to exercise, be outside, and I usually get a break from the kids – it’s become “Mom’s time” in my family, but it would be nice to have a quality store that I could go to when I don’t have the time to walk or feel like carrying a bunch of bags. Carrying the bags home is part of the reason I need to go to the store as much as I do.
Interviewee One, a college educated, 43 year-old African American male living
with his girlfriend and one child within the Belmont neighborhood, believed that a
grocery store around Lancaster Avenue would be extremely beneficial to his family.
When he completes the grocery shopping, he shops at the Shop Rite on 52nd Street. He
believes that a store that was closer would improve the built environment. He said:
Having a grocery store in this area would help other businesses in the area and having a grocery store, not like Murray’s that takes advantage of poor folks, and would help a lot of, especially older people who struggle to get to the store, get food from the neighborhood.
The interviewee further discussed Murray’s – a medium sized grocery store located on
Lancaster Ave – stating:
Murray’s is only good for meats. For produce, they sneak people. The owners, who don’t care about the neighborhood, go to Produce Junction on 52nd Street [this store is actually located on Bryn Mawr Avenue about three blocks from 52nd Street], buy a bunch of produce and turn around and sell it for two or three times more. How does this help the community?
This researcher did not interview Murray’s and that it cannot be validated if interviewee
One’s claim is accurate or truthful. However, the perception that the store may overly
inflate prices (which will be discussed further below) is an underlying issue of trust
within the neighborhood.
Other interviewees believed that having a grocery store would help with accessing
fruits and vegetables. Interviewee Six, a 28 year-old African American male living in FOOD CHOICE 41
Belmont, stated: “I would like to see a grocery store by my house so I can get fruit more than once a week. I only go to the store one time and I run out of fruit at the end of the week.” Interviewee Nine, a 52 year-old African American woman in the West Powelton section, stated, “a closer store would help me and be much easier to go shopping.” This was echoed by numbers Three and Seven who thought that taking bus adds more time and limits the amount of groceries they can buy. Interviewee Seven, a 48 year-old
African American male from the West Powelton neighborhood, said, “Sometimes, I won’t get heavy items like milk or orange juice because carrying them home sucks. I’ve had bags break before and I don’t have the money or the strength to carry a bunch of bags.”
Overall, when discussing where residents get access to their food, the lack of a grocery store presents several problems such as convenience, price, transportation, and other themes. Of these residents, six of them use the corner stores, but only three use them for reasons other than picking up an ingredient for a meal, such as milk, eggs, etc.
The majority of the respondents claim that the corner stores lack a variety of fresh produce. Interviewee Six, who shops at corner stores at least once a day, claims that:
“The bananas are usually overripe - brown and too mushy. That’s really the only fruit you can get unless you count orange juice or canned pears.” Interviewee Two echoed the notion that fruits and vegetable weren’t available, even though the corner store she uses is part of the HCSI network. She claims:
I do shop there at times, but never for produce. They don’t have a good selection. Sometimes they have fruits, but it’s mostly just potatoes. I try not to go there at all, but sometimes I don’t have the time to make a trip to Whole Foods or Fresh Grocer and I need something. I sometimes use a food truck that comes into the neighborhood on Saturdays to get produce, but the corner stores don’t sell that FOOD CHOICE 42
stuff and whatever money they are getting from the city should be used for a grocery store in the neighborhood.
While interviewee Two does not believe in using corner stores, interviewee Three thinks that if the corner stores had fruits and vegetables, the neighborhood would buy them. He stated:
I use the corner stores for sandwiches, drinks, and snacks. I don’t use them everyday, but fairly often. I know that sometimes I should eat better, but in those stores, they don’t have a lot of options. I can get a lot of chips and candy, but I don’t see a lot of healthy snacks. Maybe I don’t look hard enough (laughs). I think this community would probably buy them if they had them. I see a lot of kids running around and I remember my mom giving me oranges when I came home as a kid.
Interviewee Five, an unemployed, 43 year-old white female residing in the West
Powelton neighborhood, also would like a corner store that sells fruits and vegetables and stated she would buy healthier foods if the corner stores sold them. She said,
I don’t shop there now. They really aren’t healthy and just sell junk food. If they had healthy options, I would buy them, even if they were a little more expensive. The corner stores are overpriced, but so is 7-11and WaWa and I would pay a little more if it saved me time.
Interviewees Five, Eight and Nine claim to never use corner stores to buy food.
Overall, several themes emerged when discussing the lack of supermarkets and the use of corner stores. The next section will discuss how corner stores fill the gap by making foods conveniently available to residents.
Convenience
As stated above, a grocery store would be more convenient for all of the residents
- an area of agreement. The neighborhood residents believe that a supermarket would be more convenient and several viewed the corner store as a convenient source of foods.
Time is an important aspect in regards to people’s buying habits. FOOD CHOICE 43
Of the six residents who use the corner stores, most of them (5) claim some sort of time issue. Interviewee Three, a 23 year-old White male college student in the Mantua neighborhood, claims he doesn’t “have time to really go to the grocery store and cook dinner, but stopping into a store and grabbing a sandwich and a drink is quick.” When further pressed about his time, he did admit that, “If I viewed healthy eating as important as my education, I would probably have the time to eat more nutritious meals.”
Interviewees One, Two, and Four all use the corner stores for emergency items.
Interviewee Four said, “If I am missing an ingredient from a meal, I will run across to the corner store. I plan pretty good, but sometimes it happens. If it’s just an item or two, I may go instead of driving to the supermarket. It’s much faster.”
Other households have families, medical conditions, or lack transportation to get to the grocery store efficiently. Interview One would sometimes take his child with him to the grocery store depending on his and his live-in girlfriend’s work schedule. While he claims not to use corner stores often, he does occasionally buy milk or bread from the store and states:
I have a three-year old girl and me and my girlfriend split the car; to walk to
Fresh Grocer for milk is dumb. If I have to get milk for my baby, I won’t try to
go to the supermarket, we will just walk right over there (points to the corner store
about four houses away).
Interviewee Nine, who doesn’t shop at the corner stores anymore, admitted that would if she didn’t have medical problems where she actively avoided sugary foods. She said, “I think about walking around the block and getting a bag of M&M’s, but I know that I will eat them all and go right back (she laughs). I think if I ate that stuff, I would go there a FOOD CHOICE 44
lot. I don’t walk real good and my daughter runs me to the Shop Rite so I would go
there.” The lack of grocery stores and close proximity to corner stores, coupled with life
issues such as time restraints, family obligations, transportation issues, and medical issues
all assist with making it easier, at times, to rely on the corner store. However, if access to
fresh fruits and vegetables is needed, several residents believe they must leave the
neighborhood to obtain them. The next section will discuss access to fruits and
vegetables.
Lack of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Of the nine people that participated in the interviews, eight of them travel outside their neighborhood to obtain most of their fruits and vegetables. One interviewee, Two, did utilize a food truck (this researcher believes that the food truck is the Fresh Food Hub which travels to the Mantua neighborhood on Saturdays), but her buying habits suggest that most of her fruit and vegetable purchases are made outside the neighborhood. Other residents claim that some corner stores carry some fruits and vegetables, but the selection is either poor (potatoes, onions) or overripe. The majority of interviewees also claim to eat 2-3 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day (see Figure 7 below). FOOD CHOICE 45
4
3
2 Fruits Vegetables
1
0 < 1 serving a 1 serving day 2 servings day 3 servings day 4+ servings day day Figure 7: Interview Participants Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
Figure 7 above shows that five residents do not meet the daily requirements for fruits and vegetables. Interviewee Six claims that:
Make sure that my children have two fruits and vegetables everyday, but they are expensive and I can’t get to the store to buy them. When I do, it’s once a week and we get them, but I make sure my kids eat them before me so. I love fruit, all kinds, but I don’t like vegetables. I make sure my kids eat them though.
Interviewee Seven also prefers snack foods to fruits and vegetables. He said, “potato chips and chocolate just tastes better than potatoes and corn.” He goes on to state that “I lived here all my life and that’s what’s here to eat. My mom didn’t have time or money to get fruit, we just ate what we she gave us.”
The perception that fruits and vegetables are more expensive was evident in several interviews, like number Seven’s above. The next section will discuss the perception of the cost associated with shopping at grocery stores and corner stores.
FOOD CHOICE 46
Higher Costs
For many residents, financial concerns are the number one issue when buying food.
Interviewee Six summed it up best – “We get what’s on sale.” The corner stores lack
“sale” shopping, which was found to be a reason why people like Interviewee Six did not complete the bulk of their shopping there. Also, residents claimed that most of the products sold by corner stores were regularly more expensive than supermarkets.
