Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose

To understand the distribution of healthy and unhealthy food stores and restaurants around historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in South Carolina.

Design

DatabaseUSA and ArcGIS Pro were used to identify, classify, and map food stores and restaurants near each HBCU.

Setting

The study area included a 3-mile buffer radius around the eight South Carolina HBCUs.

Subjects

A total of 654 food stores and restaurants were identified within a 3-mile radius of the HBCUs.

Measures

Demographic data for each HBCU was collected from the National Center for Education Statistics. The food stores and restaurants were identified using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and descriptions, and they were classified using previous research methodologies.

Results

Based on the analysis, 19 (2.9%), 237 (36.2%), and 398 locations (60.9%) were classified as healthy, intermediate, and unhealthy, respectively. Within a 0.5-mile radius of the HBCUs, there were no retail food stores classified as healthy, followed by 14 (2.1%) and 23 (3.5%) retail food stores and restaurants that were classified as intermediate and unhealthy, respectively.

Conclusions

This study shows that most food options around South Carolina HBCUs are unhealthy and that few places are available to purchase healthy food. Eating well will be difficult in the current food environment. Increasing healthy options should be part of a comprehensive approach to promoting good nutrition.

Keywords

food environment food security environmental justice Historically Black Colleges and Universities geographic information systems

Purpose

Food insecurity, which is defined as a condition where access to adequate food is limited,¹ has emerged as a significant public health issue affecting people across the United States. Food insecurity goes far beyond simply being hungry. While hunger is a potential consequence of food insecurity, food insecurity is a complex issue that is influenced by a variety of economic and societal conditions that result in a consistent lack of access to healthy foods. Emerging research has investigated the impact of food environments on food insecurity. Food environments are broadly defined in terms of access to food in a community, neighborhood, or region, most notably in the form of food stores, restaurants, and public venues (e.g., schools, worksites, and public meeting places).^2,3 Food environments have been shown to directly influence the prevalence of food insecurity. Healthy food environments provide and promote access to food and drink that is affordable and that contributes to sustainable healthy diets, while limiting the access and promotion of foods associated with unhealthy diets.⁴ Meanwhile, unhealthy food environments lack access to healthy foods and consist of large numbers of unhealthy retail food stores and restaurants. These unhealthy food environments, which offer low-cost, poor quality foods, correspond to higher rates of food insecurity.^5,6 Figure 1 illustrates the components of healthy and unhealthy food environments.

Figure 1.

Healthy and unhealthy food environments.

A recent study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in the United States, 12.8%, or approximately 17 million households, are food insecure, while 5.1%, or approximately 6.8 million households, experience severe food insecurity.¹ Research has shown that rates of food insecurity are higher in low-income communities, communities of color (e.g., Black and Hispanic households), and areas with lower socioeconomic status (SES).⁷ Areas with higher rates of food insecurity are consistently located in unhealthy food environments with low food access and an overabundance of unhealthy food options.^7-9

The prevalence of food insecurity on college campuses is much higher, with recent studies reporting rates of food insecurity ranging from 34-52%.^6,10,11 Along with the health issues associated with food insecurity, college students are also more likely to experience academic challenges, including lower grades, delayed graduation, difficulty completing their school work, and reduced class attendance.^12,13 These students are also more likely to experience various mental health challenges, including increased substance use, suicidal ideation, and elevated levels of stress and depression.^14,15 The prevalence of food insecurity also differs among colleges and universities. A study of colleges and universities throughout North Carolina found that food insecurity was twice as high for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and three times as high for community college students (22.4% and 37.1%, respectively) than for predominantly white private universities (11.8%).¹⁶

When evaluating the quality of food environments, researchers have commonly utilized the following categories: food store environments (supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, specialty food stores, farmer’s markets, and community food pantries); restaurant food environments (fast food and full-service restaurants); home food environment (food that is available within the home); school food environments (cafeterias, vending machines, and on-campus snack shops); worksite food environments (cafeterias, vending machines, and snack shops); public facility food environments (cafeterias, vending machines, and available snack shops in and around a public facility); and macro food environments (national and regional food supply and availability).^3,17 Researchers have shown that the food environment is an important determinant of health and can influence a variety of health outcomes, including obesity^18,19 and diabetes.²⁰ Poor mental health has also been associated with local food environments.²¹

