Premiums for Residing in Unfavorable Food Environments: Are People Rational?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Food Environments
2.2. The Spatial Hedonic Pricing Model
2.3. The Marginal Effects and WTP in the SAR Model
3. Data and Variable Construction
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Identification of Different Types of Food Environments
4.2. Estimation Results of Spatial Regressions
4.3. Discussion of the Estimation Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Boumtje, P.I.; Huang, C.L.; Lee, J.-Y.; Lin, B.-H. Dietary Habits, Demographics, and the Development of Overweight and Obesity among Children in the United States. Food Policy 2005, 30, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, F.B. Globalization of Diabetes: The Role of Diet, Lifestyle, and Genes. Diabetes Care 2011, 34, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schulze, M.B.; Martínez-González, M.A.; Fung, T.T.; Lichtenstein, A.H.; Forouhi, N.G. Food Based Dietary Patterns and Chronic Disease Prevention. BMJ 2018, 361, k2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Athens, J.K.; Duncan, D.T.; Elbel, B. Proximity to Fast-Food Outlets and Supermarkets as Predictors of Fast-Food Dining Frequency. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016, 116, 1266–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiechtner, L.; Kleinman, K.; Melly, S.J.; Sharifi, M.; Marshall, R.; Block, J.; Cheng, E.R.; Taveras, E.M. Effects of Proximity to Supermarkets on a Randomized Trial Studying Interventions for Obesity. Am. J. Public Health 2016, 106, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morland, K.B.; Evenson, K.R. Obesity Prevalence and the Local Food Environment. Health Place 2009, 15, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cooksey-Stowers, K.; Schwartz, M.B.; Brownell, K.D. Food Swamps Predict Obesity Rates Better Than Food Deserts in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- He, M.; Tucker, P.; Irwin, J.D.; Gilliland, J.; Larsen, K.; Hess, P. Obesogenic Neighbourhoods: The Impact of Neighbourhood Restaurants and Convenience Stores on Adolescents’ Food Consumption Behaviours. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 2331–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Amin, M.D.; Badruddoza, S.; McCluskey, J.J. Predicting Access to Healthful Food Retailers with Machine Learning. Food Policy 2021, 99, 101985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, K.Y.; Tong, D.; Plane, D.A.; Buechler, S. Urban Food Accessibility and Diversity: Exploring the Role of Small Non-Chain Grocers. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 125, 102275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Qiu, F.; Swallow, B. Can Community Gardens and Farmers’ Markets Relieve Food Desert Problems? A Study of Edmonton, Canada. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luan, H.; Law, J.; Quick, M. Identifying Food Deserts and Swamps Based on Relative Healthy Food Access: A Spatio-Temporal Bayesian Approach. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2015, 14, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, M.; Wang, H.; Qiu, F. Neighbourhood Food Environments Revisited: When Food Deserts Meet Food Swamps. Can. Geogr. 2020, 64, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolak, M.; Bradley, M.; Block, D.R.; Pool, L.; Garg, G.; Toman, C.K.; Boatright, K.; Lipiszko, D.; Koschinsky, J.; Kershaw, K.; et al. Urban Foodscape Trends: Disparities in Healthy Food Access in Chicago, 2007–2014. Health Place 2018, 52, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Ashuri, B. Neighborhood Racial Composition, Neighborhood Wealth, and the Surrounding Food Environment in Fulton County, GA. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 97, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Tao, L.; Qiu, F.; Lu, W. The Role of Socio-Economic Status and Spatial Effects on Fresh Food Access: Two Case Studies in Canada. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 67, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, K.; Gilliland, J. Mapping the Evolution of “food Deserts” in a Canadian City: Supermarket Accessibility in London, Ontario, 1961–2005. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2008, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sushil, Z.; Vandevijvere, S.; Exeter, D.J.; Swinburn, B. Food Swamps by Area Socioeconomic Deprivation in New Zealand: A National Study. Int. J. Public Health 2017, 62, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Smoyer-Tomic, K.E.; Spence, J.C.; Raine, K.D.; Amrhein, C.; Cameron, N.; Yasenovskiy, V.; Cutumisu, N.; Hemphill, E.; Healy, J. The Association between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Exposure to Supermarkets and Fast Food Outlets. Health Place 2008, 14, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caceres, B.C.; Geoghegan, J. Effects of New Grocery Store Development on Inner-City Neighborhood Residential Prices. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2017, 46, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collins, L.A. The Effect of Farmers’ Market Access on Residential Property Values. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 123, 102272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pope, D.G.; Pope, J.C. When Walmart Comes to Town: Always Low Housing Prices? Always? J. Urban Econ. 2015, 87, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, C.W.; Phipps, T.T.; Anselin, L. Measuring the Benefits of Air Quality Improvement: A Spatial Hedonic Approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saphores, J.-D.; Li, W. Estimating the Value of Urban Green Areas: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Single Family Housing Market in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesage, J.P.; Pace, R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics; Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- City of Edmonton’s Business Licenses Database. 2018. Available online: https://data.edmonton.ca/Sustainable-Development/City-of-Edmonton-Business-Licenses/qhi4-bdpu/data (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Atreya, A.; Kriesel, W.P.; Mullen, J.D. Valuing Open Space in a Marshland Environment: Development Alternatives for Coastal Georgia. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2016, 48, 383–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franco, S.F.; Macdonald, J.L. Measurement and Valuation of Urban Greenness: Remote Sensing and Hedonic Applications to Lisbon, Portugal. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2018, 72, 156–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Hu, W.; Song, Y.; Zhang, A. Exploring Spillover Effects of Ecological Lands: A Spatial Multilevel Hedonic Price Model of the Housing Market in Wuhan, China. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 170, 106568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DMTI Spatial. CanMap RouteLogistics. 2013. Available online: https://www.dmtispatial.com/canmap/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Government of Canada. North Saskatchewan River. 2017. Available online: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/b045be32-0e62-5d1d-855e-c3befd42da22 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- City of Edmonton Open Data Catalogue. Parks: Map View. 2021. Available online: https://data.edmonton.ca/Outdoor-Recreation/Parks-Map-View/ex66-ku6s (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- City of Edmonton Open Data Catalogue. Discover YEG Map. 2021. Available online: https://edmonton.livingmap.com/?screenmode=base&floor=G&feature=LTExMy41MjUxNDAsNTMuNTIzMzA2NEBsbUAyMTc0MjA%3D#hash=12.53/53.52331/-113.52514 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- City of Edmonton Open Data Catalogue. 2018. Available online: https://data.edmonton.ca/browse?q=2016%20census&sortBy=relevance (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Schuetz, J.; Kolko, J.; Meltzer, R. Are Poor Neighborhoods “Retail Deserts”? Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2012, 42, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Sohn, J. Valuing Spatial Accessibility to Retailing: A Case Study of the Single Family Housing Market in Hillsboro, Oregon. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2007, 14, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Retail Council of Canada. The Great Canadian Shopping Trip: Grocery Shopping Stats. 2019. Available online: https://www.retailcouncil.org/community/grocery/the-great-canadian-shopping-trip/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Statista. Consumers’ Weekly Grocery Shopping Trips in the United States from 2006 to 2019. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251728/weekly-number-of-us-grocery-shopping-trips-per-household/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Statistic Canada. Vehicle Registrations, by Type of Vehicle. 2019. Available online: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310006701 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Dubowitz, T.; Acevedo-Garcia, D.; Salkeld, J.; Lindsay, A.C.; Subramanian, S.V.; Peterson, K.E. Lifecourse, Immigrant Status and Acculturation in Food Purchasing and Preparation among Low-Income Mothers. Public Health Nutr. 2007, 10, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Watts, A.W.; Loth, K.; Berge, J.M.; Larson, N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. No Time for Family Meals? Parenting Practices Associated with Adolescent Fruit and Vegetable Intake When Family Meals Are Not an Option. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 117, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Darmon, N.; Drewnowski, A. Does Social Class Predict Diet Quality? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 1107–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dizon, F.; Herforth, A.; Wang, Z. The Cost of a Nutritious Diet in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 21, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drewnowski, A.; Specter, S. Poverty and Obesity: The Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 79, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarasuk, V.; Mitchell, A. Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2017–2018. Toronto: Research to Identify Policy Options to Reduce Food Insecurity (PROOF). 2020. Available online: https://proof.utoronto.ca/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Delivering Community Benefit: Healthy Food Playbook. Program: Community Gardens and Farms. 2020. Available online: https://foodcommunitybenefit.noharm.org/resources/implementation-strategy/program-community-gardens-and-farms (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Balsas, C.J.L. The Role of Public Markets in Urban Habitability and Competitiveness. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2020, 13, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaiber, H.A.; Phaneuf, D.J. Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 60, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuminoff, N.V.; Parmeter, C.F.; Pope, J.C. Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2010, 60, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | Definition | Mean | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | |||
Price a | Sale price of the property (2016$) | 454,882.50 | 201,652.30 |
Food Environment Types | |||
Type 1 | 1 if house is located in a type 1 neighborhood, 0 otherwise | 0.33 | 0.47 |
Type 2 | 1 if house is located in a type 2 neighborhood, 0 otherwise | 0.21 | 0.41 |
Type 3 | 1 if house is located in a Type 3 neighborhood, 0 otherwise | 0.21 | 0.41 |
The overlap of Types 2 and 3 | 1 if house is located in the overlap of a types 2 and 3, 0 otherwise | 0.12 | 0.32 |
Structural Variables | |||
Living area a | Square feet of living spaces | 1553.53 | 607.44 |
Lot size a | Square feet of lands owned by a household | 5939.27 | 5351.73 |
Bedroom | Number of bedrooms | 2.91 | 0.65 |
Bathroom | Number of bathrooms | 1.62 | 0.66 |
Basement condition | 3 if the basement is finished, 2 if the basement is partial finished, and 1 if the basement is unfinished | 2.47 | 0.81 |
House condition | 4 if the house condition is excellent, 3 if the house condition is good, 2 if the house condition is average, and 1 if the house condition is poor | 3.02 | 0.85 |
Garage | Capacity of garages (double or single) | 1.84 | 0.47 |
House age | Age of the house | 27.93 | 22.59 |
Locational Variables | |||
River a | Distance to North Saskatchewan River | 4281.59 | 3248.10 |
Downtown a | Distance to Downtown | 10,503.78 | 4311.75 |
University a | Distance to University of Alberta | 11,351.15 | 3957.81 |
Hospital a | Distance to the nearest hospital | 5049.93 | 2369.12 |
Park a | m2 of park within a 200-m buffer | 4274.69 | 9590.85 |
Neighborhood Socio-economic Status | |||
Population density a | Neighborhood level population density (Per capita/Km2) | 3063.59 | 1054.32 |
Children | The ratio of the children aged under 14 | 0.18 | 0.05 |
Senior | The ratio of the senior population aged over 65 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
High education | The ratio of residents who have a postsecondary certificate, diploma, or degree | 0.63 | 0.12 |
Unemployment | The ratio of residents who are unemployed | 0.09 | 0.04 |
Low income | The ratio of residents who have a relative low income (annual income less than C$30,000) | 0.13 | 0.10 |
High income | The ratio of residents who have a relative high income (annual income more than C$150,000) | 0.17 | 0.12 |
Season | 1 if house is sold between April and September, 0 otherwise | 0.55 | 0.50 |
K-Nearest Neighbor Weights (Nearest 5) | K-Nearest Neighbor Weights (Nearest 10) | Contiguity-Based Weights (First Order Queen) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Moran’s I | Statistic | 0.244 | 0.221 | 0.242 |
p-value | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 | |
LM spatial lag | Statistic | 495.170 | 606.510 | 537.700 |
p-value | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 | |
Robust LM spatial lag | Statistic | 71.774 | 84.638 | 83.965 |
p-value | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 | 2.20 × 10−16 |
Variables | OLS Model | SAR | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Nearest 5 Weights | Nearest 10 Weights | Queen Weights | ||
Food Environment Types | ||||
Type 1 | 0.014 *** | 0.008 | 0.008 * | 0.008 * |
(0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
Type 2 | −0.014 | −0.012 | −0.012 | −0.009 |
(0.009) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | |
Type 3 | 0.037 *** | 0.025 *** | 0.022 *** | 0.026 *** |
(0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | |
The overlap of Types 2 and 3 | −0.047 *** | −0.037 *** | −0.031 *** | −0.038 *** |
(0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | |
Structural Variables | ||||
Log (Living area) | 0.591 *** | 0.532 *** | 0.534 *** | 0.532 *** |
(0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | |
Log (Lot size) | 0.091 *** | 0.080 *** | 0.081 *** | 0.081 *** |
(0.006) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
Bedroom | −0.051 *** | −0.043 *** | −0.043 *** | −0.042 *** |
(0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Bathroom | 0.023 *** | 0.020 *** | 0.020 *** | 0.021 *** |
(0.005) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
House condition | 0.013 *** | 0.012 *** | 0.012 *** | 0.013 *** |
(0.003) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
Basement condition | 0.048 *** | 0.046 *** | 0.047 *** | 0.046 *** |
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
Garage | 0.102 *** | 0.092 *** | 0.093 *** | 0.094 *** |
(0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
House age | −0.003 *** | −0.003 *** | −0.003 *** | −0.003 *** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
House age2 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** |
(0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Locational Variables | ||||
Log (River) | −0.030 *** | −0.024 *** | −0.021 *** | −0.021 *** |
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
Log (Downtown) | 0.014 | −0.004 | −0.015 | −0.013 |
(0.012) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | |
Log (University) | −0.224 *** | −0.171 *** | −0.159 *** | −0.168 *** |
(0.013) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | |
Log (Hospital) | 0.007 | 0.001 | −0.003 | −0.001 |
(0.005) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Log (Park) | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.003 *** | 0.002 *** |
(0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
Neighborhood Socio-economic Status | ||||
Log (Population density) | −0.026 *** | −0.021 *** | −0.028 *** | −0.025 *** |
(0.007) | (0.007) | (0.006) | (0.006) | |
Children | 0.282 *** | 0.174 ** | 0.145 ** | 0.188 *** |
(0.077) | (0.072) | (0.072) | (0.072) | |
Senior | 0.203 *** | 0.171 *** | 0.155 *** | 0.168 *** |
(0.044) | (0.042) | (0.042) | (0.042) | |
High education | 0.365 *** | 0.209 *** | 0.169 *** | 0.203 *** |
(0.035) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | |
Unemployment | −0.053 | −0.082 | −0.058 | −0.070 |
(0.106) | (0.100) | (0.100) | (0.100) | |
Low income | −0.212 *** | −0.173 *** | −0.189 *** | −0.197 *** |
(0.045) | (0.042) | (0.042) | (0.042) | |
High income | 0.129 *** | −0.047 | −0.084 ** | −0.056 |
(0.036) | (0.035) | (0.035) | (0.035) | |
Season | 0.010 ** | 0.010 ** | 0.011 *** | 0.011 *** |
(0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Constant | 9.705 *** | 6.569 *** | 6.007 *** | 6.507 *** |
(0.132) | (0.186) | (0.198) | (0.191) | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.8437 | |||
Rho | 0.266 *** | 0.3155 *** | 0.2770 *** | |
Log Likelihood | 2773.06 | 2794.62 | 2784.00 | |
AIC | −5488.10 | −5531.20 | −5510.00 |
Variables | ADE | AIE | ATE |
---|---|---|---|
Food Environment Types | |||
Type 1 | 0.0083 * | 0.0037 * | 0.0120 * |
(0.0050) | (0.0022) | (0.0072) | |
Type 2 | −0.0126 | −0.0056 | −0.0182 |
(0.0083) | (0.0037) | (0.0120) | |
Type 3 | 0.0227 *** | 0.0101 *** | 0.0328 *** |
(0.0078) | (0.0035) | (0.0112) | |
The overlap of Types 2 and 3a | −0.0311 *** | −0.0139 *** | −0.0450 *** |
(0.0118) | (0.0053) | (0.0171) | |
Locational Variables | |||
Log (River) | −0.0211 *** | −0.0094 *** | −0.0305 *** |
(0.0029) | (0.0013) | (0.0042) | |
Log (Downtown) | −0.0153 | −0.0068 | −0.0222 |
(0.0113) | (0.0051) | (0.0164) | |
Log (University) | −0.1609 *** | −0.0718 *** | −0.2327 *** |
(0.0124) | (0.0063) | (0.0176) | |
Log (Hospital) | −0.0031 | −0.0014 | −0.0045 |
(0.0046) | (0.0021) | (0.0067) | |
Log (Park) | 0.0029 *** | 0.0013 *** | 0.0041 *** |
(0.0005) | (0.0002) | (0.0007) |
Variables | WTP for OLS Model | WTP for SAR | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Direct | Indirect | Total | ||
Food Environment Types | ||||
Type 1 | 6620.77 *** | 5560.89 * | 2471.24 * | 8062.34 * |
Type 2 | −6193.88 | −8296.47 | −3718.25 | −11,946.91 |
Type 3 | 17,325.30 *** | 15,349.38 *** | 6781.37 *** | 22,359.57 *** |
The overlap of Types 2 and 3a | −20,884.84 *** | −20,228.64 *** | −9133.68 *** | −28,956.15 *** |
Locational Variables | ||||
Riverb | 315.43 *** | 327.77 *** | 146.15 *** | 473.93 *** |
Downtownb | −58.94 | 96.96 | 43.23 | 140.19 |
Universityb | 897.25 *** | 942.10 *** | 420.08 *** | 1362.18 *** |
Hospitalb | −64.44 | 41.35 | 18.44 | 59.79 |
Parkc | 33.13 *** | 44.52 *** | 19.85 *** | 64.38 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, M.; Qiu, F.; Tu, J. Premiums for Residing in Unfavorable Food Environments: Are People Rational? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126956
Yang M, Qiu F, Tu J. Premiums for Residing in Unfavorable Food Environments: Are People Rational? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(12):6956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126956
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Meng, Feng Qiu, and Juan Tu. 2022. "Premiums for Residing in Unfavorable Food Environments: Are People Rational?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 12: 6956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126956