Availability of affordable healthy food in Hillsborough County, Florida

• Author: Suzanne Dieringer,Karla Borja
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1866
• Published date: 01 August 2019
• Date: 01 August 2019

ACADEMIC PAPER

Availability of affordable healthy food in Hillsborough County,

Florida

Karla Borja |Suzanne Dieringer

Department of Economics, The University of

Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Karla Borja, Associate Professor of Economics,

Department of Economics, The University of

Tampa, 401 W. Kennedy Blvd., Box O, Tampa,

FL 33606, USA.

Email: kborja@ut.edu

Prior research has indic ated that low‐income neig hborhoods in urban regi ons

throughout the United Stat es have limited access to heal thy food, which partly

explains the prevalenc e of diet‐related disease s. Our study provides ne w evidence

on the relationship between access, prices of healthy food, and key demographic

factors in Hillsborough County, Florida. The res earch team completed 65 su rveys

of grocery and convenience stores regarding availability and prices of 11 food

items included in the Nutri tion Environment Measu res Survey in Stores (NEMS‐

S). Results from the regression analysis indicate that affordable healthy food is

more likely to be found in gr ocery stores than in conve nience stores. There is n o

significant evidenc e, however, that low‐inco me neighborhoods have l ess access

to healthy food than the n ot‐low‐income ones . We also obser ve significant price

differences among type s of stores but not in grocery‐to‐c onvenience store ratios

among income groups, sug gesting that low‐income families are not e xposed to higher

food prices.

1|INTRODUCTION

Studies have found that urban populations in the United States are at risk

of poor diets (Menifield, Doty, & Fletcher, 2008; Pi‐Sunyer, 2002). This

can be related to personal choices but also t o the socio‐economic attri-

butes of these communities. The distinction between “choice”and “fate”

regarding healthy food is hotly debated among scholars and policymakers.

The discussion has its roots in the neoclassical view of rational choices

versus the socio‐ecological model in which the environment shapes

behaviors. Rather than fostering education on healthy habits and self‐

governing eating decisions, which are the fundamental recommendations

in the neoclassical view, the socio‐ecological view promotes a more direct

influence on individual's decisions by locating the causes of obesity and

other related diseases in the geography of the communities. The differ-

ence between these views has also determined policy development: from

educational programs on healthy choices (neoclassical view) to direct

interventions to modify locations and environments (Booth, Pinkston, &

Poston, 2005; Fiese & Jones, 2012; Shannon, 2014).

Supporting the socio‐ecological view, studies have shown that

low‐income neighborhoods with limited access to grocery stores or

inadequate transportation are less likely to find healthy food retail

outlets at which to do their shopping, thus promoting the

consumption of highly processed and high‐sugar‐content food (Chung

& Myers, 1999; Daepp, 2015). If this is the case, the evidence encour-

ages government programs addressing changes in the environments of

these communities. On the other hand, research has found that

consumers are willing to travel long distances to shop for healthy food,

suggesting that healthy eating habits are a matter of choice rather

than environment (Ghosh‐Dastidar et al., 2014).

Another related issue is whether food prices differ among

neighborhoods. Due to economies of scale and other supply factors,

large grocery stores can offer a greater variety of food items at lower

prices than convenience stores; thus, the type of stores available in a

neighborhood might be a key feature explaining poor food choices.

In this study, we analyze availability, price, and location of grocery

stores and convenience stores and compare these factors among dif-

ferent community groups. More specifically, we test two hypotheses.

First, whether access to regular and healthy foods is associated with

income, ownership of a vehicle, and closeness to a large food retailer.

1

1

We define low‐income neighborhoods as those census tracts with a poverty

rate greater than 20% of total household units. Limited access to a grocery store

is measured by the population living within one mile from the nearest grocery

store or the number of households reporting no access to a vehicle. The infor-

mation regarding these variables is described in Section 3.

Received: 22 November 2017 Revised: 15 August 2018 Accepted: 17 August 2018

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1866

J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1866.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1866

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of14