A Thesis entitled Accessibility and Options for Transit Dependent Individuals with Food Security Problems in Toledo, Ohio By Crystal R. Taylor As partial fulfillment of the requirement for The Master of Arts Degree in Geography and Planning _______________________ Adviser: Dr. David Nemeth _______________________ Reader: Dr. Peter Lindquist _______________________ Reader: Sylvia-Linda Kaktins _______________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo May 2005
Transcript
i
A Thesis
entitled
Accessibility and Options for Transit Dependent Individuals with Food Security
I would like to thank the members of the University of Toledo Department of Geography and Planning for their dedication and guidance throughout my graduate studies. Specifically I would like to thank Sylvia Linda Kaktins for her ability to focus my writing and keep me on task, and Dr. David Nemeth for his guidance and instruction. Also, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the guys in the GISAG lab. Without the assistance of the staff, it would have been virtually impossible for me to complete this task. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Stephen, Christopher and Corey for putting up with me through my writing process. Maybe I didn’t tell you, but I don’t know what I would have done without you. I would also like to thank Rosa Turnbough Green for her introduction to the wonderful world of Geography and Planning. Without knowing her, none of this would have been possible. Finally, thank you God for allowing me to meet such wonderful people throughout my life journey.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... vi
Chapter One – Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Statement and Background ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of Thesis .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2.1 2004 Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family & Number of Related Children ......... 10 Table 2.2 Thrifty Food Plan ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 2.3 Hunger Predictors ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 4.1 NAICS Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 51 Table 4.2 Typology of Grocers ........................................................................................................ 52 Table 5.1 Comparison to Ohio, Lucas County and Toledo MSA .............................................. 60 Table 6.1 Census Tract 34 Compared with Regional Statistics ................................................... 92
vi
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 Census Tracts over 35% Poverty .................................................................................. 61 Figure 5.2 Map of Toledo Poverty Census Tracts ........................................................................ 62 Figure 5.3 Map of New Single Family Developments in the Toledo Area ............................... 64 Figure 5.4 Transit Dependency by Census Tract .......................................................................... 72 Figure 5.5 Map of Census Tract 34 ................................................................................................. 74 Figure 5.6 Map of TARTA routes in Census Tract 34 ................................................................. 75 Figure 5.7 Map of Grocery Stores In and Adjacent to Census Tract 34 ................................... 76 Figure 5.8 Map of Retail Food Providers in Lucas County ......................................................... 89 Figure 6.1 Map of Nearest Conventional Grocery Stores to Census Tract 34 ......................... 94 Figure 6.2 Map of Public Transit Trip to Closest Conventional Grocery Store in Census
This thesis looks at transit dependent populations in Toledo, Ohio and their
accessibility to conventional food stores. On April 28th, 2005 the announcement of the
closing of Food Basic and the forthcoming closing of Aldi leaves the transit dependent
populations of Central Toledo with no conventional store, discount or otherwise, in their
local area. What this means is that the transit dependent population no longer has any
convenient access to healthy, affordable food. The transit dependent are those who depend
on public transportation for mobility and personal viability because of low income, age, or
disability. They are low wageworkers, majority women, people of color, the elderly, high
school students, the disabled, and those dependent on social services. They are often
representative of the majority of urban residents, living in poverty (Mann 2001).
By looking at the local situation in central Toledo, this writer hopes to increase
understanding of the internal and external factors that brought about this condition. Based
on the researcher’s observations, recommendations to help increase accessibility to healthy,
affordable food by the transit dependent will be offered.
Mobility strategies are various ways households overcome spatial constraints and
travel to various locations. Since its invention in 1903 by Henry Ford, the automobile has
been the preferred mobility strategy in America. Not only did this increased mobility change
the American lifestyle, it impacted almost every built environment found on the American
2
landscape. Spurred by political pressure from profit driven lobbyists, the built environment
began to expand exponentially after the early 1900’s. Cities were built around transportation
nodes, and once those nodes could be traveled quickly and safely, those who were able to
move, left the problems associated with overcrowded, uninviting urban centers and moved
further away to the suburbs. This was the birth of urban sprawl, which is low-density
development at, and sometimes beyond, the outer margins of our metropolitan areas and is
now the prevailing form of urban growth in North American cities (Kuby et. al. 2001).
Access to an automobile suggests an absolute freedom. However, only those who can afford
the increasing costs of automobile ownership enjoy that freedom. Noting the lower per
capita levels of auto ownership in inner city areas, particularly by those in poverty, they often
face mobility constraints. They must find other mobility strategies, usually public transit, to
meet their basic needs.
In many cities the urban poor, the working class, and the lowest income
communities of color are given shoddy mass transit service. This is particularly true in cities
that have a dwindling urban core, surrounded by affluent suburban communities. In large
cities like LA and Atlanta, the transit dependent are even discriminated against, often riding
on dilapidated buses, suffering long waits, longer rides, poor connections, and service cuts.
After the Watts Riots of 1965, the McCone Commission published a report identifying the
causal elements. Among the various forms of racial discrimination and segregation, there
was extensive discussion around inequalities in the public transportation system. The
commission found that many urban routes did not travel outside their local area that kept
the transit dependent trapped in economic and social isolation (Mann 2001).
3
The transit dependent tend to have lower income and congregate in the inner city.
Poverty exists when individuals or groups are not able to satisfy their basic needs adequately
(Gross 2002). This is important to note when, in September 2004 The US Census Bureau
revealed that 1.3 million additional Americans fell into poverty in 2003 with more than 12
percent of the population, that approximately 35.8 million people were living below the
poverty line. This report marked the second consecutive year of discouraging trends after
almost a decade of continuous improvement. For those living below the poverty line a
cyclical effect occurs when no money means reduced consumption, which means reduced
human development, which locks in poverty. Today, for 35.8 million Americans it is a daily
struggle to meet even the most basic of needs; shelter, warmth, and food.
In America, we are experiencing a variety of issues around food -- obesity, poor diet
and nutrition, and hunger. While it seems that obesity and hunger are at opposite ends of the
spectrum, research shows that, for varying reasons, particular populations experience both
(Center on Hunger and Poverty and Food Research and Action Center 2003). Low-income
households experience both hunger and obesity. The prevalence of obesity in low-income
households occurs because they lack adequate resources to purchase nutritional and healthy
food, they purchase processed, high-fat, convenient, cheap food. This creates serious public
health implications, including premature mortality, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary
artery disease, stroke, osteoarthritis and certain types of cancer (Koop 1996).
An extensive body of evidence exists linking low income, poor diet and poor health
(Graham 2000, Murcott 2002). A 1998 study the nutrition knowledge of food center
participants indicated that people in poverty have a lower intake of fruit, vegetables and
whole wheat bread, with correspondingly lower intake of essential nutrients that tend to lead
to poor health in adults, increased hospital admissions in children, and low vitamin and
4
mineral intake in women (Calderon and Gorence 1998). Calderon and Gorence also found
that those with low incomes face various difficulties in maintaining a nutritionally adequate
diet. The fact that low-income people, on average, experience poorer health and nutrition
than higher income people suggests that there is an issue around the accessibility of healthy,
nutritious foods that is affecting this population. For many low-income households the lack
of access to transportation resources hinders the acquisition of healthy and affordable food
(Clifton 2004).
While several authors have studied how low-income people in mobility constrained
households get to work, (Ong and Blumenberg 1998, Murakami and Young 1997), there are
few studies undertaken about the non-work destinations of mobility-constrained households.
For many, the most important non-work destination is the food store. Studies have shown
that the transit dependent pay more in money, time, and energy for access to quality food
retail stores (Toronto Food Policy Council 1996). This lack of access to transportation
resources creates a situation where people do not have a lot of choice in where and when to
do food shopping. Furthermore, people in low-income households have limited flexibility
and personal control over their schedules, and considerable effort must go into planning and
procuring the mobility needed to reach a food store. The only options for the transit
dependent to access food are public transit, rides with family or neighbors, or walking. All
these options restrict their mobility.
Bus riders must often travel outside their neighborhoods to purchase food, resulting
in a higher cost of time, money, and missed opportunities. The transit dependent are further
hindered because they must make fewer, smaller trips as they must transport their purchases
home from the transit stop which could be, in urban areas a five minute walk or 3 blocks
(FTA 1996).
5
Transportation systems must relate accessibility to ones ability to move across space
with implicit temporal significance (Murray and Wu 2003). Accessibility is fundamentally
important to public transit service. The idea is that public transit meets the commuting
demands of riders and potential users; meaning it must be accessible in the broadest terms.
Another aspect of accessibility is the geographic space reachable from a particular location
within a given travel time budget (Murray and Wu 2003). In this research accessibility will be
defined as the processes associated with getting to and departing from a food store.
It is vitally important to re- evaluate existing transit services to ensure that systems
promote food store accessibility to the greatest extent possible, particularly in areas that have
a high number of transit dependent people. However, in many urban regions public transit
insures that the transit dependent have only minimal levels of accessibility to places that
provide healthy nutritious food.
Transportation policies and planning in many US cities ignore the inner city.
America will at some point, need to review its policy making practices to ensure that equity is
achieved, if not across the board, then at least in the basic necessity of food provisioning.
However, since studies on non-work travel have been overlooked in America, transportation
planners must look to other countries where the link between access to healthy food and
transportation has been discussed on the policy making level, such as the UK Nutrition Task
Force Low Income Project (Lang et al. 1995). This Task Force concluded that failures in
transportation policy compounded poor families’ lack of funds for food purchasing,
prompting them to suggest fixes to transportation policy.
While the process of suggesting and implementing policy is appealing, it is a long
process. The process requires the right mix of leadership, manpower, and above all funding,
to ensure success. The task is daunting for even the most adept social planner. In issues
6
dealing with accessibility to food, American public policy has been even slower to act. It was
only recently, 1995, when America began keeping statistics on food related issues. For transit
dependent individuals living in high poverty areas, immediate, local, neighborhood fixes are
necessary to address accessibility to healthy nutritious food.
1.2 Objective of Thesis
The objective of this thesis is to examine the relationship between public transit
routes and food shopping locations for transit dependent households in Toledo, Ohio. This
thesis will break down the multiple aspects associated with the transit dependent and their
ability to acquire healthy nutritious foods. The goal for this research is to provide
recommendations for transportation policymakers, local government policymakers,
community leaders, local food policy councils, low-income transit dependent individuals, and
emerging geographers in relation to non-work travel, specifically travel to food stores.
1.3 Methods
This thesis is employs a realist philosophy. In order to complete work under the
realist philosophy one must unpack or break down terms and concepts for a better
understanding of the situation. Realism is a complex ontology, allowing for the existence of
structures, processes and mechanisms to be revealed at different levels of reality (Cloke et al.
1991). It is a way of understanding the conditions that must prevail if a situation is occurring
with regularity. The explanatory causal relations uncovered by realism are useful for
explaining the real life interpretations of reality. This study will utilize an intensive research
methodology to study individual agents and the causal context of food security and transit
dependent households. There are noted limitations to this type of study. For example,
7
because the study area is small, concrete patterns and contingent relationships found may
not be representative or generalized. However, this work can be corroborated with further
study of other selective areas in order to determine if similar situations are occurring at a
regular rate, in other communities.
Although realism is a relatively new approach, several geographers have completed
works using the philosophy. Cloke et al. (1991) stated that the realist approach was used by
Allen in 1983 to study landlord tenant disputes, by Sarre (1987) to study ethnic housing and
by Lovering (1985) to study the location of defense industries. These studies took an in
depth look into the internal and external causes and provided insight into the lives of people
dealing with those issues. The contribution of realism is to ask new questions, prompt
sensitive analysis, and offer new directions to approach human geography and societal
phenomena. This work strives to do the same.
There are various methodological tools available to geographers to gain knowledge
and understanding of societal phenomena. To determine the accessibility to food stores
available to transit dependent persons in Toledo, research will analyze Toledo’s poorest
neighborhoods, access to food retail outlets in those areas, and available bus routes and
travel time to other food stores throughout the city. Identified TARTA transit routes will be
researched to identify the number of food retail outlets serviced by those routes, and travel
speed using those routes.
In addition to public transit routes, 2000 US Census data, and local history data from
the Toledo Lucas County Public Library will be used to support the analysis. The Census
Data already identifies the percentage of population in poverty within census tracts. To
approximate transit dependent populations as defined by Gee (1994), Mann (2001), and
Clifton (2004), the researcher will use census tract data to identify the number of cars
8
available to households (either 0 or 1), which will then be divided by the number of
households. Poverty census tracts with the highest percentage of households with no more
than one car will be identified as transit dependent neighborhoods.
Census tracts, transit routes, and food retail outlets throughout the city will be
displayed graphically using GIS mapping software to provide a visual depiction of the
relationships found. ArcView version 3.3, a commercial GIS package, will be used to support
operational analysis. Other methods will include a case study of the Toledo area, its
transportation system and food retail system. The thesis will conclude with discussion and
recommendations.
