ORIGINAL PAPER

The Role of Farmers’ Markets in Two Low Income, UrbanCommunities

Valerie Ruelas • Ellen Iverson • Preston Kiekel •

Anne Peters

Published online: 16 September 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract To collect consumer demographics, utilization,

satisfaction, and eating and physical activity behavior

information from customers using two newly established

farmers’ markets in low income urban communities in East

and South Los Angeles. From April 1, 2007 through June

3, 2009, farmers’ market customers completed a short,

anonymous survey. The data analysis included a descrip-

tive analysis of key variables and examined the number of

new and repeat customers over time to track the rate of

farmers’ market use over time. Setting: The East Los

Angeles Farmers’ Market and the Watts Healthy Farmers’

Market. Subjects: 415 farmers’ market customers from

East Los Angeles and 1,374 from South Los Angeles. The

demographic profile of farmers’ market consumers were

primarily Latina women earning less than $22,000 per year

with less than 12 years of education who reported some

level of food insecurity. Most customers lived within 4

miles of the markets with repeat customers shopping twice

a month or more. Overall, customers reported high satis-

faction with the farmers’ markets in each community and

the majority reported positive changes in physical activity

and eating behaviors since using the market. Many con-

sumers reported they wanted to see additional items sold at

the market, including prepared foods, non-food items and

other products not allowed to be sold at certified farmers’

markets.

Keywords Farmers’ market � Food access � Low-income

community � Poverty

Introduction

In the United States, two-thirds of adults and nearly one in

three children are overweight or obese [11, 26]. In addition,

obesity disproportionately affects many racial and ethnic

groups and geographic regions of the United States [8].

According to the Surgeon General, several factors play a role

in the causes of overweight and obesity including; consum-

ing too many calories and not getting enough physical

activity, genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, and

culture [29]. Overweight and obesity are related to the

development of other chronic health conditions and are a

significant economic burden. In the County of Los Angeles,

California, a megacity of over 10 million residents and larger

than 42 states [34], 36% of the Los Angeles County’s adult

population was overweight (BMI = 25–29.9) and 22% was

obese (BMI C 30) [24]. In lower income communities in the

county where the population is predominantly African

American and/or Latino, the rates of overweight and obesity

were as high as 38% and 35% respectively [24].

As with obesity, low intake of foods such as fruits,

vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat milk have been

associated with diseases such as coronary heart disease,

cancer, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis [5,

13, 14]. Unfortunately, from 1999 to 2000, 90% of

Americans did not meet the dietary recommendations for

fruit and vegetable consumption [4]. Results from the 2007

Los Angeles County Health Survey indicated that only

V. Ruelas (&) � E. Iverson � P. Kiekel

Division of Adolescent Medicine, Childrens Hospital Los

Angeles, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern

California, 4650 Sunset Blvd., Mailstop #2, Los Angeles,

CA 90027, USA

e-mail: vruelas@chla.usc.edu

A. Peters

Department of Medicine–Endocrinology, Keck School of

Medicine, University of Southern California, 245 S. Fetterly Ave

Room 2040, Los Angeles, CA 90022, USA

123

J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562

DOI 10.1007/s10900-011-9479-y

15% of adults county-wide ate the recommended fruit and

vegetables ranging from 23% in the highest income area to

13% in the lowest income area in the region [25]. Inability

to adhere to the recommended consumption of fruits and

vegetables in low income communities is likely exacer-

bated by evidence that these communities have far less

access to quality fresh fruits and vegetables than wealthier

communities [3, 15].

It has been well documented that, in the past 30 years,

full service grocery venues have migrated away from low

income, inner city communities, favoring the greater

promise of revenues from wealthier urban or suburban

areas referred to as ‘‘grocery redlining’’ [21, 22]. Studies

have suggested that this ‘‘grocery redling’’ contributed to

the creation of ‘‘food deserts,’’ communities with limited or

no access to full service grocery stores, communities which

have also been found to be associated with disproporti-

nately higher grocery prices and residents’ disproportion-

ally poorer health, nutritional status and higher rates of

obesity [17, 27, 33]. Although the term ‘‘food desert’’ often

means a literal absence of retail food in a defined area, it

can also be defined as a differential in accessibility to

healthy and affordable food between socio-economically

advantaged and disadvantaged areas [6]. Studies suggest

that access to alternative sources of fresh produce such as

famers’ markets might help to mitigate the impact of

healthy food disparities by both lowering the cost of pro-

duce in these ‘food deserts’ and improving access to

healthy food choices [1, 19]. Excessively high rates of

obesity and diabetes in low income communities have

stimulated public health research, advocacy and policy

efforts to develop approaches to improve access to

affordable, healthy food choices, including efforts to

overcome the barriers to access farmers’ markets [12].

