Fruit and vegetable desirability is lower in 
more rural built food environments of 
Montana, USA using the Produce 
Desirability (ProDes) Tool
Authors: Selena Ahmed, Carmen Byker Shanks, 
Teresa Smith, and Justin Shanks
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0748-1.
Ahmed, Selena, Carmen Byker Shanks, Teresa Smith, and Justin Shanks. "Fruit and vegetable 
desirability is lower in more rural built food environments of Montana, USA using the Produce 
Desirability (ProDes) Tool." Food Security 10, no. 1 (February 2018): 169-182. DOI: 10.1007/
s12571-017-0748-1.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Fruit and vegetable desirability is lower in more rural built food
environments of Montana, USA using the Produce Desirability
(ProDes) Tool
Selena Ahmed1 & Carmen Byker Shanks1 & Teresa Smith2 & Justin Shanks3
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to present a food environment measure, the Produce Desirability (ProDes) Tool, to assess
consumer desirability of fruits and vegetables (FVs) based on generalizable sensory characteristics that can be applied in diverse
socio-ecological contexts. We implemented the ProDes Tool in rural and urban built food environments (grocery stores) in 11
counties in the frontier state of Montana, United States, towards elucidating access gaps to desirable produce based on rurality of
location. Total ProDes scores were calculated by averaging the five sensory parameters of the tool (overall desirability, visual
appeal, touch and firmness, aroma, and size) for individual and total FVs. We statistically analyzed the relationship of ProDes
scores by FV type, rurality, Nutrition Environment Measurement Scores for Stores (NEMS-S), and price. Mean Total ProDes
scores for all produce was 3.5 (SD = 0.7), or low to moderate, on a 7-point scale (0 to 6). Significant differences (p < 0.0001) in
means of Total ProDes scores were found on the basis of rurality with FVs from the rural food environments having lower scores
compared to the urban food environments. There was no significant relationship for Total ProDes Scores by NEMS-S Total
Scores (p = 0.880; r = −0.019), NEMS-S Availability scores (p = 0.926; r = 0.012), NEMS-S Quality scores (p = 0.457; r =
0.095), and for the majority of NEMS-S acceptable ratings for individual produce. A significant negative relationship was found
between price and the ProDes sensory parameter of touch and firmness (p < 0.0029) for total fruit. Findings support our overall
hypothesis that FV desirability as measured by the ProDes Tool varies based on rurality of location of the built food environment
in Montana. The lack of correlation of Total ProDes scores with NEMS-S scores rationalizes the need of the ProDes Tool to
accompany existing food environment tools to more comprehensively characterize the food environment.
1 Introduction
Diets high in fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption are widely 
recognized to reduce the risk of diet-related chronic diseases 
that are leading causes of death globally (Boeing et al. 2012). 
However, the majority of adults worldwide consume fewer 
FVs than the amounts recommended by dietary guidelines 
(Moore and Thompson 2013; National Cancer Institute 
2015). A vast body of literature highlights that disparities exist 
in accessing and consuming FVs depending on location 
(Byker Shanks et al. 2015a; Lutifyya et al. 2012; Story et al. 
2008). For example, rural populations in the state of Montana 
in the United States have less access to FVs from the market 
compared to more urban populations, including less access to 
higher quality produce (Byker Shanks et al. 2015a). 
Disparities that exist between rural and urban communities 
have implications for health outcomes including diet-related 
chronic disease (Story et al. 2008).
Numerous programs have been initiated at the national,
state, and community levels in the United States to increase
FV consumption towards improving dietary quality, nutrition,
and public health (CDC 2011), yet FV consumption remains
low (Haack and Byker 2014). While food and nutrition pro-
grams historically focused on individual psychosocial and ed-
ucational approaches, more recent initiatives have taken an
ecological approach that targets the complex determinants of
consumption in the food environment (Story et al. 2008;
USDA 2015). The food environment is defined as the context
that influences the availability, affordability, convenience, and
desirability of food (Herforth and Ahmed 2015).
A food environment approach shifts the role of dietary
intake from the individual solely to a more complex perspec-
tive that also accounts for interacting socio-economic and po-
litical factors of one’s surroundings (Dufour et al. 2012).
Research and interventions targeting the food environment
are increasingly being implemented towards trying to create
population-wide changes that support healthy, diverse, and
nutritious dietary patterns based on the hypothesis that the
food environment influences individual food choices, which
then in turn influence health outcomes (Story et al. 2008).
Despite the recognized links between the food environment
in nutrition, health, and well-being, there is a shortcoming on
how we measure the food environment (Herforth et al. 2017).
While numerous new food environment measurements have
been developed in the past few decades (USDHHS 2015),
consumer desirability and food quality measurements are
among the least studied features of the food environment
(Cummins et al. 2009; Herforth and Ahmed 2015). A system-
atic review of food environment measures found that geo-
graphic analysis involving geospatial data of food outlets
was the most frequently used type of food environment mea-
sure as a proxy for availability, affordability, and accessibility
(McKinnon et al. 2009). Most food environment tools focus
on FVs in terms of price, geographic distance to vendors sell-
ing fresh produce, and density of vendors, without a compre-
hensive analysis of desirability of this produce (Herforth et al.
2017). While these aspects of the food environment are im-
portant for determining consumption (Reedy et al. 2010), eco-
nomic decision-making involving monetary and time costs as
well as distance are not always sufficient to explain consump-
tion decisions that also include behavioral factors on food
choices (Shepard 1999; Sobal et al. 2014).
Consumers consider multiple aspects of the food environ-
ment when purchasing and consuming food items. For exam-
ple, in-store placement (Wansink 2010), shelf labels
(Gittelsohn et al. 2012), product packaging, and sensory ap-
peal (Health Canada 2013; Pollard et al. 2002) contribute to
consumer’s perception of availability, affordability, conve-
nience, and desirability of foods (Herforth and Ahmed
2015). Enhancing the multiple components of the total food
environment, including the availability, affordability, conve-
nience, and desirability of healthy foods together is crucial for
supporting food security where Ball people, at all times, have
physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food prefer-
ences for an active and healthy life^ (FAO 2002).
Consumer desirability of food items is among the most
understudied aspects of the food environment (Herforth and
Ahmed 2015). The food environment parameter of desirabil-
ity involves both external and individual factors that influence
a consumer’s preference, purchase, and, ultimately, consump-
tion of a food item. Factors external to individuals influencing
food desirability include social norms based on cultural histo-
ries and acceptability, marketing, product placement, and food
quality. Individual factors influencing food desirability in-
clude perceptions of sensory appeal such as visual character-
istics, taste, aroma, and texture, as well as personal preferences
linked to food quality.
Studies demonstrate that sensory factors of desirability are
among the most influential determinants of eating behavior
(Pollard et al. 2002) and that consumer perceptions of FV
quality are positively correlated with their consumption
(Zenk et al. 2005). A pan-European study on consumer atti-
tudes on food, nutrition, and health found that ‘quality’ and
‘taste’ were the most prevalent parameters that influenced
food-choice behavior (Institute of European Studies 1996).