1.4 Chapter Summary
The need for mobility is central in all aspects of daily life, including work and non-
work activities. For transit dependent populations, which will be discussed in Chapter 3, the
role of public transportation in the acquisition of food resources is vital. In many urban
regions, public transit insures that the transit dependent have minimal levels of accessibility
to healthy, nutritious foods. Chapters Two and Three review food security and accessibility,
as well as the history of public transit. Chapter Four provides a review of the food retail
industry in America. Chapter Five presents a case study of the geographic study area in
Toledo, Ohio. Chapter Six concludes with a discussion of the findings and
recommendations.
9
Chapter Two - Food Security and Accessibility
2.1 Poverty and Food
Is it out of ignorance that the impoverished eat poorly? Is it from neglect that they
simply don’t care? Is it because they have the wrong priorities, smoking cigarettes and
drinking wine? Or is it that their resources are so limited that they cannot afford to buy the
food they ought to eat? Often times living in an impoverished environment makes it virtually
impossible for a low-income household to eat healthy. Any discussion of food security and
accessibility issues will have a common thread -- poverty. Therefore it is necessary to analyze
the occurrence of poverty in America.
A person in poverty is generally one without money. When the Social Security
Administration (SSA) created the poverty definition in 1964, it focused on family food
consumption. However, today, following the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that
vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family has a total
income less than the threshold, all members of the family are considered to be in poverty.
While poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, the thresholds are updated annually
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust for inflation (DeNavas-Walt, et al., 2004).
10
Table 2.1 2004 Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family & Number of Related Children
(Source: DeNavas-Walt 2004 )
11
Poverty statistics are used to measure the economic well-being of a country and
determine the need or eligibility for various types of public assistance including funds for
food, health care, and legal services. Additionally, Title 1 funds (providing poverty programs
for children), Home Energy Assistance funds, Public Housing/Section 8 Funds, and other
Public assistance programs are all allocated based on poverty statistics.
Two poverty statistics are the rate of poverty and the total of number of people
below poverty level. The rate of poverty is determined by percentage of people in an area
who fall below poverty thresholds. The total number of persons below the poverty level is
the sum of the number of persons in families with incomes below the poverty level and the
number of unrelated individuals with incomes below the poverty level (Bishaw and Iceland
2003)
The US Census Bureau lists the percentage of families in poverty for each census
tract. Census tracts usually have between 2,500 and 8,000 people, (averaging about 4,000)
and are designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic
status, and living conditions. Census tracts are designated as high poverty census tracts when
more than 40% of families are below poverty thresholds.
People in poverty tend to live in homogenous areas. The percentage of poor people
living in poverty census tracts is a measure of the concentration of poverty in urban areas. It
is widely believed that poor people are worse off living in areas of concentrated poverty than
they would be in other areas, and that society as a whole suffers when these areas of
concentrated poverty exist. Furthermore, growth in areas of concentrated poverty has
negative implications for the future because children reared in very poor neighborhoods are
at risk of poor developmental outcomes (Dowler 2003).
12
An August 2004 report issued by the US Census Bureau provides insight into the
current poverty situation in America. The report provides detailed information about various
aspects of poverty, including race, geographic location, age, and gender of people in poverty
and provides reliable estimates of the net change from one year to the next in the overall
distribution of economic characteristics of the population (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
Since 2000, both the number and rate of people in poverty has risen for three
consecutive years. In 2000 the number of people in poverty was 31.6 million, or 11.3% of
Americans. While real median household income showed no change between 2002 and
2003, both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate increased between 2002
and 2003. The official poverty rate in 2003 was 12.5% up from 12.1% in 2002. Additionally,
35.9 million people were in poverty, up 1.3 million from 2002. Surprisingly the White and
Asian populations were the only ethnic groups to experience a significant increase in poverty
numbers and rates (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
The report also provides breakdowns to show which sectors of society are most
affected. Children represented 35.9 percent of the people in poverty, compared with 25.4
percent of the total population. In 2003, the poverty rate and the number in poverty for
related children under 6 living in families increased from 18.5 percent and 4.3 million in 2002
to 19.8 percent and 4.7 million in 2003 (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
Geographic evidence is provided showing that the Midwest and the South were the
only regions showing increases in the number of people in poverty between 2002 and 2003.
The number in the Midwest rose from 6.6 million to 6.9 million. In 2003 the poverty rates
were unchanged from 2002, for the Northeast (11.3 %), Midwest (10.7 %), South (14.1 %),
and West (12.6 %), leaving the South with the highest rate (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
13
Poverty makes people geographically isolated and this geographic isolation increases
the chance that families remain in poverty over extended periods of time (Dowler 2003).
People in poverty usually live in homogenous urban environments that are beginning to
expand. For instance, the poverty rate and number in poverty increased for people living
inside central cities, from 16.7 % and 13.8 million in 2002 to 17.5 % and 14.6 million in
2003, while the poverty rate for people living in the suburbs, 9.1 % in 2003, remained
unchanged from 2002, although their number in poverty increased from 13.3 million in 2002
to 13.8 million in 2003. These figures lend credibility to the fact that Whites were one of the
only ethnic groups to show increases in the number and rates of poverty, as these groups are
often able to move out of urban areas into suburban environments.
Another group hard hit by poverty is single, female householders. The poverty rates
and numbers in poverty increased for female householders with no husband present to 28.0
% and 3.9 million in 2003, up from 26.5 % and 3.6 million in 2002. This bodes poorly for
children living in these households as well, as related children under 6 living in families with
female householders with no husband present, 52.9 percent were in poverty, over five times
the rate of their counterparts in married-couple families (9.6 percent). See appendix A1 for
people and families in poverty by selected characteristics.
Overall, it is important to note that those living in urban areas suffer long-term
poverty as a result of their environment. This is supported by the fact that between 1970 and
1990 the proportion of moderate poverty Census tracts in urban areas rose from 27% –
39%, while high poverty tracts more than doubled to 14%. (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004)
Today, more than half of the metropolitan poor live in low poverty tracts, 32% live in
moderate poverty tracts, and 17% live in high poverty tracts (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
These large concentrations of poor people create an environment experiencing
14
multidimensional affects of poverty over generations. For the people living here, it is often a
struggle to provide basic needs for all members of the household.
People with limited money have to make limited choices; often about which basic
need to fulfill. Unlike fixed expenditures, like rent and utilities, food consumption can be
altered in response to other necessities. A 1998 study exploring the food purchase behavior
of low-income households and found that low-income food shoppers spent less on food
purchases despite the evidence that they face higher purchase prices (Leibtag and Kaufman
1998). The study notes that since 1997, the Economic Research Service of the USDA has
been trying to determine if the poor face significantly different food prices because of where
they shop. The study concluded that in general, poor communities face higher prices because
they are shopping in urban locations where food prices tend to be higher, as opposed to
suburban locations.
In an effort to meet basic needs in this environment, many poor families economize
to ensure they have enough food for all members of their households. First, poor families
may shop in discount food stores or purchase a large portion of discounted food. Second
they may purchase more private label products, which are often lower priced and lower
quality food products (generic brands). Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts
by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may use coupons or in store promotions
(Leibtag and Kaufman 2003). Other adaptive strategies are used which include omitting
fruits, vegetables, and dairy in favor of meats and carbohydrates, and purchasing prepared
and processed foods (Eisenhauer 2001). These strategies, while effective, have negative long-
term health consequences.
Economizing practices are tied to the types of food stores available to make
purchases in areas where low income shoppers live. Leibtag and Kaufman state that in store
15
discounts, coupons, and volume discounted large package sizes are not available in “sub-
supermarket outlets” (2003, 6) that are easily accessible by the poor. Many of the places they
are forced to shop for food are discount chains, providing a reduced variety of products,
most of which are private label. This means that while purchasing generic brands is available,
the ability to use coupons and in store promotions is only available if they are in a food store
outside of their local environment.
The supply of fresh and unprocessed foods is often the least available in inner cities,
often because they are the least profitable to retailers. When they are, fresh vegetables and
meat are often in poor condition. Unfortunately, these foods are also the most health
promoting classes of foods. Highly processed foods have been linked to increased blood
glucose levels and lipids in the blood, contributing to diseases of lifestyle such as the diabetic
epidemic occurring in low-income communities. It is no coincidence that that while poverty
is growing in urban areas, the urban poor experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality
than their middle class and suburban counterparts; meaning that urban health will continue
to decline (Eisenhauer 2001).
These issues suggest that that access to healthy food is not available to people in
poverty. Many poverty level households do not have reliable transportation, further
hindering their ability to access a food store. For these families, shopping becomes even
more constrained. For transit dependent households, buying large amounts of products in
volume is impossible, as they must carry packages to and from bus stops. As a result, those
without a vehicle are more likely to live close to a supermarket and shop closer to home.
They wind up putting considerable effort into planning and procuring the mobility needed to
reach a food store, ultimately opting to shop for food at fewer places more often. Thereby
becoming a captive market; dependent on smaller, higher priced groceries or convenience
16
stores that do not have the same choice of quality, price and selection found in suburban
supermarkets (MacDonald and Nelson 1991, Chung and Myers 1999).
Historically, public and private policymakers patterns of resource allocations do little
to alleviate the multitude of problems that poverty creates. Often poverty policies only
intensify community distress levels and limit avenues for interaction; creating an
impenetrable barrier between the haves and the have-nots. When faulty planning occurs in
poverty programs such as Food Stamps, Women Infants and Children (WIC), and Senior
Nutrition, it leads to incorrect assumptions about the price of food in relation to other
essentials and its physical availability, thereby ignoring problems of access that people in
poverty face. This phenomenon creates the setting for food security issues in communities
that experience high rates of poverty in America.
2.2 Food Security Issues
Food security is defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an
active, healthy life and includes at a minimum: a) the ready availability of nutritionally
adequate and safe foods, and b) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially
acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, and
other coping strategies (Anderson 1990).
Food security is a community, national, global problem. The concept of food
security first appeared in international development work during the 1960s and 1970s. In
1974, the World Food Conference emphasized producing enough food for world needs;
focusing the public health concerns of third world and developing countries ravaged by
disease, drought, and internal conflict (Anderson and Cook 1999). They formed new
institutes to improve food self-sufficiency like the International Fund for Agriculture
17
Development (IFAD) that looked at the global food supply, pricing, and import/export
agreements. These institutes found there was a disparity between supply and access. Because
of the global focus, access to food was geared toward poor, third world countries. To
combat growing concerns there was a shift to new agricultural technology to assist with food
production, however it did little to improve food access for poor and basically introduced a
host of new environmental issues.
Over the years the concept of food security has shifted. During the 1980s price
shifts and supplies gave way to the theory of food entitlement (Anderson and Cook 1999).
Now global agencies focused on ensured access, poverty, and demand on the world’s
emergency food supply system as well as production. By the 1990s additional shifts occurred
including developing objective measures of food security, geared at assessing the quality of
food available.
Maxwell (1996) described additional shifts in food security. These included a shift
from food first, which provided emergency food supplies only, to a livelihood approach
where households are assured sustainable livelihoods necessary for long-term food security.
Additionally, agencies stopped relying on objective measures of food security like access to
daily caloric intakes and toward the quality of food available. It turns out, that this approach
eventually influenced the development of the food security movement in the US.
Until the 1990s, international governments and agencies focused on third world and
developing countries were still completing most work on food security issues. However, the
national interest in measuring food security came to the US in the 1975 when there was a
question included on the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS). This
small step was the first step in measuring food security as it applied to populations in high-
income countries. Even still, it took another twenty years for the United States to seriously
18
track food security issues in America. By the 1990s the US was discussing the concept of
food security as it was related to awareness of and in response to the growing hunger
epidemic. Utilizing food intake surveys such as the NFCS and the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the US began making an attempt to track food
security in America. However, these and other instruments have not been adequate in
determining whether respondents had problems with availability, affordability, and
accessibility of food because they did not measure appropriate indicators.
In 1990, the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) of the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology published a paper on food security and its measurement.
They determined that the periodicity and duration of episodes of food insecurity, as well as
specific barriers to food security such as poverty, disability, or restricted transportation must
be addressed (Anderson and Cook 1999). As a result a new tool was created. In 1995, the
Select Committee on Hunger of the US House of Representatives focused on creating food
security instead of ending hunger and in conjunction with Tufts University Center on
Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition (TUCHPN 1995), completed a review of previously
determined hunger estimates in America. They used an estimation tool that provided a low,
medium, and high range of estimates to compare with those previously published by the
Breglio Poll of 1992. The Breglio Poll estimated that 30 million Americans were hungry, but
the medium ranges published by the Tufts Center suggested that the Breglio Poll had
underestimated. As a result, the Committee initiated a joint project leading to the creation of
a hunger/food security survey questionnaire (TUCHPN 1995).
Since 1995 food security in America has been monitored by the United States
Department of Agriculture study of household food security, titled, Household Food
Security in the United States. The US Current Population Survey began tracking changes in
19
food security to provide an important way to compare the severity of poverty related food
insecurity over time. Information is collected on food spending, food access and adequacy,
and sources for assistance in an annual US Census Bureau survey of 50,000 households. The
data is collected in December of each year and asks a series of questions concerning food
needs throughout the year (Nord et al. 2002).
According to the Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, in most US
households, the majority of food consumed by household members is purchased, either
from supermarkets or grocery stores. The amount a household spends on food is an
indicator of how adequately they meet food needs. In 2002, the average US household spent
$37.50 per person, for food each week, 25% more than the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) (Ribar
and Hamrick 2003). The TFP is a low cost market basket that meets nationally defined
dietary standards at a minimal cost and is used to set Food Stamp Allotments. A typical food
secure family spent about 32% more than the TFP. See table 2.2 for a weekly sample 1999
TFP for a family of four.