However, in terms of supermarkets, the Fresh Grocer was thought to be more expensive than the Shoprite.
Interviewee Four, who described herself as “underemployed,” believes that the whole area is overpriced. She said:
Some items are less expensive at the corner store like water, but for food it is a lot. I go to Fresh Grocer and the college kids make that expensive too. I hear about the economy and know it’s not going good, but it doesn’t stop the increase in food. I live by myself and spend like $60 a week.
As for the corner stores, interviewee One claimed that the corner stores charged more for products. He believes that the corner store he goes to “doesn’t show the price so they can change it.” Interviewee Eight argued that in her neighborhood most of the families are considered low-income and budget shop rather than consume healthier products. She said, “We get what we can afford, not what is healthy.”
Price is an important aspect around consumer decisions and buying habits, but so is the method of how they get there. When shopping at a corner store or supermarket, people buy what they can afford; however, in low-income neighborhoods, many people lack a car and spend some of their allocated food budget on transportation to the stores or may not obtain food because of the difficulty associated with traveling to and from the store. FOOD CHOICE 47
Transportation to the Stores
Interviewees Two, Three, Five, and Seven all claimed that transportation issues affect their access to obtaining food. As discussed in a previous section, interviewee Two walks about a mile to the store and rarely takes public transportation, only during inclement weather. Interviewee Three, previously, discussed the difficulties carrying bags home, Interviewee Five walks in order to conserve energy, and interviewee Seven discussed how taking a bus is difficult and time consuming. He said, “They are often late and it’s hard to plan around them. By the time I wait and the time it takes to get to the store, I can walk.”
Interviewee number Eight, an employed, college educated, 59 year old woman living in the Belmont section, provided further insight into the inner workings of the neighborhood. She agreed with interviewee Seven that the public transportation system can be difficult to navigate as it is “unreliable,” but she discussed other ways that residents obtain transportation. She described a popular method:
A hack [an unlicensed taxi service] is used because it’s a lot cheaper for people here. The drivers know we don’t have money and they are just trying to get some too. It only costs a like a dollar or two more than the bus and its much faster. It’s a lot cheaper than a cab, which you can’t really get here. Try it when you are done. Call a cab when you are finished with this and see how long it takes them to get here, if they come at all. For the hacks, it’s good for everyone. If you take it, it might be more money, you, since you are white, look like you have more money.
The issues surrounding transportation limit appear to limit residents’ ability to access food. Despite access to public transportation and short to medium walking distances, people without access to a car seem to have greater difficulty obtaining food, which impacts the decisions they make on what foods to buy. As interviewee Eight FOOD CHOICE 48
claimed, low-income residents are more likely to lack a car and she claims that it is part
of a racial hierarchy that purposely minimizes the African-American communities’ ability
to have equal access to food. The following section will discuss how race is perceived to
affect access within these three low-income, predominately African-American neighborhoods.
Not One of Us
When this interviewer first made contact with interviewee Eight, it seemed like she was not going to be a willing participant in the quantitative survey. First, she immediately asked, openly hostile, “What are you [the researcher] doing in this neighborhood!” It was not a question as much as a statement that the researcher did not belong. After an intervention from someone the researcher spoke with previously, she decided to participate in the survey and also the interview.
Her skepticism was due to the researcher not being, in her words, “one of us.”
Interviewee Eight knew immediately that the researcher was an outsider and she asked questions like “What do white people want to fix now, “Why do white people always need to try to fix us,” and “Why are there no Black people with you?” She believed that the food access problem in her neighborhood was only a symptom of a racial segregated neighborhood that promotes social inequality. She said that this inequality “affects everything from food, schools, and the police, and every aspect of our lives.”
She went on to state:
Most things white people try to fix here, they don’t ask us, we just get stuff that we don’t want, like that healthy store thing [Healthy Corner Store Initiative] you asked me about. That doesn’t solve the problem … who owns those stores? Not Black people, no one on my block. It’s money being spent in the neighborhood that leaves the here. It doesn’t help us. It only helps all you.
FOOD CHOICE 49
Interviewee One also echoed this concerns. The “papi” stores, as he called them, are managed and owned by Latinos that live in “New Jersey” according to Interviewee
One. In the previous section, he discussed how the prices change, but he claims this is racially motivated and that is why the corner stores do not put a price tag on items. He went on to say that “if a Latino goes into the store, they get it cheaper than me.” He also said, “the Latinos don’t like us and they charge us for it. One day I can buy something and it’s a $1.00, the next day a $1.50.” Interviewee One also asked why most of these stores are not owned by the neighborhood residents and questioned why so few businesses in the area are run by African-Americans. He would like to see initiatives for that type of neighborhood revitalization projects.
Interviewees Seven and Nine also seemed skeptical. Both claimed that the neighborhood was becoming gentrified and that students and professors from Drexel
University and the University of Pennsylvania had begun to change the social landscape within the past few years. Interviewee Seven believes that “there will be a grocery store here soon…all of the Drexel kids need to shop somewhere.” He discussed the change in his neighborhood – newly constructed student housing apartments, the change from single-family homes to developers buying properties to rent, parking permits on the street, and an increase in rent as well as security. He said, “I think it’s funny those fake bike cops ride around and wave their wand on a telephone pole. If something ever happens around them, I bet they can pedal quick.” Overall, he would like to see Drexel and Penn assist with the redevelopment of his community, but he has concerns that older, long-term residents may not get any benefits from development. He believes that “any neighborhood transition should involve us, they people who have lived here.” FOOD CHOICE 50
Interviewee Nine had similar thoughts. One of her first questions was “where were these studies 15-20 years ago when the neighborhood was a mess?” implying that the influx of white residents has made Mantua a prime location for redevelopment. She also quipped, like interviewee Seven, that “I don’t need to worry about a grocery store, with the white kids here, someone will open up one.” One of her biggest concerns with this study, as well as others, is that, in her opinion, “there isn’t a quick answer to help some of the people in the neighborhood. The problems have been here long before you got here and the things that need to be changed, well, it can’t come from someplace else.
FOOD CHOICE 51
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION
Healthy Corner Store Initiative
According to the Healthy Corner Store Initiative, the program is designed for
“communities that lack supermarkets, families depend on corner stores for food
purchases.” The three neighborhoods seem to agree that the area lacks a supermarket, but
only 43 percent of the residents admit to even using the corner stores and only 13 percent use them daily. This finding contradicts the previous Philadelphia corner store studies from Borradaile, Sherman, and Vander Veur (2009) and Lucan, Karpyn, and Sherman
(2010). When people do shop at the corner stores, the majority of time (54 percent) people buy snacks which is below the amount that Borradaile, Sherman, and Vander
Veur (2009) indicate and the remaining residents buy prepared meals from the delis, emergency food that is needed to prepare a meal like milk, or “healthier foods” such as fruits, specifically bananas. See figure 8 below.
Figure 8: Corner Store Consumption FOOD CHOICE 52
Further, even with the Healthy Corner Stores in the area, HCSI has yet to impact
the residents. Overall, 61 percent of the residents believed it was difficult or very difficult
to obtain fruits and vegetables within their neighborhood. In Mantua, the neighborhood
with the most HCSI participants, only 39 percent believed it was easy to get fruits and
vegetables and over 60 percent shopped at a corner store during the week. In West
Powelton and Belmont, 68 percent and 76 percent believed it was difficult to obtain fruits
and vegetables and 41 percent and 47 percent of the residents reported going to the corner
store one a week.
During both the survey and interviews, residents remarked that some corner stores
may sell some fruits and vegetables, but they claimed that the products are usually longer shelf items such as potatoes and onions rather than strawberries, broccoli, and the like.
Residents did claim to be able to get bananas in most stores, but they qualified this by saying they were often not as fresh and were usually a day away from being overripe.
The lack of quality in the corner stores is evidenced by the fact that only 24 percent of the survey participants rated the quality of food in the stores as good or better compared to
76 percent in the grocery stores. In the qualitative interviews, the majority believed that the prices were too high, that corner stores lack fruits and vegetables, and that they only shopped there for emergencies.
Residents seem to have little trouble obtaining groceries from outside the neighborhood boundaries. Most residents (80 percent) did not have any difficulties obtaining food and almost half (49 percent) drove to a supermarket. There is no apparent correlation between the method of obtaining food and the difficulty of obtaining it. Of people who drive, 87 percent reported no difficulties obtaining food,. Similarly, FOOD CHOICE 53
80 percent of people getting a ride, 77 percent of people taking public transportation, and
74 percent of people who walk claimed no difficulties in obtaining food. This suggests, first, that residents don’t depend on the corner stores for fruits and vegetables, and, second, that the 10-minute walk goal is not particularly meaningful for residents in these neighborhoods. The majority of fruits and vegetables are purchased outside the neighborhoods.
