Assessing Supermarket Access:Analyzing the Importance of Spatial Proximity and

Mobility to Healthy Foods

Daniel KimCapstone Summer 2012M.S. Urban Environmental Systems Management Graduate Center for Planning and the EnvironmentPratt Institute

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisors, colleagues, and family members that have helped me

complete this project. I have learned a great detail about food systems and policy from the government

perspective throughout this process at Pratt Institute. Specifically, I would like to thank Jaime Stein and

Alec Appelbaum for their guidance as capstone advisors. Additionally, I want to thank Olga Abinader

and Jodi Byron from the Department of City Planning for their insight.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Limitations of Scope

III. Current Food Access and Health

IV. Supermarket Trends and FRESH Development

V. Analysis for Accessibility

VI. Case Studies of FRESH Stores

VII. Recommendations – Policy Related

VIII. Conclusion

IX. References

I. Introduction

The connection between food access with spatial proximity, mobility, and public health are

essential in low-income and underserved areas that lack healthy food options, such as fruits and

vegetables, in New York City. Food access not only encompasses healthier food options made available

but also addresses the capability of people reaching new options. With spatial barriers and limited

mobility resources, health-related problems are prevalent in underserved areas. According to the World

Health Organization (WHO), underserved areas or food insecure are defined as “When all people at all

times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious foods to maintain a healthy and active life” (WHO).

Additionally, many food activists consider access to healthy foods a basic human right and insist that

policies that affect the food system should be enacted accordingly to ensure that everybody has access

to healthy foods (Opfer, P).

Food accessibility in underserved areas, in terms of spatiality and mobility, is overshadowed by

the incentives to provide greater availability of foods. While additional availability has become one of

the answers to accessibility, it requires more investigation and policy adjustments. Availability

addresses the idea to provide greater fresh food options and have them readily available in certain

distances (Nikhanj, S). However, availability neglects to address whether there are resources necessary

for residents in underserved areas that battle with potential physical and spatial barriers, including long

distance walkability and limited public transportation options. Therefore, accessibility includes

availability and the determination of resources needed to get to healthy food options in afflicted

communities. Many underserved residents lack a range of healthy, affordable food options and are in

constant battle with spatial factors and barriers.

Food access policy in New York City fails to acknowledge whether underserved residents could

effectively reach fresh food availabilities. Currently, city policy establishes to reach a goal of healthy

food availabilities by increasing a general city-level square footage of available products from 15,000

square feet per 10,000 people to 30,000 square feet per 10,000 people (DCP). The lack of focus on

strategic, site-specific supermarket placement in underserved areas, in terms of spatiality and mobility

options, is problematic. The push to add more healthy food options does not completely address food

accessibility because minimal focus is placed on access barriers in underserved areas. As a result, there

continues to be a lack of knowledge whether underserved residents could effectively reach potential

healthy food options.

This paper explores the concept of fresh food accessibility in underserved areas and the

importance of evaluating accessibility in relation to health benefits. Two case studies were analyzed to

evaluate whether supermarkets under the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) policy in

certain areas are considered effectively accessible in afflicted communities and have impacted the

accessibility landscape. A standard metric of assessment could be applied to an urban environment in

terms of distance and time between supermarkets and supermarkets to bus routes and subways. An

effective distribution (spread out and not clustered) of supermarkets is essential to allow greatest access

to stores, which can create less supermarket disparity. Therefore, a metric buffer of a ¼ mile or a 7-10

minute walk between existing stores and between existing stores with public transit options is

suggested for further policy research to possibly improve current FRESH policies.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows a setup of a sample study area with a ¼ mile or 7-10 minute walking buffer between a

potential supermarket and various routes. Through a more site-specific analysis, physical and spatial

accessibility could be assessed to determine whether residents are capable to reach new stores. While

providing greater availability is one positive step towards serving underserved areas, greater focus

needs to be placed on the spatiality and mobility of residents to FRESH stores.

II. Limitations of Scope

Food accessibility could include many factors. Other possible issues that affect food accessibility

may include costs of healthy foods provided under FRESH, personal taste and cultural preferences, or

education about healthy foods in the community. For this analysis, I intend to specifically focus on

spatial proximity and mobility/transportation in underserved areas. Further analysis could lead to future

connections to other factors and potential changes to the city’s food system.

