Table 3.
Sensitivity analyses of spatial measures of community food access: Impact of varying types of food outlets, income and access criteria on geographic agreement
| Designation of census tracts as having poor access: | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | Scenario 5 | Scenario 6 | Scenario 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| By agencies’ definitions | Modifying food outlet component | Modifying food outlet component and income/access component | ||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| Using USDA ERS’ list of food outlets for both metrics | Using CDC’s list of food outlets for both metrics | Using USDA ERS’ list of food outlets for both metrics & Income removed entirely from USDA ERS, no change to CDC | Using USDA ERS’ list of food outlets for both metrics & Access removed entirely from USDA ERS, no change to CDC | Using CDC’s list of food outlets for both metrics & Income removed entirely from USDA ERS, no change to CDC | Using CDC’s list of food outlets for both metrics & Access removed entirely from USDA ERS, no change to CDC | |||
| USDA ERS | CDC | |||||||
| Yes | Yes | 19 (11.2%) | 20 (11.8%) | 18(10.7%) | 29 (17.2%) | 34 (20.1%) | 28 (16.6%) | 31 (18.3%) |
| No | No | 101 (60.0%) | 101 (60%) | 101 (60%) | 66 (39.1%) | 52 (30.8%) | 67 (39.6%) | 50 (29.6%) |
| Yes | No | 19 (11.2%) | 18 (10.7%) | 19 (11.2%) | 53 (31.4%) | 67 (39.6%) | 53 (31.4%) | 70 (41.4%) |
| No | Yes | 30 (17.8%) | 30 (17.8%) | 31 (18.3%) | 21 (12.4%) | 16 (9.5%) | 21 (12.4%) | 18 (10.7%) |
|
| ||||||||
| Concordant tract designations (n, %) | 120 (71.0%) | 121 (71.6%) | 119 (70.4%) | 95 (56.2%) | 86 (50.9%) | 95 (56.2%) | 81 (47.9%) | |
| Discordant tract designations (n, %) | 49 (29.0%) | 48 (28.4%) | 50 (29.6%) | 74 (43.8%) | 83 (49.1%) | 74 (43.8%) | 88 (52.1%) | |
All the estimates in the table are based on Census 2010 geographies.