There is, however, a gap between residents’ perceived ease of acquiring food and the reality of fruit and vegetable consumption, which may well reflect the dearth of fruits and vegetables available in the neighborhoods. Only 35 percent of residents surveyed eat at least 1-2 servings of fresh or frozen fruit a day and only 26 percent eat at least 1-2 servings of fresh or frozen vegetables. People with a college degree are almost two times more likely to meet the USDA daily requirements than people without a college degree.
Furthermore, the collection of individual body mass index (BMI) data reveals, that despite 83 percent self-reporting good to excellent levels of health (which contradicts studies by Borell & Baquero, 2011; Cremonese, Backes, & et al, 2010; Finch, 2010;
Zhang, Chen, & et al. 2010; Wen, Cagney, & Christakis, 2005) and 88 percent reporting exercising at least one time per week, the mean BMI was 26.8 (overweight).
Perhaps there is no connection between dietary habits and the supply of fruits and vegetables in the neighborhoods, since residents claim to have little difficulty obtaining food. Changing consumer behavior, then, may be a question of influencing consumer choice – something that is very hard to accomplish in practice. The HCSI marketing strategy to increase awareness of healthy foods does not seem to be taking root within the community. Researchers visited 29 of the 38 corner stores to determine if they carried FOOD CHOICE 54
fruits and vegetables, and only 8 percent carry fresh fruits and vegetables (not including
potatoes and onions). Figure 9 shows the choices available to consumers in 29
neighborhood corner stores.
Figure 9: Corner Store Inventory
If the goal of the Section 3 of Greenworks Philadelphia, Target 10 is to have local
food within a 10-minute walk for 75 percent of Philadelphia residents and the HCSI
assists this target by improving corner stores. Both of these initiatives seem to having
little effect in changing consumer buying habits or corner stores actively raising
awareness of healthy eating within Mantua, West Powelton, and Belmont. Therefore,
more focused, multifaceted efforts must be utilized to change consumer behavior. These
findings align with claims in the literature discussed above that, first, consumers with
access to healthier foods do not show increased demand for healthier foods and, second, predominately displaying them within the stores does not increase fruit and vegetable intake.
Applying the strategies of the HCSI along with building social capital within the neighborhoods could improve the overall intake of healthy foods. The Food Policy FOOD CHOICE 55
Advisory Council, as part of the Greenworks strategy, seeks to promote 59 food-
producing gardens, 12 farms and 15 farmers’ markets. With approximately 1280 acres
available for potential food growing sources, these neighborhoods have a potential to
create social capital by using community gardens. Using the calculation put forth by
Colasanti and Hamm (2010), using low biointensive fields or lots (100 lbs. per 100 sq.
ft.), 50 acres of the 1280 acres in the 19104 zip code could produce 31 percent of
vegetables and 17 percent of fruits needed for the daily requirements of all 14,000
residents in the three neighborhoods. Food production on 202 acres could yield
71 percent of vegetables and 49 percent of fruits needed for the recommended diet. These
calculations are conservative because they account for seasonal variations in climate, the
inability to grow certain foods such as oranges, loss due failed crops, loss in
transportation, and the loss in retailing.
Creating more locally managed and maintained farms and gardens may persuade
residents to choose fruits and vegetables over other foods. A large majority (72 percent)
of survey respondents stated they would participate in community gardens if they were
provided with training and resources. The community support for gardens offers the
opportunity to engage and build social capacity within their environment. Creating local
food systems creates and reinforces an “invisible” bond from those congregating within a
garden space (Putnam, 2001), which can improve levels of trust and build community
cohesion (Lovell, 2010). Lovell (2010) and Glover (2005) argue that gardening and
harvesting food for individuals and communities empowers residents due to increased interaction, gaining technical knowledge and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. Marshall, Buchenau, and Hale (2011) argue that community gardeners are FOOD CHOICE 56
twice as likely as non-gardeners to consume the daily dietary guidelines of fruits and
vegetables.
Race and Interviewing in a Gentrifying Neighborhood
The neighborhoods are in the beginning stages of gentrification. From the 2000 to
the 2010 census, the number of people identifying themselves as white increased in each
neighborhood. West Powelton increased from 2.4% to 13.8%, Belmont rose from 1.2% to
4.4%, and Mantua jumped from 2.4% to 5.8% in a decade (US Census, 2000; US Census,
2010). While the area appears to be improving - as more people move into the
neighborhood property values increase - the area still has a reputation as being an at-risk
population for unhealthy eating habits. The mean annual income has risen to only about
$31,000, and over 20% of households have an income of less than $20,000 a year.
The demographics from the quantitative survey suggest slightly different findings.
The identity of people remained fairly similar when comparing the neighborhood census
to our survey, but we ended up with more white participants than the Census data would
have led us to expect. Eleven percent of survey participants identified as white and 80%
identified as African-American. The US Census has a margin of error of about 5% and
using this margin of error, only the Belmont (4%) neighborhood aligned with the Census
statistics. In Mantua, our study obtained responses from 18% identifying as white, and
West Powelton had 21% if the responses from people identifying as white, both
neighborhoods are approximately 8% higher.
These results could stem from a small sample size, which means that the survey has a relatively low 13.5 confidence interval. When accounting for the sample size in the
West Powelton and Mantua neighborhoods, this could be the difference between the US FOOD CHOICE 57
Census and our data. However, other factors may contribute to this, such as the increase
in people moving into these neighborhoods. The US census showed the increase of
people identifying as white over the past decade, and the two years that have passed since
the census data was collected could account for the increase in the people that identify as white.
The income gap is another factor that must be examined. Again, the 2012 Census reported a mean income of $31,000 per year, but this study showed that 36% of African-
Americans reported an annual income less than $30,000 and while 33% of white people reported their income as less than $30,000 those responses were from actively enrolled college students. The influx of white residents skews the demographic information across the board to show the neighborhood as economically more stable than is true for many of
the African-American residents. Building social capital is important for other reasons
besides improving individual health. A considerable number of long-time African-
American residents distrust any involvement of individuals who are not from the neighborhood, but especially of white people. These levels of distrust seemed to increase with increased distance from the Drexel University/Mantua border. Residents in the lower section of Mantua (census tract 109) were more receptive to being approached and being asked questions. Many residents in Belmont, the part of the neighborhood farthest
from campus and with the lowest concentration of white people, seemed to view the
interviewers with the highest amount of distrust. A theme throughout the semi-structured interviews and the surveys suggest that the neighborhoods have this distrust towards people who are “not one of us.” FOOD CHOICE 58
The gentrifying of these neighborhoods has led to a portion of the respondents to
discuss these relationships between whites and African-Americans. About a third of the
African-American respondents discussed how the universities (Drexel and Penn) have begun to move into these areas and were trying to “take over.” Several of the respondents seemed to display attitudes of distrust believing that any new initiatives, whether for food or any other revitalization effort was due to the fact that white people were now moving to the neighborhood. Several residents connected the timing of HCSI and discussions about the possibility of having a grocery store within walking distance to the white professors and students moving to the area. While this was not a question on the quantitative survey, this writer believes that up to 40 percent of the African-American
respondents viewed the surveyor with distrust.
Several residents, when prompted about their use of corner stores, became visibly
angry. According to the residents, there are two main reasons for not shopping at the
corner stores: they are not owned by African-Americans or neighborhood residents; and the prices seem to change due to one’s skin color. Several interviewees call the corner stores “papi” stores because the majority of store owners are of Latino descent. One interviewee claimed that the same cashier charges him different amounts, for the same product, in the same day. Other participants argued that the city, specifically white people and the structural racism they created, purposely disallows the African-American community from rebuilding their neighborhood. One argued that all of the revitalization efforts continue to reinforce structural inequalities by having the outsider, the “white” man, fix the “black” man’s problem. Rather than giving the neighborhood the capacity to FOOD CHOICE 59 revitalize their own communities, revitalization efforts embrace a paternalist, top-down approach.
