Reading Reflection 2

BioMed Central

International Journal of Health Geographics

ss

Open AcceResearch The case of Montréal's missing food deserts: Evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets Philippe Apparicio*1, Marie-Soleil Cloutier2,1 and Richard Shearmur1

Address: 1Spatial Analysis and Regional Economics Laboratory, Institut national de la recherche scientifique – Urbanisation, Culture et Société, 385 rue Sherbrooke est, Montréal (Québec), H2X 1E3, Canada and 2Department of Geography, University of Montréal, Pavillon Strathcona, 520 Côte Sainte-Catherine, Outremont (Québec), H2V 2B8, Canada

Email: Philippe Apparicio* - [email protected]; Marie-Soleil Cloutier - [email protected]; Richard Shearmur - [email protected]

* Corresponding author

Abstract Background: Access to varied, healthy and inexpensive foods is an important public health concern that has been widely documented. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in identifying food deserts, that is, socially deprived areas within cities that have poor access to food retailers. In this paper we propose a methodology based on three measures of accessibility to supermarkets calculated using geographic information systems (GIS), and on exploratory multivariate statistical analysis (hierarchical cluster analysis), which we use to identify food deserts in Montréal.

Results: First, the use of three measures of accessibility to supermarkets is very helpful in identifying food deserts according to several dimensions: proximity (distance to the nearest supermarket), diversity (number of supermarkets within a distance of less than 1000 metres) and variety in terms of food and prices (average distance to the three closest different chain-name supermarkets).

Next, the cluster analysis applied to the three measures of accessibility to supermarkets and to a social deprivation index demonstrates that there are very few problematic food deserts in Montréal. In fact, census tracts classified as socially deprived and with low accessibility to supermarkets are, on average, 816 metres away from the nearest supermarket and within 1.34 kilometres of three different chain-name supermarkets.

Conclusion: We conclude that food deserts do not represent a major problem in Montréal. Since geographic accessibility to healthy food is not a major issue in Montréal, prevention efforts should be directed toward the understanding of other mechanisms leading to an unhealthy diet, rather than attempting to promote an even spatial distribution of supermarkets.

Background Since the mid-1990s there has been an increasing inter- est–particularly in Britain–in identifying areas within cit- ies that have poor access to basic retail services and, more

specifically, to food retailers [1]. Such areas are known as food deserts, a concept defined by the UK Low Income Project Team as "areas of relative exclusion where people experience physical and economic barriers to accessing

Published: 12 February 2007

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 doi:10.1186/1476-072X-6-4

Received: 4 October 2006 Accepted: 12 February 2007

This article is available from: http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

© 2007 Apparicio et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Page 1 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

healthy food" [2](p.138). These barriers are often linked to spaces of poverty, in part because some people in these areas have little mobility, whether this be short-term (no access to a car) or long-term mobility (lack of choice of residence due to lack of means). The absence of supermar- kets in some spaces of poverty would therefore suggest that low income families without a car will tend to shop in small local shops that often sell a smaller variety of foods, and at higher prices [3,4]. In other words, people's dietary choices may be influenced by the availability and type of food stores [5,6]. Implications of such associations for public policies lie in the relationship between poor access to healthy, varied and affordable food and poor health, even after controlling for individual socioeco- nomic factors [7,8]. This relationship, often seen in US cit- ies, contributes to inequalities in health and may exacerbate equity and public health issues linked to soci- oeconomic deprivation [4,9,10]. Moreover, living under food insecurity has socio-familial (modified eating pat- terns, disrupted household dynamics) and psychological consequences (distress, guilt), no matter what the primary source of this insecurity may be: physical inaccessibility or monetary constraints, for example [11,12].

The interest in identifying and describing food deserts recently peaked with a special issue of Urban Studies devoted to "Food Deserts in British Cities" (October 2002). However, there is no clear agreement on what measures are relevant in identifying food deserts, which is contributing lately to debate about their actual existence, especially in the UK [13,14]. Notwithstanding this, there are few quantitative studies that focus on the identifica- tion and description of food deserts. Methodology for such research is often based on a single, relatively simple accessibility measure such as the number (or proportion/ ratio per area or per population) of food retailers in a neighbourhood [3,5,15,16], the number of food retailers within a radius of n metres [17,18], or the minimum dis- tance to the nearest food retailers [8]. Other research has improved various aspects of the way in which access to food is measured by developing more complex methodol- ogies that include different and combined measures [19,20]. Recently as well, a series of exploratory analyses that refine measures of spatial accessibility to urban serv- ices and amenities un general have been published by urban planners and geographers [21-29].

In this paper we develop, apply and assess a more refined methodology for the identification of food deserts through geographic accessibility measures. We argue that since each accessibility measure corresponds to a different dimension of the food desert concept, no single measure can fully describe accessibility to food retailers. Conse- quently, three different accessibility measures are explored in the context of Montréal. The approach is

based on spatial analytical techniques in a GIS environ- ment and on multi-dimensional exploratory data analy- sis. The objective of this paper is to verify the presence of food deserts in Montréal, since, as mentioned by Smoyer- Tomic et al. [20], "Canada shares some similarities with the US and UK, yet its geographic, demographic, political and economic characteristics suggest that in terms of food access, its experience may be unique."

