Associations and Interactions between Retail Food Environments, Food Gentrification, and Neighbourhood-level Intersectionality in Toronto, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Diet-related disease and food insecurity are growing problems in Canada and globally. Over the last decade, prevalent rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes have increased across the country and Toronto currently has the largest absolute number of food insecure households of any metropolitan city in Canada. Evidence suggests that the retail food environment (RFE) may be an important determinant of population dietary intake, however, much of RFE research has centered on geographic access and food deserts – low-income areas with limited access to nutritious food sources, with few scholars exploring economic dimensions of food access and food mirages – areas where healthy food retailers appear plentiful but remain economically inaccessible for low-income households. Overwhelmingly, RFE research also tends to exclude ethnic grocery stores and other non-traditional food retailers from analyses despite being sources of affordable and cultural food and fostering a sense of place, community, and identity for racialized and low-income residents. Yet, the exact mechanisms which undermine healthy food access remain difficult to capture, especially during this current era of rapid urbanization. Despite a small subset of urban scholars exploring how broader socio-political, -cultural, and -economic implications of gentrification may affect and constrain food access, this particular area of research and phenomenon has not been given enough priority to date in Canadian literature and policy. Moreover, the effects of poverty often interact with race and ethnicity, thus, applying an intersectional framework to quantitative ecological planning research enables more profound analyses of neighbourhood healthy food access. Taken together, these findings point to the urgency of conducting transformative research that isolates urban effects of food access in Toronto and addresses issues of equity and social justice, as well as highlighting the importance of standardizing methodologies so that assessments may be applicable and reproducible across other Canadian cities. \n \nTo investigate these associations from a planning perspective, I employed an exploratory cross-sectional descriptive and correlational methods to answer several research questions across two manuscripts. First, I created a Social Equity Index (SEI) at the dissemination area (DA) level using 5 variables drawn from 2016 Census data related to food purchasing power. Next, I mapped food deserts and food mirages using the SEI and a categorized set of food retailers, and then observed where these RFEs intersected with gentrifying neighbourhoods (i.e., gentrifying census tracts) and gentrifying policy areas (i.e., Business Improvement Areas). I also derived the predominant racial/ethnic composition of neighbourhoods (i.e., visible minority status) from Census data and organized DAs into social equity groups based on race/ethnicity and SEI score classes. Finally, I used these outcomes to measure differences in the spatial distributions of food retailers (i.e., proximity and density) and identify where food access may be constrained by gentrification processes through further spatial and statistical analyses. \n \nMy thesis findings reveal that both food deserts and food mirages exist in Toronto, and that Black neighbourhoods are significantly more likely to exist in food deserts. Business Improvement Areas may also be contributing to the presence of food mirages, but more longitudinal research is warranted. I also theorize that food deserts in gentrifying census tracts may be at risk of transforming into food mirages if urban revitalization efforts remain unchecked. After controlling for SEI, racial/ethnic differences for food access are significant for visible minority neighbourhoods to conventional, discount, and ethnic retailers. By illuminating intersectional differences in neighbourhood food access, my research responds to provincial and federal calls from professional planning bodies for Canadian planners to integrate food systems into land use plans and policies and proposes that municipalities engage with “food haven”-type interventions and policies to protect food retailer diversity and mitigate retailer and resident displacement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».