In neighborhoods like Belmont, Mantua, and West Powelton where the Latino population is small, the HCSI may not have the intended benefits due to some of these dynamics, especially if people within the community do not see how it could benefit the
African-American community as a whole. Despite the HCSI offering
Nutrition education programs provided in schools and afterschool sites for students and parents, along with citywide media and messaging and other efforts to increase access to healthy options, support individuals and families in changing their diets to include healthier choices (The Food Trust, 2012), the residents may view this as another solution that was dictated to them through a white, paternalist/authoritarian structure. Many of the residents believed that any improvement in the neighborhood needed to come from inside the community. Fostering community gardens in conjunction with the HCSI could enhance just this sort of social capital and stakeholder participation, which, in turn, could raise the level of trust between long-time residents, newer residents, local colleges, and city officials.
FOOD CHOICE 60
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION
Summary
The residents of West Powelton, Mantua, and Belmont claim to have little difficulty obtaining food from outside their neighborhoods. While fruits and vegetables are scarce inside the neighborhoods, residents claim that they travel throughout
Philadelphia to obtain groceries. Residents use two major supermarkets in the area, report having the ability to drive, use public transportation, and walk to these stores and rate the stores good to excellent.
Residents do not use corner stores as a substitute for the lack of grocery stores within a 10-minute walk. While 60 percent of residents frequent a corner store once a week, they report this as supplementing less frequent trips to the supermarkets in order to
buy the occasional snack, drink, deli item, or emergency item. The majority of
respondents rate the corner stores as average to poor and claim that they lack fresh fruits
and vegetables.
However, a large portion of respondents do not meet the requirements for the
USDA recommended daily intake of fruits and vegetables and despite their claims of good to excellent health and participating in physical activity, the respondents’ mean
BMI indicates most neighborhood are overweight. There may be some confusion or
denial about the meaning of healthy and unhealthy eating habits, and it is imperative to
increase the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods to increase the
overall health of these communities.
The Healthy Corner Store Initiative, along with the Greenworks plan and the
Food Policy Advisory Council, hope to increase healthy food consumption by adding FOOD CHOICE 61
more healthy foods to corner stores, increasing community garden and farm space, as
well as providing healthy food access for city residents within a 10-minute walk. In these
three communities, these policies and programs have not had a big effect. Most residents
claim that fruits and vegetables are not available in the neighborhood and the majority of
residents are willing to participate in community gardening, but have not received
resources or training in order to do so.
The majority of corner stores in the area lack fruits and vegetables. Perhaps even
more importantly, cultural and economic divides separate neighborhood residents and
store owners. Residents’ profound distrust of store owners may depress fruit and vegetable sales, even if these stores were to shelve healthy foods and display them prominently. Currently, the lack of healthy corner stores that meet phase 3 of the HCSI prevents consumers from completing the bulk of their shopping in these stores and residents still believe that the cost is higher than commercial supermarkets. This seems to suggest that residents will continue buying at the Fresh Grocer and Shop Rite as long as prices are lower and the quality higher.
While the Food Policy Advisory Council and Greenworks have ambitious goals to have 75 percent of Philadelphia residents within a 10-minute walk of healthy foods, three other options exist in these neighborhoods: a focused campaign to insert additional healthy corner stores, constructing a supermarket on Lancaster Ave (the boundary street between the three neighborhoods), or developing a network of community gardens throughout the neighborhoods. These alternatives are not mutually exclusive, of course.
While the City of Philadelphia could provide incentives for commercial supermarkets to establish stores within areas defined as a food desert, the feasibility of FOOD CHOICE 62 this solution is most likely the lowest, given the financial and economic realities of developing supermarkets in low-income areas. Since the residents lack the resources and training to begin community gardens, the City along with partnering organizations such as local universities, neighborhood civic associations, charitable foundations, and city farmers, would need to assist with the policy initiatives to repurpose vacant lots as growing space and to provide funding for resources and training.
Overall, this study recommends developing a food system that strengthens the
Healthy Corner Store Initiative while fostering community gardens in the neighborhoods to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Using a participatory approach to build social capital, community gardens could increase the access to fruits and vegetable as well as changing eating habits. Gardens with excess food would be able to network with the neighborhood stores and farmer’s markets. The HCSI network would become more localized throughout the Philadelphia area down to each neighborhood. Using the vacant space within the neighborhoods could produce 31 percent of vegetables and
17 percent of fruits needed for the recommended daily requirements. This added supply alone would put the majority of residents over the recommended daily consumption rates for fruits and vegetables.
Future Research
This study was specifically designed to understand how residents in West
Philadelphia neighborhoods obtain access to food. The themes identified in this study can be used to shape research questions and settings in future research. Increasing the sample size of surveys and interviewing corner store owners, organizations working on food FOOD CHOICE 63
access in the area, and policy makers would greatly strengthen and refine the findings
discussed here.
Other directions for future research might include quantifying purchases from
“regular” corner stores and healthy corner stores to compare the amounts of healthy and unhealthy foods, exploring how organizations partner with local stakeholders, the number of vacant lots in each neighborhood where food can be grown, and if the participants in this study would actively engage in the development of their own food system via urban gardening. It would also be useful to explore community perceptions around food and equality, as well as perceptions around city and nonprofit efforts to increase healthy eating.
It would also be beneficial to gain further understanding about perceptions in these neighborhoods about what qualifies as being healthy and healthy eating. Other areas of interest include how gentrification affects participants and their food choices, and the ratio between residents who claim to be enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) versus the low annual income as it seems that a portion of residents qualify for the program but are not receiving assistance.
FOOD CHOICE 64
References
Andreyeva, T., Middleton, A. E., Long, M. W., Luedicke, J., and Schwartz, M. B. (2011). Food Retailer Practices, Attitudes and Beliefs About the Supply of Healthy Foods. Public Health Nutrition, 14(6); 1024 1031 Appeaning Addo K. (2010). Urban and PeriUrban Agriculture in Developing Countries Studied using Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing. 2(2): 497-513. Andrieu, E., Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2006). Low-cost diets: more energy, fewer nutrients. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 60, 434-436. Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., & Cummins, S. (2009). A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966-2007. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy , 6 (3), 1-10. The Brookings Institution. (2005). The Price Is Wrong. Getting the Market Right for Working Families in Philadelphia. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program; Bustillos, B., Sharkey, J. R., Anding, J., & McIntosh, A. (2009). Availability of More Healthful Food Alternatives in Traditional, Convenience, and Nontraditional Types of Food Stores in Two Rural Texas Counties. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 109 (5), 883-889. Cannuscio, C., Weiss, E.E., Asch, D.A., 2010. The contribution of urban foodways to health disparities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 87 (3), 381–390. Carnethon, M. R. (2008). Diabetes Prevention in US Ethnic Minorities: Role of the Social Environment. Jour. of the American Dietetic Assn, 108 (6), 942-944. CDC. (2010, July 7). Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm CDC. (2010, January). Heart Disease Fact Sheet. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/library/pdfs/fs_heart_disease.pdf CDC. (2008). National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States 2007. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2007.pdf Champion, V. L., & Skinner, C. S. (2008). The Health Belief Model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath, Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (4th Edition ed., pp. 45-65). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Ciliska, D., Miles, E., O'Brien, M. A., Turl, C., Tomasik, H. H., Donovan, U., et al. (2000). Effectiveness of Community-Based Interventions to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Journal of Nutrition Education , 32 (6), 341-352. Coalition Against Hunger. (2012). SNAP Income Limits. Retrieved from: http://www.hungercoalition.org/food-stamp-income-limits Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2000, August 11). UN General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from United Nations Human Rights Website: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28symbol%29/E.C.12.2000.4.En FOOD CHOICE 65