Data Study area This study focuses on the Island of Montréal which has 1.8 million inhabitants and is part of the Montréal census metropolitan area (CMA), which in turn has a population of about 3.4 millions. Social deprivation is an important concern in Montréal since, in 2000, 29% of its population lived under the low income thresholds defined by Statis- tics Canada. Consequently, accessibility to services and facilities, and in particular to healthy food, is an impor- tant social equity issue.

Supermarket data Supermarkets were defined as grocery stores associated with one of the seven major chains in Quebec: IGA, Inter- marché, Loblaws, Maxi, Métro, Provigo and Super C. Information on their locations was gathered in June 2004 from a yellow pages directory and from the different chains' web sites. Addresses and affiliation were con- firmed by telephoning the stores. In total, 167 supermar- kets were integrated within a geographic information system (ArcGis) by geocoding addresses. Only the above- mentioned affiliated supermarkets were retained for two reasons: 1) they represent a type of food retailer where the variety of products is greater and the pricing more compet- itive than in small grocery shops [8]; and 2) in Montréal, supermarkets represent approximately 24% of food retail outlets but 80% of food sales [3]. Morland et al. [5] also reported in 2002 that supermarkets had between two and four times the average number of "heart-healthy" foods compared with neighbourhood grocery and convenience stores. The choice to take into account the geographic position of supermarkets but not their characteristics could be considered as a limitation in our study. In fact, supermarkets can vary greatly in terms of floor areas and quality of products but these variables are not taken into account in our accessibility measures, and neither are potential qualitative data related to purchasing behaviour.

Low income population data and social deprivation index In order to relate supermarket accessibility and depriva- tion, two variables were used at the census tract level: low income population and a social deprivation index. The first variable identifies the population belonging to low income households. These people allot 20% more than the rest of Canadian households to three basic needs:

Page 2 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

housing, food and clothing [30]. This variable refers to the relative deprivation concept introduced by Townsend [31], where deprivation is present when living conditions are below those of the majority in a given population.

However, to evaluate urban deprivation at the census tract level, the use of a single variable such as low income pop- ulation is not enough. Social deprivation is also associ- ated with other individual characteristics identified as factors contributing to deprivation or dimensions of dep- rivation, such as, for example: belonging to a lone-parent family, unemployment, low level of schooling or recent immigration [30,32,33]. Consequently, a status of depri- vation cannot be related to one characteristic alone, but more often to an accumulation of many. Therefore, to characterize the distribution of social deprivation across the Island of Montréal, a social deprivation index was cal- culated based on five types of populations that are usually associated with poverty.

The index represents the sum of five variables collected at the census tract level and standardized on a 0 to 1 scale: i) the percentage of people with low incomes relative to the total population; ii) the percentage of lone-parent fami-

lies relative to the total number of families; iii) the unem- ployment rate; iv) the percentage of individuals over the age of 20 with no more than Grade 9 education; and v) the percentage of recent immigrants (immigrants who had arrived between 1996 and 2001) relative to the total population (Table 1). The deprivation index can vary between 0 (minimum deprivation) and 5 (maximum deprivation). As we might expect, these five variables are positively intercorrelated, but the fact that they are all included in one index allows us to locate census tracts where there is an accumulation of more than one variable relating to deprivation (see Table 2). It is also important to mention that the percentage of recent immigrants was included in the index because recent studies have shown a significant relation between urban poverty and immi- gration in Canada [30,34-36].

In this study, the use of the two variables – low income and deprivation index – meets two different objectives. Firstly, the low income population variable allows us to verify whether or not poor people have good accessibility to supermarkets compared with the rest of the population. Secondly, the social deprivation index enables us to relate deprivation and accessibility for each census tract and to

Table 2: Pearson correlations for social deprivation variables in census tracts on the Island of Montréal

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) Low income population (%) 1.000 (b) Lone-parent families (%) 0.677* 1.000 (c) Unemployment rate 0.760* 0.498* 1.000 (d) Adults with low level of schooling (%) 0.492* 0.522* 0.420* 1.000 (e) Recent immigrants (%) 0.489* 0.083 0.502* -0.025 1.000

* significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of social deprivation variables in census tracts on the Island of Montréal

Low income population (%)

Lone-parent families (%)

Unemployment rate

Adults with low level of

schooling (%)

Recent Immigrants (%)

Social deprivation

index

Mean 29.98 21.38 9.46 14.63 5.20 1.56 Std deviation 14.27 7.84 4.55 8.46 4.68 0.61 CV* 0.48 0.37 0.48 0.58 0.90 0.39 Skewness 0.36 0.32 2.07 0.26 1.89 0.29 Kurtosis -0.12 0.54 10.96 -0.75 3.91 0.09 Minimum 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 Maximum 82.64 51.28 47.44 37.05 25.79 3.90 Percentiles

5% 8.08 8.73 3.96 1.90 0.53 0.59 10% 11.44 11.33 4.92 3.31 1.02 0.75 25% Q1 19.68 16.01 6.59 7.54 2.11 1.16 50% Median 28.70 21.23 8.56 14.23 3.85 1.55 75% Q3 39.81 26.25 11.67 20.99 6.49 1.94 90% 49.90 31.27 14.99 26.28 10.75 2.32 95% 53.78 35.19 16.99 28.71 16.11 2.68

* Coefficient of variation.