For college students, particularly students of color, the food store environment and the restaurant food environment near campus play a significant role in their ability to access nutritious food and make healthy food choices. However, in South Carolina, peer-reviewed research on food insecurity has focused exclusively on rural populations, with a particular focus on the home food environment²² and neighborhood social environments,²³ along with impacts to food insecurity related to the COVID-19 pandemic.²⁴ To the authors’ knowledge, no peer-reviewed research has been performed to investigate the food environment around colleges and universities in South Carolina, particularly HBCUs. This study aims to evaluate the restaurant and food store environments around the HBCUs in South Carolina. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to characterize the restaurant and food store environments around the HBCUs in South Carolina by classifying the food retail stores and restaurants that surround these universities. Understanding the restaurant and food store environments around HBCUs in South Carolina is an important first step in guiding the decision-making related to on-campus food offerings and community-wide interventions, as well as supporting the development of healthy food environments that are necessary to improve the health outcomes of HBCU students.

Methods

Setting

This study examined the food environment surrounding the eight South Carolina HBCUs. Figure 2 provides the locations of the HBCUs in South Carolina. As of 2022, these HBCUs serve approximately 8789 students.²⁵ The HBCUs with the largest student populations are South Carolina State University (2,469), followed by Benedict College (1,840), Claflin University (1,830), and Denmark Technical College (725). The population at these HBCUs primarily consists of underrepresented students. The majority of the students are Black (86%), followed by international (4%), white (4%), and non-white Hispanic (1%). Table 1 provides additional information on the student populations at these HBCUs. Geographically, these HBCUs are located in areas that are either classified as “urban” or “rural”, as defined by the USDA. The USDA utilizes a definition of urban that identifies “urbanized areas” (i.e., areas with a population of 50,000 or more) and “urban clusters” (i.e., areas with a population between 2500 and 50,000); thus, areas that do not meet this criteria are classified as “rural”.²⁶ Based on this definition, four HBCUs are located in urban areas (Allen University, Benedict College, Clinton College, and Morris College), while the other HBCUs are located in rural areas (Claflin University, Denmark Technical College, South Carolina State University, and Voorhees University). Due to the proximity of the schools, the radii around several HBCUs significantly overlapped, and the analysis was combined.

Figure 2.

Map of HBCUs in South Carolina.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the HBCUs in South Carolina.²⁵

Characteristic	Allen University	Benedict College	Claflin University	Clinton College	Denmark Tech. College	Morris College	SC State university	Voorhees University
Total enrollment	657	1840	1830	197	725	384	2649	507
Located in rural or urban area	Urban	Urban	Rural	Urban	Rural	Urban	Rural	Rural
Enrollment status
Full-time (%)	92	95	91	97	45	99	86	89
Part-time (%)	8	5	9	3	55	1	14	11
Financial aid
Pell grant recipients (%)	87	68	74	59	39	84	66	81
Federal student loan (%)	85	61	76	72	26	86	61	51
Sex
Men (%)	57	45	31	44	41	47	44	42
Women (%)	43	55	69	56	59	53	56	58
Race and ethnicity
Black/African American	93	79	89	90	75	93	89	93
White	--	1	4	2	20	1	3	--
Hispanic	2	3	1	--	3	2	--	--
Asian	--	1	--	1	--	--	--	--
American Indian/Alaska native	2	1	--	1	1	--	--	--
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Two or more races	--	--	--	6	--	2	1	--
US non-resident	1	14	2	--	--	--	--	6
Unknown	1	1	3	1	--	1	6	--

Design

To identify the retail food stores and restaurants around the HBCUs in South Carolina, we used DatabaseUSA,²⁷ which provides a list of all of the businesses in the United States. The information obtained for each entity included the business name, address, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, SIC description, latitude and longitude, and annual revenue. The database was searched for SIC codes and descriptions that corresponded to restaurants, supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, and various other food retail stores within a 3-mile radius of each HBCU. Table 2 provides the SIC codes and SIC descriptions that were used for the study. Along with the description, each entity was examined to ensure that the proper classification was made for the study. The entities were compiled and downloaded into Microsoft Excel. An internet search engine (e.g., Google) was used to confirm that the stores were open for business.

Table 2.

SIC Descriptions and Codes Used in This Study.

