Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Food Access in Two Predominantly White Cities: The Case of Lansing, East Lansing, and Surrounding Townships in Michigan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review the paper “Race, Socioeconomic Status and Food Access in Two Predominantly White Cities…” This study makes an important contribution to the field as it focuses on differing geographies than often seen in the literature in the area of food access. I have no changes requested, it was a super well written article.

Literature review and introduction:

1. Appears to be well written, easy to read, and provides the needed background.

2. I appreciated the background about the communities in this paper, including the historical background.

3. Clear presentation of definitions and used the citations I would expect

4. I haven’t seen the gendering of authors before in an article. Consider using they/them (example talking about Reed’s study line 257)

 

Methodology

1. Study area well defined

2. Clear explanation of what was done.

 

Results

1. Easy to understand results and good explanation of the maps. Maps are easy to read.

2. Not the authors fault but Table 4 was unreadable.

Discussion & Conclusion

1. Very well written!

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1.

Thank you for your feedback.

1. Regarding the use of gender pronouns, some people go by she/her/hers gender pronouns. Is the suggestion here that it is always inappropriate to use she/her/hers even if that’s what someone’s preference is? There are many publications that use she/her/hers. They/them/theirs is not universally seen as gender-neutral or nonbinary terms.
   1. We have responded to the gender comment by removing all references to gender in discussing the article in question (line 257 in the original draft).
2. We submitted a readable, landscaped version of Table 4, but the staff who formatted the draft chose to shrink the table to fit a portrait style and rendered the table unreadable.
   1. We have reformatted the table with a larger font and placed it on a landscaped page. It is now readable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper.  I see multiple issues with the content and context of the paper which, with revisions can be made better.  The main points I have are:

- Including East Lansing in your study area clearly messes up your analyses as it is a college town with higher education levels and lower income levels.  This is not any town USA but a typical college town

- Including any and all food outlets, whether they serve the interest of anyone or not is a fallacy.  Food access research is centered upon access to fresh, healthy, affordable foods which you do not distinguish within your study at all

Other points are included on the attached paper through highlights and comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your feedback.

1. We are keeping East Lansing in the paper as one of the study cities. Reviewer 2 suggests that East Lansing “messes” up the analysis because it is a college town. We think that it is appropriate to include East Lansing and provide a justification for doing so.
   1. Though East Lansing has a large public university, it has substantial food insecurity. Many of the students live off campus in the community, and 39% of Michigan State University report that they are food insecure.
   2. East Lansing has a history of residential segregation that prohibited Blacks from buying property in the city till after 1968.
   3. The city has educational attainment levels that can be found in other Michigan towns that may or may not be college towns. For instance, Grosse Pointe City and Grosse Pointe Farm have a higher level of educational attainment than East Lansing (about 99% of the residents over the age of 25 have graduated from high school). Other Detroit suburbs have similar educational profiles. If we take the small suburban town of Mason, which is on the periphery of our study area, 95% of the residents over the age of 25 have graduated from high school. This is similar to East Lansing’s educational attainment.
   4. If the argument is that studies should not be conducted in college towns, that would leave many cities and towns where research has been conducted in the past that we would exclude from studies. This would include places like Madison (WI), Austin (TX), Berkeley (CA), and so on.
   5. To exclude East Lansing from the study would leave a donut hole in our study area that would be inexplicable. It would beg the question – why study everything else and not East Lansing?
2. We have made the literature review more robust.
   1. To do so, we added 47 new citations.
   2. We have added 11 new footnotes and two extensively rewritten ones.
   3. Ensured that the cited material are relevant to the research and incorporated more fully in the literature review, methods, and discussion.
3. We have reorganized the content and made the paper easier to read and follow.
   1. We have put sub-headings in lengthy sections to help guide the reader through the material.
   2. We have clarified our questions.
   3. We have added more context to the paper’s narrative.
   4. We connected the literature review with the methods, results section, and discussion more consistently and in a way that makes it easier for the reader to see the connections.
4. Reviewer 2 suggests that we have included “any and all food outlets.” We actually acknowledge in our paper that we have not included all food sources. We include an extensive list of food outlets that we know people purchase food from or obtain food from. Some of the food outlets sell food while others give it away for free.
   1. All the categories of food we study “serve the interest” of someone.
   2. The reviewer defines food access research as being “centered upon access to fresh, healthy, affordable foods.” There is a plethora of food access research that examines the stocking of unhealthy, processed, high-calorie foods in stores, or the consumption of such foods.
      1. We did not study the nutrition content of foods, or the percent of store shelf space devoted to healthy and affordable foods. These are different types of studies from the one we conducted.
      2. We studied 57 types of food outlets. To go beyond this and categorize them as healthy or unhealthy would require a study of each food outlet to see what proportion of the food they carry was healthy and affordable and which was not.