Page 3 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

thus identify food deserts, that is, urban spaces where dep- rivation is high and accessibility is low.

Methods and data analysis Measuring accessibility to supermarkets Although not often applied in the context of food deserts, the evaluation of accessibility to urban amenities (schools, green spaces, etc.) has been conducted using methodologies relying on rigorously defined accessibility measures calculated within geographic information sys- tems (GIS) [23,24,26,37-39].

The most commonly used measures of accessibility found in the literature are the gravity model, the mean distance to all services, the distance to the closest service and the mean distance to all the services included within an n metre radius [22,24,26,40,41]. Talen and Anselin [24] and Talen [41] have shown that the choice of the accessi- bility measure is fundamental since, with a given set of data, accessibility varies depending on the indicator used. Consequently, we believe that using only one measure provides a poor description of a given population's acces- sibility to a particular service: on the other hand, using

several different measures allows one to adequately describe the complexity of a population's accessibility to a service.

Three different measures of accessibility are retained here: distance to the closest supermarket (Equation 1), in order to evaluate immediate proximity; number of supermar- kets within a walkable distance of less than 1000 metres (approximately a 15-minute walk for an adult in an urban setting) [42] (Equation 2), in order to evaluate the diver- sity provided by the immediate surroundings; and mean distance to three supermarkets belonging to different companies (Equation 3), in order to evaluate access to variety in terms of both products and prices. This last measure is based on the hypothesis that different super- market companies have numerous brands for the same product and a range of retail and discount prices, thus increasing the variety of choice for customers.

To better account for the spatial distribution of popula- tion (that is, to minimize aggregation error [25]), and not- withstanding the fact that our analysis is at the census tract (CT) level, the three accessibility measures were calculated

Spatial distribution of low income population and social deprivation index on the Island of Montréal, 2001Figure 1 Spatial distribution of low income population and social deprivation index on the Island of Montréal, 2001.

Page 4 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

from the centroid of blocks. Then, to obtain accessibility data at the CT level, we calculate the population-weighted average measure of blocks within each CT's boundaries:

Where:

= mean distance between census tract and nearest

supermarket.

dbs = distance between block centroid and supermarket s.

wb = total population of block b (entirely included in cen- sus tract i).

Where:

= mean number of supermarkets within 1000 m of

census tract population.

S = all supermarkets.

Sj = number of supermarkets within 1000 m of the block centroid (dbs < 1000).

wb = total population of block b (entirely included in cen- sus tract i).

Where:

= mean distance between census tract population and

n different chain-name supermarkets.

dbs = distance between block centroid and supermarket s; dbs is sorted in ascending order.

n = number of different chain-name supermarkets to be included in measure (here n = 3).

wb = total population of block b (entirely included in cen- sus tract i).

The three accessibility measures are calculated using the shortest network distance, which closely corresponds to the shortest path for going to a supermarket on foot. Net- work distances are based on CanMap Streetfiles from DMTI [43] and are computed with the Network Analyst extension of ArcView 3.3 [44].

Linking low income population, level of social deprivation and accessibility to supermarkets After having identified socially deprived areas and areas with high and low levels of accessibility to food retailers in Montréal, we used an empirical approach to study the link between accessibility and a neighbourhood's socioe- conomic status. Three different approaches are used to explore this link across the 506 census tracts: (1) calcula- tion of population-weighted descriptive accessibility sta- tistics, in order to compare low income people's accessibility to supermarkets relative to the rest of the pop- ulation, (2) calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients to explore the statistical significance of the link between social deprivation and supermarket accessibility, and finally, (3) computation of a hierarchical cluster analysis [45] to classify and characterize census tracts in different groups of CTs with similar levels of social deprivation and accessibility. In this last exploratory step, it should be pos- sible to identify potential food deserts, that is, CTs which combine social deprivation with low accessibility to supermarkets, but it will also be possible to point out deprived areas with good accessibility. The objective of the hierarchical cluster analysis is not only to locate food

Z

w d

w i a

b bs b i

b b i

(min )

,∈

∈

∑ ∑

( )Equation 1

Zi a

Z

w S

w i b

b b i

j j S

b b i

= ( )∈ ∈

∈

∑ ∑

∑ , Equation 2

Zi b

Z

w d n

w i c

b b i

bs

s

b b i

= ( )∈

∈

∑ ∑ ∑

, Equation 3

Zi c

Table 3: Spatial autocorrelation statistics for social accessibility measures

Moran's I * z-score

Nearest supermarket (in metres) 0.54 21.68 Number of supermarkets within 1000 metres 0.72 28.36 Average distance to three closest different chain-name supermarkets (in metres) 0.63 25.37

* calculated with a queen binary connectivity matrix (1 where census tracts i and j are contiguous; 0 otherwise).