Farmers’ markets, seen as one approach to bringing

produce to communities, have proliferated in recent years,

though their availability to low income communities

remains limited [28, 35]. According to the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA), as of mid-2010, vol-

untary reporting from farmers’ market managers showed

there were 6,132 farmers’ markets operating throughout the

US a 16% increase from 2009 [32]. The USDA’s national

farmer’s market search engine results do not track the

socio-economic characteristics of communities in which a

market is located, however, using acceptance of food

assistance programs as a proxy, a search can be refined to

identify markets excepting federal food assistance pro-

grams as a form of payment (e.g., Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP) or Women, Infant and Chil-

dren (WIC) farmers’ market vouchers). After refining the

search to list markets accepting federal food assistance

programs, the number of markets decreased dramatically to

256 markets nation-wide, only 4% of the total voluntarily

reported markets in operation [32]. Some have argued that

significant economic and structural obstacles inhibit both

vendors selling goods and consumers utilizing markets in

underserved communities [10].

To our knowledge, there is scant data on characteristics

of farmers’ market customers in general and in low income

communities, in particular. Most evaluations of farmers’

markets have been focused on the economic impact of

markets on communities and on grocery spending and

appear to be driven by interest in the impact on policy, not

public health [7]. Evidence from these studies suggest that

farmers’ markets stimulate spending at local business and

are job-generating [7, 31]. In low income communities, the

introduction of farmers’ markets has been shown to stim-

ulate competition and lower the price of food sold at local

grocery venues [19].

Until recently, few studies have examined the character-

istics of farmers’ market shoppers and, to our knowledge,

none have examined characteristics of shoppers in very low

income, minority communities in which farmers’ markets

are introduced. Bader’s study of access to grocery venues in

New York suggest that farmers and store-front produce

stores available in distressed communities are more likely to

be frequented by immigrant, Hispanic and Asian populations

rather than African American residents [2]. Zepeda and her

colleagues offer an intriguing portrait of US farmers’ market

shoppers suggesting that, compared to shoppers who do not

utilize local farmers’ market, farmers’ market consumers are

more likely to enjoy cooking at home, purchase food moti-

vated more by interest in nutrition than cost and likely to

have someone in their household with special dietary or

health needs. While these characteristics were shared across

levels of race, education and age, these samples were col-

lected in communities in which farmers’ markets are avail-

able. As few markets are available in underserved

communities, her sample under-represents non-white con-

sumers, consumers with less than college education and

those with very low incomes (i.e., \$15,000 annual) and

over-represents families making over $45,000 a year [35].

This paper reports findings from research conducted as

part of the Community Diabetes Initiative (CDI), a com-

munity participatory research initiative which examined

key factors and behavior related to obesity and diabetes in

East Los Angeles (East LA) and South Los Angeles (South

LA), two low-income Los Angeles area communities that

are predominantly Latino and African American. These

communities additionally have disproportionately high

rates of diabetes, obesity, food insecurity, physical inac-

tivity, low fruit and vegetable consumption and few options

to purchase fresh produce [16, 24, 25]. In the planning

phase of the CDI, community members identified the lack

of good quality affordable produce as a key barrier to

eating healthy meals and expressed the desire to have

J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562 555

123

farmers’ markets in their communities. Subsequently, CDI

staff, community agencies, local advocates, politicians, and

residents began to organize and ultimately launch a farm-

ers’ markets in both communities. Prior to the opening of

the East Los Angeles and Watts Healthy Farmers’ Markets

(South LA), the closest farmers’ market in East LA was,

and still is, located 5 miles outside the community and 13

miles outside in South LA [20]. Once it was established

that farmers’ market were forthcoming, the CDI was able

to obtain funding for 2 years to assess market utilization

and customer satisfaction of each market as a means to

report outcomes back to the community and improve the

delivery of service.