Costello, B. M., Healey, B. J., & McGowan, M. (2007). The Prescription for Good Health May Not be Found in Access to the Health Care System. Academy of Health Care Management Journal , 3 (1/2), 29-47. Cotterill R, Franklin A. (1995). The Urban Grocery Store Gap. Food Marketing Policy Center, University of Connecticut; Food Marketing Policy Issue Paper No. 8. Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cummins, S., Macintyre, S. (2002). Food deserts—evidence and assumption in health policy making. BMJ 325, 436–438. Cyzman, D., Wierenga, J., & Sielawa, J. (2009). Pioneering healthier communities, West Michigan: A community response to the food environment. Health Promotion Practice, 10, 146S-155S. Detroit City Planning Commission. (2010). Urban Agriculture Policy for Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved from: www.detroitagriculture.org/GRP_Website/Home_files/uaw_official_UrbanAgPol icyDraft1-1.pdf Dmochowski, J. E.; Cooper, W. (2010). Using Multispectral Analysis in GIS to Model the Potential for Urban Agriculture in Philadelphia. Retrieved from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2010AGUFM.B33C0421D Drewnowski, A., Darmon, N., & Briend, A. (2004). Replacing Fats and Sweets With Vegetables and Fruits- A Question of Cost. American Journal of Public Health , 94 (9), 1555-1559. Econsult Corporation and Penn Institute for Urban Research. (2010). “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia—The Costs of the Current System and the Benefits of Reform.” Urban Agriculture and Land Use Policy. Firth, J. (2012). Healthy Choices and Heavy Burdens: Race, Citizenship and Gender in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’. Journal of International Women’s Studies,13, 33. The Food Trust. Food Geography: How Food Access Affects Diet and Health. Philadelphia: The Food Trust; 2006. Frontier Nutrition Project. Trinity County Food Security Assessment. Weaverville, CA: Frontier Nutrition Project, 2001. Available at http://www.foodsecurity.org/cfa/trinity_cty_food_assessment.pdf. Giang, T., Karpyn, A., Laurison, H. B., Hillier, A., & Perry, R. D. (2008). Closing the grocery gap in underserved communities: the creation of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 14(3), 272-279. Glover, T. D. (2003). The story of the Queen Anne Memorial Garden: Resisting a dominant cultural narrative. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(2), 190-212. Glover, T. D. (2004). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners. Leisure Sciences, 26, 143-162. Glover, T. D., Parry, D. C., & Shinew, K. J. (2005). Building relationships, accessing resources: Mobilizing social capital in community garden contexts. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 450-474. Goldstein, Libby J. (2007). “Philadelphia’s Community Garden History.” Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/Phillyhistory10.html. City Farmer, Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture. FOOD CHOICE 66
Grier, S. A., & Kumanyika, S. K. (2008). The Context for Choice: Health Implications of Targeted Food and Beverage Marketing to African Americans. American Journal of Public Health , 98 (9), 1616-1629. Havas, S., Treiman, K., Langenberg, P., Ballesteros, M., Anliker, J., Damron, D., et al. (1998). Factors associated with fruit and vegetable consumption among women participating in WIC. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 98, 1141- 1148. Holland, L. (2004). Diversity and connections in community gardens: A contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9(3), 285-305. Irvine, S., Johnson, L., & Peters, K. (1999). Community gardens and sustainable land use planning: A case study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden. Local Environment, 4(1), 33-46. Just, D., & Zilberman, D. (September/October 2002). “Information Systems in Agriculture”, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, ARE Update. 6(1). (www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/update_articles/v6n1_2.pdf) Karpyn, A., Manon, M., Treuhaft, S., Giang, T., Harries, C., & McCoubrey, K. (2010). Policy Solutions To The 'Grocery Gap'. Health Affairs , 29 (3), 473-480. Kingsley, J. Y., & Townsend, M. (2006). “Dig in” to social capital: Community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 525-537. Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2008). Mapping the evolution of 'food deserts' in a Canadian city: Supermarket accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961-2005. International Journal of Health Geographics , 7 (16). Lawson, Laura. (2004). The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View into the Relationship between Planning and Community Gardens. Journal of Planning History, 3(2): 151-176. Lin, C.-T. J. (2008). How Do Consumers Interpret Health Messages on Food Labels? Nutrition Today , 43 (6), 267-272. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 35 (Extra Issue: Forty Years of Medical Sociology: The State of the Art and Directions for the Future), 80-94. Lovell, Sarah. 2010. “Multifunctional Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Land Use Planning in the United States.” Sustainability 2: 2499–2522. MacDonald, L. Ellaway, A. Ball, K. & MacIntyre, S. (2009) ‘Is proximity to a food retail store associated with diet and BMI in Glasgow, Scotland?’. BMC Public Health, 11:462, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-464 Marshall, J., Buchenau, M., Litt, J. (2011). The Influence of Social Involvement, Neighborhood Aesthetics, and Community Garden Participation on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. American Journal of Public Health. 101(8), 1466-1473 McKenna M, Taylor W, Marks J, Koplan, J. (1998) Current issues and challenges in chronic disease control. In Chronic Disease Epidemiology and Control. Brownson RC, Remington PL, Davis JR, editors. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association. pp. 1–26. Mead, M. N. (2008). The Sprawl of Food Deserts. Environmental Health Perspectives , 116 (8), 335. Morland, Kimberly and Kelly Evenson. (2008). Obesity Prevalence and the Local FOOD CHOICE 67
Food Environment.” Health & Place 15: 491–495. National Center for Health Statistics. (2009, March 31). Faststats: Leading Causes of Death. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm O'Key, V., & Hugh-Jones, S. (2010). I don't need anybody to tell me what I should be doing'. A discursive analysis of maternal accounts of (mis)trust of healthy eating information. Appetite , 54, 524-532. Onwueme I., Borsari B., & Filho W. L. (2008): An analysis of some paradoxes in alternative agriculture and a vision of sustainability for future food systems. Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 7(3): 199-210. Papas, M. A., Alberg, A. J., Ewing, R., Helzlsouer, K. J., Gary, T. L., & Klassen, A. C. (2007). The Built Environment and Obesity. Epidemiologic Reviews , 29, 129- 143. Pew Charitable Trust. (2010). Philadelphia: The State of the City, A 2010 Update. Retrieved on November 16, 2012 from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_ Research_Initiative/PEW_SOCupdate_FIN.pdf Pickett, S., Cadenasso M., Grove, J., Nilon, C., Pouyat, R. (2001). Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socio-economic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology Systems, 32:127–57 Philadelphia Horticultural Society. (2011). City Harvest. Retrieved from: http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/city-harvest.html Philadelphia Horticultural Society. (2011). Philadelphia Green. Retrieved from: http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/index.html Powell L, Auld C, Chaloupka F. (2007). Associations between access to food stores and adolescent body mass index. Am J Prev Med. 33(suppl 4):301–S307. Public Health Management Corporation. (2011). Results of Major Health Survey. Retreived from: http://www.chdbdata.org/press-releases-details.asp?id=58 Quan, T., Salomon, J., Nitzke, S., & Reicks, M. (2000). Behaviors of low-income mothers related to fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 100 (5), 567-569. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education & Behavior , 15 (2), 175-183. Rundle, A., Neckerman, K. M., Freeman, L., Lovasi, G. S., Purciel, M., Quinn, J., et al. (2009). Neighborhood Food Environment and Walkability Predict Obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives , 117 (3), 442-447. Sallis, J. F., & Glanz, K. (2009). Physical Activity and Food Environments: Solutions to the Obesity Epidemic. The Milbank Quarterly , 87 (1), 123-154. Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological Models of Health Behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath, Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 465-485). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Singh, M., Singh, P., & Singh, S. (2008). Decision support system for farm management, Proc World Acad Sci Eng Technol, 29:346–349. Smith, C., & Morton, L. W. (2009). Rural Food Deserts: Low-income Perspectives on Food Access in Minnesota and Iowa. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , 41, 176-187. FOOD CHOICE 68