Glanz et al. (1998) found that taste was a key factor influencing
American consumer’s food purchasing decisions along with
nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control. Studies have
further documented that unattractive visual appeal resulting
from bruising of produce or unpleasant aroma and loss of
firmness from extended storage periods can serve to deter con-
sumers from buying these foods (Glanz et al. 2005; Jago et al.
2007). Unattractive visual characteristics associated with fruit
that has been stored for a relatively long period or is past
ripeness can further be indicative of degradation of nutrients
and phytonutrients in these foods (Bartley and Knee 1982).
The need for measuring consumer desirability of FVs
is clear, given that food preferences are a key component
of many food security definitions (FAO 2002; World Food
Summit 1996) and FVs are among the most under con-
sumed recommended food groups worldwide. Even so,
there are no generalizable or comprehensive validated
food environment measures to assess consumer desirabil-
ity of FVs that can be used in a range of socio-ecological
contexts. For example, the most widely used food envi-
ronment measure in the United States, the Nutrition
Environment Measurement Survey for Stores (NEMS-S)
(Glanz et al. 2007), takes into consideration desirability of
FVs through a dichotomous evaluation by the survey in-
vestigator regarding quality. Specifically, the survey in-
vestigator records if 50% or more of the specific FV
assessed is considered acceptable. Cummins et al. (2009)
made a notable contribution to food environment mea-
sures on FV desirability through an in-depth sensory tool
that examined the 12 most commonly consumed FVs in
Scotland. However, Cummins et al.’s (2009) sensory tool
is limited to the 12 specific FVs included in their survey
as it rates sensory characteristics that are specific to each
produce item surveyed. Thus, this tool is not adaptable to
other types of FVs beyond those included in the survey
tool and cannot be applied to assess the food environment
in diverse socio-ecological contexts.
The main objective of our study is to present a food
environment survey tool to assess consumer desirability
of FVs based on observational sensory characteristics of
produce that are generalizable. Further, the research aims
to develop a measure that can be applied in diverse socio-
ecological contexts to evaluate, monitor, and compare food
environments around the world. Specifically we present
the development and implementation of the Produce
Desirability (ProDes) Tool that measures overall desirabil-
ity, visual appeal, touch and firmness, aroma, and size of a
range of FVs. We implemented the ProDes Tool in rural
and urban built food environments (grocery stores) that
varied based on rurality in the frontier state of Montana,
United States in order to elucidate access gaps to desirable
produce based on rurality of location. In this study, we
differentiate ‘built’ food environments from wild and cul-
tivated food environments. The built food environment in-
cludes grocery stores, restaurants, schools, workplaces,
farmers’ markets, as well as other market systems. The
wild and cultivated food environment includes the supply
of food procured directly from forests, home gardens,
fields, pasture, and other agricultural systems.
The overall research question examined here is: Does
FV desirability as measured by the ProDes Tool vary
based on rurality of location (using USDA Rural Urban
Continuum Codes (RUCC codes)) of the built food envi-
ronment? The following are the specific research ques-
tions addressed in this study: (1) How does FV desirabil-
ity using the ProDes Tool vary among produce items and
rurality of the grocery store location that the produce was
procured from?; (2) Is the ProDes Tool valid and reli-
able?; (3) What is the relationship of FV desirability using
the ProDes Tool with desirability using the NEMS-S
tool?; and (4) Is there a relationship between FV desir-
ability using the ProDes Tool and price? The following
are the hypotheses supporting each of these research ques-
tions: (1) FV desirability based on the ProDes Tool will
significantly vary based on rurality of the grocery store
location from which the produce was procured; (2) The
ProDes Tool is valid and reliable; (3) FV desirability
based on the ProDes Tool and the NEMS-S tool will not
be correlated; (4) There will be a significant positive re-
lationship between FV desirability based on the ProDes
Tool and price. It is expected that the ProDes Tool can be
used to supplement existing food environment tools such
as the NEM-S in order to better understand the desirabil-
ity of FVs from a consumer sensory perspective.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Development of validity and reliability
for the ProDes Tool
Validity (face and content) and reliability (variability and
internal consistency) were established using several step-
wise methods: a review of the survey by a panel of ex-
perts, revision of the survey based upon expert feedback,
pre-testing of the survey with a panel of consumers, revi-
sion of the survey based upon pre-testing results, pilot
testing with a panel of consumers, and the calculation of
internal consistency and variability with pilot tested data.
These methods, used for the development of validity and
reliability, were based upon previous research into the
development of food environment surveys conducted by
Byker Shanks et al. (2015b).
2.2 Development of the ProDes Tool
The ProDes is a paper and pencil (see Supplementary
Material) or web-based consumer survey (https://
montana.qualtrics.com/jfe3/form/SV_2blPo7YpvvkzOSh)
that records sensory aspects of produce in food outlets.
We drew from the food sciences and sensory sciences to
develop the observational sensory components of the
ProDes. Further, ProDes was developed based upon the
authors’ research experience with measuring food
environments. The survey tool focused on taking the
perspective of a consumer in a supermarket given
findings on the importance of consumer perspectives of
quality, selection, and convenience as determinants of
fruit and vegetable consumption (Blitstein et al. 2012).
Development of the ProDes proceeded through primary
research describing produce characteristics coupled with a
search of the secondary literature in the fields of food sci-
ences and sensory analysis (Schmilovitch and Mizrach
2013). Five observational sensory characteristics were
identified to be prevalent and generalizable for FVs: over-
all desirability, visual appeal, touch and firmness, aroma,
and size. The ProDes Tool based on a 7-point Likert scale
with 0 as the lowest score and 6 as the highest (Lewis-Beck
et al. 2004).
Face validity and content validity were established by
circulating the first draft of the ProDes to a panel of five
field experts for feedback (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
Experts were given survey instructions with the tool and
asked to review the ProDes for its ability to measure de-
sirability of produce purchased in the grocery store set-
ting. We made minor modifications based upon feedback
and then pre-tested the survey with study participants be-
fore pilot testing the survey.
2.3 Statement of human rights
Approval of human subjects to participate in this study was
received by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Montana
State University. Informed consent was obtained from all in-
dividual participants included in the study following IRB
guidelines before testing began.
2.4 Study sites
FVs were collected from 12 grocery stores in 11 urban and
rural communities in the state of Montana, USA. Produce was
randomly selected from grocery store sites that were also ran-
domly selected based on the 2013 USDA rural-urban contin-
uum codes (RUCC; USDA 2013). RUCC ranges from 1
through 3 are classified as metro (urban) and 4 through 10
are classified as non-metro (rural). The sample size of counties
included in this study was determined as 20% of the rural (n =
10) and urban (n = 1) counties in the state. Montana has a total
of 5 metro (urban) counties and 51 non-metro (rural) counties.
