IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v22y2025i5p711-d1647362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foraging, Farming or Shopping? A Decision Matrix Approach for Food Environment Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Lilly Zeitler

    (Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA)

  • Suwichan Phatthanaphraiwan

    (School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai 57100, Thailand)

  • Shauna Downs

    (Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Newark, NJ 07102, USA)

  • Bronwen Powell

    (Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
    African Studies Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA)

Abstract

Food environments (the interfaces between consumers and the broader food system) shape dietary change and associated health outcomes. Characteristics of food environments (e.g., availability, accessibility, affordability, convenience, desirability) can influence consumer decision-making around food acquisition in different types of food environments (e.g., informal and formal markets, wild and cultivated natural environments). With the novel decision matrix approach presented in this paper, we aimed to develop a simple and rapid tool for collecting perceived evaluations and preferences of different types and characteristics of food environments. The decision matrix results were triangulated using a mixed methodology of geolocated participant observation, participatory mapping, market price comparisons and qualitative interviews. The decision matrix results were compared to the reported use of different food environment types in an Indigenous Pgaz K’Nyau community in Northern Thailand. Despite an ongoing food environment transition, participants preferred natural food environments and ranked market environments most poorly, largely reflecting actual food environment use. Interviewees stressed the importance of flavor and food safety, citing concerns over agrochemical contamination of market foods. The proposed decision matrix and mixed methods approach provides a rapid data collection method that can be used by food environment researchers and public health practitioners to assess food environment preferences and perceptions that influence decision-making in food environment transitions in low- and middle-income countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Lilly Zeitler & Suwichan Phatthanaphraiwan & Shauna Downs & Bronwen Powell, 2025. "Foraging, Farming or Shopping? A Decision Matrix Approach for Food Environment Assessments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(5), pages 1-29, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:5:p:711-:d:1647362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/5/711/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/5/711/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Damman, Siri & Eide, Wenche Barth & Kuhnlein, Harriet V., 2008. "Indigenous peoples' nutrition transition in a right to food perspective," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 135-155, April.
    2. Carly Nichols & Halie Kampman & Mara Bold, 2022. "Forging just dietary futures: bringing mainstream and critical nutrition into conversation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 633-644, June.
    3. Alison Alkon & Teresa Mares, 2012. "Food sovereignty in US food movements: radical visions and neoliberal constraints," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(3), pages 347-359, September.
    4. Nichols, Carly E. & Kumari, Nidhi, 2025. "Centering the body in agricultural development: Bridging conceptualizations of bodies-as-mechanism and bodies-as-affective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Victoria Reyes-García & Bronwen Powell & Isabel Díaz-Reviriego & Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares & Sandrine Gallois & Maximilien Gueze, 2019. "Dietary transitions among three contemporary hunter-gatherers across the tropics," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 109-122, February.
    7. Hewavidana, Budni H. & Marshall, Quinn, 2024. "Adaptation of a food environment typology for urban Sri Lanka," CGIAR Initative Publications Rethinking Foor Markets, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Marshall, Quinn & Hewavidana, Budni H., 2024. "Adaptation of a food environment typology for urban Sri Lanka," CGIAR Initative Publications 159857, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Jernej Prišenk & Jernej Turk, 2022. "Assessment of Concept between Rural Development Challenges and Local Food Systems: A Combination between Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Econometric Modelling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Rasmus Skov Olesen & Bronwen Powell & Charles Joseph Kilawe & Laura Vang Rasmussen, 2024. "Food environment change on wild food consumption in rural Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(5), pages 1203-1221, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    2. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    4. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    5. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    6. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    7. Sitinjak Elizabeth Lucky Maretha & Haryanti Kristiana & Kurniasari Widuri & Sasmito Yohanes Wisnu Djati, 2019. "Investor behavior based on personality and company life cycle," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 23-38, August.
    8. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    9. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    10. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    11. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ran Sun Lyng & Jie Zhou, 2019. "Household Portfolio Choice Before and After a House Purchase," Economics Working Papers 2019-01, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    13. Homonoff, Tatiana & Spreen, Thomas Luke & St. Clair, Travis, 2020. "Balance sheet insolvency and contribution revenue in public charities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    15. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    16. Rand Kwong Yew Low, 2018. "Vine copulas: modelling systemic risk and enhancing higher‐moment portfolio optimisation," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 423-463, November.
    17. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    18. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    19. Sergio Da Silva & Raul Matsushita & Vanessa Valcanover & Jessica Campara & Newton Da Costa, 2022. "Losses make choices nonpositional," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(11), pages 1-11, November.
    20. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:5:p:711-:d:1647362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.