Smith, W. E., Day, S., & Brown, L. B. (2005). Heritage Retention and Bean Intake Correlates to Dietary Fiber Intakes in Hispanic Mothers- Que Sabrosa Vida. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 105 (3), 404-411. Speirs, F., Lindsay, S., & and Kirkbride, F. (1898). "Vacant- Lot Cultivation," Charities Review, 8:74-107. Retrieved from: http://www.archive.org/stream/vacantlotcultiva00speiuoft/vacantlotcultiva00speiu oft_djvu.txt Stang, J. (2009). Improving Health among American Indians through Environmentally- Focused Nutrition Interventions. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 109 (9), 1528-1531. Stevenson, G.W., et al., (2007). Warrior, builder, and weaver work: strategies for changing the food system. In: C.C. Hinrichs and T.A. Lyson, eds. Remaking the North American food system: strategies for sustainability. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 33–62. Stotts Krall, J., & Lohse, B. (2009). Interviews with Low-Income Pennsylvanians Verify a Need to Enhance Eating Competence. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 109 (3), 468-473. Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health and Place, 15, 1115-1122. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Unger, J., & Moriarty, C. (2008). Preventing Type 2 Diabetes. Prim Care Clin Office Pract , 35, 645-662. United Nations General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25 Urban Partners. (2007). Farming in Philadelphia: feasibility analysis and next steps; executive summary [online]. Institute for Innovations in Local Farming. Retrieved from: http://www.spinfarming.com/common/pdfs/STF_inst_for_innovations_exec_sum mary_dec07.pdf United States Office of War Information. (1943). Plant a Victory Garden. Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, September 16). Historical Income Data: Table F-3 Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families, All Races. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/index.html USDA. (2009). Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences. Washington D.C.: USDA. USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. (2011, April 1). Cost of Food at Home. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from USDA Food Plans: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm USDA Economic Research Service. (n.d.). Food Environment Atlas. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from Food Environment Atlas: http://maps.ers.usda.gov/FoodAtlas/ FOOD CHOICE 69
USDA. (1917). Uncle Sam Poster. Retrieved from: http://www.cityfarmer.org/ Vallianatos, M., Shaffer, A., and Gottlieb, R. “Transportation and Food: The Importance of Access.” Los Angeles, CA: Center for Food and Justice, Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, 2002. Available at http://www.uepi.oxy.edu. Vitiello, D. and Nairn, M., (2009). Community gardening in Philadelphia: 2008 harvest Report. Retrieved on January 25, 2012 from: http://sites.google.com/site/harvestreportsite/philadelphia-report Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92-101. Walton, M., Signal, L., & Thomson, G. (2009). Household Economic Resources Determinant of Childhood Nutrition: Policy Responses for New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand , 36, 194-207. Webber, C. B., Sobal, J., & Dollahite, J. S. (2010). Shopping for fruits and vegetables. Food and retail qualities of importance to low-income households at the grocery store. Appetite , 54, 297-303. White M, Bunting J, Raybould S, Adamson A, Williams L, Mathers J. Do food deserts exist? A multi-level, geographical analysis of the relationship between retail food access, socio-economic position and dietary intake. Final Report to The Food Standards Agency, 2004. Wolf, R. L., Lepore, S. J., Vandergrift, J. L., Wetmore-Arkader, L., McGinty, E., Pietrzak, G., et al. (2008). Knowledge, Barriers, and Stage of Change as Correlates of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among Urban and Mostly Immigrant Black Men. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 108, 1315- 1322. Wood, F., Robling, M., Prout, H., Kinnersley, P., Houston, H., & Butler, C. (2010). A Question of Balance: A Qualitative Study of Mothers' Interpretations of Dietary Recommendations. Annuals of Family Medicine , 8, 51-57. World Health Organization. (2005, September 15). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from WHO: http://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf World Health Organization. (2010, September 12). Global Database on Body Mass Index: an interactive surveillance tool for monitoring nutrition transition. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from World Health Organization: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp Yancey, A. K., Cole, B. L., Brown, R., Williams, J. D., Hillier, A., Kline, R. S., et al. (2009). A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and General Audience Outdoor Obesity-Related Advertising. The Milbank Quarterly , 87 (1), 155-184. Zenk, S.N., Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., James, S.A., Bao, S., Wilson, M.L., 2005. Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health 95, 660–667. Zenk, S.N., Powell, L.M., 2008. US secondary schools and food outlets. Health & Place 14, 336–346.
FOOD CHOICE 70
Appendix A: Quantitative Survey
“Food activity space": where they travel for food, why they travel to those places, and what they travel for. We will also assess their involvement, knowledge, and interest in community gardens. • Bolded comments are for interviewers
Section A. Background/Demographic Information
1. What is your age? Open-ended. 21+ for eligibility ______
2. What is your gender or sex? ☐ Male ☐ Female ☐ Unknown
3. What is your ethnicity? ☐ Hispanic/Latino ☐ Non-Hispanic/Latino
4. What is your race? ☐ White ☐ African American/Black ☐ American Indian ☐ Asian/Pacific Island ☐ Hispanic ☐ Other______
5. What is your current employment status? ☐ Employed Full Time ☐ Employed Part Time ☐ Unemployed ☐ Retired ☐ Student ☐ Disability ☐ Other______
6. What is the highest level of education you have completed? ☐ Some High School ☐ High School Graduate/GED ☐ Some College ☐ College Graduate ☐ Post-College
7. What is your current marital status? ☐ Single, never married ☐ Married or living as married ☐ Divorced or separated ☐ Widowed
8. How many adults, including yourself, who are 18 years or older, currently live in this household? (Please indicate ages of each adult) * 98 = N/A, 99 = missing. Fill in N/A for additional text boxes beyond # children in household* ______
9. How many children, under the age of 18, currently live in this household? (Please indicate ages of each child) *98 = N/A, 99 = missing. Fill in N/A for additional text boxes beyond # children in household* ______
FOOD CHOICE 71
10. What is your approximate yearly gross household income? ☐ < $10,000 ☐ $10,001 - $20,000 ☐ $20,0001- $30,000 ☐ $30,001- $40,000 ☐ $40,001- $50,000 ☐ $50,001- $60,000 ☐ $60,001- $70,000 ☐ $70,001- $80,000 ☐ $80,001- $90,000 ☐ $90,001- $100,000 ☐ > $100,000 ☐ Do Not Know ☐ Prefer Not to Answer
11. Do you or anyone in your household participate in a Food Assistance Program or SNAP? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “No”, skip to Section 12.
12. Which food assistance programs do you or anyone in your household participate in? (Check all that apply) ☐ Food Stamp Program (SNAP) ☐ Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, & Children (WIC) ☐ National School Lunch Program ☐ School Breakfast Program ☐ Child & Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) ☐ Summer Food Service Program ☐ The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) ☐ WIC Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program ☐ Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPRI) ☐ Meals on Wheels ☐ Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP)
13. Would you say your overall health, in general, is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? ☐ Excellent ☐ Very Good ☐ Good ☐ Fair ☐Poor
Section B. Community Garden Involvement/Interest
14. Are you currently involved in a community garden? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “No”, skip to Section 7.
15. Where is it located? * Please provide as much information as possible (garden name, cross streets, address) *
16. How would you best describe your community garden? *Select the BEST answer* ☐ Residential Garden ☐ Neighborhood Community Garden (one communal plot) FOOD CHOICE 72
☐ Neighborhood Community Garden (multiple individual plots) ☐ School Garden ☐ Demonstration Garden ☐ Institution Garden ☐ Garden where products raised are sold for profit ☐ Other______
17. How long have you been involved with a garden? *Answer spontaneously, then categorize* ☐ Less than a month ☐ 2-6 months ☐ 7 months- 1 year ☐ 1-5 years ☐ 6-10 years ☐ 10+ years
18. How often do you garden? *Answer spontaneously, then categorize* ☐ Daily ☐ 4-5 times a week ☐ 2-3 times a week ☐ Once a week ☐ 3 times a month ☐ 2 times a month ☐ Once a month ☐ Other______
19. Why are you involved in gardening? *Answer spontaneously, then categorize. Select all that apply. Probe for additional reasons (up to 3)* ☐ The enjoyment of gardening ☐ Growing food for self/household ☐ Exercise ☐ Lower stress ☐ Spend time with your children ☐ Connect with community members ☐ Chance to add beauty to neighborhood ☐ Increase gardening skills ☐ Other______
20. Why do you not participate in community gardens? ☐ No Land ☐ No time ☐ Too much work ☐ Don’t know how ☐ Lack of resources (tools, seeds, equipment, etc.) ☐ No Opportunity ☐ Other ______
21. If there were a community garden project in your neighborhood that provided you with training and land space, would you be interested in participating and growing your own produce? ☐ Yes ☐ No
FOOD CHOICE 73
Section C. Food Activity Space 22. In the past week (7 days), did you buy food from a grocery store/large supermarket (excluding pharmacies)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “No”, skip to question 2.
a. Which grocery store(s)/supermarket(s) did you buy from in the past week (7 days)? (Provide address or intersections) i. Store #1______
ii. Store #2______
iii. Store #3______
b. How many times in the past week (7 days) did you buy from each store? i. Store #1______
ii. Store #2______
iii. Store #3______
c. How do you usually get to the grocery store/supermarket? * Select one method for each store* Store #1 Store#2 Store#3 Drive yourself ☐ ☐ ☐ Get a ride ☐ ☐ ☐ Take the bus ☐ ☐ ☐ Walk ☐ ☐ ☐ Bike ☐ ☐ ☐ Take a taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ Use a van service ☐ ☐ ☐ Store Delivery ☐ ☐ ☐ Other______☐ ☐ ☐
d. Which types of foods do you usually get at the grocery store(s)/supermarket(s)? *Select Store for each category* Dry foods (rice, cereals, seasonings) ______Dairy Products (milk, cheese, yogurt) ______Meats ______Fruits & Vegetables ______Other______FOOD CHOICE 74
e. How would you rate the overall quality of groceries available in the grocery store(s)/supermarket(s) you visit? *Select one rating for each store* Excellent Good Fair Poor Store #1 Store #2 Store #3
23. In the past week (7 days), did you buy food from a neighborhood market/corner store (including pharmacies)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “No”, skip to question 3.