Page 5 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

deserts but also to categorize all CTs in terms of depriva- tion and accessibility.

Results Mapping low income population and social deprivation In Montréal, low income people live mostly in the centre of the island and in the close periphery surrounding the CBD, while they are almost absent in far eastern and west- ern boroughs (Figure 1a). Mapping the social deprivation index for the year 2001 confirms past analyses of the dis- tribution of poverty within the agglomeration (CMA) of Montréal at the census tract level (Figure 1b). Indeed,

whatever the method used, whether mapping low income populations [46,47], using a deprivation index [48,49], or performing factor analysis on various socioeconomic indicators [50,51], the results are similar: the most socially deprived census tracts are located within the City of Montréal (see Figure 1 for municipality locations), and specifically in the south of Mercier-Hochelaga-Maison- neuve (district 7), across most of Sud-Ouest (district 16), to the north and southeast of Côte-des-Neiges-Notre- Dame-de-Grâce (district 3), across most of Villeray-Saint- Michel-Parc-Extension (district 19) and to the north and east of Ville-Marie (district 18).

Spatial distribution of supermarket accessibility measures on the Island of Montréal, 2001Figure 2 Spatial distribution of supermarket accessibility measures on the Island of Montréal, 2001.

Page 6 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

Mapping the three measures of accessibility Mapping the three accessibility measures results in two main observations (Figures 2b, 2c and 2d). Overall, acces- sibility to supermarkets decreases as one moves out from central neighbourhoods to peripheral areas. This observa- tion is particularly striking for two of the measures: number of supermarkets within a 1000 metre radius (diversity measure) and mean distance to the three closest different chain-name supermarkets (variety measure) (Figures 2c and 2d). In fact, spatial autocorrelation statis- tics are higher for these two measures: Moran's I [52,53] values are higher at 0.72 and 0.63 as opposed to 0.54 for the nearest supermarket indicator (Table 3). This implies that, for this last measure where Moran's I is lower, areas with similar values are less clustered in space.

Indeed, there are isolated census tracts in peripheral dis- tricts of the City of Montréal that have good accessibility to one supermarket (less than 500 metres, Figure 2a). This leads to a second observation: in peripheral areas, good accessibility tends to be synonymous with proximity to a single supermarket (good proximity), whereas in central areas, good accessibility is associated with the presence of several different supermarkets in the immediate sur- roundings (good diversity and variety).

Relating low income population, social deprivation and accessibility measures Level of accessibility for the low income population: some weighted descriptive statistics Before mapping out food deserts at the intra-urban level, one needs to verify whether or not the low income popu- lation has good access to supermarkets, compared with the rest of the population. To do this, we computed pop- ulation-weighted descriptive statistics for each accessibil- ity measure (Table 4). These statistics demonstrate that the low income population in fact has better accessibility than the rest of the population. The statistics also show that for low income people, accessibility to supermarkets does not seem to be a problem: 50% of low income indi- viduals live less than 683 metres from a supermarket and 75% of them live less than 947 metres away (see median and Q3 in Table 4).

Relation between social deprivation and accessibility measures: correlation analysis Even though descriptive statistics suggest that the low income population has better access to supermarkets, is there a statistically significant link between social depriva- tion and people's accessibility to supermarkets in Mon- tréal? Again, values of the Pearson coefficients of correlation between accessibility and social deprivation show that socially deprived CTs have significantly better access to supermarkets (Table 5), but these values are rel- atively weak (between -0.5 and 0.5). These results reflect

the fact that all of these variables display high levels of var- iability across CTs; they can also mean that socially deprived areas with good (bad) accessibility coexist with non-deprived areas with good (bad) accessibility. It is the deprived and inaccessible areas that need to be identified, since it is people in these areas who may be negatively affected by the lack of accessibility to supermarkets. In order to explore this, hierarchical cluster analysis [45] was performed on the 506 CTs, in classifying each CT accord- ing to its three accessibility measures and its deprivation index. In this way, we could identify groups of CTs with similar profiles of accessibility and deprivation, which could then be analyzed in order to ascertain whether there were any combinations that could be interpreted as food deserts. From a methodological perspective it could be argued that undue weight is given to accessibility in this cluster analysis, since it covers three accessibility measures but only one social deprivation measure. Given that the focus of the study is to explore the different dimensions of accessibility, and that the results of the weighted cluster analysis (reducing the weight of each accessibility meas- ure to 1/3) are similar to those presented, we have chosen to retain the unweighted results.

A typology of census tracts according to levels of social deprivation and measures of accessibility to supermarkets: cluster analysis Eight types of CTs are identified from the cluster analysis (Figure 3). Most of the CTs classified in A, B and C are located in the western and eastern parts of the Island of Montréal; they represent typical suburban areas with very low levels of social deprivation and also very low levels of accessibility to supermarkets. For example, the population living in the type-B CTs is on average 5.5 kilometres away from the nearest supermarket, and the average distance to the three closest different chain-name supermarkets is 8 kilometres. However, this very low accessibility is not problematic, since it can be assumed that most of the res- ident population has chosen to live there and has access to a car for food shopping.