Each farmers’ market had separate development, man-

agement, funding and sustainability processes. In East LA,

the market was made possible with the support of the Los

Angeles County 1st Supervisorial District and a US

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Commu-

nity Development Block Grant (CDBG). The market is run

by a grass-roots community-based agency, Volunteers of

East Los Angeles (VELA). VELA had no prior experience

operating a farmers’ market, but now successfully operates

two additional markets in the Los Angeles region. The East

Los Angeles Farmers’ Market began February 10, 2007. The

South LA market resulted from a community collaborative

effort driven by leaders from local community-based orga-

nizations. The collaborative chose to work with an estab-

lished farmers’ market management organization,

Sustainable Economic Enterprises Los Angeles and was

funded by Kaiser Permanente and the California Commu-

nity Foundation. The Watts Healthy Farmers’ Market began

July 21, 2007. Both markets are open weekly on Saturday

from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. Both accept Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program Electronic Benefit Transfer

(SNAP/EBT), Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) vouch-

ers and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

(SFMNP) checks. Once established, we surveyed market

customers to assess utilization and perceived benefits of the

market. This paper profiles consumers of the two farmers’

markets and reports findings from customer surveys.

Methods

Study Community

East LA is a densely populated urban community of

approximately 124,283 residents living in 29,844 house-

holds [30]. Nearly all residents (97%) are of Hispanic/

Latino origin. The median family income in 1999 was

$28,544 with 24.7% of families and 27.2% of individuals

living below the poverty line (the federal poverty level was

equivalent to an annual income of $17,050 for a family of 4

and $8,350 for an individual) [9, 30]. Nearly all families

and individuals live below 185% of the poverty line

(annual income $31,543 for a family of 4 and $15,448 for

an individual), 50.9% of East LA residents were in the

labor force, 48.7% of the population was foreign born, and

87.4% speak a language other than English at home [30].

In South LA, approximately 102,175 live in 25,778

households with 56% identifying as Hispanic/Latino and

42% as African American [30]. The median income in

1999 was $20,353 with 56% of families and individuals

living below the poverty line [30]. Approximately 69%

families and individuals live below 185% of the poverty

and 65% of the population were in the labor force. Nearly

one-third (32%) of the population was foreign born;, and

46% speak a language other than English at home [30].

Sample and Recruitment

Two years of evaluation funding allowed us to collect a

convenience sample of customers attending the Watts

Healthy Farmers’ Market in South LA and the East Los

Angeles Farmers’ Market in East LA. From July 1, 2007

through June 3, 2009, 415 farmers’ market customers from

East LA and 1,374 from South LA completed a short,

anonymous survey. CDI staff and community health

workers (promatoras) approached adult customers as they

entered the market and administered a 15-min survey to

each customer agreeing to participate. Any adult customer

interested in completing the survey who had not previously

completed the survey was included in the sample. Surveys

were administered the 3rd Saturday of the month in South

LA and the 1st Saturday of the month in East LA. As no

identifying information was collected, our Institutional

Review Board waived the use of a written consent, per-

mitting verbal consent instead. In South LA, a $5.00 vou-

cher in market money was given to participants as

compensation for their participation. Budgetary constraints

did not permit the use of incentives in the East LA site.

Measures

Utilizing a survey instrument developed by the Community

Food Security Coalition, the survey collected demographic

information, and measures of market utilization impact and

satisfaction [23]. Specifically, the survey included questions

about when they began using the farmers’ market, how

often they came, and how far they traveled. A question was

added querying customers’ intent to return to the market.

Using 5-point Likert Scales, their satisfaction with the

market and the type and quality of produce offered was

assessed. Additional questions related to family food con-

sumption behavior, food insecurity, physical activity and

utilization of WIC and SFMNP checks were asked. Poverty

556 J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562

123

was measured using the 2000 Federal Register’s definition

of poverty. To calculate the number of customers living

below the Federal Poverty line, customers were asked to

report their estimated annual income and household size.

Food insecurity was measured by asking consumers how

often they experienced the following conditions in the past

30 days: We were not able to afford more food to eat; We

were not able to afford more of the kinds of food we

wanted to eat; and We were not able to afford to eat

healthier meals. The survey was translated into Spanish.

Consumers were also asked four open-ended questions

including: What they liked most about the market; What

they liked least about the market; In what ways, if any, do

you think your life is different because of this market; and

Do you have any additional comments.

Analysis

Analysis of these data are descriptive, include frequencies

and examines the number of new and repeat customers to

assess how the ratio changed over time. Frequencies by

category within levels of Likert and qualitative variables

were expressed as percentages when possible. Quantitative

variables were analyzed as means.

