4.4 Article

Food deserts: is it only about a limited access?

期刊

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
卷 119, 期 7, 页码 1495-1510

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-09-2016-0407

关键词

Food marketing; Distribution; Food deserts; Purchase factors; Retail sale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - Previous research has extensively examined food deserts, where access to healthy food is limited. However, little is known of the buying behavior at the individual household level in terms of buying habits and consumption in these areas. The purpose of this paper is to determine to what extent other factors than access can account for the purchase of healthy food products, namely, fruits and vegetables. Design/methodology/approach - This paper proposes to partially fill this gap through a qualitative (n = 55) and quantitative (n = 512) study of those people who are in charge of their household purchases in two food deserts in the city of Montreal. Findings - Results show that geographical access to supermarkets is not the main factor fostering the purchase of healthy foods (fruits and vegetables). Indeed, food education (e.g. information, simple recipes, cooking classes), associated with a changing mediation process through product diversification (e.g. availability of local products in bulk) and supply (e.g. farmers) seems to be more significant. Research limitations/implications - Future studies could compare the results obtained through this study in different socio-demographic contexts. Longitudinal analyses could also increase the understanding of the social and commercial challenges. Originality/value - In contrast to previous studies, the results show that geographical access to supermarkets is not the main factor fostering the purchase of fruits and vegetables. Indeed, food education (e.g. information, simple recipes, cooking classes), associated with a changing mediation process through product diversification (e.g. products in bulk) and supply (e.g. farmers) seem to be more significant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据