CTs of the next three types (D, E, F) are characterized by low levels of social deprivation, but also by different levels of accessibility (Figures 3 and 4). The highest level of accessibility is observed in type E, which includes 36 CTs located in central, gentrified neighbourhoods such as Pla- teau-Mont-Royal. On average, the population living in these CTs is 422 metres away from the nearest supermar- ket (very good proximity), has 3.44 supermarkets within a 1000 metre radius (very good diversity), and is on aver- age 751 metres away from three different chain-name supermarkets (very good variety).

The last two types, or classes, are rather socially deprived CTs (classes G and H, Figures 3 and 4). As in the previ- ously described class E, CTs in class G have high levels of

Page 7 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

accessibility over all three dimensions–proximity, diver- sity and variety (Figure 4). On the other hand, the 82 class-H CTs are potentially problematic, with a high level of social deprivation and a low level of accessibility to supermarkets. These CTs, which are potential food deserts, are located in Montréal-Nord (district 8), in Saint- Michel and Parc-Extension (district 19), in the Sud-Ouest (district 16) and in the boroughs of Côte-des-Neiges (dis- trict 3), Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Ville-Marie (dis- tricts 7 and 18) (Figure 3). The problematic nature of these CTs ought, however, to be relativized. On average, the population located in these CTs is 816 metres away from the nearest supermarket, that is, about a 10-minute walk, and the average distance to the three closest differ- ent chain-name supermarkets is 1340 metres. Although it can be difficult for older people or people with a lot of shopping bags to travel these distances, they are still rea- sonable from a typical adult point of view. In fact, they do not differ greatly from the distances observed in the clus- ters considered to have the best accessibility to supermar- kets (for example, type E: 422 metres to the nearest supermarket and 751 metres to the three closest chain supermarkets; and type G: 491 metres and 915 metres

respectively). In fact, the main characteristic of type-H census tracts is that they have fewer supermarkets in their immediate vicinity (on average 0.89 within a 1000 metre radius).

If we look at the proportion of the total population resid- ing in the eight types of CTs identified (Table 6), we can see that 58.41% of Island of Montréal inhabitants live in spaces with very low or low accessibility to supermarkets (classes A, B, C, F and H), and that 17.18% of these also live in potential food deserts, that is, spaces that are both socially deprived and with low accessibility to supermar- kets (class H). A more reassuring observation is that 15.57% of the population living in spaces of deprivation nevertheless benefits from good accessibility to supermar- kets (class G).

Discussion From a methodological viewpoint, three different accessi- bility measures using the shortest network distance were calculated: nearest supermarket (proximity), number of supermarkets within 1000 metres (diversity), and average distance to the three closest different chain-name super-

Table 4: Descriptive statistics for accessibility measures weighted by populations

Nearest supermarket (in metres)

Number of supermarkets within 1000 metres

Average distance to three closest different chain-name

supermarkets (in metres)

Weight: Low income population

Mean 792.99 1.28 1360.84 Std deviation 14279.38 28.91 19794.74

Coef. of variation 18.01 22.51 14.55 Percentiles

5% 335.59 0.00 716.66 10% 378.37 0.20 804.47

25% Q1 519.93 0.62 1010.81 50% Median 682.90 1.07 1227.00

75% Q3 946.93 1.86 1509.37 90% 1254.99 2.51 2114.87 95% 1619.21 2.92 2540.54

Weight: No low income population

Mean 994.92 1.04 1617.33 Std deviation 33098.02 44.73 42143.97

Coef. of variation 33.27 43.18 26.06 Percentiles

5% 351.58 0.00 763.68 10% 439.02 0.00 883.39

25% Q1 574.08 0.34 1097.31 50% Median 838.89 0.90 1386.49

75% Q3 1135.15 1.46 1883.18 90% 1751.91 2.25 2727.93 95% 2284.80 2.84 2996.09

Page 8 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

markets (variety). Our analysis of these three indicators has shown that the use of several accessibility measures provides different results for each census tract. For instance, a tract may show accessibility in terms of prox- imity, but may show inaccessibility in terms of variety and diversity. Consequently, our results emphasize the fact that it is important to identify food deserts using more than one indicator: furthermore, it is useful to analyze these indicators separately, since each one measures a dif- ferent dimension of food deserts.

The empirical results for Montréal demonstrate the useful- ness of this approach, and prompt two observations. Firstly, there are very few problematic food deserts on the Island of Montréal: this is in keeping with the results of Cummins and Macintyre for Glasgow [15] and Smoyer- Tomic et al. for Edmonton [20]. In Montréal, those tracts classified as deprived and with low accessibility to super- markets are, on average, 816 metres away from the nearest supermarket, and within 1.34 kilometres of three different chain-name supermarkets. These "potential food deserts" are mostly isolated cases and do not represent a city-wide public health issue. Although six inhabitants out of ten have low accessibility to supermarkets (58.41%), less than

two out of ten live in areas that are defined both as poor and as food deserts (17.18%).

