Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-bv7lh Total loading time: 0.394 Render date: 2021-06-15T00:39:31.605Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Disparities in fruit and vegetable supply: a potential health concern in the greater Québec City area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Nathalie Pouliot
Department of Food Sciences and Nutrition, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada, G1V 0A6
Anne-Marie Hamelin
Department of Food Sciences and Nutrition, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada, G1V 0A6
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]



The present study explores the spatial distribution and in-store availability of fresh fruits and vegetables from a socio-environmental perspective in terms of the type of food store, level of deprivation and the setting (urban/rural) where the food outlets are located.


Seven types of fresh fruit and vegetable stores (FVS) were identified then visited in six districts (urban setting) and seven communities (rural setting). The quantity and diversity of fresh fruits and vegetables (F&V) were also assessed.


Québec City, Canada.


The FVS spatial distribution showed differences between the two settings, with accessibility to supermarkets being more limited in rural settings. The quantity and diversity of fresh F&V in-store availability were associated with the type of FVS, but not with setting or its level of deprivation. Greengrocers and supermarkets offered a greater quantity and diversity of fresh F&V than the other FVS.


The results suggest that inequalities in physical access to fresh F&V across the region could have an impact on public health planning considering that supermarkets, which are one of the excellent sources of F&V, are less prevalent in rural settings.

Research Paper
Copyright © The Authors 2009

The relationship between diet and health is now fully recognized(1); there is strong evidence for health benefits associated with the consumption of fruits and vegetables (F&V). The role of a supportive environment, i.e. one that promotes making the healthiest choice into the easiest choice at the physical, economic, sociocultural or political level, was highlighted at the Ottawa Conference for Health Promotion in 1986(Reference Milio2, 3). The evidence base on the role of the food environment in the food–health relationship is also growing(Reference Ball, Timperio and Crawford4, Reference Raine5). The food environment can be referred to as a ‘set of conditions in which one person (or a group of persons) has access to, chooses, prepares and eats foods’(Reference Ouellet, Hamelin, Auger and Galarneau6). As Raine noted: ‘individual determinants are necessary, but not sufficient, to explain eating behavior’(Reference Raine5). Food availability and food access, as conditions for food security, should not be overridden(Reference Hamelin, Habicht and Beaudry7Reference Koc and Dahlberg11). Food availability is understood as the level of supply in the food market, and food accessibility as the physical and economic ability to access the food supply(Reference Clifford and David12).

Studies that focus on the physical access to food in American urban settings, and on clarifying the extent of social disparities, point to a consistent picture(Reference Cummins and Macintyre13). Supermarkets are more prevalent in wealthier neighbourhoods than in poorer ones, and this unequal spatial distribution is also associated with the racial make-up of communities(Reference Morland, Wing, Roux and Poole14Reference Zenk, Schulz, Israel, James, Bao and Wilson19). Some findings also show that people living in high-income areas or those characterized by better physical access to a supermarket eat more F&V or have significantly lower odds of obesity and overweight than those living in conditions of deprivation(Reference Diez-Roux, Nieto, Caufield, Tyroler, Watson and Szklo20Reference Morland, Roux and Wings22). Outside the USA, studies of food access draw more on the socio-economic status of the area than on wealth and racial composition when assessing deprivation. In Australia and the UK, studies show either no or small differences in the spatialization of food purchasing infrastructure and of food purchasing behaviour while considering the varying socio-economic factors across the target settings(Reference Turrell, Blakely, Patterson and Oldenburg23Reference Cummins and Macintyre26).

In Canada, a few studies have found that unequal distribution of food stores has negatively impacted low-income neighbourhoods(Reference Latham and Moffat27, Reference Bertrand, Thérien and Cloutier28), while others conclude that urban households have generally good food access(Reference Apparicio, Cloutier and Shearmur29, Reference Smoyer-Tomic, Spence and Amrhein30). A recent research in Montréal found that 40 % of the population studied had to walk more than 500 m to reach a source of F&V, without regard to the district’s socio-economic levels for which no significant relationship was found(Reference Bertrand31). Generalizations are difficult to make due to the varying landscape and culture observed within and across provinces and territories. Even so, the link between food access and deprivation still needs to be clarified. In rural settings, however, studies have argued that supplying food might be more difficult with regard to the travel distance and its quality and freshness(Reference Burns, Gibbon, Boak, Baudinette and Dunbar32Reference Cummins and Macintyre34). To our knowledge, food access has yet to be explored in rural Québec and merits closer examination since roughly 20 % of the total Québec population lives in a rural setting.

In order to fill this gap, the present study explores fresh F&V supplies by considering the setting and its level of deprivation. The main questions being addressed are:

  1. 1. Is there a difference in the spatial distribution of food stores found in rural and urban settings, the intra-urban setting and the intra-rural setting?

