Extending the food desert debate 9781845443627, 9780861769377

Citation preview

ijrdm_cover_(i).qxd

18/04/2005

13:00

Page 1

Volume 32 Numbers 2 2004

ISBN 0-86176-937-6

ISSN 0959-0552

International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management Extending the food desert debate Guest Editors: Graham Clarke and David Bennison

www.emeraldinsight.com

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32, Number 2, 2004

ISSN 0959-0552

Extending the food desert debate Guest Editors: Graham Clarke and David Bennison

Contents 66 Access this journal online 67 Abstracts & keywords 69 GUEST EDITORIAL Extending the food desert debate Graham Clarke and David Bennison 72 Food retail change and the growth of food deserts: a case study of Cardiff Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

109 Food access and dietary variety among older people Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers 123 The Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

89 Retail competition and consumer choice: contextualising the ‘‘food deserts’’ debate Ian Clarke, Alan Hallsworth, Peter Jackson, Ronan de Kervenoael, Rossana Perez-del-Aguila and Malcolm Kirkup 100 Measuring convenience: Scots’ perceptions of local food and retail provision David Fitch

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm You can also search over 100 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Fulltext:

www.emeraldinsight.com/ft See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

www.emeraldinsight.com/ijrdm.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Fulltext. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

How to access this journal electronically To benefit from electronic access to this journal you first need to register via the Internet. Registration is simple and full instructions are available online at www.emeraldinsight.com/ rpsv/librariantoolkit/emeraldadmin Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ijrdm.htm Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost effective. Our Web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Fulltext. Archives go back to 1994 and abstracts back to 1989. You can browse or search the database for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Additional complementary services available Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/ usertoolkit/emailalerts Emerald WIRE (World Independent Reviews) A fully searchable subject specific database, brought to you by Emerald Management Reviews, providing article reviews from the world’s top management journals. Research register A Web-based research forum that provides insider information on research activity world-wide located at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister You can also register your research activity here. User services Comprehensive librarian and user toolkits have been created to help you get the most from your journal subscription. For further information about what is available visit www.emeraldinsight.com/usagetoolkit

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our Web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Huber E-Journals e-journals.hanshuber.com/english/index.htm Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785204

monopolies and mergers at the national level needs to be brought together with the planning and regulation of retail provision at the local, neighbourhood level.

Abstracts & keywords

Measuring convenience: Scots’ perceptions of local food and retail provision David Fitch Keywords Convenience stores, Consumer behaviour, Shopping, Retail trade, Scotland Interest is increasing interest in the links between social exclusion and access to both grocery and retail stores. There is however little knowledge of the extent to which consumers lack convenient access to retail facilities. Data from 30,000 households from the 1999-2000 Scottish household survey were analysed to measure opinions on the convenience of local food stores and the quality and convenience of local shops and link these perceptions to a series of economic and social indicators. One out of every ten Scots households believes they do not have convenient access to a local food store, an issue which affects both rural and urban residents. Scots were also found to be very ambivalent about local stores, while e-commerce is shown to have limited applicability as an alternative to local retail provision, particularly as an alternative source of food and groceries.

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts: a case study of Cardiff Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre Keywords Retail trade, Retailers, Wales ‘‘Food deserts’’ in British cities are partly the result of the expansion of multiple food retailing. New large stores force smaller stores to close down, thus depriving local residents of food shopping opportunities. Examines this proposition through an analysis of changes in consumer access to food shopping in Cardiff over the last 20 years. Shows that although accessibility scores have increased in Cardiff since 1980 they have increased at a faster rate in higher income areas. In a pocket of deprived areas accessibility has declined over the decade. Thus, there has been a polarisation effect with a widening gap in accessibility scores across the city.

Food access and dietary variety among older people Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Retail competition and consumer choice: contextualising the ‘‘food deserts’’ debate

Keywords Elderly people, Diet, Nutrition, Shopping

Ian Clarke, Alan Hallsworth, Peter Jackson, Ronan de Kervenoael, Rossana Perez-del-Aguila and Malcolm Kirkup

Decentralisation of many food retailers to edge-of-town and out-of-town locations has resulted in some older people experiencing difficulty in accessing food shops and those experiencing the greatest difficulties in food shopping are considered to be at the greatest nutritional risk. The present study examines how and to what extent usage of, and physical access to food shops might influence dietary variety. Shopping behaviour and dietary variety are investigated using focus groups, a consumer questionnaire and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). A dietary variety score system, developed from the FFQ, is employed in this study. Neither usage of (particular) food shops nor basic accessibility variables are found to have a direct effect on dietary variety. Yet, coping strategies employed by older consumers to obtain food are revealed to be important. This suggests that more complex access factors remain an important issue for study in relation to the shopping experience of a proportion of the older population.

Keywords Retail trade, Retailers, Consumer behaviour, Shopping United Kingdom The ‘‘food deserts’’ debate can be enriched by setting the particular circumstances of food deserts – areas of very limited consumer choice – within a wider context of changing retail provision in other areas. This paper’s combined focus on retail competition and consumer choice shifts the emphasis from changing patterns of retail provision towards a more qualitative understanding of how ‘‘choice’’ is actually experienced by consumers at the local level ‘‘on the ground’’. This argument has critical implications for current policy debates where the emphasis on International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . Abstracts & keywords # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552

67

In a recent edition of the journal Urban Studies (Vol. 39 No. 11) a number of important papers were assembled relating to the concept of urban food deserts. The term has come to represent the situation where residents of certain neighbourhoods face low accessibility to good quality, low-priced food stores. The fact that many such neighbourhoods have been identified in low income areas implies that these residents suffer not only from a form of social exclusion but may be also likely to suffer from poor diets and consequent ill-health. The papers in Urban Studies reflected a number of important research priorities. These can be listed as a need to: . provide a more objective methodology for measuring food deserts and the concept of low accessibility within and between neighbourhoods; . understand the relationship between diet and access to health foods in such neighbourhoods; . explore the policy solutions for these types of neighbourhood, especially the large-store intervention now favoured by the major food retailers; and . examine what difference such interventions may bring to both access to goods and healthy eating.

Guest editorial Extending the food desert debate Graham Clarke and David Bennison

About the Guest Editors Graham Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Geography, University of Leeds. His main interests are methods for retail location analysis, especially GIS and mathematical models of store location research. He is co-author of a recent textbook on store location (Retail Geography and Intelligent Network Analysis) and author of many articles relating to store location, retail saturation, retail competition, food deserts and the geography of retail acquisition planning. He also has expertise on microsimulation models and the geography of income and wealth. He is currently also Executive Director of the Regional Science Association International. David Bennison is the Research Co-ordinator for Retail Management in the Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, and Director of the Research and Policy Unit of the Retail Enterprise Network. He has a longstanding interest in retail planning and development, locational strategies, and retail change in southern Europe (with particular reference to Greece).

These research priorities are discussed in more detail by Wrigley (2002), whilst the papers of Clarke et al. (2002), Cummins and McIntyre (2002) and Wrigley et al. (2003) explore these issues in more depth. The collection of papers in this issue of the International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management extends this earlier published research by addressing some new aspects of the food desert concept. The first major issue to be explored concerns the dynamics of urban food deserts. Although the term ‘‘food desert’’ was coined by the Low Income Project Team in 1995 (Beaumont et al., 1995), much of the more in-depth analytical work has appeared in the academic literature only in recent years. Thus, to date, most accessibility studies have been static in nature. The first paper in this collection, by Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre, addresses this deficiency by looking at historical data sets in Cardiff to examine changing accessibility to large food

Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 69-71 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521743

69

Graham Clarke and David Bennison

Guest editorial

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 69-71

stores since 1990. Although a number of areas in the city have improved their access to major food stores (as the number of supermarkets has increased) there are a number of areas that have always had very low levels of access. The results also show that although accessibility has increased for many low income areas, it is clear that the more affluent areas have tended to fare better over this decade. Indeed, of the top 50 most deprived enumeration districts (EDs) in Cardiff, 20 actually suffered a decline in accessibility levels over this time. There has therefore been a polarisation effect, with the more affluent areas increasing their access levels more than the lower income areas. The second potential research issue surrounds the concept of choice within so-called food deserts. In their paper, Ian Clarke and his colleagues assert that although the choice sets available to residents within food deserts may be limited, a central question should be whether residents feel they have sufficient choice. This relates to the fact that consumer choice is shaped by a wide range of social and cultural issues, not just geographical accessibility. Although some of these choices can be added to spatial models (especially economic factors such as incorporating price for many low income consumers within the store attractiveness terms), many may be more difficult to quantify when attempting to group or aggregate consumer behaviour. In addition, it is important to examine how retail choice is also experienced in areas other than food deserts. A key argument is that notions of competition and choice should be examined jointly. The implications of this paper go beyond the food desert debate. Such considerations of choice in contemporary retail consumption, set within a variable and wide ranging set of options, offers a new research agenda for the modelling of urban retail expenditure flows. This theme of consumer choice is also taken up in complementary research by David Fitch on social exclusion and food access. In particular, he explores the data within the Scottish Household Survey to analyse consumer perceptions and attitudes regarding access to convenience food stores. He supports the literature on the existence of food deserts through general findings that show a

considerable number of people in Scotland believe that they do not have convenient access to local food stores. These include low income and retired persons in urban areas and agricultural workers in rural areas (an area of further research potential: see below). In addition, Fitch also explores some more of the policy options, particularly the prospects for e-commerce solutions. However, he supports the growing literature that shows that there are significant variations in the use of e-commerce by different socio-economic groups (Birkin et al., 2002; Burt and Sparks, 2003), and that this ‘‘e-gap’’ may be a significant barrier to e-commerce as the policy solution to the food desert problem. Although Wrigley et al. (2002; 2003) have explored life within food deserts for a wide range of consumer groups, there is undoubtedly scope for more in-depth research on particular segments. In the fourth paper, Lisa Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers explore diet and food access for elderly residents in Guildford, Surrey, UK. Using focus groups and questionnaires the authors explore diet in relation to a range of factors, including food access. Their research showed that there were no simple relationships between diet and other variables, and it highlighted the existence of a variety of inter-related factors at play. A particular issue raised in the paper was the wish of older people to retain their independence and social contact, and it demonstrates how they use a variety of coping strategies to achieve this in the context of their food shopping behaviour, including the use of formal and informal networks. The final paper builds on food desert papers already published for the case study of Seacroft in Leeds. Neil Wrigley et al. (2002; 2003) have outlined the experiences of food shopping and diet for the residents of this quintessential food desert, and the major changes in lifestyle and diet following the opening of a large superstore within the Seacroft area. In this paper, the authors draw extensively on the qualitative component of their research programme, and concentrate on the views of residents who had switched their major food shopping destination (compared with those that did not). This provides a useful discussion of changing store patronage and the effects on healthy diets. It 70

Guest editorial

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 69-71

Graham Clarke and David Bennison

also provides some useful data on the degree to which consumers (of different types) do switch store allegiance and those that stay loyal. Such data will help to calibrate or test the spatial interaction models (used to model consumer flows and measure accessibility in the first paper in this collection) when they are employed to investigate the longer term impacts of the large superstore type of policy intervention (see below and Clarke et al., 2004). The paper by Wrigley et al. also examines coping mechanisms for those that particularly stay loyal to lower quality retail destinations. So what of future research into food deserts? Is there scope for further research? We outline below a few thoughts on the research agenda and offer some ideas worthy of investigation: . There has been little research to date on areas outside the large urban conurbations. Whilst Fitch does explore access issues across Scotland as a whole the spatial scale is very broad, and it would be useful to have more detailed accessibility modelling work as well as empirical research undertaken on smaller towns and cities and rural areas. . Much of the debate on food deserts has so far taken place in a UK context. Non-UK studies and international comparisons would be useful. Framed within the idea of EU funding for projects relating to social exclusion, this could be a fertile area for comparisons across Europe, for example, where small scale independent retailers and local market traders traditionally remain major sources of fresh food, but are increasingly challenged by the development of large food stores. . Although the policy implications have been addressed by many authors there is yet no systematic appraisal of the different solution methods (and their likely success) across a city or region. Similarly, in relation to the intervention of new large stores

within food deserts, little work has been done on the impact of those large stores in terms of the possibility of creating new micro food deserts elsewhere (particularly as smaller stores in nearby locations may be forced out of business in the long run – though see Clarke et al. (2004) for a start in this direction). Graham Clarke David Bennison Guest Editors

References Beaumont, J., Lang, T., Leather, S. and Mucklow, C. (1995), Report from the Policy Sub-group to the Nutrition Task Force Low Income Project Team, Institute of Grocery Distribution, Watford. Birkin, M., Clarke, G.P. and Clarke, M. (2002), Retail Geography and Intelligent Network Planning, Wiley, Chichester. Burt, S. and Sparks, L. (2003), ‘‘E-commerce and the retail process: a review’’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10, pp. 275-86. Clarke, G.P., Guy, C. and Douglas, L. (2004), ‘‘Estimating the impacts of large-scale interventions in urban food deserts’’, working paper (forthcoming). Clarke, G.P., Guy, C. and Eyre, H. (2002), ‘‘Deriving indicators of access to food provision in British cities: studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2041-60. Cummins, S. and McIntyre, S. (2002), ‘‘A systematic study of an urban foodscape: the price and availability of food in Greater Glasgow’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2115-30. Wrigley, N. (2002), ‘‘Food deserts in British cities: policy contexts and research priorities’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2029-40. Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L. and Margetts, B. (2003), ‘‘Deprivation, diet and food retail access: findings from the Leeds ‘food desert’ study’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35, pp. 151-88. Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L., Margetts, B. and Whelan, A.M. (2002), ‘‘Assessing the impact of improved retail access on diet in a ‘food desert’: a preliminary report’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2061-82.

71

1 Introduction

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts: a case study of Cardiff

This paper examines spatial and temporal relationships between large food store development and the growth of the so-called ‘‘food desert’’ phenomenon. It pursues this aim through a case-study of Cardiff (population 305,000). Our previous research, carried out as part of the ESRC/J. Sainsbury funded project on food deserts in British cities, focussed on ways of defining ‘‘food deserts’’ and measuring variations in access to food retail outlets (Clarke et al., 2002). We showed that, although food retail outlets appeared to be easily accessible from many parts of Cardiff, there were some areas in which accessibility was relatively poor. These areas could be split into two broad types: (1) Areas of low food provision but high relative affluence. Although these might technically be called ‘‘food deserts’’ it is clear that the majority of residents are untroubled by low accessibility to service providers (areas characterised by high car ownership rates and high mobility: although of course not for all). (2) Areas that tended to be low income areas containing residents with low mobility and without access to good quality, multiple food retailers. The sparse network of food shops which did exist in these areas were limited in size and in the scope of food products available (Guy and David, 2002). These areas were of much greater concern in terms of social exclusion and poor diet.

Cliff Guy Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

The authors Cliff Guy is Professor at Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK. Graham Clarke is Senior Lecturer and Heather Eyre is Research Officer, both at the School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Keywords Retail trade, Retailers, Wales Abstract ‘‘Food deserts’’ in British cities are partly the result of the expansion of multiple food retailing. New large stores force smaller stores to close down, thus depriving local residents of food shopping opportunities. Examines this proposition through an analysis of changes in consumer access to food shopping in Cardiff over the last 20 years. Shows that although accessibility scores have increased in Cardiff since 1980 they have increased at a faster rate in higher income areas. In a pocket of deprived areas accessibility has declined over the decade. Thus, there has been a polarisation effect with a widening gap in accessibility scores across the city.

The present paper extends these analyses by examining changes over time, in the spatial extent of areas of food deprivation in Cardiff, and in their extent of relative deprivation. A particularly important question is to what extent has food accessibility got worse in a city such as Cardiff? It also extends the description in Guy (1996) of changes over time in multiple food retailing in Cardiff.

Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

This paper reports findings from the ‘‘Food Deserts in British Cities’’ project. The authors are grateful to the funders of the project, ESRC (under award L135251002) and the project’s industrial partner J. Sainsbury plc. Neil Wrigley also provided many useful comments on the paper.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 72-88 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521752

72

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Finally the paper links these two topics through an analysis which relates large food store openings and closures to the spatial pattern of social disadvantage in Cardiff. In this way, the frequently made assertion that multiple food retailers can be ‘‘blamed’’ for the creation of food deserts is tested. Section 2 of this paper reviews some of the literature on food deserts in British cities, drawing attention to the supposed role of large food retailers in contributing to this phenomenon. Section 3 sets out the research questions which we address through a study of the city of Cardiff, Wales. Section 4 comprises an empirical analysis of retail change over time in Cardiff, relating the changing spatial distribution of multiple-owned grocery stores to areas of social deprivation. Section 5 extends this analysis using a spatial interaction approach which simulates variations in access across the whole city. Section 6 summarises these findings and draws some conclusions for further research and policy formulation.

Further discussion of the way in which the ‘‘food deserts’’ concept has become part of Government thinking and has led to intensive empirical investigations, of which the current study funded by ESRC and J. Sainsbury is one, may be found in Wrigley (2002) and Cummins and McIntyre (2002). Much of this debate has focussed around the policies for store development and store closure adopted by a small number of multiple retailers, particularly Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Safeway. The growth of large food stores operated by these and other companies, and a simultaneous decline in numbers of small independently-owned food stores, have been noted by many commentators. The following comment notes the effect of these two trends upon accessibility to food shopping from deprived neighbourhoods, without implying any cause-and-effect relationship: The majority of shops that traditionally served those living in deprived neighbourhoods were small, independent, convenience type stores. While the number of superstores in this country has increased from 457 in 1986 to 1,102 by 1997, some eight independent shops disappeared everyday between 1986 and 1996. The number of independent stores has declined by almost 40 per cent in the eleven years between 1986 and 1997. For people on low income, shopping journeys by car and average distance travelled to shops has increased (Department of Health, 1999, p. 1).

2 The food desert debate Since about 1997 a substantial literature has grown around the alleged phenomenon of ‘‘food deserts’’ in British cities. The original concept was stark:

However, other commentators have suggested a more definite causal relationship between supermarket growth and increasing problems of access to food shopping in deprived areas, leading to the growth in ‘‘food deserts’’:

Food deserts, the minister of public health was told . . . are those areas of inner cities where cheap, nutritious food is virtually unobtainable. Car-less residents, unable to reach out-of-town supermarkets, depend on the corner shop where prices are high, products are processed and fresh fruit and vegetables are poor or non-existent (Jeremy Laurence, The Independent, 11 June 1997, cited in Whitehead, 1998, p. 189).

Economies of scale allow food sold in supermarkets to be cheaper and to cover a wider range than in smaller ‘‘high street’’ stores. Furthermore, there is a paradox in that a ‘‘healthy’’ basket of food has been found to cost more in disadvantaged areas than in affluent areas. The increasing tendency to out of town supermarkets has led to the creation of ‘‘food deserts’’ where cheap and varied food is only accessible to those who have private transport or are able to pay the costs of public transport, if this is available . . . access to a cheaper and wider range of food is most restricted for some of the groups who need it most (Acheson, 1998, p. 65).

With claims of this kind, problems of accessibility to food retailing (an issue which had concerned some geographers and planners for many years) became part of the growing political concern over the inadequacies of the typical British diet and the health problems which may ensue. In other words, the inadequacies of local food supply appeared to become one reason why the nutritional standards of many low income households were considered to be poor.

And: Characterised by their longer opening hours and a wider range of goods, the multiples have moved away from the price wars of the 1980s to

73

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

The Competition Commission (2000, pp. 312-15) investigated the claim that superstores were avoiding deprived areas, thus increasing problems of access. It could however find little systematic evidence of this. The average distance from a reference store[1] was little over half a mile in the 100 poorest postal sectors in Great Britain (although the average distance to a reference store was almost 50 per cent greater in 100 postal sectors which were randomly picked). The Commission concluded that this suggests no relationship between the locational strategies of multiple grocers and levels of deprivation. However, there is likely be a correlation between the high population density of poor inner urban areas and the greater number of stores.

competing for quality. Their focus is now on offering higher quality food at lower prices in clean, warm, familiar shops with convenient opening times. These large supermarkets have sprung up in the outskirts of towns targeting areas with high-income car owners. The consequence has been inner city ‘‘food deserts’’ where some communities are left with the reduced choice, poorer quality and higher prices offered by local shops (ELCHA, 1999, p. 11).

The case against supermarkets is thus twofold. First, they are accused of closing branches in low-income areas: Over the past two decades, stores closed [by the multiples] have often been those located in poorer neighbourhoods. The result: a so-called ‘‘food desert’’ where people on low incomes have minimal access to good quality and affordable food (Sustain, 2000a, p. 5).

The new branches which have been opened during this period are held to be inaccessible to many low-income consumers through their location in more affluent suburban areas. Car ownership, or the ability to travel by car to perform shopping trips, has had a major effect on increasing levels of social inequality. The design of most major food retail developments since the late 1970s has become increasingly focused towards the car-borne consumer. Those without access to a car are put at an undeniable disadvantage in terms of access and the restriction it places on purchasing decisions:

‘ ... The design of most major food retail developments since the late 1970s has become increasingly focused towards the car-borne consumer. Those without access to a car are put at an undeniable disadvantage in terms of access and the restriction it places on purchasing decisions... ’

Second, the largest food retailers have been accused of causing the closure of food shops belonging to smaller multiples and independents, through the competitive effects of new large stores. The shops which close for this reason tend to be in town centres or district centres, which have traditionally been the main convenience shopping destinations for households which do not have regular use of a car for shopping purposes (Sustain, 2000a, pp. 5-6). This claim is supported to some extent by previous research in Cardiff (Guy, 1996), where it was shown that the early stages of superstore development in the mid-1980s coincided with extensive closure of small supermarkets in district and local centres. Few of these closures however could be related specifically to the effects of a new large store. Rather, the period was one in which several multiples (including some which were also building superstores in the same area, and some which were not) carried out programmes

Low income families find bulk-purchasing virtually impossible and often have fewer facilities for transporting their shopping (Westlake, 1993, p. 175).

The counter arguments – that superstore growth has had a neutral or even beneficial effect upon accessibility from deprived areas – has been more rarely expressed. However, Cummins and Macintyre’s (1999) study of Glasgow found that the highest concentration of food retail outlets was in the poorest districts, with the majority of these units being smaller, independent grocers. Multiple-owned retail outlets were also found in the highest concentrations in the poorest areas, contrary to the food deserts hypothesis, although it was found that these were more likely to be deep-discount supermarkets rather than high quality superstores. This shows the importance of local case studies. 74

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

of rationalisation of branch networks. The period from about 1990 onwards has seen further large store development, and also the development of discount stores by Aldi and Lidl, but very few further closures of small multiple-owned supermarkets. The spatial distribution of both store closures and openings within Cardiff is examined later in the paper. One issue largely ignored in the literature relates to the changes which have occurred over time within the large edge-of-city local authority housing estates which tend to be most commonly identified as potential areas for ‘‘food deserts’’.

fruitfully addressed through a thorough examination of changes in time over a typical large urban area. For our case study area, Cardiff (population 305,000 in 2001), we possess detailed information on multiple store openings and closures over a 20 year time period, including the development of 11 superstores. To recap, Cardiff has been selected for this analysis, because of its previous inclusion in food deserts research, and the wealth of information on food store size and location which has been assembled over the last 20 years. We can also measure changes in residents’ access to food stores over a 12 year period, using a combination of Population Census information and data on location and size for all food stores in the city, supplied by Cardiff County Council. Our analysis is quantitative, and we recognise that we are unlikely to capture adequately the experience of those people living in the city who have been adversely affected by retail change. However, a quantitative analysis extending across the whole city will suggest to what extent such adverse experiences have been typical. The broad research question which emerges from the literature is whether spatial variability in access to food shopping within cities has increased or decreased in recent years, and whether any worsening of access be attributed to large store development. This can be broken down into more specific questions: . Does large store development tend to take place in areas of prosperity? . Does large store development increase or reduce variation in access to food stores across the city as a whole? . Have areas where access is worst consistently been so? . Have high income areas increased their access to high quality food stores at the expense of more deprived areas?