The second and related observation is that accessibility to supermarkets decreases as one moves from central areas to peripheral neighbourhoods. This mirrors the tendency for incomes to increase along the same dimension [54], and is not surprising: it reflects the tendency for suburban development to be less dense, and preferred by middle income families, which generally have no problem access- ing motorized transport. This suggests that supermarket providers in Montréal are responsive to the mobility of the local population and to population densities: low density and highly motorized areas tend to have fewer (but one presumes larger) supermarkets, whereas the more central – denser and less motorized – areas have more (but one presumes somewhat smaller) supermar- kets. Although this spatial distribution of supermarkets does not pose problems at this time, issues may arise in suburban areas with low accessibility to supermarkets as the suburban population ages and loses mobility. Finally, it is worth noting that good accessibility in some subur- ban areas tends to involve proximity to a single supermar- ket, while in central areas it involves the presence of

Table 6: Total and low income populations living in the eight types of CTs identified according to social deprivation and accessibility to supermarkets

Total population Low income population Class Level of social

deprivation Level of accessibility to supermarkets

N % N % ▼ % Ј

A Very low Very low 65312 3.61 5405 1.05 8.46 B Very low Very low 6032 0.33 845 0.16 15.53 C Very low Very low 390386 21.58 58705 11.43 15.32

D Low High 386785 21.38 94090 18.31 24.83 E Low Very High 84029 4.65 26290 5.12 32.11 F Low Low 283997 15.70 76270 14.85 27.62

G High Very High 281576 15.57 110925 21.59 40.03 H (food deserts)

High Low 310754 17.18 141235 27.49 46.46

Total 1808871 100.00 513765 100.00 29.01

Table 5: Pearson correlations between accessibility measures and social deprivation index

Accessibility measure Social deprivation index

Nearest supermarket -0.426 Number of supermarkets within 1000 metres 0.285 Average distance to three closest different chain-name supermarkets -0.425

Note: all values are significant at p < 0.001 level

Page 9 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

several different chain-name supermarkets in the immedi- ate vicinity.

Conclusion It has been argued that identifying deprived areas with poor accessibility to food retailers is an important public health concern. Yet, we have shown that the identification of food deserts across a large city or metropolitan area is not straightforward for a variety of reasons. The accessibil- ity measures used in this study cover three different dimensions of accessibility to food, but they are all based on geographic distance. However, recent studies increas- ingly demonstrate that access to food can be limited by several constraints, some of which are far more complex than geographic accessibility [9,13,14]. Social and cul- tural norms, physical disability, economic assets or atti- tude toward and knowledge about food and cooking are a few examples of non-geographic barriers to accessing good food. The existence of such barriers makes it difficult to evaluate the consequences of a geographic food desert in a community.

Even from a purely geographic perspective, supermarkets are not the only food retailers where good and healthy food can be bought. Without being unduly optimistic, other food retailers such as fruit and vegetable shops, spe- cialty stores (butcher, fishmonger) and ethnic grocery shops may be present in deprived areas with poor accessi- bility to supermarkets. It is possible that purchases at these various small stores offer a range of healthy food products. The presence of smaller or independent grocery shops could thus fill the gap caused by the absence of supermarkets. Moreover, there can be differences in food availability, quality and in the price of products in these different types of food retailers aside from the supermar- kets themselves. For example, Cummins and Macintyre [6] found that prices are up to four times lower in the cheapest stores compared with the most expensive retail- ers for a "range of foodstuffs comprising a modest but adequate diet." Since Montréal has not experienced the supermarket "redlining" of poorer districts seen elsewhere in the world, observations suggest that the numerous eth- nic food shops may make a difference in multiethnic neighbourhoods such as Parc-Extension and Côte-des- Neiges. In other areas, such as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Saint-Henri, the paucity of alternative grocery stores apparently reinforces the existence of potential food deserts.

Conversely, geographic access to good food, while no doubt an enabling factor for a good diet, is by no means a guarantee. In fact, studies seem to be contradictory on this point: some find an association between supermarket proximity and better-quality diet and purchases [8,9], while others find no such relationship [55-57]. Now that

there is a wide range of descriptive studies in the interna- tional literature on the presence (or absence) of food deserts, there is a need to improve our understanding of such a relationship between local environments, purchas- ing and diet behaviours and the local population's health status. This link, while often mentioned in the literature, is not well documented. Future studies in this regard will reinforce the potential to bring new and useful knowledge to this field.

Finally, since geographic accessibility to healthy food is not a major issue for most people in Montréal, research and prevention efforts in this urban area should be directed toward understanding other factors that can lead to an unhealthy diet. As Wrigley [4] pointed out, there is a need to understand, at the household and individual level, the experience of food retail access, regardless of whether it is poor or not, through detailed fieldwork including, for example, the obtaining of data on self- reported health status, mobility, accessibility or even cop-

Typology of census tracts on the basis of a social deprivation index and measures of accessibility to supermarkets on the Island of Montréal, 2001Figure 3 Typology of census tracts on the basis of a social deprivation index and measures of accessibility to supermarkets on the Island of Montréal, 2001.

Page 10 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

Page 11 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

Boxplot of social deprivation and accessibility measures for classes of census tracts (see Figure 3)Figure 4 Boxplot of social deprivation and accessibility measures for classes of census tracts (see Figure 3).

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

ing mechanisms. Such research could also investigate the potential effects of a change in the foodscape on the resi- dents' purchasing and diet behaviours as well as on their health. Policy interventions based on these results would then be able to more effectively improve the diet and health of urban residents.

Competing interests The author(s) declare that they have no competing inter- ests.

Authors' contributions PA is the principal investigator of the study. He carried out the GIS, statistical and mapping analyses. MSC reviewed the literature and wrote parts of the paper. All authors jointly drafted and critically revised the paper, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the original version of this paper. The study has been funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

References 1. Beaumont J, Lang T, Leather S, Mucklow C: Report from the policy

sub-group to the nutrition task force low income project team of the Department of health. Radlett , Institute of Grocery Distribution; 1995.

2. Reisig V, Hobbiss A: Food deserts and how to tackle item: A study of one city's approach. Health Education Journal 2000, 59:137-149.

3. Bertrand L: Les inégalités sociales de l’alimentation à Mon- tréal. In Colloque annuel de l'OMISS (Observatoire montréalais des iné- galités sociales de santé) Montréal, Canada ; 2002.

4. Wrigley N: Food deserts in British cities: Policy context and research priorities. Urban Stud 2002, 39(11):2029-2040.

5. Morland K, Wing S, Roux AD, Poole C: Neighborhood character- istics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med 2002, 22(1):23-29.

6. Cummins S, Macintyre S: A systematic study of an urban food- scape: The price and availability of food in Greater Glasgow. Urban Stud 2002, 39(11):2115-2130.

7. Eisenhauer E: In poor health: Supermarket redlining and urban nutrition. GeoJournal 2001, 53:125-133.

8. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Israel BA, James SA, Bao S, Wilson ML: Neigh- borhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health 2005, 95(4):660-667.

9. Wrigley N, Warm D, Margetts B: Deprivation, diet, and food- retail access: findings from the Leeds 'food deserts' study. Environ Plan A 2003, 35(1):151-188.

10. Cummins S, Macintyre S: Food environments and obesity - neighbourhood or nation? International Journal of Epidemiology 2005, 35:100-104.

11. Hamelin AM, Beaudry M, Habicht JP: Characterization of house- hold food insecurity in Quebec: food and feelings. Social Sci- ence and Medicine 2002, 54:119-132.

12. Whelan A, Wrigley N, Warm D, Cannings E: Life in a 'Food Desert'. Urban Stud 2002, 39(11):2083-2100.

13. Cummins S, Macintyre S: Food deserts: Evidence and assump- tion in health policy making. BMJ 2002, 325(7361):436-438.

14. Shaw HJ: Food deserts: Towards the development of a classi- fication. Geogr Ann Ser B-Human Geogr 2006, 88B(2):231-247.

15. Cummins S, Macintyre S: The location of food stores in urban areas: A case study in Glasgow. British Food Journal 1999, 101(7):545-553.

16. Moore LV, Diez Roux AV: Associations of neighborhood char- acteristics with the location and type of food stores. American Journal of Public Health 2006, 96(2):325-331.

17. Donkin AJ, Dowler EA, Stevenson SJ, Turner SA: Mapping access to food at a local level. British Food Journal 1999, 101(7):554-564.

18. Donkin AJ, Dowler EA, Stevenson SJ, Turner SA: Mapping access to food in a deprived area: The development of price and availability indices. Public Health Nutrition 2000, 3(1):31-38.

19. Clarke G, Eyre H, Guy C: Deriving indicators of access to food retail provision in British cities: Studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford. Urban Stud 2002, 39(11):2041-2060.

20. Smoyer-Tomic KE, Spence JC, Amrhein C: Food deserts in the prairies? Supermarket accessibility and neighborhood need in Edmonton, Canada. Prof Geogr 2006, 58(3):307-326.

21. Truelove M: Measurement of spatial equity. Environment and Planning C - Government and Policy 1993, 11(1):19-34.

22. Handy SL, Niemeier DA: Measuring accessibility: An explora- tion of issues and alternatives. Environ Plan A 1997, 29(7):1175-1194.

23. Talen E: The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography 1997, 18(6):521-541.

24. Talen E, Anselin L: Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environ Plan A 1998, 30(4):595-613.

25. Hewko J, Smoyer-Tomic KE, Hodgson MJ: Measuring neighbour- hood spatial accessibility to urban amenities: Does aggrega- tion error matter? Environ Plan A 2002, 34(7):1185-1206.

