Comparing two analytical approaches to evaluate access to fresh, healthy food: a case of the Indiana Uplands

In this paper, we develop a new approach to mapping food access in the U.S. We compare the standard USDA approach to a method that examines differences between actual food outlet locations and optimal locations, as defined by a covering model. We find that the new approach places more weight on rural areas, in contrast to the USDA method, which places more weight on urban areas. We contend this covering model approach is superior to the USDA approach in three ways: (1) it explicitly examines what commodities are available a different categories of store, (2) it allows the comparison of real distributions with an idealised surface or set of locations, elucidating where interventions make most sense, (3) it allows flexible inclusion of target populations (i.e. households experiencing economic barriers to food access) by not setting Census Tract-level limits on definitions of low-income, and (4) it provides a flexible analytical tool that can be recalibrated in response to the demands of local policy, politics and changes in the food landscape over time. Provided adequate data and computing power, this new approach can scale to align with a region’s purview and definition of healthy food access.