SIC description	SIC Code
Alcoholic beverage drinking places	5813001
Bakeries	5461001
Cafes	5812009
Candy, nut, & confectionery stores	5441001
Coffee shops	5812012
Coffee & tea stores	5499008
Cookies & cracker stores	5461007
Convenience stores	5411002
Department stores	5311001
Dollar stores	5331006
Doughnut stores	5461002
Fruit & vegetable markets	5431001
Gas stations	5541001
Grocers wholesale	5141001
Grocery stores	5411001
Health & diet foods stores	5499002
Ice cream parlors	5812014
Juice bars	5812098
Liquor stores	5921001
Meats & meat products wholesale	5147001
Misc food stores	5499001
Nonclassified establishments	9999001
Pharmacies	5912001
Pizza	5812003
Restaurants	5812001
Retail stores	5999001
Seafood	5421004
Supermarkets	5411003
Tearooms	5812090

Analysis

The quality of a food environment is often defined by the access and availability of fresh food.^2,3 Healthy food environments are characterized by the presence of supermarkets, grocery stores, and restaurants that offer healthy food options, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. On the other hand, unhealthy food environments consist of an overabundance of fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, and other stores that primarily offer food with high fat, sodium, and sugar content.²⁸ Moreover, researchers have also defined unhealthy food environments in terms of adverse health outcomes, such as obesity and impact to body-mass index (BMI).^5,29 Identifying and classifying the food stores and restaurants that surround these HBCUs are essential steps in examining their corresponding food environments.

Based on the methodology used in previous food environment characterization studies,^28-30 the restaurants and retail food stores were placed into 14 categories: (1) Supermarkets (chain and non-chain); (2) Fruit and Vegetable Stores/Farmer’s Markets; (3) Natural/Health Food Stores; (4) Full Service Restaurants; (5) Medium-sized Grocery Stores; (6) Fish and Seafood markets; (7) Specialty Food Stores; (8) Fast-food Restaurants; (9) Pizzerias; 10) Convenience Stores and Gas Stations; 11) Bakeries, Candy and Nut, and Dessert Stores; 12) Dollar Stores and Pharmacies; 13) Non-alcoholic drinking places (e.g., coffee, smoothies); and 14) Alcoholic Drinking Places and Liquor Stores. For descriptive purposes, the categories were combined and classified as “healthy” (1-3), “intermediate” (4-7), and “unhealthy” (8-14).^28,29

The locations of the HBCUs, along with the coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) of the restaurants and retail food stores, were uploaded in ArcGIS Pro as point files. Then, a “Near Analysis” (using the ArcGIS Pro Geoprocessing tool) was performed to find the geodesic distance between each food store and the appropriate HBCU. Then, the ArcGIS Pro Buffer tool was used to create 0.5-mile and 3-mile buffers around the schools as displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Map of restaurants and food stores near HBCUs by classification: (a) Benedict College and Allen University (HBCUs); (b) Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University; (c) Claflin University and South Carolina State University; (d) Morris College; (e) Clinton College.

Results

The analysis performed in this study yielded a total of 654 restaurants and retail food stores. As shown in Table 3, most of these places were classified as unhealthy (60.9%), while 36.2% and 2.9% were classified as intermediate and healthy, respectively. Overall, full-service restaurants were the predominant category (33.7%), followed by convenience stores (16.6%) and fast-food restaurants (11.4%). The next set of most common places identified in the study were dollar stores and pharmacies (9.1%); alcoholic drinking places and liquor stores (8.4%); and bakeries, candy and nut stores, and dessert shops (6.3%). Supermarkets, fruit and vegetable stores, and medium-sized grocery stores made up 1.8%, 0.8% and 0.6% of the total stores, respectively.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Restaurants and Retail Food Stores Within 3-Mile Radius of HBCUs in South Carolina (N = 654).