Thus, ten rural counties and one urban county was randomly
selected using a random number generator from a master list
of RUCC in Montana.
The largest town was selected within each county based on
the US Census (2015). When a county was selected more than
once, the next largest town was selected for assessment.
Within each town, the largest grocery store based upon the
size of the store perimeter was selected to collect FVs. If
two grocery stores were of near equal size, both grocery stores
were surveyed. The largest grocery store was selected be-
cause, based on observational pilot work, this is where the
consumer has access to the greatest variety of FVs and also
where the majority of consumers within the town purchase
food. Many of the stores included in this study are commercial
chains with stores across the region and country. The consum-
er survey was administered using FVs collected from 12 gro-
cery stores in 11 urban and rural communities.
The average community population of the 11 communities
in Montana from which the FV samples were purchased for
this study was 20,971 people (SD = 33,658) with an average
population of 12 (SD = 17) persons per square mile of land.
Table 1 shows that one in five (19%) members of the commu-
nity populations were aged 65 years or older, 92% were non-
Hispanic white, 89% held at least a high school degree, and
18% were living under the poverty level. The average house-
hold encompassed 2.5 members (SD = 0.3). Eighty-eight per-
cent of stores studied participated in the government
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for
low-income individuals and families.
NEMS-S scores for the stores included in this study were
previously reported by Byker Shanks et al. (2015a) and are
shown in Table 1. The average NEMS-S total availability
score was 17.6 (SD = 5.3; out of 30 possible points), the
average total price score was 2.9 (SD = 3.0; out of −9 to 18
possible range), and the average total quality score (accept-
ability of FV) was 4.2 (SD = 1.9; out of 6 possible points).
Overall, the average total NEMS-S score for the sampled
stores was 24.7 (SD = 7.2; out of 54 possible points).
2.5 Implementation of the ProDes Tool
The ProDes Tool was pilot tested with anonymous consumers
and administered through the Montana State University Food
and Health Lab. In order to assess the usefulness of the survey
as a complement to NEM-S, the most utilized food environ-
ment tool in the United States, we included assessment of the
first four types of fruits (banana, Red Delicious apple, navel
orange, red seedless grape) and the first five types of vegeta-
bles (carrot, tomato, green sweet bell pepper, broccoli, green
leaf lettuce) listed in NEMS-S that represent the most con-
sumed produce in the United States. For collection of produce
to include in the study, researchers randomly selected three of
each type of produce from the top, middle, and bottom of each
produce display. FVs were immediately placed on ice upon
collection and transported to the lead authors’ lab for sensory
evaluation within two days of collection.
The ProDes was administered to a sample of raters (aver-
age of five raters per evaluation) that assessed each of the FV
samples from two stores at a time using the ProDes. Raters
assessed the FVs individually and were requested to not speak
with each other during the rating process. Produce was placed
on tables, coded and randomized so that participants were
blinded to the FV store and community origin. The ProDes
took approximately 20min for a rater to rate produce from two
stores at a time based upon all sensory parameters.
2.6 Statistical methods
SAS (version 9.2 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and JMP (ver-
sion 12.0 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) were used for statisti-
cal analysis and creating graphs. Statistical significance was
set at a two-sided alpha level of P < 0.05.
2.6.1 ProDes scores by FV type
Total ProDes scores were calculated by averaging the five
sensory parameters (overall desirability, visual appeal, touch
and firmness, aroma, and size).Means and standard deviations
of individual ProDes scores, as well as means and standard
deviations of Total ProDes scores were calculated both indi-
vidually per nine produce items and collectively for all pro-
duce. Differences in Total ProDes scores, as well as individual
sensory observational measures of the Total ProDes Tool,
among the different FV types, were examined by Analysis
of Variance. All ANOVAs were adjusted for the price per
pound or piece of the fruit or vegetable. A multiple
comparison using the LS Means Tukey HSD method was
applied to examine if Total ProDes scores and individual sen-
sory observational measures significantly varied among the
different FV types. ProDes scores were classified into four
categories. Avery low score was assigned for produce scoring
0 to 1. A low score was assigned for produce scoring 2 to 3. A
moderate score was assigned for produce scoring 4 to 5. A
high score was assigned for produce scoring 6 to 7.
2.6.2 ProDes scores by RUCC
An ANOVA examined differences in ProDes scores based on
RUCC levels. All ANOVAs were adjusted for the price per
pound or piece of the fruit or vegetable. A multiple compari-
son using the LS Means Tukey HSD method was applied to
examine if Total ProDes scores and individual sensory obser-
vational measures significantly varied along a rural to urban
continuum based on RUCC levels.
2.6.3 Reliability of the ProDes Tool via internal consistency
and variability
We tested the reliability of the ProDes Tool through calculat-
ing variability (standard deviation) of rater scores and internal
consistency of responses. Internal consistency of Total ProDes
scores was examined using Cronbach’s alpha score. Total
ProDes scores were calculated by averaging the five sensory
parameters (overall desirability, visual appeal, touch and firm-
ness, aroma, and size). Means and standard deviations for the
overall scale, subscale, and FV items were calculated. The
following rating scale was used to assess scores: ≥ 0.9 =
Excellent, ≥ 0.8 = Good, and ≥ 0.7 = Acceptable (George
and Mallery 2002; Cronbach and Meehl 1955).
2.6.4 Correlation of Total ProDes scores with NEMS-S scores
and ratings
We assessed the correlation of Total ProDes scores with
NEMS-S scores (Total NEMS-S scores, NEMS-S
Availability scores, NEMS-S Price scores, and NEMS-S
Quality scores) using the Pearson correlation ratio (George
and Mallery 2002; Cronbach and Meehl 1955). Scores from
the ProDes were compared to NEMS-S Availability scores
regarding the availability of healthy options (possible points
range = 0 to 30), NEMS-S Price scores (possible price range =
0 to 18), NEMS-S Quality scores (possible quality range = 0
to 6 points), and total summary score (availability, price and
quality combined; possible total range = 0 to 54 points) of-
fered within stores (Glanz et al. 2007). In addition, we exam-
ined Total ProDes Scores of individual produce with NEMS-S
acceptable ratings of the corresponding produce items. For
NEMS-S acceptable ratings of produce, each produce item
was ranked as 1 if Bacceptable^ and 0 if Bnot acceptable^.