Nearly all responses to open-ended questions were brief,

offering little variation in theme. Initially, all qualitative

data were examined to identify recurrent themes that were

then used to create a coding schema corresponding to the

focus of each open-ended question, e.g., what an individual

liked/disliked about the market and what were they doing

differently since using the market. Themes were organized

into categories representing positive and negative respon-

ses. Positive themes include improved health, improved

access to produce/healthy food, greater convenience, social

factors, and miscellaneous. Negative themes include variety

of produce/vendor type, location, cost, physical attributes of

market (e.g., location, lack of shaded areas), and desire for

other services/products. Responses that did not fall into

these categories were categorized as miscellaneous.

Results

Of the 1,789 customers surveyed in both sites, results are

reported on 1,374 completed surveys from South LA and of

the 415 from East LA. As customers could refuse to answer

questions or may have responded ‘‘Don’t Know’’, the

response rate varied by question. Our average response rate

in South LA was 91% (range 100–75%) and in East LA

was 88% range (100–71%) for the closed ended questions.

The question to ascertain income received the lowest

response rate shown in the range above. Of those who did

not complete this question, the majority stated they did not

know versus refused to answer.

Market Demographics

As seen in Table 1, the demographic characteristics of the

survey respondents are compared to the 2000 US Census

data for the zip codes in which each farmers’ market is

located. The majority of farmers’ market consumers iden-

tified as Latino (98% in East LA; 71% in South LA). In

South LA, Latinos are far more represented in the sample

than are reflected in the demographics of the surrounding

community. The majority of shoppers from both markets

were female and a little more than half did not complete

high school. The mean household size of East LA cus-

tomers was 3.8 and 4.7 in South LA. In both communities,

55% of consumers reported earning less than $15,000 per

year, which is well below the Federal Poverty line and less

than the average income of residents of the surrounding

community. In both communities, approximately three-

quarters of all customers reported some level of food

insecurity, i.e., ‘‘not having enough money to purchase

food in the past 30 days,’’ (76% in South LA; 71% in East

LA), especially foods considered healthy (76% in South

LA; 70% in East LA). Further, 18% of South LA and 27%

of East LA respondents used WIC or senior farmers’

market vouchers.

Table 1 Survey respondent

demographic characteristics

a Nielsen Claritas Inc. ‘‘Percent

of Families in Poverty.’’

Retrieved 6/18/2010, from:

http://www.HealthyCity.org

Survey sample

characteristics

East LA farmers’

market

East LA US

census

South LA farmers’

market

South LA US

census

Ethnicity (Latino) (%) 93 99 78 56

Ethnicity (African American) (%) \1 \1 18 42

Gender-female (%) 88 50 80 53

Education (\12 years) (%) 56 64 55 82

Household size (mean) 3.8 people 4 people 4.7 people 4.5 people

Income (\$15,000 annual) (%) 55 17a 55 30a

J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562 557

123

Market Utilization

Most South LA respondents reported residing in zip codes

90002 and 90059 (78%), representing approximately a

four-mile radius around the market’s location. However,

the remaining 22% of shoppers represented 36 different zip

codes that are spread out well beyond the community

offering the farmers’ market. Nearly two-thirds (62%)

reported driving to the market and 29% walked—most

living within 4 miles. A vast majority of customers (87%)

attended the market with at least one other adult and child,

7% were shopping with another adult but no child and 6%

shopped alone.

The majority of East LA respondents were within a 4

mile radius from the market from zip codes 90063 and

90022 (64%), with the remaining customers travelling from

16 different zip codes. As in South LA, 60% reported

driving to the market and 22% walked, most living within 4

miles of the market’s location. Most (87%) attended the

market with at least one other adult and child, 4% were

visiting the market with another adult but no child and 9%

shopped alone.

Respondents were asked during the survey if this was

the first time they had attended the market. We began

surveying customers in April 2007 in East LA and July

2007 in South LA. Figures 1 and 2 track percent of new

customers over the 2-year period in which the surveys were

collected. The East LA market had been operational for

6-month prior to surveying customers, as funding for data

collection was not available when the market opened. We

began surveying South LA customers opening day, and are

thus able to see the larger drop in new customers in South

LA in subsequent weeks. As hoped, more respondents were

repeat customers over time. Nonetheless, we see a steady

rate of approximately 30% customers who are new to the

market. New customers are vital to increasing the market

customer base contributing to the markets’ sustainability.

In each community, of those individuals who had been to

the market before, most shoppers visited the market more

than once a month (East LA—93% and South LA—95%).