• Not only it be nigh impossible to do this for 1647 food outlets, but it would also be cost-prohibitive.

1. We also conducted much of this study during COVID-19 when it was not possible to do in-person site visits of stores.

Reviewer 3 Report

From the abstract, authors need to specify the sampling procedures adopted in selecting 1647 food outlets. Which regression model was employed for this study? Kindly specify. It is obvious that salient findings of this study were conspicuously missing. 

In the introduction, authors are expected to present a more robust background information focusing on the keywords in the title. The word "race" is not well presented in the introduction. Some important food security information are missing in this section. What about the recent (2022) global food security index (GFSI) score, global hunger index (GHI) scores for the US and what it it's rank. What about the recent (2023) FAO and other partners' (SOFI 2023) figures on food affordability around the world. These are missing in this section. Kindly incorporate them to make your introduction more robust.

In the methods, authors are expected to present both implicit and explicit model specifications for this study. 

From fig 1-13, add the total value of each of the represented study area. 

Before the conclusion section, kindly present a sub-section with the heading "limitations of the study" and "areas for further research"

Present some recommendations enamating from this study immediately after the conclusion or both conclusion and recommendations may be merged under one heading "Conclusion and Recommendations ".

Thank you.

Fine

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

Thank you for your feedback.

1. We have made the literature review more robust.
   1. To do so, we added 47 new citations.
   2. We have added 11 new footnotes and two extensively rewritten ones.
   3. Ensured that the cited materials were relevant to the research and incorporated more fully in the literature review, methods, and discussion.
2. We have added contextual information in the first two paragraphs to highlight the global nature of food insecurity and hunger and to situate the U.S. within that context.
   1. We cited all the documents Reviewer 3 suggested in this portion of the discussion.
3. We detailed our sampling procedures in the methodology portion of the paper. We have added more details.
   1. We used all the relevant food outlets we identified in our study. That is, we are using a full sample.
   2. We removed all retailers that were downloaded through our SIC code search that were not food retailers.
   3. We removed all closed food outlets from our database.
   4. We also indicated in our abstract where we collected our data from.
   5. We also provided a detailed appendix with all the categories of food outlets we searched for and included in our sample.
4. The paper discussed the regression models and the statistical tests used. These were in the methods section as well as the results section.
   1. We have highlighted these and added more details to make it clearer to the reader.
   2. We have included the formulae used in the models.
5. We have added more information about “race” in the introductory section of the paper.
   1. This includes information about the racial history of both cities.
   2. A discussion about redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and other mechanisms used to facilitate residential segregation in the cities.
   3. The paper now includes a discussion of the Dissimilarity Index and current levels of residential segregation in the cities.
   4. The discussion about race is more integrated into the paper – in the results and discussion sections of the paper as well as the introduction.
6. The implicit and explicit models are discussed in the paper. It now discusses the crude and adjusted models, and these are specified in the paper.
7. The n for all the figures has been placed on the maps.
8. The draft we submitted had discussions on the limitations of the study and future research.
   1. We have put in subheadings with these section names so that the reader can identify them more easily.
   2. We have also highlighted the recommendations also, so they are easier to spot.
9. The paper focuses on the number and type of stores in the census tracts. Given the length of the paper already, it was beyond the scope of the current paper to do additional analyses on additional factors. We plan on writing additional papers that examine factors such as:
   1. Food outlet size (in square feet)
   2. Sales volume of food outlet
   3. Number of employees of the food outlet
   4. Race/ethnicity of the owner of the food outlet
   5. Gender of the owner of the food outlet
   6. Cuisine type of restaurants and other food service operations.
10. Tables have been reformatted to make them easier to read. A larger font size is used, and they are larger than the versions in the draft. The contents have been reorganized in some cases.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors map the food environment of Lansing, East Lansing, and the suburbs. They identify 53 types of food retailers to gain a more comprehensive overview of the food landscape and examine their association with the demographic characteristics of the corresponding census tracts. To check whether POC communities lack access to healthy and affordable food outlets, they put special emphasis on the census tract’s racial composition. They find a rather complex food landscape. Those living in VL-POC, L-POC and H-POC census tracts have access to a wider range of food outlets, while VH-POC census tracts are much more under-resourced.

The article is relevant and timely. The paper is straightforward and well-written. Methods are appropriate and are adequately described. The discussion and conclusions are supported by the results and are interesting.

I have some comments which I list below:

Broad comments:

·       These retailers contribute in very different ways to food security and nutrition. I miss some discussion on this and on the fact that the analysis accounts for the number of specific stores instead of other variables such as sales volume.

·       Tables 4, 6 and 7: These tables are too small, and it is quite difficult to read them. It is difficult to assess the parts which refer to these tables. I would suggest somehow changing them to make them more readable.

·       The discussion of results is not comprehensive. Some significant results are not listed.