‘ ... The views of local people . . . indicate dissatisfaction with food shopping provision on local authority housing estates, but there is no suggestion . . . that access to food has become worse in recent years... ’

It is not clear whether food shopping provision has always been poor, or whether it has deteriorated in recent years due to the closure of food stores. In the case of Seacroft, Leeds, there has been a clear loss of retailing related to the decline of the district centre, which has now been rebuilt as a Tesco Extra and adjacent shops (Wrigley et al., 2002). However, it is not known whether this experience has been typical. The views of local people, as reported in Speak and Graham (2000) and Sustain (2000b), indicate dissatisfaction with food shopping provision on local authority housing estates, but there is no suggestion in these sources that access to food has become worse in recent years[2].

3 Research questions The discussion above has raised important issues, but draws largely from a perspective which is essentially hostile to major food retailers. The combination of assertion and anecdote typical of this literature does not represent a sound basis from which to derive sensible policy-related conclusions. We suggest that the issues raised above can be more

4 Analysis of store openings and closures In this section we examine changes in access to food shopping in Cardiff since the end of the 1980s. The approach focuses on changes in the spatial distribution of multiple-owned grocery stores, using first electoral divisions (EDs) (similar to Census wards) as the geographical 75

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

a measure of ‘‘access to large food shops’’, using information obtained from the data consultancy in 1998. This however comprises no more than 2.5 per cent of the IMD for any one area, so there is little danger of circular reasoning when comparing the IMD with information on food shopping. Figures 2 and 3 plot food store openings and closures respectively. However, before looking at these changes in more detail, it is useful to examine those electoral divisions which at all points in time have had no multiple or co-operative food store at all within their boundaries. Table I shows that there have consistently been eight or nine areas without food stores, but the identity of these areas has changed somewhat. These areas are split fairly evenly between high status (low IMD) and low status (high IMD). The continuous inclusion of Butetown, the most deprived Division in Cardiff, is noteworthy. This relatively small Division, immediately south of the city centre, has notoriously poor shopping provision within the area itself, although it is not far from the city

basis. Figure 1 shows the location of the 30 multiple and co-operative owned stores in Cardiff as at 1989, our base year. 4.1 Areas without any multiple food store The section begins by examining comparisons of multiple food store development and closures between Cardiff’s 28 electoral divisions (equivalent to Census wards). For these divisions, it is possible to compare provision with deprivation by using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which takes into account the following: . income deprivation (25 per cent); . employment deprivation (25 per cent); . health deprivation and disability (15 per cent); . education, skills and training deprivation (15 per cent); . housing deprivation (10 per cent); and . geographical access to services (10 per cent). Each of these so-called domain indices includes several indicators (National Assembly for Wales, 2000). It should be noted that the last index (geographical access to services) includes Figure 1 Food multiple stores in Cardiff in 1989

76

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 2 Multiple food store openings in Cardiff 1989-2001

Figure 3 Multiple food store closures in Cardiff 1989-2001

77

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Table I Electoral divisions without multiple food stores

Table II Food superstore openings by electoral division

Year

High status divisions

Low status divisions

Period

High status divisions

1989

Cyncoed (1) Rhiwbina (3) Radyr and St Fagans (4) Lisvane and St Mellons (8)

Butetown (28) Splott (25) Llandaff North (20) Fairwater (19) Rumney (17) Butetown (28) Splott (25) Llandaff North (20) Fairwater (19) Rumney (17) Butetown (28) Adamsdown (24) Llandaff North (20) Fairwater (19) Rumney (17) Butetown (28) Adamsdown (24) Llandaff North (20) Fairwater (19) Rumney (17)

1989-1994

Llanishen (10) Gabalfa (13) Lisvane and St Mellons (8)

1994

Cyncoed (1) Rhiwbina (3) Radyr and St Fagans (4) Lisvane and St Mellons (8)

1998

Cyncoed (1) Rhiwbina (3) Radyr and St Fagans (4) Heath (5)

2002

Cyncoed (1) Rhiwbina (3) Radyr and St Fagans (4)

1994-1998 1998-2002 Total stores opened 3

Low status divisions

Grangetown (21) Splott (25) 2

Table III Discount food store openings by electoral division Period 1989-1994 1994-1998 1998-2002

High status divisions

Lisvane and St Mellons (8) Heath (5) Roath (6) Roath (6) Total stores opened 4

Low status divisions Canton (15) Grangetown (21) Caerau (26) Splott (25) Pentwyn (16) 5

superstores built since 1989 have been located within the eight most deprived areas, whilst three are in areas less deprived than average (Table II). The deprived areas include Asda at Ferry Road in Grangetown, and Tesco at Pengam Green in Splott. The key question is why would Asda and Tesco be interested in these sites at a time when few major retailers were venturing into such deprived areas. The answer lies partly in the fact that both stores were built in areas of commercial development made available by the erstwhile Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. The pattern of development of discount food stores (including Kwik Save, Aldi and Lidl) has favoured slightly the more deprived areas, with five having been opened since 1989 in more deprived areas (Table III). The pattern of closures tells a somewhat different story. Since 1989, 11 stores owned by multiples have closed in Cardiff (for their location see Figure 3). Of these, eight have been in divisions with above-average deprivation scores (see Table IV). This total does not include the Safeway store in Caerau, which closed and then reopened (in part) as a Lidl in the late 1990s. However the other stores which closed were all small supermarkets in old-established district or local shopping centres. This continued the trend during the 1980s noted in Guy (1996).

Note: Numbers in brackets are rank order: 1 signifies least deprivation

centre or from a range of multiple stores in adjacent areas. Similarly, Llandaff North, Fairwater and Rumney have remained without a major store throughout the period of analysis. However, it is clear from Table I that it is not only lower income areas that have major gaps in provision – Cyncoed, Rhiwbina, Radyr and St Fagans, the most affluent areas of the City, have also been void of major superstores. On the face of it, this may appear to reflect missed opportunities for the major multiples. In reality, it may reflect more the difficulty of obtaining planning permission in some of these more affluent, leafy suburbs. 4.2 Analysis of food store openings and closures A simple means of testing the notion that new store development tends to favour more prosperous suburban areas is to map the location of new stores by electoral divisions (see Figure 2). As shown in Tables II and III, the analysis in Cardiff is inconclusive. Two out of the five new 78

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Cardiff in the 1980s tended to be the smallest in size, and were generally located within very small shopping centres. This was the case both within and outside local authority estates. Most of the companies closing these stores eventually became parts of the Somerfield and Safeway empires. The two most important new store developers – Tesco and Asda – never possessed this type of store in Cardiff and have never closed any stores in the city, apart from one city centre supermarket. It should also be recognised that food stores located in certain local authority estates may be affected by excessive crime and vandalism, such that insurance becomes impossible to secure and retailers eventually give up trading (Department of Health, 1999). In Cardiff, one small multiple store (and its adjacent shops in a local centre) became so damaged that the then City Council, acting as ground landlord, decided to demolish the whole centre and replace it with housing. This is the only such case known to the authors in the Cardiff area. However, the physical environment in some of the remaining centres in Cardiff’s local authority estates is certainly of very poor quality, and this may have hastened the withdrawal of the multiples.

Table IV Multiple/co-op food store closures by electoral division Period

High status divisions

1989-1994 1994-1998

Llanishen (10) Heath (5) Plasnewydd (14)

1998-2002 Total stores closed

3

Low status divisions Ely (27) Adamsdown (24) Llanrumney (23) Trowbridge (22) Grangetown (21) Riverside (18) Canton (15) Pentwyn (16) 8

4.4 Food store provision in local authority housing estates Since the literature on ‘‘food deserts’’ emphasises the poor provision of food shopping in many local authority housing estates, it is worth briefly examining the situation in Cardiff. Our records of food stores in Cardiff extend back to 1982, at which time there were 13 multiple or co-operative grocery stores trading in these estates, most of them very small stores of typically around 2,000ft2 (approximately 200m2) sales area. A spate of store closures in the early and mid 1980s brought this total down to five, and three more closed in the late 1990s. Thus only two remain (a Kwik Save in Pentwyn and a Co-operative Retail Services in Llanrumney: both of these are located within larger-than-average local centres which include several other shops). Several of the original 13 stores are still functioning as independent grocers, under the Spar or Londis banners. Others have become non-food or are still vacant.

5 Comparisons of ‘‘effective delivery’’ over time The second analysis involves comparisons over time of the patterns of access to food shopping across the city as a whole using a more robust accessibility indicator. Our previous paper (Clarke et al., 2002) proposed an index of ‘‘effective delivery’’ (also termed level of provision per household) which is based on sets of interaction flows based on (or calibrated from) real consumer behaviours. The spatial interaction model used for estimating shopping flows is as follows:

‘ ... Food stores located in certain local authority estates may be affected by excessive crime and vandalism, such that insurance becomes impossible to secure and retailers eventually give up trading... ’

m

m
exp ð
m dij Þ Sijm ¼ Om i Ai Wj

This spate of closures of multiple and co-operative stores in local authority housing estates should not be interpreted solely as an attack on these areas by the companies involved. The discussion in Guy (1996) emphasises that the stores which closed within

where: Sijm = expenditure by household type m in residence zone i at destination j; Om = level of consumer expenditure of i household type m in residence zone i; and 79

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Am i = a balancing factor to ensure that: X Sijm ¼ Om i ;

patterns in Cardiff 1995-1996 (Economic Research and Information, South Glamorgan County Council, 1996). The outputs from this model can be combined into an accessibility measure or surface which reflects how close residents are to different types of retail store. Clearly, the closer residents are to attractive stores (measured by size and fascia) then the greater their level of accessibility.

j

which is calculated as: Am i ¼ P

1 ;
m W exp ð
m dij Þ j j

where: Wj = the attractiveness of destination j;
m = a parameter reflecting the perception of a destinations attractiveness by household type m; dij = the distance between origin i and destination j; and m = the distance decay parameter for household type m;

‘ ... The poorest levels of access were generally in areas of inter-war housing development, and also a large area of more recent housing, mainly local authority built, in the north-eastern sector of the city... ’

The interaction system for a retail model is comprised of three elements: demand, supply and interaction. The demand side is calculated as follows:

This helps to overcome the boundary effects apparent when we use simple zonal provision/ per head of population type indicators, which can produce extreme values (often zero or some very high figure reflecting the presence of a large store in that zone). Thus this interactionbased indictor helps to produce a smoother accessibility surface (see Clarke et al., 2002 for more details). The following two performance indicators measure this concept of ‘‘effectiveness of delivery’’ of grocery retailing to residential locations. These indicators are aggregate level of provision and the level of provision per household. They are important because the effectiveness of a facility in serving customers will be dependent on its location in relation to its customers. The aggregate level of provision in an area is given as: X Sijm ¼ Wj : wm i Sjm j

m m Om i ¼ e Hi ;

where: em = the average weekly grocery expenditure by household type m, calculated from the Family Expenditure Survey; and Him = the number of households of type m in residence zone i, from the 1991 Census of Population (updated using data supplied by GMAP Ltd). The supply element of the spatial interaction model represents the attractiveness of grocery retail destinations. For this model a proxy measure of net square feet of retail space is used along with retail fascia. When disaggregating a model by social class it is important to reflect the fact that different fascias are more attractive to different types of consumer. For example, discount stores are more attractive for DE and inactive households (where prices are generally cheaper) whilst retailers such as Sainsburys are more attractive for households of social class AB. Distance between origins and destinations is calculated as straight line distance modified by travel time where obvious barriers occur. The parameter  was calibrated using data on shopping flows from a survey of shopping

In order to identify the extent to which food deserts are a problem in an area it is necessary to relate this level of provision to the number of households in that area. For example, if the provision for an area is low, but population is also low then the area is not classified as a food desert. However, if an area has relatively low provision and population is high then this will be a problem area. Also, because of the nature of this performance indicator it is possible that an area with high provision and high population 80

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

poorest levels of access were generally in areas of inter-war housing development, and also a large area of more recent housing, mainly local authority built, in the north-eastern sector of the city. Figure 5 shows variation in effective delivery in 1997. It is clear that some areas of poor access remained, whereas others showed considerable improvements, particularly the outer north-east sector.

will appear to be poorly served. This is because the indicator also measures the share of a facility that a residence area has. That means provision is reduced if a lot of people rely on a particular store and therefore have to share that facility. Relating this aggregate provision indicator to population in an area will allow the identification of areas where a significant number of households suffer poor accessibility to grocery retailing. Level of provision per household is an indicator that divides the aggregate level of provision by the number of households in the residence zone, as follows: wm i vm i ¼ Him :

‘ ... Areas which suffered reductions in effective delivery were quite well served in 1990, and some of the areas poorly served in 1990 experienced substantial improvement... ’

Figure 4 shows variation across Cardiff in effective delivery, in 1990. It is clear that at that time the best-served areas were first, in parts of the outer periphery, reflecting the wave of superstore openings which occurred during the 1980s (see again Figure 2); and second, in most of the pre-1914 inner, more central and eastern suburbs of the city, in which there was at that time a high density of small grocers and specialist food shops. The

This is confirmed in Figure 6, which shows percentage changes in effective delivery over 1990-1997. The greatest losses in accessibility occurred within the western outer sector. Here, as elsewhere, areas which suffered reductions in effective delivery were quite well served in 1990, and some of the areas poorly served in 1990 experienced substantial improvement.

Figure 4 Effective delivery scores for Cardiff EDs 1990

81

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 5 Effective delivery scores for Cardiff EDs 1997

Figure 6 Effective delivery scores for Cardiff EDs per cent change 1990-1997

82

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

the city show reductions in effective delivery, although these areas were on the whole well served in 1997. This was a period in which only one large store was opened (Tesco, at Pengam Green). The question remains whether these changes were beneficial to the residents of Cardiff as a whole, and in particular to those people living in areas of social deprivation, who would be likely to experience any negative impacts more severely.

Relating these findings to our database of store development shows that the greatest increases in effective delivery were the result of new large store development. For example, the new Tesco Extra (originally CRS) store at Western Avenue completely wiped out a possible ‘‘food desert’’ in the low-income Gabalfa area located just to the north, an area which had suffered during the 1980s through closure of small multipleowned supermarkets. The improvement in effective delivery in the north-east sector reflects the opening of a large Asda store just before the end of this period. However, in the outer western area of Caerau and Fairwater, effective delivery was reduced, due to the closure of a Safeway superstore, as well as some smaller food stores. Figure 7 shows variation in effective delivery in 2001, with a pattern substantially similar to that of 1997, but with some intensification of poor access in intermediate and outer suburban areas. Figure 8 shows percentage changes in effective delivery over 1997-2001. Two broad areas on the northern and southern fringes of

‘ ... It is pleasing to note that there has indeed been a shift in the number of EDs falling to the right of the diagram – in other words, enjoying an increase in accessibility over time... ’

A simple way to assess the extent of change in access overall is through changes in time in the statistical distribution of the effective delivery measure. Figures 9-11 show the effective delivery score for each ED in Cardiff plotted

Figure 7 Effective delivery scores for Cardiff EDs 2001

83

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 8 Effective delivery scores for Cardiff EDs per cent change 1997-2001

What can we deduce from Figures 9-12? First, it is pleasing to note that there has indeed been a shift in the number of EDs falling to the right of the diagram – in other words, enjoying an increase in accessibility over time. The average effective delivery score (AEDS) has increased from 62.8 in 1990 to 81.2 in 2001. At the same time, we have seen the virtual elimination of very low scores in any single ED. In 1990 there were 37 EDs with an AEDS of less than 20 and 64 EDs with an AEDS of less than 30. By 2001, there were only four EDs with an AEDS of less than 30. However, a more detailed study of the diagrams shows a pattern of change which is not uniform across Cardiff. The ‘‘low deprivation, high provision’’ segment has shown the greatest increase since 1990. This suggests that the better off in Cardiff have been enjoying greater levels of accessibility over the decade. But what of the lower income areas? In 1990 there were 186 EDs falling into the ‘‘high deprivation, low provision’’ segment. This had fallen to 116 by 2001. However, the

against the mean score of the index developed from the ‘‘Breadline Britain’’ deprivation study. This indicator in Cardiff goes from a low of single figure digits to a high of almost 400. The scatterplots in Figures 9-11 are formulated as three sets of quadrants with the axes running through the means of both variables. So, the top right hand quadrant represents high provision, high deprivation. The top left hand quadrant represents low provision, high deprivation. The bottom left hand quadrant represents low deprivation, low provision. The final quadrant, bottom right, represents low deprivation, high provision. In a crude sense, the most disturbing residential areas are those which fall into the top left hand quadrant. However, the more EDs in the right hand side of the diagram the more the situation is improving. Figures 9-11 plot the dynamics of food provision in Cardiff between 1990 and 2001. Figure 12 summarises the number of EDs in each quadrant in 1990 and 2001, along with the percentage change. 84

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 9 Effective delivery versus ‘‘Breadline Britain’’ 1990

percentage change (36 per cent reduction in numbers) is low compared to the ‘‘low deprivation, low provision’’ segment (60 per cent reduction in numbers). If we examine the extreme values of deprivation an even starker difference emerges. Of the top 50 most affluent EDs 41 increased their provision scores between 1990 and 2001 with only nine showing a decreased level of accessibility. However, of the top 50 most deprived EDs, only 30 increased their provision scores, whilst 20 actually declined (often considerably). Thus the mean score for the top 50 affluent EDs increased from 91 to 118 (29 per cent increase) whilst for the bottom 50 EDs it went from 61 to 73 (20 per cent increase). This analysis shows that whilst accessibility has increased across the City as a whole since

1990 (and that some low income areas can be included in that growth), it is clear that the high income areas have enjoyed more growth in levels of access to major food stores and that the biggest reductions in accessibility scores have been seen in some of the most deprived EDs. It is these EDs which should form the basis of most concern in the food desert debate in Cardiff.

6 Summary and conclusions This paper has examined relationships between retail change and access to food shopping within a single large city, Cardiff. The broad question which was posed from a reading of the recent literature on ‘‘food deserts’’ was whether spatial 85

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 10 Effective delivery versus ‘‘Breadline Britain’’ 1997

variability in access to food shopping within cities has increased or decreased in recent years, and whether any worsening of access can be attributed to large store development. The analysis of new food store openings does not support arguments that stores tend to be opened only in areas of above-average social status. In fact there is a slight tendency, observed also in other parts of the UK, for discount stores (mainly Aldi and Lidl) to open in areas of deprivation, presumably because these companies aim to serve such areas with their low price offer. The pattern of multiple store closures has however been more detrimental to areas of deprivation. Stores closed in Cardiff were mainly small general supermarkets located in traditional district and local centres.

However, their closure does not seem to have had much impact on the measures of access to food shopping discussed in Section 5. This may be because the areas concerned – particularly in the pre-1914 inner city – are still well served by independent grocery stores and specialist food retailers. And in Cardiff as a whole, the total floor area of multiple stores has risen considerably, because the new stores (even the discount stores) are substantially larger than the supermarkets which they have largely replaced. The analysis of ‘‘effective delivery’’ shows that spatial variability in access has in fact increased somewhat since 1989, probably because of the continued development of large stores which bestow very high levels of access on EDs which happen to be located close to them. Although accessibility has increased for many low income 86

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

Figure 11 Effective delivery versus ‘‘Breadline Britain’’ 2001

areas as well, it is clear that the more affluent areas have tended to fare better over this decade. Indeed, of the top 50 most deprived EDs in Cardiff, 20 actually suffered a decline in accessibility levels over this time. Thus there has been a polarisation effect – with the more affluent areas increasing their access levels more than the lower income areas. Thus, we suggest that there has been a tendency for poor levels of access to become more concentrated within areas of social deprivation. The overall message is thus somewhat mixed. It does not seem fair to suggest that superstore growth in Cardiff has not benefited areas of social deprivation. However, the increases in access or provision have certainly been greater

Figure 12 (a) Number of EDs in each quadrant in 1989; (b) in 2001; (c) per cent change

87

Food retail change and the growth of food deserts

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 72-88

Cliff Guy, Graham Clarke and Heather Eyre

in Greater Glasgow’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2115-30. Department of Health (1999), ‘‘Improving shopping access for people living in deprived neighbourhoods’’, Discussion Paper of Policy Action Team 13 of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Department of Health, London. Economic Research and Information, South Glamorgan County Council (1996), South Wales Regional Retail Survey: a Study of Shopping Patterns and Consumer Behaviour in South Wales 1995-96, South Glamorgan County Council, Cardiff. ELCHA (East London and The City Health Authority) (1999), Food Access in East London, ELCHA, London. Guy, C.M. (1996), ‘‘Corporate strategies in food retailing and their local impacts: a case study of Cardiff’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 28, pp. 1575-602. Guy, C.M. and David, G. (2002), ‘‘An investigation of possible food deserts in Cardiff’’, unpublished paper. National Assembly for Wales (2000), Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation – 2000 Edition, NAW, Cardiff. Speak, S. and Graham, S. (2000), Service Not Included: Social Implications of Private Sector Restructuring in Marginalised Neighbourhoods, The Policy Press, Bristol. Sustain (2000a), A Battle in Store? A Discussion of the Social Impact of the Major UK Supermarkets, Sustain, London. Sustain (2000b), Reaching the Parts . . . Community Mapping: Working Together to Tackle Social Exclusion and Food Poverty, Sustain, London. Westlake, T. (1993), ‘‘The disadvantaged consumer’’, in Bromley, R. and Thomas, C.J. (Eds), Retail Change: Contemporary Issues, UCL Press, London, pp. 172-91. Whitehead, M. (1998), ‘‘Food deserts: what’s in a name?’’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 189-90. Wrigley, N. (2002), ‘‘Food deserts in British cities: policy contexts and research priorities’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2029-40. Wrigley, N., Guy, C.M. and Lowe, M. (2002), ‘‘Urban regeneration, social inclusion and large store development: the Seacroft development in context’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2101-14.

for higher income areas than lower income areas. Indeed, a large number of the poorest EDs in Cardiff have become worse off for access to high quality food retailing following a decade of store building and rationalisation. That is something which city planners need to be aware of and need to resolve over the next decade.

Notes 1 A ‘‘reference store’’ is defined by the Competition Commission as a supermarket with 600m2 or more of grocery sales area, where the space devoted to the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic drinks exceeds 300m2 and which are controlled by a person who controls ten or more such stores. 2 In Netherly, a housing estate on the edge of Liverpool, several small shops in neighbourhood parades had closed down, but the area is also served by a district centre which includes a Tesco supermarket and fresh food shops (Speak and Graham, 2000, pp. 16-18).