When a family is unable to obtain enough food for adequate dietary intake for all its
members, the household is said to be food insecure. The USDA defines food insecure
families as at some time during the year, uncertain of having, or unable to acquire enough
food for all members because of insufficient money or other resources. A typical food
insecure family spent 2% less than the TFP.
20
Table 2.2 Thrifty Food Plan (Source: Ribar and Hamrick 2003)
Food insecurity arises specifically from lack of money or other resources to acquire
food. In 1997 half of the people in food insufficient households were also in poor families
(Ribar and Hamrick 2003). Food insecurity includes problems with the quantity and quality
of food available, uncertainty about the supply of food, and experiences of going hungry
21
(Aliamo et al 1998). Experiences of food insecurity include running out of food, running out
of money to buy food, skipping meals, experiencing hunger, and being unable to buy food,
or buying cheaper foods because of financial constraints (Immink 1994).
The occurrence of food insecurity has risen over the past 20 years. While less than
3% of the American population lived in food insufficient households in 1997, (Ribar and
Hamrick 2003), the USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households were food
insecure. Approximately 33 million people lived in these households, including 20 million
adults and 13 million children. By 2002, 11.1% of households (a whopping 12.1 million
households) were food insecure.
Food insecurity among US households varies along social and demographic lines.
Among food insecure households: 54% received Food Stamps, Free and Reduced Lunch, or
Women Infants and Children (WIC), 19.3% get emergency food, and 2.5% ate at a soup
kitchen at some time during the year. The following groups had rates of food insecurity
without hunger, much higher than the national rate (11.1%): households below the poverty
line (38.1%), households with children, headed by a single woman (32%), Black households
(22%), Hispanic households (21.7%), and central city households (14.4%) (Nord et al. 2002).
Ribar and Hamrick (2003) report that women and children are more likely than men
to live in poor families and food insecure households; that poverty rates and food insecurity
rates for blacks, Hispanics, and non citizens were three times higher than for Whites. They
also report that poverty and food insecurity decline with increased education; with those not
completing high school being 2 to 3 times more likely to experience poverty and food
insecurity than those who did graduate from high school, and 6 to 10 times more likely than
those who complete college. In addition, poverty and food insecurity rates varied with family
structure. Female-headed households with children had the highest rates of poverty and
22
food insufficiency of any demographic group examined. These figures prove that food
insecurity in America has, and continues to be, a real problem for a significant part of our
population.
These findings shed light on the future for people in poverty. Food insecurity
undermines ones ability to learn, work, and make progress (Mougeot 1999). It becomes clear
that food insecurity has the potential to lock in poverty conditions over long periods of time.
When families experience food insecurity for extended periods of time, some members may
add the experience of hunger to this already daunting list.
Hunger is a potential consequence of food insecurity affecting more than 30 million
people each year. Hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by a recurrent
or involuntary lack of food that, over time can result in malnutrition. Food insecurity with
hunger follows a similar pattern to that observed for food insecurity. Hunger rates were
higher than the 3.5% national average among families living in poverty (14.3%), households
headed by single women (8.7%), Black households (7.2%), Hispanic households (5.7%), and
central city households (5%). (Nord et al. 2002).
The effects of hunger and food insecurity include weight loss and poor growth,
illness, loss of productivity, anemia, abnormal eating habits, poor school performance in
children, and obesity. While not everyone who experiences food insecurity experiences
hunger, approximately 3.5% will go hungry (Nord et al. 2002). Table 2.3 provides statistics
that indicate that hunger will continue to be a problem:
23
Table 2.3 Hunger Predictors (Source: US Census Bureau 2001, US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003, USDA 2001)
# of American’s Living in Poverty is rising
Number of American’s Unemployed is rising
Number of Americans Food Insecure and Hungry is Rising
Between 2000 and 2001, poverty rose to 11.7% or 32.9 million people, up from 11.3% and 31.6 million (US Census, 2001)
Average unemployment rates in the past year have risen… 2001 4.8%, 2002 5.7% (US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
In 2001 33.6 million American’s food insecure, hungry, or at risk of hunger a rise over the year 2000 when 33.2 million American’s were food insecure. The number of people suffering from hunger rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2001 (USDA, 2001)
2001 median household income in US was $42,228, a 2.2% decline in real income from 2000 levels of $43,162 (US Census, 2001)
The number of children who are food insecure has also risen since 2000 by 10,000 to 6.18 million (USDA, 2001)
2.3 Community Food Security Movement
As hunger and food security in America was being discussed, a movement erupted to
fight for the human right to food. After the Community Food Security Act of 1996 was
passed, the USDA launched the Community Food Security Initiative in 1999. Of course,
prior the USDAs Community Food Security Initiative of 1999, there were a multitude of
local agencies and community residents organizing and lobbying to address food insecurity
in America. The goal was to forge partnerships between members of local communities to
build local food systems, decrease need, and improve nutrition.
Community food security (CFS) came into popularity in the late 1980s as a response
to increasing national debate on hunger in America. Individuals and agencies involved in
CFS movements were and continue to be, populist in spirit, with strong feelings about civil
rights and social justice often with an underlying spirituality (Henderson 1998). CFS
24
movements brought together people from a variety of disciplines, including community
nutrition, nutrition education, public health, sustainable agriculture, and community
development in an effort to address the perceived food shortage. Of course, the Federal
nutrition assistance safety net (Food Stamps, WIC) is the first line of defense in addressing
hunger and food insecurity. However, to address the faulty planning that occurs in poverty
programs, local initiatives were needed.
CFS movement focuses on the underlying social, economic, and institutional factors
within a community that affect the quantity, quality and affordability of food (Kantor 2001).
Many participants in the CFS movement view it as an expansion of household food security,
which focuses on the ability of a household to acquire enough food for an active, healthy
life. To address these issues the major goals of the CFS movement include, direct farm
impact, guaranteeing access to food, research for sustainability, policy advocacy and analysis,
and a national campaign to enhance the Farm Bill (Henderson 1998).
CFS groups forge connections based on food in a community by giving the
community a say in what kind of food system they want, and ensuring access to food in the
community (Conroe 1999). The process is community based, involving programs that work
in tandem with various segments of the local population, to move people from poverty to
self-sufficiency and food security. CFS groups work to identify and connect food retailers
and processors (both local and chains), farmers, consumers, educators, clergy, and local
agencies. When stakeholders are brought together, discussion begins about what the local
food system looks like, how it can change, and ultimately a plan is put together to initiate
those changes. To do so, CFS groups utilize a wide variety of community based measures,
including: farmers markets, community gardens, food buying cooperatives, farm to school
initiatives, community supported agriculture (CSA), and food recovery programs. In
25
addition, the CFS movement has also developed a national network and an effective policy
wing (Henderson 1998).
National networks of CFS organizations have sprung up throughout America, with
many community groups joining regional coalitions like the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture
Working Group, and even national coalitions such as the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture and the Community Food Security Coalition. These regional and national
networks have created a non-partisan, non-religious movement that recognizes the
importance of food security for all Americans. Even more, the members are capable of
working together to change public policy, as was evidenced when the Community Food
Security Coalition worked with the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture to link
over 500 groups across the county in an effort to lobby for the passing of the Community
Food Security Act as part of the 1996 Farm Bill.
The CFS movement should be effective in assuring equitable food access. However,
the movement is under criticism because there is no clear theoretical framework for CFS
groups to guide policy making. The CFS movement is vague because the definition of
community is different to different populations. Also there is no picture of a food secure
community. A practical consequence of a clear CFS theory is knowledge of best measures or
indicators, however loose definitions of CFS still remain.
Even under criticism, CFS organizations were able to work together to effectively
change public policy. The Community Food Security Act in the 1996 US Farm Bill was the
first attempt at policy making focused around the issue of food security. Under the CFS Act,
projects funded had to meet the food needs of low income people by increasing their access
to fresher, more nutritious food supplies; increase self reliance of communities in providing
26
for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm and
nutrition issues (Pelletier et al. 1999).
Food policy councils performed much of the organizing to bring about the CFS Act
of 1996. Food policy councils are a distinguishing element of CFS in US (Winne et al. 1998).
They operate independently and build local food policies from scratch. According to the
Food Security Learning Center (FSLC), food policy councils are advisors to government
agencies, advocates for policies and programs, a forum for information exchange, and an
educational resource for the public (FSLC 2005). The food policy council provides an
avenue for various organizations, associations and individuals to work together to impact
food policies at local, state, regional, and federal levels. They provide formalized power and
the necessary relationships that allow previously scattered groups to come together under the
common theme of food, to begin a comprehensive planning process designed to ensure
food security. By utilizing the power of the masses, the CFS movement has proven to be a
useful and important extension of food security research, planning and policy
implementation in America.
2.3 Chapter Summary
In order to access healthy, nutritious food a family must have enough income to
purchase food and a place to purchase it nearby. Urban poverty and food insecurity will
continue to expand considerably as our country continues to focus dollars on the pursuit of
foreign opportunities. To combat growing numbers of food insecure and hungry families,
the Community Food Security movement has brought together a host of organizations,
agencies, and individuals to address food needs. While CFS has taken on a planning
27
mentality for food security, people in poverty still face other barriers to the access of healthy,
nutritious food; mobility.
28
Chapter Three – Mobility
3.1 History of Public Transportation in the US
Public transit provides mobility to many low-income, elderly, and disabled people.
However, since World War II, public transit funding in the US has steadily declined. The
cycle of declining ridership, fare increases, and service reduction is a direct response to
suburban growth and automobile usage.
While primarily low-income populations utilize public transportation, transportation
policies and funds have been allocated to improve community conditions between the
suburbs and the Central business district. (Minshull 1996) This creates a situation today,
where accessibility issues related to public transit disenfranchise people living in low-income
communities yet again. To fully understand the plight of low-income populations as it relates
to public transit, it is necessary to review the formation of public transit policy in the United
States, according to the National Transportation Library.
Urban mass transit began in New York City in 1830 with the omnibus service. By
1832 rail transit had emerged, incorporating horse drawn streetcars and inlaid trolley rails. As
Americans ventured west and north, cities responded by installing horse drawn streetcar
designs in major cities. The pioneering spirit of Americans soon made the horse drawn
streetcar obsolete and by 1837 the cable car was introduced in San Francisco. Stories of
rapid transit in the West circulated throughout the country as other metropolitan areas began
planning to install the new cable lines. While efficient, regarding time and volume; the
installation of cable car lines required specialized workers and could only be installed in areas
29
where horse drawn streetcars were unable to operate. If a city could raise the capital for the
installation, the projected profit margins were not sufficient, as most areas where cable lines
could be installed did not provide enough passenger traffic.
By 1888 the electric streetcar was introduced and quickly became the dominant form
of mass transit. The electric lines solved the problems cable cars could not: they were faster,
held more people, and were inexpensive to install. With the inception of the electric car,
previously undeveloped land quickly emerged around streetcar lines.
In response to technological advancements in the transportation industry, cities were
built at a more rapid pace. Speed and cost of mass transit were acceptable as families moved
farther away from the central business district.
Between the 1880’s and 1900 metropolitan cities across America had multiple transit
companies at their disposal. After some time mergers and acquisitions occurred in urban
areas that created a dominant public transit system which linked city governments,
transportation providers, and the electric utility industry. These mergers created monopolies,
increased profits, and electrified neighborhoods across America.
By World War I public transportation experienced a drop in profits as the costs for
materials and supplies for streetcars soared. The country was utilizing its steel, rubber, and
cable for war purposes creating a limited supply; as a result, materials were often unavailable.
However, those suppliers with materials were able to charge higher prices to transportation
companies.
Between WWI and the Great Depression another competitor for steel and rubber
entered the market. The mass production of the automobile meant that personal cars were
more affordable for new families rebuilding after the war. Public transit profits continued to
decline. However, by 1930 the country was in the midst of its worse economy in history,
30
reducing reliance on the automobile. The minimized impact of the automobile on the public
transit system meant a peak in profits at a time when other markets were barely surviving.
Public transit was coming back into style.
In 1942, when World War II began, mass transit was booming. Everyone in the
country was working; women were working in factories and men were in the military. The
rationing of gas and tires and a government imposed moratorium on new automobiles from
1942 – 1945 created a captive market for the mass transit industry. Unfortunately,
maximized profits were soon to be no more as the war ended.
Post WWII fared poorly for the mass transit industry. Once the restrictions of the
Great Depression and WWII were lifted the preferred method of travel again became the
automobile. The return of war veterans with money meant families moved to suburbs in
droves, escaping the quality of life issues associated with urban areas. The creation of the
Federal Highway System under the Federal Highway Act of 1956, gave people a way to
move quickly from their new suburban homes to the urban areas where they worked
decentralizing the central city and permanently changing the landscape of public
transportation in America. Traditionally, profits for mass transit had been directly related to
population density, and this migration of a once captive market meant the need for public
transportation had diminished to its lowest levels.
Many companies were unable to survive in the new auto driven market. During this
period transportation moved away from electric lines and into the automotive trend as
existing companies tried to incorporate the autobus into their fleets. Remaining electric
transit routes remained fixed as costs to extend transit lines to suburban areas would have to
be borne by current transit users in the form of immediate price increases. As a result, over
the next twenty years more than two hundred providers went out of business. For transit
31
dependent families living amidst urban ills, this meant transportation options ceased to exist.
Private ownership of transportation companies was no more. Responding to this loss of
mobility for people living in urban areas, the federal government stepped in.
In 1961 the Federal government provided financial assistance under the Housing and
Urban Development Act (HUD Act), to cities interested in ownership of transportation
functions. As the ownership was transferred, the focus of mass transit transferred. Profit no
longer drove the decisions related to public transportation, now the needs of the community
became the driving force. Public ownership meant the transportation industry had to assess
its ability to provide accessible and affordable transportation to urban communities. The
HUD Act of 1961 was the first piece of legislation to provide funds for mass transit. HUD
authorized $25 million for new transit projects and $50 million in loans for transit
companies. The Act also specified that transit issues be included in planning programs
financed by Federal Government funds.
In 1964 congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This act established
the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). The UMTA is now known as the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). UMTA was designed to direct the Federal mass transit
program. Duties included development and improvement of public transit and provided
$225 million in planning funds to be used during 1965 – 1967. In later years the Act was
amended to include engineering and design of mass transit systems as well as research and
development.
State and local governments requested more and more assistance from the Federal
government to meet mass transit needs and again Federal government responded. In 1974
the Federal Highway Act increased the federally funded portion of transit capital projects
from 2/3 to 80%. The Act also authorized the use of federal highway funds for transit
32
projects. Also in 1974 the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act provided additional
funds, increasing approved discretionary capital to cities in the form of a formula grant. The
grant program was developed to determine allocations amounts to cities. By 1978 the
Federal Public Transportation Act expanded the formula grant program to allow categories
for allocation including operating assistance, aid for capital bus purchases and operating
assistance for non-urban areas. At the end of the 1970’s the transit system in America was
completely funded by the Federal government.
The 1980’s ushered in changes in government leadership, which meant changes in
federally funded programs. The Federal Public Transportation Act of 1982 stopped
allocations from the general fund and transferred the expense to anyone purchasing gasoline.
There was a five-cent/gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax that year, with one cent of
the increase transferred to the new Mass Transit Account (MTA). Both the Regan and Bush
administrations continued the trend, creating policies that called for less federal support and
more state and local funding. From 1980 – 1990, federal transit funding was cut by 50%.
In the midst of federal policy changes and funding cuts, the federal government has
been able to keep public transportation operating in America. However, two significant
federal laws were passed in the early 1990s that meant more financial woes for mass
transportation: the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To
comply, transit agencies had to begin to purchase new cleaner fuel buses and retrofit buses
with wheelchair lifts, rather than spending new funds on operations. At the same time, in the
mid-1990s, the federal government slowly eliminated transit operating assistance funds, a
major source of operating assistance for many cities.
As the focus of public transportation changed in response to the needs of the
increasing numbers of elderly and disabled and while responding to environmental concerns
33
regarding the damage caused by auto emissions, another adaptation was in sight. During the
1990’s, although the bus was still the primary method of mass transit, a variety of new modes
were designed. According to the 1998 National Transit Summaries and Trends that collected
data from 1991– 1998, fifteen different transit modes were identified. The major
transporters were, the ADA compliant bus, the commuter rail, demand response (which had
increased 23% since the last report), heavy rail, light rail, and vanpool (which had increased
by 50% since the last report). The same report notes that operating expenses had increased
14.1% as a result of the institution of the demand response and vanpool modes. However, as
the number of riders went up, cost effectiveness and service effectiveness both went down.
Funding trends have remained the same since the 80’s with 52% of all funding for
transit coming from federal funds, leaving the state and local governments to come up with
the rest (NTST 1998). 1998 saw the inception of the Transportation Equity Act for the
Twenty-first Century. This legislation authorized approximately $217 billion for highways,
highway safety and mass transportation until Fiscal Year 2003.
In the 21st Century the federal government has continued its declining trend of
funding mass transit. This was due in part to American dependence on the automobile. In
2000, there was an average of 1.69 vehicles per household, and 55.4% of households had 2
or more vehicles. Making the number of vehicles exceed the number of licensed drivers
(Hemily 2004).
Even so, as gas prices have reached record highs in cities across America mass transit
ridership has continued to increase. Transit ridership in the U.S. was over 9.65 billion in
2001, the highest level in 40 years. Ridership grew 24% between 1995 and 2002, and had
gained two billion passengers since 1970 (APTA 2004). However, transit is facing numerous
34
complex challenges in the future, as a result of changing demographic and socio-economic
trends, changes in land-use and mobility patterns, societal changes, and concerns.
There have been over the last decade, a significant number of new approaches being
discussed by transportation planning and land development practitioners and officials, all
focusing on the concept of "sustainable community" and "smart growth". Some regions are
currently working to create a modal shift to public transit to decrease congestion or promote
sustainability and provide a multitude of initiatives designed to strengthen the link between
transit and the community. These include: joint development, Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) and location-efficient initiatives, Transportation for Livable
Communities, and the Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP)
Program (Hemily 2004).
While all this planning is occurring, the transit dependent living in urban areas
continue to struggle with the after effects of reduced federal funding for transportation. For
them, mass transit represents the lifeblood of cities, fulfilling an essential and multi-
functional role to ensure the livability and sustainability of urban communities.
3.2 The transit dependent
Affordable transportation is valued in every urbanized area in the United States.
Private vehicle operation is the norm. But every community contains children, elderly
people, and others who cannot safely drive and many who cannot afford cars. Local budgets
extend transit services for these needs.
The transit dependent have no access to, or are unable to use personal
transportation. The transit dependent often include those with low incomes, the disabled,
the elderly, children, families whose travel needs cannot be met with one car, and those who
35
choose not to own personal transportation (Gee 1994). This is a declining group in America,
as the proportion of households without access to a vehicle has been in continuous decline,
dropping from 21.53% in 1960 to 10.29% in 2000.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Conference on Transportation Issues in
Large U.S. Cities (TRB 1999) focused much attention on the social and economic
implications of current patterns of land use and transportation, and their implications on
economic opportunity, quality of life, and institutional governance. A key aspect concerned
the implications of the lack of auto ownership in an auto-dependent built environment.
Although only 7% of white non-Hispanic households are without vehicles, 30% of black
households do not own vehicles, and the rate is 15% for Hispanic households.
The lack of auto ownership is not surprisingly much more pronounced for black
households in central cities rising to 37%, and much higher in some cities-61% in New York,
47% in Philadelphia (TRB 1999). Actually, the proportion of households without
automobiles is higher among Blacks regardless of wealth. Current research indicates that
African American women are more likely to be dependent on public transportation than
their counterparts in other ethnic groups. A 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey
found that minority women account for the majority of transit users. Urban dwellers are
often dependent on public transportation, and this dependency is aggravated by the
limitations of public transportation in small urban areas, and creates considerable equity
issues in an auto-dependent built environment.
In addition to mobility constraints, low-income bus riders also face cutbacks and
limitations on public assistance programs that serve them. To further complicate this
situation, in areas of the country with small pockets of low-income residents, there is little
36
hope of additional funding from federal resources that are based on US Census poverty
statistics.
Studies to date have focused on the work issues related to the transit dependent and
suggest that the limitations they face are far reaching (Kain and Fauth 1978, Raphael and
Rice 2002). Public transit policies must also consider access to destinations other than work
sites. Access to childcare, job training, and education is crucial for transit-dependent
households, particularly those participating in benefit programs.
Fielding (1986) outlined trip purposes of those using transit and found that transit
markets include work trips to the central business district, education, medical and shopping.
For transit dependent people in the survey, medical and shopping trips accounted for 11%
of travel. Fielding’s study also found that using transit for medical appointments and
shopping was not convenient. Realizing that work is not the only place transit dependent
people must travel, discussion follows on how the transit dependent access food.
3.3 How the transit dependent access food
Most people do their grocery shopping within two miles of their homes (Eisenhauer
2001). But for many low-income households, barriers to mobility affect their ability to access
food, goods, and services necessary for maintaining their households and thereby exacerbate
the conditions brought about by living in poverty. People in low-income households have
limited flexibility and personal control over their schedules, and considerable effort must go
into planning and procuring the mobility needed to reach a food store. Unfortunately, public
transit is poorly suited for most household provisioning tasks. Studies have shown that
populations without cars pay more in money, time, and energy for access to quality food
retail stores (Toronto Food Policy Council 1996). This lack of access to transportation
37
resources creates a situation where people do not have a lot of choice in where and when to
do food shopping. For those without vehicles, options such as catching the bus, getting a
ride with family or neighbors, or walking are the only way to make sure food is brought into
the household.
Households without a vehicle are more likely to live close to a supermarket and shop
closer to home. However, the relative shortage of food retail establishments in low-income
urban communities has been well documented (Berry 1963, Andreasen 1975, Alwitt and
Donley 1996). This is due in part to trends in supermarket location and the consolidation of
retail structure over the past thirty-five years (Clifton 2004). These trends have led to the
creation of an urban grocery store gap (Cotterill and Franklin 1995).
As a result of living in areas abandoned by food retailers, the transit dependent often
wind up shopping for food at smaller, higher priced groceries or convenience stores that do
not provide the quality, price or selection found in suburban supermarkets (Chung and
Myers 1999).
Insufficient time and transportation often restrict the transit dependents ability to
find the lowest cost goods, given their budgetary limitations (Andreasen 1975). Allwit and
Donely (1996) found that Chicago inner city residents had to travel more than 2 miles to get
cheaper food prices. For them, shopping becomes a question of what is available, given
mobility restrictions.
Often the transit dependent must walk from bus stops to stores, and home. This
means that their trips are further limited to what can be easily transported. And for those
traveling with small children, the trip is further complicated. Because the amount they can
carry is limited, the transit dependent are forced to shop more frequently, making trips every
few days and increasing the amount of time dedicated to purchasing food. They must also
38
purchase items in smaller quantities, which increase the unit price, and limits use of
economizing strategies, all of which results in a higher percentage of income spent on food.
Since bus riders go to the store more frequently, budgeting and managing purchases
is crucial. Money for food purchases must be available throughout the month, and bus riders
must refuse the urge to buy on impulse. Occasionally a taxi is used for the return trip to
allow for a large quantity purchase as some point during the month.
Income, mobility and time constraints limit places within reach of low-income bus
riders, creating limited choices for them. As a result, transit dependent populations are more
dependent upon local options, which are virtually non-existent. This lack of adequate retail
food stores within urban communities means that food shopping is often another reminder
of things that poor families cannot afford.
As evidenced in Section 3.2, the characteristics of the transit dependent mirror the
characteristics of people in poverty. They are often low income, minority, and female. To
compound problems with mobility, these populations also suffer cutbacks to and limitations
on public assistance programs that serve the poor (Clifton 2004). Declines in welfare and
food stamp benefits means that these populations now have less money to shop with,
regardless of the increased costs they face when performing provisioning activities.
3.4 Chapter Summary
The need for mobility is central in all aspects of daily life, including work and non-
work activities. For low-income people the lack of access to transportation resources hinders
the acquisition of healthy and affordable food (Clifton 2004). Bus riders cope with mobility
and economic disadvantage in complex, logical, and varied ways. For these families, public
transit and walking are critical forms of mobility as it relates to food shopping. Bus riders
39
suffer with higher food prices, multiple trips and a higher percent of their income spent on
food. They must often travel outside of their neighborhoods to purchase food, which means
increased costs in money, time, and missed opportunities. To compound problems faced by
transit dependent populations, the food retail industry in America has followed the trends
associated with the automobile, they have moved further and further away from the urban
core.
40
Chapter Four – Food Retail Industry
4.1 History of Food Retail in US
At the beginning of the 20th century the food retail system was dominated by locally
based, independent grocers. These included specialized stores such as small grocers,
butchers, bakeries, fruit and vegetable stands, and dairy. In addition to specialized products,
many provided credit and delivery services. Because of the specialized nature of the stores
there was a low profit margin and high turnover. (Eisenhauer 2001). This was due in part, to
the time commitment required to keep small shops open.
The big box trend was foreshadowed in 1916 when a handful of merchants moved
from small, full service stores to large self service models, allowing them to increase
inventory, offer discount prices and increase profits. (Eisenhauer 2001). In order to remain
competitive with new models, the1920s saw independent merchants banding together to
retain market share. These partnerships kept many independents afloat in the increasingly
competitive food retail industry, in part because they had substantial political power. Some
progressive independents of the day formed warehouse grocery stores similar to the 1916
models. They set up large plain buildings on the outskirts of towns and cities. These stores
had night hours, provided cash and carry service only, and used aggressive advertisements.
The warehouse approach proved profitable as these stores could sell groceries at 8 –
15% cheaper than other local stores of the day. This allowed these stores to take over a large
portion of the market as Depression Era shoppers looked for ways to save their money. As a
41
result, in the early 1930’s legal action resulted in state and federal trade laws, as well as food
pricing controls, in order to compete with the first chain stores that held wholesalers hostage
by purchasing large quantities at drastically cheaper prices than what independent grocers
were offered. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, often referred to as the Anti A&P law,
prevented wholesalers from charging retailers different prices in the same market, when
costs were not different (Eisenhauer 2001).