 

Specific comments:

·       Line 368: The text reads: “We conducted both Poisson and negative binomial regression analyses”. Are the authors using either one or the other?

·       Line 377: Are two models really tested? Or is it the same one? Please check it and correct it if necessary.

·       Lines 378-379: Are the three variables —population density (pop/km2), median household income, and educational attainment— really analyzed? The results reported later in Table 7 only include education and income.

·       Lines 424-425: The following sentence is not entirely correct according to Table 2: “The 48 convenience stores, corner stores, and mini-marts were found in the periurban area and Lansing”.

·       Figure 6: I would suggest adding a short note which explains that not all subcategories have been included for the sake of clarity.

·       Line 516: I would suggest starting a separate subsection for this part.

·       Lines 539-540: I think the following sentence is not correct: “In other words, 68 peri-urban census tracts, 11 of Lansing’s and six of East Lansing’s, were classified as VL-POC tracts (Table 3)”. Please check it and correct it if necessary.

·       Table 3: I would suggest including the acronyms “VL-POC”, “L-POC”, “H-POC” and “VH-POC”.

·       Lines 604-608: This list is not exhaustive, is it? I think some outlets are missing. The same applies to lines 612-625.

·       Appendix 1: I have the impression that not all categories have been included. Please check it and correct it if necessary.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 4

Thank you for your feedback.

1. We submitted a readable, landscaped version of Table 4, but the staff who formatted the draft chose to shrink the table to fit a portrait style and rendered the table unreadable.
   1. We have reformatted the table with a larger font and placed it on a landscaped page. It is now readable.
2. The paper focuses on the number and type of stores in the census tracts. Given the length of the paper already, it was beyond the scope of the current paper to do additional analyses on additional factors. We plan on writing additional papers that examine factors such as:
   1. Food outlet size (in square feet)
   2. Sales volume of food outlet
   3. Number of employees of food outlet
   4. Ethnicity of the owner of the food outlet
   5. Gender of the owner of the food outlet
   6. Cuisine type of restaurants and other food service operations.
3. Tables have been reformatted to make them easier to read. A larger font size is used, and they are larger than the versions in the draft. The contents have been reorganized in some cases.
4. The discussion section is lengthier and has been divided into subsections to make it easier to read.
   1. It discusses more of the significant results.
   2. It connects the findings with the theoretical discussions related to food deserts, food swamps, and food oases.
   3. It now contains a discussion of local initiatives that have implications for the food landscape.
   4. It provides more local examples.
   5. It contextualizes the findings more by making more frequent comparisons to other cities in Michigan and/or around the country.
   6. The discussion now connects the findings to racialized historical contexts of the study cities.
5. We used both Poisson and negative binomial regressions in our analyses. We explained in the paper the conditions under which these were used. We also refer to other research papers that use similar models.
6. We have reformatted our tables to show the results for the four independent variables examined in the paper (race, income, educational attainment, and population density).
7. Lines 424-425 – The statement “The 48 convenience stores, corner stores, …have been clarified.
8. A clarifying footnote has been added to Figure 6.
9. Line 516 – New subheading titled, “Miscellaneous Food Sources”, added.
10. Lines 539-540 – “In other words, 68 peri-urban census tracts, 11 of Lansing’s…” Sentence has been rewritten and clarified.
11. Table 3 – acronyms “VL-POC”, “L-POC”, “H-POC”, and “VH-POC” have been added to the table.
12. Lines 604-608 and Lines 612-625. More of the significant results are included in the text.
13. The paper analyzed all 13 major food categories and 53 of the 57 food outlet types listed in Appendix A. Appendix A was used to define the search for food outlets. This is now in the methods and results section of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revisions completed.  The connection to literature looks more up-to-date and thorough, so I appreciate you taking the time to do that. 

The question of East Lansing still stands though.  Your points on segregation does not help the case at all (in fact apart from a few direct instances, this is a generalized section and takes up much space in an article when it is not that warranted as segregation and exclusionary policies were rampant in almost all part of the country and planners cannot make this a specific case for a specific place but an unfortunate practice and outcome that affected most Black communities everywhere) nor does the statistic on students being food insecure as that is a widely known phenomenon...... and none of the other places have the bulk of the residents connected with a University and that is what I am trying to stress on.  If you only compare Lansing, East Lansing, and surrounding towns, you are not doing a fair comparison.  You should have either done all college towns and there are quite a few in Michigan and that would be an excellent piece as you might get at more nuances in your research!  Or, you should have done other cities that are not so student-heavy. 

I'm not saying that EL should not be studied, I'm saying the choice of only 2 cities and surrounding townships is not giving you a good comparative analysis.  Now it is just laying the groundwork of the food outlets that are there in a metropolitan area and that I agree to, if just showing the case-as-is, is the aim of the study..... i.e. we are telling you what exists in this geographic area.  