Retail food store type	Number (N)	Percentage of total (%)
Healthy
Supermarkets	12	1.8
Fruit and vegetable stores/farmer’s markets	5	0.8
Natural/health food stores	2	0.3
Total – Healthy	19	2.9
Intermediate
Full-service restaurants	221	33.7
Medium sized grocery stores	4	0.6
Fish/seafood markets	5	0.8
Specialty food stores	7	1.1
Total – Intermediate	237	36.2
Unhealthy
Fast-food restaurants	75	11.4
Pizzerias	30	4.6
Convenience stores/gas stations	108	16.6
Bakeries, candy and nut, dessert	41	6.3
Dollar stores/pharmacies	60	9.1
Non-alcoholic drinking places (e.g., coffee, smoothies)	29	4.4
Alcoholic drinking places/liquor stores	55	8.4
Total – Unhealthy	398	60.9

Table 4 shows the number and percentage of healthy, intermediate, and unhealthy restaurants and food stores within a 0.5-mile and 3-mile radius around the HBCUs in South Carolina. Allen University and Benedict College had the highest number of restaurants and food stores (348), followed by Claflin University and South Carolina State University (146), Morris College (77), Clinton College (64), and Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University (20). No places classified as “healthy” were located within 0.5 miles of these schools. Moreover, no restaurants or food stores were located within 0.5 miles of Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University. For the remaining schools, Allen University and Benedict College had the highest number of places classified as “intermediate” within a 0.5-mile radius (n = 9; 2.6%), followed by Claflin University and South Carolina State University (n = 3; 2.1%), Clinton College (n = 1; 1.6%), and Morris College (n = 1; 1.3%). Allen University and Benedict College also had the highest number of places classified as “unhealthy” within a 0.5-mile radius (n = 13; 3.7%), followed by Claflin University and South Carolina State University (n = 10; 6.8%). The other HBCUs did not have any places classified as “unhealthy” within a 0.5-mile radius.

Table 4.

Classification of Restaurants and Retail Food Stores Within a 0.5-Mile Radius and a 3-Mile Radius of HBCUs in South Carolina.

HBCU	Within 0.5 miles			Within 3 miles			Total
HBCU	Healthy (N, %)	Intermediate (N, %)	Unhealthy (N, %)	Healthy (N, %)	Intermediate (N, %)	Unhealthy (N, %)	Total
Allen university & Benedict College^a	0 (0%)	9 (2.6%)	13 (3.7%)	6 (1.7%)	137 (39.4%)	183 (52.6%)	348 (100%)
Claflin University & SC State University^a	0 (0%)	3 (2.1%)	10 (6.8%)	5 (3.4%)	37 (25.3%)	91 (62.3%)	146 (100%)
Clinton College	0 (0%)	1 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	2 (3.1%)	12 (18.8%)	49 (76.6%)	64 (100%)
Denmark Tech. College & Voorhees University^a	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (15.0%)	16 (80.0%)	20 (100%)
Morris College	0 (0%)	1 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	5 (6.5%)	34 (44.2%)	36 (48.1%)	77 (100%)
Total	0 (0%)	14 (2.1%)	23 (3.5%)	19 (2.9%)	223 (34.1%)	375 (57.3%)	654 (100%)

^aThe following HBCUs are located within one mile of each other (see Figure 3), and therefore, the number and type of food stores that were identified was the same for both universities: Allen University and Benedict College; Claflin University and South Carolina State University; Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University

Most places within a 3-mile radius of these schools were classified as “unhealthy” (57.3%). Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University had the highest percentage of places classified as “unhealthy” (80%; n = 16), followed by Clinton College (76.6%; n = 49), Claflin University and South Carolina State University (62.3%; n = 91), Allen University and Benedict College (52.6%; n = 183), and Morris College (48.1%; n = 36). With respect to places classified as “intermediate”, Morris College has the highest percentage (44.2%; n = 34), followed by Allen University and Benedict College (39.4%; n = 137), Claflin and South Carolina State University (25.3%; n = 37), Clinton College (18.8%; n = 12), and Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University (15.0%; n = 3). While the overall number of places classified as “healthy” was low (n = 19; 2.9%), Allen University and Benedict College had the highest number (n = 6; 1.7%), followed by Morris College (n = 5; 6.5%), Claflin University and South Carolina State University (n = 5; 3.4%), Clinton College (n = 2; 3.1%), and Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University (n = 1; 5.0%).