26. Witten K, Exeter D, Field A: The quality of urban environments: Mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban Stud 2003, 40(1):161-177.

27. Apparicio P, Shearmur R, Brochu M, Dussault G: The measure of distance in a social science policy context: Advantages and costs of using network distances in eight Canadian Metropol- itan Areas. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 2003, 7(2):105-131.

28. Ottensmann JR: Evaluating equity in service delivery in library branches. Journal of Urban Affairs 1994, 16(2):109-123.

29. Apparicio P, Seguin AM: Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for residents of public housing in Montreal. Urban Stud 2006, 43(1):187-211.

30. Heisz A, McLeod L: Low income in Census Metropolitan Areas, 1980-2000. Statistics Canada; 2004.

31. Townsend P: The international analysis of poverty. New York , Harvester/Wheatsheaf; 1993.

32. Greene R: Poverty concentration measures and the urban underclass. Economic Geography 1991, 67(3):240-252.

33. Wacquant LJD, Wilson WJ: The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner-city. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1989, 501:8-25.

34. Kazemipur A, Halli S: Plight of immigrants: The spatial concen- tration of poverty in Canada. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 1997, 20(1-2):217-238.

35. Ley D, Smith H: Relations between deprivation and immigrant groups in large Canadian cities. Urban Stud 2000, 37(1):37-62.

36. Picot G, Hou F: The rise in low-income rates among immi- grants in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2003.

37. Talen E: School, community, and spatial equity: An empirical investigation of access to elementary schools in West Vir- ginia. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2001, 91(3):465-486.

38. Lindsey G, Maraj M, Kuan S: Access, equity, and urban green- ways: An exploratory investigation. Prof Geogr 2001, 53(3):332-346.

39. Smoyer-Tomic KE, Hewko JN, Hodgson MJ: Spatial accessibility and equity of playgrounds in Edmonton, Canada. Can Geogr- Geogr Can 2004, 48(3):287-302.

40. Cervero R, Rood T, Appleyard B: Tracking accessibility: Employ- ment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco Bay area. Environ Plan A 1999, 31(7):1259-1278.

41. Talen E: Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association 1998, 64(1):22-38.

42. Apparicio P, Séguin AM: L’accessibilité aux services et aux équipements : Un enjeu d’équité pour les personnes âgées résidant en HLM à Montréal . Cahiers de géographie du Québec 2006, 50(139):23-44.

Page 12 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)

International Journal of Health Geographics 2007, 6:4 http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/4

Publish with BioMed Central and every scientist can read your work free of charge

"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for disseminating the results of biomedical researc h in our lifetime."

Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

available free of charge to the entire biomedical community

peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance

cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central

yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

BioMedcentral

43. DMTI Spatial: CanMap® Streetfiles. Markham , DMTI Spatial inc.; 2005.

44. ESRI: ArcView network analyst: Optimum routing, closest facility and service area analysis. Redlands , Environmental Sys- tems Research Institute inc.; 1996.

45. Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M: Cluster analysis. London , Edward Arnold; 1997.

46. Séguin AM: Les espaces de pauvreté. In Montréal 2001 : visages et défis d'une métropole Edited by: Manzagol C, Bryant CR. Montréal , Presses de l'Université de Montréal; 1998:xiv, 356.

47. Drouilly P: L'espace social de Montréal, 1951-1991. Sillery, QC , Septentrion; 1996:349.

48. Grégoire G, Sénécal G, Archambault J, Vachon N, Pelosse M, Mon- geau J: Atlas – Région de Montréal – Premières explorations. Montréal , INRS-Urbanisation; 1999.

49. Langlois A, Kitchen P: Identifying and measuring dimensions of urban deprivation in Montreal: An analysis of the 1996 cen- sus data. Urban Stud 2001, 38(1):119-139.

50. Le Bourdais C, Beaudry M: The changing residential structure of Montreal, 1971-1981. The Canadian Geographer 1988, 32:98-113.

51. Mayer-Renaud M, Renaud J: La distribution de la pauvreté et de la richesse dans la région de Montréal en 1989: Une mise à jour. Montréal , Centre des services sociaux du Montréal métropol- itain; 1989.

52. Bailey TC, Gatrell AC: Interactive spatial data analysis. New York , J. Wiley: Longman Scientific & Technical; 1995.

53. Lee J, Wong DWS: Statistical analysis with ArcView GIS. New York , John Wiley & Sons; 2001.

54. Shearmur R, Charron M: From Chicago to LA and back again: A Chicago-inspired quantitative analysis of income distribu- tion in Montreal. Prof Geogr 2004, 56(1):109-126.

55. Pearson T, Russell J, Campbell MJ, Barker ME: Do 'food deserts' influence fruit and vegetable consumption? A cross-sectional study. Appetite 2005, 45(2):195-197.

56. Turrell G, Blakely T, Patterson C, Oldenburg B: A multilevel anal- ysis of socioeconomic (small area) differences in household food purchasing behaviour. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58(3):208-215.

57. 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. UK , Food Standards Agency; 2004.

Page 13 of 13 (page number not for citation purposes)