References Acheson, D. (1998), Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, The Stationery Office, London. Clarke, G.P., Eyre, H. and Guy, C.M. (2002), ‘‘Deriving indicators of access to food retail provision in British cities: studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2041-60. Competition Commission (2000), Supermarkets: A Report on the Supply of Groceries from Multiple Stores in the United Kingdom, Cm 4842, The Stationery Office, London. Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (1999), ‘‘The location of food stores in urban areas: a case study in Glasgow’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 101, pp. 545-53. Cummins, S. and McIntyre, S. (2002), ‘‘A systematic study of an urban foodscape: the price and availability of food

88

1 Introduction

Retail competition and consumer choice: contextualising the ‘‘food deserts’’ debate

One of the underlying strengths of the recent spate of papers on food has been the willingness of the authors to set out the broad policy perspectives. Consider just the first page of the recent special issue of Urban Studies article by Wrigley (2002). In it, reference is made to: the National Food Survey; the Nutrition Task Force; standardised mortality rates for heart disease and the Acheson report on inequalities in health; and neighbourhood renewal and physical regeneration. What rapidly emerges is a microcosm of the general policy agenda of Tony Blair’s New Labour: a fascinating mix of the interventionist and the laissez-faire. What this does is to massively broaden the retail policy debate beyond the usual protagonists. Put simply, it is not possible to set foot in a store without confronting multiple policy agendas. As we have recently argued (Clarke et al., 2003), retail policy per se can tend to be seen as a contest of strength between market policymakers – such as the Competition Commission – and planning regulatory bodies – such as the DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions). What is needed is a mechanism that cuts across these various arenas so that consistent and genuinely ‘‘joined up’’ policy can be developed. An effective way of doing this, we suggest, is to look at these complex issues in the same way as retailers – in terms of whether or not they are giving consumers ‘‘what they want’’. Consumer experiences of competition ought to be a crucial ‘‘anchor point’’ for the Government’s approach to retail policy. Retail policy should reflect a fuller understanding of how different groups of consumers use and experience multiple and independent stores. At the heart of this idea is a more proactive approach to planning, rooted in the experiences of consumers making real retail choices within constantly changing local competitive situations. The key question is whether consumers feel they have sufficient

Ian Clarke, Alan Hallsworth, Peter Jackson, Ronan de Kervenoael, Rossana Perez-del-Aguila and Malcolm Kirkup The authors Ian Clarke is ESRC AIM Fellow and Professor of Marketing, and Ronan de Kervenoael and Rossana Perez-del-Aguila are Research Associates, all at Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK. Alan Hallsworth is Professor of Retail Management at Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. Peter Jackson is Professor of Geography in the Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. Malcolm Kirkup is Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK. Keywords Retail trade, Retailers, Consumer behaviour, Shopping, United Kingdom Abstract The ‘‘food deserts’’ debate can be enriched by setting the particular circumstances of food deserts – areas of very limited consumer choice – within a wider context of changing retail provision in other areas. This paper’s combined focus on retail competition and consumer choice shifts the emphasis from changing patterns of retail provision towards a more qualitative understanding of how ‘‘choice’’ is actually experienced by consumers at the local level ‘‘on the ground’’. This argument has critical implications for current policy debates where the emphasis on monopolies and mergers at the national level needs to be brought together with the planning and regulation of retail provision at the local, neighbourhood level. Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) for the three year research project (started April 2002) on which this paper is based (Grant Reference No. R000239531; ‘‘Retail competition and consumer choice: long-term change and household dynamics’’).

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 89-99 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521761

89

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

accessibility and price), but also which stores are actually used. In short, the thrust of our paper is that it is not just competition locally that matters. Rather, it is crucial to tease out how and why different groups of consumers exercise choice in some circumstances while abrogating choice in other contexts, foregoing ‘‘choices’’ that are, at least theoretically, available to them.

choice and, if not, how can policy be used to address such situations? The aim of this paper is to begin to establish this ‘‘anchor point’’ by sketching out a preliminary conceptual framework for understanding what we mean by ‘‘real’’ consumer choice. Fundamentally, we feel that it is necessary to look at the effects of ‘‘competition’’, first and foremost, in terms of how consumers actually experience different retail outlets. In the first part of the paper, we try to unpack choice in a simple way by looking at what the concept of ‘‘choice’’ actually means, establishing what the benefits of it are, and highlighting why it is on the agenda in food retailing. Effectively, this requires us to begin deconstructing competition in the way consumers experience it: as choices in given locations. This last point is an important one, because although the Competition Commission investigation of the grocery industry, which reported in October 2000, drew attention to ‘‘local circumstances’’ (Competition Commission, 2000) – that is, local competition – we still do not have a way of defining why this is really important. This is precisely the point we start to address in this section by asking how consumers experience competition in given locales. ‘‘Real’’ competition and ‘‘real’’ choice are, we believe, ‘‘flip sides of the same coin’’. In part two of the paper, we reassess retail competition from this perspective. Finally, in the third part of the paper, we use this preliminary framework to revisit the food deserts debate. In this discussion, we call for a wider contextualisation of the notion of the ‘‘food desert’’ which is, we propound, simply one extreme case of retail provision (or, more accurately, very limited provision) within a given locality in space and, critically, in time. We emphasise the need to take into account not only the dynamics of retail competition locally, but also call for work on how retail choice is experienced in areas other than food deserts. In contrast to most research which approaches retail competition via an analysis of changing retail provision, we begin from an analysis of consumer choice, focusing on how changes in retail provision are actually experienced by different groups of consumers. Our analysis considers not just which choices are notionally available (based on such criteria as physical

2 Unpacking choice At the most basic level, academic marketers have tended to conceive the concept of ‘‘choice’’ as an act of decision-making (Laaksonen, 1993). There is an implicit assumption that choices are not only ‘‘available’’, but also ‘‘made’’. Real situations in given localities are, however, not so simple. We might conceive of particular locations such as so-called food deserts as having ‘‘limited retail choice’’, or even ‘‘Hobson’s (or no) choice’’. At the other extreme, locations that have an abundance of outlets might be regarded as having ‘‘too much choice’’ or at least an over-abundance of choice. In retail parlance, these latter locations are termed ‘‘saturated’’, albeit that the definition itself refers more specifically to the tendency towards declining sales and capital returns for each new outlet built in such locations. The reality, then, is that there is a continuum of choice, with some locations abundantly supplied, others less so. We can go further and suggest (as many marketers have) that consumers also need to be aware of the choices that are potentially available to them within a given area. It is not unknown, for example, for consumers to be unaware of some stores, particularly smaller outlets (Potter, 1982). Even if they are aware of alternatives, consumers will need to be able to access them (physically and economically) in order to be able to exercise that aspect of their choice set. Beyond these levels, the concept of choice also implies a preference is being expressed and that evaluations take place between stores. Preferences are only real, however, when consumers have the power to express them (London Economics, 1997). As London Economics pointed out, consumers’ power is limited by the size of their purchasing (which is 90

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

childcare and child-friendly transport, for example) and ‘‘cultural’’ questions (about which stores are considered appropriate for different kinds of consumers). Indeed, it has been argued that consumers are not simply making a choice between a pre-existing set of retail locations (Gregson et al., 2002). Consumers are actively involved in the constitution of those locations, helping shape the ambience of the outlets they choose and ignoring stores that they consider undesirable for people like themselves (Crang and Malbon, 1996). But why is choice important at all to consumers? Again, the literature tends to underplay the benefits of choice within retailing. Put simply, if consumers have genuine choices, then they are requiring retailers to compete against each other, to strive to improve the services they offer. A more intangible benefit of choice is that it can enhance an individual’s self-esteem. Having no choice can be disconcerting and demoralizing, whereas ample choice can empower consumers, giving them the opportunity to express themselves in a ‘‘democratic’’ fashion. The most fundamental benefit of having retail choices available, however, is that it promotes a feeling of equitable treatment in society. This argument was central to the British government’s White Paper on Modern Markets, Confident Consumers (Department of Trade & Industry, 1999) which saw the promotion of knowledgeable and demanding consumers as having a range of benefits in terms of more open and competitive markets and more democratic and active citizenry. So, why does choice need to be on the food retailing agenda at all? Essentially, we argue that it is a crucial part of the agenda because changes within society are constantly impacting consumer welfare in a relative and differential fashion. We have argued elsewhere (Clarke, 2000) that changes in the geography of retail provision provide an obvious way in which retailers shape food choices, by altering the spatial accessibility of different consumer groups to food supply. Indeed, Wrigley et al.’s study of the impact of regeneration of a food desert location by a new Tesco hypermarket at Seacroft in Leeds, outlined in this issue, is one such case in point. We particularly emphasise

small compared to the retailer’s overall turnover), their mobility, and how informed they are of the choices that are available. What influences the latter is that, to be able to make a choice consumers must have both the mental faculty and physical ability to do so. The implication is that alternatives available to, and choices made by, some types of consumers in a given locality may not be available to other groups or, at least they may not be able to take a particular choice. How we approach constrained choice may depend on our perception of what limits choice. The ability to overcome the frictional effects of distance – whether expressed as time or cost barriers will depend on many factors. Some constrained consumers are universally recognized: most notably those with disabilities and who may rely upon others. ‘ ... It has been argued that consumers are not simply making a choice between a pre-existing set of retail locations . . . Consumers are actively involved in the constitution of those locations, helping shape the ambience of the outlets they choose and ignoring stores that they consider undesirable for people like themselves... ’

This latter condition can easily be shared by the very elderly or the very poor when their situation is exacerbated by poor access to transport. More specific constraints (such as the requirement to shop with small children in tow) were long ago studied by researchers such as Bowlby (1979). To these groups we can add consumers who are too young to drive – in environments where a car is necessary in order to reach retail outlets. Exercising choice clearly involves more than having the mental capacity and physical ability to do so. For example, accessibility to a particular store is a function of perceived physical distance, tempered by the availability of an appropriate means of transport. Accessibility also involves real or perceived economic access (influenced by relative prices and disposable income) which might lead to self-exclusion (Barratt, 1997). But it is far more, too, involving ‘‘social’’ questions (about 91

Retail competition and consumer choice

Ian Clarke et al.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

two important dimensions to such developments so far as the changing choice profile of the locality are concerned. First, Wrigley has demonstrated unequivocally that the perceived choices and actual choices of many residents can be demonstrably improved by retail development. His study also shows, rather more importantly, that such changes in provision can also have a very tangible effect on food consumption patterns, diet and, by implication, health. Second – though not a core concern, is consideration of the wider impacts of the development on retail provision. We would be very surprised if the opening of such a new Tesco hypermarket did not have substantive and discernible effects, as is normally the case, on other food stores in the area, large and small. This is discussed in the Leeds case by reference to trade deflections – for new superstores have a wide catchment area and, whilst bringing welcome provision to a locality, are bound to draw off trade from distant areas. To what extent, therefore, does any new retail development affect consumer choices elsewhere in a negative fashion – albeit that this requires some idea of net benefit? Even more important, we believe, is the extent to which such changes are experienced by different groups of consumers. Overall, who experiences benefits and dis-benefits, and why? Again, Wrigley et al.’s study was not directly designed to address such issues, but it does, nonetheless, highlight key points that we wish to make in this paper, which is that choices and the competitive profile that underlie them, are experienced differentially by consumers (Clarke et al., 2003; Competition Commission, 2000; Lumkin et al., 1985; Piacentini et al., 2001). As we have already stressed (Clarke, 2000), the net benefits of changes in the retail geography of localities remain unclear. The preceding discussion serves to justify and amplify the centrality of local competition to ‘‘choice’’. Indeed, we would go further and emphasise the reverse, that the notion of consumer choice cannot be dis-embedded from an appraisal of competition locally. This is where we differ from traditional economic models of choice, which start from the perspective of isolated individuals making a ‘‘free’’ choice based on complete knowledge and unlimited time available to shop. In such

approaches, consumption is reduced to shopping – purchasing decisions – based on a monetary exchange that ignores the socially embedded nature of people’s actual shopping practices. Our perspective, by contrast, is to approach shopping as a social practice, rather than seeing each purchase as an individual decision. The crucial distinction, from this perspective, is that most people shop in and for households or families, not individually (Miller et al., 1998). We go further, however, and stress that the concept of ‘‘choice’’ can only be understood holistically when it takes into account the fact that consumption is itself a process that is socially differentiated. The example of ‘‘food deserts’’ makes it clear that not everyone has equal choice. As we emphasised earlier, some consumers are more constrained than others by disposable income, mobility and so on. Beyond the extreme case of ‘‘food deserts’’, cultural capital, reflecting education and ‘‘taste’’, can be as important as economic capital and access. From our perspective, choices are not reducible to the demography of households, but are also related to a wide array of lifestyle and identity issues. This point is reflected in the move by marketers over the last two decades from categorizing people by their class and purchasing power, to demographics and life-stages, and now increasingly to consumption patterns and lifestyle (Campbell, 1995). ‘‘Economic’’ issues of price and proximity to food outlets may, in fact, be relatively unimportant for some households for much of the time – many shopping choices being habitual and not sensitive to minor price variations, for example[1]. From the perspective of shopping as a social activity, therefore, the concept of ‘‘choice’’ is less readily defined. For many shoppers, including those in relatively deprived areas, shopping is as much about ‘‘buying an identity’’ as choosing between specific goods. Choice allows the opportunity to invest in an identity. As Douglas explains, consumption is about investing in the future (Douglas, 1997). Such issues highlight the over-simplicity of most typologies of consumer groups. Identities are shifting and multiple, developed relationally, according to the social context. Consumers are also faced with choices between stores operated 92

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

the shop influences choice’’ (therefore many will not buy new products if they are not in the aisle that they usually browse). Within stores people only consider a fraction of the goods on offer, using a list or relying on routine and habit to eliminate much of what is on sale. Accordingly only a proportion of shopping is actually about purchasing – much of it is also about looking (Gregson et al., 2002) – and the two have very different social relations. Food shopping is rooted initially within the home, and starts before the consumer leaves there in terms of planning, dreaming and saving up; goes on within the store as a process of selecting, rejecting and spending (often negotiated with other family members); and is followed-up afterwards with cooking, eating and, in some circumstances, entertaining. From this richer perspective of the practice of shopping choice, it is possible to see that there are, in fact, very different forms of shopping spaces differentiated for instance, by gender (e.g. DIY shopping tends to be favoured more by male shoppers, charity shops by women). ‘‘Choice’’, from this point of view, may be more about the selection of a shopping space in which the customer feels at ease – ‘‘this is my kind of shop’’ – than anything else, an argument that was raised in the context of north London shoppers’ use of the John Lewis department store and Waitrose grocery outlet located within the Brent Cross shopping centre (Miller et al., 1998). What has been emphasised in social science research on consumption, is that shopping choices are as much related to the rhythms of everyday life and their associated social relations, as about specific trade-offs of store attributes – hence our emphasis on tracking choice back into different kinds of household. Shopping choices are, in short, something to be fitted in with other responsibilities, routines and pleasures. Some people exercise their choice by travelling further or for longer to their preferred store, but others will abrogate choices by sticking closer to home and to what they know – effectively, their choices may be annulled by their situation and outlook, constrained to choices that are familiar, habitual and part of a regular household routine. It is not surprising that the exercise of choice, therefore, implies a relatively high investment in shopping time,

by different retailers, between different shop formats of the same retailer, between different locations, and even between different goods within the store (e.g. branded versus own-label goods). Whilst it is possible to model store choice based on some of the most influential factors, such as accessibility, convenience, price, range of goods and services available within the store, in practice, we believe that most consumers work within a relatively limited repertoire and goods within them. That said, sophisticated choice modelling (for example the work of Timmermans 1980; 1981a, b) has attempted to disaggregate choice by person type – though the approach cannot capture the multiple shopper identities that we posit. So, outside of the most extreme ‘‘food deserts’’, many consumers are likely to have a ‘‘main store’’ that they use: they may do their big weekly shop at Sainsbury’s, use a local Tesco for top-up shopping every two or three days, buy weekend ‘‘treats’’ at Marks & Spencer, and use specialist outlets for particular goods, like organic bread and fruit. Thus, it is important that as researchers we are conscious of such choice repertoires of stores used by consumers, but even more crucial that we develop a fuller understanding of what social factors make some choices possible and others less so. ‘ ... Food shopping is rooted initially within the home, and starts before the consumer leaves there in terms of planning, dreaming and saving up; goes on within the store as a process of selecting, rejecting and spending (often negotiated with other family members); and is followed-up afterwards with cooking, eating and, in some circumstances, entertaining... ’

In terms of the socially-embedded practice of choice, we take issue with existing models that assume that an intellectual repertoire of action choices is carried out. Whilst we have not yet been able to find evidence for this in the literature, there is significant evidence within the ‘‘trade’’ press that ‘‘brands inform choices’’ (so that some people will not bother about new products) and that ‘‘shoppers’ familiarity with 93

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

3 A richer view of retail choice

consideration and physical effort. For some people, it may be a low priority, a routine that needs to be done quickly so that they can move on to something else. For others, it will be less burdensome and more pleasurable. ‘‘Loyalty’’, that much maligned term associated with choice, may simply be the way many consumers respond to a complex shopping environment, by relying on one store they find comfortable and amenable, as much as being intrinsically attracted to a particular retailer and store. From the perspective of the rhythms of everyday life, therefore, some people will embrace choice to simplify the tasks of food shopping their domestic situation foists upon them; others will be overtly resistant to influence and make choices based on their own alternate beliefs. For this reason, individuals may have quite strong preferences as to which store chain they will patronize. These preferences may be placed under threat when major store chain mergers are proposed (as with the bidding for the Safeway supermarket chain in the UK which was subject to a recent Competition Commission report (2003)). By way of a summary of the discussion so far, the inextricable linkage between consumer choices and retail provision has been underlined. Whilst the notion of the food desert implies an area that is bereft of choice, we emphasise that choice is locality-specific and there is a need to put the ‘‘deserts’’ debate into the wider context of the degree of competition in a given area. However, the broader notion of potential choices available within a locality to actual sets of choices that consumers use, requires us to grapple with constraints imposed on consumers by the embeddedness of consumption locally, in terms of the stores available, the pressures of social and household conditions, and the influence of consumers being able to act out their social condition as differing cultural ‘‘tastes’’. The discussion draws attention to the factors that make some choices socially possible and others less so, and why certain shopping ‘‘spaces’’ (be they centres or stores) are favoured over others, opening up choices to some and abrogating them for others as part of the rhythms of everyday life.

This richer contextualisation of the effect of retail competition on choice, which our work is calling for (and which we are carrying out empirically), stresses a number of issues. First, ‘‘real’’ choice has to be located in specific social contexts as well as spatially specific places since, as Fernie notes, ‘‘shoppers exhibit different purchasing attitudes and behaviour according to the situation they are in at any specific time’’ (Fernie, 1998, p. 95). Thus, if choice involves repertoires (particular combinations of stores, goods and locations), should we be thinking, instead, in terms of the ‘‘effective’’ choices experienced by different kinds of household? If people eliminate certain choices – by virtue of the fact that they ‘‘would never go’’ to the food discounter Lidl, or if they think that Marks & Spencer is simply ‘‘too expensive’’, even though they are readily accessible – should we focus on the range of choices as they define and experience them, rather than what is theoretically available? Do they make a choice of a supermarket only because they perceive it to be the best ‘‘solution’’ to their particular set of circumstances or lifestyle? Second, the antithesis of this perspective, which posits control over choice essentially in the hands of the retailer (Marsden et al., 1998) and what they provide, is the idea that consumers have more control over choice than they are often given credit for. This view suggests that consumers are more in control where they are dictating what is on offer in store. On balance, what we are intimating is that such a case probably overstates the power of the consumer in the process of choice, which, on the one hand, is a function of the retail provision locally and, on the other hand, is affected by household and social conditions. The interaction of changing retail provision and variable consumer agency creates extensive choice for some but severely restricts the range of choice for others. What is clear is that choices are only ‘‘real’’ when we first, take into account the situational conditions of particular consumer groups, and second, see how these influence the choices that these different groups are able to make from the retail competition 94

Retail competition and consumer choice

Ian Clarke et al.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

that is available locally at any given point in time. Third, one issue that juxtaposes both household influences and retail influences on consumer choices, is the way in which retailers are themselves responding to the increasing lifestyle differences. Some, such as Tesco, see their job as ‘‘providing solutions’’ to people’s lifestyle problems, offering different retail formats (e.g. Metro or Extra), and different kinds of goods (e.g. brands, own-label ‘‘value’’ lines and premium ‘‘finest’’ labels). Taken as a whole, how does such market positioning cut across the other criteria that potentially affect choices? Whether or not such positioning appeals to consumers is as much about choice as it is about ‘‘price’’ or physical accessibility. This ‘‘comfort factor’’ with the retail brand, whilst much emphasised by retailers, has been explored only very little by researchers and is central to the reality of consumer choice. Fourth, the conceptualization we have begun to sketch out as a framework for investigating the reality of choices available to different groups of consumers brings with it some distinct methodological implications. One way of addressing this would be to focus in-depth qualitative research on households within a few selected streets with similar disposable income, and investigate how and why they have different retail repertoires and make different consumption choices. Are these explicable by demographics, household composition or, for example, more by intangible lifestyle differences? Another methodological experiment might be to map all the choices that are theoretically available to specific households (say within a ten minute drive time) and then map their effective choices (where they go now, in the recent past, and where they have at least thought of going). If some stores – which are theoretically ‘‘accessible’’ – are not even considered, then this has distinct consequences for competition policy. Such decisions may in a sense be hidden from researchers when decisions are made for reasons that were perhaps not considered. For example, Ley’s work on turf territories arose because individuals clearly would not walk into the territory of other gangs – the boundaries of which were invisible to Ley himself (Ley, 1974).

Whilst the geography of the retail system is a fundamental source of re-ordering the time-geography of consumers’ everyday lives (Pred, 1996), we contend that, in a particular locality, ‘‘real’’ choices will, in practice, be abrogated by some households because of their own situation, constraints and local conditions of accessibility. It is useful to conceptualise these two key influences in both space and time by thinking about how the local environment of exchange evolves within streams of macro- and micro-level changes, which links back to our earlier point about the complex interactions between policy arenas. At the macro-level, for instance, it is possible to paint a picture of increasing growth in concentration of provision in UK food retailing as a result of several sets of influences. If we go back to the early 1980s, we saw first an uplift in the volume of strategic new store development by UK supermarket groups, later marginally tempered by the entry of new limited range hard discounters from Europe. A tightening of the regulatory environment, however, occurred from the mid-1990s onwards, with the advent of the ‘‘sequential test’’[2] as an attempt to constrain development in, or adjacent to, town centres. Since then, we have seen a wave of macro-level influences affecting retail competition locally: regeneration initiatives, format diversification by food retailers, the intensification of use of floorspace, and the advent of 24 hour/seven-day trading. Consumer choice has been directly affected at this broad level by increased pressures to ‘‘educate’’ consumers, developments and improvements in IT, marked increases in personal mobility as a result of the growth in car ownership, health initiatives (e.g. growth of organic markets), and a growing premium being placed on the locality in terms of opportunities for local pricing, local branding, and local sourcing. However, although retail competition may be largely determined at a national (or international) level in terms of changing patterns of provision, it is experienced at a micro or local level in terms of consumer choice. At the micro-level – the arena within which competition and choice is played out – there has been myriad effects on competitiveness: . the declining availability of space for development; 95

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al. . .

.

.

consequent rises in land prices; growth and changing household structures affecting demand; changes in local labour market structures; and growth in crime, and so on.

project in Portsmouth demonstrate, for the most part, that mobile affluent consumers have ample choice of food stores in an area where no chain has market dominance. However, this is precisely our argument: that the effects of competitive development only really become apparent when we look at the micro-scale. Small wonder that when an ESRC funded research team came to study the topic of food deserts, they headed to an area of Leeds (Seacroft) originally built as a post-war council housing estate (Wrigley et al., 2000-2004). Unserved by the market-leaders, the area had apparently ceased even to offer basic healthy food products. The residents, by implication, were bereft of choice (Whelan et al., 2002; Wrigley, 2002; Wrigley et al., 2002a). In our Portsmouth study, by contrast, which looks at a socially broader-based community over a wider area – we are starting to find evidence of more subtle effects of changes in competition because of an apparent abrogation of choice by those who have it. In short, there are abundant foodstores that the generally-affluent and mobile population could use – but many choose not to. If we step back a pace or two from the evolutionary system that left parts of Leeds as a ‘‘food desert’’ (Wrigley et al., 2002b), we can see that long-term change in food shopping provision has led to a pattern of fewer but larger stores (Clarke, 2000). Whereas, 50 years ago, the local consumer might shop around on foot for lowest prices among an array of small but proximal stores in their local town, this behavioural pattern no longer generally applies, and not just in so-called food deserts. In our research study area of Portsmouth, the generally good transport (road) links and the much increased availability of private cars means that shoppers have a wide range of stores from which they can choose. Generally, however, our results are showing many ‘‘real’’ choices are abrogated in favour of a store to which they are generally ‘‘loyal’’. The question is, given our earlier emphasis on the importance of the specificity of local social context, why? Our argument in this paper has been to put forward the perspective that changes in choice, over time as well as in space, are only ‘‘real’’ when the household situation is taken into account in terms of whether or not they are able

In parallel with these local pressures, and against the background of macro-level changes, the broad dimensions of choice available to consumers have been marked: . proliferations (in many cases) of planning permissions leading to a marked increase in the number of large new grocery stores in most locations; . a resultant accentuation of the competition between the multiples and the declining independent outlets; . increased variety of how to access different retail brands – through different store formats made available, but also through the increase in virtual access brought about by Web-based provision of most food multiples; . huge increases in store attractiveness created by the expansion of product ranges possible in-store; . intensification of price competition locally; and . overall, a general increase in the quality of retail provision.

4 Contextualising the ‘‘food desert’’ debate Set against such a backcloth of retail change, it is hard to argue these changes have had anything other than a positive effect on consumer choice. And yet, that is precisely what the ‘‘food desert’’ debate is itself doing, implying that such areas are essentially bereft of choice because of the spatial selectivity of retail development over time. The essence of any mature market (as retailing in the UK surely is) is that its spatial manifestations vary. Though all areas resemble a palimpsest with the present pattern overbuilt on history, it soon becomes obvious that not all areas are, or have been, equally well served, despite similar local conditions (Clarke et al., 1994). Preliminary findings from our own ESRC-funded research 96

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

agenda for the East Manchester New Deal partnership is to attract and retain higher-income households. This immediately begs the question of how one devises policies – including retail policies – that suit the needs of both affluent newcomers and of existing, long-term, poorer residents. Lloyd reports on a local teacher, employed in, but living away from the nearby town of Burnley who refused to return to shop there even ‘‘in full daylight on a Saturday’’ (Lloyd, 2002). If the spending of higher-income families leaches away from established centres then the remaining buying power cannot support the higher tiers of services and a cycle of decline sets in. The New Deal agenda, admirably, is to reverse this, by emphasizing the holistic approach. However, the notion that an area that is selected for special attention must necessarily be populated by the same people who work there is not one supported by Lloyd’s example. Such spatial effects cannot be ignored – in New Deal areas or elsewhere. There is, we argue, a finely grained detail in the sphere of shopping choices. This may be ignored or undermined by national-level macro-policies of the ‘‘one size fits all’’ variety. One possibility is that the national scale may not be the right one from which to take decisions that impact differentially on localities.

to make choices that are effectively available to them. We suggested, for example, a way of testing this, by looking at how otherwise similar households within a given area have different effective store choice repertoires available to them by virtue of their social embeddedness. To help answer the preceding question, we can draw off initial findings from the first phase of our Portsmouth study. We can conclude from initial findings that, in respect of this abundantly-stored area, the bulk of customers, seem to be contented, wealthy, mobile middle class consumers who are unprepared to divert greatly from well-established patterns when new retail choices arrive locally. We do not deny that there will be (and are) disadvantaged shoppers, but anyone who has wished to maintain that pattern of shopping-around on foot for lowest prices among an array of small but proximal stores in their local town will almost certainly feel disadvantaged today. More seriously, even 20 years ago in the same study area, we found examples of isolated individuals (often living in generally affluent areas) who had real problems – through age or disability, etc. – in getting to stores (Hallsworth, 1988). In Portsmouth, we do not expect to find a pure Leeds-(Seacroft)-style food desert, as characterised by others (Clarke et al., 2002; Wrigley et al., 2002b) even though the area does have a huge peripheral ‘‘Seacroft-style area’’ (Leigh Park) that was also originally built as a post-war council housing estate. Unlike the Seacroft area of Leeds, existing retailers in Portsmouth (the likes of Tesco, Iceland, Woolworths) have not left the area and in forthcoming research papers, we will be exploring and unpacking the perceptions and experiences of different ‘‘levels’’ of choice within the locality, for contrasting consumer groups. To return to the point that we started this paper – the intersection of policy arenas that retail provision cuts across – the spatial/territorial nature of retailing is exemplified by recent empirical work in another food desert – New East Manchester. The trading impact of this store – the largest Asda/WalMart in Britain – is felt over a substantial distance and not just within the confines of the Government ‘‘New Deal’’ area in which it is located. Note, too, that a key

5 Conclusions We have argued in this paper that the ‘‘food deserts’’ debate can be enriched by setting the particular circumstances of these areas of very restricted consumer choice within a wider context of changing retail provision in other areas. We have also argued that consumers’ actual experience of choice is as important as debates about the range of choices that are theoretically available to them. Consumers’ actual choices are shaped by a wide range of social and cultural issues, as well as by economic questions of price/income and geographical questions of physical proximity. Our combined focus on retail competition and consumer choice shifts the emphasis from changing patterns of retail provision towards a more qualitative understanding of how ‘‘choice’’ is actually experienced by consumers 97

Retail competition and consumer choice

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

Ian Clarke et al.

(Eds), Resources & Planning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 293-323. Campbell, C. (1995), ‘‘The sociology of consumption’’, in Miller, D. (Ed.), Acknowledging Consumption, Routledge, London, pp. 96-126. Clarke, G., Eyre, H. and Guy, C. (2002), ‘‘Deriving indicators of access to food retail provision in British cities: studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2041-60. Clarke, I. (2000), ‘‘Retail power, competition and local consumer choice in the UK grocery sector’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 975-1002. Clarke, I., Bennison, D. and Guy, C. (1994), ‘‘The dynamics of UK grocery retailing at the local scale’’, International Journal of & and Distribution Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 11-20. Clarke, I., Hallsworth, A., Jackson, P., De-Kervenoael, R. and Perez-del-Aguila, R. (2003), ‘‘Space matters in retail regulation: ‘real’ competition and ‘real’ choice are both located and temporal’’, paper presented at the 32nd European Marketing Academy Conference: ’‘Marketing: Responsible and Relevant?’’, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 20-23 May. Competition Commission (2000), Supermarkets: A Report on the Supply of Groceries from Multiple Stores in the United Kingdom, Volume 1: Summary and Conclusions (Cm 4842), The Stationary Office, London. Competition Commission (2003), Safeway Merger Inquiries: Remedies Statement, Competition Commission, London, p. 14. Crang, P. and Malbon, B. (1996), ‘‘Consuming geographies: a review essay’’, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 21, pp. 704-19. Department of Trade & Industry (1999), Modern Markets, Confident Consumers (Cm 4410), Department of Trade & Industry, London. Douglas, M. (1997), ‘‘In defence of shopping’’, in Falk, P. and Campbell, C. (Eds), The Shopping Experience, Sage, London, pp. 15-30. Fernie, J. (Ed.), (1998), The Future of UK Retailing: Change, Growth and Competition, Financial Times, London. Gregson, N., Crewe, L. and Brooks, K. (2002), ‘‘Shopping, space and practice’’, Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 20, pp. 597-617. Hallsworth, A.G. (1988), The Human Impact of Hypermarkets and Superstores, Avebury, Aldershot. Laaksonen, M. (1993), ‘‘Retail patronage dynamics: learning about daily shopping behaviour in contexts of changing retail structures’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, pp. 31-74. Ley, D.F. (1974), The Black Inner City as a Frontier Outpost: Images and Behavior of a Philadelphia Neighbourhood, Vol. 7, Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC. Lloyd, J. (2002), ‘‘Poor whites’’, Prospect 75, June, pp. 44-7. London Economics (1997), Competition in Retailing, Research Paper 13, Office of Fair Trading, London. Lumkin, J.R., Greenberg, B.A. and Goldstucker, J.L. (1985), ‘‘Marketplace needs of the elderly: determinants,

at the local level ‘‘on the ground’’. While we are still in the process of collecting the empirical data to support this assertion, we feel this perspective offers the potential to broaden the significance of current debates about the specific circumstances of contemporary ‘‘food deserts’’. Our argument also has a critical impact on current policy debates where the emphasis on monopolies and mergers at the national level needs to be brought together with the planning and regulation of retail provision at the local, neighbourhood level. What might not appear to be a significant reduction in competition at the national or regional scale can clearly be experienced very differently at the local level. Above all, we argue that ‘‘real’’ choice is always located in specific contexts, defined in space and time, and that the experience of choice is always socially and spatially differentiated. We will be reporting on our empirical findings in this respect in forthcoming papers.

Notes 1 This is a new line of argument recently used, for example, by J. Sainsbury’s in the battle for Safeway. Sainsbury’s case for a successful bid for Safeway in the UK underlined that they will extend choice for consumers since the other bidders are all ‘‘high value’’ supermarkets offering a narrower range (The Telegraph, 14 January 2003), This contrasts with most arguments currently being put forward to the Competition Commission by the larger multiples, which stress the price benefits of given merger alternatives for the consumer. 2 In brief, the sequential test carries a presumption against out of town stores. Proposals for these need to be able to demonstrate that more central locations are not available: either on grounds that they cannot accommodate the size of store or the types of goods to be sold. Increasingly the latter is the criterion being adopted. This ensures that developers do not propose over-sized stores simply to justify their being out of town.

References Barratt, J. (1997), ‘‘The cost and availability of healthy food choices in southern Derbyshire’’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 10, pp. 63-9. Bowlby, S. (1979), ‘‘Accessibility, mobility and shopping provision’’, in Goodall, B. and Kirby, A.

98

Retail competition and consumer choice

Ian Clarke et al.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 89-99

attributes and store choice’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 75-105. Marsden, T., Harrison, M. and Flynn, A. (1998), ‘‘Creating competitive space: exploring the social and political maintenance of retail power’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, pp. 481-98. Miller, D., Jackson, P., Thrift, N., Holbrook, B. and Rowlands, M. (Eds), (1998), Shopping, Place and Identity, Routledge, London. Piacentini, M., Hibbert, S. and Al-Dajani, H. (2001), ‘‘Diversity in deprivation: exploring the grocery shopping behaviour of disadvantaged consumers’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 141-58. Potter, R.B. (1982), The Urban Retailing System, Gower, London. Pred, A. (1996), ‘‘Interfusions: consumption, identity and the practices and power relations of everyday life’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 28, pp. 11-24. Timmermans, H. (1980), ‘‘Consumer spatial choice strategies: a comparative study of some alternative behavioural spatial shopping models’’, Geoforum, Vol. 11, pp. 123-31.

Timmermans, H. (1981a), ‘‘Spatial choice behaviour in different environmental settings: an application of the revealed preference approach’’, Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 63B, pp. 57-67. Timmermans, H. (1981b), ‘‘Multi-attribute shopping models and ridge regression analysis’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 13, pp. 43-56. Whelan, A., Wrigley, N., Warm, D. and Cannings, E. (2002), ‘‘Life in a ’food desert’’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2083-100. Wrigley, N. (2002), ‘‘Food deserts in British cities: policy context and research priorities’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2029-40. Wrigley, N., Guy, C. and Lowe, M. (2002b), ‘‘Urban regeneration, social inclusion and large store development: the Seacroft development in context’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2101-114. Wrigley, N., Margetts, B., Lowe, M.S. and Jackson, A. (2000-2004), Food Deserts in British Cities, ESRC Research Programme, University of Southampton, Southampton. Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts, B. and Whelan, A. (2002a), ‘‘Assessing the impact of improved retail access on diet in a ’food desert’: a preliminary report’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2061-82.

99

1 Introduction – retail change and retail exclusion

Measuring convenience: Scots’ perceptions of local food and retail provision David Fitch

The author David Fitch is Research Associate, School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. Keywords Convenience stores, Consumer behaviour, Shopping, Retail trade, Retailers, Scotland Abstract Interest is increasing interest in the links between social exclusion and access to both grocery and retail stores. There is however little knowledge of the extent to which consumers lack convenient access to retail facilities. Data from 30,000 households from the 1999-2000 Scottish household survey were analysed to measure opinions on the convenience of local food stores and the quality and convenience of local shops and link these perceptions to a series of economic and social indicators. One out of every ten Scots households believes they do not have convenient access to a local food store, an issue which affects both rural and urban residents. Scots were also found to be very ambivalent about local stores, while e-commerce is shown to have limited applicability as an alternative to local retail provision, particularly as an alternative source of food and groceries. Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 100-108 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521770

Since the election of the Blair government in 1997 ‘‘social exclusion’’ has been one of the dominant policy frameworks for tackling social problems in the UK, where the excluded are conceptualised as those who have a limited ability to fully participate in the wider social and economic spheres as a result of the impact of a variety of social issues (either individually or in any combination), including unemployment, a lack of literacy and/or numeracy, disability, ill-health, etc. The concept of social exclusion provides us with a rich conceptual framework to use in analysing deprivation, moving policy development and analysis forward and enabling the development of a more nuanced understanding of the many facets of deprivation[1]. Under the guidance of the Social Exclusion Unit, a series of 18 Policy Action Team (PAT) reports were produced, collectively covering a wide range of issues that affect poor neighbourhoods, including neighbourhood renewal (PAT 4), the digital divide (PAT 15), ‘‘joining up’’ (i.e. integrating) the work of government departments (PAT 17), and improving shopping access in poorer neighbourhoods (PAT 13). Taken together, these reports provided a detailed strategy to guide plans for neighbourhood renewal in England and Wales (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). The Scottish Office, and the Scottish Executive which succeeded it, also invested considerable efforts in developing policy approaches to social exclusion (Scottish Office, 1998; Scottish Executive, 2000), while similar efforts occurred at the local level (e.g. LPCoSE, 2000). The report of Policy Action Team 13 recognised the need to link retailing (and associated service provision) within the wider social exclusion debate, as retail exclusion is often a component of other forms of social exclusion, including forms of financial, transportation, educational and technological exclusion. The increasing link between social depravation and area deprivation highlighted the need to examine the relationships between retailing and various forms of exclusion, particularly given the relatively

100

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

low levels of car ownership in the UK and poor public transport which combine to severely constrain the mobility of socially excluded who may have to rely on local stores in preference to alternative (and newer) retail formats. The last 30 years in the UK have been marked by constant restructuring in the retail industry in the UK, from the ‘‘retail revolution’’ of the 1970s (Dawson, 1988) to the development of a wide variety of types of out-of-town shopping (Fernie, 1998) to an increased emphasis upon the role of city centres (Scottish Executive, 1999) and upon the role of leisure in consumption (Hannigan, 1998). At the same time, there has been a widespread recognition of the implications at the local level of the declining numbers of independent stores (Smith and Sparks, 1997; Dawson, 2000; Baron et al., 2001) and an increasing decline in the level and quality of local retail services in many marginalised neighbourhoods (Carley, 2001). The health and policy implications arising from the emergence of food deserts has become one of the central themes of both academics and policy makers (Wrigley, 2002), and this work has been complemented by an emerging body of research on retailing and social exclusion (Piacentini et al., 2001; Williams and Hubbard, 2001; Williams and Windebank, 2002) which has identified local stores as key services for the socially excluded, despite the increasing focus of many regeneration efforts on the construction of very large grocery chain stores (Guy, 2001; Wrigley et al., 2002). It would be a mistake, however, to too closely link those who are socially excluded with areas of deprivation: it is increasingly clear that significant numbers of the excluded do not live in deprived areas (Power and Wilson, 2000), while Edinburgh estimates that the majority of those who are excluded live ‘‘amongst and alongside’’ the most prosperous communities in the city (LPCoSE, 2000, p. 11). If the excluded are spread widely throughout urban and rural society, how can we measure both access to local food provision and levels of satisfaction with local retailing?

2 Measuring perceptions of the accessibility of local food stores Despite the growing body of research exploring the relationship between retailing and exclusion, we still have relatively little idea of the numbers of consumers who are affected by these issues. Data on neighbourhood opinions and satisfaction with local stores from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) were thus analysed to examine household opinions of the convenience of local food stores, and to test perceptions of the quality of non-food stores in their neighbourhoods. This data was then combined with other data in the survey on incomes, employment, housing, etc. to develop a better understanding of the types of households that believe that they do not have convenient access to food/grocery stores, and of those who are dissatisfied with local retail provision. Finally, the potential impact of e-commerce as an alternative for households who are unhappy with some aspect of local provision was examined using SHS data for home Internet access. The SHS is a rolling survey conducted across Scotland for the Scottish Executive, surveying approximately 15,000 households each year and collecting a wide variety of social, economic, neighbourhood and travel data for a random adult and the highest income earner in each household. The survey is designed to provide statistically relevant samples for all the local authorities in Scotland: while more local geo-referencing data is held by the Executive this is not made public, which limits our ability to identify responses from geographic areas of interest. Given that many who are excluded do not live in areas of deprivation, the SHS is an invaluable source which allows for the construction of detailed models that include information on economic status, income, disability, mobility, education, household type and so on across the whole of Scottish society. The data used for this analysis are from the first two years of the survey (1999 and 2000), which has a sample size of some 30,000 households. Many approaches to analysing food deserts have attempted to model food supply at local levels, often analysing food-store location, population distributions and, road networks to develop an understanding of the nature of

101

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

access to local food suppliers (e.g. Clarke et al., 2002). Studies of how consumers shop however have shown that different social groups use food stores in markedly different ways: mobile and affluent consumers are unconstrained by local spatial monopolies, while the socially excluded may prefer smaller and local stores (Piacentini et al., 2001). Using the results from a comprehensive social survey allows us to examine perceptions of accessibility and to identify the characteristics of households which feel that they do not have convenient access to food stores. By allowing each household to use its own definition of convenience, we are able to side-step questions of proximity to food stores (e.g. 500m) and instead analyse perceptions of access (see Table I). The data from the SHS show that in Scotland the vast majority of the population, some 89 per cent, would describe their local food store as convenient[2]. However, 8.3 per cent of households do not feel that they have convenient access to a food store: if we include the ambivalent (i.e. those who felt their local food store was not convenient or inconvenient), at the beginning of this decade over 10 per cent of all Scottish households felt that they did not have a convenient food store. It has become a common meme that rural services are declining and consumers are having increased difficulty in accessing goods and services (New Economics Foundation, 2003). As we might expect, results from the SHS reflect this: as Table II shows, ‘‘rural’’ residents were on average twice as likely as non-rural residents to characterise their local food stores as either fairly or very inconvenient. Despite this finding, it must be noted that over 80 per cent of rural residents still feel they have convenient local food stores. While the levels of dissatisfaction with the convenience of food provision in rural areas is unsurprising, levels of dissatisfaction are higher Table I Convenience of local food store How convenient is your local food store? Very convenient Fairly convenient Neither convenient nor inconvenient Fairly inconvenient Very inconvenient

% 51.9 37.6 1.8 5.5 2.8

Table II Urban and rural opinions of local food store conveniencea

The four citiesa Other urban areas Accessible small towns Remote small towns Very remote small towns Accessible rural Remote rural Very remote rural

Very or fairly convenient (%)

Very or fairly inconvenient (%)

90.7 91.6 91.4 93.9 94.5 83.2 77.5 82.2

7.3 6.5 6.4 5.3 4.0 14.2 19.0 13.7

Note: a The four cities are Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee. ‘‘Other urban areas’’ are those with a population of 10-125,000, e.g. Stranraer, Peterhead, Hawick and Fort William. ‘‘Small towns’’ are those with populations of 3-10,000, such as Kelso, North Berwick and Thurso. All other settlements have populations of less than 3,000. ‘‘Accessible’’ areas are those within a 30 minute drive of a centre of 10,000 people or more: ‘‘remote’’ areas are those within an hour’s drive

than we might expect in urban areas, particularly in the four cities. There may be a link between the size of a community and the percentage of residents who feel provision is inconvenient – the continued decline in numbers of independent stores combined with increasing (often implicit) requirements for/assumptions of consumer mobility may mean that for many urban residents the closest local food store is now far enough away to no longer be convenient. Conversely, residents of smaller communities may have more generous definitions of ‘‘convenience’’ than residents in the largest conurbations and take account of this in their perceptions of what convenience means. While there are clearly issues of rural food provision, over 53 per cent of the Scots households who feel they lack convenient access to food stores are located in urban areas (i.e. towns with populations of over 10,000). These findings clearly show that lack of access to convenient food stores is not just a rural issue but clearly also an urban issue: indeed, given that the majority who feel they lack food access live in urban areas it can be argued that this is more of an urban than a rural issue. Given that the data from the SHS is not geo-referenced, these results are unable to identify any (urban) food deserts per se: however, given that 10 per cent of all Scots households feel they lack access to convenient food stores, these results provide concrete evidence that access to convenient

102

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

food stores is a widespread problem across Scotland. It has been predicted that consumers who lack mobility are disadvantaged, and the SHS data for car ownership and access reflects this. Those households without access to a car are almost twice as likely to believe that local food stores are inconvenient as those who own or have use of automobiles. While this pattern is unsurprising for rural residents, it also holds true for those living in towns and cities. While mobility was expected to be an indicator of inconvenience, analysis showed that neither occupation nor income performed a similar function. Analysis of the relationship between access to food and a household’s reliance on benefits however showed a markedly different picture. There is a strong correlation between the level of a household’s reliance upon benefit (measured as the percentage of total household income derived from all forms of state benefits[3]) and the percentage of households which felt the local food store was inconvenient. Households which were highly reliant upon benefit income (where benefit income was between 80 and 100 per cent of household income) were almost twice as likely to find the local grocery store inconvenient as were those where benefit income was less than 20 per cent of household income. While it has been assumed that many access to food stores is poor in council estates, a more complex picture emerges from the SHS data. The survey aggregates households who share similar social, economic and housing characteristics into ten broad Mosaic groups (high income areas, middle and low income owners, better off council estates, families in council flats, renting singles, etc.) (see Table III). The mosaic data reveals a clear divide between the perceptions of occupants of different types of council properties. Households which are located in what the survey defines as ‘‘better off’’ council estates are almost 50 per cent more likely to regard local stores as inconvenient than those located either in ‘‘disadvantaged’’ council estates or council flats, and country dwellers were the only group to have higher rates of inconvenience. Variations between levels of expectation of different social groups may have some impact

Table III Percentage of households in each Mosaic group who feel food provision is inconvenient Mosaic group High income areas Middle income owners Low income owners Better-off council Disadvantaged council estates Families in council flats Renting singles Singles and flats Country dwellers Institutional areas

Per cent of group who feel food provision is inconvenient 11.1 13.1 7.8 13.9 8.8 7.5 8.9 5.4 19.7 3.9

upon perceptions of inconvenience, as ‘‘high income’’ and particularly ‘‘middle income owners’’ were markedly more likely to regard local provision as inconvenient. Variations in the economic status of households (un/employed, retired, in education, disabled, etc.) also emerged as a key indicator of inconvenient food stores. The disabled and the retired are often ‘‘disadvantaged’’ consumers, and this is clearly reflected in the SHS data. These households, together with those headed by full-time in-house caregivers, are markedly more likely to find local food provision inconvenient than other households. A household whose head is permanently sick or disabled is more than twice as likely to also regard their local food stores as inconvenient as are households where the head is in full or part time employment (13.3 per cent vs 5.7 per cent). Of the households who contain someone who is either disabled or who requires care one in six feel that they do not have a convenient food store: by comparison only one in 12 of all other households feel the same. Even households where the person with a disability is relatively mobile (i.e. their automobile has an ‘‘Orange badge’’ showing they qualify for the UK’s disabled person’s parking scheme) are 65 per cent more likely to feel their local food store is inconvenient than other households. The age of the respondent also seems to play a role in perceptions of (in)convenience: this is summarised in Figure 1. As we might expect, as the age of householders increases there is a corresponding

103

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

Figure 1 Age and perceptions of inconvenience

and marked decline in the numbers who believe that local food stores are convenient: very elderly households (those whose head is over 75) are twice as likely to believe local food stores are inconvenient as those headed by a 35 to 44 year old, and three times as likely as those headed by someone under 25. Age does not only affect perceptions of inconvenience but it is also linked to perceptions of convenience: older households are much less likely to believe they have ‘‘very convenient’’ access to food stores. In total, almost 11 per cent of Scottish retirees lack access to convenient food stores, and the elderly, the disabled and those in care together make up 60 per cent of all the Scots households who feel they lack convenient access to food stores. While the data does not permit very small scale analysis of dissatisfaction, data at the local authority level indicates that there are wide geographical variations in levels of food access across Scotland. Less than 6 per cent of households in Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh and South Ayrshire feel they have inconvenient food stores, however in 11 of the other 28 local authorities (including Glasgow) the rate is over 10 per cent, peaking in Argyll and Bute where one out of every eight households feels local food stores are inconvenient. It is clear that access to food stores is a serious issue across Scotland, with a significant percentage of Scots households believing that

they do not have convenient access to food stores. If it was possible to include other factors, including price, quality and selection, it is possible that the number of dissatisfied consumers could be even higher. These results shows that the access issue crosses the urban/rural divide, and affects a broad swathe of society – from the employed to the excluded, from the young to the elderly. Those on the fringes of society are not the only ones who feel they have no convenient access to food stores: a third of the households who lack convenient access are headed by someone in full time employment. There are however two discrete groups who are particularly affected: the elderly and agricultural workers. Retirees make up 38 per cent of all households with inconvenient food stores: as might be expected significant numbers of these are heavily reliant upon benefit income. While we know that inconvenience is an issue in rural areas, it is particularly high amongst agricultural workers living in employer-provided accommodation.

3 Perceptions of local stores A similar methodology was used to examine Scots’ perceptions of local stores. In contrast to the data for food stores, households were able to describe the quality of local stores by identifying them as good or poor in addition to their convenience. There was some concern

104

Measuring convenience

David Fitch

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

that households might have conflated their responses to the questions about local stores and local food stores, however the survey results indicated that many households provided markedly different responses when asked to describe the convenience of each set of stores. A very low percentage of Scots – only 4 per cent – described their local stores as ‘‘poor’’: conversely, only 7 per cent described them as both ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘convenient’’. Only 34 per cent of households described their local stores as either good or convenient. There are two possible explanations why these numbers seem so low: one is methodological, and the other reflects the decline in both local stores and in secondary and tertiary shopping areas across Scotland. First, the SHS survey comprises two structured series of questions: the first is directed at the ‘‘highest income householder’’ and the second to a random adult in the household, so it is possible that the survey may not reflect the opinions of the household’s principal shopper(s). The design of the neighbourhood survey questions, which asked the respondent to either agree or disagree with a series of propositions – first, that one of the reasons they liked their neighbourhood was because the stores were good, second, that they disliked the neighbourhood because the stores were poor, and third, that local stores were convenient, results in a series of yes/no answers that may not actually allow residents to accurately voice their opinions on local facilities. Conversely, these relatively low levels of approval and disapproval of local stores may be a reflection of a wider trend not to use local stores for shopping, given continuing out of town/edge of town development and the continuing concentration of retailing facilities in the largest cities. The design of the survey does not give respondents a clear means by which they can indicate that they may not use local stores: hence the majority of respondents’ replies indicate that they believe local stores are not good, not poor and not convenient: it is hard to imagine a series of results that were more ambivalent about the state (and place) of local shopping in Scotland. While we can infer from the methodological issues raised above that the reported responses may underestimate the opinions of those who use local shops by including the non-responses of those who do

not, the ambivalent, if not negative results are nonetheless revealing of wider perceptions of Scottish retailing. Notwithstanding these criticisms, the data do provide some interesting insights into Scots’ perceptions of local stores. Residents of Edinburgh are the most positive towards local shops, with over 45 per cent indicating that they are good and/or convenient, twice the rate of Borders residents, who are the least positive about local stores (at 22 per cent). Glasgow has the dubious distinction of not only having some of the best shops in Scotland but also having by far the worst local shops according to the city’s residents. There are wide variations in levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with local stores, depending on household composition and housing types. Singles have the highest opinion of local stores, and the retired are also less likely to say local shops are poor, despite the fact that they believe that local food stores are more inconvenient than other shoppers. On the other hand, single mothers are more likely to regard local shops as poor than other respondents, which may reflect limited mobility, income, and flexibility. While it may be assumed that problems with local retail provision are worst in deprived areas dominated by Council housing, the data does not indicate that Council tenants are markedly unhappier with local facilities than are other Scots – only a third of all the households who felt local stores were poor lived on Council estates or in Council flats. There is some evidence that Council tenants link negative perceptions of local stores with wider neighbourhood environmental conditions – over a quarter of all Council residents (of all house/flat/estate types) who complain of poor local stores also cite problems with vandalism, crime and low maintenance in their neighbourhoods. By comparison, only 10 per cent of non-Council households make the same link between poor stores and neighbourhood conditions. Residents of what the SHS defines as ‘‘better off’’ council estates and ‘‘middle income homeowners’’ were the most critical of local stores, and were even more critical of local provision than were rural and country dwellers. Despite the low numbers of rural households who feel their local stores are good (4 per cent,

105

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

vs 23 per cent of singles living in flats), rural residents are as unhappy with poor local provision as are families in council flats, and in this they are only slightly unhappier than average. There is some evidence to suggest that those living in the least well off areas may be less likely to criticise local provision, as there appears to be an inverse relationship between education levels and opinions of local stores: the fewer formal educational qualifications you have, the less likely you are to regard local shops as poor. Conversely, those households with higher educational qualifications (degrees, O-levels, etc.) and children are more likely to have a low opinion of local shops, while council households where the highest earner has a degree are twice as likely as other council households to rate local shops as poor. This data on households’ perceptions of local stores reinforces the existing picture of a (local) retail sector in decline. There are low levels of satisfaction with local provision, and the relatively low numbers of households describing local stores as ‘‘poor’’ may mask the degree to which more mobile consumers have increasingly abandoned the local store in favor of larger chains and out of town developments.

4 E-commerce: an alternative to local provision? With the growth of e-commerce and increasing numbers of UK households online, it is reasonable to question whether e-commerce is a potential solution to problems of local provision and access. The development of the Internet has resulted in numerous government analyses of the (potential) impacts of e-commerce, and there is an expectation that it will play a significant and increasingly dominant role in the retail economy (Foresight, 2000a, b, c). While the numbers of households who are online has grown remarkably over the last decade to almost 47 per cent of the population (Cooper-Green, 2003), it is also increasingly clear that the vast majority of households who can go online have done so and that Internet penetration rates in the UK are probably approaching a plateau (Foresight, 2000b, p. 25; Oftel, 2002).

While income and education levels are the most common indicators of a household’s likelihood of being online, more detailed breakdowns of the online population in Scotland indicate that education levels and the presence of children in the home are the key indicators of home Internet access. Conversely, singles, the elderly, and households without children are markedly less likely to have home access to the Internet, and there is an extremely strong link between social exclusion and digital exclusion (Fitch, 2002). Data on whether a household has a computer and is online from the SHS was analysed together with the data on perceptions of local retail provision to gauge the potential of e-commerce as an alternative for consumers dissatisfied with local retail provision. The survey in Table IV indicates a strong link between a household’s perception of the convenience of the local food store and levels of both home PC ownership and home Internet access. As perceptions of convenience became more negative, levels of PC ownership decline, with households who find local food provision ‘‘very convenient’’ almost 50 per cent more likely to have a home PC than households who feel provision is ‘‘very inconvenient’’. Households in the latter group with home PCs are also somewhat less likely to be online than all other households. This indicates that households who find local food provision (somewhat) convenient are also most able to take advantage of online grocery shopping, while those who find it least convenient are least likely both to have a home PC and to be online. In contrast, there is little difference between levels of PC ownership between households who feel local shops are poor and those who do not: the former however are 22 per cent more likely to have home Internet access than the Table IV Convenience of food stores by PC ownership and Internet access Convenience of food stores Very convenient Fairly convenient Neither nor Fairly inconvenient Very inconvenient No opinion

106

No home PC

Home PC

Home PC and net

66.5 66.9 67.5 71.7 75.7 85.7

14.6 14.4 14.0 11.2 10.3 7.1

18.9 18.7 18.5 17.1 14.0 7.1

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

latter. This does indicate that there may be an opportunity for households which feel local stores are poor to turn to e-commerce as an alternative source of non-food provision. Over the longer term, while levels of home access are expected to plateau, the importance of both technological change and of the development of alternative Internet access points may herald a significant shift in the potential of e-commerce as an alternative means of accessing food and other goods. The increasing spread of higher-speed Internet access (both via ADSL and via cable systems) will make the online shopping experience simpler and more productive, removing the constraints low access speeds place upon the consumer’s ability to interact with complex and feature-rich Web sites: consumers are however very sensitive to the increased access costs associated with broadband. While the relatively low costs of broadband access in the UK have helped boost the technology’s uptake, the geographic restrictions which currently limit access to higher-speed Internet services (with the slow expansion of ADSL outside the largest towns and cities, combined with the relatively limited penetration of cable systems throughout the UK) continues to mean that much of small town and rural Britain lacks access to high speed home Internet services. The continued expansion of Internet access points, from offices to libraries, provides an increasing alternative to households who cannot afford PCs or Internet charges. While increasingly large segments of the population have been exposed to the Internet, much more work must be done to counter the two most fundamental issues which restrict online participation: literacy and numeracy. While the constraints that price and access place on Internet access are declining in the UK, increased participation in e-commerce is highly dependent upon widespread financial inclusion, and particularly access to credit and/or payment systems. Given that more than two million adults in the UK do not use any financial services (Royal Bank of Scotland, 2003) and 10 per cent of households in Scotland do not have a bank account, the question of how consumers pay for e-commerce may become more important in the longer term than how they access e-commerce.

5 Conclusion While there may be debate about the existence of food deserts (see Wrigley, 2002), these results show that there are considerable numbers of Scots who feel that they do not have convenient access to local food stores. While the data does not allow us to identify concentrations of these households (in the ‘‘traditional’’ sense of a food desert), the number of households indicating that they do not have convenient access to food stores indicates that access is a significant issue across Scotland. By identifying that this issue is both a rural and an urban problem, and one which affects not only significant numbers of the employed but also those who are reliant upon benefits, this research broadens our understanding of the types of consumers who are disadvantaged. Given the identification of two social groups who comprise a significant percentage of those who lack access, i.e. the retired and agricultural workers, this work provides a direction for a targeted policy response to these issues. In contrast to the results for food stores, it is more difficult to move beyond generalities about levels of happiness with local retail provision, for it is clear that the ambivalence of the responses limits the degree to which we can extract much of value from the results. We may infer that a substantial portion of those who use local stores are relatively unimpressed with them, but cannot predict what percentage of households this might represent. There are signs within the data though that (as we would expect) different social groups have different expectations of local provision, and that rural dwellers and the more highly educated tend to be less impressed with local provision than other groups. The results do provide some evidence that there is a link between negative perceptions of local facilities and wider neighbourhood issues in Council estates, and that Council tenants are slightly more likely than other households to rate local stores as poor. Overall, the data indicate the difficulty in attempting to link non-food retail exclusion with social exclusion. Similarly, it is difficult at this time to predict if e-commerce will eventually emerge as an alternative form of provision for households dissatisfied with local

107

Measuring convenience

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 100-108

David Fitch

facilities. While the data may indicate that there is some potential for e-commerce as an alternative to local non-food retailers, we must remember that there is a considerable social and economic gap between being online and participating in e-commerce.

Notes 1 This conceptual progress has however been somewhat obscured by an increasing tendency to use ‘‘social exclusion’’ as a politically ‘‘acceptable’’ synonym for poverty and deprivation. 2 The use of convenience by itself means that we are unable to include many of the factors which affect store choice, including quality, affordability and selection. This is a weakness in the design of the Scottish Household Survey. 3 Including income support, Jobseekers Allowance, housing and disability benefits, etc.

References Baron, S. et al. (2001), ‘‘Beyond convenience: the future for independent food and grocery retailers in the UK’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 395-414. Carley, M. (2001), Retailing, Sustainability and Neighbourhood Regeneration, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Clarke, G. et al. (2002), ‘‘Deriving indicators of access to food retail provision in British cities: studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2041-60. Cooper-Green, E.J. (2003), Internet Access, Office for National Statistics, London, p. 9. Dawson, J. (1988), ‘‘The changing high street: I. Futures for the high street’’, The Geographical Journal , Vol. 154 No. 1, pp. 1-12. Dawson, J. (2000), Future Patterns of Retailing in Scotland, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Fernie, J. (1998), ‘‘The breaking of the fourth wave: recent out-of-town retail developments in Britain’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 303-17. Fitch, D. (2002), Digital Inclusion, Social Exclusion and Retailing. Social Implications of Information and Communications Technology, IEEE, Raleigh, NC. Foresight (2000a), Clicks and Mortar: The New Store Fronts, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 52.

Foresight (2000b), Electronic Commerce Task Force Report, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 54. Foresight (2000c), The (R)etail (R)evolution: From a Nation of Shopkeepers to a World of Opportunities, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 24. Guy, C. (2001), ‘‘Urban regeneration and very large store development in the UK: a new policy agenda’’, paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Research into Distributive Trades, Tilburg. Hannigan, J. (1998), Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis, Routledge, London. LPCoSE (2000), One City – Final Report, Lord Provost’s Comission on Social Exclusion, Edinburgh. New Economics Foundation (2003), Ghost Town Britain: The Threat from Economic Globalisation to Livelihoods, Liberty and Local Economic Freedom, New Economics Foundation, London, p. 56. Oftel (2002), Consumers’ Use of Internet: Summary of Oftel Residential Survey Q10, August 2002, Office of Telecommunications, London, p. 24. Piacentini, M. et al. (2001), ‘‘Diversity in deprivation: exploring the grocery shopping behaviour of disadvantaged consumers’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 141-58. Power, A. and Wilson, W.J. (2000), Social Exclusion and the Future of Cities, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, London, p. 34. Royal Bank of Scotland (2003), Towards Financial Inclusion. Scottish Executive (1999), Improving Town Centres: Planning Advice Note PAN 59, Scottish Executive Development Department, Edinburgh, p. 50. Scottish Executive (2000), Social Justice Annual Report Scotland 2000, The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. Scottish Office (1998), Social Exclusion in Scotland, Scottish Office, Edinburgh. Smith, A. and Sparks, L. (1997), Retailing and Small Shops, Scottish Office, Edinburgh. Social Exclusion Unit (2001), Preventing Social Exclusion, Social Exclusion Unit, London, p. 80. Williams, C.C. and Windebank, J. (2002), ‘‘The ‘excluded consumer’: a neglected aspect of social exclusion?’’, Policy and Politics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 501-13. Williams, P. and Hubbard, P. (2001), ‘‘Who is disadvantaged? Retail change and social exclusion’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 267-86. Wrigley, N. (2002), ‘‘‘Food deserts’ in British cities: policy context and research priorities’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2029-40. Wrigley, N. et al. (2002), ‘‘Urban regeneration, social inclusion and large store development: the Seacroft development in context’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 2101-14.

108

1 Introduction

Food access and dietary variety among older people Lisa C. Wilson Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers The authors Lisa C. Wilson is a PhD Researcher, Andrew Alexander is a Senior Lecturer in Retail Management and Margaret Lumbers is Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Food Science, all at School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. Keywords Elderly people, Diet, Nutrition, Shopping Abstract Decentralisation of many food retailers to edge-of-town and out-of-town locations has resulted in some older people experiencing difficulty in accessing food shops and those experiencing the greatest difficulties in food shopping are considered to be at the greatest nutritional risk. The present study examines how and to what extent usage of, and physical access to food shops might influence dietary variety. Shopping behaviour and dietary variety are investigated using focus groups, a consumer questionnaire and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). A dietary variety score system, developed from the FFQ, is employed in this study. Neither usage of (particular) food shops nor basic accessibility variables are found to have a direct effect on dietary variety. Yet, coping strategies employed by older consumers to obtain food are revealed to be important. This suggests that more complex access factors remain an important issue for study in relation to the shopping experience of a proportion of the older population. Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 109-122 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521789

In the year 2000 the UK population numbered 59.8 million people of which 10.8 million were over retirement age (60 years of age for women, 65 years of age for men) (ONS, 2002). The ONS predicts a UK population of 64.1 million people by 2021, of which 12.3 million will be over pensionable age. Such predictions reveal older people to be one of the fastest growing sections of the UK population. Older people have been recognised as a disadvantaged group with regard to their ability to access food shops (Westlake, 1993; Bromley and Thomas, 1995). This paper considers the influence of older people’s access to and usage of food shops on the variety found in their diet. A review of the literature relating to the geography of food retailing, accessibility and older consumers, and health and dietary variety is presented. Following this, the paper reports on the use of focus groups, consumer questionnaires and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in a recent study to examine food access and dietary variety among older people. Lastly, results derived from these methods are reported with discussion of the main findings.

2 The changing geography of food retailing Changes to food retail provision in the UK have been well documented by academics from disciplinary backgrounds including Geography, Business and Management Studies and Urban and Regional Planning (see for instance Guy, 1994; Davies and Sparks, 1989; Wrigley, 1998a). Among the most significant of these changes has been the relocation of a considerable amount of food retail capacity away from town centre locations to larger store developments at edge-of-town and out-of-town sites. This process started during the 1970s, but it was during the 1980s that the off-centre superstore development became more the norm (Davies and Sparks, 1989; Guy, 1994). Indeed, it is estimated that by 1988 some 65 per cent of all new supermarkets were built on edge-of-town sites (National Consumer Council, 1992). It is widely accepted that one

109

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

consequence of this retail change has been to make access to such stores more difficult for some sections of the community (see for instance Guy, 1988; Westlake, 1993). In basic terms, limits to accessibility can arise from physical, economic and personal constraints. These factors are clearly inter-related. Older people have been recognised as one potentially disadvantaged group for whom access to food stores can be problematic (Westlake, 1993). It is important to note that following Bowlby’s (1979) study of shopping provision and access in Oxford, we consider access to describe the ease with which shopping opportunities can be reached. Clearly, this differs from actual usage of shops, which, may still occur despite notable access constraints. Poor accessibility does not necessarily equate with non-usage, or even reduced usage (Westlake, 1993). Bowlby (1979) considered that access is a function of a person’s ‘‘potential’’ mobility (the ease with which they can travel if they so desire). In contrast ‘‘actual’’ mobility is used to describe the movement actually undertaken. The distinction between these two levels of access is acknowledged as part of this study. Whilst primarily examining usage in terms of food shops visited, the study also considers access in relation to perceived ease of access, ability to do own food shopping and whether respondents shop alone or with friends or relatives. Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6) (Department of Environment, 1996) introduced government planning guidance designed to promote development in town centres, increase support for local centres and enhance accessibility to new retail developments. It has served to regulate off-centre retail development. Within this revised regulatory context, more attention has been placed on the reinvigoration of ‘‘high street’’ food retailing and on the potential of the neighbourhood convenience format. However, the drive to (re)develop large, non-central superstores, whilst slowing due to regulatory control, has by no means halted (Wrigley, 1998b). The significance of local geographies of food retailing and issues of accessibility has also been demonstrated by studies with an emphasis on diet and nutrition (Donkin et al., 1999; .

Cummins and Macintyre, 1999). Exploring the issue from a dietary perspective, studies mapping access to food shops, for example, have found many small or local stores lacking in the foods required to provide a basic healthy food basket (Donkin et al., 1999). However, whilst larger edge-of-town or out-of-town superstores typically provide a wider range of foods than many other formats, and therefore potentially more healthy food options, they can prove more difficult to access. The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (1998) confirmed a need for access to affordable foods, highlighting deprived or remote areas where consumers may not have access to shops with a range of (fresh) foods. The SEU (1998) also identified that independent shops can be up to 60 per cent more expensive than multiple retailer food supermarkets.

3 Retail provision, access to food and health Problems in accessing food shops have been identified by the government as a barrier to good health and nutrition (Department of Health, 1999). Recently, the notion of ‘‘food deserts’’ has entered the debate more widely (Furey et al., 2001; Cummins and Macintyre, 2002; Wrigley et al., 2003). These have been defined as areas where low-income households (including older people and lone parent families) face poor accessibility to good quality retailing (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998). A large-scale interdisciplinary research project concerned with the issue of food deserts has recently been reported upon (Wrigley et al., 2003). Findings from a case-study site at Seacroft and Whinmoor in Leeds reveal how a ‘‘retail provision intervention’’, the redevelopment of the Seacroft district centre around a large Tesco superstore, had a positive impact on both accessibility to, and consumption of, a more healthy diet (Wrigley et al., 2003). Clearly, the issues of access to food shops and actual shop usage are of importance on a wider scale than simply in those areas defined as food deserts. Older people have long been considered a disadvantaged group in terms of their ability to access food shops (Bromley and

110

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Thomas, 1995; McKie, 1999). The access issues faced by this group are therefore worth investigating further. A report by the Gerontology Data Service (GDS) with Age Concern, England (Age Concern, 1996) highlighted the fact that 27 per cent of people aged 70-79 in Great Britain found it impossible to do their own shopping. The same report identified that 50 per cent of men and 32 per cent of women in this age group did not have access to a car, and that a third of people over 70 years of age had difficulties using public transport (Age Concern, 1996). Current UK government policy includes community-level initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and increasing independence in older people through better nutrition and good health. In particular, the government White Paper ‘‘Our healthier nation’’ outlines a strategy for health in the UK (Department of Health, 1999). This approach hinges on increasing the length of people’s lives and the number of years spent free from illness. The government endorses good nutrition as a means to ensuring good health and acknowledges that this is strongly related to education and the availability of ‘‘healthy’’ foods (Department of Health, 1999).

