Food Accessibility and Security:

A Case Study of Austin, TX

1. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH QUESTION

1.1 Topic
The ability to access food sources is a requirement for human survival. Whether or not a
person has this ability can be the difference between health and illness. In extreme cases, food
accessibility can be the difference between life and death. The prevalence of gas stations,
convenience stores, and fast food restaurants in urban areas, means that access to any type of
food source is not as widespread of a problem as is access to healthy and nutritious food sources,
but access to either continues to be an issue, especially in low-income areas. For this reason, I
have chosen to research and analyze food accessibility in Austin, Texas. Firstly my research
seeks to try and identify what exactly “access” to food means, and how the definition can vary by
person. It also will identify the “food deserts” in Austin (locations without a food source
nearby). It will then identify what races or ethnicities are most susceptible to food deserts, and
the possible reasons behind my results. In conclusion, I will offer policy solutions to help
mitigate issues of food security and accessibility in Austin, and will suggest ideas for further
research.

1.2 Literature Review

Food accessibility and security is a developing topic of study. The collection of literature
on the subject is limited, and most of the research is location specific. A lot of the focus of food
accessibility studies has been surrounding the notion of sustainable food sources, urban
agriculture and community gardens. Most of the literature seeks to identify ways to mitigate
issues of food accessibility and security (or lack thereof). It also seeks to provide possible policy
solutions to help deal with growing economic, environmental, and health related pressures of
food consumption in the United States.

A publication from the U.S. Department of Agriculture titled “Access to Affordable and
Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences” attempts

1
to do both1. It is an extensive piece of literature, covering most topics of food accessibility. The
content of the report helped shape my own research and provided with me with preliminary ideas
for methodology and depth of analysis. The entire report, extending over 100 pages, was highly
informative. Certain pieces of information and insights stood out, however, as especially
relevant to my study. Firstly, according to this publication, “5.7 percent of all households [do
not] always have the food they want or need because of access limitations” (13). Additionally,
the publication described multiple different types of food sources, giving way to the assumptions
and definitions I provide in the next subsection of this paper. The report states, “Among the
various forms of food retailers, supermarkets, supercenters, and warehouse club stores combined
account for the largest share of food sales, 75.2 percent of the total in 2008 (Economic Research
Service, 2009). These larger retail outlets typically offer all major food departments, including
fresh produce, meat, poultry and seafood, as well as more economical package sizes and lower
cost store brands and generic brands of packaged foods. Many studies have shown large retail
outlets are more affordable relative to other retail food outlets” (14). The report also lists a
series of policy suggestions for cities to consider. These include providing incentives for new
stores to locate in low-income areas, “community-level interventions” (farmer’s markets,
community gardens, etc.), transportation improvements, and even zoning interventions to allow
food retailers to locate closer to residential areas.

Another piece of literature that is highly relevant to my study is titled “Access Denied:
An Analysis of Problems Facing East Austin Residents in Their Attempts to Obtain Affordable,
Nutritious Food”2. The article can be found under the resources section of Austin’s sustainable
food center website (sustainablefoodcenter.org). This analysis, exploring food security issues in
east Austin, is a more qualitative analysis than the first study. The article includes interviews
with east side residents about their food consumption, a detailed description of retail food
sources in east Austin, and suggestions for policies that are tailored to meet the needs of east
Austin residents. The article does talk about access to food, but spends most of its discussion
covering the quality of food establishments in east Austin, and east side residents’ personal
experiences shopping for food.
1
United States Department of Agriculture, “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and
Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences”.
2
Sustainable Food Center, “Access Denied: An Analysis of problems Facing East Austin Residents in Their
Attempts to Obtain Affordable and Nutritious Food”.

2
1.3 Assumptions
A problem with this analysis, and any similar analysis, is that “access” can be defined in
multiple ways, and no definition is mutually exclusive of another. Whether or not someone has
access to food varies based on a multitude of factors including (but not limited to) that person’s
spatial location, the cost of transportation, the cost of food, and the opportunity cost of the time it
takes that person to travel and shop. It should also account for people’s consumption preferences
and dietary requirements. Additionally, it’s important to note that even if all else is equal,
elderly, frail, or handicapped people might have a more difficult time accessing food than others.
As an example of these situations: if a person lives within a half mile of grocery store but does
not own a car, do they have access to food? Or if a person resides ten miles from the nearest
grocery store, but owns a car, do they not have access to food? Because there are so many
factors indicating access to something, data collection and analysis is extremely burdensome, and
in some cases may not be possible. On the other hand, applying a single limiting factor to the
definition of access such as distance to a food source severely narrows the scope of the analysis
but creates a consistent and quantitative measure to work with. For the purposes of this analysis,
however, this is the definition I have chosen to use. More specifically, I have classified anyone
residing within a half-mile buffer zone from a food source as having access to food. Anyone
outside of this buffer zone is considered to not have access to food.