2.6.5 FV price by ProDes scores
A series of linear regression analyses and ANOVAs were car-
ried out to examine the relationship of FV price (USD per
Table 1 County and store characteristics based on level of rurality and NEMS-Scores
Total
Mean
(SD; Standard Deviation)
RUCC 3
(n = 2)
Mean (SD)
RUCC 7
(n = 2)
Mean (SD)
RUCC 8
(n = 4)
Mean (SD)
RUCC 9
(n = 4)
Mean (SD)
County Characteristics
Population change (2010–2013) 1.1% (1.4%) 2.3% (0.0%) 2.5% (0.0%) 0.3% (0.7%) 0.5% (1.7%)
Percent 65 years and over (2013) 19.0% (5.9%) 13.1% (0.0%) 10.8% (0.0%) 22.7% (3.6%) 22.5% (3.4%)
Percent Non Hispanic White (2013) 91.9% (5.3%) 92.4% (0.0%) 94.2% (0.0%) 88.1% (8.5%) 94.3% (0.9%)
High school graduates aged 25 years
or older (2008–2012)
89.0% (4.9%) 94.4% (0.0%) 81.5% (0.0%) 88.7% (1.4%) 90.4% (5.1%)
Persons per household (2008–2012) 2.5 (0.3) 2.3 (0.0) 3.1 (0.0) 2.4 (0.2) 2.4 (0.3)
Population under poverty level (2008–2012) 17.9% (6.7%) 16.7% (0.0%) 29.1% (0.0%) 19.1% (0.4%) 11.8% (0.3%)
Persons per square mile (2010) 12.0 (17.2) 42.1 (0.0) 4.5 (0.0) 2.5 (1.4) 3.3 (3.2)
Grocery Store Characteristics: Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey for Stores (NEMS-S) Scores
Total Points 24.7 (7.2) 31.5 (7.8) 22.0 (17.0) 25.5 (4.7) 21.8 (2.2)
Availability 17.6 (5.3) 21.5 (2.1) 13.5 (12.0) 19.5 (2.7) 15.8 (4.1)
Price 2.9 (3.0) 4.5 (6.4) 3.0 (4.2) 2.5 (1.3) 2.5 (3.0)
Quality 4.2 (1.9) 5.5 (0.7) 5.5 (0.7) 3.5 (2.7) 3.5 (1.3)
The county characteristics part of the table shows the mean and standard deviations of demographic characteristics of the four counties corresponding to
the locations of the 12 grocery stores in the 11 communities included in this study. These counties represent four different Rural Urban ContinuumCodes
(RUCC; 3,7,8,9) with an RUCC of 3 being the most urban and an RUCC of 9 being the most rural county sampled. The grocery store characteristics part
of the table shows the mean Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey for Stores (NEMS-S) Scores of the 12 grocery on the basis of county RUCC
pound) and ProDes scores by FV (including total fruits, total
vegetables, and individual FVs). We evaluated Total ProDes
scores and the individual sensory parameters of the Total
ProDes Tool (overall desirability, visual appeal, touch and
firmness, aroma, and size).
3 Results
3.1 ProDes scores by FV type
Figure 1 shows the mean ProDes scores for the individual
fruits and vegetables, Total ProDes scores, and five observa-
tional sensory measures (overall desirability, visual appeal,
touch and firmness, aroma, and size) on a 7-point scale (0 to
6). The overall mean Total ProDes score for all produce was
3.5 (SD = 0.7). A majority of ProDes scores were classified as
low or moderate based on the following classification: very
low score = 0 to 1; low score = 2 to 3; moderate score = 4 to 5;
high score = 6 to 7.
The mean Total ProDes scores for each of the individual
produce items ranged from 3.2 to 4.1 with green sweet bell
peppers having the lowest scores and Red Delicious apples
having the highest. The mean ProDes scores for each of the
five sensory characteristics for each of the produce items
ranged from 2.7 to 4.7. The lowest score for each of the five
sensory characteristics for each of the FVs was found for the
visual appeal of green sweet bell peppers and the highest rat-
ing was found for the size of the Red Delicious apples.
ANOVA found significant (p < 0.05) differences between
means for Total ProDes scores for fruit, overall desirability
scores for fruit and vegetables, touch and firmness for fruit,
and visual appeal for fruit and vegetables. No significant dif-
ferences were found between means for Total ProDes scores
for vegetables, touch and firmness for vegetables, size for
fruits and vegetables, and aroma for vegetables. Figure 1 fur-
ther shows results from the Tukey-Kramer HSD comparing all
pairs of means for fruits and vegetables separately (FVs con-
nected by different letters are significantly different).
3.2 ProDes scores by RUCC
Significant differences (p < 0.0001) in means of Total ProDes
scores were found on the basis of rurality (Fig. 2).
Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD found
significant differences in the means of Total ProDes scores
of produce purchased from stores in a metro county (RUCC
of 3) in comparison to communities that are rural (RUCC of 7,
8, or 9). The same pattern (Fig. 3) was observed across four of
the five observational sensory measures evaluated by the
ProDes Tool for overall desirability (p = 0.002), visual appeal
(p = 0.003), touch and firmness (p = 0.011), and size (p <
0.0001). Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer
HSD found significant differences in these four individual
measures of the ProDes Tool for RUCC 3 compared to
RUCCs 7, 8, and 9. Aroma was the only sensory characteristic
that did not demonstrate a significant difference for ProDes
scores by RUCC (p = 0.348).
3.3 Reliability of the ProDes Tool: Internal consistency
and variability
The standard deviation among raters for Total ProDes scores
for all produce was 0.70 on a 7-point scale (Table 2). For
individual fruits, standard deviation of Total ProDes scores by
rater for three (apples, bananas, and oranges) of the four fruits
ranged from 0.90 to 1.1, while it was higher for grapes (1.3).
For individual vegetables, standard deviation among raters of
Total ProDes scores for four of the five vegetables (broccoli,
tomatoes, green peppers, and carrots) ranged from 0.90 to 1.2,
while being higher for lettuce (1.3). The standard deviation of
the raters’ evaluation of individual sensory characteristics for
individual produce varied from 0.9 to 1.8 (on a 7-point scale).
Internal consistency values represented by Cronbach’s al-
pha scores for Total ProDes scores for all produce demonstrat-
ed excellent internal consistency (Table 2; Cronbach’s α =
0.94, > 0.9 = Excellent). For individual produce, five (grapes,
oranges, carrots, green peppers, and lettuce) of the nine FV
items surveyed had ‘excellent’ internal consistency while the
remaining four (apples, bananas, broccoli, and tomato) had
‘good’ internal consistency with Cronbach’s α scores ranging
from 0.81–0.94 (Table 2).
3.4 Correlation of total ProDes scores with NEMS-S
scores and ratings
There was no significant relationship for Total ProDes scores
by NEMS-S Total scores (p = 0.880; r = −0.019), Total
ProDes scores by NEMS-S Availability scores (p = 0.926;
r = 0.012), and Total ProDes scores by NEMS-S Quality
scores (p = 0.457; r = 0.095). For the comparison of Total
ProDes scores for individual FVs with NEMS-S acceptable
ratings for the corresponding produce items, very few signif-
icant correlations were found (Table 3). Only the Total ProDes
scores for broccoli, oranges, and tomatoes demonstrated a
correlation with the NEMS-S acceptable ratings.
„Fig. 1 Mean ProDes scores by fruit and vegetable (FV) Type. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) found that mean ProDes (Produce Desirability)
scores varied on a 7-point scale (0 to 6) for individual fruits and
vegetables (FVs) for a Total ProDes scores as well as for the five
observational sensory measures including b overall desirability, c touch
and firmness, d visual appeal, e size and, f aroma. FVs that have the same
letter (A or B) above the standard error bar in the graph show no statistical
difference while FVs that have different letters above the bar in the graph
are statistically different. Each bar is constructed using one standard error
from the mean
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
O
v
e
r
a
ll
 D
e
s
ir
a
b
il
it
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
 p = 0.0114
 p = 0.0006
A
B
A
A,B
A
B
B B
A,B
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
T
o
u
c
h
 a
n
d
 F
ir
m
n
e
s
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
 p = 0.0018
 p = 0.1303
A
B B B
A
A
A A
A
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
V
is
u
a
l 
A
p
p
e
a
l
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
 p = 0.0038
 p = 0.0032
A
B
A,B
A
B
B A,B
A,B
A,B
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
S
iz
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
 p = 0.4390
 p = 0.6600
A
A AA
A A A
A A
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
A
r
o
m
a
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
 p = 0.2137
 p = 0.1987
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
F
ruit
V
egetable
P
ro
d
u
ce Typ
e
Ap
ple
Ba
na
na
Gr
ap
es
Or
an
ge
Br
oc
co
li
Ca
rro
ts
Gr
ee
n 
Pe
pp
er
s
Le
ttu
ce
To
m
at
o
T
o
ta
l 
P
r
o
D
e
s
 S
c
o
r
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
 p = 0.0136
 p = 0.0692
A
B
A,B
A
A
A A
A
A,B
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
3.5 FV price by ProDes scores
ANOVA output for the linear regression analyses examining
the relationship between FV price (USD per pound) and
ProDes scores by total fruits and total vegetables found that
there was a significant relationship between price and the
ProDes sensory parameter of touch and firmness (p < 0.0029).
Specifically, as ProDes scores for touch and firmness increased
for total fruit, there was a statistically significant and relevant
decrease in price (Fig. 4a-e). For the relationship of price and
overall desirability of individual FVs (Fig. 4f), the ANOVA
found significant positive relationships only for carrots
(p < 0.0465) with an increase in ProDes scores correlated with
increased price. Likewise, for price and visual appeal, ANOVA
found significant positive relationships only for carrots
(p < 0.0321) with an increase in ProDes scores correlated with
increased price. For price and touch and firmness, the ANOVA
found significant negative relationships for grapes (p < 0.019),
oranges (p < 0.0193) and lettuce (p < 0.028) while finding pos-
itive relationships for carrots (p < 0.0173). No significant rela-
tionship was found between price and the ProDes parameters of
aroma and size for individual FVs.
4 Discussion
Desirability based on sensory attributes of food items is an
important determinant of consumer food choices (Pollard
et al. 2002; Blitstein et al. 2012; Institute of European Studies
1996; Zenk et al. 2005) yet is an under-measured aspect of the
food environment (Herforth and Ahmed 2015). This study pre-
sents a generalizable food environment tool, the Produce
Desirability (ProDes) Tool, to assess the desirability of fruits
and vegetables (FVs) to consumers that can be used in a range
of socio-ecological contexts. We implemented the ProDes Tool
in the built food environment in the rural frontier American state
ofMontana in order to examine if disparities exist in access gaps
to desirable produce based on rurality of location. Findings sup-
port our overall hypothesis that FV desirability as measured by
the ProDes Tool varies based on rurality of location (RUCC
codes) of the built food environment in the study area.
Compared to the locations, FVs procured from the metropolitan
built food environments had significantly higher Total ProDes
scores and higher scores for each of the five observational sen-
sory parameters evaluated by the ProDes Tool including overall
desirability, visual appeal, touch and firmness, and size. The lack
of correlation of Total ProDes scores with NEMS-S Quality
scores and acceptable rations of individual produce rationalizes
the need of the ProDes Tool to accompany existing food envi-
ronment tools.
The relatively low overall ProDes scores are noteworthy, as
consumer perception of quality is a key determinant of fruit
and vegetable consumption. Variation of ProDes scores for the
individual five observational sensory measures highlight the
importance of assessing the sensory desirability of produce
using multiple parameters. The standard deviation of the
raters’ evaluation of ProDes scores highlights the subjective
nature of desirability measures that are recognized to vary
based upon perceptions among consumers (Herforth and
Ahmed 2015). Such subjective measures can enhance objec-
tive measures by more comprehensively characterizing the
complex factors that influence dietary behavior.
A majority of the correlation coefficients demonstrated al-
most no relationship between ProDes scores and NEMS-S
Quality scores. Fewer of the correlation coefficients demon-
strated a weak positive or negative relationship between
ProDes and NEMS-S. The negligible correlation of ProDes
scores with NEMS-S Quality scores and acceptable ratings
per produce item highlight the value of administering the
ProDes to capture FV desirability and food choice evaluation
from a consumer perspective. While noting the value of the
ProDes, we further note the value of administering the ProDes
alongside other food environment measures such as the
NEMS-S to have a more comprehensive understanding of the
consumer food environment. In particular, the ProDes is suitable
to implement alongside NEMS-S because it can rate the same
FVs as those assessed for acceptability by the NEMS-S while
providing supplemental information by incorporating the
perspective of consumers regarding multiple measures of
sensory desirability. ProDes highlights that consumer choice
for fruits and vegetables is more nuanced than a dichotomous
RUCC
3 7 8 9
To
ta
l P
ro
D
es
 S
co
re
 p < 0.0001
A
B
B
B
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fig. 2 Total ProDes scores by Rural to Urban Continuum Code (RUCC).
Analysis of Variance found significant differences in the means Total
ProDes scores on the 7-point scale on the basis of rurality as
determined by the USDA RUCC. RUCC ranges from 1 through 3 are
classified as metro (urban) and 4 through 10 are classified as non-metro
(rural). RUCC levels not connected by the same letters in the graph have
significantly different means while RUCC levels that have different
letters above the bar in the graph are statistically different. Each bar is
constructed using one standard error from the mean
acceptable or unacceptable score. ProDes captures multiple sen-
sory characteristics, whereas theNEMS-SQuality score asks the
rater to provide one score based upon several parameters. For
example, if future research demonstrated a negative and signif-
icant correlation between ProDes and NEMS-S Quality scores,
the fruit or vegetable may score very low on one ProDes param-
eter but score high in other sensory parameters. The rater
assessing the same produce based upon a NEMS-S Quality
score may decide that the produce is acceptable because most
of the parameters are acceptable.
Findings that FVs procured from more urban built food
environments have higher ProDes scores compared to
more rural built food environments in Montana points to
the unique challenges of ensuring healthy food access and
availability to residents of rural food environments. These
findings are in line with previous studies showing that pro-
duce from rural built food environments is of lower quality
than in more metropolitan areas (Byker Shanks et al.
2015a). The lower ProDes scores for FV desirability in
more rural areas may be due to limited infrastructure for
RUCC
3 7 8 9
O
ve
ra
ll 
D
es
ira
bi
lit
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
 p < 0.002
A
B
B
B
RUCC
3 7 8 9
To
uc
h 
an
d 
F
irm
ne
ss
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
 p = 0.011
A
B
B
B
RUCC
3 7 8 9
V
is
ua
l A
pp
ea
l
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
 p = 0.003
A
B
B
B
RUCC
3 7 8 9
S
iz
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
 p < 0.001
A
B
B
B
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 3 ProDes scores for individual observational measures by rural
to urban continuum code. Analysis of Variance found significant
differences in means of ProDes scores for four of the five individual
observational measures of the 7-point Total ProDes Tool (on a scale 0
to 6) on the basis of rurality as determined by the USDA Rural Urban
ContinuumCode (RUCC) including for a overall desirability, b touch and
firmness, c visual appeal, and d size. RUCC ranges from 1 through 3 are
classified as metro (urban) and 4 through 10 are classified as non-metro
(rural). RUCC levels not connected by the same letters in the graph have
significantly different means while RUCC levels that have different
letters above the bar in the graph are statistically different. Each bar is
constructed using one standard error from the mean
food distribution that poses obstacles to maintaining high-
quality produce in rural built food environments (Calancie
et al. 2015; Johnson et al. 2014) as FV quality degrades
over time. The lower FV desirability in rural areas is espe-
cially problematic as adults in rural communities are less
likely than adults in non-rural communities to consume the
nationally recommended amount of fruits and vegetables
per day (Lutifyya et al. 2012). At the same time, rural
residents are at higher risk for diabetes and heart disease
as well as are more likely to be obese (Lutfiyya et al. 2007;
Befort et al. 2012; O’Connor and Wellenius 2012).
We found surprising relationships between ProDes scores
and price. As ProDes scores for touch and firmness increased
for total fruit, there was a statistically significant and relevant
decrease in price. Likewise, a significant negative relationship
was found for ProDes scores for the parameters of touch and
firmness and price for grapes, oranges, and lettuce. On the other
hand, a significant positive relationship was found for the
Table 2 Standard deviation and
internal consistency of the
Produce Desirability (ProDes)
Tool
Constructs (n) Standard Deviation
of Total ProDes Scores
Cronbach’s Alpha
of Total ProDes Scores
Internal consistency
of Total ProDes Scores
All Produce (64) 0.70 0.94 Excellent
Apple (59) 0.90 0.87 Good
Banana (53) 1.0 0.81 Good
Grape (52) 1.3 0.94 Excellent
Orange (58) 1.1 0.91 Excellent
Broccoli (46) 1.1 0.86 Good
Carrots (60) 1.1 0.90 Excellent
Green Pepper (63) 1.2 0.91 Excellent
Lettuce (62) 1.3 0.90 Excellent
Tomato (61) 0.90 0.83 Good
Total ProDes Scores were calculated by averaging the five sensory parameters (visual appeal, touch and firmness,
size, overall desirability, and aroma). We classified standard deviation of the raters’ evaluation of Total ProDes
scores for individual produce items of individual sensory characteristics for individual produce. Internal consis-
tency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha score based on the following rating scale of scores: ≥ 0.9 = Excellent,
≥ 0.8 = Good, and ≥ 0.7 = Acceptable (Cronbach and Meehl 1955)
Table 3 Correlation of total Produce Desirability (ProDes) Scores with NEMS-S acceptable ratings per produce item
Fruit Vegetables
Apple r 0.135 Broccoli r 0.348
p-value 0.309 p-value 0.018*
Na 59 N 46
Banana r 0.035 Carrots r 0.034
p-value 0.806 p-value 0.798
N 53 N 60
Grapes r −0.126 Green Peppers r 0.144
p-value 0.372 p-value 0.262
N 52 N 63
Orange r −0.070 Lettuce r 0.058
p-value 0.600 p-value 0.656
N 58 N 62
Tomato r 0.307
p-value 0.016*
N 61
The Pearson correlation ratio was used to examine the relationship of Total ProDes scores per produce with NEMS-S acceptable ratings per produce. For
NEMS-S acceptable ratings, each produce item was ranked as 1 if Bacceptable^ and 0 if Bnot acceptable^
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
aN is equal to the number of raters contributing to the ProDes score per produce item. The number of raters vary because some fruits or vegetables were
not available at all stores and therefore fewer raters contributed to a Score
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Touch and Firmness ProDes Scores
(a) Total Fruit (b) Grapes
(c) Oranges
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Touch and Firmness ProDes Scores
(d) Carrots
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Touch and Firmness ProDes Scores
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Touch and Firmness ProDes Scores
(e) Lettuce 
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Touch and Firmness ProDes Scores
(f) Carrots 
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
P
ric
e 
(U
S
D
) 
pe
r 
P
ou
nd
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall Desirability ProDes Scores
Fig. 4 Relationship of fruit and vegetables (FV) prices by ProDes scores.
ANOVA output for a linear regression found a significant relationship
between price and the ProDes sensory parameter of touch and firmness
for a total fruit, b grapes, c oranges, d carrots, and e lettuce. A significant
relationship was further found for price and overall desirability ProDes
scores for f carrots
overall desirability, visual appeal, and touch and firmness of
carrots and price. These findings highlight that only some sen-
sory parameters of the ProDes Tool are related to price. These
findings are noteworthy because previous research indicates
that the price of fruits and vegetables impacts their purchase,
and ultimately consumption, especially for low-income indi-
viduals (Cassady et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2014; Afshin et al.
2017). Future research is needed to examine consumer buying
decisions based on both ProDes scores and price.
As the ProDes has a generalized rating system for evaluating
characteristics of a range of FVs, it can be used in a broad range
of contexts including ethnic food stores in the United States and
markets in developing countries. While we pilot tested the
ProDes Tool in the built food environment in Montana,
United States, it is expected that this measure can be used in
varied communities globally, including in low-income coun-
tries. Future research is needed to implement the ProDes Tool
in food environments around the world including in low-in-
come, moderate-income, and high-income countries in order
to evaluate the usefulness of this tool. In addition, future re-
search is needed to implement the ProDes Tool using a diversity
of FVs that were not included in this study. Lastly, research is
called for to evaluate if the ProDes Tool can be integrated with
foods from the wild and the cultivated food environment.
This study only measured FV desirability using the ProDes
Tool and did not measure links to FV consumption. We can thus
only extrapolate findings of FV desirability to previous studies
that have shown that sensory attributes are among the most influ-
ential determinants of eating behavior (Pollard et al. 2002;
Institute of European Studies 1996) including FV consumption
(Zenk et al. 2005). Additionally, our study was carried out with a
relatively small number of grocery stores and consumers in a
specific context. Therefore, our findings may not be generalizable
outside of Montana to other parts of the USA. Future research is
needed to examine if FV desirability based on the ProDes Tool is
significantly related to FV consumption. Such evidence would
strengthen the value and application of the ProDes Tool as well
as support food environment interventions targeted at increasing
FV desirability with the goal of supporting FV consumption for
healthy dietary patterns. Research should aim to understand if the
significant inverse relationship between price and sensory charac-
teristics is due to location, consumer preference, or other factors.
Additionally, the ProDes Tool should be tested in diverse geog-
raphies and among various consumer groups.
5 Conclusion
This study presents a generalizable food environment tool, the
Produce Desirability (ProDes) Tool, to assess FV desirability
that can be used in a range of socio-ecological contexts.
Findings support our overall hypothesis that FV desirability
as measured by the ProDes Tool varies based on rurality of
location (RUCC codes) of the built food environment in the
frontier state of Montana, United States. The lack of correlation
of Total ProDes scores with NEMS-S scores rationalizes the
need of the ProDes Tool to accompany existing food environ-
ment tools to more comprehensively characterize the food en-
vironment. As the parameters in ProDes are generalizable to a
range of produce and fresh foods, it is expected that this survey
can be amended to include different FVs and other food groups
that are specific to a context, including in ethnic neighborhoods
within the USA as well as for food security research interna-
tionally. In addition, it is anticipated that implementation of the
ProDes will elucidate disparities in the food environment
among geographic locations and provide evidence to inform
the design of food and nutrition interventions towards improv-
ing desirability of FVs linked to consumption and ultimately to
dietary quality, food security, and public health.
Acknowledgements The authors received funding support for the study
presented here from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of
the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P20GM103474
and Award Number 5P20GM104417 and the National Science
Foundation RII Track-2 FEC 1632810. The content presented here is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official
views of the National Institutes of Health or the National Science
Foundation. We are grateful to the consumer raters in our study for rating
FVs using the ProDes Tool.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest to disclose.
References
Afshin, A., Peñalvo, J. L., Del Gobbo, L., Silva, J., Michaelson, M.,
O'Flaherty, M., Capewell, S., Speigelman, D., Goodarz, D., &
Mozaffarian, D. (2017). The prospective impact of food pricing on
improving dietary consumption: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. PLoS One, 12(3), e0172277.
Bartley, I., & Knee, M. (1982). The chemistry of textural changes in fruit
during storage. Food Chemistry, 9, 47–58.
Befort, C. A., Nazir, N., & Perri, M. G. (2012). Prevalence of obesity among
adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: Findings from
NHANES (2005–2008). The Journal of Rural Health, 28, 392–397.
Blitstein, J. L., Snider, J., & Evans, W. D. (2012). Perceptions of the food
shopping environment are associated with greater consumption of
fruits and vegetables. Public Health Nutrition, 15, 1124–1129.
Boeing, H., Bechthold, A., Bub, A., Ellinger, S., Haller, D., Kroke, A.,
Leschik-Bonnet, E., Müller, M. J., Oberritter, H., Schulze, M.,
Stehle, P., & Stehle, W. (2012). Critical review: Vegetables and fruit
in the prevention of chronic diseases. European Journal of
Nutrition, 51, 637–663.
Byker Shanks, C., Ahmed, S., Smith, T., Houghtaling, B., Jenkins, M.,
Margetts, M., Schultz, D., & Stephens, L. (2015a). Availability,
price, and quality of fruits and vegetables in 12 rural Montana
counties, 2014. Preventing Chronic Disease, 12, 150–158.
Byker Shanks, C., Jilcott Pitts, S., &Gustafson, A. (2015b). Development
and validation of a farmers’ market audit tool in rural and urban
communities. Health Promotion Practice, 16(6), 859–866.
Calancie, L., Leeman, J., Jilcott-Pitts, S. B., Khan, L. K., Fleischhacker,
S., Evenson, K. R., Schreiner, M., Byker, C., Owens, C., Mcguirt, J.,
Barnidge, E., Wesley, D., Johnson, D., Kolodinsky, J., Piltch, E.,
Pinard, C., Quinn, E., Whetstone, L., & Ammerman, A. (2015).
Nutrition-related policy and environmental strategies to prevent obe-
sity in rural communities: A systematic review of the literature.
Preventing Chronic Disease, 12, 140540.
Cassady, D., Jetter, K. M., & Culp, J. (2007). Is price a barrier to eating
more fruits and vegetables for low-income families? Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 107(11), 1909–1915.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Strategies to prevent
obesity and other chronic diseases: CDC guide to strategies to in-
crease the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Atlanta: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycholog-
ical tests. Psychology Bulletin, 52, 281.
Cummins, S., Smith, D.M., Taylor, M., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks,
L., & Anderson, A. S. (2009). Variations in fresh fruit and vegetable
quality by store type, urban–rural setting and neighbourhood depri-
vation in Scotland. Public Health Nutrition, 12, 2044–2050.
Dufour, D. L., Goodman, A. H., & Pelto, G. H. (2012). Nutritional an-
thropology: Biocultural perspectives on food and nutrition (2nd
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2002). The state
of food insecurity in the world 2001. Italy: Rome. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e00.htm. Accessed November 2017.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2002). SPSS for windows step by step: A
simple guide and reference, 11.0 (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gittelsohn, J., Rowan,M.,&Gadhoke, P. (2012). Interventions in small food
stores to change the food environment, improve diet, and reduce risk of
chronic disease. Preventing Chronic Disease, 9, 110015.
Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., & Snyder, D. (1998).
Why Americans eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, conve-
nience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consump-
tion. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 98, 1118–1126.
Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & Frank, L. D. (2005). Healthy
nutrition environments: Concepts and measures. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 19, 330–333.
Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Nutrition
environment measures survey in stores (NEMS-S): Development and
evaluation. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 32, 282–289.
Haack, S. A., & Byker, C. J. (2014). Recent population adherence to and
knowledge of United States federal nutrition guides, 1992–2013: A
systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 72, 613–626.
Health Canada (2013). Measuring the food environment in Canada. www.
hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/pol/index-eng.php. Accessed October 2015.
Herforth, A., & Ahmed, S. (2015). The food environment, its effect on
dietary consumption, and potential for measurement within
agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Security, 7(3), 505–520.
Herforth, A., Ahmed, S., & Byker Shanks, C. (2017). Wanted: Food
environment measurement tools. Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Health Academy Newsletter. http://anh-academy.org/academy-
news-events/blog/2017/02/21/wanted-food-environment-
measurement-tools. Accessed November 2017.
Institute of European Food Studies (1996). A pan-EU survey of consumer
attitudes to food, nutrition and health, no. 1. Dublin: Institute of
European Food Studies.
Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J. C., Cullen, K.W., & Thompson,
D. (2007). Distance to food stores and adolescent male fruit and
vegetable consumption: Mediation effects. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 35.
Johnson, D., Quinn, E., Sitaker, M., Ammerman, A., Byker, C., Dean,W.,
Fleischhacker, S., Kolodinsky, J., Pinard, C., Jilcott-Pitts, S. B., &
Sharkey, J. (2014). Developing an agenda for research about policies
to improve access to healthy foods in rural communities: A concept
mapping study. BMC Public Health, 14, 592.
Jones, N. R., Conklin, A. I., Suhrcke, M., & Monsivais, P. (2014). The
growing price gap between more and less healthy foods: Analysis of
a novel longitudinal UK dataset. PLoS One, 9(10), e109343.
Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia
of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc..
Lutfiyya, M. N., Lipsky, M. S., Wisdom-Behounek, J., & Inpanbutr-
Martinkus, M. (2007). Is rural residency a risk factor for overweight
and obesity for U.S. children? Obesity, 15, 2348–2356.
Lutifyya, M. N., Chang, L. F., & Lipsky, M. S. (2012). A cross-sectional
study of US rural adults’ consumption of fruits and vegetables: Do they
consume at least five servings daily? BMC Public Health, 12, 280.
McKinnon, R. A., Reedy, J., Morrissette, M. A., Lytle, L. A., & Yaroch,
A. L. (2009). Measures of the food environment: A compilation of
the literature, 1990–2007. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 36, S124–S133.
Moore, L.V., & Thompson, F.E., (2013). Adults meeting fruit and vege-
table intake recommendations-United States. http://cdn.elsevier.
com/promis_misc/AMEPRE_gfa.pdf.
National Cancer Institute. (2015). Usual dietary intakes: food intakes,
U.S. population, 2007–10. Epidemiology and Genomics Research
Program website. http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/diet/usualintakes/pop/
2007-10/. Accessed 26 November 2017.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometic theory: the assess-
ment of reliability (3rd edn., pp. 248–292). New York: McGraw Hill.
O’Connor, A., & Wellenius, G. (2012). Rural-urban disparities in the
prevalence of diabetes and coronary heart disease. Public Health,
126, 813–820.
Pollard, J., Kirk, S. F. L., & Cade, J. E. (2002). Factors affecting food
choice in relation to fruit and vegetable intake: A review. Nutrition
Research Reviews, 15, 373–387.
Reedy, J., Krebs-Smith, S., & Bosire, C. (2010). Evaluating the food
environment: Application of the healthy eating index-2005.
American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 38, 465–471.
Schmilovitch, Z., &Mizrach, A. (2013). Instrumental assessment of food
sensory quality. In Z. Schmilovitch & A. Mizrach (1st Ed.),
Instrumental assessment of the sensory quality of fruits and vegeta-
bles (pp. 446–461). Philadelphia: Woodhead Publishing.
Shepard, R. (1999). Social determinants of food choice. Proceedings of
the Nutrition Society, 58, 807–812.
Sobal, J., Bisogni, C. A., & Jastran, M. (2014). Food choice is multifac-
eted, contextual, dynamic, multilevel, integrated, and diverse.Mind
Brain Education, 8, 6–12.
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O'Brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008).
Creating healthy food and eating environments: Policy and environ-
mental approaches. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 253–272.
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Montana counties by population. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Accessed March 2015.
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2013).
Rural–urban continuum codes. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/rural-urban-continuumcodes.aspx. Accessed March 2015.
USDepartment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2015). Food
environment atlas overview. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/food-environment-atlas.aspx. Accessed October 2015.
US Department of Health and Human Services National Cancer Institute:
Applied Research Program (2015). Measures of the food environment.
http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/mfe/. Accessed 29 Oct 2015.
Wansink, B. (2010). From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better.
Physiology & Behavior, 100, 454–463.
World Food Summit (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm. Accessed
November 2017.
Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Hollis-Neely, T., Campbell, R. T., Holmes, N.,
Watkins, G., Nwankwo, R., & Odoms-Young, A. (2005). Fruit and
vegetable intake in African Americans: Income and store character-
istics. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 29, 1–9.
Selena Ahmed’s research, teach-
ing, and outreach interests are at
the intersection of the ecological,
cultural, and health aspects of food
systems. She is an Assistant
Professor of Sustainable Food
Systems at Montana Sta te
University, USA, where she co-
leads the Food and Health Lab
( w w w . m o n t a n a . e d u /
foodandhealthlab/) that explores
food environment-nutrition-health
linkages. Selena is particularly in-
terested in identifying the socio-
ecological determinants of envi-
ronmental and human wellbeing in the food system. This work involves
quantifying the influence of environmental factors on ecosystem services;
food availability, diversity, and quality; dietary transitions and health out-
comes in the context of global change. Selena has carried out transdisci-
plinary research in a range of ecological and cultural contexts in China,
India, Morocco, Venezuela, Belize, the Dominican Republic, and with
Native American communities in the United States. The ultimate transla-
tional goal of this work is to develop evidence-based plans to promote
biodiversity and mitigate risk of food insecurity and diet-related chronic
disease towards enhancing the sustainability of food systems.
Carmen Byker Shanks’ research
program aims to increase dietary
quality and decrease nutrition-
related health disparities, while con-
tributing to healthier food environ-
ments and systems. She partners
with communities, researchers, stu-
dents, and stakeholders to measure
and implement contextually specific
strategies in food systems that facil-
itate dietary change and positive
health outcomes. She holds a BS in
Dietetics and a PhD in Behavioral
and Community Science from
Virginia Tech, USA, and is a
Registered Dietitian. She joined the faculty of Montana State University in
Fall 2011, is Associate Professor of Food and Nutrition and Sustainable Food
Systems, and initiated The Food and Health Lab in the Fall of 2013 in collab-
orationwith SelenaAhmed to carry out basic, behavioral, and applied research
that explores linkages among food environments, nutrition, and health.
Teresa Smith is a Postdoctoral
Research Fellow at the Gretchen
Swanson Center for Nutrition, a
non-profit nutrition research orga-
nization in Omaha, NE, USA.
Prior to her role at the Center,
she ea rned he r Doc to r o f
P h i l o s o p h y i n D i s e a s e
Prevention and Health Promotion
Research from the University of
Nebraska Medica l Center.
Teresa’s research expertise lies in
the environmental, social and in-
dividual determinants of dietary
behaviors as they relate to obesity
prevention and cancer risk. This includes, but is not limited to, cultural
and familial influences on individual dietary behaviors, healthy foods
access and availability, issues of food insecurity, and dietarymeasurement
and analysis. Prior to joining the Center, she earned a BS in Education and
Human Sciences and MS in Nutrition and Health Sciences from the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Justin Shanks is research faculty
at the Montana State University
Library. His current research in-
vestigates semantic web structure
and associated implications for in-
stitutional visibility, research dis-
semination, and open data. Nearly
finished with his dissertation for a
PhD in Science and Technology
Studies (STS) at Virginia Tech,
he also holds a Bachelor of Arts
in Environmental Studies, Master
of Urban and Regional Planning,
and Master of Arts in English.
Throughout all stages of his inter-
disciplinary academic background Justin has studied how science and
technology both shape and are shaped by society. His research continues
to pull at this thread.