Discussion

While research has been conducted to examine healthy and unhealthy food environments,^5,23,31 few studies have examined food environments around colleges in the United States, particularly HBCU campuses. In this study, the results show that 399 out of 655 locations (60.9%) were classified as unhealthy, with the highest number being convenience stores (109) and fast-food restaurants (75). These findings are similar to results found in a similar study by Vilme et al., 2022, which investigated the food environment around HBCUs in North Carolina. Although restaurants were not included, their study found that the majority of food places (76%) around HBCUs in North Carolina were unfavorable and that all the places within walking distance of the HBCUs were convenience stores.³² This finding is significant because the types of available food options have been shown to influence an individual’s overall physical and mental health. For instance, several studies have found correlations between poor food environments and increased cardiovascular disease,³³ obesity,³¹ and diabetes.³⁰ Moreover, poor food environments have also been associated with a wide variety of mental health impacts, including increased stress levels,²³ depression,^34-36 anxiety,^34,36 and psychological distress.³⁷ Furthermore, an individual’s dietary choices are also impacted by the surrounding food environment. The food options that college students can access often play a role in their ability to develop and sustain healthy eating habits and nutritional behaviors.³⁸ Studies have shown that the intake of fruits and vegetables among Black residents increased as the number of supermarkets in the surrounding food environment increased.^39,40 Conversely, the intake of less healthy, energy-dense foods increased with greater access to unhealthy food options.^17,39,41

Less favorable food environments have been reported for rural communities throughout the United States.^18,22 While the placement of these HBCUs in rural or urban areas influences the overall number of food stores and restaurants in their food environment, it does not appear to influence the distribution of the types of food options available to these students. For instance, the highest percentage of places classified as unhealthy was found in Denmark Technical College and Voorhees University (80.0%), which is in a rural county, followed by Clinton College (76.6%), which is in an urban area. Furthermore, the highest number of places classified as healthy are located around Allen University and Benedict College (6), which is in an urban area, followed by Claflin University and South Carolina State University (5), located in a rural area, and Morris College (5), located in an urban area.

One contributing factor to the types of food options available to students at HBCUs appears to be its proximity to a predominately white institution (PWI). As shown in Figure 4, Allen University and Benedict College are located within 1 mile of the University of South Carolina at Columbia (USC-Columbia), a PWI (63.9% White; 27.9% Black/African American; 5.3% Hispanic) with an enrollment of 35,590 students, while Morris College is approximately 2 miles away from the University of South Carolina at Sumter (USC-Sumter), a PWI (59.1% White; 23.5% Black/African American; 6.1% Hispanic) with an enrollment of 1502 students. The food options around these HBCUs are more evenly divided between places classified as intermediate and unhealthy than the other HBCUs in South Carolina. For instance, around Morris College, 44.2% of the places are classified as intermediate, and 48.1% are classified as unhealthy. Meanwhile, around Allen University and Benedict College, 39.4% of the places are classified as intermediate, and 52.6% are classified as unhealthy. In contrast, the other HBCUs have much higher percentages of unhealthy food options (62.3-80.0%) and much lower percentages of intermediate options (15.0-25.3%).

Figure 4.

Comparison of adjacent PWIs and HBCUs - (a) USC-Columbia (PWI) & Benedict College and Allen University (HBCUs); (b) USC-Sumter (PWI) & Morris College (HBCU).

Moreover, as shown in Figure 4, most of these places are located closer to the PWIs (i.e., USC-Columbia and USC-Sumter) than the HBCUs (i.e., Allen University, Benedict College, and Morris College). Table 5 provides a comparison of the food environments for these PWIs and HBCUs.

Table 5.

Comparison of Food Environment Around Adjacent PWIs and HBCUs in South Carolina.

Food Store Classification	USC-Columbia (PWI)	Allen University and Benedict College (HBCUs)	Diff.	USC-Sumter (PWI)	Morris College (HBCU)	Diff.
Healthy
Within 0.5 mi	0	0	0	4	0	+4
Within 3 mi	6	6	0	8	5	+3
Total	6	6	0	12	5	+7
Intermediate
Within 0.5 mi	22	9	+13	5	1	+4
Within 3 miles	132	137	−5	51	34	+17
Total	154	146	+9	56	35	+21
Unhealthy
Within 0.5 mi	16	13	+3	5	0	+5
Within 3 miles	137	183	−46	70	36	+34
Total	153	196	−43	75	36	+39