  2. 2. Is there a relationship between fresh F&V in-store availability, the type of food store, the specific setting and its level of deprivation?



Household food security and social inequalities in the greater Québec City area are already under investigation. Field work was thus conducted in the same area to benefit from an increasing pool of relevant data that could provided us with a basis for analysis(Reference Pampalon, Hamel, DeKoninck and Disant35Reference Hamelin, Mercier and Bédard38). Urban and rural settings were differentiated by their population: the cities with more than 10 000 inhabitants being defined as ‘urban’ and those with less as ‘rural’(Reference Martinez, Pampalon, Hamel and Raymond39). In addition, the influence exerted by the metropolitan area, dubbed ‘metropolitan areas’ and ‘census agglomeration-influenced zones’, was also taken into account to identify rural areas(40). Data were collected in a sample of six contiguous urban districts of the subdivision La Cité and of seven rural communities in the regional county municipalities (RCM) of Portneuf, Charlevoix and of St-Anne-de-Beaupré.Footnote * The subdivision districts and communities were chosen because of their contrasting socio-economic characteristics as assessed using the Material and Social Deprivation Index. This index combines three material deprivation parameters (education level; activity rate; mean income) and three social deprivation parameters (proportion of separated, divorced or widowed persons; proportion of single parents; proportion of persons living alone) at the dissemination area scale, creating a nine-category typology of deprivation(Reference Pampalon and Raymond41).

Data collection procedure

Food stores census

Research (e.g. references 8, 42 and 43) and one study outlining a typology(Reference Pouliot and Hamelin44) show that food may be obtained from different sources. In Québec in 2006, 71 % of total food demand was met by the food retail sector against 29 % by the food service industry(Reference Brouillette45). As we focused on the most current way of acquiring fresh F&V, the food stores census was limited to the retail sector and precisely to those stores that are likely to carry them. Table 1 provides a definition for each type of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) identified in the present study.

Table 1 Definition of the types of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) under study

*The definitions are extracted and translated from Marquis and SimardReference Marquis and Simard(66).

†In the present study, specialty stores were further divided into ‘natural food stores’ and ‘delicatessen’.

To create a list of FVS, various databases were utilized, including the software Business 411 (2005; Tame Inc., Flintstone, GA, USA), accessible with the agreement of the Centre for Research in Regional Planning and Development (Laval University), and a registry from the Québec Ministry of Agriculture (2005). During data collection, the local telephone directory allowed us to verify addresses of stores that could not readily be located. Local visits also helped to complete and validate the list.

In-store availability

With reference to current Canadian studies, two main indicators – quantity and diversity – were defined to measure F&V in-store availability(Reference Bertrand, Thérien and Cloutier28, Reference Bertrand31, Reference Winson46, Reference Miedema47). First, a proxy measure of F&V quantity was developed, by estimating the length and width of stalls to calculate total shelf-surface (ft2). Second, to measure diversity, the different varieties of F&V available were counted, with variety being understood here as belonging to a similar taxonomic group. For example, all types of apples (e.g. McIntosh, Delicious, Granny Smith) were considered as belonging to one variety of fruit: the apple. A predefined list of the varieties of fruits (thirty-eight) and vegetables (thirty-seven) was used as a base by the observer.


Data were collected in September 2006, when F&V supply is bountiful. In order to minimize possible bias, only one observer (N.P.) visited the FVS(Reference Miedema47). The process of observation, described on the answer sheet (prepared and pre-tested in order to facilitate data collection), was carefully applied at each food store included in the study. Information was gathered by using a digital recorder. A second visit was made to a random sample (10 %) of stores located in the La Cité subdivision to assess the reliability of the measure of F&V quantity and diversity(Reference Wechsler, Basch, Zybert, Lantigua and Shea48).


Statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS software package version 11·5 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with a significance level of P < 0·05. For each community and district, the FVS spatial distribution (frequency of stores per 10 000 population and per km2) was estimated using population and territory data from Statistics Canada’s 2001 census results in order to compare their frequency rates(Reference Barbolet, Cuddeford, Jeffries, Korstad, Kurbis, Mark, Miewals and Moreland42, Reference Kaufman49, Reference Morris, Neuhauser and Campbell50). One-way ANOVA were then performed to evaluate the significance of differences in distribution between rural and urban settings. Due to sample sizes, no statistical analyses were performed at the intra-urban and intra-rural levels. General linear model (GLM) univariate procedures were employed to identify any interaction between the quantity and the diversity (dependent variables) and the type of FVS, the setting and the Material and Social Deprivation Index (as fixed factor). Dunnet T3 post hoc procedures were used when a significant association was perceived(Reference Dunnet51). Moreover, test–retest reliability was confirmed with paired-sample t tests.

