Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Public Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A possible dose–response association between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, frequency of shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index among customers in the Southern United States

  • Stephanie B. Jilcott Pitts1Email author,
  • Jedediah Hinkley2,
  • Qiang Wu3,
  • Jared T. McGuirt4,
  • Mary Jane Lyonnais1,
  • Ann P. Rafferty1,
  • Olivia R. Whitt1,
  • Nancy Winterbauer1 and
  • Lisa Phillips1
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:65

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3943-7

Received: 28 May 2016

Accepted: 14 December 2016

Published: 11 January 2017

Abstract

Background

The association between farmers’ market characteristics and consumer shopping habits remains unclear. Our objective was to examine associations among distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that the relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and BMI would be mediated by fruit and vegetable consumption.

Methods

In 15 farmers’ markets in northeastern North Carolina, July–September 2015, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among 263 farmers’ market customers (199 provided complete address data) and conducted farmers’ market audits. To participate, customers had to be over 18 years of age, and English speaking. Dependent variables included farmers’ market shopping frequency, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI. Analysis of variance, adjusted multinomial logistic regression, Poisson regression, and linear regression models, adjusted for age, race, sex, and education, were used to examine associations between distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI.

Results

Those who reported shopping at farmers’ markets a few times per year or less reported consuming 4.4 (standard deviation = 1.7) daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and those who reported shopping 2 or more times per week reported consuming 5.5 (2.2) daily servings. There was no association between farmers’ market amenities, and shopping frequency or fruit and vegetable consumption. Those who shopped 2 or more times per week had a statistically significantly lower BMI than those who shopped less frequently. There was no evidence of mediation of the relationship between frequency of shopping and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption.

Conclusions

More work should be done to understand factors within farmers’ markets that encourage fruit and vegetable purchases.

Keywords

Farmers’ marketCommunity nutritionFruitVegetableObesityConsumer behavior

Background

In the United States, there is greater obesity among rural versus urban populations [1, 2]. Factors in both the community and consumer food environments are associated with dietary behaviors and subsequent obesity [3]. The community food environment includes community- or neighborhood-level access to healthier foods via retail food outlets (e.g., supermarkets, farmers’ markets) [3]. The consumer food environment includes characteristics within retail food outlets that either promote or hinder healthier food and beverage purchase (e.g., healthier foods placed in check-out aisles) [3]. Adding new farmers’ markets is one strategy to increase access to healthy foods in rural areas, improving both the community and consumer food environments [4].

There are associations between the consumer and community food environment and purchase and consumption of healthier foods: Individuals who live closer to chain supermarkets and farmers’ markets (community food environment) have healthier diets and lower body mass index (BMI) [57]. Furthermore, prior studies have found that shopping at farmers’ markets is associated with greater self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption [810]. In chain supermarkets and other large food stores, there is some evidence that price promotions, and other marketing strategies (consumer food environment) are associated with healthier purchases [1114]. Thus, in a similar way, healthy food access might be bolstered not only by creating new farmers’ markets, but also by providing an improved consumer food environment within the farmers’ market [15]. Focusing on the community and consumer food environments aligns with the 5 dimensions of food access proposed by Caspi and colleagues, [16] based off of Penchansky and Thomas’s model of health care access, [17] including availability (i.e., adequacy of healthy foods), accessibility (travel time and distance to food retail outlets), affordability (food prices), accommodation (attitudes about the food environment), acceptability (how well local food sources adapt to residents’ needs) [16].

The prevailing hypothesis of these and similar studies is that people shop at markets closest to home and may also shop more frequently and buy more fresh fruits and vegetables (perishable goods) when a market is closer to the residential address. However, studies are finding that individuals do not shop at supermarkets or farmers’ markets closest to home [9, 18, 19]. It could be that elements of the consumer food environment are what motivate individuals’ shopping behaviors, more than just distance alone. Thus, we examined cross-sectional associations between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, frequency of farmers’ market and produce stand shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI, testing the prevailing hypothesis that those who live closer to farmers’ markets and stands will shop more frequently at those markets and stands (versus those who live further from markets and stands, who will shop less frequently), and also consume more fruits and vegetables and have a lower BMI. We also hypothesized that the relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and BMI would be mediated by fruit and vegetable consumption. Furthermore, we examined associations between farmers’ market characteristics (e.g., signage, payment options, availability of fruits and vegetables), frequency of farmers’ market shopping, and fruit and vegetable consumption among 263 customers in 15 farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands in northeastern North Carolina. The conceptual model undergirding these analyses is in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Conceptual model to examine associations between distance to farmers’ markets, farmers’ market characteristics, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index (BMI)

Methods

Study setting and participants

This cross-sectional study took place in a 17 county region in northeastern North Carolina, as part of the evaluation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Albemarle Regional Health Services (ARHS) Partnerships to Improve Community Health (PICH) grant. The 17-county PICH region consists of mostly non-metro, rural counties with higher rates of poverty and obesity than the rest of the state [20, 21]. This region is primarily agricultural and sparsely populated. For example, one of the PICH counties, Gates County, has a 2015 population estimate of 11,431 persons, and a 2010 population per square mile of 35.8. Bertie County has a population of 20,199 persons, and a population density of 30.4. A few of the more highly populated PICH counties have populations and population densities of 39,829 and 179.2 persons per square mile (Pasquotank County), and 54,150 and 111.9 persons per square mile (Edgecombe County) [21]. These counties have high rates of adult obesity (ranging from 29.2% for Currituck to 37.0% for Edgecombe), and often have very few retail outlets offering healthy food and beverage options, highlighting the importance of direct farm-to-consumer outlets in the PICH regions.

Trained surveyors recruited a convenience sample of farmers’ market customers between July 2015 and September 2015 at farmers’ markets (n = 7) and roadside produce stands (n = 8) located in 14 of the 17 county region of northeastern North Carolina. (For the purposes of this paper, markets and stands are referred to as “farmers’ markets”.) Between 5 and 46 customers were surveyed at each market. Eligibility criteria were being English-speaking and over 18 years of age. Potential participants were approached at the entrance of the farmers’ market and asked if they would be interested in participating in a survey about farmers’ markets. If the participant agreed (verbal consent), (s)he was given a 5-page questionnaire, and if requested, the questions were read aloud. This study was reviewed and approved by the East Carolina University Institutional Review Board (15–000427). Study participants were given a reusable grocery tote upon questionnaire completion.

Frequency of farmers’ market shopping and barriers to and motivators of farmers’ market shopping

Participants were queried about their frequency of farmers’ market shopping by asking “How often in the past 12 months did you buy fruits or vegetables locally grown from a farmer’s market, CSA (community supported agriculture), roadside stand, or pick-your-own produce farm?” Response options included 2 or more times per week, one time per week, 2–3 times per month, once a month, a few times per year, and never. Due to distribution of responses, there were four categories established: A few times per year or less (combination of a few times per year and never); One to several times per month (combination of once a month and 2–3 times per month); Once a week; and 2 or more times per week.

Participants could select from a list of motivators of and barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets, used in a prior study, [8] with motivators including support local farmers, fresher produce, better prices, and variety of the products, and barriers including no Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), no credit/debit accepted, market days and hours aren’t convenient, and “I get what I need from other places.” Participants could also select “other” and write in responses. The perceived relative expense of produce at farmers’ markets versus supermarkets was assessed by asking “compared to other places you purchase fruits and vegetables, is the farmers’ market more or less expensive?” with response options including more expensive, less expensive, the same price, and it depends.

Fruit and vegetable purchase and consumption and body mass index

The questionnaire also assessed whether fruit and vegetable purchase and consumption had increased given shopping at farmers’ markets using the following question: “As a result of your shopping at this Farmers’ Market, have you been eating more fruits and/or vegetables than before you started to shop here?” Response options were fewer fruits/vegetables, no change, more fruits and vegetables, and “this is my first time at this market.” The questionnaire also assessed the proportion of fruits/vegetables purchased at farmers’ markets relative to other goods. The number of servings of fruits and vegetables eaten per day was assessed using the following items: “On a typical day, how many servings of fruits do you eat? (A serving of fruit is like a medium sized apple or a half cup of fresh fruit. – this does not include fruit juice)” and “On a typical day, how many servings of vegetables do you eat, not including French fries? (A serving of vegetables is like one cup of green salad or half a cup of cooked vegetables.)” Response options ranged from 1 to 6 or more servings per day, and this was summed as self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption. These questions were similar to the “Food Within Reach” assessment and the items on the Child Health Assessment and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) [22, 23]. Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight, as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. BMI was corrected for systematic reporting error for height and weight using a method previously described [24].

Demographic information

We also collected customers’ residential addresses for Geographic Information Systems Analyses. Customer demographics included assessment of age (in years), sex, ethnicity, race, income, and educational attainment.

Farmers’ market amenities (Consumer food environment)

Farmers’ market audits were conducted to quantify amenities offered at each farmers’ market (e.g., payment methods, farmers’ market signage, fruits and vegetables available). The audits were completed by trained auditors (who were also administering the customer intercept questionnaires) on the day the intercept surveys were conducted. The audit included items from the validated Farmers’ Market Audit Tool (FMAT) [25] and the North Carolina Fruit and Vegetable Outlet Inventory (NCFVOI) Tool [26]. Audit data were entered into a Qualtrics survey by the auditor. To quantify the amenities offered at each market, a farmers’ market amenities index was created based upon the farmers’ market audit data. The index consisted of whether or not SNAP/EBT was accepted (0 = no, 1 = yes), the forms of payment accepted (1 point for each form of payment accepted, of cash, check, credit/debit, SNAP, WIC), farmers’ market sign (yes/no), sign promoting SNAP/EBT, a welcome booth, and availability of 17 types of fruits and vegetables (coded as the number of vendors selling that item). The amenities index was a sum of all characteristics, and ranged from 5 to 38. We also created a fruit and vegetable availability sub-score, and used this in analyses. The score was a sum of the number of vendors selling each of 17 fruit and vegetable items, and ranged from 4 to 28.

Geographic information systems (GIS) mapping (Community food environment)

To learn more about the shopping patterns of farmers’ market shoppers, a GIS database was created. For the GIS analyses, all respondents who did not provide their address or did not live in the 17-county PICH region were omitted from the GIS analyses. Of the 263 who were surveyed, 31 lived outside a PICH county, and 33 did not give an address that was complete enough for geocoding, leaving 199 respondents for GIS analyses. All addresses were geocoded to the highest level of accuracy possible, either to the city centroid, street centroid, or to the rooftop level. Addresses of all farmers’ markets in the 17 county area and all surveyed customers were batch geocoded using the Google Maps geocoding Application Programming Interface (API) through the BatchGeo website. Address data were verified using Google maps and satellite images. Distances from participant’s home address to the closest farmers’ market, as well as the distance from their home to the farmers’ market where they completed the survey (if different from the closest farmers’ market), were calculated using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. Distances were calculated over an integrated statewide street network to reduce edge effects and to account for customers’ ability to traverse county boundaries. Three GIS variables were calculated: (1) The distance (in miles) to the closest farmers’ market from the participant’s residential address; (2) the distance (in miles) to the farmers’ market where the participant was surveyed; and (3) the difference between the two distances, which would be zero if the participant was surveyed at the farmers’ market closest to his or her residential address.

Statistical analyses

Customer and market characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequencies for categorical variables. Bivariate associations included correlation (two continuous variables), t-tests and Analysis of variance (for a categorical and a continuous variable), and for two categorical variables, a chi-square analysis of independence. To examine potential differences between farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, we used t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to examine the differences between farmers’ markets and produce stands in terms of overall amenities score, fruit and vegetable availability, sign availability, and SNAP/EBT availability.

To examine associations hypothesized in our conceptual model in Fig. 1, we used multinomial logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, race, sex, and education) to examine associations between frequency of farmers’ market shopping (dependent variable) and distance to farmers’ market and amenities index for markets (both used as independent variables in separate analyses). The multinomial logistic regression used “a few times per year or less” as the reference group. Poisson and linear regression were used to examine the association between farmers’ market shopping frequency (independent variable) and separate dependent variables of (1) fruit and vegetable consumption and (2) BMI, respectively, adjusting for age, race, sex, and education. Poisson regression analyses were also used to examine associations between fruit and vegetable consumption and the farmers’ market amenities index. We examined the need for multi-level models, with farmers’ markets as the second level, but the random effects were not statistically significant, suggesting there was no need for multi-level models. We examined potential mediation of the relationship between shopping frequency and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption using Baron and Kenny criteria [27]. This was an exploratory study, and we did not conduct an a priori power analysis. All analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institutes, Cary, North Carolina).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed for this project are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality, but de-identified datasets may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Results

Characteristics of farmers’ market shoppers are provided in Table 1. Customers (total n = 263) had a mean age of 56 years, mean BMI of 29 kg/m2, reported consuming a mean of 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily, and a large majority had an income of over $40,000 per year. The main motivators to shopping at farmer’s markets were fresher produce, support for local farmers, produce tastes better, and friendly atmosphere. The main barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets were market days/h are not convenient, out of the way, and “I get what I need from other places.” Thirty seven percent (37%) of customers shopped at the farmers’ market or produce stand closest to their residential address (data not shown), 60% said they had increased fruit and vegetable consumption as a result of shopping at farmers’ markets and 49% said they had increased the variety of fruits and vegetables consumed as a result of farmers’ market shopping. (Table 1) Over 65% of respondents purchased a majority (75% or more) of fruits and vegetables at markets. The mean distance to the closest farmers’ market was 3.9 miles, whereas the mean distance to the market where the individual was surveyed was 7.0 miles. We examined differences between geocoded and non-geocoded participants. The non-geocoded participants were more educated (64% vs. 49% college graduates) and younger (50.3 vs 57.0 years mean age) compared to the geocoded participants.
Table 1

Participant characteristics for 263 farmers’ market customers surveyed at 15 different farmers markets and roadside produce stands in northeastern North Carolina

Characteristic

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

Age (years)

251

55.6

16.5

Body mass index (kg/m2)

219

28.7

7.0

Fruit (servings/day)

253

2.5

1.3

Vegetables (servings/day)

254

2.6

1.2

Fruits and vegetables (servings/day)

252

5.0

2.1

Typical amount spent on produce at a farmers’ market (dollars)

245

18.9

14.7

Geographic Information System (GIS) measured distance to closest farmers’ market from residential address (miles)

196

3.9

3.9

GIS measured distance from the residential address to the farmers’ market where participant was surveyed (miles)

196

10.9

18.4

Difference in GIS measured distance between the market where the participant was surveyed and the market closest to home (miles)

196

7.0

17.7

Characteristic

N

Frequency

Percentage

Gender (% female)

255

186

72.9

Education (% with some college or more)

252

192

76.2

Race (% black)

248

50

20.2

Race (% white)

248

181

73.0

Race (% other)

248

17

6.9

Ethnicity (% Hispanic)

227

6

2.6

Income (% over 40,000)

185

114

61.6

Currently receive WIC (% yes)

252

11

4.4

Redeemed WIC at a farmers’ market (% yes)

263

7

2.7

Currently receive SNAP (% yes)

251

18

7.2

Used SNAP at Farmers’ Market (% yes)

263

3

1.1

Participate in Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (% yes)

263

5

1.9

Servings of fruit

253

Frequency

Percentage

 1 per day

 

63

24.9

 2 per day

 

82

32.4

 3 per day

 

59

23.3

 4 per day

 

31

12.3

 5 per day

 

10

4.0

 6 or more per day

 

8

3.2

Servings of vegetables

254

Frequency

Percentage

 1 per day

 

33

13.0

 2 per day

 

121

47.6

 3 per day

 

49

19.3

 4 per day

 

34

13.4

 5 per day

 

10

3.9

 6 or more per day

 

7

2.8

Self-reported increase in fruit and vegetable consumption as a result of shopping at farmers’ markets (% yes)

253

151

59.7

Self-reported increase in variety of fruit and vegetable consumed as a result of shopping at farmers’ markets (% yes)

252

123

48.8

Frequency of shopping at a farmers’ market

257

Frequency

Percentage

 A few times per year

 

40

15.6

 2–3 times per month

 

28

10.9

 Once per month

 

25

9.7

 One time per week

 

104

40.5

 2 or more times per week

 

49

19.1

Proportion of produce purchased at farmers’ markets compared to other goods

254

Frequency

Percentage

 0–24% produce

 

26

10.2

 25–49% produce

 

23

9.1

 50–74% produce

 

36

14.2

 75–99% produce

 

89

35.0

 100% produce

 

80

31.5

Fruits and vegetables are less expensive at the farmers’ market compared to other places (n, % yes)

252

125

49.6

Motivators for shopping at farmers’ markets (n, % yes)

263

Frequency

Percentage

 Support local farmers

 

103

39.2

 Fresher Produce

 

123

46.8

 Produce tastes better

 

63

24.0

 Better prices

 

23

8.8

 It is close to home

 

32

12.2

 It is close to work

 

3

1.1

 Produce is grown with fewer pesticides

 

33

12.6

 Good service

 

40

15.2

 Quality of products

 

58

22.1

 Variety of products

 

27

10.3

 Consistency of the products

 

13

4.9

 Convenient Location

 

32

12.2

 Friendly atmosphere

 

63

24.0

 Barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets

263

Frequency

Percentage

 No Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

 

9

3.4

 No credit or debit accepted

 

22

8.4

 Not enough money to shop

 

11

4.2

 No transportation to market

 

2

0.8

 Prices are too high

 

10

3.8

 Extreme weather

 

13

4.9

 Not enough parking

 

3

1.1

 Market days and hours aren’t convenient

 

46

17.5

 Out of the way

 

37

14.1

 I get what I need from other places

 

24

9.1

 Do not know where markets are

 

11

4.2

Characteristics of farmers’ markets (n = 7) and roadside produce stands (n = 8) are in Table 2. Three out of the 15 markets and stands accepted SNAP/EBT. A large majority of markets had a sign and welcome booth. As seen in Table 2, while farmers’ markets tended to have higher mean amenities scores, fruit and vegetable availability, and were more likely to accept SNAP/EBT, markets and stands were not statistically different on any of these factors.
Table 2

Characteristics and comparison of farmers’ markets (n = 7) and roadside produce stands (n = 8) in northeastern North Carolina

Number and percentage of farmers’ markets with the following characteristics

Number

Percentage

Forms of Payment

 Accepts cash

15

100

 Accepts credit/debit

7

47

 Accepts Check

11

73

 Accepts WIC

0

0

 Accepts SNAP/EBT

3

20

 Has a farmers’ market sign

13

87

 Has a welcome booth

9

60

Number and percentage with the following fruits and vegetables (Audits conducted July–September 2015)

Number

Percentage

 Apples

11

73

 Blueberries

8

53

 Cantaloupe

11

73

 Peaches

14

93

 Strawberries

3

20

 Broccoli

2

13

 Cabbage

6

40

 Cauliflower

0

0

 Corn

9

60

 Cucumbers

13

87

 Kale

5

33

 Lettuce

5

33

 Onions

12

80

 Peppers

11

73

 Squash

15

100

 Tomatoes

14

93

 Watermelon

13

87

Comparison of farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands

Mean

P-value

Total amenities score

 

0.2766

Farmers’ markets

20.1

 

Produce stands

14.5

 

Fruit and vegetable availability

 

0.2827

Farmers’ markets

15.4

 

Produce stands

10.6

 
 

Percentage

P-value

Farmers’ market or produce stand sign

 

1.0000

Farmers’ markets

85.7

 

Produce stands

87.5

 

SNAP/EBT available

 

0.0769

Farmers’ markets

42.8

 

Produce stands

0.0

 
Using ANOVA, there was a significant bivariate association between distance to farmers’ markets and frequency of farmers’ market shopping (P = .049). For those who shopped “A few times per year or less”, the average distance to the market where they shopped was 17.9 miles, whereas the distances to the market for the more frequent shoppers ranged from 8 to 11 miles. (Table 3) There was a significant relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and fruit and vegetable consumption (P = .005), such that those who shopped the least frequently also reported the fewest servings of fruits and vegetables consumed (4.4 versus 5.5 servings reported among the most frequent shoppers).
Table 3

Unadjusted means of distance to farmers’ market or roadside produce stand in miles, and mean fruit and vegetable consumption by shopping frequency

Frequency of farmers’ market shopping

Distance (in miles) from respondent’s home to farmers’ market or roadside produce stand where surveyed

 

n

Mean

Standard Deviation

 A few times per year or less

34

17.87

26.05

 One to several times per month

39

9.13

11.02

 Once a week

83

7.97

15.71

 2 or more times per week

42

10.63

17.23

Frequency of farmers’ market shopping

Servings of Fruit and Vegetable Consumed per Day

 

n

Mean

Standard Deviation

 A few times per year or less

49

4.45

1.72

 One to several times per month

53

4.47

1.62

 Once a week

99

5.34

2.32

 2 or more times per week

49

5.53

2.20

Frequency of farmers’ market shopping

Servings of Fruit and Vegetable Consumed per Day (Sensitivity analysis of only those participants who were geocoded.)

 

n

Mean

Standard Deviation

 A few times per year or less

33

4.42

1.50

 One to several times per month

39

4.56

1.68

 Once a week

79

5.29

2.34

 2 or more times per week

42

5.55

2.32

Table 4 shows regression estimates from the adjusted logistic, Poisson, and linear regression models examining associations between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, market and stand amenities, frequency of shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI among farmers’ market and roadside produce stand customers. In adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses, there was a non-significant association between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and distance to farmers’ markets (P = .179). In adjusted Poisson regression models, fruit and vegetable consumption was significantly associated with frequency of farmers’ market shopping (P = .017), such that those who reported shopping at farmers’ markets more frequently consumed more fruits and vegetables than those shopping less frequently. Table 4 also indicates that the overall relationship between BMI and frequency of shopping was not statistically significant (P = .207), but there was a significant inverse effect for those who shopped 2 or more times per week (P = .034), indicating that frequent shoppers had a lower BMI. Modeling results showed no evidence of mediation of the relationship between BMI and frequency of shopping by fruit and vegetable consumption (Table 4, Row 18). There was no association between farmers’ market amenities index, the sub-score for fruit and vegetable availability, and frequency of farmers’ market shopping or fruit and vegetable consumption in bivariate analyses or adjusted models.
Table 4

Regression estimates from the multinomial logistic regression, Poisson regression, and linear regression models examining associations between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, market amenities, frequency of shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI among farmers’ market and roadside produce stand customers in northeastern North Carolina

Dependent variable

Independent variable

Parameter estimate

Standard error

P-value

Frequency of shopping

Distance to market or stand where surveyed

0.1796

 2+ per week

Distance to market or stand where surveyed

−0.0132

0.0114

0.2459

 Once a week

Distance to market or stand where surveyed

−0.0275

0.0135

0.0409

 1–3 times per month

Distance to market or stand where surveyed

−0.0182

0.0136

0.1812

Frequency of shopping

Farmers’ market amenities

0.9179

 2+ per week

Farmers’ market amenities

−0.0106

0.0242

0.6599

 Once a week

Farmers’ market amenities

0.00425

0.0198

0.8305

 1–3 times per month

Farmers’ market amenities

0.000340

0.0226

0.9880

Frequency of shopping

Farmers’ market amenities—Fruit and vegetable availability sub-score

0.8705

 2+ per week

Farmers’ market amenities—Fruit and vegetable availability sub-score

−0.0193

0.0293

0.5098

 Once a week

Farmers’ market amenities—Fruit and vegetable availability sub-score

0.00191

0.0234

0.9349

 1–3 times per month

Farmers’ market amenities—Fruit and vegetable availability sub-score

−0.00379

0.0267

0.8873

Fruit and vegetable consumption

Frequency of shopping

  

0.0166

 

A few times per year or less vs. 2 or more times per week

−0.1913

0.0936

0.0409

 

One to several times per month vs. 2 or more times per week

−0.2330

0.0908

0.0103

 

Once per week vs. 2 or more times per week

−0.0403

0.0769

0.6005

Fruit and vegetable consumption

Farmers’ market amenities

0.0034

0.0032

0.2771

Fruit and vegetable consumption

Farmers’ market amenities—Fruit and vegetable availability sub-score

0.0048

0.0037

0.1964

Body mass index

Frequency of shopping

F = 1.53

 

0.2074

 

2 or more times per week vs. One to several times per month

−3.6514

1.7544

0.0388

 

Once per week vs. One to several times per month

−2.3695

1.4764

0.1103

 

A few times per year or less vs. One to several times per month

−2.3432

1.7032

0.1706

Body mass index

Fruit and vegetable consumption

−0.1341

0.2554

0.6002

Body mass index

Frequency of shopping

F = 1.44

 

0.2322

 

2 or more times per week vs. One to several times per month

−3.6308

1.7838

0.0433

 

Once per week vs. One to several times per month

−2.2390

1.5242

0.1436

 

A few times per year or less vs. One to several times per month

−2.3299

1.7194

0.1771

 

Fruit and vegetable consumption

−0.0652

0.2619

0.8036

(Models were adjusted for age, race, gender, and education level.)

In models adjusted for age, sex, race, and education, those who did not shop at the farmers’ market closest to their residential address reported consuming more fruits and vegetables than those who did shop at the market closest to the residential address (adjusted means of 5.3 servings of fruits and vegetables per day for those who did not shop at the closest market versus 4.4 servings per day for those who did shop at the closest market, P = .004). There were no significant associations between distance traveled to the farmers’ market and fruit and vegetable consumption, or the difference between the closest farmers’ market and the market at which the participant was shopping and fruit and vegetable consumption. Because we found significant differences between those who were geocoded and those not geocoded, we conducted sensitivity analyses using only those geocoded, finding similar results. For example, Table 3 shows the frequency of farmers’ market shopping and fruit and vegetable consumption for the full sample, and for only those who were geocoded, and in both cases, there is increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables with increasing frequency of farmers’ market shopping.

Discussion

In this study, we examined cross-sectional associations between distance to farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, frequency of farmers’ market and produce stand shopping, amenities at markets and stands, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI among customers in northeastern North Carolina. In the current study, the mean distance to the closest farmers’ market was 3.9 miles, whereas the mean distance to the market where the individual was surveyed was 7.0 miles. Our study findings are similar to others finding that individuals do not shop at supermarkets or farmers’ markets closest to their residential address [9, 18, 19]. This may indicate that there are factors more important than distance when individuals are determining whether to shop at a farmers’ market or stand, and likely include elements of the consumer food environment, such as prices, quality of products, or friendliness of the atmosphere.

Frequently reported motivators to shopping at farmers’ markets were fresher produce, support for local farmers, better tasting produce, and friendly atmosphere. Future studies should examine how these motivators relate to the acceptability and accommodation dimensions of food access [16]. The barriers found in this sample were similar to prior study findings [8, 9, 15] and included market days, hours and location were not convenient, and that debit/credit cards were not accepted. Addressing these barriers could lead to more farmers’ market shopping among eastern NC residents.

In this study, more frequent shopping was associated with greater fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower BMI (for the most frequent of shoppers). In addition, a majority of customers said they purchase mostly fruits and vegetables at farmers’ markets, and had increased their fruit and vegetable consumption as a result of shopping at markets. These results provide further evidence that farmers’ markets are a positive element of the community food environment. Because roadside produce stands do not have as many market amenities as farmers’ markets, but may be more frequently used due to being on the route to/from work, the inclusion of roadside produce stands may have attenuated the association between distance to markets and fruit and vegetable consumption and/or BMI. We did not find evidence of mediation of the relationship between frequency of shopping and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption. This suggests that there may be unmeasured confounding factors, such as enjoyment of cooking among those who shopped frequently and also had lower BMIs.

One limitation of the current study is that fruit and vegetable consumption, farmers’ market shopping frequency, and weight and height were self-reported, and thus could include systematic bias. The potential serving range for fruits and vegetables provided to respondents was 1–6+, which was limited and presented a basement effect that may have biased point estimates of servings per day upward. Furthermore, the survey question regarding frequency of shopping included CSAs and pick-your-own produce farms, which are quite different from farmers’ markets and produce stands. However, at last count, of the 99 fruit and vegetable outlets in the study area, 10 were pick-your-own, and the majority of these 10 were strawberry fields, which are seasonal. Also, because we surveyed customers at farmers’ markets and roadside produce stands, we assumed that these were the markets and stands where the individual mostly shopped. This assumption should be tested in future studies. While there were not statistically significant differences between markets and stands, there was a very small sample size for that analysis.

Another major limitation is that this was a cross-sectional study, and there is the potential for reverse causation; therefore, causality cannot be assumed. For example, if customers who enjoy cooking or have higher nutritional literacy are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables, they may also shop more frequently at local farmers’ markets and stands. In this case, eating fruits and vegetables causes more frequent shopping. There were many missing addresses, causing missing data for geocoding and GIS analyses. However, we conducted sensitivity analyses to account for this, finding results largely unchanged even when the sample included only those geocoded. Northeastern North Carolina has high rates of obesity and poverty, and as such our study may have limited external validity, because the customers surveyed tended to be female, college educated, middle-aged, white, with a mean BMI of 29 kg/m2. Finally, there are many reasons why a person might select a particular farmers’ market, other than distance to and amenities at the market.

Conclusions

In this study, we investigated our hypotheses in a sample of farmers’ market and produce stand customers in northeastern North Carolina, while prior farmers’ market studies examined these issues in representative or convenience community samples. We found a potential dose–response relationship between distance to farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping and fruit and vegetable consumption, with increasing produce consumption associated with increasing frequency of farmers’ market shopping. We also examined whether elements of the consumer food environment (e.g., payment types, welcoming atmosphere, and fruits and vegetables offered) were associated with customers’ frequency of shopping and fruit and vegetable consumption, finding that these were not associated with shopping frequency or fruit and vegetable consumption. However, the food environment within farmers’ markets has not been studied extensively in the past. Ultimately, the results of our study will inform next steps for promoting farmers’ markets in rural North Carolina and beyond.

Abbreviations

BMI: 

Body mass index

CDC: 

Centers for disease control and prevention

CSA: 

Community supported agriculture

EBT: 

Electronic benefit transfer

FMAT: 

Farmers’ market audit tool

NC FVOI: 

North Carolina fruit and vegetable outlet inventory

PICH: 

Partnerships to improve community health

SNAP: 

Supplemental nutrition assistance program

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge guidance from Jill Jordan.

Funding

This study was supported in part by an award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (#1 U58 DP005711, Albemarle Regional Health Services, PICH, DP14-1417). The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed for this project are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality, but de-identified datasets may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

SJP and JH conceptualized the study, and all other authors made substantial contributions to conception and design. ORW, MJL, and JM made substantial contributions to acquisition of data. QW, SJP, JM, and APR contributed to analysis and interpretation of data. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and have given final approval of the version to be published.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by the East Carolina University Institutional Review Board (15–000427). Potential participants were approached at the entrance of the farmers’ market and asked if they would be interested in participating in a survey about farmers’ markets. If the participant agreed (verbal consent), (s)he was given a 5-page questionnaire, and if requested, the questions were read aloud.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine East Carolina University
(2)
Healthy Foods Coordinator Partnerships to Improve Community Health, Albemarle Regional Health Services
(3)
Department of Biostatistics, East Carolina University
(4)
Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

References

  1. Befort CA, Nazir N, Perri MG. Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the united states: Findings from NHANES (2005–2008). J Rural Health. 2012;28(4):392–97.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Johnson III JA, Johnson AM. Urban–rural differences in childhood and adolescent obesity in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Childhood Obesity. 2015;11(3):233–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Glanz K, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD. Healthy nutrition environments: Concepts and measures. Amer J Health Prom. 2005;19(5):330–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. McCormack LA, Laska MN, Larson NI, Story M. Review of the nutritional implications of farmers’ markets and community gardens: A call for evaluation and research efforts. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(3):399–408.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Morland KB, Evenson KR. Obesity prevalence and the local food environment. Health Place. 2009;15(2):491–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Morland K, Roux AVD, Wing S. Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(4):333–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jilcott SB, Keyserling T, Crawford T, McGuirt JT, Ammerman AS. Examining associations among obesity and per capita farmers’ markets, grocery stores/supermarkets, and supercenters in US counties. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111(4):567–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jilcott Pitts SB, Gustafson A, Wu Q, Leah Mayo M, Ward RK, McGuirt JT, Rafferty AP, Lancaster MF, Evenson KR, Keyserling TC, et al. Farmers’ market use is associated with fruit and vegetable consumption in diverse southern rural communities. Nutr J. 2014;13(1):2891–13–1.Google Scholar
  9. Jilcott Pitts SB, Wu Q, McGuirt JT, Crawford TW, Keyserling TC, Ammerman AS. Associations between access to farmers’ markets and supermarkets, shopping patterns, fruit and vegetable consumption and health indicators among women of reproductive age in eastern North Carolina, USA. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(11):1944–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Grin BM, Gayle TL, Saravia DC, Sanders LM. Use of farmers markets by mothers of WIC recipients, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10, E95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster GD, Karpyn A, Wojtanowski AC, Davis E, Weiss S, Brensinger C, Tierney A, Guo W, Brown J, Spross C, et al. Placement and promotion strategies to increase sales of healthier products in supermarkets in low-income, ethnically diverse neighborhoods: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(6):1359–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Surkan PJ, Tabrizi MJ, Lee RM, Palmer AM, Frick KD. Eat Right–Live well! supermarket intervention impact on sales of healthy foods in a low-income neighborhood. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(2):112–121.e1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Payne CR, Niculescu M, Just DR, Kelly MP. Shopper marketing nutrition interventions: Social norms on grocery carts increase produce spending without increasing shopper budgets. Prev Med Rep. 2015;2:287–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Payne CR, Niculescu M. Social meaning in supermarkets as a direct route to improve parents’ fruit and vegetable purchases. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 2012;41(1):124.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Jilcott Pitts SB, Wu Q, Demarest CL, Dixon CE, Dortche CJ, Bullock SL, McGuirt J, Ward R, Ammerman AS. Farmers’ market shopping and dietary behaviours among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants. Public Health Nutr. 2015;21:1–8.Google Scholar
  16. Caspi CE, Sorensen G, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place. 2012;18(5):1172–87.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981;19(2):127–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghosh-Dastidar B, Cohen D, Hunter G, Zenk SN, Huang C, Beckman R, Dubowitz T. Distance to store, food prices, and obesity in urban food deserts. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(5):587–95.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier A, Smith T, Cannuscio CC, Karpyn A, Glanz K. A discrete choice approach to modeling food store access. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2015;42(2):263–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. United States Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas. [Internet] [Accessed 17 Aug 2016] Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-environment-atlas/data-access-and-documentation-downloads.aspx.
  21. North Carolina QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau [Internet] [accessed 17 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.
  22. Food Within Reach, Appendix A [Internet] [Accessed 17 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://foodwithinreach.org/appendix-a-tools-for-assessing-community-needs/.
  23. Child Health Assessment and Monitoring Program (CHAMP). [Internet] [Accessed 17 Aug 17 2016]. Available from: http://www.schs.state.nc.us/data/champ/2012/fruit3.html.
  24. Jain R. Regression models to predict corrected weight, height and obesity prevalence from self-reported data: Data from BRFSS 1999–2007. Int J Obes. 2010;34(11):1655–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Byker Shanks C, Jilcott Pitts S, Gustafson A. Development and validation of a farmers’ market audit tool in rural and urban communities. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(6):859–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Bullock SL, Jilcott Pitts SB, Listenfelt B, McGuirt JT, Stanley K, Beth D, Kolbe MB, Rushing J, Wu Q, Ward RK. Availability of farmers’ markets and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/Electronic Benefit Transfer systems and associations with rurality, poverty, Race/Ethnicity, and obesity among North Carolina counties. J Hunger Envir Nutr. 2016;11:1–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psych. 1986;51(6):1173–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement