Skip to main content

Table 7 Spatial accessibility to fruits and vegetables by area-level vehicle ownership, using measures of proximity*

From: Neighborhood deprivation, vehicle ownership, and potential spatial access to a variety of fruits and vegetables in a large rural area in Texas

  Low Vehicle Ownership (n= 35) Medium Vehicle Ownership (n= 32) High Vehicle Ownership (n= 34)
SPATIAL ACCESSIBILITY
Proximity, mi
Food stores
   Supermarket 6.4 ± 7.8§ (1.4; 0.3-23.8) 12.4 ± 8.4 (11.6; 0.6-30.9) 11.1 ± 8.2 (10.5; 0.1-33.6)
   Traditional food store 4.1 ± 6.2 (1.1; 0.1-23.1) 6.4 ± 7.8 (7.4; 0.6-24.4) 6.4 ± 7.8 (9.1; 0.1-19.0)
Fruits
   Fresh fruits 4.0 ± 5.5§ (1.1; 0.1-19.5) 8.9 ± 6.2 (9.3; 0.8-19.8) 7.3 ± 4.3 (8.0; 0.1-15.1)
   Overall fruits 2.7 ± 4.2 (0.9; 0.1-19.5) 4.8 ± 3.3 (4.4; 0.5-12.4) 6.7 ± 4.1 (6.9; 0.1-14.6)
Vegetables
   Fresh vegetables 4.8 ± 6.7§ (1.2; 0.4-23.1) 9.7 ± 6.5 (9.5; 0.8-23.5) 8.1 ± 4.5 (9.3; 0.1-16.3)
   Overall vegetables 2.5 ± 3.9 (1.0; 0.1-19.5) 5.3 ± 3.8 (4.5; 0.5-12.9) 5.7 ± 3.8 (5.6; 0.1-14.6)
  1. Area-level (CBG) vehicle ownership (% owner-occupied households): Low = < 90.5%; medium = 90.5-95.4%; high = >95.4%. * Values calculated for each of the CBG (census block group) in the study area (n = 101). Proximity determined by the network distance from each CBG population-weighted centroid to the nearest food store. Distance (proximity) and percentages (mean ± standard deviation, median, and range) by category of vehicle ownership.
  2. Level of statistical significance for test for trend across ordered groups of area = -level vehicle ownership: p < 0.05 §p < 0.01 p < 0.001