The FVS spatial distribution was mapped using a specific symbol for each type of store. The F&V in-store availability (quantity and diversity) was also illustrated with four tones of colour ranging from white (nil), light grey (moderate), dark grey (good) to black (excellent). These categories were defined according to the natural clusters: no variety and no shelf-surface (nil); one to nineteen varieties and 1–99 ft2 of shelf-surface (moderate); twenty to thirty-nine varieties and exactly 100 ft2 of shelf-surface (good); and forty or more varieties and 101 ft2 or more shelf-surface (excellent). All maps were created using Mapinfo version 8·5 (Pitney Bowes MapInfo, Troy, NY, USA).


Characteristics of the studied area

The area under study (2230·1 km2) is home to a population of 84 874 inhabitants. The majority lives in an urban setting (62 110 inhabitants in an area of 11·8 km2v. 22 764 inhabitants in a rural area of 2218·3 km2). There are significant differences in the socio-economic and demographic characteristics between urban and rural settings. Globally, the rural setting is more deprived materially than the urban setting, as already observed for the same region by DeKoninck et al.(Reference DeKoninck, Clément, Hamelin, Pampalon, Paquet, Trudel, Vézina and Giguère36).

Frequency and spatial distribution of fresh fruit and vegetable stores

A total of 144 FVS were visited. Among these, 74 % were located in the urban subdivision. In all stores found in the studied area, half were convenience stores (51 %) and few of them were superstores and greengrocers (11 %). Within the urban setting, one district (Vieux-Québec/Cap-Blanc) was served mostly by convenience stores and had no supermarkets, superstores or greengrocers. Also, two districts (St-Jean-Baptiste and St-Sauveur) were relatively underserved by supermarkets; otherwise they enjoyed many more grocery stores than the other districts. The number of specialty stores was similar in all districts. Within the rural setting, three communities (Les Éboulements, St-Hilarion and Rivière-à-Pierre) relied only on convenience or grocery stores and one (Ste-Christine-d’Auvergne) had no FVS at all. At least one community visited per RCM was home to a supermarket (St-Raymond, Baie St-Paul and Ste-Anne-de-Beaupré), but only one of the communities had a greengrocer (St-Raymond).

Table 2 shows the mean distribution of each type of FVS by setting. With regard to the FVS/10 000 population measure, one-way ANOVA analyses indicated no differences, except for a higher number of delicatessen and natural food stores per 10 000 population (P = 0·018 and P = 0·033, respectively) in the urban setting. This implies that city dwellers have better access to more specialty stores than rural inhabitants. Likewise, an examination of the distribution of FVS/km2 showed that with the exception of greengrocers and superstores, there were relatively more FVS in the urban setting (convenience store P = 0·000; grocery store P = 0·003; supermarket P = 0·001; delicatessen P = 0·000; natural food store P = 0·037).

Table 2 Mean distribution of fresh fruit and vegetable stores by type of setting: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

*Significant difference compared with the urban setting (P < 0·05).

In-store availability

Thirty-four per cent of all food stores surveyed did not carry F&V; almost half of them (48 %) being convenience stores (data not shown). The total shelf-surface area means for F&V were much higher in supermarkets and greengrocers (>200 ft2) than in any other type of FVS (<100 ft2; Table 3). The same observation can be made regarding the total variety means, where supermarkets and greengrocers carried more than fifty varieties while other FVS had less than twenty (Table 4).

Table 3 Fresh fruit and vegetable mean total shelf-surface area (ft2) per type of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) in urban and rural settings: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

1 ft2≈0·1 m2.

Table 4 Fresh fruit and vegetable mean total variety (counted number of varieties) per type of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) in urban and rural settings: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

The results of the GLM univariate procedures are presented in Table 5. No significant association was observed in the interaction model. When looking at the separated effects of the fixed factors on the indicators of quantity and diversity, the type of FVS was the only factor that was significantly associated with shelf-surface area and number of varieties. The total shelf-surface area means and the total variety means were higher in greengrocers and supermarkets than in the other FVS types regardless of the setting or level of deprivation. This suggests that the FVS type is a good predictor of the F&V supply.

Table 5 Variables influencing fresh fruit and vegetable in-store availability: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

FVS, fruit and vegetable store.

All results shown before post hoc procedure.

Finally, the paired-sample t test demonstrated no difference for shelf-surface area and number of varieties between the collected data and the data from the 10 % random sample.


Among the FVS located in the six districts comprising the urban setting (Fig. 1), those rated excellent for their in-store availability of F&V were distributed evenly across the subdivision, with the exception of the St-Sacrement and Vieux-Québec/Cap-Blanc districts. However, people living in St-Sacrement could access FVS located just outside the study area, thus addressing part of the issue of food access. Vieux-Québec/Cap-Blanc, situated by the St-Lawrence River, clearly provides limited access to F&V. The three rural settings revealed a very different picture, which corroborates the results obtained from the one-way ANOVA. Figure 2 presents the map of the RCM of Charlevoix (observations for the other two RCM are identical, therefore no map is included). It illustrates that F&V supply in two of the three rural communities is nil or moderate (Les Éboulements and St-Hilarion), while one community’s supply is excellent (Baie St-Paul).

Fig. 1 Map of the urban setting (La Cité subdivision) showing location of fruit and vegetable store types (○, convenience store; ◊, grocery store; □, supermarket, ⋆, greengrocer; ▵, natural food store; ▿, delicatessen) and their in-store availability of fresh fruits and vegetables (␣, nil; ░, moderate; ▒, good; █, excellent): greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Fig. 2 Map of one regional county municipality of the rural setting (Charlevoix) showing location of fruit and vegetable store types (○, convenience store; ◊, grocery store; □, supermarket, ⋆, greengrocer; ▵, natural food store; ▿, delicatessen) and their in-store availability of fresh fruits and vegetables (␣, nil; ░, moderate; ▒, good; █, excellent): greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006


Two major findings emerge from the present study. First, differences exist between rural and urban settings in the greater Québec City area in terms of FVS spatial distribution. Second, observations made of the quantity and diversity of fresh F&V in-store availability suggest that the type of food retailer is the best indicator to predict fresh F&V supply. We believe the study also yields new insights into methodology and goes beyond the mere identification of the location of FVS on a map. Indeed, by qualifying F&V variety and quantity, we have provided a better assessment of true population access to F&V.

Trends in the distribution of fresh fruit and vegetable stores

Whether living in an urban or rural setting, people seem to have access, in the same proportion, to almost all types of FVS studied (except for specialty stores) even though their spatial distribution is less scattered in the urban setting. However, the distance to FVS is considerably higher for people in rural settings. This unequal access to F&V, which could have an even larger impact on non-motorized households, can lead to health disparities(Reference Apparicio, Cloutier and Shearmur29). The present study argues that, in general, spatial access to FVS is significantly higher for those living in urban settings. Still when comparing FVS intra-urban spatial distribution, some inconsistencies appear between the districts as suggested in other Canadian studies that found disparities in food store distribution(Reference Latham and Moffat27, Reference Bertrand, Thérien and Cloutier28). Therefore, the scope of future research on the intra-urban distribution of food stores in the area should be broadened to include other relevant aspects such as transportation.

The present results show that spatial distribution patterns are complex in the intra-rural setting. Rural Québec has been witnessing a steady economic and population decline(Reference Martinez, Pampalon, Hamel and Raymond39), which is reflected in the food supply services of some rural areas. The picture seems standard in rural settings, where some communities act as central hubs providing the main services to the periphery(Reference Dugas52). For example, Baie St-Paul and St-Raymond are hubs servicing the surrounding communities like Ste-Christine-d’Auvergne. In fact, Ste-Christine-d’Auvergne residents need to drive about 30 km to and from the nearest food store (located in St-Raymond). Other communities like Neuville, outside the study area, could also provide them with services, but distances remain a problem, emphasizing the need to address disparities in access to food.

Outlying communities located in rural settings provide nothing but convenience or grocery stores. One can expect that these communities would have tried to improve their supply and better meet the needs of local residents. In Fig. 2, it is clear that in-store availability of fresh F&V is poor or even non-existent (moderate and nil). Thus, these communities appear ideal places to launch a community-based nutrition programme in partnership with food stores(Reference Connell, Yadrick, Simpson, Gossett, McGee and Bogle53). Some authors point out as well that local stores have the capacity to provide quality services to residents(Reference Clifford and David12, Reference Eisenhauer54, Reference Llewelyn55) and help support the local economy while respecting social and environmental values(Reference Burns, Gibbon, Boak, Baudinette and Dunbar32).

FVS spatial distribution may vary according to type of setting and population characteristics. For example, in the Montréal metropolitan area, peripheral neighbourhoods are less dense and more motorized and presumably have fewer but larger food stores, whereas central neighbourhoods are denser and less motorized and presumably have a greater number of smaller food stores(Reference Apparicio, Cloutier and Shearmur29). As mentioned before, the focus of the present study was only on the retail sector. Further information is thus needed to help interpret results from our study and others. Alternative or informal ways of acquiring food, such as directly from farms, public or farmers’ markets, or from home gardening, were not taken into account. It would be relevant to include the relative impact of these other sources on food provisioning. Food supply differences between the two settings may be a factor in determining food access. Therefore, in a public health context, it must be made clear from the start that urban and rural settings are two distinct food environments.