a. Which neighborhood market(s)/corner stores(s) did you buy from in the past week (7 days)? (Provide address or intersections) i. Store #1______
ii. Store #2______
iii. Store #3______
b. How many times in the past week (7 days) did you buy from each neighborhood market(s)/corner store(s)? iv. Store #1______
v. Store #2______
vi. Store #3______
c. How do you usually get to the neighborhood store/corner store? * Select one method for each store* Store #1 Store#2 Store#3 Drive yourself ☐ ☐ ☐ Get a ride ☐ ☐ ☐ Take the bus ☐ ☐ ☐ Walk ☐ ☐ ☐ Bike ☐ ☐ ☐ Take a taxi ☐ ☐ ☐ Use a van service ☐ ☐ ☐ Store Delivery ☐ ☐ ☐ Other______☐ ☐ ☐
d. Which types of foods do you usually get at the neighborhood store(s)/corner store(s)? *Select Store for each category* FOOD CHOICE 75
Dry foods (rice, cereals, seasonings) ______Dairy Products (milk, cheese, yogurt) ______Meats ______Fruits & Vegetables ______Other______
e. How would you rate the overall quality of groceries available in the neighborhood store(s)/corner store(s) you visit? *Select one rating for each store* Excellent Good Fair Poor Store #1 Store #2 Store #3
24. Have you purchased food for your household from any of the places below in the past week (7 days)? Yes No # of times Past week (7 days) a. Grocery truck? ☐ ☐ ______b. Ethnic/specialty store ☐ ☐ ______c. Warehouse store -BJ’s, Sams ☐ ☐ ______d. Church group ☐ ☐ ______e. Food pantry ☐ ☐ ______f. Restaurant/To-Go ☐ ☐ ______g. Farmer’s Market ☐ ☐ ______h. Community Supported Agriculture ☐ ☐ ______i. Food Co-op/Buying Club ☐ ☐ ______
If “No”, skip to question 5.
25. At which place do you buy most of your food? (include name & address/intersection)
26. Do you have any difficulties in obtaining food? ☐ Yes What problems? ______☐ No
Section D: Health Behaviors
27. How easy or difficult is it for you to find fruit and vegetables in your neighborhood? FOOD CHOICE 76
☐ Very Easy ☐ Easy ☐ Difficult ☐ Very Difficult
28. Over the past 12 months, how often did you eat fruits (fresh or frozen)? ☐ 1 time per month or less ☐ 1 time per day ☐ 2 – 3 times per month ☐ 2 – 3 times per day ☐ 1 – 2 times per week ☐ 4 – 5 times per day ☐ 3 – 4 times per week ☐ 6 or more times per day ☐ 5 – 6 times per week ☐ Never If “Never”, please skip to question 4.
29. How many servings of fruits did you eat on a typical day? (A serving of fruit is equal to a medium apple, half a large banana, or 1 cup of juice) ______# of servings
30. Over the past 12 months, how often did you eat vegetables (fresh or frozen)? ☐ 1 time per month or less ☐ 1 time per day ☐ 2 – 3 times per month ☐ 2 – 3 times per day ☐ 1 – 2 times per week ☐ 4 – 5 times per day ☐ 3 – 4 times per week ☐ 6 or more times per day ☐ 5 – 6 times per week ☐ Never If “Never”, please skip question 5.
31. How many servings of vegetables did you eat on a typical day? (A serving of vegetables is equal to half a cup of peas, 12 baby carrots, or 1 cup of tomato juice.) ______# of servings
32. How often do you engage in physical activity? ☐ < 1 time per week ☐ 1-2 times per week ☐ 3 times per week ☐ 4 or more times per week
33. How often do you smoke? ☐ 7 days per week ☐ 5 days per week ☐ 3 days per week ☐ 1 day per week ☐ Never
34. How many alcoholic beverages do you drink a day? ☐ None ☐ Less than 1 ☐ 1 or more
FOOD CHOICE 77
35. What is your current….? Height______Weight ______
36. The survey is now complete. Would you like to continue to participate in a open- ended, conversational interview about your current access to healthy foods within the neighborhood ? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe
References Section A: Alaimo et al. (2008) Fruit & veggie intake among urban community gardeners. (J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008;40:94-101) & efan Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit
Section B: Marin County Community Garden Needs Assessment (University of California Cooperative Extension-Marin). Retrieved from http://cemarin.ucdavis.edu/files/66838.pdf Modified questions from The Community Food Security Coalition’s Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Security for the Inner City.
Section C: modified from The Community Food Security Coalition’s Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Security for the Inner City & Public Health Management Corporation 2010 Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey Documentation
Section D: modified from Public Health Management Corporation 2010 Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey Documentation & NIH Diet History Questionnaire (Retrieved from http://dceg.cancer.gov/modules/DietHistory.pdf )
FOOD CHOICE 78
APPENDIX B: Qualitative Interview Summaries
Interviewee One
Interviewee One identified as a 43 year-old African American male living with his girlfriend and one child within the Belmont neighborhood. He is employed full time and has a college degree. He claims corner stores are racist and discussed that the stores are owned by Latinos (“papis”) and charge higher prices. He argues that none of the money spent in the corner stores returns to the neighborhood. He would like to see small businesses, specifically the corner stores, owned and managed by who he believed to be the representatives of the neighborhood. Respondent claims he only gets drinks and milk when needed from the corner store. He claims the household eats two servings of fruits and vegetables a day, but also stated that he travels outside the neighborhood to obtain food. The family shops at the Shop Rite on 52nd and Parkside because it is a little cheaper than the Fresh Grocer. His wife also works near the shopping center so it is more convenient for her to shop at that location. The resident believes that having a community garden, maintained by the neighborhood, would improve his families and the neighborhoods consumption of healthy foods. He does not believe that “Healthy Corner
Stores” would have an impact on his family. The interviewee does believe that a community garden would work within his area. He argued that a community garden would give people something to do, a place to meet, and something to invest in. He reiterated that people that reside in the community should manage a community garden.
He doesn’t want outside agencies to be in charge, but would like those agencies to assist with starting a garden.
Interviewee Two Mantua FOOD CHOICE 79
completed the second interview. She is unemployed, married with four children
under the age of eight. She no longer works since having her second child. She
completed a few college courses, but has not obtained her college degree. The family
lacks a car and walks to two, sometimes three, supermarkets to complete shopping –
Whole Foods (22nd and Callowhill), the Fresh Grocer (40th and Market) and Trader Joe’s
(21st and Market). She strongly stated that Mantua needs a grocery store because she
cannot carry the amount of groceries back to her home. She goes to the grocery store at
least four times a week and only used public transportation when there is inclement
weather.
The family is vegetarian and eats 4-5 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables daily.
She claims that the corner stores, including a “Healthy Corner Store,” lack fresh fruits and vegetable other than lettuce, bananas, and at times, tomatoes. The participant rarely shops at the corner stores and only does when she needs something quickly. She believes this may happen once every six months. When asked about the availability of a “Healthy
Corner Store,” she argued that the money spent on revitalizing corner stores in Mantua should be used as incentives for possible grocery chains.
She also claims that she would be very interested and “definitely” participate in a community garden. She believes that a community garden is instrumental in the development of the neighborhood as well as learning about healthy eating habits while giving people access to foods such as fruits and vegetables.
Interviewee Three
Interviewee Three identified as a 23 year-old White male living with two
roommates in the Mantua Neighborhood. He has completed his bachelor’s degree and is FOOD CHOICE 80
currently enrolled within a PhD program. He admits that his eating habits are “not
healthy.” He eats most of his meals outside the home, or has food delivered, but rarely
prepares a meal at home. He estimates he cooks for him or his roommates “once every
two weeks.” The interviewee only eats fruits and vegetables occasionally, about two
times a week. The biggest hindrance to eating healthy is time and convenience. He
states he “doesn’t have the time to prepare healthy foods.”
The household completes most of its grocery shopping at Fresh Grocer on 40th and Chestnut Street, but he only goes once a month. Besides the time factor, carrying groceries or driving to the grocery store is inconvenient. He believes parking is difficult and carrying groceries about 12 blocks can be difficult. These factors diminish his desire to become more proactive with eating healthier. He does believe he would use a grocery store if one were closer to his apartment. Interviewee 3 does use the corner stores for drinks, sandwiches, and snacks, but has never bought anything used for preparing meals or any fruits and vegetables. He doesn’t believe that corner stores have enough healthy food options, but he does think that people in the neighborhood would use the corner stores if they provided healthy food choices. He would not participate in community gardens because he feels we would not have the time to commit to it, but he believes many of the neighborhood residents would participate if they were offered education and resources to be able to grow fruits and vegetables.