For instance, when comparing the areas around USC-Columbia and Allen University and Benedict College, a much higher number of unhealthy food places are located near Allen University and Benedict College, while USC-Columbia had more intermediate food places in its food environment. However, the same number of healthy places were found near these universities. While there were no healthy places within 0.5 miles of these schools, USC-Columbia has 2.4 times as many intermediate places, along with a slightly higher number of unhealthy places, as the HBCUs within 0.5 miles of its campus. Meanwhile, when comparing the areas around USC-Sumter and Morris College, the differences were much greater. There were over twice as many healthy places near USC-Sumter than Morris College, along with greater numbers of intermediate and unhealthy places near USC-Sumter. When examining the food environment within 0.5 miles of these schools, Morris College has one (1) intermediate place for food, while USC-Sumter has four (4) healthy places, five (5) intermediate places, and five (5) unhealthy places. This finding suggests that students at USC-Sumter have a robust food environment within walking distance of its campus. Overall, students at Morris College had significantly fewer options for healthy and intermediate food options than students at USC-Sumter. These findings are consistent with previous research that has shown that PWIs throughout the United States consistently have more favorable food environments than HBCUs.^32,42 Thus, for HBCUs, being near a PWI will potentially result in improvements to their food environments.

Although the need for a healthy food environment is important for all students, it is particularly critical for students at HBCUs. These students are predominantly Black students, many of whom have limited access to transportation, do not have a steady income, and come from low-income families. Researchers have also found connections between unhealthy food environments and food insecurity for college students.^5,9,43 The ubiquity of unhealthy food stores and restaurants around HBCU campuses often cause these students to rely on stores that have less healthy foods, such as dollar stores (e.g., Family Dollar and Dollar General), convenience stores, and fast-food restaurants, thus contributing to higher levels of food insecurity.

Limitations

There are some limitations that exist with this study. For instance, a radius of three miles was used as the buffer distance around the HBCU campuses for accessing food by HBCU students. As a result, places beyond this distance were not included in the analysis. In many instances, students may have access to transportation and be able to travel farther than three miles to obtain food. In other instances, students may not be able to travel up to three miles. As a result, it would be challenging to identify the specific distance that would represent the limits of travel for the students. Moreover, the analysis done in this study only considered stationary, brick-and-mortar businesses. While these businesses are the most common means by which students purchase food, in recent years, mobile markets and food trucks are becoming more prevalent, and they can potentially offer students additional healthy food alternatives. Furthermore, many cities are initiating programs that would make food and grocery delivery services more accessible to students and low-income households, which would also increase their access to healthy food options. Along with these limitations, this study does not provide an extensive comparison between HBCUs and PWIs in South Carolina. Although the focus of this study is on the specific context related to HBCUs, the results clearly demonstrate the influence of PWIs on the food environment. An understanding of the differences in the food environments for HBCUs and PWIs may provide additional insight into the factors that influence the quality of the food stores and restaurants surrounding HBCUs.

Conclusions

This study characterized the food environment around the HBCUs in South Carolina by identifying and classifying the retail food stores and restaurants that surround these universities. The results of the study show that most food options around these HBCUs are unhealthy and that few places were available to purchase healthy food. While research related to the food environment around HBCUs is limited, the results were consistent with previous studies that have evaluated HBCUs and other predominantly Black communities. Availability and access to healthy food options are key factors for supporting healthy eating habits and confronting high levels of food insecurity. While limitations are present in this study, university officials and administrators can use these initial findings to develop strategies to improve the food environment around HBCUs in South Carolina.

Along with this study, more research is needed to fully understand the experience of students at HBCUs. This research would include an evaluation of the on-campus food environment at these HBCUs, which would provide a complete picture of the food options available to these students. Moreover, research is needed to understand the impact of the food environment on the physical and mental well-being of HBCU students. Detailed studies are needed to quantify the prevalence of food insecurity at these HBCUs and to elucidate its connection to the surrounding food environment. Overall, the findings in this study highlight the need to further investigate the factors and influences on the surrounding food environment at these HBCUs and the dietary choices made by these students.

So What?

What is already known on this topic?

Higher rates of food insecurity have been reported for college students, particularly students at HBCUs, and researchers have shown that the food environment contributes directly to the prevalence of food insecurity. However, little research has been done to examine the food environment around college campuses.

What Does This Article add?

This article characterizes the restaurant and food store environment around the HBCUs in South Carolina and shows that most food stores and restaurants around these colleges are unhealthy and that very few food options are available within a 0.5-mile radius of these campuses.

What are the Implications for Health Promotion Practice or Research?