The type of fresh fruit and vegetable store: an indicator of availability

The type of FVS serves as a better indicator of the availability of fresh F&V than the setting and the level of deprivation. This finding corroborates results of studies conducted by Cummins and Macintyre in the UK(Reference Cummins and Macintyre34) and Winkler et al. in Australia(Reference Winkler, Turrell and Patterson24). This finding also aligns with the conclusion reached in Bertrand’s Montréal study, arguing that poor access to the F&V supply is not associated with population median income (a socio-economic measure of deprivation) in a given dissemination area(Reference Bertrand31). However, a study in a New York City neighbourhood reveals some disparity in in-store availability of fresh fruit and vegetables between a poor community and an affluent community living side by side(Reference Horowitz, Colson, Hebert and Lancaster56). Comparisons are difficult to make given that the indices of deprivation used in these studies are drawn on social and economic variables that differed from ours. Furthermore, as suggested by Ball et al., the FVS spatial distribution and the nature of supply chains could be country-specific, thus reflecting differences in institutional and legal frameworks and urban planning policies(Reference Ball, Timperio and Crawford4).

Our research shows that the variety of fresh F&V available in supermarkets is superior to that in smaller food stores. This finding corroborates those of Horowitz’s and Bodor’s groups(Reference Horowitz, Colson, Hebert and Lancaster56, Reference Bodor, Rose, Farley, Swalm and Scott57). It also reaches the conclusion that convenience stores do not represent a viable source of fresh F&V, even in rural settings. We suggest, moreover, that the significant relationship observed between the type of FVS and in-store availability could be explained in part by the increasingly oligopolistic food retail sector, which some refer to as the North American Agro-Food Complex(58, Reference Winson59). Since the 1980s, independent chains have been unable to maintain their market share(Reference Brouillette45, 58) and the food store types are being standardized(Reference Sone, Aguda, Malaviya and Mercer60). These changes seem to dictate how the retail sector is evolving and the availability of products. From a population health perspective, it is necessary to ensure that the changing nature of the retail sector leads to an increase in the fresh F&V supply and their access.

Methodology issues

The present exploratory study examined FVS spatial distribution by comparing the frequency of each type of store in relation to land area population density. Its focus on fresh F&V in-store availability contributed to our understanding of the food environment.

Drawing on other Canadian studies(Reference Bertrand, Thérien and Cloutier28, Reference Winson46, Reference Miedema47), the data collection method used in the current study was first pre-tested before the research process began. High consistency in the results confirms the reliability of the process and adds some certainty to the method. Shelf-surface area appears also as a relatively precise measure of what is available even though the actual height or depth of the shelf used to hold F&V is not considered. It goes further than the simple ‘yes or no’ method used by Cummins and Macintyre(Reference Cummins and Macintyre34) or the F&V total surface area in food stores measure developed by Bertrand(Reference Bertrand, Thérien and Cloutier28). Indeed, our study allows for a precise assessment of in-store availability and, in so doing, it seeks to improve our understanding of methodological issues in research on food supply.

The relatively low number of FVS sampled in the rural setting could reflect the small sample size or rather the reality of this setting’s food environment, which is characterized by less FVS. An extended study area would further enhance our understanding of FVS spatial distribution in a rural or urban setting and at the intra-rural/intra-urban levels.

Measuring all aspects of food access in one study design represents a great challenge for researchers. Aspects to be addressed include where people shop and in which context, the convenience of opening hours, delivery services, the means of accessing stores, rates of stock turnover, the time of the year, food price and discounts, selection of food products that meet consumer preferences and the social perception of food stores. Also, creating a reliable measure of food accessibility is difficult because the conceptual construct could be better operationalized. The sociocultural acceptance of the food supply sources, or the supply itself, is also another key aspect of food access(Reference Sone, Aguda, Malaviya and Mercer60), but is rarely assessed in studies.

Future research: consumer perceptions and links with health

According to our results, supermarkets and greengrocers represent the main sources of fresh F&V. Knowing that these constitute a food group for which low consumption is associated with non-transmissible diseases, the limited spatial access to supermarkets in the rural setting is a source of health concern(1). With the intention of creating supportive environments for healthy eating, the results warrant further investigation on food consumption and its determinants. Thinking about solutions to health disparities raises the importance of considering how people interact with their food environment. Both individual and environmental determinants influence food behaviours, but their relationships have yet to be clarified(Reference Raine5, Reference Cheadle, Psaty, Curry, Wagner, Diehr, Koepsell and Kristal61). In health promotion, it is essential to consider the needs of the population and to involve them when trying to solve a problem(Reference Green and Kreuter62Reference Sloane, Diamant, Lewis, Yancey, Flynn, Nascimento, McCarthy, Guinyard and Cousineau64). According to Carey, the population should be empowered to talk with their retailers about issues that are a concern to them(Reference Carey65). Being an economic sector, food retailing implies that merchants may not change or adapt their food supply unless pressure comes from consumers or a law forces them to do so. Moreover, according to a recent study carried out in the greater Québec City area, people’s perception of problems and social cohesion varies between neighbourhoods and/or localities, and perceptions of place appear to be significant predictors of people’s health(Reference Pampalon, Hamel, DeKoninck and Disant35). This observation reinforces the significance of getting people to address their issues of food access and then adapt the solutions to their local reality. Their involvement could also help highlight distinctions between urban and rural settings and develop an alternative framework for public health planning in rural settings.