Interviewee Four
Interviewee Four identified as a 58 year-old African American woman who is employed
(she states underemployed) and obtained a high school diploma. She is single and lives alone. Interviewee Four claims to shop every week and goes to the Fresh Grocer on 40th FOOD CHOICE 81 and Chestnut. She eats three servings of fruits and vegetables a day, but claims there is no option to get fruits and vegetables within her neighborhood. She believes that food options are limited in her area, prices are high, and would like to see a grocery store (or a corner store) that provides healthy choices within walking distance. She does not have any transportation barriers since she owns a car and shops when the fee for parking is free. She does shop at the corner stores for convenience and usually only buys items when she needs them – milk, eggs, a can of corn, etc., for meals she is planning to make and cannot make it to the grocery store.
The interviewee discussed the aspect of being involved in a community garden and she believes that she would participate. She discussed two gardens in her neighborhood that seem to increase the visibility in the neighborhood and she knows that they often give people working on them fresh fruits and vegetables. She thinks that this would be great for teaching children about community, hard work, and good nutrition.
Interviewee Five
Interviewee Five identified as a 43 year-old white female who is unemployed living in the West Powelton neighborhood. She obtained her high school diploma, but was laid off from her administrative assistant position about 8 months ago. She lives with her husband and she has two children over the age of 18 that do not presently live within the home. Her husband is employed and they identify as being middle-class.
She claims to shop at 40th and Chestnut, the Fresh Grocer, and goes at least one time a week, but often several times a week. She shops there due to convenience but believes the prices are too high because the store takes advantage of the student population in the area. She sometimes buys her groceries from Trader Joe’s or Whole FOOD CHOICE 82
Foods, but only when she is in that area. She prefers those stores but tries to use the one closest to her neighborhood because she walks back and forth to the store. She says it takes her about 15 minutes and she would like to have options within her neighborhood other than the corner stores. She discussed the lack of fruits and vegetables and how corner stores seem to sell only “junk food.” She never uses the corner stores – she believes they lack healthier types of food, are more expensive, and do not seem as clean and sanitary as the larger supermarkets. Both her and her husband are currently involved in gardening, but it is a private garden in their small backyard. They are open to a larger community garden, especially for lower-income people and would be very supportive of beginning one. She claims to obtain most of their fruits and vegetables from their garden and have at least 3 servings per day.
Interviewee Six
Interviewee Six is a 28 year-old African American male from the Belmont neighborhood who is currently unemployed. He lives with his girlfriend and two children
(5 and 8 years-old). He has not worked in over two years. He lacks a HS diploma or
GED and believes that he will try to get his GED again (he told the interviewer that he failed it when he took it about a year ago). The family shops at least once a week and they do the majority of their grocery shopping at the Shop Rite on 52nd and Parkside. He claims to east fruits at least once a day, but rarely has vegetables. He was quick to report that his children eat both fruits and vegetables at least two times per day. He stated he doesn’t like most vegetables and that is why he does not eat them. He also discussed how food prices are expensive and the budget dictates a good portion of their food choices.
As he said, “we get what’s on sale.” He believes the biggest barrier is the financial FOOD CHOICE 83
burden that he feels is associated with healthier foods. He discussed limiting his fruit
consumption to make sure that his kids are able to eat them first and that they will have
enough for the week.
He would like to participate in a community garden, but he lacks training to know
what and how to grow food. He would like the opportunity to learn how to garden,
especially while he is unemployed to give him a constructive hobby and to decrease the
cost of food. The interviewee also shops at the corner stores often – at least one time a
day. He usually buys snack foods, but he stated he would buy fruits and vegetables if
they had them. He said sometimes they have bananas, but they are usually “brown and
too mushy.” He also buys emergency items from the store. The biggest thing that would
improve his family’s access to healthy foods are finding a stable full time job and having
food available within the neighborhood that is healthy.
Interviewee Seven
Interviewee Seven is a 48 year-old African American male from the West
Powelton neighborhood. He is married with two adult children and is currently unemployed. He does have a High School diploma and is currently enrolled in a computer certification course. He perceives the barriers to healthy foods as the lack of fruits and vegetables in the neighborhood, transportation back and forth to the grocery store, and the lack of a store within the neighborhood. He claims the family shops at least once a week, but goes to a corner store or convenience store three times a week. He admits to eating a small amount of fruits and vegetables (4 servings a week of each) and using the corner stores as a source of obtaining junk food. The majority of this interview discussed how community gardens seem like a good idea, but he believes this would only FOOD CHOICE 84
benefit some neighbors in the community, but not the neighborhood as a whole. He
argues that having a grocery store, free education seminars, and a real investment from
the City, Drexel University, and the University of Penn could help transition the
neighborhoods, but was very clear in the need to transform the neighborhood while
allowing current residents to take an active role in the transition. He discussed how over
the last year, Drexel University has begun to move in, specifically students, and how that
has already affected the area – from rents increasing, permit parking, and an increase in
security. He doesn’t believe that these newer initiative are helping the existing
communities and actually, in small amounts, increase the burden on long time residents.
Interviewee Eight
Interviewee Eight identified as a 59 year-old African American woman with a college degree. She is employed full-time and is married with three adult children. Her
husband and herself live together in the Belmont neighborhood. She shops regularly, at
least once a week, usually at the Shop Rite on 52nd and Parkside. She claims to eat at
least 2 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, but often has more.
During our first encounter with the quantitative surveys, the interviewee was
seemingly hostile to the interviewer. She was extremely direct, questioning, and
seemingly argumentative before even beginning the assessment. She asked rhetorical
questions, such as, “what are white students going to do in the Black neighborhood?”
She questioned the researchers in their belonging in the neighborhood and why there
weren’t people of color saying, “How come there are no Black people with you? Why do
white people always think they need to fix us.” Despite trying to tell the interviewee that
we did have an African American woman researcher involved as well as how the idea of FOOD CHOICE 85 the project was to give the people in the community the ability to solve problems that they think is important, concerning food issues, she was hesitant to speak with us.
Another neighbor approached and told the woman to not give us a hard time since he saw one of us in the community several times. She decided to complete the quantitative interview and I asked her if she would be willing to follow up with a semi-structured interview and she agreed to meet.
The semi structured interview consisted very little of the original questions the researcher intended to ask, instead, we discussed the barriers in the neighborhood, as she said, “affect everything from food, to schools, and the police.” She argued that most of the policies are intended to keep Black people from achieving higher social classes and keeps a system that prefers white people to people of color. She discussed how every neighborhood with low-income, Black residents become an area where white people fix, gentrify, and finally, remove the long-time residents. She believes the biggest barrier to healthy food is the lack of education and resources within the neighborhoods.
Rhetorically, she would ask, if people have little to no money, they will get what they can afford, not what is healthy. She also discussed how the corner stores are not owned by the people in the neighborhood and that they are taking advantage of people without the ability to go someplace else. She discussed how people use “hacks” (illegally operated taxi services) to get back and forth to the stores and most people in her neighborhood are already on a tight budget. She joked, saying, “call a cab when you are finished with this and see how long it takes them to get here, if they come at all.” She believes the system is completely broken and that community gardens, corner store initiatives, and other measures are just stopgaps to hide the underlying issues of racism and control. FOOD CHOICE 86
Interview Nine
Interviewee Nine identified as a 52 year-old African American woman in the
Belmont section. She is widowed – her husband died when she was 46, and lives alone.
She is a block captain and is very involved with her neighborhood. She is unemployed, but also is awaiting approval for her disability claim. She did not give the reason for her disability, but she did discuss her multiple trips to doctors. She cannot drive, but her daughter (does not live with her mother, but was present for the interview) takes her to the Shop Rite on 52nd and Parkside each week. She claims to eat very healthily – no snacks or junk foods, three meals a day with fruits and vegetables, and in between meals she eats fruits and/or healthy snacks like peanut butter. She rarely eats processed foods and cooks every night.
She believes the biggest barriers to healthy foods are the lack of a store that is close, the lack of fruits and vegetables in the neighborhood, and that the price for healthy food is too high. She also discussed the reason for doing these interviews and she argued that this is more about Drexel than the community itself. She believes that Drexel is moving too quickly in the neighborhood and that these studies are really about making the neighborhood more marketable. She thinks the only reason that the possibility of a grocer store within the neighborhood is because white people are moving in. She asked, “where were these studies 15-20 years ago when this neighborhood was a mess.” She believes that the intention is good, but often times neglects to understand the neighborhood because they are too focused on finding quick answers that they can show to someone instead of addressing the underlying issues of inequality between races.