These findings suggest that health promotion practitioners need to develop strategies to improve the food environment around these HBCUs to provide healthier food options. These results also highlight the need for researchers to evaluate the on-campus food environment at these HBCUs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Kroger Foundation and the United Negro College Fund's Institute for Capacity Building.

ORCID iDs

Lesley Joseph

Jessica Boakye

References

Rabbitt

Hales

Burke

Coleman-jensen

. Household Food Security in the United States in 2022. 2023.

Glanz

Sallis

Saelens

Frank

. Healthy nutrition environments: concepts and measures. Am J Health Promot. 2005;19(5):330-333.

Mckinnon

Reedy

Morrissette

Lytle

Yaroch

. Measures of the food environment: a compilation of the literature, 1990-2007. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(4S):S124-S133. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.012

European Public Health Alliance . What are “food environments”? 2019. https://epha.org/what-are-food-environments/, Accessed 9 October 2024.

Souza Oliveira

Cristina Egito de Menezes

Almendra

, et al.

Unhealthy food environments that promote overweight and food insecurity in a brazilian metropolitan area: a case of a syndemic?

Food Pol. 2022;112:102375. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102375

Weaver

Hendricks

Vaughn

McPherson-Myers

Willis

Terry

. Obstacles to food security, food pantry use, and educational success among university students: a mixed methods approach. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(8):2548-2559. doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.1873789

Odoms-young

Brown

AGM

Agurs-collins

Glanz

. Food insecurity, neighborhood food environment, and health disparities: state of the science, research gaps and opportunities. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024;119(3):850-861. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.019

Yuan

. Historical redlining and food environments: a study of 102 urban areas in the United States. Health Place. 2022;75(July 2021):102775. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102775

Eskandari

Lake

Rose

Butler

O'Malley

. A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of the influences of food environments and food insecurity on obesity in high-income countries. Food Sci Nutr. 2022;10:3689-3723. doi:10.1002/fsn3.2969

10.

Conrad

Tolar-peterson

Gardner

Wei

Evans

. Addressing food insecurity: a qualitative study of undergraduate students’ perceptions of food access resources. Nutrients. 2022;14:3517.

11.

Halfacre

Chang

Holben

Roseman

. Cooking facilities and food procurement skills reduce food insecurity among college students: a pilot study. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2021;16(5):650-663. doi:10.1080/19320248.2021.1949423

12.

Morris

Smith

Davis

Null

. The prevalence of food security and insecurity among Illinois university students. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(6):376-382. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.03.013

13.

Patton-Lopez

Lopez-Cevallos

Cancel-Tirado

Vazquez

. Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity among students attending a midsize rural university in Oregon. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(3):209-214. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2013.10.007

14.

Meza

Altman

Martinez

Leung

. “It’s a feeling that one is not worth food”: a qualitative study exploring the psychosocial experience and academic consequences of food insecurity among college students. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019;119(10):1713-1721. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2018.09.006

15.

Pryor

Lioret

van der Waerden

Fombonne

Falissard

Melchior

. Food insecurity and mental health problems among a community sample of young adults. Soc Psychiatr Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016;51:1073-1081. doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1249-9

16.

Batchelder

Drake

Johnson

, et al. Risk factors of food insecurity among students at diverse post-secondary education institutions: a cross-sectional examination. J Am Coll Health. 2023;1-10. doi:10.1080/07448481.2023.2252520

17.

Lytle

Sokol

. Measures of the food environment: a systematic review of the field , 2007 – 2015. Health Place. 2017;44:18-34. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.12.007

18.

Casey

Elliott

Glanz

, et al. Impact of the food environment and physical activity environment on behaviors and weight status in rural U.S. communities. Prev Med. 2008;47:600-604. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.10.001

19.

Mehta

Chang

. Weight status and restaurant availability A multilevel analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):127-133. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.031

20.

Ahern

Brown

Dukas

. A national study of the association between food environments and county-level health outcomes. J Rural Health. 2011;27:367-379. doi:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2011.00378.x

21.

Bergmans

Sadler

Wolfson

Jones

Kruger

. Moderation of the association between individual food security and poor mental health by the local food environment among adult residents of Flint, Michigan. Heal Equity. 2019;3(1):264-274. doi:10.1089/heq.2018.0103

22.

Hossfeld

Rennert

Baxter

SLK

Griffin

Parisi

. The association between food security status and the home food environment among a sample of rural South Carolina residents. Nutrients. 2023;15:3918.

23.

Koob

Luo

Mobley

, et al. Food insecurity and stress among rural residents in South Carolina: the moderating influences of household Characteristics , neighborhood social environment and food environment. J Community Health. 2023;48:367-380.

24.

Baxter

SLK

Koob

Otr

, et al. Food insecurity, the food environment, and COVID-19 in rural South Carolina. Fam Community Health. 2023;46(2):128-135. doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000355

25.

US Department of Education . Integrated postsecondary education data system. 2022. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data

26.

USDA . What is rural? 2024. https://www.nal.usda.gov/rural-development-communities/what-is-rural, Accessed 4 November 2024.

27.

DatabaseUSA . AtoZ databases. 2024. https://www.atozdatabases.com/home

28.

Vernez Moudon

Drewnowski

Duncan

Hurvitz

Saelens

Scharnhorst

. Characterizing the food environment: pitfalls and future directions. Publ Health Nutr. 2013;16(7):1238-1243. doi:10.1017/S1368980013000773

29.

Rundle

Neckerman

Freeman

, et al. Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York city. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):442-447. doi:10.1289/ehp.11590

30.

Gebreab

Hickson

Sims

, et al. Neighborhood social and physical environments and type 2 diabetes mellitus in African Americans: the Jackson Heart study. Health Place. 2017;43:128-137. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.12.001

31.

Bassi

Bahl

Arora

Tullu

Dudeja

Gupta

. Food environment in and around schools and colleges of Delhi and national capital region (NCR) in India. BMC Publ Health. 2021;21:1767. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11778-6

32.

Vilme

Paul

Duke

, et al. Using geographic information systems to characterize food environments around historically black colleges and universities: implications for nutrition interventions. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(3):1-6. doi:10.1080/07448481.2020.1767113

33.

Testa

Jackson

Semenza

Vaughn

. Food deserts and cardiovascular health among young adults. Publ Health Nutr. 2020;24(1):1-8. doi:10.1017/S1368980020001536

34.

Adan

RAH

van der Beek

Buitelaar

, et al. Nutritional psychiatry : towards improving mental health by what you eat. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019;29(12):1321-1332. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.10.011

35.

Dualle

Robinette

Hatsu

. Food related challenges and mental health among US. African migrants : a narrative review. J Immigr Minority Health. 2024;26(2):371-384. doi:10.1007/s10903-023-01512-2

36.

Owen

Corfe

. The role of diet and nutrition on mental health and wellbeing. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017;76:425-426. doi:10.1017/S0029665117001057

37.

Hobbs

Kingham

Wiki

Marek

Campbell

. Unhealthy environments are associated with adverse mental health and psychological distress: cross-sectional evidence from nationally representative data in New Zealand. Prev Med. 2021;145(December 2020):106416. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106416

38.

Murray

Mahadevan

Gatto

, et al. Culinary efficacy: an exploratory study of skills, confidence, and healthy cooking competencies among university students. Perspect Public Health. 2016;136(3):143-151. doi:10.1177/1757913915600195

39.

Morland

Wing

Diez Roux

. The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Publ Health. 2002;92(11):1761-1767.

40.

Zenk

Schulz

Hollis-neely

, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake in African Americans income and store characteristics. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(1):1-9. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.03.002

41.

Caspi

Sorensen

Subramanian

Kawachi

. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place. 2012;18(5):1172-1187. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.006

42.

Kornbluh

Hallum

Wende

Ray

Herrnstadt

Kaczynski

. Examining disparities in food access between historically black colleges and universities and non-historically black colleges and universities. Am J Health Promot. 2022;36(1):165-168. doi:10.1177/08901171211024412

43.

Alexander

Wade

Mcelroy

, et al. From proximity concerns to constant snacking : narratives of food access and consumption patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Health. 2022;72(0):1727-1733. doi:10.1080/07448481.2022.2089845

Making the Healthy Choice the Easy Choice: Examining the Food Environments Surrounding South Carolina’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

Abstract

Purpose

Design

Setting

Subjects

Measures

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Purpose

Methods

Setting

Design

Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

So What?

What is already known on this topic?

What Does This Article add?

What are the Implications for Health Promotion Practice or Research?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References