We are grateful for the financial support provided to the first author by the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale and the Fondation de l’Université Laval. We thank the Centre for Research in Regional Planning and Development (CRAD, Université Laval, Québec City) for their insight and expertise. We also acknowledge the contribution of the advisory committee members who helped us carry out this research. There are no conflicts of interest in this study. N.P., the first author, developed the study design, collected and analysed the data, and wrote the paper as part of her master’s degree. A.-M.H. provided guidance and assistance all along the research and writing process.


* One can note that the term ‘community’ is employed in a general sense in this text and refers to city, village, community and parish alike; all places of the rural setting.


1.World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series no. 916. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
2.Milio, N (1983) Next steps in community health policy: matching rhetoric and reality. Community Health Stud 7, 185192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.World Health Organization (2006) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. (accessed June 2006).Google Scholar
4.Ball, K, Timperio, AF & Crawford, DA (2006) Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Nutr Phys Act 3, 18.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Raine, KD (2005) Determinants of healthy eating in Canada: an overview and synthesis. Can J Public Heath 96, Suppl. 3, S8S14.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Ouellet, S, Hamelin, A-M, Auger, P & Galarneau, A (2007) Les linguisticiels et la terminologie: le cas de la nutrition publique. La Banque des mots, Revue de terminologie française 74, 525.Google Scholar
7.Hamelin, A-M, Habicht, J-P & Beaudry, M (1999) Food insecurity: consequences for the household and broader social implications. J Nutr 129, 2S Suppl., 525S528S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Campbell, CC (1991) Food insecurity: a nutritional outcome or a predictor variable? J Nutr 121, 408415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Tarasuk, V (2004) Health implications of food insecurity. In Social Determinants of Health: Canadian Perspectives, p. 187 [D Raphael, editor]. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press Inc.Google Scholar
10.Jyoti, DF, Frongillo, EA Jr & Jones, S (2005) Food insecurity affects school children’s academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. J Nutr 135, 28312839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Koc, M & Dahlberg, KA (1999) The restructuring of food systems: trends, research, and policy issues. Agric Human Values 16, 109116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Clifford, G & David, G (2004) Measuring physical access to ‘healthy foods’ in areas of social deprivation: a case study in Cardiff. Int J Consum Stud 28, 222234.Google Scholar
13.Cummins, S & Macintyre, S (2006) Food environments and obesity – neighbourhood or nation? Int J Epidemiol 35, 100104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Morland, K, Wing, S, Roux, AD & Poole, C (2002) Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med 22, 2329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Dalton, E, Ehrlich, S, Flores, M, Heberlein, E & Niemeyer, M (2004) Food Availability in Allegheny County. Policy and Management Paper vol. 1 issue 1. Pittsburgh, PA: The Heinz School Review.Google Scholar
16.Chung, C & Myers, SL Jr (1999) Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery store availability and food price disparities. J Consum Aff 33, 276296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Cotterill, RW & Franklin, AW (1995) The urban grocery store gap. Food Mark Policy 8, 179.Google Scholar
18.Baker, EA, Schootman, M, Barnidge, E & Kelly, C (2006) The role of race and poverty in access to foods that enable individuals to adhere to dietary guidelines. Prev Chron Dis 3, A76.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Zenk, SN, Schulz, AJ, Israel, BA, James, SA, Bao, S & Wilson, ML (2005) Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty and the spatial accessibility of supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. Am J Public Health 95, 660667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Diez-Roux, AV, Nieto, FJ, Caufield, L, Tyroler, HA, Watson, RL & Szklo, M (1999) Neighborhood differences in diet: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 53, 5563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Rose, D & Richards, R (2004) Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program. Public Health Nutr 7, 10811088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Morland, K, Roux, AVD & Wings, S (2006) Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am J Prev Med 30, 333339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Turrell, G, Blakely, T, Patterson, C & Oldenburg, B (2004) A multilevel analysis of socioeconomic (small area) differences in household food purchasing behavior. J Epidemiol Community Health 58, 208215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Winkler, E, Turrell, G & Patterson, C (2006) Does living in a disadvantaged area mean fewer opportunities to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables in the area? Finding from the Brisbane Food Study. Health Place 12, 306319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Donkin, AJ, Dowler, EA, Stevenson, SJ & Turner, SA (1999) Mapping access to food at a local level. Br Food J 101, 554564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Cummins, S & Macintyre, S (1999) The location of food stores in urban areas: a case study in Glasgow. Br Food J 101, 545553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Latham, J & Moffat, T (2007) Determinants of variation in food cost and availability in two socioeconomically contrasting neighbourhoods of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Health Place 13, 273287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Bertrand, L, Thérien, F & Cloutier, MS (2008) Measuring and mapping disparities in access to fresh fruits and vegetables in Montréal. Can J Public Health 99, 611.Google ScholarPubMed
29.Apparicio, P, Cloutier, M-S & Shearmur, R (2007) The case of Montréal’s missing food deserts: evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets. Int J Health Geogr 6, issue 4, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Smoyer-Tomic, KE, Spence, JC & Amrhein, C (2006) Food deserts in the prairies? Supermarket accessibility and neighborhood need in Edmonton, Canada. Prof Geogr 58, 307326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Bertrand, L (2006) Les disparités dans l’accès à des aliments santé à Montréal: une étude géomatique. Montréal: Direction de Santé Publique Montréal.Google Scholar
