Food System Mapping:The Value of Geographic Analysis

Food, Culture & JusticeCFSC Annual Conference

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Amanda Behrens, Project Manager, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Center for a Livable Future

• Our mission: To promote research and to develop and communicate information about the complex interrelationships among diet, food production, environment and human health in order to advance an ecological perspective in reducing threats to the health of the public; and to promote policies that protect health, the global environment and the ability to sustain life for future generations.

Maryland Food System Mapping Project

http://www.jhsph.edu/clf/programs/eating/proj_foodsystem.html

Evaluation Strategies

• Small scale (community-level):

– Community Food Assessment – store and

community surveys

– Qualitative approaches – interviews, focus groups

• Larger scale (city-wide and state-wide):

– Geographic Analyses• CLF’s Maryland Mapping Project• Greater Philadelphia Food System Study (

http://www.dvrpc.org/Food/) • USDA Food Environment Atlas (

http://www.ers.usda.gov/FoodAtlas/)

Why do a community food assessment? • Build the community’s capacity to examine food access issues• Have data to inform your programs• Use data available to tell the story in your community

(residents, funders, universities, etc)• Map existing assets• Provides a reality check on

community perceptions of food issues and overall landscape of food access.

• Identify institution and individual barriers and strengths

Sample Community Survey Questions

• How satisfied are you with the overall quality of the food sold in your neighborhood?

• How satisfied are you with the availability of healthy food in your neighborhood?

• How often do you buy food at a corner store or convenience store?

• How easy is it for you to get to the supermarket?

• Also included - fruit & veg intake, health questions

Residents Survey:Satisfaction with Food in OROSW Area

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% of respondents

Quality Selection Availabilityof healthy

food

Price

Figure 1. Satisfaction with food among OROSW respondents

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

Availability of vegetables

• 69% - NO vegetables for sale• 15% sold only one or two varieties• Only 2 stores sold more than 5 types

Community Assets

• 55% - prepare meals from scratch daily or several times/week

• 50% interested in learning more about healthy food preparation

• 67% were interested in changing current eating patterns– Eating less greasy/fatty foods– More fruits & vegetables

• 83% would purchase fruits and vegetables grown in their neighborhood/ sold in farmer’s market

Real Food Farm Qualitative Study Methods

• METHODS

METHODS

Participant Method

Community Organization Representatives

• 8 In-Depth Interviews

Community Residents • 2 Focus Groups Discussions

• 14 Pile Sorts• Ongoing In-Depth

Interviews

Community Sites (Farm Stands, Community Meetings,

etc)

• Observations

Real Food Farm Qualitative Study Methods, continued

FOCUS GROUP SET UP

PILE SORT CARDS FARM STAND

“When it comes to food, very few of us in this community are status food shoppers…we may be status tennis shoe buyers”

RESULTS: Barriers• Structural barriers

– “Hamburger helper is just easier and cheaper”• Social relevance of health

– “A distant concern”• Cultural barriers

– “The old school”

– “What healthy food actually is”

– “Used to eatin’ one way”

– “How to convince anyone under 50 to actually cook a meal

may be the biggest obstacle to fresh vegetables”• Organizational barriers

– “I think they grow something over there”

Community Gardens, 2009 (92) compared to 2010 (136)

Thank you!

Amanda Behrensabehrens@jhsph.edu

www.jhsph.edu/clf