The second assumption I made, for the purposes of this analysis, is that there are only
three types of food sources: specialty or convenience stores, full service grocery stores, and
community gardens. Specialty grocery stores and convenience stores typically offer limited food
choices. These types of stores may include locations that are only selling specific ethnic foods,
and therefore do no appeal to a wide population. They may also include gas station stores, or
corner stores. These stores are built for a neighborhood environment, and due the resulting
diseconomy of scale they are only able to sell goods with a high profit margin such as candy,
sodas, other snack foods, and often beer and wine. Often these stores do not have the refrigerator
capacity to sell produce or fresh foods, generally with the exception of milk and butter and other
similar items. Typically, the food items sold there are sold at inflated prices. Most importantly,
these stores are qualified as ones being unable to sell the types of foods necessary for families to

3
provide healthy and balanced meals. Full service grocery stores, on the contrary, are ones
classified as serving produce and meats. These types of stores more often than not are built to
serve major populations of people, and are often found on large lots. They offer a wide variety
of foods, and typically prices at these stores are lower than those at convenience stores. Often
these stores are chain stores, i.e. HEB, The A&P, Randall’s, etc. Due to the corporate nature of
these stores, they are often strategically located to be near dense populations that meet a certain
income threshold. Finally, community gardens are local, neighborhood-based operations. The
policies and procedures of these gardens vary by locations, but typically a community garden
will provide fresh produce for members in exchange for volunteer labor at the garden a few
hours a week. The produce provided at these gardens is locally produced, is organic, and could
potentially be an excellent resource for low-income families and individuals. The prevalence of
these gardens varies by locations, but in Austin specifically they are not particularly widespread.

1.4 Hypothesis
After performing the preliminary research, prior to collecting my data, I hypothesized that food
deserts would be most predominately found in the east side of Austin. Austin is both physically
and symbolically divided by Interstate-35, a major highway built over the former East Avenue,
effectively bisecting the city. Figure 1.1, depicted on the next page shows the income disparity
between the east and west side of Austin. While this image was developed from 1990 Census
data, it still provides an accurate representation. Due to lower incomes on the east side it seems
likely that larger chain grocery stores would be hesitant to locate there.

4
 Figure .1

1.5 Data Sources

All the data used in my analysis was found from two sources. Every food source location
was found using a combination of Google Earth and Google Maps, and population and
race/ethnicity data were from Census 2000 GIS layers.

1.6 Methodology
The following paragraphs delineate step by step the measures I took to effectively
complete my analysis of food accessibility in Austin:

1) After locating all the food sources in Google Earth, I saved the data as a .kmz file, and
opened it in Microsoft Excel. Each data point had the name of the grocery store, it’s
address, and a set of coordinates. I added an additional column in the excel document so
that I could classify all data points by their food source type. To ensure proper

5
classification, I utilized Google Earth’s street view tool in combination with internet
research. I made phone calls to establishments I was unsure about.

2) Once the data was properly classified and organized, I moved to ArcGIS. In
ArcCatalog I navigated to my excel file and used it to create three new feature classes,
i.e. new layers to use in a map document. The three layers were “any food source” which
included all of three food sources, the second was only “full service” grocery stores, and
the final was only community gardens.

3) After creating the new GIS layers, I started a new map document with two layers: my
“any food source” data layer, and the Travis County Census 2000 SF1 data layer.

4) Using ArcGIS’s buffer tool, I created half-mile buffers around each data point.

5) To collect specific quantitative information about the number of people residing within
the half-mile buffers I had to join the two layers. I then utilized GIS’s select tool to select
all the census blocks that had their “centroid” within each buffer. When the census block
polygons were selected I was able to open the layer’s attribute people and sum the
number of people, by race and ethnicity, in the selected census blocks.

Note: It is important to note that this method does not produce fully accurate population
numbers within the half-mile buffers. It is impossible to know exactly how many people
(and of what race/ethnicity) are residing in specific locations within a census block
without doing a field survey—a task unfit for this analysis. GIS offered a number of
options for selecting block groups within the buffer zones, each with its own limitations.
These options consisted of selecting block groups that 1) intersect with the buffer zones,
2) are completely within the buffer zones, or 3) have their centroid within the buffer
zones. The first option resulted in a gross over-selection of census blocks. The second
option resulted in an under-selection. The third option provided more of a balance, but
the population and race/ethnicity numbers presented are still just a close estimate.

6
 6) I repeated steps 3-5 with my remaining two data layers (“full service” and community
gardens).

2. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

2.1 Analysis: Using Population Data to Identify Food Deserts in Austin
The first map document, figure 2.1 shown below, depicts any food source in Austin, laid
over the Census 2000 population data for Travis County. As explained by the map’s legend, the
dark brown colored blocks have the highest populations while the light yellow blocks have the
smallest populations. The light blue circles represent the half-mile buffer zones, the black
outline delineates Austin’s city limits, and the gray line bisecting the map is Interstate-35. From

Source: Google Earth and Census SF1 2000 (data), Ashley Livingston (image)
Figure 2.1 Any Food Source with Population

7
a first glance at the map it is clear that the east side of Austin is home to less food sources than
the west side, particularly the southeast, but the difference is not hugely dramatic, especially
when taking note of the large food deserts in the more densely populated areas in northwest
Austin. Before looking at exact population numbers, though, it is hard to tell where in Austin
residents are more susceptible to a lack of food source.

The same map was created for full service grocery stores and community gardens
(figures 2.2 and 2.3 respectively). Figure 2.2 tells a considerably more interesting story than
Figure 2.1. While figure 2.1 indicates that east Austin is somewhat lacking in food sources, we
are unclear as to what types of food sources those are. It becomes obvious when looking at
figure 2.2, however, that east Austin is severely lacking full service grocery stores. Nearly all of
east Austin’s population is without access to a grocery store that sells meat and produce.

Figure .2 Full Service Grocery with Population

Source: Google Earth and Census SF1 2000 (data), Ashley Livingston (image)

8
 This lack of access could have severe implications for residents in east Austin,
specifically those without vehicles. These residents have very few options: be reliant on public
transportation to access full service grocery stores, or do their shopping at small convenience
stores. Relying on public transportation severely limits the amount of food one can purchase,
and means that people must make more trips to the grocery store. For certain low income
families, frequent trips to the grocery store take up time that might need to be devoted to
working, child care, etc. Shopping at convenience stores, however, means that people are more
often than not without access to the types of food necessary to sustain a healthy and nutritious
diet.

Figure 2.3, however, tells an opposing tale. The largest concentration of community
gardens is on the east side of Austin. This could be a result of variety of things, including a
higher prevalence of cheaper land on the eastside, more space to locate a community garden, and

Figure 2.3 Community Gardens with Population

9
 Source: Google Earth and Census SF1 2000 (data), Ashley Livingston (image)
a greater demand for low priced produce. While community gardens offer residents alternative
and generally cheaper options for purchasing (or cultivating) food, due to their variation in size,
quality, management, and efficiency it is difficult to claim reliability across the board. Their
presence can, however, provide relief for certain families, and without a doubt community
gardens are helping pave the way to a more sustainable food system.

2.2 Analysis: Determining Food Accessibility by Race/Ethnicity

After locating the food deserts in Austin by looking at the population as a whole, I felt it
was important to make conclusions about whether or not certain races were more or less affected
by these food deserts. The image below, figure 2.4 helps depict this information. The bottom
three layers of the image represent the population densities for whites, African Americans, and

Figure 2.4 Population Density Comparison

10
 Source: Google Earth and Census SF1 2000 (data), Ashley Livingston (image)
Latinos. The dark blue color indicates census blocks with high percentages of that race (i.e. most
of the people residing on that census block are of that particular race). The top layer of the image
shows Austin’s city limits with the buffer zones for each of the food sources I located. The
figure helps make comparisons by race/ethnicity, and helps draw conclusions about who in
Austin may have more or less access to food.