32.Burns, C, Gibbon, P, Boak, R, Baudinette, S & Dunbar, J (2004) Food cost and availability in a rural setting in Australia. Rural Remote Health 4, 311.Google Scholar
33.Skerratt, S (1999) Food availability and choice in rural Scotland: the impact of ‘place’. Br Food J 101, 537544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Cummins, S & Macintyre, S (2002) A systematic study of an urban foodscape: the price and availability of food in Greater Glasgow. Urban Stud 39, 21152130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Pampalon, R, Hamel, D, DeKoninck, M & Disant, M-J (2007) Perception of place and health: differences between neighborhoods in the Québec City region. Soc Sci Med 65, 95111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.DeKoninck, M, Clément, M, Hamelin, AM, Pampalon, R, Paquet, G, Trudel, MJwith the collaboration of Vézina, M & Giguère, K (2006) Trois territoires, trois réalités. Éléments d’analyse comparative sur la construction des inégalités sociales de santé. Monographie. Québec: Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université Laval, Équipe de recherche sur les inégalités sociales de santé.Google Scholar
37.Hamelin, A-M, Beaudry, M & Habicht, J-P (2002) Characterization of household food insecurity in Québec: food and feelings. Soc Sci Med 54, 119132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Hamelin, A-M, Mercier, C & Bédard, A (2008) Perception of needs and responses in food security: divergence between households and stakeholders. Public Health Nutr 11, 13891396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Martinez, J, Pampalon, R, Hamel, D & Raymond, G (2004) Vivre dans une collectivité rurale plutôt qu’en ville fait-il vraiment une différence en matière de santé et de bien-être. Québec: Institut national de santé publique du Québec.Google Scholar
40.Statistique Canada (2000) Zones d’influence des régions métropolitaines de recensement et des agglomérations de recensement (ZIM): description de la méthodologie. (accessed May 2006).Google Scholar
41.Pampalon, R & Raymond, G (2003) Indice de défavorisation matérielle et sociale: son application au secteur de la santé et du bien-être. Santé, société et solidarité 1, 191208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Barbolet, H, Cuddeford, V, Jeffries, F, Korstad, H, Kurbis, S, Mark, S, Miewals, C & Moreland, F (2005) Vancouver Food System Assessment. Vancouver: City of Vancouver’s Department of Social Planning and Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Sustainable Community Development.Google Scholar
43.Power, E (2005) Individual and household food insecurity in Canada: Position of Dietitians of Canada. Can J Diet Pract Res 66, 4346.Google ScholarPubMed
44.Pouliot, N & Hamelin, A-M (2006) Food access sources: proposal of a typology (poster). Presented at Journées annuelles de santé publique, Montréal, 23–27 October 2006.Google Scholar
45.Brouillette, H (2005) Profil et performance de la restauration québécoise. Québec: Association des restaurateurs du Québec.Google Scholar
46.Winson, A (2004) Bringing political economy into the debate on the obesity epidemic. Agric Human Values 21, 299312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Miedema, JM (2006) A Study of Redundant Trade in Waterloo Region version 7. Report no. 222492. Waterloo: Region of Waterloo Public Health.Google Scholar
48.Wechsler, H, Basch, CE, Zybert, P, Lantigua, R & Shea, S (1995) The availability of low-fat milk in an inner-city Latino community: implications for nutrition education. Am J Public Health 85, 16901692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Kaufman, PR (1999) Rural poor have less access to supermarkets, large grocery stores. Rural Dev Perspect 13, 1926.Google Scholar
50.Morris, PM, Neuhauser, L & Campbell, C (1992) Food security in rural America: a study of the availability and costs of food. J Nutr Educ 24, Suppl., 52S58S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51.Dunnet, CW (1980) Pairwise multiple comparisons in the unequal variance case. J Am Stat Assoc 74, 372.Google Scholar
52.Dugas, C (2000) L’espace rural québécois. In Gouvernance et territoires ruraux, pp. 1340. Ste-Foy: PUQ.Google Scholar
53.Connell, CL, Yadrick, MK, Simpson, P, Gossett, J, McGee, BB & Bogle, ML (2007) Food supply adequacy in the lower Mississippi Delta. J Nutr Educ Behav 39, 7783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Eisenhauer, E (2001) In poor health: supermarket redlining and urban nutrition. Geojournal 53, 125133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55.Llewelyn, C (1997) Food Shopping in Rural Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Consumer Council.Google Scholar
56.Horowitz, CR, Colson, KA, Hebert, PL & Lancaster, K (2004) Barriers to buying healthy for people with diabetes: evidence of environmental disparities. Am J Public Health 94, 15491554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57.Bodor, JN, Rose, D, Farley, TA, Swalm, C & Scott, SK (2007) Neighbourhood fruit and vegetable availability and consumption: the role of small food stores in an urban environment. Public Health Nutr 11, 413420.Google Scholar
58.Toronto Food Policy Council (1996) Food Retail Access and Food Security for Toronto’s Low-income Citizens. Discussion Paper no. 7. Toronto: Toronto Food Policy Council.Google Scholar
59.Winson, A (1993) The Intimate Commodity: Food and the Development of the Agro-industrial Complex in Canada. Toronto: Garamond Press.Google Scholar
60.Sone, M, Aguda, N, Malaviya, N & Mercer, J (2001) Hungry for Change: Accessibility to Affordable, Nutritious and Culturally Appropriate Food in The City of Toronto. Report no. PLA 1106. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
61.Cheadle, A, Psaty, BM, Curry, S, Wagner, E, Diehr, P, Koepsell, T & Kristal, A (1993) Can measures of the grocery store environment be used to track community-level dietary changes? Prev Med 22, 361372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.Green, L & Kreuter, M (1991) Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach. New York/Toronto: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
63.O’Neill, M, Dupéré, S, Pederson, A & Rootman, I (2006) Promotion de la santé au Canada et au Québec, perspectives critiques. Lévis: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
64.Sloane, DC, Diamant, AL, Lewis, LB, Yancey, AK, Flynn, G, Nascimento, LM, McCarthy, WJ, Guinyard, JJ & Cousineau, MR; REACH Coalition of the African American Building a Legacy of Health Project (2003) Improving the nutritional resource environment for healthy living through community-based participatory research. J Gen Intern Med 18, 568574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65.Carey, E (2005) Thirsting for health. Toronto Star, 30 May. (accessed December 2007).Google Scholar
66.Marquis, M & Simard, S (2004) Bottin statistique de l’alimentation. Report no. 2-550-42974-5. Québec: Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Definition of the types of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) under study