 

Specific comments:

- Line 479 on page 13: did you mean income in 000s of dollars?  I don't think you meant "per" 1000 dollars

- On Page 15: How would the public get food products the supply chain outlets? Would Costco count as a "wholesaler"?  And what would be an example of a distributer and manufacturer that the public can buy food products from?

- I think you should clarify the choice in food outlets you have chosen.  Are these where the members of the public (anyone) and go and get food products?  For example, the type of consumables in gyms as you have included them, apart from water and soda type items, cannot be considered food outlets as you typically need to be member of a gym to be there, AND things such protein powders, etc. are not regular food items that the public and go and buy, right?  So how about a clarifying sentence to say that you have included all the stores and outlets for food with no particular focus on who purchases them or what kinds of food products are sold there. I would say this is a limitation of the study but you can choose to put it wherever you want.

- I also don't see how the placement of e-commerce and online only places can be considered here... these would be catering to a wide area, right?  Are these places also selling from these locations you have identified?

- Line 1038 has you focusing on healthy and affordable foods which you haven't done in this study so I might suggest removing that sentence

- You mention "churches" twice in the sentence on Line 1124

Lastly, I had to stop referring to the page numbers as they get messed up after Page 26 and start over.  Just a formatting issue.  Hopefully the line numbers help.

Author Response

Reviewer II

Line 360-362:  The paper defines what types of food outlets are examined.

…we undertook a comprehensive study of food outlets in Lansing, East Lansing, and surrounding townships that sell, manufacture, grow, produce, distribute, process, aggregate, trade, or give away food.

Line 480:         Correction made to read “income in thousands of dollars”.

Page 15:          Question/comments about the public getting or purchasing food from supply chain entities. 

Gordon Food Service, common in Michigan (their headquarters is in Grand Rapids), is a wholesaler where individuals can walk in as if they were going to a supermarket and purchase items. Most items are sold in bulk, but some are sold in smaller packages. Gordon also distributes and sells to smaller stores. Gordon Food Service outlets are found in large and small Michigan cities.  There are two Gordon Food Service stores in Lansing.

Aunt Mids, headquartered in Detroit, is a regional (possibly national) packaging/distribution company that sells packaged vegetables, pre-mixed salads, salad dressing, etc. They still do catering or food service to local organizations and groups. Aunt Mids also operates an online store.

Eastern Market in Detroit is mentioned in the paper. This is a food aggregator and distributor, as well as a space for small vendors. Eastern Market was used as one of the leading hubs to collect foods from Michigan’s farms and package and distribute the family food boxes that the federal government paid for to be distributed to food banks, soup kitchens, food pantries, and to pop-up distribution spaces.

Food outlets like Costco that are membership-based are classified as wholesale clubs – we list this in Appendix A.

The e-commerce or online outlets included in the study were based in the study area. The pandemic prompted some local food vendors to go online.

Though we considered farmers’ markets under the category of urban farms, community gardens, farmers’ markets, etc., a study of Michigan’s farmers’ markets found that many survived the pandemic because they switched to online sales and no-contact deliveries. Supermarkets were another category that capitalized on online sales and deliveries.

 

Some social justice community-based organizations in Michigan work to get their members or clients to pool their funds and buy in bulk from wholesalers. Other groups like the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network operate as a buying cooperative that purchases food from wholesalers. The purchased food items are redistributed to participating individuals or families.

 

Line 1037:       The sentence is re-written to remove reference to “healthy and affordable” food.

Line 1121:       Repeated word “churches” removed from sentence.

 

The paper included a new section on race because one of the reviewers suggested that more content on race was needed in the paper.

We believe that including East Lansing in the study area is appropriate because to exclude it would leave an explicable “hole” in our study area. Other towns around Lansing, like Mason, are small towns that have large numbers of highly educated residents. Many university professors, administrators, and students live in the suburbs like Mason, which is included in our study area. Lansing, itself, being the seat of the state capital, has a large number of politicians, students, faculty, and administrators.

Other towns like Madison (Wisconsin), Tallahassee (Florida), and Austin (Texas) have a configuration wherein they house major universities and are the state capitals. Excluding such cities from food studies could be problematic.

We did study several Michigan cities that have major universities (Ypsilanti, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo), so we will take the reviewer’s suggestion and do a detailed comparison of Michigan college towns as a future paper. It is beyond the scope of this already lengthy paper to add four additional cities/metro areas to the study. We actually have college towns outside of Michigan which we study, so a multi-state comparison is possible. Papers comparing college towns are future papers as we have to complete data cleaning to make that possible.

 

We revised the strengths and limitations section per the reviewer's suggestion.

We added a future goal to do a paper comparing college towns in the future directions section of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The editor can make final publication decision on this revised version of this manuscript. Thank you.

Fine

Author Response

No response needed