III. Current Food Access and Health

The relationship between the neighborhood environment and diet quality is apparent and can

result in negative effects in underserved areas. In 2008, the Department of City Planning released a

study called “Going to the Market,” which presented areas where healthier food options were most

needed. The analysis showed a widespread shortage of supermarkets in the city. A Supermarket Need

Index (SNI) was created to determine the most underserved areas. High need areas were based on

population density, access to a car at the household level, household incomes, rates of diabetes and

obesity, consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, share of fresh food retail, and capacity for new

stores (DCP).

Figure 2 Source: Department of City Planning

Figure 2 shows that areas of high diabetes and obesity rates tend to correlate with highly

underserved areas (or supermarket high need areas) of New York City. A lack of access capabilities, due

to ineffective and insufficient spatial arrangements of fresh food items, could be one contributing factor

to higher health-related issues.

Many studies show that mobility and spatiality continue to influence public health. A study of

13,102 New York City residents found that proximity to healthy food outlets was inversely associated to

Body Mass Index (Rundle, A). Residents in greater spatial proximity to healthy food choices tend to have

healthier diets. Generally, proximity to supermarkets, greater transit options, and reasonable

walkability has been associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake and better diet quality among

residents in underserved areas (Rundle, A). Weight related issues increases a person’s risk of developing

many conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, some types of cancer, and

heart disease (Pi-Sunyer, F). Many studies have concluded that access to nutritious food is limited or

made difficult by factors such as cost or the distance traveled to obtain it.

IV. Supermarket Trends and Development

Market Locations

Developers of grocery stores face significant barriers when determining supermarket locations.

Many retailers decide not to sell fresh produce, meat and fish because of higher business costs

associated with selling these products. Other regulations, such as zoning, parking, and store size

requirements, can prevent developers into certain areas (DCP). Additionally, several factors could sway

the decisions for potential locations of supermarkets. Some factors that are measured by developers

are the median income of area residents and the population density of the area. Unfortunately for low-

income areas that rely on public transit and walk to most destinations, a high median income has a

stronger correlation to store location. This correlation attracts more developers to higher median

income areas since residents are capable of purchasing more expensive products and neglects lower

income areas. However, this has led to growing concern for healthier food options in lower income

neighborhoods and the city has taken initiative to attract developers to low-income areas through

FRESH’s financial and zoning incentives.

The lack of options and choices in fresh foods has been blamed for high obesity rates and the

city has taken greater initiative to address this issue. Unable to access healthy alternatives, many of

these individuals are often forced to choose from cheap and readily available options. Many cases, the

choices are unhealthy alternatives. Underserved neighborhoods often have blocks and blocks of fast

food and liquor, and convenience stores selling unhealthy, high-fat, high-sugar foods and rely on these

types of food products (Thomas, B). This disparity of food options has resulted in a growing food gap

between affluent or food secure and low-income or food insecure individuals.

FRESH Program

In response to the concerns of limited fresh food options in underserved areas, financial and

zoning incentives were created by the city to attract developers to help reach the citywide supermarket

ratio goal. The FRESH initiative was created to incentivize the establishment of full-service grocery

stores in low-income underserved areas, defined by high need areas established by earlier studies done

by the Department of City Planning. These areas would otherwise have been considered unfavorable

for most developers. To qualify for the incentives, developers could construct and/or expand brand new

stores, or convert a layout of an existing supermarket.

Figure 3Source: Department of City Planning

Figure 3 shows areas that are eligible for various zoning, financial, or a combination of both types of

incentives. To qualify for any incentives, a potential FRESH store must be at least 6,000 square feet, 50%

of products are made for home cooking, 30% are perishable foods, and 500 square feet of space is

dedicated to fresh produce (DCP). However, these criteria, particularly the space requirements, pertains

more towards space availability and not completely accessibility. Under FRESH, location determinations

for supermarket development lacks specific site accessibility investigations due to barriers of limited

transportation and/or long distances to the nearest market. Overall, areas outlined for potential

development in underserved areas remains broad.

V. Analysis for Accessibility

Mobility, Spatial Proximity, and Public Health

One key element in the relationship between underserved areas and food accessibility is

mobility and distance for travel to supermarkets. Residents of lower income and minority

neighborhoods in most urban areas face barriers that limit their access to fresh and healthy foods.

While supermarkets may not be readily accessible (due to the limited number of stores), mobility to the

already limited supermarkets becomes a key factor when addressing food accessibility. Studies have

consistently shown that there are fewer full service food markets per capita in neighborhoods with

predominately low-income, minority, or immigrant residents (UEPI). Without adequate and easily

accessible transportation options, many residents are denied equitable access to fresh foods that all

people are entitled to.

With greater emphasis on mobility and physical/spatial arrangement of food stores, targeted

residents have the potential to utilize potential fresh food options. Several studies have been done

indicating that people walk to markets that are readily accessible, which can create healthier lifestyles.

In which, spatial arrangement of options then becomes important. First, a study completed by Bernick

and Cervero found that people who live in a pedestrian-oriented environment were more likely to go by

foot to the market for fruits and vegetables (Bernick, M). Second, a study done by the American

Planning Association found that people who live in areas with good neighborhood accessibility are more

likely to walk and use transit (Krizek). Similarly, another study found that residents that live in

traditional urban neighborhoods have also been found to make two to four more walk/bicycle trips-per-

week to neighborhood stores (Handy). Therefore, effective accessibility options could significantly

impact health. Strategic placement of supermarkets is essential in underserved areas with little public

transportation and long distances between stores and residents. Creating greater accessibility has the

potential to allow residents to make more frequent trips to grocery stores with healthy options.

Effective proximity could lead to greater healthy food intake. A study performed by Kimberly

Moorland in 2001 indicated that for each supermarket in their census tract [in Maryland], white

American residents increased their fruit and vegetable intake by an average of 11 percent and African

American residents increased their intake by 32 percent (Morland, K). Additionally, another study

performed by Public Health Nutrition concluded that easy access to supermarkets was associated with

increased household (84 grams per adult equivalent per day with a 95% confidence interval) (Rose, D).

Proximity to a supermarket has been associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake and better diet

quality among low-income households (Rose, D). This indicates that creating greater access in areas

with low-income neighborhoods is essential to boost healthy food intake. These underserved areas lack

accessibility for the creation of fresh and healthy diets.

Few public transportation systems have planned their routes to ensure convenient direct access

to grocery stores for transit users. Inner city residents have less food access due to restricted

transportation options (Gottlieb, R). Transportation options become limited as underserved residents

lack automobile ownership when compared to more affluent communities. In New York City, the

poorest zip codes, as defined by percentage of households receiving public assistance, had car

ownership rates of less than 40% (Gottlieb, R). Additionally, ineffective public transit options can create

greater obstacles. Bus lines rarely are designed to serve intra-neighborhood food shopping patterns and

usually planned around commuter routes (Gottlieb, R). This can create more difficulties for residents to

carry grocery bags from stores to homes. Many types of residents, including elderly and disabled, may

not be capable to reach potential new food destinations if public transportation becomes a problem.

Since transportation barriers and long distances comes into play, many may opt to choose the most

convenient and nearby options. In underserved areas, options available may only be at the closest

convenience store which would most likely not carry healthy items. As a result, distance becomes an

additional factor in food shopping, which can result in inadequate and unhealthy food choices.

FRESH and the Incomplete Picture of Accessibility

Currently, city policy under FRESH does not address how residents will access potential new

fresh food options. Residents of areas poorly served by supermarket options are also more likely than

the general public to be transit dependent, so it can be difficult for them to travel to food markets

located outside of their immediate neighborhoods. The FRESH initiative attempts to bring greater fresh

food availability to underserved areas but that only solves part of the picture of food accessibility.

As stated earlier, the city hopes to eventually reach a goal of increasing the citywide average

ratio of supermarkets to 30,000 square feet per 10,000 people from 15,000 square feet per 10,000

people (DCP). Increasing a square footage per person ratio shows the increase in availability for general

areas. However, there is no system to evaluate whether local residents could get to the extra options.

More options may not be enough to bring people to stores.

There is no universal system set up to assess whether people could effectively reach these

FRESH incentivized stores. Many researchers have devised a number of ways to measure food desert

presence and severity (Sparks, A). However, there is no consensus on which measures should be used

to assess whether a community's low-income residents have adequate access to fresh and affordable

foods (Sparks, A). Therefore, it is essential to create an evaluation system to assess whether current

FRESH stores and its policies have benefitted local residents, in terms of mobility and distance. The

metric of a ¼ mile or a 7-10 minute walk between food stores and food stores to public transit locations

(subway stops and bus routes) seems to be a reasonable approach in assessing food access in urban

areas. One study done by Larsen and Gilliland incorporated public transit into spatial accessibility

measures; points within a 500 meter walk to a supermarket were classified as having accessibility

(Larsen, K). Furthermore, for elderly, disabled, and individuals in poor health, access to healthy foods in

the surrounding built environment becomes more difficult. Shorter walking distances, for instance a

quarter mile rather than a half mile, may be indicated in measuring food access in urban areas

(Neckerman, K). Several research studies have included measures of public transit in studies of

neighborhood walkability (Hoehner, C).

The evaluation of whether residents in underserved communities effectively get to

supermarkets and take full advantage of potential new fresh food availabilities could lead to further

investigation in food policy, in regards to accessibility. Furthermore, city policy could address how

providing only greater food options is not enough to solve the food accessibility epidemic. Creating an

effective metric standard to assess different levels of accessibility is essential to determine whether it is

advantageous to place FRESH supermarkets in certain locations. Some underserved areas may

specifically have adequate grocery stores in a particular area while a few blocks over there may be

nothing in over a ¼ mile area. By setting up a metric evaluation system, specific areas of underserved

communities that greatly lack modes of public transportation for easy access or have no grocery stores

over a ¼ mile could be analyzed for placement of potential supermarket options.

VI. Case Studies of FRESH Stores

Bushwick South, Wyckoff Food Bazaar

Bushwick, an underserved area of Brooklyn (Community District 4), is one example of how the

FRESH program provided greater fresh food options but fell short in effective market distribution, in

terms of walkability. The area consisted of only 11 full service grocery stores (DCP). Wyckoff Food

Bazaar, mainly a produce and meat warehouse, is one full service grocery store in the neighborhood.

Beforehand, the store was already considered one of the largest and most diverse fresh food selections

in the neighborhood.

In 2009, the Wyckoff Food Bazaar was awarded with FRESH financial tax incentives. To receive

the FRESH incentives for tax-exemption, the store went through an expansion from its original state.

Larger areas were constructed and devoted to exotic produce, meat and seafood, and even an organic

food section. However, it did not effectively contribute to residents walking shorter distances to access

these goods. Availability wise, the expansion added more square footage to the overall citywide

average ratio of neighborhood grocery stores to residents. Even though this is one small step closer for

the city to reach its goal of increasing the citywide average ratio to 30,000 square feet per 10,000

people, it does not directly affect mobility concerns for residents in the neighborhood. Therefore, more

distant residents (greater than a ¼ mile or 10 minute walk) in this underserved area would not benefit

and food accessibility remains the same with this expansion. In this particular case, the FRESH

incentives did not bring new resources to bring people to the store, in terms of reduced accessibility in

walking.

Figure 4

Additionally, the Wyckoff store is also on a block adjacent to another Food Bazaar location on

Gates Avenue. While the borough line running between the two stores means that the neighboring

location is in Queens, the stores are actually less than 700 feet apart. Again, this is an example of how

creating more options is positive but does not alleviate the distance factor for residents living further

away. Figure 4 shows the Wyckoff store location (with a ¼ mile buffer in red) in relation to other current

stores and transportation modes. This figure also shows a potential area where specific studies could be

used since there are no supermarkets within the greater ¼ mile area. Residents in areas south of the

store buffer area lack any supermarkets but have transit options. Greater focus could be placed on that

area as residents in the southern portion of Bushwick must travel long distances for healthy foods.

South Bronx, Western Beef

The Western Beef store in the East Tremont section of the South Bronx (Community District 6)

became the first supermarket in the city to receive funding through the FRESH program. The area has

three grocery stores. The project, which involved tearing down an existing Western Beef store and

rebuilding an expanded store on a nearby lot, cost the chain more than $15 million — but through the

FRESH program, it also received $5.6 million in real estate and sales tax exemptions and a mortgage

recording tax waiver worth $154,000 (NYEDC). As a result, the store expanded by 3,000 square feet for

additional fruits and vegetables (NYEDC). Additionally, other ethnic options were visible, including

calabaza (West Indian pumpkin), yucca, plantain, batata (sweet potato) and yautia.

Figure 5

However, similarly to the Bushwick situation, the project did not contribute to easing mobility

for distant residents. Figure 5 shows the store (with a ¼ mile buffer in red). The nearest subway station,

Tremont Avenue, was already greater than ¼ mile away from the Western Beef store. Additionally, one

bus route serves the immediate area and is on the border of the ¼ mile buffer. Multiple Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (MTA) bus lines run on the particular bus route, however, distance-wise

nothing has changed. One MTA bus route may not be sufficient for a food shopper who lives greater

than a ¼ mile or 10 minute walk north of the supermarket. Lack of a more direct route to the

supermarket may still cause physical barriers due to its location. With the expansion of the current

store, greater food options were introduced but the effect of accessibility remains unchanged. Other

potential areas (outlined in black) could be investigated using the ¼ mile metric. These areas do not

have any stores nearby and have not been changed, in regards to accessibility, with the introduction of

the new Western Beef store.