Table 2 reports consumer frequency of visits.

Perception of the Farmers’ Markets

Overall, customers reported high satisfaction with the

farmers’ markets in each community. As seen in Table 3,

well over 80% of respondents rated most market charac-

teristics as good or excellent. Further, nearly all reported

intention of returning (95% South LA; 93% East LA).

Nearly half of respondents in East LA (44%) and South

LA (41%) reported that they would like to see other

products sold at the market. These respondents suggested

additional products in open-ended responses, which inclu-

ded chilies, ethnic foods, greater variety of fruits and

vegetables and non-produce foods such as eggs, dairy, teas,

baked goods and prepared foods. Some suggested selling

non-food goods such as toys, arts and crafts, cleaning

products and plants/flowers, and providing more activities

and on-site educational programs.

The majority of individuals regarded market products’

cost (East LA 70% and South LA 78%) and value (East LA

79% South LA 80%) as excellent or good. Nonetheless, there

was a sizeable degree of dissatisfaction (31% in South LA;

23% East LA) with the cost of market products, though the

question did not differentiate food from non-food products.

2007 Q 3-4 2008 Q 1-2 2008 Q 3-4 2009 Q 1-2

% First Visit 75% 38% 37% 31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Per

cent

South Los Angeles Farmers‚ Market

Fig. 1 Percent of surveyed individuals attending the South LA

market for the first time

2007 Q 2 2007 Q 3-4 2008 Q 1-2 2008 Q 3-4 2009 Q 1-2

% First Visit 42% 51% 44% 38% 28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

ent

East Los Angeles Farmers‚ Market

Fig. 2 Percent of surveyed individuals attending the East LA market

for the first time

Table 2 Frequency of visits (repeat customers)

South LA (%) East LA (%)

\Once a month 7 5

Once a month 10 9

Twice a month 22 18

Three times a month 25 21

Weekly 36 47

558 J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562

123

Although some people were not expecting to purchase

anything at the markets, Table 4 illustrates that 14% were

planning to spend at least $10, at least 50% of shoppers

planned to spend between $15 and $30 and 13% had

budgeted over $31.

Eating Behavior and Physical Activity

Respondents were asked to rate several questions about the

impact of the market on their eating and physical activity

behavior. As seen in Table 5, an overwhelming majority from

both markets reported positive changes in most categories.

These findings were corroborated in customers’

responses to the open-ended question, ‘‘in what ways is

your life different because of the farmers’ market.’’ Most

who responded to this question maintained that the farm-

ers’ market reinforced healthy eating and lifestyle habits,

contributed to their health and, because of its close prox-

imity to their home, improved their access to fresh fruits and

vegetables. A few comment themes are included below.

I eat healthier food; I eat more/higher quality fruits

and vegetables; I get more food for my budget; I

spend more time outdoors; My kids eat more fresh

fruits and vegetables; I’m more physically active; and

I have lost weight.

A respondent from South LA added that the presence of a

farmers’ market in South LA not only contributed to

changes in behavior, but provides access to healthy food

sources that is overdue in the community.

I eat healthier and exercise more. It has also lifted my

spirit. Finally something in Watts that is absolutely a

positive change. Now I don’t have to go to Fairfax

[10 miles from South LA] for fresh fruit/vegetables.

Someone actually cares.

An East LA customer finds that the farmers’ market is both

beneficial to managing her diabetes and serves as a healthy

model for her children.

[I eat] more healthier because I have diabetes and that

is why I look for more fresh vegetables and fruits.

[Going to the market gives me] more quality time

with my daughters and they see healthy eating.

Respondents were asked what they liked most and least

about the market and were given the opportunity to provide

additional comments. Positive and negative comments

were similar in both markets Positive comments included

liking its close proximity to home, time and day of

operation, affordability and quality of produce, educational

opportunities and the opportunity to socialize. Fewer

Table 3 How do you feel about each of the following aspects of the

Farmers’ market?

South

LA

(%)

East

LA

(%)

Convenience of the location 98 97

Availability of parking spaces 95 91

Hours of operation 96 93

Cleanliness 97 97

Safety 96 98

Social atmosphere 97 97

Quality of products for sale 97 96

Variety of products for sale 90 90

Cost of products for sale 78 70

Value for the cost of products for sale 80 79

Availability of foods important to your

family/culture/tradition

91 92

Availability of foods that are familiar

to you and that you like to eat and cook

92 94

Availability of foods that are new to

you that you would like to try

89 89

Only responses that indicate ‘‘Excellent’’ or ‘‘Good’’ are shown above

Table 4 How much did/do you expect to spend today at the market?

South LA (%) East LA (%)

$0 4 1

$1–$5 7 5

$6–$10 15 14

$11–$15 12 8

$15–$20 33 40

$21–$30 17 19

More than $31 13 14

Table 5 Because of this market I now…

South

LA (%)

East

LA (%)

Eat more fruits and vegetables 98 97

Eat more organic food 93 87

Eat food that is fresher (less packaged food) 96 95

Eat less fast food 89 81

Eat more foods that are traditional for my

culture/family background

93 90

Eat new kinds of food 90 80

Spend less money on food 79 83

Am better able to provide food for my family

and myself

95 91

Feel better about were my food comes from 96 94

Am more physically active 93 90

Only responses that indicate ‘‘Agree’’ or ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ are shown

above

J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562 559

123

offered complaints but statements included that the prices

were too high, the market did not offer enough produce

variety and some had difficulty parking. A comment from a

South LA customer prompted an immediate market

change, which was to offer a shaded place for consumers

to rest. Few offered additional comments but response

themes included requests for other items to be offered and

reinforcement of their satisfaction that a farmers’ market is

now available to the community.

Discussion

While funding supporting this research did not allow for a

comprehensive evaluation of the characteristics and impact

of these farmers’ markets, these findings offer a picture of

farmers’ market shoppers in two significantly underserved

communities, communities under-represented in past studies

of farmers’ market utilization and consumption. Evidence is

growing that access to a vehicle or public transportation is

increasingly associated to greater access to healthy food

choices, especially in lower income areas where access is

more limited and many are forced to travel outside their

communities to find healthy food choices [2, 18]. Los

Angeles, an extraordinarily expansive geographic area with

limited public transportation and limited community walk-

ability; requiring the need for a vehicle. However, many

families in the communities in which these farmers’ markets

are located may not be able to afford a car or more than one

car, greatly reducing accessibility to food sources. It is no

surprise that over two-thirds reported that they drove - likely

related to the need for vehicle ownership in Los Angeles.

Further many came with another adult possibly sharing a

transportation resource. What is surprising is the relatively

high percent who walked (between 22 and 29%), some

appearing to walk as far as four miles. Our data suggest that

the greatest numbers of consumers came from the community

in which the markets were located, yet close to a quarter came

greater distance to utilize these markets. The more distant zip

codes represent areas with similar socioeconomic profiles,

i.e., low income, minority communities. Travelling greater

distance to this market may be a reflection of the paucity of

farmers’ markets, and healthy food options in the commu-

nities from which they come and/or they work near the market

as opposed to live near the market. The closest farmers’

market to the East Los Angeles Farmers’ Market is 5 miles

away and closest farmers’ market to the Watts Healthy

Farmers’ Markets, is 13 miles away. In contrast, many more

affluent communities have access to far more geographically

accessible markets, on more days of the week [20].

Also of interest is the finding that over 80% of con-

sumers appear to be women who are shopping with chil-

dren, quite possibly a necessity without access to

affordable childcare. Without comparable data from

farmers’ markets in more affluent communities, it is

unclear how common this may be. Nonetheless, even if

driven by necessity, it is heartening that younger genera-

tions are exposed to farmers’ markets as a viable food

venue option. Though disheartening, these findings, also

confirm evidence that immigrant and Latino consumers are

more likely to access fresh produce markets than African

American residents living in same communities [2]. Given

the demographics of East LA, it is not surprising that

nearly all consumers (93%) are Latino. However, Latinos

are disproportionately represented (78%) in South LA, in

which 40% of the community is African American. The

qualitative findings support the assumptions made among

the farmers’ market planning group that Latinos, especially

those born outside the US or with close ties to family in

Mexico and Central America, are far more likely to be

culturally familiar with fresh-air and specialty produce

markets than African Americans, many having been raised

in food environments with few outlets to fresh produce.

This study offers evidence that these farmers’ markets are

being utilized regularly, are valued, and provide access to

fresh produce in low income neighborhoods that historically

have offered limited access to quality healthy food options.