To add to the woes of the independent grocer, technological advances in
transportation, communications, and home appliances also contributed to supermarket
success. By 1930 the Federal Public Works program had built over 41,000 miles of new
highway to accommodate automobiles. Print media and radio gave supermarkets a vehicle
for mass advertising. Food retailers used media to promote brand recognition for products
they offered. This created brand loyal customers. Additionally, as better home refrigeration
became available, families were able to make larger purchases and get better prices at the
supermarket as opposed to the local bakery, butcher, or dairy.
During the 1940’ s supermarket popularity began to grow, creating added problems
for the independent grocer. At the onset of World War II the country was experiencing food
shortages and the loss of manpower, as men left for war. As a result, many independent
grocers went out of business. Post WWII found the food retail industry continuing toward
the self-service, large format store, this time in response to the new middle class families
building on the outskirts of town. At a time when automobile registration increased 55%,
home electricity increased 84%, and the doubling of the population, as the suburbs emerged,
the food market followed (Fetter 1992).
By the 1950’s the suburban rush was on. Suburban communities grew seven times
faster than the rest of the US, adding 12 million new households. In response, there was a
42
new retail design in place: the shopping center. The original shopping center had a multitude
of stores anchored around a food store in suburbia, so that middle class families could shop
close to home.
In the corporate world of food retail, it was apparent that the trends that stimulated
suburban developments powered a similar boom in supermarket building. Foreseeing the
future, many large chains began purchasing vast open spaces of land in these areas prior to
new housing starts.
During this same period, new food stores were continuing to grow in size. Average
grocery store size grew from the old 10 –15,000 square feet to a new 20 –25, 000 square foot
shopping environment. This meant larger inventories of food and non-food items. Larger
format stores pull a greater market share, taking customers from smaller, local independent
grocers. Between 1950 and 1960 the supermarket share of retail food jumped from 35% to
70%, creating a no win situation for independent grocers who could no longer compete
(Eisenhauer 2001). Many independents were either bought out, or closed to avoid a
takeover, meaning virtual extinction of a local food source in urban communities by the
1960’s.
Also in the 1960’s computers were introduced into the food retail industry, fast-
forwarding the food retail business. The Universal Product Codes (UPC) and scanners
allowed retailers to have direct access to consumer behavior and sales. Previously wholesale
suppliers had access to this information and told food retailers what was selling. The UPC
allowed retailers to respond to demand faster, ordering smaller more tailored deliveries
directly to the store. This reduced warehousing costs, wholesaler interaction, and increased
profits for supermarkets (Eisenhauer 2001). So much so, that toward the end of the 60’s
parent corporations of retailers were larger than wholesale suppliers, giving food retailers
43
more control over pricing, making the Robinson Patman Act unenforceable. During this
period new convenience-oriented products took over the market place increasing the average
number of items in supermarkets to 8000 by the end of the decade.
At the beginning of the 1970’s oil prices and inflation caused large supermarkets to
increase food prices. The increasing costs of refrigeration, warehousing and trucking caused
many supermarkets to leave the shopping center ideal and move back towards a warehouse
supermarket, offering bulk products and cheap prices by cutting out rising warehousing and
trucking expenses.
By the late 1970’s price wars between chains dominated in communities with two or
more chains battling for market share. The few remaining independents folded, as they could
not begin to compete with this new wave of pricing. Further worsening conditions for
independents were the fact that federal controls on pricing and mergers were not being
enforced. However, by the late 1980’s the Federal Trade Commission responded to
allegations of ineffective policymaking by saying there was no clear distinction between
competitive pricing and predatory pricing (Eisenhauer 2001).
The 1980’s also ushered in the Leveraged Buy Out (LBO). LBO’s allowed larger
chains to survive the price wars and hostile takeovers that independents could not. Large
corporate entities would acquire other smaller retailing organizations in an effort to increase
market share (horizontal integration), or, retailers would make supply agreements with
certain manufacturers (vertical integration) in an effort to maintain profitability in an
increasingly competitive market. As a result, LBOs created a concentrated retailing system in
America, allowing a few, large retailing organizations to take a commanding lead in the
market share of retail food by taking power and control over warehousing, transportation,
44
and production portions of food systems and away from former food manufacturers
(Guptill and Wilkins 2001).
The LBO had far reaching repercussions for urban communities as less profitable
stores were sold or spun off to discount versions of the more profitable stores, often
offering a more limited, less fresh variety and cheap packaged foods. This also prompted the
emergence of a more demanding and less brand loyal customer (Guptill and Wilkins 2001)
Additionally, pricing would stay steady or drop in profitable stores located in competitive
markets, while prices would be raised in profitable stores in less competitive markets. A
competitive market is one that creates a profit at the highest possible margin. For all
intensive purposes less competitive meant urban. The LBO meant that for urban dwellers,
food costs went up as quality and selection went down.
This trend occurred in every city in America. For example, Safeway, closed more
than 600 urban stores between 1978 and 1984 (Eisenhauer 2001). By 1984, as store openings
exceeded store closings, cities experienced a net loss of supermarkets, meaning that food
stores continued to open in competitive, middle and upper income markets, while in urban
areas, food stores closed more often than they were opened. Some have called this
Although inner city areas provide good marketing opportunities because of high
concentrations of people in immediate neighborhoods, customer counts and per capita
spending are often cyclical and are dependent upon public assistance issuance dates.
Additionally, low-income shoppers shop more frequently but make smaller than average
purchases. In order to stay profitable, food store managers must create fixes that offset these
volume-oriented concerns. Other concerns involve wholesale purchasing. Because of
fluctuations throughout the month, inner city stores often are unable to approach
wholesalers with large enough volumes to ensure good prices, particularly with perishable
items like fresh fruit and vegetables, and also dairy. If savings are not seen at the wholesale
level, they cannot be passed on to consumers. This often occurs in inner city supermarkets,
as prices can be 10% or higher than stores in suburban areas. Another operating concern
49
includes higher utility rates. These rates can be a problem for inner city supermarkets
because there is often a need for increased lighting to ensure safety for shoppers and
employees. The high crime rates associated with inner city areas keep customers away and
create situations were supermarkets have to take expensive measures to maintain a safe
shopping environment (Nayga and Weinberg 1999). One of those measures includes
safeguarding shopping carts. Because of a lack of transportation, many low-income shoppers
“borrow” carts to carry purchases home. Shopping carts can cost hundreds of dollars each,
thereby creating additional operational costs to supermarkets.
Human resources. Because supermarket operations are labor intensive it is
necessary to recruit, train, and retain quality employees. The work patterns of inner city
residents have been well documented (Porter 1997) to show that a disproportionate number
have problems with long-term employment. However, many store operators make a special
effort to employ local labor because supermarket employment is much higher per square
foot than most other retail entities (Eisenhauer 2001). Other reasons include improving
neighborhood relations, creating customer loyalty and developing a product mix that appeals
to local shoppers. When located in urban areas, where the work force has limited educational
backgrounds and low skill levels, it is difficult to meet human resource needs. However,
supermarkets located in urban centers often must deal with high turnover when opting to
employ local residents. In order to recruit efficient employees, supermarkets must have a
direct connection to the community the store is located in. Training and skills development
programs for employees can be costly to inner city supermarkets and often require
partnerships with local education institutes.
These and other issues create real problems and hinder corporate owned, chain
stores from considering location in inner cities. However, other categories of food stores
50
may opt to give the inner city a chance. In order to delineate types of food stores, it is
necessary to discuss the definitions and classifications used to determine food store
categories.
4.3 Typology of Grocery Stores
In order to clarify types of stores it is necessary to provide a typology that defines the
general characteristics of food stores by category. The US Census Bureau uses the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to do this. NAICS was developed to
provide a consistent framework for the collection, analysis and dissemination of industry
statistics. Utilizing an economic concept, establishments are grouped together into industries
based on the production processes used to produce goods and services (Ambler 1998).
Selected 2002 NAICS codes and definitions for the food retail industry are included in Table
4.1.
While NAICS descriptions are beneficial for classifying food store types, it is
necessary to further classify food stores based on sales, size, and product offerings. Guptill
and Wilkins (2001) provide a typology of grocery stores that distinguishes nine types of
grocery stores, grouped into four categories, which will be used in utilized to discuss food
stores in the local setting in Chapter 5.
51
Table 4.1 NAICS Descriptions
(Source: NAICS 2002)
4451
Grocery Stores This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food products.
445110
Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and grocery stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared meats, fish, and poultry. Included in this industry are delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food.
445120
Convenience Stores This industry comprises establishments known as convenience stores or food marts (except those with fuel pumps) primarily engaged in retailing a limited line of goods that generally includes milk, bread, soda, and snacks.
4452
Specialty Food Stores This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing specialized lines of food.
445210
Meat Markets This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh, frozen, or cured meats and poultry. Delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh meat are included in this industry.
445220
Fish and Seafood Markets This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh, frozen, or cured fish and seafood products
445230
Fruit and Vegetable Markets
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh fruits and vegetables
44529
Other Specialty Food Stores
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing specialty foods (except meat, fish, seafood, and fruits and vegetables) not for immediate consumption and not made on premises.
445291
Baked Goods Stores This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing baked goods not for immediate consumption and not made on the premises
445292
Confectionery and Nut Stores
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing candy and other confections, nuts, and popcorn not for immediate consumption and not made on the premises.
445299
All Other Specialty Food Stores
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing miscellaneous specialty foods (except meat, fish, seafood, fruit and vegetables, confections, nuts, popcorn, and baked goods) not for immediate consumption and not made on the premises.
52
Table 4.2 Typology of Grocers (Source: Guptill and Wilkins, 2001)
Type Definition
GROCERY STORE Any retail store selling dry grocery, canned goods, and
nonfood items plus some perishable items. At least 1500
different food items and/or $2 million in annual sales. HYPERSTORE A grocery store with at least 100,000 square feet,
generating $12 million in annual sales. Almost always a
chain, and usually featuring products from major food
manufacturers.
Superstore A hyperstore that is focused primarily on groceries and
perishables, but offering fairly extensive non-food
offerings and services like dry cleaning, photo-
developing, and video rental
Supercenter A hyperstore including both a full-line supermarket and
discount merchandiser, with at least 30% of retail space
devoted to grocery items.
Warehouse-wholesale club A hyperstore offering primarily dry groceries, health and
beauty products, and some perishables, featuring bulk
quantities and low prices.
CONVENTIONAL SUPERMARKET Supermarket that doesn’t qualify as a superstore – less
than $12 million in annual sales and does not offer
extensive services. Features products from major food
manufacturers.
Conventional chain supermarket Conventional supermarket owned by an operator of
more than 10 stores.
Conventional independent supermarket Conventional supermarket owned by an operator of 10
or less stores, usually part of a cooperative or voluntary
wholesaling organization.
“GREEN” GROCERY STORE A grocery store featuring goods from specialty, natural,
and organic food producers and processors. Offers few
or no products from major conventional food
manufacturers. Could be organized as a cooperative,
proprietorship, partnership, or corporation.
Chain green grocery store Green grocery store owned by an operator of more than
5 stores.
Independent green grocery store Green grocery store owner by an operator of less than 5
stores.
DISCOUNT GROCERY STORE A grocery store with a limited number of items,
on groceries, selling bulk and fast moving items in order to reverse a steady decline in
profits. By 1972, 2/3 of all A&P were WEO stores. Eventhough profits went up that year
the store suffered from a $41.6 million loss. The drop in revenue equated to a drop in
market share, and by 1972, regional food retailer, Safeway was vying for largest market share
82
with AP. The 70’s proved to be the downfall of A&P in Toledo, as the Westwood
warehouse and nine other stores closed by 1975. Holding true to the WEO concept, A&P
opened a 23,500 sq store at Byrne and Hill to switch focus to larger, more modern stores.
These new stores begin featuring small appliances, clothing, large delis, produce and meat,
diary and frozen, wine and groceries and had computerized registers for inventory control.
The format worked until 1979 when the Alexis store closed leaving only three AP in Toledo.
The 1970s also saw another market capturing technique; banking. In1972 Centre
opened in Maumee in a 20,000 sq ft bldg. By 1975 the fourth Centre opened at Douglas and
Alexis with 27,000sq ft that had a bank, the first in Toledo. Centre was a family owned
independent grocer that had operated in Toledo since the early 1900s. Centre continued its
success in Toledo opening two additional stores by 1976.
Other Toledo independents fared well in Toledo in the 1970s. Churchills opens a
40,000 sq ft store at 5700 Monroe, leaving the 5 Star co op. Additionally, the Associated
Grocers Warehouse expanded to 40,000 sq. ft. By 1972 Food Town had 42 Toledo stores.
In 1979 the store had over 2500 employees, 52 stores and $285 million in sales. Local retailer
Josephs did not fare as well, announcing a reorganization to consolidate three stores, while
eight others were taken over by Seaway Food Town.
During this period, Toledo witnessed the beginning of the convenience store
phenomena. In 1974 Convenient food Mart, a small market that carried a full line of
grocers, no fresh meats, and some drug items was looking to open 24 units in the city region.
