↓ Skip to main content

Urban farmers' markets: Accessibility, offerings, and produce variety, quality, and price compared to nearby stores

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
33 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Urban farmers' markets: Accessibility, offerings, and produce variety, quality, and price compared to nearby stores
Published in
Appetite, February 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean C. Lucan, Andrew R. Maroko, Omar Sanon, Rafael Frias, Clyde B. Schechter

Abstract

Most food-environment research has focused narrowly on select stores and restaurants. There has been comparatively less attention to non-storefront food sources like farmers' markets (FMs), particularly in urban communities. The objective of the present study was to assess FMs' potential contribution to an urban food environment in terms of specific foods offered, and compare FM accessibility as well as produce variety, quality, and price to that of nearby stores. Investigators conducted a detailed cross-sectional assessment of all FMs in Bronx County, NY, and of the nearest store(s) selling produce within a half-mile walking distance (up to two stores per FM). The study included 26 FMs and 44 stores. Investigators assessed accessibility (locations of FMs and stores relative to each other, and hours of operation for each), variety (the number and type of all food items offered at FMs and all fresh produce items offered at stores), quality (where produce items were grown and if they were organic), and price (including any sales prices or promotional discounts). Analyses included frequencies, proportions, and variable distributions, as well as mixed-effect regressions, paired t-tests, and signed rank tests to compare FMs to stores. Geographic information systems (GIS) allowed for mapping of FM and store locations and determining street-network distances between them. The mean distance between FMs and the nearest store selling fresh produce was 0.15 miles (range 0.02-0.36 miles). FMs were open substantially fewer months, days, and hours than stores. FMs offered 26.4 fewer fresh produce items on average than stores (p values <0.02). FM produce items were more frequently local and organic, but often tended towards less-common/more-exotic and heirloom varieties. FMs were more expensive on average (p values <0.001 for pairwise comparisons to stores)-even for more-commonplace and "conventional" produce-especially when discounts or sales prices were considered. Fully, 32.8% of what FMs offered was not fresh produce at all but refined or processed products (e.g., jams, pies, cakes, cookies, donuts, juice drinks). FMs may offer many items not optimal for good nutrition and health, and carry less-varied, less-common fresh produce in neighborhoods that already have access to stores with cheaper prices and overwhelmingly more hours of operation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 165 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 17%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 7%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 49 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#508,300
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
#321
of 4,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,951
of 270,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
#11
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.