Program for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, MS 1266, College Station, TX 77843-1266, USA.
Int J Health Geogr. 2010 May 25;9:26. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-9-26.
There has been limited study of all types of food stores, such as traditional (supercenters, supermarkets, and grocery stores), convenience stores, and non-traditional (dollar stores, mass merchandisers, and pharmacies) as potential opportunities for purchase of fresh and processed (canned and frozen) fruits and vegetables, especially in small-town or rural areas.
Data from the Brazos Valley Food Environment Project (BVFEP) are combined with 2000 U.S. Census data for 101 Census block groups (CBG) to examine neighborhood access to fruits and vegetables. BVFEP data included identification and geocoding of all food stores (n = 185) in six rural counties in Texas, using ground-truthed methods and on-site assessment of the availability and variety of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables in all food stores. Access from the population-weighted centroid of each CBG was measured using proximity (minimum network distance) and coverage (number of shopping opportunities) for a good selection of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. Neighborhood inequalities (deprivation and vehicle ownership) and spatial access for fruits and vegetables were examined using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test and multivariate regression models.
The variety of fruits or vegetables was greater at supermarkets compared with grocery stores. Among non-traditional and convenience food stores, the largest variety was found at dollar stores. On average, rural neighborhoods were 9.9 miles to the nearest supermarket, 6.7 miles and 7.4 miles to the nearest food store with a good variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, respectively, and 4.7 miles and 4.5 miles to a good variety of fresh and processed fruits or vegetables. High deprivation or low vehicle ownership neighborhoods had better spatial access to a good variety of fruits and vegetables, both in the distance to the nearest source and in the number of shopping opportunities.
Supermarkets and grocery stores are no longer the only shopping opportunities for fruits or vegetables. The inclusion of data on availability of fresh or processed fruits or vegetables in the measurements provides robust meaning to the concept of potential access in this large rural area.
传统食品店(如超级中心、超市和杂货店)、便利店和非传统食品店(如一元店、大型批发商和药店)作为购买新鲜和加工(罐装和冷冻)水果和蔬菜的潜在场所,如各类食品店都有进行过有限的研究,特别是在小镇或农村地区。
将布拉索斯河谷食品环境项目(BVFEP)的数据与 2000 年美国人口普查数据相结合,对 101 个普查街区组(CBG)的水果和蔬菜供应情况进行了分析。BVFEP 数据包括使用实地核实方法识别和地理编码德克萨斯州六个农村县的所有食品店(n=185),并对所有食品店新鲜和加工水果和蔬菜的供应情况和种类进行了现场评估。使用接近度(最小网络距离)和覆盖度(购物机会数量)来衡量从每个 CBG 的人口加权质心到食品店的可达性,以评估新鲜和加工水果和蔬菜的良好选择。使用 Wilcoxon 匹配对符号秩检验和多变量回归模型,检验了水果和蔬菜的邻里不平等(贫困和车辆拥有)和空间可达性。
与杂货店相比,超市的水果或蔬菜种类更多。在非传统和便利店中,品种最多的是一元店。平均而言,农村社区距离最近的超市有 9.9 英里,距离最近的有新鲜水果和蔬菜的各种食品店分别为 6.7 英里和 7.4 英里,距离最近的有新鲜和加工水果或蔬菜的各种食品店分别为 4.7 英里和 4.5 英里。高贫困或低车辆拥有的社区在空间上更容易获得各种水果和蔬菜,无论是最近的供应源的距离还是购物机会的数量都更好。
超市和杂货店不再是购买水果或蔬菜的唯一选择。在对潜在可达性的测量中,纳入新鲜或加工水果或蔬菜供应情况的数据为这个大型农村地区提供了更有意义的概念。