At the same time, Kroger’s stopped using top value stamps and started a low price policy
and by 75 began offering discounts to the elderly. In 1979 A&P was purchased by German
owned Tengleman group and began buying strong regional stores. This would prove to be
fatal for A&P in the next decade.
83
When the 1980s rolled around, all A&Ps closed in Toledo after 64 years. Several of the
smaller grocery chains opened warehouse format stores, with more than 20,000 sq ft. Centre
opened a 35,000 sq ft store on Woodville Rd. in 1982, and remodeled their Maumee store to
30,000 sq ft in 1983. By 1988 Centre remodeled again to attract People on the Go (POGOs)
by offering ready to go foods. The Central Ave. location underwent a $1 million remodel
keeping the store size around 32,000 sq ft. This tactic failed and by 1989 Centre was closing
stores and selling to Food Town, another locally owned chain.
Other local chains continued to grow during the 80s. Despite employees efforts to
unionize and an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board in March 1980, by
February 1983 Churchills began building its fifth store, boasting 120,000 sq ft., and by 1987
they were doing $40 million in sales. In 1989 Churchills held a groundbreaking ceremony for
a 43,000 sq ft. facility in Perrysburg. In May 1987 Chris’s Grocery Plus opened at Swayne
Field is a 44,000 sq ft. abandoned by Kroger’s. Chris Joseph was an independent grocer
catering to the ethnic neighborhood offering greens, polish nights and other ethnically based
specialty items. Chris had another 22,000 sq ft location on Cherry and Delaware.
The decade also saw new competition enter the market in 1987 Cub foods built two
stores in the Toledo area. Cubs was a discount chain opened by Super Valu, the nations
largest wholesaler. The format was a super warehouse with deli, pizza shop, smokehouse,
seafood, bakery, flower shop, a video store and auto tellers. The locations were extremely
large at 62,000 sq ft and 157, 000 sq ft and stores opened in December 1988. Cubs used a
mass-merchandising concept with high volume and low margins. The stores enjoyed early
success in Toledo and by 1989 Cubs was unionized, providing higher starting wages to
prospective employees. A&P owned Farmer Jack also opened on Secor, selling items in bulk
in 1983, but this location closed by 1990 due to intense competition.
84
Long time Toledo retailers continued to grow as well during the 1980s. In 1982
Kroger’s completed a $50 million expansion adding 10 new stores in the area. Kroger’s puts
some of its dollars to use locally in 1983 to buy part of a local park and help improve two
others. At the end of the decade Kroger’s had been in Toledo 67 years, and was Toledo’s
18th largest employer, sponsoring several community events.
In the early 1990s Toledo had over 258 grocery establishments that grossed $496
million in sales. Toledo ranked third in Ohio in total retail sales that year, behind Cleveland
and Columbus. At the time high wages and a very low cost of living gave Toledoans
increased disposable income, which meant higher retail sales.
The 90’s also saw new trends as Claudia’s, a natural health food store, opened on
Sylvania in a 500 sq ft. Local green grocers thrived during this period and included Tom
Strain on Hill avenue, Tonys Farmer Market on Lewis, and Farmer Johns fruit stand on
Woodville road. In 1995 Monnettes fresh fruit opened its third market in Toledo. However,
people asking for organic fresh fruit markets had not fully developed in Toledo at the time
making it difficult for small green grocers to operate. To counteract this, many green grocers
opened seasonally and utilized the open-air market concept.
In 1992 Meijers started building, and was open for business by April 1993. Most
stores were 200,000 sq ft, ensuring immediate market share. By 1995 Meijers added a
McDonalds inside the Alexis store offering even more variety for busy families living on the
Ohio Michigan border. Farmer Jacks came back to Toledo and took over three Churchill’s
stores, keeping all current employees. In response to new formats and heavy competition
Kroger announced plans to spend $60 million between 1998 and 2000, to expand local
presence.
85
Violent occurrences and allegations of fraud continued in central city grocery stores in
the 1990s. Chris Grocery Plus on Cherry and Delaware closed in July 1992 after Paul Joseph,
the owner’s brother, was killed in the parking lot. At the time the store had more than 750
transactions daily. In 1994 a youth shot and killed a store clerk at Lees food market on 3378
Monroe. Around the same time the Magnolia Market and Bakery was in trouble for Food
Stamp fraud and got disqualified from participation in the federal Food Stamp program for
fraud. Owners said it was a shame that families in the area would not be able to buy
groceries anymore and wound up going out of business because she could not afford to pay
the fine. Another store, the Target Market located in the 1900 block of Dorr paid their
$33,000 fine and remained open.
As chain retail stores stopped operating in inner city areas, community agencies
responded to food needs of segmented populations in an effort to ensure adequate nutrition
was available. In 1992 the Area Office On Aging’s Mobile Market was making weekly trips
to 34 apartment buildings for the elderly and handicapped. The only Mobile Market
operated by a non-profit organization, had more than 500 customers weekly and more than
26,917 customers in 1992. The 37 ft truck carried 500 items purchased from the Food Town
and Churchills warehouses. By 1997 they were selling more than $200,000 in groceries which
only covered about 80% of operating expenses, leaving the other 20% to be subsidized with
grant, state, and local funds.
The new millennium brought promise to one inner city community as Farmer Jack, in
conjunction with Warren Sherman Area Council, a local CDC operating in census tracts 22
and 23, became the first major full service food chain to open a store in the central city,
creating 160 jobs in December 2001. Another CDC, Organized Neighbors Yielding
Excellence (ONYX), had been working to get a store at Dorr and Collingwood, but the lot
86
was not big enough to accommodate a store and parking. The store experienced many of the
hurdles associated with locating a food retail store in an inner city neighborhood and was
threatened with a stop work order issued by the mayor. Responding to resident complaints
about the structures exterior design, CDC officials questioned why the building wasn’t using
the design standards used in suburban areas. The facility was suppose to have recessed brick
so residents wouldn’t have to look at a warehouse, but plans submitted to the city didn’t
indicate that resident requests had been addressed. New plans were submitted to prevent the
stop work order and the 50,000 sq ft. store opened in Dec 2001.
While Farmer Jack was moving into uncharted territory, local chains were suffering the
effects of an increasingly consolidated market. Churchills closed its Bowling Green store in
2000 and renovated its other locations as Monroe St. and Byrne Road in an effort to counter
upgraded competitors like Kroger, Meijer, Cubs and Seaway Food Town. At the time,
Churchills had 7% share of local market, 4th behind Kroger, Food Town and Meijer but
noted that restaurants had become its biggest competitor. At one time Churchills had been
Toledo’s largest locally owned grocery chain, specializing in serving an upscale shopper.
However, Churchills began buying from Spartan, which bought Food town in August 2000,
making Spartan a supplier and competitor. This proved deadly to the local chain and by
November of the same year Churchills had sold 3 stores to Farmer Jack. Farmer Jack took
over Churchills Monroe, Byrne and Perrysburg sites and kept all Churchills employees.
Churchills kept its 5,700 ft store on Central recognizing higher profits as loyal customers
came back. In 2003 Churchills made another attempt at expansion opening in the new
suburban area of Monclova, but that store closed by January 2005.
Farmer Jack planned to open 5-7 stores other stores in Toledo over next three years,
and within 6 months of the central city store grand opening, began building another site.
87
Construction at the Byrne Rd Farmer Jack included rebuilding a larger structure on same
site, facing opposition from neighborhood residents that the new facility would be too large.
Farmer Jack refused to build a smaller store because it wouldn’t be competitive. The new
store opened February 2002 but kept the existing store open while building.
In August of 2001 Giant Eagle became the second major chain to open in Toledo in
less than a year. The 85,000 sq ft store at US20/23 served an upscale market with 250
employees, high variety of fresh produce, dry cleaning, a film developing center, and video
rental. By 2003 Giant Eagle built a second store, 75,000 sq ft, on Central in Sylvania
Township. During this same time Farmer Jack put an additional building project on hold
because it would have been located next to a new 149,000 sq ft super store on Holland
Sylvania. By August of 2003 Walmart was operating in Toledo.
Not only the local chains, but also regional chains had problems adjusting to Toledo’s
over saturated food retail market. Cubs closed its two Toledo stores in 2000 due to lagging
sales. While Cubs was doing well in 1990s, since 1994 sales had decreased to less than 40%
of 1994 levels.
In 2000, local organic grocery Claudias was in trouble with the Ohio Board of
Dietetics for consulting customers in benefits of organic foods and natural supplements. The
store lobbied for legislation with Republicans Sally Perz and Lyn Olman and the National
Nutritional Food Association of Newport Beach, CA, to pass a bill giving owners the
freedom to dispense advice. By 2001 the store moved to 8000 sq ft site that included a deli
and organic groceries.
A review of the Toledo Blade shows that the City of Toledo has been experiencing
food store flight for the past 5 years. In 2001, Sam Zyndorf, vice president of
Zydorf/Serchuk, Inc, a commercial real estate firm in Toledo, stated that sometime next year
88
a shakeout among area supermarkets would occur (Toledo Blade 18 February 2001). As Mr.
Zyndorf prognosticated, in April 2003, the Toledo Blade reported that Spartan Stores
planned to liquidate 26 recently acquired Food Town stores in Northwest Ohio and
Southeast Michigan. Spartan officials noted that in the 32 months since it had purchased
Food Town, up to nine supermarkets opened in the Toledo area, encouraging customers to
shop around (Toledo Blade 20 April 2003).
More recently, Food Basic, a discounted-price and limited-service store, including
requiring customers to bag their own groceries, announced plans to leave the Toledo area as
early as June 2005. Owned by A&P, Food Basic took over three former Farmer Jack stores,
at Bancroft and Cherry, Byrne Road, and Laskey Road (Toledo Blade 27 April 2005). The
Bancroft and Cherry store, touted as an answer to inner city residents requests for an inner
city food store, will now close, further exacerbating food accessibility issues for inner city
Toledo residents. Figure 5.8 provides a graphic description of the location of retail food
providers throughout Lucas County. The spatial pattern becomes very apparent. The
highlighted, poverty census tracts in the inner city are saturated with convenience stores and
discount grocery stores.
89
Figure 5.8 Map of Retail Food Providers in Lucas County
&J
x}
$B
x}
%O "̧"G
"̧
"G
"G
$B
"G
"G
x}
"̧
"G"̧"G"G
"G
$B
"Gx}
x}$B
"G
"G&J"G
"G&J
"G&J"G &J
"G"G
"G
"̧"G
"G "G(F"G$B
x}
"G"G$B
"G x}$B
"G
$B
$B$Bx}
$B
"G &J
"A
"G
"G"G "G
&J"G "G
"G&J
x}
"G
$B
"G&J"G
$B%O
"G
"G&J
"G&J
$Bx}
"G"G"G
x}
"G
5 0 5 Miles
Tgr39095trt00.shp
1toledogroceries.shp
x} Conventional Chain Supermarket
(F Chain Discount Grocery
"A Chain Green Grocery
$B Conventional Independent Supermarket
"G Convenience Store
&J Independent Discount Grocery
"̧ Independent Green Grocer
%O SupercenterN
90
5.4 Chapter Summary
The city of Toledo has suffered from poorly planned, inefficient development, and
competition for tax base that has threatened every community in and around Toledo from
concentrated poverty sections, now toward older at risk developed suburbs like Maumee. As
the quality of life and opportunities begin to diminish for working and middle class residents,
those living in the inner city continue to suffer from geographic stratification, trapping them
in their environments, the results of which include, among others, limited economic and
educational opportunities, limited access to mobility strategies, and limited access to food.
As new stores are being located in areas with growing incomes and populations, trouble
abounds for older centers in urban areas. If these neighborhoods continue to be underserved
in retail it will hasten the pace of their steady decline. The next chapter explains how changes
in the retail food market affect those families living in high poverty areas as a result of a
decline in viable food stores in their immediate community and provides recommendations
to counteract its effects.
91
Chapter Six – Findings and Recommendations
6.1 Research Finding
Transit dependent populations in Toledo mirror transit dependent populations across
the country. The highest population of transit dependent households is found in Census
tract 34, which has a 50% poverty rate, which can be explained by the area it encompasses.
Toledo’s downtown area has seen an increase in upscale housing in an effort to revitalize the
area. As a result, these higher incomes within the census tract skew the poverty statistics for
the entire area. However, the unemployment rate in the census tract is 60%, which may
explain why the majority of transit dependent people live here. When compared to state,
county and MSA poverty populations, it is apparent that Toledo’s highest transit dependent
population suffers the tremendous, long-term effects of poverty. Table 6.1 highlights
comparisons.
