Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Environment influences food access and resulting shopping and dietary behaviors among homeless Minnesotans living in food deserts.Chery Smith, Jamie Butterfass & Rickelle Richards - 2010 - Agriculture and Human Values 27 (2):141-161.
    Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to investigate how shopping behaviors and environment influence dietary intake and weight status among homeless Minnesotans living in food deserts. Seven focus groups (n = 53) and a quantitative survey (n = 255), using the social cognitive theory as the theoretical framework, were conducted at two homeless shelters (S1 and S2) in the Twin Cities area. Heights, weights, and 24-h dietary recalls were also collected. Food stores within a five-block radius of the shelters were (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Two pictures of non-consumerism in the life of freegans.Kateřina Lojdová - 2020 - Human Affairs 30 (1):96-108.
    The growing consumerism has its opponents. Among these are environmental activists within the freegan subculture. The goal of the study is to describe how freegans construct and practice non-consumerism. The qualitative research on the freegan subculture was conducted in Brno, the Czech Republic. Two main categories were identified. Each category is conceptualized as a “picture of non-consumerism”, showing how freegans construct and practice non-consumerism. “Individual modesty” is an inward non-consumerist strategy, aimed at the individual life careers of the subculture members, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Fruit and vegetable access in four low-income food deserts communities in Minnesota.Deja Hendrickson, Chery Smith & Nicole Eikenberry - 2006 - Agriculture and Human Values 23 (3):371-383.
    Access to fruits and vegetables by low-income residents living in selected urban and rural Minnesotan communities was investigated. Communities were selected based on higher than state average poverty rates, limited access to grocery stores, and urban influence codes (USDA ERS codes). Four communities, two urban and two rural, were selected. Data were gathered from focus group discussions (n = 41), responses to a consumer survey (n = 396 in urban neighborhoods and n = 400 in rural communities), and an inventory (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations