�����
���������
Volume 1 | Issue 4
© 2007, Rural Sociological Society
Starved for Access:
Life in Rural America’s Food Deserts
By Lois Wright Morton and Troy C. Blanchard
In Brief...
The Situation :
•
Rural areas risk becoming “food deserts
” as young families move away and mar
ket
pressures continue to squeeze small gro
cers and retailers. Food deserts are def
ined
as counties in which all residents must
drive more than 10 miles to the nearest
supermarket chain or supercenter.
• The Great Plains are especially lack
ing in easy-access grocers.
• The residents of food deserts tend
to be older, poorer, and less educated.
• Health can be compromised by lack
of food access. Many do not consume
adequate
amounts of fresh fruits or vegetables,
and they often lack adequate dairy and
protein in their diet.
• Wal-Mart and other superstores are
not always cheaper on all food items,
leaving
room for a competitive advantage for
smaller grocers.
Policy and Community Options:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on economic development to stem
population loss, which is a central reason
for
the exodus of local grocers.
Target federal food and nutrition progra
ms to areas designated as food deserts
in
rural America.
Advocate for advantageous wholesale
prices and distribution networks.
Shop locally. Creating campaigns to buy
locally can revitalize rural downtowns
and
increase the community tax base.
Connect local food production to loca
l markets. Fresh, high-quality foods are
needed
to hold rural food dollars locally. Farmer
’s markets and niche food markets hav
e
potential for increasing local food reso
urces.
Strengthen the safety net. Encourage exis
ting and create new voluntary organiz
ations
that support school lunch programs, mea
ls-on-wheels, meal sites, food pantries,
community gardens, and other safety
net programs.
Improve the transportation infrastructu
re to facilitate access to food retailers
by elder
and limited income residents.
Rural Realities is published by the Rural Sociological Society,
104 Gentry Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-7040
http://www.ruralsociology.org
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S toycie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal Sal Sa
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety iRoloog
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral Scie
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru So l
R
S
r
io
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logicaRu
r
r
e
o
c Rur
lo
S ral
log yofRuRural
So Sindividuals,
al Ruraexamines
So al So ocio ycietoyc
l So althe
oci Soci Sociol iety RThiscioissue
cRealities
l
i
cio ty Ru iologi tyhat’s
al dinner?
for
For
many
a
a
u
c
g
c
S
t
i
c
i
o
c
l
y
l
R
o
r
i
o
c
t
e
e
l
g
l
e
i
g
a
u
i
a
c
S
i
c
c
a l So al
io ocie iolo y R iologi Rural cal S lRSura
lo iety iolog Rur
i
r
o
c
o
g
u
i
S
Soc al So l Soc ostopping
o
r
t
i
o
c
R
c
c
a
S
l
l
S
by
a
well-stocked
grocery
distribution
of
food
deserts
across
the
United
u
c
l
c
y
e
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
Rur logica ral S cal S ral So Socie Socio ociety iologi iety R logic Rural gical ral S l Soc ral So ociet ociolo ociety iocalog
y
u
t
S
i t
c meat
S
o
S
Ru lon
l
al fresh
ca major
Ru home
Ru socioeconomic
iolo describes
ogi thetyway
Soc Socio ciStates
Soor
al S afish
urbuy
ety Socand
oci iety store
cal ural gical al SocociSeo
ty R logithe
ica to
c
i
o
l
y
l
R
i
S
i
t
e
g
l
e
i
g
a
c
l
i
o
g
e
r
c
o
o
c
a
i
lo ty R Toiolgain
a Soc l and
o
ur
So l Soc fresh
al ra
ol ciety cioliso aypretty
Ru lpainless
oci othese
ral al Soassociated
ogi y Rur ical S Ruattributes
cio cplaces.
Soc al Swith
e Soc ety R logic Reuty
oci vegetables
o
i
t
o
o
l
al Rura icasome
i
S
c
S
t
S
e
c
g
i
S
c
a
i
i
o
i
i
o
l
g Rur
ic ural l S ral
g ty
g uIt’s
al icaconvenient,
oc
So Socie ciolo ciety iaoloclearer
al
Soc l Soci l Socoloogc
sense
economic
and
logofythe
a
u health
R r fast,
R
g y Rur cal Sanduraalcost-effective
e ociolotask.
l
y
o
c
o
c
o
i
l
R
t
i
i
o
a
c
S
S
o
l
a
y
a
c
e
g
c
So al S ociet ocio ciet logi ty R logic ural ical ral S Soci l So ociet iolo ciety logi Rura ogic ral Sl S
nutritious
who
u
R thatg
l consequences
io
o
S for rural
io livetyin food
S way Sto purchase
ie foods,
oc people
ur
Ru a ca
So
ra
io unless,
iol
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Socie l Soc ciety ioloigeity
S
g findings
ra from a case
edeserts,
o in oc c o
o
a study
o
o live rina certain
lo we highlight
Ru
ra of rural
ca parts
y is, you
oc
So America.
Iowa. The brief concludes with insights on what
W
Although high-growth rural areas of the country
are challenged to manage population expansion
and the influx of regional and national firms, other
rural places find it difficult to keep or attract
decent jobs, conditions that are accelerating the
exodus of well-educated adults, young families,
and talented youth. Generally undetected amid
these economic shifts is the uneven distribution
of food stores across the rural landscape.
Some rural areas, in fact, are considered “food
deserts”—areas with limited, if any, grocery stores.1
These food deserts are the collective result of several
forces, including the growth in more populated
areas of superstores (with a large variety of food
products), an insufficient population base to support
a wide array of local supermarkets (resulting in the
loss or consolidation of these stores), and changes in
food distribution channels, shifts that tend to favor
larger food retailers at the expense of smaller food
stores in rural areas. Filling the void in some parts
of rural America are convenience stores and gas
stations, which charge a premium for a limited range
of food choices, often with low nutritional value.
F
local communities and policymakers might do to
expand access to quality foods for rural people
living in food desert areas of the country.
Food Deserts:
Where Are They Located?
What Are Their Characteristics?
Although there is no universally accepted definition
of “food deserts,” one way to approach the concept
is to begin with access, or the degree to which
individuals live within close proximity to a large
supermarket or supercenter. Many perceive such
food establishments as offering consumers a wider
array of food choices at relatively lower costs.
Map 1 identifies those counties in which at least
one-half of the population lives more than 10
miles from these large food stores, counties that
we define as “low-access” places. The largest
concentrations of low-access counties are in the
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions of the
country. Low access is also prevalent in select areas
of the Deep South and in the Appalachian region
of Kentucky and West Virginia. All told, 803
counties are low access areas in the United States.
ood deserts, on the other hand, are counties in which all residents
have low access to large food retailers – that is, live more than 10
miles from any supermarket or supercenter.
2
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S ocie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal S a
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety R o
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral S
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru
R
S
r
io
l
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logica
r
g
r
e
o
o
l
R olo
i
i
lo
u ogic Rur al S ral
u ical Rura l S l So l So ocio iety
So counties
cio ty RFood
on ithe
other
aa common
Soc l Soc l Socio cieIntygeneral,
l deserts,
y R desert
al are
u hand,
ci iefood
c
g counties
y
ca
S
t
c
ishare
oc
ca
o
t
l
y
R
o
i
i
e
g
e
a
i
a
c
S
c
c
a l So al
ci iolo iety iol og Rur
iolo ociet iolog y Rur iologi Rural cal S Rura
i
r
o
c
o
g
u
S
Soc al Sino which
o
S
r
t non-food
c
S In contrast
l
lo largeR
S
uset ofacharacteristics.
c lowtyaccess to
c
l alloresidents
ca
gi
oc
oc have
y
ieto
Rur logica ral S cal S ral So Socie Socio ociety iologi iety R logic Rural gical ral S l Soc ral So ociet ociolo ociety olog
y
i
u icacounties
l
t
S lS
i
S
u al more
lo y Rdesert
S miles
o y Ruretailers
Ru tend
Soc l Soc l Sociodesert
log e(that
al10
ura than
cio food
g
oci ifood
y R is,giclive
cal tourhave:
t
a gical al Soc So
iety areas,
t
c
i
o
t
l
y
R
o
o
i
S
i
c
t
e
e
l
i
g
a
a
c
S
l
i
o
g
e
r
c
o
o
y olo
i
a Soc from
ur
So l supermarket
oc
gic
al percentages
ura l•S Larger
Ru
iol or
So
y R olo
iolo without
ietsupercenter).
cal
oci ofocindividuals
al Rural any
a S l Soc l Soc l Soci ciety ociolo iety R ogica y Rur gical ral S ical S l Soc ociet l Soci iety R iologi iety
c
c
i
i
t
l
c
g ty
g
S
c
a
a GED;
c
a
o
S
o
a
Ru oldegree
og Ruror
school
al Rura al So l Soc al So oc
e ociolo ty Rur logic y Rur cal S ural al So Socio Socie ociaol high
y
c
i
t
i
i
c
y
c
e
g
c
So al S ocie
et logi ty R logic ural ical ral S Soci l So ociet ciolo ciety logi Rura logic ral S
cio ociclear,
Somakes
2
and
rates;
u • l Higher
R are g
io foodiedesert
o poverty
S
y
io
S Map
o
ca
o family
ur lAs
Ru
S
ra individual
io counties
l
R
l
Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Societ l Soci ciety iologi
y gica Rura gica
l
o North
S Dakota
a
g incomes;
ra the border
ra
o
o • eLowerlomedian
a
o
o
commonplace
in
o
Ru family
rstates
ca
y
oc
Sof
oc
and Montana, and continue along a continuous
• Greater percentages of residents living in
band to the western half of Texas. Of all U.S.
counties, 418 are food deserts, with nearly 98%
located in nonmetropolitan areas, most in areas
with towns or cities of fewer than 10,000 people.
•
•
sparsely populated areas outside cities;
Larger shares of people who are older
(owing to the exodus of younger adults,
especially those aged 20–29); and
Higher numbers of small grocers and
convenience stores per capita.
Map 1: Percent Lacking Convenient Access to a Supermarket or Supercenter in U.S. Counties, 2000
3
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S toycie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal Sal Sa
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety iRoloog
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral Scie
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru So l
R
S
r
io
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logicaRu
r gic
e
o
lo
ur ical Rura l So l So l So ocio yietyc
ur surface
log yorRfewer
So these
l S snapshot
al al of
oci Sociol iety Rhad
ocicounties
R
o
r
cio ty Ru ioBeyond
i
o
a
this
four
small grocery
a stores anda no large c
S
S
l
u
c
c
y
t
i
c
ie
c ociet olog ty R logi ural ical ral
oc al So ocie ciolog ciety ologic Rura logic ural S al So l Suora
S
g
e
u
R
l
i
o
S
o
i
Soc al So isl Sthe
i
o
r
ty oresidents
o y Rto liveica
cio ety Rwere
y citiolmeans
oc salient
gic ety icRal
oc ocieThus,
l Ssupercenter.
Ru gfood
oci cof
l S icor
o
cal retailer
S
t
Soc l Sissue
etwhat
l
g
ur gica al Smore
i
a
S
a
i
l
e
i
g
i
y
r
o
l
o
R
o
i
i
l
t
l
c
o
r food
a l So the Scriteria
Ru embedded
l S urmeeting
oc ocio ocie ciolo clearly
Sfood
oc l Soc ciolioet
icadesert.
ua
l S l Sresidents
og Rurain iccounties
ty ciolo in
ura Are
l
a
R
l
g
a
desert
y
R
o
R
t
r
i
l
o
o
a
a
c
S
S
o
l
o
ie Soc ciety olog ety
ty cio
ic
ic
S
ty
l
Ru gica ral
ra gica ral S ol So
i In aionutshell,
o toSopurchase
cie iologhealthy,
i areas.
icaAreural l Soc ofra“food
log ty Rutheioinformation
l
al S Socie l able
ty inutritious
u foods?
c
o
lo
lo
c
u
S
a ra
g
e
R
o
S
o
i
o
desert”
o
c
R
c
c
a
S
e Soc ety R logic Reuty
o
i
al Rura ical l So l So l Soc ciety ociol iety ogic y Ru gical ral S ical
c
S
c
i
o
l lS
i
io
t olo gathered
l
g ty
g uadequately
ci g
a
a ura
o stores
Ru olreaffirmed
ral past
l S l available
og Rura findings
Socresearch
Soc Socio Socie ocwe
a
ufrom
i
Soc al So olooc
R r logic y Rstocked
l Sfood
e ociolothere
l
a
y
c
i
R
t
i
r
i
l
a
a
c
y
a
u
y
c
e
c
g
c
So al S ociet ocio ciet logi ty R logic ural ical ral S Soci l So ociet iolo ciety logi Rura ogic ral Sl S
S IsSito moreioexpensive
to
desert
o
u
R localg
l aboutrathe challenges
o in ifood
S
S locally?
ol
ie
oc of living
ur
Ru a ca
io shop in
icounties.
ty
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Socie l Soc ciety ioloigeity
S or oc
ra
eOn thelo otherRuhand, gsome results
o
o
o
made ita very clear
calargerasupermarkets
y foodo storesrathan in
So
oc c o
supercenters? To explore these important questions,
that viable strategies to improve local access to
we conducted in-depth studies in rural Iowa.
healthy foods do in fact exist in these places.
Living in a Food Desert:
The Case of Rural Iowa
The surveys uncovered three distinct
challenges for residents (see Figure 1):
We randomly surveyed more than 1,500 individuals
in four nonmetro counties in Iowa. All four counties
(1) A large share (more than 45%) did not
consume adequate amounts of fresh fruits;
Map 2: Food Desert Counties in the U.S., 2000
4
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S ocie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal S a
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety R o
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral S
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru
R
S
r
io
l
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logica
r
g
r
e
o
o
a
l
o
R
l
r
c
o
i
i
lo
y
cio ty Ru iologi ty Ru ical S Rural ical S l Soc l Soc Socio ciety ociolo ty Ru ogica y Rur ical S ral So ical S Socio ociet
l
t
e
e
l
g
S
l
e
i
g
a
u
i
a
c
S
i
o
g
g
e
a
a
r
c
Soc al So l Soc ociolo ociety ciolo ty Ru ologic Rura ical S ural al So Socio l Soci ociolo iety R ciolo y Rur gical y Rur
R
o
o
y
l
r
t
a
i
t
S
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
u
i
S
c
S
i
o
l
e
ie
g
ca
ie
y
ra
R
gi ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo
ty cioloMapping
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
a
S
S
o
l
o
ety ocio ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural ical ral S Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logic Rura ogica ral S l So
al S SociTo
u
S
opopulations
R thatg have ulimitedl accessa to large
io
o
S supermarkets
y
identify
orio supercenters,
ol we used
iein U.S.olcounties
ca
oc
al Rural ical S l Soc l Soc l Soci ciety ociolo iety R ogica y Rur gical ral S ical S l Soc ociet Soci iety R ologi iety
c
i
l
t olo to identify
l
g ty ARCVIEW
g
a ica uInformation
o
a
l S reside
Ru ologpopulations
oc omapping
oci l Soc c
ura icathat
l S l S(GIS)
Soc laSgiven
cio Sociesoftware
ura awithin
i
R
g y R r cal S uraSystem
e ociolo ty RurGeographic
l
y
c
i
R
t
i
o
c
S
o
l
y
a
c
e
g
c
R
o iety logi Rura ogica ral So
So al S ocie
iet ciolat
al ral SzipScodes
cio supermarkets
So contained
iet ologi and
oci althat
gic ural We
c
c
y
o
c
i
o
t
o
l
distance
from
supercenters.
selected
least
r
S
o
g
e
u
R
l
i
oc one
S
io supermarket
S
i
ca
o
u
S
r
io
iol withRu
ty
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Socie l Soc ciety iologi
S
o
g
ra
ra from ZBPato theo1999oc
e We lmatched
50
data
o 1999.
o
o employees
o
Ru zip code
ra
ca or supercenter/wholesale
y or more
oc club in
So
U.S. Bureau of the Census Zip Code File to obtain longitude and latitude coordinates. We selected all census block
Methodology
groups whose boundaries intersect a 10-mile radius of the zip codes that contained supermarkets or supercenters.