92
Table 6.1 Census Tract 34 Compared with Regional Statistics (Source: Census 2000 Summary File Tape 3)
Data CT 34 City of
Toledo
Ohio Lucas
County
Toledo
MSA
Population 770 313,619 11,353,140
455,045 618,203
Racial
Breakdown
10%
White
70.2%
White
85% White
77% White
82.1%
White
86%
African
American
23.5%
African
American
11.5%
African
American
17%
African
American
12.8%
African
American
0%
Hispanic
5.5%
Hispanic
1,9%
Hispanic
4.5%
Hispanic
4.4%
Hispanic
Educational
Attainment (Age 25 years)
32% High
School
Diploma
79.7% High
School
Graduate
83% High
School
Graduate
82.9% High
School
Graduate
84.1% High
School
Graduate
0.7%
Bachelor
or higher
degree
16.8%
Bachelor or
higher
degree
21.1%
Bachelor or
higher
degree
21.3%
Bachelor or
higher
degree
21.6%
Bachelor or
higher
degree
20% no
diploma
20.3% no
diploma
17.1% no
diploma
17.1% no
diploma
15.9% no
diploma
Median
Household
Income
$12,500 $32,546 $40,956 $38,004 $50,266
Per Capita
Income
$9,445 $17,388 $21,003 $20,518 $20,565
% individuals in
poverty
59% 17.9% 10.6% 13.9% 12.5%
% Families in
poverty
47% 14.2% 7.8% 10.7% 9.1%
% Single, female
head of
household in
Poverty
46% 35.6% 26.3% 32.1% 29.9%
Unemployment
rate
60% 4.9% 3.2% 4.1% 4.0%
93
In the urban environment, public transit is used to link people to activity locations.
People who live within walking distance of transit routes are considered accessible to transit.
Additionally, the activities located within walking distance to transit routes are considered
accessible by transit. Walking distance for transit planners is usually one-quarter mile, or
three blocks.
Transit dependent populations living in Census tract 34 have multiple transit lines
available, which run through the heart of the Census tract. However, there are no
conventional grocery stores adjacent to this area that are within walking distance. All stores
around area are independent discount grocery stores owned by an operator of 10 or fewer
stores. These stores typify poverty areas across the country and add to nutritional
deficiencies for these populations. The lack of fresh produce, meat, and dairy products at
reasonable prices create situations where transit dependent populations must leave their
neighborhoods, at great time and financial costs to access a decent selection of healthy food.
For transit dependent populations in Census tract 34 the nearest Kroger’s is located at
559 East Manhattan Boulevard, Toledo, OH 43608, which is approximately 2.3 miles away.
The Food Town store highlighted, was one of the stores that closed in 2002 when Spartan
Foods liquidated remaining Food Town stores in Toledo. The Family Food Store, which is
closer to Census Tract 34, is also considered an independent discount store that generally
has higher prices for lower quality products when compared to conventional grocery stores.
See Figure 6.1.
94
Figure 6.1 Map of Nearest Conventional Grocery Stores to Census Tract 34
#
#
#
FAMILY FOOD CTR
FOOD TOWN STORE
KROGER FOOD STORE
Tract_34.shpStreets_tct34.shp
# Convgroc34.shp
0 2 Miles
N
EW
S
95
There are no direct transit routes in Census tract 34 that residents can take to
conventional food stores. In order to get to these stores by public transportation residents
must take one of the routes in the Census tract to the downtown station and then catch
another bus to get to the identified Kroger store. For example, people living near the
number 5 bus route would have to catch the inbound number 5, ride for approximately 10
minutes to the downtown TARTA hub, wait there for approximately 20 minutes and ride
the number 16C outbound for another 25 minutes before arriving at the Manhattan Plaza
where the nearest Kroger store is located. This totals more than 55 minutes one-way to
reach the store. If shopping could be completed within one hour, these individuals would
have to wait, with their purchases for an additional 30 minutes for the inbound 16C. The
return trips would include a sub route that takes 30 minutes to return to the downtown hub.
Once there, individuals would have to wait another 30 minutes for the number 5 bus to take
them back to the stop nearest their residence. Depending on where along the route they live,
this return trip on the number 5 could take an additional 15 minutes. The total time for a
shopping trip for transit dependent individuals in Census tract 34 to their closest
conventional chain grocery would take more than 2 ½ hours. Figure 6.2 displays this trip
graphically. Time schedules for bus routes 5 and 16 are included in the appendicies A2 and
A3.
96
Figure 6.2 Map of Public Transit Trip to Closest Conventional Grocery Store in
Census Tract 34
#
#
FOOD TOWN STORE
KROGER FOOD STORE
MONRO
E
ON
TA
RIO
16
TH
14
TH
13
TH
12
TH
11
TH
DIV
ISIO
N
10
TH
MI C
HIG
AN
# Convgroc34.shp
Tract_34.shp
Streets_tct34.shp
5line.shp
Out16shp.shp
0 1 MilesN
EW
S
97
Considering that this is an unreasonable amount of time to spend acquiring food, it is
apparent why transit dependent residents in the area choose to shop at discount stores
located closer to their homes, which in turn reduces their access to healthy nutritious foods
at affordable prices, which in turn creates poor food choice, which causes among other
things, lifestyle diseases such as Diabetes, children with learning difficulties, as well as food
insecurity and hunger.
While this research covers a specific geographic location and a specific segment of the
population further research is necessary to discover if similar situations are occurring in
other poverty census tracts with high percentages of transit dependent populations. It is the
writers belief that what is occurring in Census Tract 34 is occurring at increasing rates in
other poverty census tracts, especially Census Tract 37 which has over 70% of the
population below the poverty line.
6.2 Recommendations
As a geographer, it is this writer’s belief that in order to effectively implement
behavioral change in any population, specifically in poverty populations, it takes the
coordination and cooperation of multiple stakeholders in various government agencies,
community organizations, as well as representatives from the effected population.
Unfortunately, as a geographer, this writer realizes that these types of collaborations are
often ineffective as the time requirement, level of passion, and financial support are
unavailable or waning over time.
In a utopian society, situations such as found in Census Tract 34 would not exist.
However we all realize that utopia is a figment of imagination. Living in today’s society it is
98
necessary for geographers, city planners, and community activists to work together to solve
problems as they are identified. During the course of this study it was apparent that non-
work transportation needs are not considered a priority topic in planning texts or the
overwhelming majority of geography journals. If the topic is not appearing in expert texts or
journals it is being excluded from instruction for emerging planners.
All social movements begin with a radical critique that the public can clearly
understand, as presented here. Social movements must be rooted in passion and direct
experience but must have a little science to strengthen the argument. Realizing the resulting
planning implications, it is this writers opinion that it is highly important to develop
solutions for low income people that allow them to take control of the basic functions
necessary for a healthy life. This geographer’s recommendations are provided for various
stakeholders in this issue, including city government, TARTA, local CDCs, the local food
policy council, transit dependent populations, and lastly, but most importantly tomorrows
emerging geographers.
City government. Because Toledo has been identified as having poorly planned,
inefficient development this writer recommends training and education for city officials
responsible for creating a superior quality of life for all residents. While the overwhelming
majority of city officials are focused on economic programs designed to increase tax base, it
would only enhance the City’s ability to attract commercial businesses by focusing on ways
to improve the situation in its urban core. A feasibility study is recommended to determine
the cost effectiveness of creating a committee designed to focus on food security issues in
Toledo. While there are several agencies already addressing food security, those agencies
often have a difficult time getting city officials to even discuss food security. By creating a
99
committee of elected officials, the City would provide a direct link for the various agencies
already working in the food security movement.
Additionally, and more focused on economic situations, the City could follow the lead
of Tina Skeldon Wozniak, who recently called for Lucas County residents to consider
spending locally. She has proposed “buy Local” days as an educational campaign and a way
to translate knowledge into spending choices (The City Paper, April 2, 2005). Buy local
campaigns not only increase awareness of the recent plight of local stores, it also helps
increase awareness of the benefits of shopping locally. Spending at a locally owned store can
add significant amounts of money into the local economy. If each household in Lucas
County redirected $100 of spending to a locally owned store, it could add up to $8 million in
revenue for the local economy.
TARTA. The bus is the most cost effective, efficient, and socially equitable way to use
limited public transportation funds. To create a perfect system, funds would have to move
from highway lobbyists to public transportation. Realizing that efforts of this nature take
extensive amounts of planning and time, recommendations for TARTA include
collaborating with community agencies or the University of Toledo’s Urban Affairs Center
to complete a feasibility study on the implementation of a rapid bus line designed to move
transit dependent populations to conventional food store locations around the city. This has
been done in other areas of the country and has proven effective for transit dependent
populations. In Los Angeles the Metropolitan Transit Authority runs a bus line with long
distances between stops (1 to 1.5 miles) designed to reduce travel time by up to 20%.
Additionally, feasibility studies could be performed to determine if creating a system that
arrives every 8 minutes, using public funds to subsidize monthly bus passes for people living
100
in transit dependent areas, and running a special, limited bus line to food store locations
would be cost effective.
Local CDCs. CDCs are responsible for improving the quality of life in areas of
concentrated poverty throughout cities. Improving access to healthy, affordable food should
be among one of the top priorities. However under the current economic conditions in
Toledo, new options requiring additional funding are often put in strategic plans, but never
quite make it to the implementation stage. To counteract the situation of transit dependent
populations, CDCs could focus on forging collaborations that bring healthy, affordable food
into communities. There are multiple ways this can be achieved. Partnerships with programs
such as Toledo Grows could lead to community gardening projects that provide fresh
produce right in the heart of the community. Planning and coordination would require
forming partnerships that include residents, local businesses (for sponsorship), and agencies
who have expertise in local food systems. Agencies such as the Ohio State Extension
provide Master Gardener programs for minimal fees that could be run at CDC offices.
Toledo Grows provides coordination and supplies to communities interested in starting
community gardens. Collaboration with the local food policy council (LEWFN) is another
way to bring the food security issues faced by poverty populations to the forefront. CDCs
could host food policy council meetings in their offices, bringing CFS movement members
in the heart of communities affected by the very food security issues these groups are
working to alleviate. Collaboration with LEWFN could bring stakeholders together to begin
discussion about what the local food system looks like, how it can change, and ultimately
develop a plan, together, to initiate those changes. Plans often include farmers markets,
community gardens, food buying cooperatives, farm to school initiatives, community
101
supported agriculture (CSA), and food recovery programs all of which would assist transit
dependent populations living in CDC boundaries.
LEWFN. Toledo’s food policy council is working feverishly to create a viable
organization capable of addressing the food security issues in Toledo. While in its formative
stages, LEWFN could take an active role in promoting and performing studies such as this
in an effort to shed light on transit dependent food needs. As LEWFN continues, this writer
believes that education and training for community agencies and other organizations
responsible for dealing with poverty populations should be a central component of targeted
activities.
The transit dependent. Any significant movement for sustainable communities that
prioritizes the transit dependent will involve the mobilization of those excluded and
marginalized from politics (Mann, 2001). Therefore, it must be the transit dependent, those
who cannot afford a car, take the longest rides, whose entire mobility and a great part of
their quality of life is determined by public transit – they must lead a broad coalition,
beginning with the most immediate needs and evolving toward a strategic planning
approach. There are multitudes of ways this can occur.
In order to do this, there must be leadership from within the community. In order to
create leaders, education must occur. Therefore, agencies and organizations focused on food
security issues, transportation issues, and local food system issues must constantly work to
educate the populations suffering the most.
The organization of a local Bus Riders Union in Toledo would create a vehicle for
transit dependent populations, specifically, to organize and work to change transit related
issues these populations face. The Bus Riders Union (BRU) was formed in 1993 in Los
Angeles by the Labor/Community Strategy Center (LCSC). It is now the largest
102
transportation group in the United States with 3000+ members. The BRU in its first 10 years
has enjoyed significant policy and legal victories. Their members possess analytical and
theoretical expertise, which can be used as a resource for new chapters. The BRU focuses on
the transportation needs of societies most oppressed and exploited Mann, et al., 2001). As
stated, it would require the work of a community agency or organization to bring ideas like
this to transit dependent populations.
Populations in poverty must at some time become responsible for creating strategies to
move themselves out of stagnant environments. Income and education aside, many people
in poverty have the basic tools to do something about their food security issues. Regardless
of whether they reside in owner occupied or renter occupied housing, the majority of
households in poverty census tracts have enough available land to plant either a community
garden or a personal garden. Urban Agriculture is a new coping strategy, changing the way
people in cities feed themselves. Production for own use provides much of a household’s
supply of nutritious food, normally unavailable to them. One of the many benefits is the
long-term nutritional health of children in poor households.
To implement programs addressing these and other issues would require the diligent
work of a passionate, educated group of people, like tomorrow’s emerging geographers.
Geographers/Planners. The discipline of geography is a multi-faceted one. The
discipline allows its students to focus on a variety of topics, which can cross every other
discipline in the educational arena. The unifying theme of geographers is the application of
the spatial domain. Often geography student’s professional careers involve some facet of
planning. Tomorrow’s planners will be called on to address the ever increasing issues of
sprawl, economics, retail, transportation, and food security to name a few. In light of the
findings of this study, this writer recommends that tomorrow’s planners be directed by
103
University faculty to begin with the basic concepts of human life, the necessity to meet basic
needs. If tomorrow’s planners are truly educated about the plight of those in poverty, this
writer believes that they will be better equipped to implement changes directed at creating
equity for all people in a community, a region, and eventually a nation. Recommendations
include University faculty implementing education courses directed at examining
communities in poverty and using innovative ways to address the lack of basic necessities
that people in these populations face. Additionally, a focus on publication of works would
provide an opportunity for innovative ideas to be shared with the larger community.
104
Chapter 7 -- Conclusion
7.1 Discussion of Findings
The research findings lend support to previously published studies on food
accessibility in low-income neighborhoods. The city of Toledo is currently experiencing food
store flight from these neighborhoods, which is consistent with Nayga and Weinberg 1999
study that indicated many food stores have faced similar issues surrounding the choice to
move into low-income neighborhoods. As a result, many residents in these areas are
currently experiencing the effects of supermarket redlining resulting in families living in
poverty areas continuing to struggle daily to meet provisioning needs.
Clifton (2004) looked at mobility strategies and food shopping for low-income families
and noted that public transit is ill suited for household provisioning. By using GIS to map
bus routes, the research findings became very clear that in Toledo -- public transit is a poor
choice when it comes to food provisioning. Clifton also found that low-income families
would only obtain marginal benefits from policies that enhanced transportation alternatives.
Being in agreement with Clifton findings, this writer provided recommendations to various
stakeholders in the hopes that the food security issues faced by low-income populations
could be addressed by a multitude of entities.
Throughout the course of this study several surprising issues were revealed. It was
interesting to note that Whites and Asians are experiencing poverty at an increasing rate. This
fact was proven true for the Toledo study area as well, as it was revealed that the city is
currently experiencing the decline of older suburbs like Maumee. This indicates that poverty
105
is beginning to spread at increasing rates to populations who previously had no occurrences
of poverty. While this research focused on transit dependent populations, findings suggest
that middle class communities could soon face some of the same issues faced by people in
poverty.
7.2 Limitations
While this research is consistent with previously published reports, it does have some
limitations. For instance the method utilized to determine transit dependency, while rooted
in previous research, has no supporting documentation that it actually shows the occurrence
of transit dependency. The inclusion of households with one automobile was necessary, so
as to respond to Clifton’s (1994) work on mobility strategies for food shopping. Clifton
notes that while low income households may have one automobile, it is often unreliable and
often favored males. Using this as a basis for this research, it was necessary to include
households with at least one vehicle.
Other limitations to this study excluded the possibility of utilization of other mobility
strategies like taking a taxi to and from the store, getting rides with friends and neighbors, or
walking. To address these and other limitations further study of poverty areas in Toledo are
needed.
7.3 Future Implications
It is my belief that while studies of this sort are necessary and commendable, what
really helps individuals living with the reality of gaps in the food system is to teach them how
to impact their environment without waiting on paid public servants and elected officials to
do so. In order to make a clearly defined argument around food security and mobility,
further studies will need to be completed in other areas of Toledo to determine if there are
106
other pockets of transit dependent communities, if other poverty areas in the city are
experiencing the same type of supermarket redlining, and to determine if there are additional
options available to these populations.
As an emerging geographer, it will be my focus to work on educating poverty
populations in provisioning strategies that benefit them and their children, thereby creating
an enhanced quality of life for all stakeholders. I encourage other geographers/planners to
undertake studies such as this to look into the conditions of small communities to determine
if they are occurring on a more generalized level. By doing so, additional works can be
published, allowing future students to be conversant about trends associated with food
security.
107
Appendices
108
A.1 People and Families in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2002 and 2003
109
A.2 Time Schedules for Route 5
110
A.3 Time Schedules for Route 16
111
Bibliography
Alaimo, K., Briefel, R.R., Frongillo, E.A. Jr., and Olson, C.M. 1998. Food Insufficiency Exists in the United States: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). American Journal of Public Health 88:419-426. Alwitt, L.F., and T.D. Donley. 1996. The Low Income Consumer: Adjusting The Balance Of Exchange. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Alwitt, L.F., and T.D. Donley. 1997. Retail Stores In Poor Urban Neighborhoods. Journal of Consumer Affairs 31(1): 139-164. Ambler, C.A., 1998. NAICS and US Statistics. Presentation at Annual Meeting of American Statistical Association. http://www.census.gov/epdc/www/asambler.htm. (last accessed 15 December 2004). American Community Survey.2003. 2003 Data Profiles. US Census. Washington D.C. American Public Transportation Association. 2004. Public Transportation Ridership Statistics. http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp. (last accessed 20 March 2005). Amerigis. 2003. Toledo Metropatterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability in Toledo. Toledo: Urban Affairs Center. Anderson, M.D. and J.T. Cook.1999. Community Food Security: Practice in need of Theory? Agriculture and Human Values 16:141-150. Anderson, S.A 1990. Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult to Sample Populations. Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology for the American Institute of Nutrition. Washington D.C. Andreasen, A. R., 1975. The Disadvantaged Consumer. New York: Free Press. Berry, B. 1963. Commercial Structure And Commercial Blight: Retail Patterns and Processes
in The City Of Chicago. Research Paper. Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
Bishaw, A. and J. Iceland. 2003. Poverty: 1999. Census 2000 Brief. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. US Census Bureau.
Buy Local or Bye Local. The City Paper. 12 April 2005. Calderon, L. and L. Gorence. 1998. Food Center Participants Nutrition Knowledge and Self-Perceived Quality of Diet. Nutrition Research 18 (3): 457-463.
112
Carlson, S.J., Andrews, M.S., and Bickel, G.W. 1999. Measuring Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: Development of a National Benchmark Measure and Prevalence Estimates. Journal of Nutrition 129:510S –516S. Center on Hunger and Poverty and Food Research and Action Center. 2003. The Paradox Of Hunger and Obesity in America. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. Chavez, J. 2001. Experts Say Big Boxes To Remain Active In 2001 But Fear Decline of
Small Retailer. Toledo Blade. 18 February 2001. Chavez, J. 2003. Downfall of An Institution. Toledo Blade. 20 April 2003. Chung, C., and S.L. Myers, Jr. 1999. Do The Poor Pay More For Food: An Analysis Of
Grocery Store Availability And Food Price Disparities. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 33 (2): 276- 296.
Clifton, K.J. 2004. Mobility Strategies and Food Shopping for Low Income Families A Case Study. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:402-413. Cohen, B.E., and M.R. Burt. 1989. Eliminating Hunger: Food Security Policy for the 1990’s. Washington, DC. The Urban Institute. October 1989. Conroe, Scott. 1999. Community Food Security Ensuring Food Access Locally. Human Ecology Forum Winter 1999. Cook, J.T., and J.L. Brown. 1992. Estimating the Number of Hungry Americans. Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy. Working Paper No. HE01-090292. Cotterill, R. and A. Franklin. 1995. The Urban Grocery Store Gap. Food Marketing Policy Center. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. DeNavas – Walt, C., Proctor, B.D., and Mills, R.J. 2004. Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. Current Population Reports. US Census Bureau. Donkin, A.J., Dowler, E.A., Stevenson, S.J., and Turner, S.A. 2000. Mapping Access To
Food In A Deprived Area: The Development Of Price And Availability Indices. Public Health Nutrition 3: 31 –38.
Dowler, E. 2003. Food and Poverty: Insights from the North. Development Policy Review 21(5-6): 569-580.
Eisenhauer, E. 2001. In Poor Health: Supermarket Redlining And Urban Nutrition. GeoJournal 53: 125-133.
113
Federal Transit Administration 1996. Guidelines For The Location And Design
Of Bus Stops. TCRP Report 19. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Fetter, M. A. 1992. A Comparative Analysis Of Supermarket And Restaurant Industries:
Who Is Winning Customers? 1992.b Fielding, G.J. 1986. Transit in American Cities. Geography of Urban Transportation6:24-57.,New
York: The Guilford Press. Food Security Learning Center. 2005. Food Policy Councils. http://www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/faqs/ria_090.asp?section=8&click=1. (last accessed 10 April 2005). Gee, J.K., III 1994. Performance Monitoring Of Public Transit Systems: A Case Study Of
The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority. Toledo: TARTA. Masters Thesis: Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toledo
Graham, H. 2000. Understanding Health Inequalities. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Gross, R.2002.Food And Nutrition Security In Poverty Alleviation: Concepts, Strategies,
And Experiences At The German Agency For Technical Cooperation. Asia Pacific
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 11: 341-347. Guptill, A.and J.L. Wilkins, 2001. Buying Into The Food System: Trends In Food Retailing In The US And Implications For Local Foods. Agribusiness and Human Values 19:39-51. Hemily, B. Ph.D. 2004 Trends Affecting Public Transit's Effectiveness. A Study
prepared for the American Public Transportation Association. Henderson, E. 1998. Rebuilding Local Food Systems From The Grassroots Up. Monthly
Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 50(3): 112-125. Immink, M.1994.The urban poor and household food security. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. Urban Examples, No. 19. Kain, J.F., and G. R. Fauth. 1978. The Impact of Urban Development on Auto Ownership and Transit Use. AREAUEA Journal 6: 305 – 326. Kantor, L. S. 2001. Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access. Food Review 24(1): 20 – 26. Koop, C. E., B. J. Moore, and I. Laquatra. 1997. Combating Obesity in the United States. Journal Of the American Dietetic Association 7:35.
114
Kuby, M, J. Harner, and P. Gober. 2004. Human Geography in Action. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lang, B.J., T. Leather, and C. Mucklow. 1995. 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. Leibtag, E.S., and P.R. Kaufman. 2003. Exploring Food Purchase Behavior of Low Income Households: How Do They Economize? ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 747-07. Lewis, D. and Williams, F. 1999. Policy and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit In the United States. UK: Ashgate. Locke, L.F., W.W. Spiriduso, and S.J. Silverman. 1999. Proposals That Work, 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. MacDonald, J., and P. Nelson. 1991. Do The Poor Still Pay More? Food Price Variations in Large Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Urban Economics 30:344-359. Mann, E., K. Ramsey, B. Lott-Holland, and G. Ray. 2001. An Environmental Justice Strategy
for Urban Transportation in Atlanta: Lesson and Observations from Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Wiltern Center.
Maxwell, S.1998. Saucy With the Gods: Nutrition and Food Security Speak to Poverty. Food Policy 23(3): 215 – 230. Miller, D.C. and N.J. Salkind, 2002. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement 6th Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Minshull, R. 1996. The American City and Its Citizens: The Dream on the Move. Sussex, The Book Build Ltd. Mougeot, L.J. 1999. Part1: The Concept Of Urban Food Security For Self Reliant Cities: Urban Food Production In A Globalizing South. Food and Agriculture 90. http:// Web.idrc.ca/en/ev-30582-201-1-DO_Topic.html. (last accessed 26 October 2004). Murakami, E. and J. Young. 1997. Daily Travel By Persons With Low Income. Paper Presented at the Nationwide Personal Transportation Symposium, October 29-31, Bethesda, MD. Murcott, A., 2002. Nutrition And Inequalities: A Note On Sociological Approaches. European Journal of Public Health 12: 203-207. Murray, A. T., and X. Wu. 2003. Accessibility Tradeoffs in Public Transit Planning. Journal of Geographical Systems 5:93-107. Nayga, R.M, and Z Weinberg. 1999. Supermarket Access in the Inner Cities. Journal
115
Of Retailing and Consumer Services 6:141-145. National Transit Summit and Trends.1998. Federal Transit Administration Annual Report. 1-72. Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2003. Household Food Security in the United States, 2002. USDA Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report Number 35. Ong, P. and E. Blumenberg. 1998. Job Access, Commute And Travel Burden Among Welfare Recipients. Urban Studies 35 (1):77-94. Pelletier, D.L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich. 1999. Community Food Security Salience and Participation at Community Level. Agriculture and Human Values. 16:401-419. Policom Corporation. 2005. Economic Analysis Everyone Understands. http://www.policom.com/index.html. (last accessed 17 April 2005). Porter, M. 1997. New Strategies For Inner City Economic Development. Economic Development Quarterly 11 (1): 11-27. Pothukuchi, K. and J. Kaufman, 2000. The Food System: A Stranger To The Planning Field. Journal Of the American Planning Association 66 (2): 113-124. Raphael, S. and L. Rice. 2002. Car Ownership, Employment and Earnings. Journal of Urban Economics 52: 109-130. Ribar, D.C. and K.S. Hamrick. 2003. Dynamics of Poverty and Food Sufficiency. USDA Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report Number 36. Rose, D., C. Gundersen, and V. Oliveira. 1998. Socio-Economic Determinants of Food Insecurity in the United States: Evidence from the SIPP and CSFII Datasets. USDA Economic Research Service Technical Bulletin No. 1869. The President’s Task Force on Food Assistance. 1984. Report of the President’s Task Force On Food Assistance. Washington, DC. Toronto Food Policy Council Discussion Paper Series. Discussion Paper #7. Food Retail Access and Food Security for Toronto’s Low Income Citizens 1996. Toronto: Toronto Food Policy Council.
Transportation Research Board 1999.Conference on Transportation Issues in Large U.S.
Cities. Washington D.C. Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy, 1995. Summary Of US Hunger Estimates: 1984 to the Present. Washington D.C.
116
Turnbough, R. 2002. A Tale As Old As Time: The Segregation Of Blacks In Inner Cities. Masters Thesis: Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toledo. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book 1997 – 1998 5th edition. Washington DC. U.S. Census.2000.Population And Housing Summary Tape Files 3a.Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce. Winne, M, H. Joseph, and A. Fisher. 1998. Community Food Security: A Guide to Concept, Design and Implementation. Venice, CA: Community Food Security Coalition.