Figure 1

Table 2 Mean distribution of fresh fruit and vegetable stores by type of setting: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Figure 2

Table 3 Fresh fruit and vegetable mean total shelf-surface area (ft2) per type of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) in urban and rural settings: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Figure 3

Table 4 Fresh fruit and vegetable mean total variety (counted number of varieties) per type of fresh fruit and vegetable store (FVS) in urban and rural settings: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Figure 4

Table 5 Variables influencing fresh fruit and vegetable in-store availability: greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Figure 5

Fig. 1 Map of the urban setting (La Cité subdivision) showing location of fruit and vegetable store types (○, convenience store; ◊, grocery store; □, supermarket, ⋆, greengrocer; ▵, natural food store; ▿, delicatessen) and their in-store availability of fresh fruits and vegetables (␣, nil; ░, moderate; ▒, good; █, excellent): greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

Figure 6

Fig. 2 Map of one regional county municipality of the rural setting (Charlevoix) showing location of fruit and vegetable store types (○, convenience store; ◊, grocery store; □, supermarket, ⋆, greengrocer; ▵, natural food store; ▿, delicatessen) and their in-store availability of fresh fruits and vegetables (␣, nil; ░, moderate; ▒, good; █, excellent): greater Québec City area, Canada, September 2006

You have Access
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Disparities in fruit and vegetable supply: a potential health concern in the greater Québec City area
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Disparities in fruit and vegetable supply: a potential health concern in the greater Québec City area
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Disparities in fruit and vegetable supply: a potential health concern in the greater Québec City area
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *