| Literature DB >> 31881710 |
Greg Rybarczyk1,2,3, Dorceta Taylor4, Shannon Brines4, Richard Wetzel1.
Abstract
To date, the research that examines food accessibility has tended to ignore ethnic food outlets. This void leaves us with a limited understanding of how such food stores may, or may not, impact food security. The study discussed herein addressed this by conducting a geospatial assessment of ethnic food outlet accessibility in two U.S. cities: Flint and Grand Rapids, Michigan. We used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools to create a revealed accessibility index for each food outlet, and used the index to determine access within active travel service areas. We utilized an ordinary least squares regression (OLS), and two local models: spatial autoregression (SAR) and geographically weighted regression (GWR) to enhance our understanding of global and localized relationships between outlet accessibility and type (while controlling for known covariates). The results show that the local models outperformed (R2 max = 0.938) the OLS model. The study found that there was reduced access to ethnic restaurants in all service areas of Grand Rapids. However, in Flint, we observed this association in the bicycling areas only. Also notable were the influences that demographic characteristics had on access in each city. Ultimately, the findings tell us that nuanced planning and policy approaches are needed in order to promote greater access to ethnic food outlets and reduce overall food insecurity.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; GWR; demographic characteristics; ethnic food; food access; local regression; service area analysis; space syntax; urban design
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31881710 PMCID: PMC6982187 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The State of Michigan and our two study cities: Flint and Grand Rapids.
Demographic and socioeconomic statistics.
| Demographic Characteristics | Flint | Grand Rapids |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 107,824 | 189,800 |
| Median age | 34 | 33 |
| Median income | $29,260 | $41,027 |
| Post high-school diploma | 49.60% | 49.85% |
| Population under 18 | 28.43% | 25.67% |
| Population change, 2000–2010 | −15.90% | −2.73% |
| Mean family size | 3.0 | 3.2 |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
Figure 2Spatial patterning of ethnic food outlet locations and density of low-wage employees within the study sites: Grand Rapids (a) and Flint (b), Michigan.
Ethnic food outlets in each city.
| Food Outlets | Flint | Grand Rapids | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type |
| Examples |
| Examples |
| Restaurant | 57 | Anacelia’s, Wah Nam Restaurant | 141 | Fazoli’s, Foo Yen, El Sol Azteca |
| Grocer | 9 | Bam’s African Market, Farah Khouri Supermarket | 22 | Quis Qoella, Sakim Grocery, Spice of India |
Variable descriptions.
| Variables | Description |
|---|---|
| Dependent variable | |
| RAI | Revealed accessibility index, transformed using the square root |
| Independent variables | |
| EFO | Ethnic food outlet type (dummy, restaurant = 1, grocer = 0) |
| Demographics | |
| Male | Density of males per km |
| Population | Population density (persons per km) |
| Low wage workers | Number of workers per km earning $1250 per month or less |
| 3 or more races | Density (per km) of persons identified as three or more races |
| Race-white | Density (per km) of persons of one race: white |
| High school diploma | Population density (per km) of those with a high school diploma |
| Environment | |
| Crime | Quantity of all crimes per km |
| Pedestrian intersections | Pedestrian-oriented intersection (3 or 4) density |
| Multi-modal intersections | Intersection density in terms of multi-modal intersections having three legs per square mile |
| Roads | Auto-orientated road network density per km |
| Road intersections | Intersection density in terms of auto-oriented intersections per square mile |
| Parks | Park area density per km |
| Urban morphology | |
| Shortest line distance | Mean metric shortest length pathways from each point to every other point per area |
| Shortest path angularity | Mean number of angular deviations per zone |
| Isovist area | Total viewable area from any space in the system |
| Entropy | Mean measure of the physical order of the system |
| Visual depth | The mean number of steps from any space to any other space in the system |
| Visual control | Mean value of visually dominant areas, high values = high visual dominance |
| Occlusivity | Mean measure of optic discontinuity in an environment. High values indicate long lengths (optic continuity) of occluding radials |
Moran’s I test of revealed accessibility index (RAI) in each city’s active living zone.
| Statistics | Grand Rapids | Flint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking | Mass-transit | Bicycling | Walking | Mass-transit | Bicycling | |
| Moran’s | 0.140 | 0.082 | 0.128 | 0.325 | 0.787 | 0.327 |
| Expected | −0.006 | −0.006 | −0.006 | −0.016 | −0.018 | −0.016 |
| 0.684 | 0.415 | 0.614 | 0.857 | 1.946 | 0.846 | |
| 0.493 | 0.678 | 0.538 | 0.391 | 0.051 * | 0.397 | |
* p < 0.1.
Flint (n = 60) and Grand Rapids (n = 161) walking zone fully adjusted model coefficients and diagnostic outputs.
| Statistical Approach | OLS | SAR | GWR | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | ||||||
| Independent Variables | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Min | Max | Min | Max |
| EFO a | −0.219 ** | 4.503 | - | - | −8.849 ** | 6.948 | - | - | −14.039 | −4.148 | 4.265 | 5.368 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Population | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.000 | 0.004 | −0.011 | −0.005 |
| Low wage workers | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.046 | −0.005 | 0.010 | 0.074 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Crime | - | - | −0.258 * | 0.033 | - | - | - | - | −0.000 | 0.002 | −0.057 | −0.049 |
| Pedestrian intersections | - | - | 0.461 *** | 1.202 | - | - | 0.579 *** | 1.337 | −0.444 | 0.935 | 0.152 | 0.473 |
| Roads | 0.148 * | 9.407 | − | − | 0.13 * | 8.707 | - | - | −2.064 | 41.268 | −13.023 | −7.074 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Shortest line distance | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.45 ** | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Isovist area | - | - | −0.214 * | <0.001 | - | - | −0.33 ** | 0.175 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| | 0.075 | 0.277 | 0.172 | 0.513 | 0.210 | 0.193 | ||||||
| Adj. | 0.033 | 0.175 | - | - | 0.091 | 0.012 | ||||||
| AICc | 1336.024 | 552.32 | 1321.609 | 533.37 | 1328.198 | 562.48 | ||||||
| rho | - | - | 0.8 | 0.8 | - | - | ||||||
| Alpha | - | - | 1.0 | 1.0 | - | - | ||||||
| Moran’s | 0.121 | 0.136 | 0.121 | 0.135 | 0.141 | 0.141 | ||||||
a reference—grocer (0); b Spatial relationships conceptualized using inverse Euclidian distance; * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01; VIF index values for all covariates < 10.0; -, no statistically significant relationship.
Flint (n = 56) and Grand Rapids (n = 159) mass-transit zone fully adjusted model coefficients and diagnostic outputs.
| Statistical Approach | OLS | SAR | GWR | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | ||||||
| Individual Variables | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Min | Max | Min | Max |
| EFO a | −0.837 *** | 0.013 | − | − | −0.852 *** | 0.013 | - | - | −0.330 | −0.191 | −0.018 | 0.007 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| 3 or more races | - | - | 0.292 ** | 0.006 | - | - | - | - | −0.005 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Male | −0.750 *** | <0.001 | −0.835 *** | <0.001 | −0.740 *** | <0.001 | −0.028 *** | 0.02 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.002 | −0.001 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Road intersections | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.102 | 0.041 | −2.567 | 1.144 |
| Multimodal intersections | 0.307 ** | 0.009 | 0.344 *** | 0.031 | 0.236 ** | 0.009 | 0.291 ** | 0.054 | 0.003 | 0.046 | 0.084 | 0.221 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Visual Depth | - | - | 0.387 ** | 0.047 | - | - | - | - | −0.009 | −0.004 | −0.012 | 0.196 |
| Shortest path angularity | - | - | −0.425 *** | 0.019 | - | - | −0.361 * | 0.032 | −0.004 | 0.000 | −0.102 | −0.025 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| | 0.814 | 0.883 | 0.907 | 0.908 | 0.885 | 0.938 | ||||||
| Adj. | 0.807 | 0.876 | - | - | 0.870 | 0.911 | ||||||
| AICc | −494.041 | −203.588 | −600.332 | −209.345 | −555.407 | −216.789 | ||||||
| rho | - | - | 0.600 | 0.900 | - | - | ||||||
| Alpha | - | - | 1.0 | 1.1 | - | - | ||||||
| Moran’s | −0.168 | 0.064 | −0.050 | 0.555 | −0.272 | −0.376 | ||||||
a reference—grocer (0); b Spatial relationships conceptualized using inverse Euclidian distance; * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01; VIF index values for all covariates < 10.0; -, no statistically significant relationship.
Flint (n = 60) and Grand Rapids (n = 161) bicycling zone fully adjusted model coefficients and diagnostic outputs.
| Statistical Approach | OLS | SAR | GWR | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | Grand Rapids | Flint | ||||||
| Individual Variables | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Min | Max | Min | Max |
| EFO a | −0.711 *** | 0.019 | −0.110 * | 0.005 | −0.678 *** | 0.019 | −0.100 * | 0.004 | −0.173 | −0.166 | −0.010 | −0.006 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Race: white | −0.408 *** | <0.001 | −0.877 *** | <0.001 | −0.376 ** | <0.001 | −0.871 *** | <0.001 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 | −0.000 |
| High school diploma | - | - | 0.169 ** | <0.001 | - | - | 0.156 ** | <0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Parks | - | - | 0.229 ** | 0.036 | - | - | 0.232 ** | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.101 | 0.106 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Visual Control | - | - | − | − | - | - | - | - | 2.133 | 4.397 | −1.237 | −0.298 |
| Occlusivity | - | - | 0.899 *** | <0.001 | - | - | 0.875 *** | <0.001 | −0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| | 0.496 | 0.841 | 0.530 | 0.833 | 0.506 | 0.852 | ||||||
| Adj. | 0.480 | 0.819 | - | - | 0.475 | 0.826 | ||||||
| AICc | −431.607 | −348.905 | −439.415 | −342.003 | −431.734 | −350.499 | ||||||
| rho | - | - | 0.8 | 0.3 | - | - | ||||||
| Alpha | - | - | 1 | 1.1 | - | - | ||||||
| Moran’s | 0.179 | 0.528 | 0.206 | 0.618 | 0.176 | 0.558 | ||||||
a reference—grocer (0); b Spatial relationships conceptualized using inverse Euclidian distance; * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01; VIF index values for all covariates < 10.0; -, no statistically significant relationship.