Before these markets were launched, community leaders and

residents expressed concern that farmers’ markets, while

bringing fresh produce to the community, farmers’ market

prices would be prohibitive to residents, as most are living in

poverty. Not only do these findings suggest that consumers

are satisfied and coming back, over half report incomes well

below the Federal Poverty Line. However, nearly a quarter or

a third of shoppers in both communities (23% in East LA,

31% in South LA) reported dissatisfaction with the cost of

market products. Further research should be conducted to

understand how markets determine and tailor price points for

different communities and compare costs and satisfaction

with markets in communities with more resources and

options to purchase fresh produce.

Both East and South LA share rich social and political

histories that are defined by ethnicity and culture. Residents

of East LA are nearly all of Latino heritage, most of

Mexican origin. Its diversity is defined more by accultur-

ation than income or ethnicity. Many East LA families

have been in the area for many generations while others

have more recently migrated to the US. Historically, South

LA has been the home to Los Angeles County’s largest

African American population and has been a nexus of

African American cultural and political activism, advocacy

and leadership. In the last two decades, the demographics

of the community have shifted with Latinos now repre-

senting over half of South LA’s population. In the planning

phases of the Community Diabetes Initiative, African

American leaders from these communities played an

560 J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562

123

instrumental role in advocating for improving access to

healthy eating choices and bringing a farmers’ market to

South LA. What is worthy of note is the disproportionately

low utilization of the farmers’ market by African American

residents in contrast to the high percentage of Latino

shoppers. It is unclear why African American families are

not coming. More research is warranted to explore possible

social, economic and/or cultural explanations of this dif-

ferential and consider strategies to attract greater numbers

of African Americans to the market.

Many consumers surveyed were disappointed that the

markets did not offer a wider variety of produce and non-

food products. Certified farmers’ market sites approved by

the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner and

the Health Department are part of a statewide program

meant to increase the sustainability of small farmers by

connecting the consumer and the farmer. All certified

markets are required to sell produce that is locally grown

and sold directly to the public. Southern California is a

rich, agricultural region, so farmers’ markets generally can

offer consumers a varied array of fresh and seasonal fruits

and vegetables. Nonetheless, seasonal availability and cli-

mate conditions can limit variety. Additionally, non-pro-

duce items must be produced locally. For example, baked

goods must be made from scratch locally and cannot be

prepackaged. Artisans can sell hand-made goods but can-

not resell items purchased from other sources. South LA

and East LA customers’ disappointment in the variety of

choices may be driven by the fact that farmers’ markets are

new to these communities and consumers may be unaware

of the limitations of what farmers’ markets can offer.

There are a number of limitations of this research that need

to be acknowledged. These findings reflect consumer opinions

and behaviors of two communities with similar socio-eco-

nomic characteristics. Funding limitations did not permit a

comparison of consumers utilizing farmers’ markets in

wealthier communities. Additionally, all surveys were anon-

ymous and it is possible that the data include more than one

survey from some respondents, though completed at a dif-

ferent time. The evaluation funding we received came from

two different sources. As such, funds for incentives were only

available to respondents in South LA. This most likely

accounts for the difference in sample sizes. Further, while we

were able to track consumer utilization, attitudes and behavior

over time, we were not able to track individuals’ changes in

shopping patterns, attitudes and behavior over time.

References

1. Bader, M. D., Ailshire, J. A., Morenoff, J. D., & House, J. S.

(2010). Measurement of the local food environment: A compar-

ison of existing data sources. American Journal of Epidemiolgy,171(5), 609–617.

2. Bader, M. D., Purciel, M., Yousefzadeh, P., & Neckerman, K. M.

(2010). Disparities in neighborhood food environments: Impli-

cations of measurement strategies. Economic Geography, 86(4),

409–430.

3. Baker, E. A., 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. Preventing ChronicDisease, 3(3), A76.

4. Basiotis, P., Carlson, S., Gerrior, S., Juan, W. Y., & Lino, M.

(2002). The healthy eating index: 1999–2000. Department of

agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

5. Bazzano, L. A., He, J., Ogden, L. G., Loria, C. M., Vupputuri, S.,

Myers, L., et al. (2002). Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of

cardiovascular disease in US adults: The first national health and

nutrition examination survey epidemiologic follow up study.

American Journal Clinical Nutrition, 76, 93–99.

6. Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., & Cummins, S. (2009). A system-

atic review of food deserts, 1966–2007. Preventing ChronicDisease, Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, 6(3),

A105.

7. Brown, C. (2008). The impacts of local markets: A review of

research on farmers markets and community supported agricul-

ture (CSA). American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(90),

1296–1302.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Obesitytrends. Trends by state 1985–2008. Retrieved April 19, 2011,

from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html.

9. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Annualupdate of the HHS poverty guidelines federal register.

10. Fisher, A. (1999). Hot peppers and parking lot peaches: Evalu-ating farmer’s markets in low income communities. Venice, CA:

Community Food Security Coalition.

11. Flegal, K. M., Carroll, M. D., Ogden, C. L., & Curtin, L. R.

(2010). Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults,

1999–2008. Journal of the American Medical Association,303(3), 235–241.

12. Institute of Medicine. (2009). Local government actions to pre-vent childhood obesity. Washington, D.C.: The National Acade-

mies Press.

13. Joshipura, K. J., Hu, F. B., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J., Rimm,

E. B., Speizer, F. E., et al. (2001). The effect of fruit and vege-

table intake on risk for coronary heart disease. Annals of InternalMedicine, 134, 1106–1114.

14. Key, T. J., Schatzkin, A., Willett, W. C., Allen, N. E., Spencer,

E. A., & Travis, R. C. (2004). Diet, nutrition, and the prevention

of cancer. Public Health Nutrition, 7, 187–200.

15. Khan, L., Sobush, K., Keener, D., Goodman, K., Lowry, A.,

Kakietek, J., & Zaro, S. (2009). Recommended community strategiesand measurements to prevent obesity in the United States. MMWR.

16. Kipke, M. D., Iverson, E., Moore, D., Booker, C., Ruelas, V.,

Peters, A. L., et al. (2007). Food and park environments:

Neighborhood-level risks for childhood obesity in East Los

Angeles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 325–333.

17. Kumanyika, S., & Grier, S. (2006). Targeting interventions for

ethnic minority and low-income populations. The Future ofChildren, 16(1), 187–207.

18. Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2008). Mapping the evolution of ‘food

deserts’ in a Canadian city: Supermarket accessibility in London,

Ontario, 1961–2005. International Journal of Health Geograph-ics, 7, 16.

19. Larsen, K., & Gilliland, J. (2009). A farmers’ market in a food

desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy

food. Health Place, 15(4), 1158–1162.

20. Los Angeles Times. Southern Californai farmers’ markets.

Retrieved 5/24/11, from http://projects.latimes.com/farmers-

markets/.

J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562 561

123

21. Mead, M. N. (2008). The sprawl of food deserts. EnvironmentalHealth Perspect, 116(8), A335.

22. Morland, K., Wing, S., & Roux, A. D. (2002). The contextual

effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: The

atherosclerosis risk in communities study. American Journal ofPublic Health, 92(11), 1761–1768.

23. National Research Center Inc. (2006). Community food projectevaluation handbook and the community food project evaluationtoolkit.

24. Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology. (2007). LAhealth trends, diabetes on the rise. Los Angeles County,

Department of Public Health.

25. Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology. (2009). Keyindicators of health. Los Angeles County, Department of Public

Health.

26. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., Lamb, M. M., &

Flegal, K. M. (2010). Prevalence of high body mass index in US

children and adolescents, 2007–2008. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 303(3), 242–249.

27. Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., Spence, J. C., & Amrhein, C. (2006). Food

deserts in the prairies? Supermarket accessibility and neighbor-

hood need in Edmonton, Canada. Professional Geographer,58(3), 307–326.

28. Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O’Brien, R., & Glanz, K.

(2008). Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy

and environmental approaches. Annual Review of Public Health,23, 253–272.

29. Surgeon General. (2010). Surgeon general’s vision for a healthyand fit nation 2010. Retrieved 4/28/11, from http://www.surgeon

general.gov/library/obesityvision/obesityvision2010.pdf.

30. US Bureau of Census. (2000). Census, 2000.

31. US Department if Agriculture A. M. S. A. (2007). Farmersmarket growth: 1994–2006. From http://www.ams.usda.gov/far

mersmarket/FarmersMarketGrowth.htm.

32. United States Department of Agriculture. Farmers markets andlocal food marketing. Retrieved 4/19/11, from http://www.

ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FarmersMarkets.

33. White, M. (2007). Food access and obesity. Obesity Review,8(suppl 1), 99–107.

34. Wolf, A. M., & Colditz, G. A. (1998). Current estimates of the

economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obesity Research,6(2), 97–106.

35. Zepeda, L. (2009). Which little piggy goes to the market?

Characteristics of US farmers’ market shoppers. InternationalJournal of Consumer Studies, 33, 250–257.

562 J Community Health (2012) 37:554–562

123