Block groups falling outside the 10-mile radius were classified as low food access areas. After obtaining the
population housed in low food access areas for each county, we divided by the county’s total population to obtain
the percentage of the population residing in a low food access area. A detailed explanation of this method is
provided by Blanchard and Lyson.4
(2) Nearly two-thirds did not consume
adequate amounts of vegetables;
(3) More than one-third (34%) lacked
adequate dairy in their diet;
(4) More than one-fourth lacked the
recommended levels of protein in their diet.
As a whole, these results suggest that a sizable
number of people in these four food desert
counties are lacking healthy, nutritious diets.
Left unanswered, however, is whether their
poor diets are the result of limited access to
healthy food or an issue of cost. Past research
suggests that small grocery stores have a
limited variety of quality foods and tend to
������ �� ������� ���������� �� ��������� ������ ���� ����
Figure 1: Average Proportion of������
Residents
Across��Four
Food
Deserts in Iowa who...
��������
����
����
5
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S toycie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal Sal Sa
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety iRoloog
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral Scie
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru So l
R
S
r
io
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logicaRu
r
g
r
o
a
l
o
R
l
r
c
y y
o
ie
io
lo
cio ty Ru iologi ty Ru ical S Rural ical S l Soc l Soc Socio ciety ociolo ty Ru ogica y Rur ical S ral So ical S Socio ocieStoc
l
t
e
e
l
g
S
l
e
i
g
a
u
i
a
c
S
l a
i
o
g
g
e
a
r
c
Soc al So l Soc ociolo ociety ciolo ty Ru ologic Rura ical S ural al So Socio l Soci ociolo iety R ciolo y Rur gical y Rulr
R
o
o
y
l
r
t
a
i
t
S
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
hese
findings
provide
a
hopeful
sign
that
small
grocery
stores
may
be
a
g
c
u
i
S
S
i
o
l
l
ie
ca
ie ica g
y
ra
o
l
o
R
l
ci
oc
ie
g
ty ciolog Rura ogica Rura al So ral S l Soc ociol ociet ciolo ty Ru iologi Rura ical S Rural al Soc l Soci l Soc ociolioet
o
g
o
S oc o
ty people
ie than
ty
ic
ca forl Shealthy
ic
Sfoods
ca
ol more
ty viable
y perceive.
lS
Ruoutlet
oc most
ra
al S Socie l Soci Socie ciolog iety iologi Rura ogica Rural l Soc ral S Socie ociolo ociet iolog ty Ru iologi Rural ical uSra
o
g R y
oc
oc
ie
al
ty
ica
lS
Ru
oc
oc
y
lS
ra
al
ty
al
iol
gic ty Ru logic ural S ical S ral S Socie l Soc o2ciet ciolog ciety ologic Rura ogica ural S l Soc ral S Socie ociolo Socielot g
o oc
R higher
R dairy
l
a
o
o
Ru foralthese rproducts.
c•i Three
ie
l S Was
l
Ru
ty high-volume
ica products—cottage
cio charge
iol
lS
og prices
Soc al So ociety ociol ciety logic ty Ru logica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral Sl S
S for
o
g
cheese,
2%
u
R
l
io counties
S milk,
o studied?
S this true
ie
oc and owhole imilk—were
ur
Ru a ca
Sothe Iowa
ra
iwe
iol
ty
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Socie l Soc ciety ioloigeity
S
ra
ra
e higher
o
o
a
o
o
lo priced
Ru atg the supercenters.
ra
ca
y
oc
So
oc c o
T
We found the following with regard to
the twin issues of access and cost:
ACCESS:
• At least three of four persons in the
identified food deserts shopped at grocery
stores in their respective counties;
•
Most had low access to a major supercenter
such as Wal-Mart (in fact, most lived at least
20 miles from this type of major food retailer);
•
A majority of residents in three of the four
counties sampled believed there were
enough accessible grocery stores.
Although these results run counter to expectation,
they do indicate that major food retailers may be
more expensive than small grocery stores on key
foods that are important to a balanced, nutritionally
sound diet (such as fresh vegetables and low-fat
dairy). It is important to point out, however, that
our study profiled food costs in four rural Iowa food
desert counties and as such, may not accurately
reflect conditions in other areas. Nonetheless,
these findings provide a hopeful sign that small
grocery stores may be a more viable outlet for less
costly healthy foods than most people perceive.
Implications of Food Deserts
in Shaping Policy Activities
COSTS:
When comparing the average cost on 149 items
sold at the small grocery stores located in the
Population density affects the economy of scale and
the number and type of grocery stores available
to rural residents. Beyond economic development
four food desert counties with the average
prices found at the three superstores located
outside these counties, we discovered that:
policies that are designed to attract new residents
and retain younger residents in the area, rural food
desert counties can address the challenges they face
on a number of fronts. However, federal and state
agencies must be active partners with these local
counties in helping tackle these important issues.
•
The supercenters had lower prices for frozen
juices, breads, cereals, meats and meat
alternatives, and canned vegetables;
•
•
6
The large retailers were higher priced on 8 of 13
fresh vegetables (cabbage, carrots, celery, leaf
lettuce, onions, potatoes, spinach, and squash)
Encourage independence and innovation
among grocers: Outlets such as Wal-Mart
and Sam’s Club, as well as dollar stores
and other nontraditional food retailers,
increased their share of consumers’ grocery
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S ocie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal S a
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety R o
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral S
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru
R
S
r
io
l
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logica
r
g
r
e
o
o
a
l
o
R
l
r
c
o
i
i
lo
y
cio ty Ru iologi ty Ru ical S Rural ical S l Soc l Soc Socio ciety ociolo ty Ru ogica y Rur ical S ral So ical S Socio ociet
l
t
e
e
l
g
S
l
e
i
g
a
u
i
a
c
S
i
o
g
g
e
a
a
r
c
Soc al So l Soc ociolo ociety ciolo ty Ru ologic Rura ical S ural al So Socio l Soci ociolo iety R ciolo y Rur gical y Rur
R
o
o
y
l
r
t
a
i
t
S
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
u
i
S
c
S
i
o
l
e
ie
g
ca
ie
y
ra
R
gi ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo
ty cioloIowa
R
l
Case
Studies
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
a
S
S
o
l
o
ety ocio ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural ical ral S Socie l Soc 5 ociety iolog ciety logic Rura ogica ral S l So
al S SociRural
u
S counties
o in the
g
astores. S This study
u3.8 grocery
R on average
l
io United
o
ol have
iao ruralyIowa food
ol desert
ie States
ca
oc defines
al Rural ical S l Soc l Soc l Soci ciety ociolo iety R ogica y Rur gical ral S ical S l Soc ociet Soci iety R ologi iety
c
i
l
l
c
g ty as alogcounty
S selected
a icfour
a al We
a urafewerSogrocery
ci Soc
Rudefinition
iet ciolofit this
l S stores.
cio Soccounties
log y Rinur2000.
Soc SThirteen
ura al Sofour
Sorural
l
c
g y Ror
e ocio ty Rur with
a
y
c
o
o
i
l
R
t
i
r
i
l
o
a
c
o
l
a
u
c
e
c
g
c
i
S
o ciet iolo iety ogi Rura gical ral So
io ciet logi ty R ogic ral ical
c
So al S ocie
l
c
S
o
a
o
l
l
Iowa
on
with
S
g or fewer
ur grocery
Ru 1) four
l S rastores;
io ofiethreeiocriteria:
oc places
So2) counties
iol with
S counties
ca
oc
ur
So the basis
iolothanRu
ty fewer
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc6 Socie l Soc ciety iologi
a
g
rcodes
o theoc
10,000
to
; and a3) above
o the e1993 ERS
o
opeopleraand not
lo urban
o
Ru influence
ra
ca adjacent
y
oc using
So metroS counties,
state poverty level (which was 9.9% in 1997). We conducted a stratified random sample of the general population
Methodology
in each county in 2002 and 2003 using the Dillman “Total Design Method” mail survey approach. Response rates
ranged from 60% to 64% for a total of 1,513 completed surveys. The survey asked respondents questions about
access to food in their community, community efforts to solve food infrastructure problems, food insecurity, food and
diet patterns, and health status.
In addition, we surveyed prices in the 11 grocery stores in these four counties in the summer of 2002 (four stores)
and Fall 2003 (seven stores) using the USDA Thrift Plan food list of items (see www.extension.iastate.edu/hunger/
foodprice.htm for a complete list of the 149 food items in the survey). The USDA thrifty food plan (TFP) is the
national standard for a nutritious diet at low cost. It represents a set of market basket food items people could
consume at home and maintain a diet that meets dietary standards. The average U.S. cost of the TFP is used to
set the food stamp benefit level. U.S. weekly costs of food plans (thrifty, low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal) are
reported monthly by USDA on the basis of a national food price survey adjusted for inflation of urban areas (see
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodPlansCostofFood.htm). We surveyed the three Wal-Mart superstores that
were closest to these counties but not located within them in fall 2003. We derived average rural grocery store
prices from individual item average of all 11 stores. Average Wal-Mart superstore prices were derived from the
average of three stores.
•
expenditures from 17.7% in 1998 to 32.9% in
challenges that remaining rural grocers have
2004.3 The Independent Grocers Association
and other organizations can play a larger
role in both innovating and advocating for
reasonable wholesale prices and distribution
networks and other essentials for viable
local grocers located in low-income areas.
in staying financially profitable and providing
the expected variety and prices of foods.
Shop locally: Encouraging families to shop
locally should be on the agenda. Rural residents
frequently commute to work and many do
their grocery shopping near work rather than
in their hometowns. This exacerbates the
•
Enhance the safety net: Civic community
efforts can serve as an important safety net
for disadvantaged residents. Bolstering civic
activities, such as meals on wheels, community
kitchens, and food pantries, can play an
important role in providing local residents with
a quality diet. These efforts are especially
important for elderly residents and others with
financial or physical constraints. In the policy
7
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S toycie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal Sal Sa
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety iRoloog
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral Scie
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru So l
R
S
r
io
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logicaRu
r
g
r
o
a
l
o
R
l
r
c
y y
o
ie
io
lo
cio ty Ru iologi ty Ru ical S Rural ical S l Soc l Soc Socio ciety ociolo ty Ru ogica y Rur ical S ral So ical S Socio ocieStoc
l
t
e
e
l
g
S
l
e
i
g
a
u
i
a
c
S
l a
i
o
g
g
e
a
r
c
Soc al So l Soc ociolo ociety ciolo ty Ru ologic Rura ical S ural al So Socio l Soci ociolo iety R ciolo y Rur gical y Rulr
R
o
o
y
l
r
t
a
i
t
S
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
n
all,
it
will
take
individual
and
community
actions,
as
well
as
public
g
c
u
i
S
S
i
o
l
l
ie
ca
ie ica g
y
ra
o
l
o
R
l
ci
oc
ie
g
ty ciolog Rura ogica Rura al So ral S l Soc ociol ociet ciolo ty Ru iologi Rura ical S Rural al Soc l Soci l Soc ociolioet
S
gthe capacity
o
S oc o
ty
improvements,
of
ieandocincrease
ty
ic
ca
ic
So
ca
ol policy
ty
l S to lmaintain
y
Ru
ra rural
al S Socie l Soci Socie ciolog iety iologi Rura ogica Rural l Soc ral S Socie ociolo ociet iolog ty Ru iologi Rural ical uSra
c
o
g R y
oc
oc stores
ie
al quality,
ty provide
ica
l S affordable
Ru high
oc to
ofoods
y nutritious,
lS
ra
al
ty
al grocery
iol
gic ty Ru logic ural S ical S ral S Socie l Soc ociet ciolog ciety ologic Rura ogica ural S l Soc ral S Socie ociolo Socielot g
o oc
R log ybeing
R
Ru al profitable
ci
ie
l S enough
l
Ru
ty business.
ica
ra
cio
iol
lS
in
al
So to stay
So
o
Soc al So ociety ociwhile
et logic ty Ru logica ural ical ral So Socie l Soc ociety ciolog ciety logic Rura logica ral Sl S
i
c
S
g
u
R
l
io
o
S
io
S
ie
o
ur
Ru a ca
So
ra
io
io
ty
y R gical Rural gical l Soc l Soc l Soc ciety ociolo iety R logica ty Ru gical ral S ical S l Soc Socie l Soc ciety ioloigeity
S
g
ra
ra
e
o
o
a
o
o
lo
Ru
ra
ca
y
oc
So
oc c o
I
•
•
8
arena, funds should be set aside within the
USDA Community Food Projects Competitive
Grants Program (CFPCGP) for special
targeting to rural food desert areas, areas
having high numbers of low-income people
program provides increased dollars for senior’s
farmers’ market vouchers, and targets expanded
resources to increase fruit and vegetable
consumption by the working poor and the elderly,
local grocery stores could be an important
experiencing episodes of food insecurity.
beneficiary of this type of program shift.
Special efforts should be made to target these
food and nutrition-related Farm Bill programs
to food desert counties in rural America.
Transportation: An aging-in-place elder
population needs transportation to access
food resources. Rural communities should
assess their transportation infrastructure and
develop a mix of private and public sources
to provide transportation services to residents
with low access to food retailers. Special
efforts should be made by the Federal
Transportation Administration (U.S Department
of Transportation) to ensure that state-based
Rural Transit Assistance Programs (RTAP) are
devoting attention and resources to the unique
Garasky, S., L.W. Morton, K. A. Greder. 2006.
“The Effect of the Local Food Environment and
transportation challenges of residents who
may be living in rural food desert counties.
Social Support on Rural Food Insecurity.” Journal
of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1(1): 83-103.
The 2007 Farm Bill Legislation: The 2007
Farm Bill offers important opportunities -- and
potentially new revenues -- for local grocery
stores, farmer’s markets, and roadside produce
stands through expanded funding for additional
fruit and vegetable purchases associated with
our nation’s food assistance programs. Title IV,
formerly the Food Stamp Program, is proposed
to be the Food and Nutrition Program. If this
Johnson, K. M. 2003. “Unpredictable Directions
of Rural Population Growth and Migration.” In
D.L. Brown and L.E. Swanson, editors, Challenges
for Rural America in the Twenty-first Century.
University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
In all, it will take individual and community actions,
as well as public policy improvements, to maintain
and increase the capacity of rural grocery stores
to provide nutritious, high quality, affordable foods
while being profitable enough to stay in business.
Additional Resources:
l
i
t oci
i
ica ral
lS
l S l So
Rur ical
ica
iolo ety
cie
l So Soc ral S ocie
ty
gic
iety log
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
Ru cal S a
y cio
e So
o
c
g
o
o
y
i
a
t
i
y
l
R
o
y
l
t
a
S
t
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
e
a
ur
i
e
i
o
l
e
i
gi
c
y
i
r
g ural ical ural
Soc ral So l Soci ociolo ociet ciolog ty Ru ologi Rura ical S Rural l Soc Socio l Soc ciolo iety R o
R
l
g
R
i
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral S
l
l
c
u
S
o
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
Ru
R
S
r
io
l
io
ty
ica
l
o
c
R
ci
a
ci
So
lS
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logica
r
g
r
e
o
o
o
R
l
r
o
lo Ru
S
ra
o
ic
u
l
o
S
ty
ol
io
ci
ci
cio ty Endnotes
log ety Ru gical Rura ical S al So l So l Soci ciety ociol iety R logica ty Ru gical ural S ical S l Soc Socie
o
i
e
i
a
c
S
i
o
g
a
r
oc ocio Socie ciolo ty R iolog Rura ical
Soc al So l Soc ociolo ociety ciolo ty Ru ologic Rura ical S u4.ral Troy
Rur
l SBlanchard
S
and
Thomas
Lyson,
“Access
to
c
e
g
o
y
i
a
y
l
R
o
o
y
l
r
t
a
i
t
1.
Lois
Wright
Morton,
E.
A.
Bitto,
M.
J.
Oakland,
S
o
c
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
u
i
S
i
l
y log Rura gica ral l So al S ocie cio ocie log
l
o
R
l
ci
oc
ie
u ica
ty ciolog Rura ogica Rura al So ral S l Soc ociol ociet cioLow
S l So l S ocio
lo
Rur ical Counties:
ty oGroceries
S
S
o
l
a of Iowa
u
cio iety Rin lNonmetropolitan
g
o iand
y
ieCost
ty M.cioSand,ie“Solving
ic the Problems
c
S
t
l
y
l
R
ra gica ral S l So
o
i
S
c
t
e
g
l
g
a
a
S
l
o
g
e
r
c
o
o
i
RuDeserts.”
i Creation
S raRetailers
lo Food
l
a Soc l So Soc ciol
ty iolo
u ogic Rura al Large
c
o
lo
c
u
a
o
e
R
o
S
y
i
i
o
and
the
of
t
c
c
S
S al
u ical
c andety ciol
e Socio ety R logic ety
o
c
Insecurity
o
o
i
i
R
o
y
l
ra Deserts:
al RuFood
al l SFood
c
S
t
S
c
g
c
S
a
i
i
i
o
i
i
o
g Rur
ic ural l S ral
ty oloPresented
g ty
g
a ical ural
oc l So Socie ciolo ciePaper
Soc l Soci l Soc oc
at
Measuring
logthe
a Rural
u Diversity
i
l S Rural
R
g yStructure.”
e oPerceptions
iolo ty Rur ofloCivic
l
a
y
o
c
o
R
c
o
i
l
R
t
i
r
c
i
a
a
c
S
S
o
y
a
u
a
c
e
c
g
c
i
S
o ciet iolo iety ogi Rura gic ral S
So al S ocie
cio ociet ologi ty R logic ural ical ralConference,
Soc ral SWashington,
c
at
g
e
u
R
l
i
So
y
o
iol Available
S al So70l (1):
olo Ru
i
ca
oc DC;o(2002).
ur lSociology
S
i
o
c
R
94-112;
(2005).
a
c
l
R
u
c
So l So l So ciety ocio iety logic ty R gical ral S ical S l Soc Societ l Soci ciety iologi
y gica Rur gica
l
S
g
ra
ra
e
o
o http://srdc.msstate.edu/measuring/blanchard.pdf.
a
o
o
lo
o
Ru
ra
ca
y
oc
So
oc
2. P. M. Morris, L. Neuhauser, and C. Campbell,
“Food Security in Rural America: A Study of
the Availability and Costs of Food.” Journal
of Nutrition Education 24: 52S-8S; (1992). P.R.
Kaufman, “Rural Poor Have Less Access to
Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores.” Rural
Development Perspectives 13: 19-26; (1998).
3. USDA, Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures:
Outlook for Food Prices in 2006. Washington,
DC: USDA, Economic Research Service; (2006).
Available at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
CPIFoodAndExpenditures/outlook.htm.
5. P. M. Morris, L. Neuhauser, and C. Campbell,
“Food Security in Rural America: A Study of
the Availability and Costs of Food.” Journal
of Nutrition Education 24:52S-8S; (1992).
6. Linda Ghelfi and Timothy S. Parker, “A
County-Level Measure of Urban Influence.” ERS
Staff Paper No. 9702. Washington, DC: Rural
Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, February (1997).
Seeking Authors
The Rural Realities Board of Editors has identified the following as high priority issues for
possible inclusion in future issues:
•
•
•
Socioeconomic Impacts of Military Base Closings, Expansions and/or Re-alignments Located in Rural Places
The Consolidation Game (i.e., Schools, Hospitals): The Pluses and Minuses for Rural Areas
Ten Years After TANF (Welfare Reform): How Have Low-Wealth Rural Americans Fared?
Interested in addressing ane of the high priority topics, or suggesting other possible topics? Please prepare a
one-page abstract of your proposed article and submit it to the series editor, or contact him to discuss your ideas.
Bo Beaulieu
Editor, Rural Realities
662-325-3207
ljb@srdc.msstate.edu
9
i
t oci
i
ic
lS
l S l So
Ru
ral
ica
ica
iol
cie
lS
ty
gic
Soc ral S ocie
ety
iety log
u
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rura logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolog ty Ru ciolog Rura ical
S
y cio
o
c
g ety R ical ur
o ocie So iety
o
a
t
i
l
R
o
y
l
a
S
o
c
S
t
S
e
l
g
c
i
S
a
a
i
i
l
l
e
og Rura gical Rural l Soc al So Soci ociolo ociety iolog y Rur logic Rura cal S ural l Soc Socio Soci ciolog ety R
c
l
l
R
i
o
t
i
r
io
l
o
o
a
ety ociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical S ral So Socie l Soc ociety iolog ciety logica Rura ogica ral S l Soc ral S
l
l
c
u
u
S
o
a
o
o
g
e
a
u
R
l
i
o
S
y
o
i
o
R
R
S
r
i
l
io
t
ic
l
o
c
R
c
a
ci
S
l
ura gical al So al So al Soc ociety Sociol ciety logic ty Ru ogica ural S ical al So Socie l Soc ciety ciolog ciety logica
r
g
r
e
o
o
a
o
l
R olo
o
u ogic Rur al S ral
u
o
ci
ci
al Rur al S l So al So ocio ci ety
ol
l
y R logicRealities
al S al So al So l Soci ciety About
u
ci ietRural
cAuthors
oci iety R ciAbout
y the
S
a
i
c
ic
o
c
o
t
y
R
o
i
g
e
S
i
o
g
r
c
c
a lS
c
io ociet iolog y Rur iologi Rural cal S Rura
lo iety iolo
i
l
u
r
o
c
o
o
g
a
u
R
i
S
Soc al So Lois
o
S
r
t
R
l
Rural i
S isalaSquarterly
u Rural
l Wright
y Ph.D.
oc Morton
ca
oloin eDevelopment
cie l Soc ofcithe
Soc Spublication
Soc l received
ica uRealities
Soc ociether
ety ci ol og ci ety l og
oIts
l S at
l(RSS).
c
y R logSociological
ral giSociety
l Cornell
ogiShe
Rur logicaSociology
oci oNew
i ty York.
t
l
a
a
c
a
S
a
r
r
e
o
o
a
University,
Ithaca,
purpose
is
to:
(1)
Provide
o
R
l
r
c
y
i
i
S
r
t
cio ty Ru iologi ty Ru ical Rural ical S l Soc l Soc Socio ciety ociolo ty Ru ogica y Ru ical S ral So ical S l Socio o
o
S
t
e
is
currently
an
Associate
Professor
of
Sociology
in
the
valuable
insights
on
the
current
and
emerging
issues
al Socie l Soc Socie ciolog iety iolog Rura ogica Rural l So ral S Soci ociol ocie iolog ty Ru iolog Rura ical S
a
S Socin rural
l
u ical people
c and
e America
o
oc cState
l S iand
ra College
al
Soc atl SIowa
ety University.
cal aofl SAgriculture
al places
cio cietyDr. logic ty Rimpacting
a
i
i
l l Soci al So ociety ciolog ociety
c
r
l
o
g
gic ty Ru lMorton’s
g
a
u
a
o
S
o
a
r
g
r
e
o
o
l
R
r
c
o
i
i
areas
of
research
include
civic
structure,
rural
beyond;
and
(2)
Offer
policy
and
program
options that
S
r
i
u
u
l
o
o
c
ie
cio ty R iolog ty Ru ical Rura ical S l Soc l So Soci ciety ociol ty R ogica y Ru ical S ral So ical S l Soc
t
e
e
Soc al So occommunities,
l
g
rural
quality
of
life,
community
based
might
prove
effective
in
addressing
these
important
rural
l
e
i
g
a
i
Soc l Soci ciolo ciety ciolog Rur logica Rura al So ural S l Soc Socio Socie ciolo ty Ru ciolog Rura ica
ur l S watershed
l
R
y
e
c
R gicaand opportunities.
o cenvironments
So l So rural
y gica Rura gica management,
ci l So inciety iolog
So Soshowcased
Sfood
al ical ralArticles
iet Socio cand
ety ologi echallenges
ty series
ral andcapopulation
o
a
o
lo draw
o
Rurupon ghigh
ral health.
y foodoinsecurity,
oi
So
oc
the
quality social
sciences-based
Troy C. Blanchard is Assistant Professor of Sociology and
Research Fellow at the Social Science Research Center at
Mississippi State University. His research focuses on the
role of social and economic structural context on social
demographic outcomes. His current research examines
the role of community context on job mobility.
Potential Rural Realities Authors
We encourage potential authors to submit a brief
abstract (approximately 250 words) via email to Bo
Beaulieu, the Series Editor, at ljb@srdc.msstate.edu.
studies conducted by researchers and practitioners
located within universities/colleges, government,
philanthropic, and nonprofit organizations.
The Rural Sociological Society is a professional
social science association that promotes the generation,
application and dissemination of sociological knowledge.
The Society seeks to enhance the quality of rural life,
communities and the environment through research,
teaching, and outreach/extension education.
The Rural Realities Editorial Board
Series Editor:
• Lionel J. “Bo” Beaulieu
Southern Rural Development Center
Mississippi State University
E-mail: ljb@srdc.msstate.edu
Editorial Board:
• Walt Armbruster
Farm Foundation
• Frank Boteler
Economic and Community Systems,
CSREES/USDA
• Alisha Coleman
Penn State University
• Tadlock Cowan
Congressional Research Service
• Al Cross
Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues,
University of Kentucky
• Brian Dabson
Rural Policy Research Institute,
University of Missouri
• Robert Gibbs
Economic Research Service, USDA
• Steve Murdock
University of Texas – San Antonio
• William O’Hare
Visiting Senior Fellow – The Carsey Institute
• Jim Richardson
National Rural Funders Collaborative
• Louis Swanson
Colorado State University
• Rachel Tompkins
Rural School and Community Trust
• Michelle Worosz
Michigan State University
Technical Assistance Provided By:
• Barbara Ray, Communications Specialist
Hired Pen, Inc., Chicago, Ill.
• Jeremy S. Robbins, Freelance Designer
Jackson, Miss.
http://www.ruralsociology.org/pubs/ruralrealities
10