It is clear, as depicted by figure 2.4, that there are higher percentages of African
Americans and Latinos residing on the east side of I-35. As determined in the first part of my
analysis, we know that the largest food deserts (especially “full service grocery” food deserts)
are also on the east side of I-35. Therefore, at first glance it might appear that African
Americans and Latinos have disproportionately low levels of food accessibility. After tabulating
the data in GIS, however, I was surprised to see that this is not necessarily true.
Table 2.1, below, shows the number of people in each race/ethnicity within the buffer
zones (estimated by the method described in Chapter 1). Figure 2.5, shows how these figures
translate into percentages. As you can see, 23% of the Latino population and 22% of the white
population have access to full service grocery stores. Only 17% of the African American
population has access to a full service grocery store. And contrary to my hypothesis, 56% of the
Latino population has access to any food source, whereas only 45% of the white population has
access to any food source. African Americans fall in the middle, at 52%.

Table 2.1 Food Accessibility by Population

Source: Census SF1 Data 2000

11
 Figure 2.5

Source: Google Earth and Census SF1 2000 (data), Ashley Livingston (image)

However, to properly interpret these results it is important to firstly revisit the definition
of access. Spatial proximity to a food source in reality does not necessarily imply access.
Likewise, living far from a food source does not preclude access. Additionally, it is very
important to consider income levels when making a true judgment about food accessibility.
Access to a vehicle, travel time, and opportunity cost all play a part in whether or not someone
has access to something. Lower incomes on the east side necessarily limit the number of people
who truly have access to food, and my results do not properly account for that.

Secondly, it is important to understand some possible underlying causes for these results.
By looking at Figure 2.4 we can see that the white population is scattered throughout a majority
of Austin, including the east side, whereas African American and Latino populations are more
spatially concentrated on only the east side. It is possible that this discrepancy could account for
the lower percentage of food accessibility for the white population.

12
3. GOING FURTHER

If I were to move forward with this analysis, I would like to investigate a number of
things more deeply:

 Firstly, I would like to study effects of food deserts on a more complete range of
races. I would also like to wait until Census 2010 data is available to get the most
recent and accurate population data available.
 I would like to supplement the first part of my analysis, and use GIS to create
similar map document, only this time with income data as my underlay layer.
Understanding food deserts in relation to low-income areas will give a deeper
understanding of where outreach and policy programs should focus their efforts.
 Like described in the USDA report, a thorough and more accurate food
accessibility study must include a vehicle accessibility study. In cities and
locations such as Austin that have limited public transportation options, the
availability of personal transportation plays a major role in whether or not a
person has access to food. When vehicle accessibility is included in the analysis,
spatial proximity to a grocery store becomes a less revealing, and less valuable
measure of accessibility. This method of evaluation is not as important in highly
dense cities with well-developed public transportation systems such as Manhattan,
or Washington D.C. but should still be considered.
 A more in depth analysis might also include household surveys, which can
provide more qualitative information as to personal perceptions of food
accessibility, and whether or not a household has it. Household surveys can also
help give more accurate demographic information, and can allow for more
complete information about the people residing within the half-mile buffer zones.
 A more in depth analysis would include not only the three food sources included
in this analysis, but also restaurants and fast food establishments, which according
to the USDA accounts for almost “half of all food spending” in the United States

13
 (16). It should also include non-traditional food retailers, such as Costco, Target,
Walmart, etc. that sell food along with other retail products.
 Finally, when analyzing accessibility to food using spatial location, it’s important
to consider not only the relationship between home and food sources, but school
and food sources, and employment and food sources.

4. CONCLUSION

While my results indicated that there is little discrepancy between white populations and
Latino populations in terms of food accessibility, my analysis was limited and in reality probably
does not give a true picture of food accessibility in Austin. The information is useful, however,
nonetheless. Knowing where food deserts are located, and knowing how many people are within
a close distance of a grocery store is key when developing policy solutions. For instance, while
the USDA publication recommended instituting incentives for grocery stores to locate in new
areas, this step is unlikely to be too effective in Austin. On the other hand, improving
transportation options to grocery stores, or utilizing larger scale community food sources such as
farmer’s markets and community gardens could make a large difference. It also helps policy
makers and practitioners outreach to appropriate audiences.

14