4 Dietary variety and attitudes and beliefs Food choice research has found that older people who experience the greatest difficulties in food shopping are at the greatest nutritional risk (Herne, 1995). Previous research involving the shopping behaviour of older people has indicated that they may implement coping strategies in order to continue to access food in a way that enables them to manage and maintain their independence (Leighton and Seaman, 1997; Hare et al., 1999; McKie, 1999). These coping strategies include shopping more frequently or with friends or relatives, and using local shops in order to choose foods. This latter strategy reduces older people’s reliance on others purchasing foods on their behalf. However, to date there has been relatively little detailed research conducted into the relationship between the food shopping

habits of free-living older people and their dietary variety. Current UK health policy recommends increasing the variety of foods in the diet in order to maintain good health (Department of Health, 1992; 1999). Greater food variety can contribute to greater nutritional adequacy (Hodgson et al., 1994) and the advantages to eating a variety of foods are numerous. Whilst numerous studies have examined the relationship between diet and health (see for instance Department of Health, 1992; Herne, 1995; Finch et al., 1998), most have used a nutrient-based approach, both to describe and quantify diet intake. Less attention has been given to dietary variety, which allows for the study of intake of foods. Older people have been identified as a group that consumes particularly monotonous and nutritionally inadequate diets (Drewnowski et al., 1997). Social isolation, low income, impaired health and low levels of physical activity have been found to affect eating habits and nutritional status among this group (Drewnowski et al., 1997). Older people are encouraged to consume more varied diets in order to ensure adequate nutritional intakes (Department of Health, 1992). Finally, reference must be made to the potential significance of attitude to diet in informing any relationship between food store usage, access and dietary variety. The potential of ‘‘nutrition knowledge’’ and of attitudes and beliefs to influence food selection has been demonstrated in both psychological and food choice research (Ajzen, 1991; Herne, 1995). Further, it has been suggested that whilst individuals may be capable of informed choices they often lack the opportunity to act on them due to physical, economic or cultural constraints (Shepherd, 1989; Davies, 1981; Webb and Copeman, 1996). More particularly, McIntosh et al. (1990) studied the relationship between beliefs about nutrition and dietary practices of older people. The study found that beliefs concerning nutrition affected nutrient density in the diet. Other studies have found that perceived taste and beliefs regarding healthy eating were more important factors in the food selection of older people than price, convenience or prestige (Krondl et al., 1982). Recent food choice

111

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

research has found numerous and varied definitions of healthy eating. Older people tend to perceive ‘‘healthy’’ eating in terms which may not relate to nutritional guidelines, with many perceiving their diet to be more or less healthy than it actually was (Povey et al., 1998).

5 Conceptualising the problem: food store access and dietary variety In light of the above literature review, Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for the exploration of the relationship between store usage, access to food retail provision and dietary variety. Potentially influential variables are annotated with the author(s) of relevant research. From a review of the framework, two particular points are evident. First, the potentially complex, multi-factored nature of any such relationship. Second, the existence of a considerable amount of academic work that explores particular aspects of this issue, either singularly or in combination, albeit from a variety of different perspectives. The framework acts as a context for the analysis that follows. We also believe that it may be of benefit to other researchers exploring the issue of food shopping among older people. For the purposes of this paper, emphasis is placed on issues of physical access. As we discuss below, this was the theme identified most commonly in initial focus group research. Consequently, other factors including income and price variation (factors affecting economic access), store choice and attitude are not focussed upon here, although the wider data collection allows for an assessment of their influence. The variables considered in this paper are annotated in bold typescript in Figure 1, and the possible relationship between store usage, access and dietary variety is shown as a broken line. This study explores the food shopping behaviours (store usage and physical access) of a sample of older people residing in the town of Guildford, south-east England. Figure 2 provides a map of Guildford Borough showing ward boundaries. Guildford was chosen as the study site for several reasons. First, broadly speaking it has patterns of retail provision typical of many similar sized provincial towns;

comprising of a concentrated urban centre, with edge-of-town and out-of town superstore development and several district and local centres across the borough (see Figure 3). Second, the study area is partially urban and partially rural in character. Therefore, it has the potential to highlight food access issues of older people from different socio-economic environments. Finally, it provides a contrast to some of the recent research on food retailing, accessibility and diet. As we have noted, one strand of this has focussed on possible food deserts. Another has looked at the shopping behaviour of older people in urban and rural Scotland. Here aspects of diets, health beliefs and facilities available to older people in terms of social support differ from those in England (McKie, 1999; Hare et al., 1999). Figure 3 shows the food retail provision in Guildford Borough (Guildford Borough Council, 2002). The map is based on Guildford Borough Council’s Environmental Health Office list of food shops. This is reviewed on an annual basis, and classifies food retail provision as described in the key to Figure 3. A superstore, for instance, is defined as a shop with more than 3,000m2 of floor space. There are two such stores indicated in Figure 3. These are the Sainsbury store in Merrow and Burpham ward and the Tesco store in Onslow ward. There is also a smaller town centre based Sainsbury supermarket located in Holy Trinity ward, which proved an important food-shopping destination for many respondents to this study. A food retailer is defined simply as a retailer where food is available to purchase. It is not necessarily the main product sold by the retailer. Whilst acknowledging that the definitions adopted by the Guildford Borough Council report are not those typically used in the retail literature (see for instance Guy, 1994), it nonetheless provides a useful means of assessing levels of food retail provision across the borough.

6 Methodology A multi-stage methodology was employed to explore the issues of food store usage, physical access and dietary variety among older people. A variety of methods were employed, viz. focus

112

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Figure 1 Access, store choice and attitudinal factors considered potential influences on dietary variety

113

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Figure 2 A map of Guildford Borough showing ward boundaries

groups, a consumer questionnaire, a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a dietary variety score instrument.

the data. These were: access to food shops, access within food shops, social aspects of food shopping, price and choice.

6.1 Focus groups The purpose of the focus groups was to establish the main food shopping issues considered important by older people residing in Guildford. In total, eight focus groups were conducted to examine their views and perceptions. A total of 32 people took part in focus group sessions, ten male and 22 female. Respondents were aged between 65 and 91 years. Participants were recruited among day centre attendees in Guildford. Five main themes were identified from content analysis of

6.2 Consumer questionnaire An interviewer-administered questionnaire was developed and piloted. Questions were developed on the basis of an extensive literature review and the previously described focus groups. Questions included whether respondents shopped for themselves, where they shopped most often to conduct their main food shop, how they reached that store, how easy they found it to reach that store and whether they shopped alone or with others. Socio-demographic data were collected for each

114

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Figure 3 Food retailing provision in Guildford Borough

respondent including age, gender, previous occupation and amount spent per week on food. Respondents were recruited randomly from day centres within Guildford Borough. 112 older people over 60/65 years completed both the consumer questionnaire and the FFQ, the sample consisting of 21 men and 91 women. Of these, 29 were 74 years of age or under. It is acknowledged that as the study participants

visited a day centre they may have consumed available meals during a visit. This may of course influence dietary variety to an extent. However, it is not feasible in research of this type to control for all foods eaten. For example, respondents may also eat with family and friends. Older people were interviewed at day centres in the Send, Ash and Onslow wards (see Figure 2). The Send and Ash wards are

115

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

classified as rural, while Onslow is classified as an urban ward (Guildford Borough Council, 1999). Respondents who took part in the study resided in 15 of the 21 wards in Guildford Borough. Onslow ward contains a Tesco superstore and borders Guildford town centre. Ash ward has a district shopping centre and Send ward a local shopping centre (Guildford Borough Council, 1999). Both are more distant from Guildford town centre. 6.3 Dietary intake Usual dietary intake was assessed by the FFQ developed and validated by Geekie (1999). Data were used to determine a food product variety score for each subject, where all foods from the designated food groups listed in the FFQ were recorded (see Hodgson et al., 1994). In addition, to take account of variety within groups, the identification of food types within these groups was undertaken, as an improvement in measuring variety was found when both major and minor food groups were included in the dietary variety score (Krebs-Smith et al., 1987). Food groups were based on the format of the FFQ and included groups such as meat, fish, bread products, fruit, vegetables, meat and vegetables dishes, dairy products, cheese and poultry (Geekie, 1999). Food types were then identified within each group. For example, within the food group bread, white bread, granary bread and crisp bread were considered as individual foods potentially contributing different nutrients to the diet. Mixed dishes were scored as individual dishes as they are presented in the FFQ. This is a method commonly used when examining variety (Hodgson et al., 1994; Drewnowski et al., 1997; Marshall et al., 2001). The sum of these food group scores gives a total variety score. The maximum total food variety score possible as derived from the FFQ was 81. The variety in the diets of this older population was measured according to food consumed over a one-week period. Food portions were not measured. Dietary variety scores are a qualitative indicator rather than a measure of diet. Each food eaten over the course of one week was given a score of one. The food only needed be eaten once to be included in the score and any additional consumption of this food type

was not recorded, as it would not contribute to increased food variety.

7 Results 7.1 Focus groups The main issue reported during focus group research was that of usage of and physical access to food shops. As the following focus group data reveal, this issue was remarked upon in a variety of contexts including, in particular, the changing structure and geography of retail provision in Guildford, the importance of maintaining control over food choice and the use of so-called ‘‘coping strategies’’ in overcoming perceived accessibility constraints. First, structural and locational changes in food retailing provision in Guildford town were mentioned frequently. These were considered to have exacerbated the problem of access for many participants. Like many other towns, Guildford has seen its food multiples relocate much of their capacity to larger, non-central sites, and independent food shops have declined in number. These changes were a cause of concern for some of those interviewed: When they built the Tesco on the other side of town, they closed the one in the town centre (3B). There aren’t any others [food shops], not in Guildford, only on the other side [of town] . . . Then it means another bus . . . This is just the closest one . . . the others are too difficult to get to (3A/B). Well, they’ve taken them all out of the middle and put them round the edge . . . What use is that to those of us who don’t have cars? (3F).

Many of those undertaking food shopping in Guildford town centre also reported mobility difficulties as a result of its ‘‘hilly’’ topography. Those who could access supermarkets and superstores, whether the edge-of-town or out-of-town superstores, or the smaller Sainsbury supermarket in the town centre, often considered themselves to be fortunate. This was reflected in the following typical responses:

116

I’m lucky, I can get to the supermarket easily (3J). My friend goes to get her shopping at the same time and she’s doing me a favour really (3H).

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Some respondents overcame access constraints by arranging to shop with a friend or relative, which frequently was considered not only to contribute to the enjoyment of the ‘‘shopping experience’’ but also to allow respondents to purchase heavier goods such as bags of potatoes. Shopping with others was seen by some as a way of maintaining independence. However, some other respondents reported feeling a loss of independence, by being unable to shop for themselves and having to rely on other people for help. Independence has been identified as a highly valued aspect of older age (McKie, 1999). This is reinforced by the focus group findings. Responses included: I only get to the shop once a fortnight, but my friend takes me so it’s much easier, and I can get enough to tide me over (3H).

As one would expect, several respondents stated that price and value for money were important considerations when shopping for food. However, the other main issue reported, in addition to usage and physical access, was that of maintaining the ability to choose foods for oneself and developing methods of reaching food shops; the previously discussed coping strategies. The importance of these factors is shown in the following responses from focus group participants: My one pleasure is being able to choose what I eat for myself (2K). I have to think about the best way all round to get what I need (2G).

This theme was also revealed by the changes that some older people reported making to their shopping behaviours in order to maintain a level of independence and choice. This could involve shopping at a less preferred store in order to maintain the ability to visit stores and choose foods for themselves. For those who did not do their own food shopping, many had friends or relatives who purchased their food. These friends or relatives were reported to know what food was liked, although more often than not in these cases the respondents reported providing a list, meaning they maintained a level of choice and control over the foods bought for them. Those who had shopping bought by carers seemed less able to obtain the foods they desired. A common response among this group was:

The girl that does my shopping she’s very good . . . sometimes she’ll bring things I don’t want . . . Still, you’ve got to be grateful for what you get (2C).

This last comment emphasised the overall feeling of this group of older people that if they could not obtain foods independently they felt burdensome on those who bought it for them. In addition some members of this group reported missing out on social interaction with others, as they were unable to get out of the house on a regular basis: I used to like walking around seeing what was going on and what was new, whether there was anything else I fancied you know. I just can’t do it any more, it’s very difficult (2B).

Social interaction and ‘‘getting out’’ appeared closely linked to aspects of store choice. Several respondents stated that they missed the social environment provided by local, independent stores that had since closed in their area (see also Baron et al., 2001). Supermarkets providing cafe´s were enjoyed by many of those shopping with friends or relatives and were reported as providing a focal point for interaction among those using dial-a-ride services. Many of those shopping with friends and relatives saw the benefit of spending time with others and being able to choose foods themselves. However, the issue of choice became apparent here in the sense that the store visited was not always the store of choice, many respondents stating that they shopped at a given store simply because a friend or relative did. The results of these focus groups suggest that some older people feel a need to compromise when food shopping. They do so in order to buy their own food and maintain important levels of independence and control over their food shopping experience. This need to compromise is perhaps not to be unexpected. Indeed, it is suggested that older consumers do not differ so greatly from other age groups in terms of compromising to reach food shops (Hare et al., 1999). Other age groups have been reported as compromising in terms of time, choice of shop and price (National Consumer Council, 1992). Having established that some of the older people questioned as part of this research have to compromise in order to shop for foods effectively, the extent to which this affects dietary variety is now examined.

117

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

7.2 Food shopping and dietary variety Table I provides a description of the sample characteristics for respondents who completed the consumer questionnaire and the FFQ. In total, 112 respondents completed the consumer questionnaire. Of the 74 respondents who did their own food shopping, 47 shopped once a week; 59 shopped at a supermarket, either the two large non-central superstores Table I Sample characteristics Variable

Number of Total number respondents of respondents

Food shopping Do own food shopping Do not do own food shopping

74 38

112

Method of transport Public transport (e.g. bus) Private transport (e.g. drive/driven)

37 37

74

Perceived ease Easy to get to shop Difficult to get to shop

60 14

74

Shop most often visit for main food shop Shop at supermarket/superstore Shop at ‘‘other’’ store

59 15

74

Distance to food shop most often visited Up to 2km >2 km

52 22

74

Marital status Single Married Widowed/divorced

5 10 59

74

Housing Live alone Live with partner or family

63 11

74

Shopping behaviour Shop alone Shop with others

39 35

74

Gender Male Female

21 91

112

Amount spent on food/week (£) 50

85 17 10

112

Note: Where n total = 74 the variable was only measured for those who did their own food shopping

noted in Figure 3 or the smaller Sainsbury supermarket in Holy Trinity ward. Proximity was the main reason stated for shopping at a particular store. A total of 37 respondents used buses or walked to food shops, the remaining 37 respondents either drove or were driven by a friend or relative. Of those who did not do their own food shopping, 25 of the 38 respondents relied on a friend or relative and three used the Iceland home delivery service. The remainder had their shopping bought by carers; 16 respondents did not know where their food was purchased and 35 of 38 stated they did not request their shopper to visit a certain store. Despite this, 33 respondents stated they had moderate to complete control over the foods that were purchased for them. All 112 respondents completed the interviewer administered FFQ. Using the dietary variety score, the number of different foods consumed in a week was calculated for each respondent. The total number of food types included in the score was 81. The mean dietary variety score for this population was 27.5 (out of a maximum of 81), indicating that on average 27.5 different food types were consumed by respondents in a given week (women,  = 27.9, range = 18-41, men,  = 25.8, range = 17-34). It should be noted that it can be difficult to ascertain where variety comes from in the diet based on total variety score. It has been suggested that a food variety score of at least 15 foods over one week should be considered as a minimum for nutritional adequacy, provided that the majority of this variety comes from plant sources (Hodgson et al., 1994). Vegetable consumption was the largest contributor to dietary variety of this sample of older people and the minimum variety score was 18. These data suggest the study group consumed adequate dietary variety. Foods were consumed from the majority of the food groups. However, within the food groups relatively few food types were eaten. For example, of the 112 respondents eating foods from the potatoes, pasta and rice food group, 77 ate only potatoes in the week during which diet was recorded. The biggest contribution to dietary variety was fruit and vegetables, with an

118

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

average of 6.45 different vegetables and 2.93 different fruit types consumed per week.

8 Analysis For the purposes of analysis the population was divided into two groups, those who ate above and those who ate below the mean number of food types found. Chi square tests were conducted to examine whether dietary variety was influenced by store usage, physical access related variables and socio-demographic variables. The results are shown in Table II. Dietary variety was cross tabulated against the following variables: . do/do not do own food shopping; . method of transport used for shopping visit; . perceived ease of shopping experience; . main food shop visited – whether supermarket/superstore or ‘‘other’’; . distance travelled to the store most often visited; and . shop alone/shop with others. The analysis aimed to examine whether a simple relationship existed between store usage and access factors and dietary variety. The research (alternative) hypotheses considered that someone who did not do their own food shopping, who used public transport or walked to the store, who visited an ‘‘other’’ store type, i.e. not a supermarket/superstore, for their main food shop would have a lower dietary variety Table II Chi square analysis to examine the relationship between mean dietary variety score, shop usage and access, and socio-demographic variables Variable vs dietary variety score Food shopping (do own/do not do own) Method of transport Perceived ease Shop most often visit for main food shop Distance to food shop most often visited Marital status Housing (live alone/live with others) Shopping behaviour (shop alone/shop with others) Gender Amount spent on food per week (£)

Chi square value

P value

0.335 1.640 1.442 0.472 0.128 3.76 2.69 1.01

0.846 0.650 0.486 0.492 0.721 0.28 0.26 0.79

5.69 0.15

0.17 0.993

score than other respondents. The socio-demographic variables of marital status, live alone/with others, and gender, together with amount spent per week on food shopping, were also examined. Table II gives the 2 results from these cross tabulations. The results reveal that chi square analysis found no significant relationship between the dietary variety scores of the respondents and either basic measures of store usage and access or socio-demographic status. A logistic regression analysis was also conducted to examine the relationship between selected variables and dietary variety. However, with the exception of gender, none of the variables presented in Table II was found to have a significant effect on dietary variety. Gender was found to be significantly related to dietary variety score regardless of food shopping habits (p = 0.048). However, the model was not found to be well fitting.

9 Discussion and conclusions Analysis of the questionnaire data collected for this study reveals no simple relationship between store usage and dietary variety, or between physical access to food shops and dietary variety. The former may be expected, as access would appear to influence usage. Many of those who shopped at supermarkets primarily did so because they relied on friends or relatives to reach food stores, and they visited the store the friend or relative did. Therefore as a result of finding alternative methods of reaching food shops, usage appears unaffected. Indeed coping strategies such as those suggested may in fact have improved usage compared to previous shopping experiences, in terms of respondent’s ability to reach a supermarket. However, this may be at the expense of convenience, store choice or indeed food choice. The absence of a relationship between physical access to store and dietary variety needs further explanation. Such explanation may come in part from a review of the findings of the focus group analysis. This suggests a complex relationship of interwoven factors at play. Certainly, the focus group research reveals some older people do have to think in detail about the best way to get what food they need

119

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

and want (see also McKie, 1999; Gunter, 1998). Even if taken to a retailer, they may not necessarily be taken to their preferred shop. Despite this, no relationship is found to exist between variables such as ‘‘perceived ease of access’’ and dietary variety. This might indicate that older consumers in the sample accept the need to compromise in their food shopping activities, for instance adopting coping strategies in order to maintain an active independent lifestyle, and do not necessarily relate the adoption of such strategies to poor ease of access. More research needs to be undertaken to determine whether this is so. Within the constraints of the present research it is difficult to judge whether access affects the overall quality of foodstuffs available. More than three quarters of respondents who undertook their own food shopping used supermarkets to conduct their main food shop, suggesting that, in relation to physical access at least, for this group food choices were not limited in terms of the variety and quality of foodstuffs available. However, in the absence of more detailed food intake data, the dietary variety score cannot be extrapolated to provide a detailed assessment of the overall quality of the diet of particular sub groups within the overall sample. More widely, the focus group findings also highlight older people’s emphasis on maintaining independence and social contact. Cooper et al. (1999) note that social support was important for maintaining health and dietary variety. The social environment and purchasing of food in the company of others was considered to have potentially affected dietary variety for some in the present study, increasing the number of foods eaten. However, attitude to diet, meals taken with relatives or others and food preparation also need to be taken into account. In terms of the types of foods consumed by this population of older people, the pattern of consumption among the sample was similar to that found in other studies (Cooper et al., 1999) in that white bread, potatoes and sugar in tea were most frequently consumed. Webb and Copeman (1996) suggest that the consumption of these foods may be related to older people’s perceptions. These may make them less likely to consume a wide variety of foods from one

group, due to a preference for more traditional foods and because of later exposure in life to certain food types. There was no significant difference in the dietary variety of older people in Guildford Borough according to any of the demographic measures examined. Women were found to have more varied diets than men (women,  = 27.9, range = 18-41, men  = 25.8, range = 17-34). However, given the gender distribution of the sample and the limitations of using dietary variety scores, it is not possible to discern whether the female respondents have a healthier diet as a result of a greater mean variety score. Clearly, store usage and access among older people is a complex issue. This paper has highlighted various related aspects of the problem, linking them to the important issues of dietary variety and health. The research demonstrates the importance of understanding the social and organisational factors potentially leading to poor quality diets and the need to examine the role of formal and informal networks in enhancing health-promoting food provisioning among older consumers. These remain important areas for discussion, research and policy debate. Studies that directly explore older consumer’s perceptions and behaviours in food shopping in a diversity of geographical and socio-economic environments, and that acknowledge the importance of a multi-disciplinary perspective have an important role to play. This study represents a contribution to such an emerging literature.

References Age Concern (1996), Getting Around After 60, Age Concern, London. Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘‘The theory of planned behaviour’’, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211. Axelson, M.L. and Penfield, M.P. (1983), ‘‘Food and nutrition related attitudes of elderly persons living alone’’, Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 23-7. Baron, S., Harris, K., Leaver, D. and Oldfield, B. (2001), ‘‘Beyond convenience: the future for independent food and grocery retailers in the UK’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 395-414.

120

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

Bowlby, S.R. (1979), ‘‘Accessibility, mobility and shopping provision’’, in Goodall, B. and Kirby, A. (Eds), Resources and Planning, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Bromley, R.D.F. and Thomas, C.J. (1995), ‘‘Small town shopping decline and inconvenience for the disadvantaged’’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 433-56. Cooper, H., Ginn, J. and Arber, S. (1999), Health Related Behaviour and Attitudes of Older People; A Secondary Analysis of National Datasets, Health Education Authority, London. Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (1999), ‘‘The location of food stores in urban areas: a case study in Glasgow’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 545-53. Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (2002), ‘‘‘Food deserts’ evidence and assumption in health policy making’’, BMJ, Vol. 325, pp. 436-8, available at: bmj.com (accessed 4 September 2002). Davies, K. and Sparks, L. (1989), ‘‘The development of superstore retailing in Great Britain 1960-1986: results from a new database’’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 74-89. Davies, L. (1981), Three Score Years . . . and Then? A Study of the Wellbeing of the Elderly, William Heinemann Medical Books, London. Department of Environment (1996), Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Town Centres and Retail Development, HMSO, London. Department of Health (1992), Nutrition in Elderly People. A Report by the COMA Working Party, HMSO, London. Department of Health (1999), Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, HMSO, London. Donkin, A.J.M., Dowler, E.A., Stevenson, S.L. and Turner, S.A. (1999), ‘‘Mapping access to food at a local level’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 554-64. Drewnowski, A., Ahlstrom-Henderson, S., Driscoll, A. and Rolls, B.J. (1997), ‘‘The dietary variety score: assessing diet quality in healthy young and older adults’’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 266-71. Finch, S., Smithers, G., Doyle, W., Lowe, C., Bates, C. J., Prentice, A. and Clarke, P.C. (1998), National Diet and Nutrition Survey of People Aged 65 and Over, TSO, London. Furey, S., Strugnell, C. and McIlveen, H. (2001), ‘‘An investigation of the potential existence of ‘food deserts’ in rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland’’, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 18, pp. 447-57. Geekie, M.A. (1999), ‘‘Promoting a reduction in the consumption of dietary fat: the role of perceived control, self-efficacy and personal dietary information’’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading, Reading. Gregory, J., Foster, K., Tyler, H. and Wiseman, M. (1990), The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults, HMSO, London. Guildford Borough Council (1999), Guildford Borough Local Plan (Deposit Version), Guildford Borough Council, Guildford.

Guildford Borough Council (2001), Environmental Health Office List of Food Shops in Guildford Borough, Guildford Borough Council, Guildford. Guildford Borough Council (2002), Guildford Borough Plan, Guildford Borough Council, Guildford. Gunter, B. (1998), Understanding the Older Consumer: The Grey Market, Routledge, London. Guy, C.M. (1988), ‘‘Retail planning policy and large grocery store development: a case study in South Wales’’, Land Development Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 31-45. Guy, C.M. (1994), The Retail Development Process: Location, Property and Planning, Routledge, London. Hare, C., Kirk, D. and Lang, T. (1999), ‘‘Identifying the expectations of older food consumers: more than a ‘shopping list’ of wants’’, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 6/8, pp. 212-32. Herne, S. (1995), ‘‘Research on food choice and nutritional status in elderly people: a review’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 9, pp. 12-29. Hodgson, J.M., Hsu-Hage, B. HH., Wahlquist, M.L. (1994), ‘‘Food variety as a quantitative descriptor of food intake’’, Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 32, pp. 137-48. Krebs-Smith, S.M., Smickilas-Wright, H., Guthrie, H.A. and Krebs-Smith, J. (1987), ‘‘The effects of variety in food choices on dietary quality’’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 87 No. 7, pp. 897-903. Krondl, M., Lau, D., Yurkiw, M. and Coleman, P.H. (1982), ‘‘Food use and perceived food meanings of the elderly’’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 80, pp. 523-9. Lang, T. and Caraher, M. (1998), ‘‘Access to healthy foods, part 2: food poverty and shopping deserts. What are the implications for health promotion policy and practice?’’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 202-11. Leighton, C. and Seaman, C. (1997), ‘‘Food retailing: an opportunity for meeting elderly consumers needs’’, Nutrition and Food Science, pp. i-xi. McIntosh, W.A., Kubena, K.S., Walker, J., Smith, D. and Landmann, W.A. (1990), ‘‘The relationship between beliefs about nutrition and dietary practises of the elderly’’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 671-6. McKie, L. (1999), ‘‘Older people and food: independence, locality and diet’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 528-36. McKie, L., MacInnes, J., Donald, S. and Peace, H. (2000), ‘‘The food consumption patterns and perceptions of dietary advice of older people’’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 173-83. Marshall, T.A., Stumbo, P.J., Warren, J.J. and Xie, X. (2001), ‘‘Inadequate nutrient intakes are common and are associated with low dietary variety in rural, community dwelling elderly’’, Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 131 No. 8, pp. 2192-6.

121

Lisa C. Wilson, Andrew Alexander and Margaret Lumbers

Food access and dietary variety among older people

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 109-122

National Consumer Council (1992), Your Food, Whose Choice?, HMSO, London. ONS (2000), Population Trends No. 100 (Summer), Office for National Statistics, TSO, London. ONS (2002), Population Trends No. 110 (Winter), Office for National Statistics, TSO, London. Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R. and Shepherd, R. (1998), ‘‘Interpretations of healthy and unhealthy eating and implications for dietary change’’, Health Education Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 171-83. Shepherd, R. (Ed.)(1989), Handbook of the Psychophysiology of Human Eating, Wiley Publications, London. Smith, G.C. (1991), ‘‘Grocery shopping patterns of the ambulatory urban elderly’’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 86-114. Social Exclusion Unit (1998), Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, HMSO, London.

Webb, G.P. and Copeman, J. (1996), The Nutrition of Older Adults, Arnold Publications/Age Concern London. Westlake, T. (1993), ’’The disadvantaged consumer: problems and policies’’, in Bromley, R. and Thomas, C. (Eds), Retail Change: Contemporary Issues, UCL Press, London. Wrigley, N. (1998a), ‘‘How British retailers have shaped food choice’’ in Murcott, A. (Ed.), The Nation’s Diet: The Social Science of Food Choice, Longman, London. Wrigley, N. (1998b), ‘‘PPG6 and the contemporary UK food store development dynamic’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 154-61. Wrigley, N., Warm, D. and Margetts, B. (2003), ‘‘Deprivation, diet and food retail access: findings from the Leeds ‘food deserts’ study’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 151-88.

122

The Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal Neil Wrigley Daniel Warm Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

The authors Neil Wrigley is Professor of Geography, Barrie Margetts is Reader in Public Health Nutrition and Michelle Lowe is Reader in Geography, all at the University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Daniel Warm is Research & Development Specialist, Health Development Agency, London, UK.

1 ‘‘Food deserts’’ in British cities: the research agenda Deprived areas of British cities with poor access to the provision of healthy affordable food became known in the late 1990s as ‘‘food deserts’’ (Beaumont et al., 1995; Department of Health, 1996; Whitehead, 1998). It was a metaphor which caught the imagination of policy makers. The Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health (Acheson, 1998) and the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998) both assumed such areas to exist and recommended the implementation of policies to tackle their problems. The report of Policy Action Team 13 (Department of Health, 1999, p. 2) painted a grim picture of such areas in which: . . . once vibrant local shopping centres or neighbourhood stores that provided a safe place for the local community to meet and access a range of services to meet their everyday needs have mostly disappeared. Boarded up small shops on street corners or in small neighbourhood parades, with only the locals knowing which are open for business and which are not, remain. And only people left with no other choice shop there . . . ,

Keywords Cities, Retailing, Food products, Disadvantaged groups, Diet, Focus groups Abstract This paper outlines the research agenda of the food deserts in British Cities project, and reports findings from a set of qualitative focus group studies conducted following a major retail provision intervention in a low-income, deprived area of Leeds. It explores the impacts of the transformation of physical access to full-range retailing in the area, and assesses the views of the residents who had switched their main food source as a result of the intervention compared to those who had not. Finally, it interrogates residents’ perceptions of the impact (if any) of the intervention on their food consumption habits and their potential to eat a more healthy diet. Electronic access The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . pp. 123-136 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550410521798

and supported a proactive approach to the regeneration of retailing within them which favoured local-community-based and small-scale retail oriented solutions. Ministerial statements (e.g. Beverley Hughes in DETR, 2000) accepted the importance of the challenge, defining ‘‘food deserts’’ as areas lacking retail services within roughly a 500m radius. For many academics, however, as Cummins and Macintyre (2002) and Wrigley (2002) have argued, the food deserts debate was an example of policy development running significantly ahead of systematic evidence-based research. There was a pressing need to fill critical gaps in the scientific evidence base. In particular, three tasks were vital: This paper reports findings from the Food Deserts in British Cities project. The authors are grateful to the funders of the project, ESRC (under award L135251002) and the project’s industrial partner J. Sainsbury plc. They are also grateful to Geraldine Pratten for her professional expertise as moderator of the focus groups.

123

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

(1) To probe the links assumed to exist in the official reports of the late 1990s between poor food retail access, compromised diets and poor health in deprived urban areas. To what extent was poor access to food retail provision in ‘‘food deserts’’, of itself, a critical barrier to improved diets and, by extension, diet related health? (2) To investigate whether ‘‘food deserts’’ could be shown to exist using a range of food retail access measures – including the 500m criterion favoured by government. And, by considering the evolution of areas of poor food retail access in particular cities, to investigate the extent to which ‘‘food deserts’’ had been created by out-of-town superstore development in the 1980s and 1990s and by the uneven stripping of food retailing out of parts of British cities which accompanied that development. (3) To investigate, at the level of the household/individual, the experience of poor food retail access and the nature of what Speak and Graham (2000) refer to as the vicious cycles of compound exclusion faced by those living in a ‘‘food desert’’ – not least the nature of the complex coping mechanisms which the often car-less residents of such areas are forced to employ to budget for and access food. Fortunately, a number of those gaps in the evidence base are now in the process of being filled. Several cross-disciplinary investigations of food access and food poverty in British cities have been funded by the UK research councils and government departments (see Wrigley, 2002 for details) and are beginning to reveal their results. In particular, the ESRC/Sainsbury Food Deserts in British Cities project involving a team of geographers, public health nutritionists, and city and regional planners from the universities of Southampton, Leeds and Cardiff has made several contributions. First, via a large-scale study of food retail access and diet in the deprived area of Seacroft, Leeds, the project has provided insight into three significant issues: (1) The nature of the food consumption patterns typical of people living in ‘‘food deserts’’. In particular, using the fruit and

vegetable consumption of 1,009 respondents in Seacroft as a measure of a ‘‘healthy diet’’, it has explored the extent to which diets in such areas fall short of Department of Health recommended intakes, and has established the characteristics of those with the poorest diets (Wrigley et al., 2002a). Conversely, it has also explored the characteristics of those residents of Seacroft who, despite facing the same problems of what has been termed ‘‘the struggle to eat well on a low income’’ in British cities (Hitchman et al., 2002), are ‘‘diet rich’’ in the sense of achieving government-recommended dietary targets (Wrigley et al., 2003a). In addition, it has asked what can be learned from the identification of these groups about the likely effectiveness of particular types of policy initiatives in improving diet. (2) The impacts on the diets of people living in a ‘‘food desert’’ which might result from a sudden amelioration of their food retail access problems. Using a ‘‘before/after’’ (intervention) study of the diets of 615 respondents, prior to and following, the opening of a large full-range superstore in the centre of Seacroft, it has provided evidence of a positive but modest impact of the retail intervention on diet – specifically for those groups whose access to full-range food retailing was unambiguously improved by the opening of the new store and who were within walking distance of the store (Wrigley et al., 2003b; Margetts et al., 2003a). The Seacroft intervention study has been viewed as offering the first opportunity in the UK to assess the impact of a retail provision intervention on food consumption patterns in a compoundly deprived previously poor-retail-access community. Significantly it is being followed up and extended in the Department of Health funded research of Petticrew et al. (2002) in Glasgow – a study which will also consider the impact of such a retail provision intervention on the self-esteem and general well-being of residents of a similar previously marginalized area. (3) The extent of ‘‘food insecurity’’ and ‘‘hunger’’ typical of people living in ‘‘food

124

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

surrounding areas. That is to say, does that amelioration create, in turn, micro ‘‘food deserts’’ elsewhere in the city? Clarke, Guy and Douglas in a paper yet to be published are considering this issue in the context of the Seacroft intervention, attempting to predict the ‘‘deflection’’ of trade experienced by other food retail outlets in east Leeds as a result of the opening of the new superstore in the Seacroft area.

deserts’’. Using a follow-up investigation of the 615 respondents who completed the Seacroft intervention study, and methods tested extensively in the USA, it has provided evidence of considerable household food insecurity in such areas, and a food poverty problem in British cities of a significant and previously unquantified level (Margetts et al., 2003b). Second, via city-wide studies of contemporary food retail access in Leeds/Bradford and Cardiff, and of changes in retail access over time, the project has provided insight into three issues: (1) How to identify ‘‘food deserts’’ (if such areas exist) using a range of indicators of food retail access – in particular a spatial interaction model based ‘‘effective delivery’’ or food retail provision per household measure – which attempt to capture both the absolute and relative nature of underprovision (Clarke et al., 2002). (2) The extent to which the development of ‘‘food deserts’’ over the last 20 years can be associated in particular cities with the polarising effects of out-of-town superstore development and the uneven stripping of food retailing out of parts of those cities via closure of smaller food stores and/or the repositioning of provision downwards in range and quality terms relative to the food choice offerings of the superstores (Thomas and Bromley, 1993; Guy, 1996; Wrigley, 1998). Guy et al. (2003) consider this issue in the context of Cardiff. They show that although access to food retail provision has increased in general across the city since the 1980s following the development of a ring of ten large food superstores, this has been accompanied by a polarisation effect. Improvements in access and provision have been greater in higher income areas than lower income areas, and some of the poorest areas of the city have become worse off in terms of access to high quality food retailing following two decades of store building and rationalization. (3) Whether the amelioration of a ‘‘food desert’’ via a major retail provision intervention may have adverse consequences for food retail provision in

Third, via qualitative focus group studies in the Seacroft area of Leeds, both prior to and following the retail provision intervention, the project has attempted to ‘‘triangulate’’ some of the findings of the quantitative food-consumption diary and household questionnaire elements of the Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ study, and to complement other focus group based studies of food poverty problems in the UK reported by Hitchman et al. (2002), Robinson et al. (2001) and others. In particular, Whelan et al. (2002) have explored ‘‘life’’ in the Seacroft area prior to the amelioration of its food retail provision problems – interrogating the food shopping behaviour, food consumption habits, and attitudes towards a healthy diet revealed by focus group participants, and seeking to understand some of the complex coping mechanisms which residents of the area were forced to employ to budget for and access food. What was revealed by a second wave of focus groups conducted in the Seacroft area following the retail provision intervention (opening of the new superstore) remains to be reported and provides the topic of this paper. It is to this study, appropriately contextualized by the wider agenda of research outlined above, that this paper now turns.

2 The post-intervention focus groups: design and conduct The Seacroft intervention study involved two waves of data collection – a ‘‘before’’ (pre-intervention) wave in June/July 2000, approximately five months prior to the opening of the new store (Tesco, Seacroft Green), and an ‘‘after’’ (post-intervention) wave in June/July

125

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

2001 seven to eight months beyond the opening of the new store (Wrigley et al., 2003b). In wave one 1,009 respondents completed a seven-day food-consumption diary, supplemented by a wide-ranging household questionnaire exploring issues of: . household composition; . welfare benefits and income; . education and work status; . disabilities and long-term health problems; . smoking habits; . attitudes to healthy eating; . food-store choice; . mode of travel to stores; . car ownership and access; and . perceived constraints on choice of foods bought, etc. In wave two, 615 (61 per cent) of the original respondents completed a second seven-day food-consumption diary and household questionnaire – intense efforts having been made by the survey design and fieldwork teams to minimize sample attrition between the two waves of the survey. The post-intervention focus groups took place in September 2002, a little over a year on from the main post-intervention food-diary/household-questionnaire surveys, and one year ten months from the opening of the new store. The post-intervention quantitative surveys and focus groups were spaced in this fashion to permit findings from the quantitative surveys to feed into and guide the design of the focus groups – both in relation to stratification of the groups, and in relation to the selection of topics to be discussed within the groups. It was not the intention in the post-intervention focus group study to replicate the design of the pre-intervention groups reported by Whelan et al. (2002) or to discuss an identical range of topics. Rather, the primary orientation of the post-intervention groups was to explore changes which had accompanied the intervention – specifically the views of Seacroft residents who had switched to using the new store as their main food source as a result of the intervention, compared to those who had not. An additional purpose of the focus groups was to explore some of the changes in travel behaviour which had clearly been observed in

the quantitative data collected in the main intervention study, and to interrogate residents’ perceptions of the impact (if any) of the new store on their potential to eat a more healthy diet. Taking into account findings from the quantitative studies (Wrigley et al., 2002a; 2003a, b; Margetts et al., 2003a) on issues of age and diet, children in the household, the type of store used in the pre-intervention period as the main food shopping source, and travel mode on food shopping trips, a set of eight focus groups (each with a target of eight participants) was designed (Table I). Five of the groups were to be devoted to residents of the area who had switched their main food shopping source in the post-intervention period to the new store. Within these there was to be an age gradient, with groups consisting of those aged 17-34, 35-54 and 55 years and older. Additionally, within the younger group – consistently observed in the quantitative studies to be those with the poorest diets (i.e. those most ‘‘at risk’’ in nutritional terms) – there was to be a three-fold division to take account of and explore constraints associated with the presence of children in the household and transport access/travel mode. Finally, an attempt was to be made to balance the composition of each group based on their previous main food retail source – with a target of 50 per cent of each group being drawn from those who had previously used a full-range major retailer (Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway, Morrison) and 50 per cent from those who had previously used a limited-range/budget retailer (Netto, Aldi, Lidl, Kwiksave, Iceland, etc.). In contrast, three of the focus groups were to be devoted to residents of the area who had not switched in the post-intervention period to the new store, and whose main food source continued to be either a limited-range/discount store (Netto), or the full-range major retailer store (Asda) that was the closest major store for most residents of the area in the pre-intervention period. Additionally, the limited-range/discount store shoppers were to be stratified by age into two groups. A recruitment questionnaire was developed to screen potential participants in the focus groups to ensure fit to the target profiles outlined in

126

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

Table I Focus group characteristics Group

Age

Target characteristics Additional

Focus group size Target Achieved

Groups consisting of ‘‘switchers’’ to intervention store (Tesco, Seacroft Green). Target for each group 50 : 50 split between previous main food store full-range retailer and limited-range/budget retailer 1 17-34 Children in household, walk to store 8 2 17-34 Children in household, non-walkers to store 8 3 17-34 No children in household 8 4 35-54 8 5 55 plus 8

4 3 6 6 7

Groups consisting of ‘‘non-switchers’’ to intervention store 6 17-34a Use limited-range-budget store (Netto) as main source Use limited-range/budget store (Netto) as main source 7 45 plusa 8 35-54 Use full-range major-retailer store (Asda) as main source

7 9 7

8 8 8

Note: a In practice, because of recruitment difficulties it became necessary to extend these age ranges to 17-39 and 40 plus

Table I. Additionally, as in the main quantitative surveys and the National Food Survey, participants were to be selected solely from those primarily responsible for the domestic food arrangements of the household. Recruitment was conducted by experienced fieldworkers in accordance with the Market Research Society (MRS) Code of Conduct outside the relevant stores (Tesco, Asda, Netto) – permission having been obtained from the store operators/managers where applicable. The focus groups, each lasting approximately 75-90 minutes, were conducted at a variety of venues in the vicinity of the intervention store, and each group was moderated by the same highly experienced professional qualitative researcher to MRS standards and codes of conduct. The topics to be discussed and questioning routes to be followed in the case of each group were developed by the Southampton project team with assistance from industry specialists at the project’s industrial partner (J. Sainsbury plc), and are available on request from the principal author. Each session was audio taped with consent from the participants, and was transcribed and analysed by the moderator using the standard content analysis approach to identify and categorise key themes (Hennik and Diamond, 1999). Participants were given a small monetary incentive to attend the focus groups. A total of 49 individuals participated in the focus groups (Table I). Turnout amongst those recruited was satisfactory (77 per cent of the

target) with the exception of groups 1 and 2 (younger switchers) where nine individuals had been recruited for each group but only 4 and 3 respectively attended despite ‘‘reminder’’ telephone calls and letters. These younger groups were those shown by the quantitative surveys to be the most ‘‘at risk’’ in nutritional terms and had consistently caused similar ‘‘non-response’’ problems elsewhere in the study. Fortunately, in anticipation of potential non-response problems amongst younger participants, the focus group design (Table I) had incorporated three groups (i.e. an over-sampling) within this critical age group. The result was that 50 per cent (13 out of 26) participants who were ‘‘switchers’’ to the intervention store were in fact drawn from the important 17-34 age group. The socio-economic profile of the focus group participants is summarised in Table II. It can be seen that the focus groups were predominantly composed of social group D/E residents of Seacroft who were local authority renters; a majority being drawn from Table II Indicators of the socio-economic profiles of the focus group participants Social group

No. Housing tenure

A/B C1 C2 D/E

2 10 7 30

127

Rent: local authority Rent: private Owner occupier

Children in No. household 38 1 10

0 1 2 3+

No. 19 14 10 6

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

households with children under 16 in the home. The higher proportion of C1 participants than might be expected results from the assignment of ‘‘students’’ to this social group, whilst the A/B participants were drawn from a small area of private housing on the edge of Seacroft.

3 What the post-intervention focus groups reveal 3.1 Switching to the intervention store and its consequences In the main quantitative post-intervention survey, 45 per cent of respondents were found to have switched their ‘‘main’’ food retail source to the new store. This was accompanied (Table III) by substantial shifts in travel behaviour – with the average distance travelled to their main food store amongst those who had switched falling from 2.25km in the pre-intervention period to 0.98km in the post-intervention period, and an approximate threefold increase in walking as the mode of travel (Wrigley et al., 2003b). Walking trips to the main food store increased from 12.3 per cent to 30.8 per cent, and from the store from 6.5 per cent to 22.8 per cent, whilst the use of taxis – a critical coping mechanism in the pre-intervention period by residents of this deprived poor-retail-access area – declined substantially. Overwhelmingly, the reasons main survey respondents suggested for switching to new store concerned accessibility [‘‘easy to get to’’ (79 per cent), ‘‘near to home’’ (67 per cent)], and convenience [‘‘all under one

roof’’ (58 per cent) and the store’s late opening hours (43 per cent)]. What insights into these statistics were the focus groups able to offer? Overall the reasons given for switching to the new store by focus group participants confirmed what had been reported in the main household questionnaire. The majority had switched to the store purely for reasons of accessibility and convenience, and there was a strong sense of the potential saving of money and time that entailed compared to accessing their previous main food store: You can save yourself £10 in taxi fares or £3 in bus fares (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store),

and/or compared to being forced (as in the pre-intervention period) to make top-up purchases at the small number of local food stores operating in the area: The local shops charge a ridiculous amount for the basics so it’s actually cheaper to go to Tesco and get your bread and milk (Switcher, 17-34, children, non-walker to store).

The consequence was not only, as suggested by figures on travel behaviour from the main survey, that walking for food shopping became a viable option for many in the area, but also that the frequency of food shopping trips were perceived to have increased significantly. Indeed, the majority of ‘‘switchers’’ reported shopping at the new store three or four times per week and a substantial minority were visiting daily: I don’t do a bulk shop like I used to do, I just get things as I need them (Switcher, 35-54). I treat it like my corner shop (Switcher, 55+).

Table III Transport mode (per cent split) revealed by main intervention study. Respondents (n = 276) who switched to the new store as their main food purchasing source in the post-intervention period Travel mode Walk Own car Other’s cara Taxi Bus (standard) Bus (free shuttle)b Missing observations

Pre-intervention To store From store 12.3 47.5 8.3 7.6 20.3 1.8 2.2

6.5 47.5 9.1 18.5 15.6 2.2 0.4

Post-intervention To store From store 30.8 43.8 5.8 1.8 17.0 0.7 –

22.8 44.2 5.4 11.6 15.2 0.7 –

Notes: a Shared use (i.e. ‘‘lift’’) in friend’s/neighbour’s car; b Designated bus serving a major retailer’s store only

128

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

For a minority that increased frequency was a means of killing time in an otherwise mundane existence: It’s time-wasting for me. I’ll have a look round and half the day might be gone (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store). End up staying there longer ‘‘cause I’ve nothing else to do (Switcher, 17-34, no children).

However, for others, increased frequency was highly purposeful and associated with the search for the ‘‘bargain’’ – both the reduced prices offered at a particular time of day on food which had reached its ‘‘sell-by’’ date or, the temporarily more random, reductions in the non-food section of the store (e.g. the mountain bikes reduced from £199 to £20 or vacuum cleaners for £10 which had become something of a local legend). Indeed, for some of the focus group participants the thought that they might miss a bargain was quite distressing: If I don’t go and have a look my life might be over! (Switcher, 35-54).

Together with the stress a majority of ‘‘switchers’’ placed on the importance of ‘‘buy one get one free’’ offers at the new store, this evokes clear overtones of what Miller in A Theory of Shopping (1998) and The Dialectics of Shopping (2001) describes as ‘‘moral shopping’’ – ‘‘almost entirely defined by the act of thrift and saving money’’ (Miller, 2001, p. 134). 3.2 Temptation The same sense of food shopping for many participants in the focus groups being defined in terms of ‘‘a practice that consists of the dutiful attempt to save money on behalf of the household at large’’ (Miller, 2001, p. 134) – a ‘‘moral activity’’ which then conversely legitimates the ‘‘treat’’ – pervaded discussion of the temptation to overspend meagre household budgets which accompanied the sudden availability of a full-range store in the centre of Seacroft. Many participants reported making a determined effort not to stray into what they regarded as the ‘‘luxury aisles’’ of the new store in an attempt to stick to their budget and not to overspend: Cause temptation isn’t there to think oh, I’ll have something else instead of that (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store).

Indeed, the threat posed by the new full-range store to tempt the low-income shopper away from their usual pattern of food purchasing and to overspend/waste money (an issue raised by Barrett (1997) and others in the public health nutrition literature) featured strongly in most of the focus groups: If you’ve got a limited income Tesco is no good, ‘‘cause there’s too much range (Switcher, 35-44). I never used to look at owt else except what I came in to buy (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store). I don’t just get a loaf of bread, I come back with half the store (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store). What hits you as soon as you walk in there? Toys, magazines, you’ve got the pressure if you’re with a child, they don’t understand – you’re constantly making excuses (Switcher, 35-44).

With limited-range/budget stores such as Netto being seen as much ‘‘safer’’ in terms of the temptation to overspend: Makes sure you don’t spend nowt else (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

However, as Miller suggests, dutiful and disciplined attempts to resist the threat posed by the temptations of the full-range superstore legitimated for many focus group participants the ‘‘treat’’: Stick to the list, get home, put it away, then I’ve got £5 extra this week, let’s go and that’s when we get the ‘‘treats’’ [multi-pack chocolate bars, comics, etc.], or let’s get a pizza or fish and chips (Switcher, 35-54).

In that context, the threat posed by the new store was then re-interpreted by many focus group participants as the ‘‘promise’’: My kids’ idea of a treat if I’ve got money at the end of the week is a take-away up at Tesco’s (Switcher, 35-54). If there’s something I can’t get at Netto or if I’ve got a bit of extra money and I want to treat myself [I will go to the new Tesco] (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

3.3 Alienation and betrayal A strong case has been made by the major UK retailers concerning the regenerative potential of large urban renewal stores such as that in Seacroft (see Wrigley et al., 2002b for a review of the arguments). Regeneration partnerships

129

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

such as that in Seacroft, which involved Tesco, Leeds City Council, the property developers Asda St James, the employment services agency, the shop workers’ union USDAW, and the East Leeds Family Learning Centre have linked new store development to programmes of skills training and to employment recruitment favouring the local community, particularly the long-term unemployed. On this basis, the major retailers have emphasized their contribution to the tackling of social exclusion. In particular, they have stressed the special contribution which large scale reputable employers such as themselves could offer in areas of long-term unemployment and low standards of motivation and skills amongst the workforce, and the wider benefits to the self-esteem of residents of the area which flow directly from such skills training and employment, and indirectly from the changed perceptions brought about by commercial investment in previously marginalized areas (see Tesco plc, 2003 for a clear statement of this position). The research of Petticrew, Cummins and Sparks in Glasgow is currently investigating the latter issues of self-esteem and general well-being of residents following a retail provision intervention similar to that in Seacroft. Nevertheless, the Seacroft post-intervention focus groups brought to light several issues worthy of report which relate to issues of self-esteem and, conversely, alienation engendered by the new store. On the one hand, there were clearly benefits to self-esteem from the new store (and the new Seacroft Centre of which it formed the core) perceived by many focus group participants: The whole place [the old Seacroft Centre] was dismal, cold, dirty, freezing even in summer, everyone just looked so miserable . . . It was horrible, I used to be ashamed to say I lived near the centre (Switcher, 35-54).

In addition, there were benefits related to ease and cost of access and convenience in an area where food retail provision in the preintervention period had been poor, and where small local shops were expensive, inadequate and presented a perceived crime risk in terms of shopping out of daylight hours:

You need a bravery award to go down there on a night (Switcher, 35-54, referring to the Co-op ‘‘village store’’ in the centre of Seacroft).

Nevertheless, on the other hand, a store of the size of the new Seacroft superstore was clearly not designed to be supported solely on the basis of trade drawn from the local (low-income) area. As a result, focus group participants perceived it to be targeted at more affluent ‘‘outsiders’’: Seacroft Centre was created for upmarket people (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+). There are people from all over Leeds (Switcher, 17-34, children, non-walker to store). More outsiders (Switcher, 55+).

Participants on the most limited incomes spoke about feeling intimidated by these ‘‘outsider’’ shoppers at the store: You see people with a full basket of shopping and you think that must be a hundred quid. I could never spend that much (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

In addition, a surprising degree of resentment emerged amongst focus group participants about the form the new Seacroft Centre had actually taken. Many (particularly ‘‘non-switchers’’ to the new store) felt betrayed by the local authority and the retail developer in relation to how the public consultation exercise had fed into the design of the new centre: We were promised it’d be like the Arndale [shopping centre] at Cross Gates but it’s not a bit like that . . . It doesn’t even look like a shopping centre’’. They were supposed to do a big market research thing and nothing that they’ve said has gone into it . . . Not one shop has been done as they said it’d be done . . . They promised a fish & chip shop (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39). It looks like a Tesco superstore with a few shops added (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

There were complaints about the loss of community spirit that was perceived to have existed in the old centre: Although it was grimy it was local and it had everything you wanted, it was very much a community based thing (Switcher, 17-34, children, non-walker to store).

In addition, particular annoyance was expressed at the non-incorporation into the new Seacroft

130

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

Centre of the small market which had taken place on Friday and Saturday in the old centre, the downgraded accommodation and services of the Post Office: The Post Office is just like a caravan and it’s permanent (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39),

and the poor quality and expense of the in-store restaurant in the new superstore which was perceived to provide a poor substitute for the meeting place previously offered by cafe´s in the old centre. Finally younger participants resented what they regarded as oppressive levels of surveillance, differentially directed at local residents of their age with little money to spend, by the security staff in the privatised space of the new store: I used to be always walking up there [to the old centre], you’d meet your mates. You could spend the whole day there, now you feel you have to move on (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39). [I always feel] what if they’re watching me (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store).

3.4 Non-switching to the intervention store In the main quantitative post-intervention survey, the reasons respondents suggested for not switching to the new store related to concerns about the relative ‘‘expensiveness’’ of food shopping at the new store (28 per cent), the store’s large size and layout (21 per cent), plus satisfaction with their existing routine (25 per cent) – a likely proxy for many for relative accessibility/convenience of their existing main food source. Once again, the ‘‘non-switching’’ focus group participants confirmed what had been reported in the main household questionnaire:

I’ve nothing positive to say [about the new store], the prices are horrendous (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39). Asda has low prices all of the time (Non-switcher, Asda, 35-54).

However, these issues were clearly far more important for those whose main food source was the budget store Netto, who clearly perceived themselves as trading off limited food choice (in the sense of range) for price: It’s for people who don’t have a lot of money. More down to earth, what you see is what you get (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

A view shared by ‘‘switchers’’ to the new store who would trade down to the budget store when money was tight: If you’re on a short wage, you go to Netto (Switcher, 17-34, no children). You can get a full trolley in Netto for £30 but if you fill up in Tesco’s you pay £100 Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store).

The issue of food ‘‘quality’’ was rarely mentioned. Indeed many of the budget store shoppers professed to believe that there was very little difference in quality despite significant price differences: Chicken fillets £4.99 at Tesco, but £2.00 Netto, they’re all the same aren’t they? (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

This was despite the peer-group sensitivities of their children who were embarrassed by symbols of the fact that their mothers shopped at discount stores: I’m not taking that bag to school [a Netto plastic carrier bag], they’ll think you’re shopping at second-hand food stores (Non-switcher, Asda, 35-54, referring to her children’s views of the discount stores).

Pricing and convenience – Netto is just up the road and it’s cheap (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

However, the relative strength of these issues varied in important ways between those who used a limited-range/budget store (Netto) as their main food source in the pre-intervention period, and those who used another full-range major-retailer store (Asda) in preference to the similar offer available at the new store. For both groups of ‘‘non-switchers’’, thrift and saving money were important. And, in that context, the new store was perceived to be expensive:

Sensitivities which, interestingly, appeared to have little effect on focus group participants’ determination to continue using the discount stores. As noted above, what was far more important for the discount store shoppers was the ability to avoid the temptation to overspend associated with the new superstore:

131

There’s just so much to choose from [in the new store] whereas places like Netto you go in and there’s the basics and you get the basics (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

And, closely linked to that, was the importance they attached to the fact that the layout of the discount store rarely changed: With Netto you know exactly where everything is when you go in (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

In contrast the layout of the new store was perceived to change often, in the process exposing the low-income shopper to unacceptable risk of ‘‘wandering round, picking up extra stuff’’ as the focus group participants put it – that is to say, to the temptation to overspend: It’s too big. I can’t find things, they’re swapping and changing things all the time (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

In contrast, what was far more important for the non-switchers who preferred the offer of a competing full-range major retailer store (Asda) rather than the new store, and who were slightly more affluent on average than the discount store ‘‘non-switchers’’, was the atmosphere and perceived friendliness of the store: It’s got no atmosphere [referring to the new store], you walk into Asda and you feel the atmosphere (Non-switcher, Asda, 35-54). It’s a big barn [referring to the new store], its such a cold place I don’t like it . . . The staff don’t know where anything is (Non-switcher, Asda, 35-54).

In addition, particularly for younger respondents (both ‘‘non-switchers’’ and ‘‘switchers’’ alike), the competing full-range store was perceived to have a much better range of take-away meals – an issue we will return to below in the context of focus group participants’ perceptions of the impact (if any) of the new store on their potential to eat a more healthy diet. 3.5 Healthy eating and perceptions of the impact of the intervention store Based on its intensive coverage of food consumption patterns in Seacroft, the main intervention study (with its large samples of 1,009 and 615 respondents in waves 1 and 2) had been able to offer important findings regarding: the extent to which diets in the pre-intervention ‘‘food desert’’ fell short of government recommended targets, and the characteristics of those with the poorest, and in relative terms, better diets in the area. It had

also been able to offer evidence of a positive but modest impact of the retail intervention on diet – particularly among those whose access to full-range food retailing was unambiguously improved by the opening of the new store and who were within walking distance of the store. What insight into these findings was exploration of issues of food consumption and ‘‘healthy eating’’ with the focus groups able to add? Many of the participants (particularly the middle aged and older) were aware of what constituted a ‘‘healthy diet’’. Terms often used centred on having a varied diet, eating fresh foods rather than convenience foods, eating more fruit and vegetables, and trying to use healthier methods of cooking (such as grilling rather than frying): Try to level out your diet in a more sensible way, less quick and easy food and more veg and more fruit (Switcher, 35-54).

However a minority took objection to having information about healthy eating thrust upon them: Don’t need it to be shoved in my face, if you want to eat healthily, you know what is and what isn’t (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+).

In addition, confirming what had been found in the main quantitative food consumption survey, negative attitudes towards ‘‘healthy eating’’ and anecdotal evidence of poor diets, were consistently expressed by the younger (17-34) participants: Unhealthy eating is a fashion (Switcher, 17-34, no children). I don’t do healthy eating. I just eat what’s there, when I was pregnant I went to McDonald’s regularly and got two Big Macs (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store). There’s no bad food, it’s just the time when you eat it (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

It was evident that in many households (particularly with mothers in the younger age group), that children had a major effect on the type of food being consumed. Children refusing to eat a varied diet and existing on pizza, burgers and chips: . . . meatballs, pizza and hot-dogs were all he would eat (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

In low-income households in which (often because of part-time shift-based work) it was

132

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

highly unusual for everyone to sit down together and eat a ‘‘family meal’’, resulted in mothers taking the line of least resistance and adopting similar dietary patterns: I just do what the kids want and its mostly chips and stuff (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

In consequence, a considerable consumption of microwave meals was widely reported by the focus groups: Slug it out of the freezer, into the microwave and two minutes and it’s done (Switcher, 17-39).

to increase. Consistent with our quantitative analysis of the relatively ‘‘diet rich’’ in the area (Wrigley et al., 2003a), it was mainly the older and middle-aged participants who disputed these perceptions and, to a certain degree, resisted the trends. As a group, they had clearly grown up in a rather different food consumption culture – learning from their mothers (and to a lesser extent from schools) food preparation and cooking skills: Everything was fresh, do what your mother did, she’s your role model (Switcher, 55+).

With respect to budgetary priorities, food shopping was viewed by a majority of focus group participants as a lower priority than paying housing and utility bills. Reinforcing findings on ‘‘food insecurity’’ (Margetts et al., 2003b) obtained from the quantitative surveys, most mothers in the focus groups maintained that they would (and frequently had) cut down on their own food intake rather than affect their children: I’d go without rather than see them go without (Non-switcher, Asda, 17-39).

In addition, among the considerable number of heavy smokers in the focus groups, many also admitted that they often sacrificed their own food consumption in order to buy cigarettes: If it was choice between having something to eat myself and a cigarette, I’d take the cig (Non-switcher, Asda, 35-54). I’d have a bowl of cereal and go and buy my fags (Non-switcher, Netto, 40+). It’s a luxury for me [smoking], as long as the kids have got everything they need and the gas and electricity is paid (Non-switcher, Netto, 17-39).

The result was highly irregular eating patterns for many, accompanied by snacking and/or ‘‘binge’’ eating of ‘‘unhealthy’’ food when hungry. There was a perception, particularly among the younger focus group participants, that it was now cheaper to buy convenience food than to buy the raw ingredients and prepare food. In addition, take-away food (although regarded by those on the lowest incomes as expensive and a ‘‘treat’’) featured prominently in discussion. There was clearly increasing dependence on this type of food among focus group participants as its availability (not least through the stores of the major food retailers) continued

I’ve seen my Mum cook a dinner out of nothing (Switcher, 55+).

In turn, this raises important public health concerns. To what extent will the younger focus group participants in this deprived area retain these perceptions and their negative attitudes towards issues of ‘‘healthy eating’’ as they age? Or will their attitudes and associated diets and lifestyles change as they age? Finally, given these prevailing perceptions of food consumption patterns and ‘‘healthy eating’’ amongst the focus group participants, what evidence (if any) emerged from the focus groups concerning the impact of the new store on the potential of participants to eat a more healthy diet? Overall, and in line with the modest (albeit significant) impact on diet reported from the quantitative surveys (Wrigley et al., 2003b; Margetts et al., 2003a), there was rather little. What evidence there was suggested that a minority of participants were using the transport cost savings associated with improved access to full-range food retail provision to buy fresh food: I can get an extra packet of apples or bananas with the money I save on bus fares (Switcher, 35-54).

In addition, it was clear in the consistent discussion of the temptation to overspend presented by the new store, that those temptations had for many frequently extended to fresh fruit and vegetables – sometimes purchased, perhaps in the search for the ‘‘bargain’’, close to its sell-by-date: I’m sick of throwing their fruit away, you pick it up and the ‘‘sell by’’ date is that day (Switcher, 35-54).

However, the only groups consistently to express the view that they perceived the new

133

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

store to have had an impact on their potential to eat a healthier diet were: first, older ‘‘switchers’’ to the new store who frequently commented on the availability to them, post-intervention, of . . . less junk food and more fresh food (Switcher, 55+),

and second, certain middle-age (35-54) ‘‘switchers’’ who said that they were conscious of consuming more fruit and vegetables and chicken since the opening of the new store. Younger ‘‘switchers’’ perceived little impact on their diet, other than that associated with increased temptation to purchase ‘‘buy one get one free’’ special offers, and the risks associated with navigating the layout of the store in order to purchase ‘‘basic’’ items: Passing the crap to get the good stuff, you’re bound to pick something up (Switcher, 17-34, children, walk to store).

4 Conclusion Consistent with the strengths of qualitative focus group research (Krueger, 1998; Morgan, 1998) – research recognized to be particularly valuable in: . . . situations in which there is little pre-existing knowledge, the issues are sensitive or complex, and the maximum opportunity for exploration and inductive hypothesis generation is desired’’ (Bowling, 1997, p. 312).

– insights from the post-intervention focus groups reported in this paper permit both a ‘‘triangulation’’ of the quantitative findings of the main Seacroft intervention study, and a deeper understanding of the nature of how life in this previously poor retail access area had been changed by the sudden amelioration of those access problems. One of the main messages of the pre-intervention focus group research reported by Whelan et al. (2002) concerned the intensely complex coping strategies required by many households to overcome the physical and economic access constraints typical of the ‘‘food desert’’ (see Caraher et al., 1998; Ellaway and Macintyre, 2000; Robinson et al., 2001 for related work). In that context, the opening of the full-range food store in the heart of Seacroft (the retail

provision intervention) had clearly transformed physical access for many. Walking to the ‘‘main’’ food source, with its associated flexibility and cost-savings, had become a viable option for focus group participants and physical access coping strategies had significantly altered. However, economic access constraints (with the exception of certain direct reductions in the transport costs of food shopping) had for many remained fundamentally unaltered. In that sense, the new store (given its positioning as a main stream, full-range, non-discount outlet) was merely another factor to be coped with in their struggle to eat adequately on a low income. It offered opportunities (not least for accessing a wide range of ‘‘healthy’’ food) previously not easily available in the area, but it also increased temptation and the risks of overspending. As a result, an important group of residents, although experimenting with the new store, chose to remain loyal to food sourcing options which they perceived to be both lower cost, and to offer (via restricted range, more slowly changing store layouts, etc.) lower risk of overspending meagre household budgets. Others, despite switching to the new store, clearly attempted to remain consistent to their previous food purchasing habits, and attempted to control their use of the store (including navigating their way around it) in such a way that its impacts on their food consumption and diet were likely to be relatively modest. It follows, as we stressed in the preface to our quantitative analysis of food consumption in Seacroft, ‘‘that the effects (if any) of improved retail access on the consumption of healthy food in the research area were likely to reveal themselves in complex and subtle ways’’ (Wrigley et al., 2003b, p. 161). The value of the focus groups reported here is that the insights they generate help us to understand more of those subtle shifts in food consumption which accompany a retail provision intervention. Our argument, is that those shifts are mediated through complex and purposeful coping mechanisms, and additionally through food consumption cultures, attitudes regarding food preparation and healthy eating, and motivations to consider

134

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

health, which differ considerably across age groups. For that reason, assessing to what extent improvement in physical access to food in low-income areas of British cities represents a critical barrier to improvements in diet and diet-related health is never likely to be straightforward. Both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the amelioration of food access problems are an essential component of the ongoing process of understanding food poverty in British cities.

References Acheson, D. (1998), Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, HMSO, London. Barratt, J. (1997), ‘‘The cost and availability of healthy food choices in southern Derbyshire’’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 10, pp. 63-9. Beaumont, J., Lang, T., Leather, S. and Mucklow, C. (1995), Report from the Policy Sub-Group to the Nutrition Task Force: Low Income Project Team, Institute of Grocery Distribution, Watford. Bowling, A. (Ed.) (1997), Research Methods in Health, Open University Press, Buckingham. Caraher, M., Dixon, P., Lang, T. and Carr-Hill, R. (1998), ‘‘Access to healthy foods: part 1. Barriers to accessing healthy foods: differentials by gender, social class, income and mode of transport’’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 191-201. Clarke, G.P., Eyre, H. and Guy, C.M. (2002), ‘‘Deriving indicators of access to food retail provision in British cities: studies of Cardiff, Leeds and Bradford’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2041-60. Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (2002), ‘‘‘Food deserts’ – evidence and assumption in health policy making’’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 325, pp. 436-38. Department of Health (1996), Low Income, Food, Nutrition and Health: Strategies for Improvement, Department of Health, London. Department of Health (1999), Improving Shopping Access for People Living in Deprived Neighbourhoods, Discussion Paper of Policy Action Team 13 of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Department of Health, London. DETR (2000), ‘‘Minister tells retailers and planners to tackle ‘food deserts’’’, News Release 12 July, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, London. Ellaway, A. and Macintyre, S. (2000), ‘‘Shopping for food in socially contrasting localities’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 102, pp. 52-9. Guy, C.M. (1996), ‘‘Corporate strategies in food retailing and their local impacts: a case study of Cardiff’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 28, pp. 1575-602.

Guy, C.M., Clarke, G.P. and Eyre, H. (2003), ‘‘Food retail change and the growth of ‘food deserts’: a case study of Cardiff’’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 72-88. Hennik, M. and Diamond, I. (1999), ‘‘Using focus groups in social research’’, in Merman, A. and Bull, R. (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Interviewing, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 113-41. Hitchman, C., Christie, I., Harrison, M. and Lang, T. (2002), Inconvenient Food: The Struggle to Eat Well on a Low Income, Demos, London. Krueger, R. (1998), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, London. Margetts, B.M., Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L. and Jackson, A.A. (2003a), ‘‘Impact on fruit and vegetable intake of changing physical access in a ‘food desert’: an intervention study’’ (forthcoming). Margetts, B.M., Warm, D.L., Wrigley, N. and Jackson, A.A. (2003b), ‘‘Hunger and food insecurity in the UK: is there a problem?’’ (forthcoming). Miller, D. (1998), A Theory of Shopping, Polity Press, Cambridge. Miller, D. (2001), The Dialectics of Shopping, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Morgan, D. (1998), Focus Groups and Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Petticrew, M., Cummins, S. and Sparks, L. (2002), Reducing Inequalities in Health and Diet: The Impact of a Food Retail Development – A Pilot Study, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow. Robinson, N., Caraher, M. and Lang, T. (2001), ‘‘Access to shops: the views of low-income shoppers’’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 121-36. Social Exclusion Unit (1998), Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Cm4945, HMSO, London. Speak, S. and Graham, S. (2000), Service Not Included: Social Implications of Private Sector Restructuring in Marginalised Neighbourhoods, Policy Press, Bristol. Tesco plc (2003), Tesco Regeneration Partnership: The Story So Far, Tesco plc, Cheshunt. Thomas, C.J. and Bromley, R.D.F. (1993), ‘‘The impact of out-of-town retailing’’, in Bromley, R.D.F. and Thomas, C.J. (Eds), Retail Change: Contemporary Issues, UCL Press, London, pp. 126-52. Whelan, A.M., Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L. and Cannings, E. (2002), ‘‘Life in a ‘food desert’’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2081-100. Whitehead, M. (1998), ‘‘‘Food deserts’: what’s in a name?’’, Health Education Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 189-90. Wrigley, N. (1998), ‘‘How British retailers have shaped food choice’’, in Murcott, A. (Ed.), The Nation’s Diet: The Social Science of Food Choice, Longman, Harlow, pp. 112-28.

135

Leeds ‘‘food deserts’’ intervention study: what the focus groups reveal

Neil Wrigley, Daniel Warm, Barrie Margetts and Michelle Lowe

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Volume 32 . Number 2 . 2004 . 123-136

Wrigley, N. (2002), ‘‘Food deserts in British cities: policy context and research priorities’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2029-40. Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L., Margetts, B.M. and Whelan, A.M. (2002a), ‘‘Assessing the impact of improved retail access on diet in a ‘food desert’: a preliminary report’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2061-82. Wrigley, N., Guy, C.M. and Lowe, M.S. (2002b), ‘‘Urban regeneration, social inclusion and large store

development: the Seacroft development in context’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 2101-114. Wrigley, N., Warm D.L. and Margetts, B.M. (2003a), ‘‘Diet rich in a ‘food desert’: evidence from the Leeds intervention study’’ (forthcoming). Wrigley, N., Warm, D.L. and Margetts, B.M. (2003b), ‘‘Deprivation, diet and food retail access: findings from the Leeds ‘food deserts’ study’’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35, pp. 151-88.

136