VII. Recommendations – Policy Related

Use a standard metric and set a city-wide goal to bring people within a certain number of minutes or miles to a healthy food outlet

A way to assess beneficial supermarket accessibility could be by setting a definite metric for

analysis. The creation of a standard metric would be beneficial in supermarket feasibility and whether it

could address transportation and mobility barriers.

Governments could create standards for healthy food access, including a walkability standard.

For example, the City of Philadelphia’s Greenworks plan sets a target of “Bringing 75% of Philadelphians

within a 10 minute walk of healthy food” (Greenworks Philadelphia). This would require accurate and

comprehensive data on food outlets, small grocery stores, farmers markets, etc. and demographics as

well as sophisticated mapping and analysis resources. Thus, the creation of a walkability standard is

more effective if it is done in conjunction with a spatial food mapping process.

In some cases, a city-wide goal may be challenging. Some places for supermarket development

may not be allowed or cost of development may be too high in dense areas. However, by investigating

any underserved areas with a standard metric could lead to greater awareness and policy changes. The

initial metric introduced in this paper provides one direction that city government could use and further

investigate accessibility. Similarly to bringing every New Yorker within 10 minutes to a park, the same

mentality could be set for healthy foods.

Develop better information tools and standards to assess underserved areas

Create better resources to study and develop accurate and timely information databases.

To bridge the information gap in underserved communities, cities and community development

intermediaries around the country are developing sophisticated databases on property availability, local

demographics, and other indicators to inform development. The Urban Markets Initiative of the

Brookings Institution, for example, is partnering with the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership

and affiliated organizations in Baltimore, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Providence, and Washington, D.C., to

develop comprehensive information databases to guide investment decisions in these cities (Urban

Markets Initiative).

With effective information that is comparable to the local and federal level, more financial

incentives could be developed. Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture only recognizes a

small portion of Staten Island and portions of Queens near JFK airport as underserved food retail areas

(USDA). At the local level, much of Bronx, Brooklyn, central Queens, and northern Manhattan are

considered underserved. Creating a common system to effectively assess underserved communities at

both levels is critical for further city and federal links. If the federal level recognized the same areas as

the local level, more funding could be given from the federal level. The local government could

essentially provide site-specific details in underserved areas and work together at the federal level. The

Federal government could eventually provide more site-specific incentives, which could address mobility

even further.

Serving the community

Supermarkets can be incentivized to provide transportation to local residents. Grocery stores

can reduce costs that relate to the more frequent, smaller per-trip purchases of consumers by providing

free or low-cost return transportation to customers in exchange for minimum purchase sizes. In Los

Angeles, Numero Uno Market and Ralphs operate transportation services from some of their stores

(Urban Markets Initiative). The Ralphs located in the West Adams neighborhood adjacent to the

University of Southern California, for example, offers a free return trip to customers who spend $25. An

analysis of grocery shuttle services found that they can pay for themselves within 10 months (Urban

Markets Initiative). Through a FRESH program update, greater incentives could possibly be given for

stores that provide some type of transportation route for their customers. Currently, no such incentives

or policies are part of the FRESH program.

Expand FRESH to incorporate small grocery stores besides full-service supermarkets

In addition to current FRESH criteria, a smaller store version could be created and could be

directly applied for potential smaller sized stores who wish to carry greater fruits and vegetables.

Therefore, this would provide a greater number of locations for healthy food options. Some

underserved areas may not be capable to support massive supermarkets due to their built environment.

Existing smaller stores could take advantage of a new FRESH small store criteria or special permitting

process and provide more fruits and vegetables for areas that are heavily influenced by surrounding

convenience stores.

VIII. Conclusion

Availability neglects to address how residents in underserved areas access additional fresh food

options. Accessibility includes availability and the evaluation of physical, spatial, and limited

transportation barriers. Despite the limited resources devoted to healthy food accessibility in the city,

this paper indicates a need for policy action and other intervention strategies to ensure more equitable

access to healthy foods in underserved areas with physical/spatial factors and barriers. Very few studies

have evaluated strategies for reducing disparities or improving physical access to healthy and affordable

foods. Several strategies and policy actions, including FRESH, have been proposed to attract

supermarkets through incentives to underserved neighborhoods. Greater options are beneficial but if

spatial access barriers exist, then potential healthy foods that were made available would not be

consumed to targeted residents.

One particular element of this larger food security issue revolves around transportation access

to local food retailers. Such access is particularly important for the poor and other transportation

disadvantaged who may lack mobility options (Clifton, K). Three elements could be suggested for the

city policy future: Research designed to evaluate proposed interventions, build broad support for their

implementation, and identify other effective means for improving neighborhood access to healthy

foods. Food accessibility is a complex issue but by addressing the importance of spatial proximity and

mobility barriers, the city could be another step closer to provide all residents the opportunity to take

full advantage of potential healthy foods.

IX. References

Bernick, M. and R. Cervero. Transit Villages in the 21st Century. 1997. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, M. C. "Building a Common Table: The Role for Planning in Community Food Systems." Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2004. 23(4): 341-355.

Clifton, K. J. "Mobility Strategies and Food Shopping for Low-Income Families: A Case Study." Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2004 23(4): 402-413.

Cummins, Steven and Macintyre, Sally. “Food Environments and Obesity – Neighborhood or Nation?” International Journal of Epidemiology. 2006. 35(1): 100-104.

Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH). New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Web 10 May 2012. http://www.nycedc.com/program/food-retail-expansion-support-health-fresh.

FRESH Food Stores Overview. New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Web 3 May 2012. www.nyc.gov/dcp.

Gottlieb, R., Fisher, A., Dohan, M., O'Connor, L., Parks, V. “Homeward Bound: Food-Related Transportation Strategies in Low Income and Transit Dependent Communities.” University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Research Center. 1996. http://www.uctc.net/papers/336.pdf.

Greenworks Philadelphia. Mayor’s office of Sustainability. City of Philadelphia. Web 14 July 2012. http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/.

Handy, S. University of California (System) Transportation Center (1995). Regional versus local accessibility : neo-traditional development and its implications for non-work travel. Berkeley, University of California Transportation Center.

Hess, Daniel, Russell, Jessica. “Influence of Built Environment and Transportation Access on Body Mass Index of Older Adults: Survey Results from Erie County, New York.” Transport Policy. March 2012. Volume 20, Pp. 128–137.

Hoehner CM, Ramirez LKB, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005; 28(2): 105-116.

Krizek, K. J. "Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel: Does Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form Matter?" Journal of the American Planning Association. 2003. 69(3): 265-281.

Larsen K, Gilliland J. Mapping the evolution of 'food deserts' in a Canadian city: Supermarket accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961-2005. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2008. 7:16.

Morland, K, et al., “The Contextual Effect of the Local Food Environment on Residents’ Diets: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study,” American Journal of Public Health 92. 2002. Pp. 1761-1767.

Neckerman, K, et al., “Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas.” Built Environment and Health. Columbia University. 2009

Nickhanj, Soma. “Alleviating Urban Food Deserts: Lessons from Literature.” Graduate School of Public Health. University of Pittsburgh, 2010.

Opfer, Pamela. “Using GIS Technology to Identify and Analyze ‘Food Deserts’ on the Southern Oregon Coast.” Oregon State University. June 2010.

Pi-Sunyer, F. The obesity epidemic pathophysiology and consequences of obesity. Obesity Research, 10 (Suppl 2) (2002), pp. 97S–104S.

Rose, D., & Richards, R. “Food Store Access and Household Fruit and Vegetable Use Among Participants in the US Food Stamp Program.” Public Health Nutrition. 2007. 7(08). 1081-1088.

Rundle A, et al. “Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives.” 2009; 117(3): 442-7.

Sparks, Andrea. “Measuring Food Deserts: A Comparison of Models Measuring the Spatial Accessibility of Supermarkets in Portland, Oregon.” Public Policy and Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon. June 2008.

Thomas, Brian J. “Food Deserts and the Sociology of Space: Distance to Food Retailers and Food Insecurity in an Urban American Neighborhood.” International Journal of Human and Social Services. 2010. 5(6): 400-409.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Food Desert Map. Web 9 July 2012. www.usda.gov.

Urban Markets Initiative. Web 17 July 2012. www.brookings.edu.

Van Wye G, Kerker BD, Matte T, et al. Obesity and diabetes in New York City, 2002 and 2004 . Preventive Chronic Disease 2008; April 5(2): A48.

World Health Organization (WHO). Web 14 June 2012. http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/2009.