Food accessibility: A lived experience perspective of college students living away from parents’ home

The objective perspective of food accessibility

The OA of food has been identified as a means of guiding food policy decisions at the territorial level (Allcott et al., 2019). It can be used to characterize the food environment of a given geographical space by identifying imbalances in supply that manifest through scarcity effects – such as food deserts, where residents lack access to healthy, affordable food (Cummins and Macintyre, 2002; Grier and Davis, 2013; Swinburn et al., 2004) – or overabundance of poor-quality offerings – “food swamps,” where fast-food offerings are overly prevalent (Cooksey-Stowers et al., 2017).

The OA of food is based on the identification and counting of food offerings in a physical space. This involves collecting and analyzing data on availability (number of outlets per unit area), and/or proximity by assessing distance in different units of measurement (kilometer, time) (Charreire et al., 2010). Various methods exist (Appendix 1), although they are not always very detailed in academic work (Wilkins et al., 2017). OA is also challenged conceptually and methodologically regarding the classification of certain stores, particularly supermarkets (Wilkins et al., 2017). Indeed, the assortments and availability of the food offer can differ between stores in the same category (Caspi et al., 2012; Chaix et al., 2012). Two approaches exist: (1) a categorization defined a priori and extramural, consisting in considering certain sources of supply from a typical store as healthy or unhealthy (Hallum et al., 2020; Michimi and Wimberly, 2010; Morland et al., 2006); (2) a posteriori and intramural categorization, enabling a finer assessment thanks to indicators such as the share occupied by healthy foods (fruit and vegetables) and non-healthy foods (processed products) in linear meter (Adjei et al., 2022). Furthermore, Mahendra et al. (2017) point out that ultra-processed foods can be purchased from retailers in the healthy offer category (e.g. supermarkets), while healthy, minimally processed foods can be purchased from retailers whose offer is predominantly “unhealthy” (e.g. mini-markets, fast-food outlets sometimes offering fruit and vegetables). The authors add, however, that there are more opportunities to eat healthily by shopping in a supermarket than in a fast-food restaurant. For instance, a study carried out by Interfel ⁵ reveals that 61% of fruit and vegetable purchases by French households occur in supermarkets including hypermarkets, supermarkets, and discount stores. For the purposes of this research, we refer to an a priori and extramural classification used by the US Chronic Disease Center ⁶ to assess the quality of the food environment by including retail outlets and on-site or takeaway catering options (Table 1). As this study targeted French college students, collective catering was classified in the “healthy” category, as nutritional recommendations are particularly well respected in this type of restaurant ⁷ according to ANSES (Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Classification of food supply sources according to the predominantly healthy or unhealthy nature of the supply (literature synthesis).

Sources of food supply with a mostly healthy offering		Food supply sources with a predominantly unhealthy offer
Hypermarket		Superette
Supermarket/discount store		General grocery store
Specialty stores	Fruit and vegetable retailing	Fast food
	Retail sale of meat and meat products
	Retail sale of fish, crustaceans, and molluscs
	Retail sale of bakery and pastry products
	Frozen food retailing
Market
Contract catering

Classification tailored to supply sources identified according to the nomenclature of the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE).

Finally, measuring objective food accessibility involves delimiting a zone around a specific location or spatial entity (home, neighborhood, place of business, school, etc.) in which the number of stores and/or restaurants will be estimated (Charreire et al., 2010). This zone typically has been defined with a radius between 100 and 2,500 m. The challenge lies in identifying the points of origin and destination to accurately define this zone. Proximity is measured by the distance, either in time or metric units, between these reference points. A significant risk is assessing the food supply of a geographical area without considering individuals’ actual experience (Wilkins et al., 2017) and failing to apprehend its influence on eating behaviors.

PA and the value of the target’s experience

Consumers form their perceptions of the food available based on cultural influences, personal preferences, and their knowledge of health and nutrition. PA delves into how individuals perceive their ability to access healthy food, focusing on their subjective experience rather than just objective measures. Previous research, comparing OA and PA, emphasizes the importance of the latter, as eating behaviors appear to be more related to PA than to OA (Recchia et al., 2023; Vitman-Schorr et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015; Yamaguchi et al., 2019). For instance, Gustafson et al. (2011) showed a discrepancy between the actual food supply in-stores and low-income women’s perceptions of food availability in their neighborhoods. Similarly, Caspi et al. (2012) found that residents of public housing in the United States, despite having objective access to fruit and vegetables, did not consume them frequently. These findings suggest that mere physical access to a diverse diet is not enough to foster healthy eating habits. Understanding the perceived food environment requires considering factors like the perceived time and effort needed to obtain food. Widener (2018) emphasizes the importance of evaluating perceived distance and the effort involved in purchasing food to fully grasp PA.

From a marketing perspective, analyzing food offers in terms of price, assortment, and acceptability is essential to meet consumer expectations (Caraher et al., 2010). PA can also be influenced by factors not directly related to food, such as feelings of safety or the pleasure of walking to stores (Wang et al., 2015), or by individual material resources like car ownership, kitchen features, and culinary knowledge (Caspi et al., 2012). However, methodologically, current PA measures remain succinct (Appendix 2). Often mono item, these measures do not fully capture the complexity of the food environment (Caldwell et al., 2009; Lucan et al., 2014; Rodier et al., 2017), or the subjectivity of its accessibility (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996).

Individual needs and behaviors vary according to age and profession, so PA must be tailored to specific targets. Delving deeper into the daily experiences of target groups is a starting point for identifying perceived benefits and barriers (Kotler and Lee, 2008) to modifying college students’ eating behaviors from a social marketing perspective.

College students’ nutrition at the heart of empowerment

For college students living away from their parents’ home, this time in their lives is defined by the onset of autonomy as they move out of the family household. For the first time, they can decide where, when, and what to eat (Racine et al., 2022). This period is critical for developing healthy eating behaviors. Indeed, among different populations, college students tend to have one of the highest frequencies of visits to fast foods (Zilloniz, 2009) and, at the same time, a low consumption of fruit and vegetables (CREDOC, 2017). They also tend to consume more alcohol (Forleo et al., 2017), snacks, and cookies (Beasley et al., 2004). Conversely, these college students consume less meat and dairy products than their counterparts living with their parents (Forleo et al., 2017). The poor quality of food consumed by college students is thought to be partly due to the various stressful moments they experience, leading them to neglect meal preparation and buy low-quality food. This is especially true for students living away from home (Garabuau-Moussaoui, 2002; Gourmelen and Rodhain, 2016; Sadoun et al., 2016) and those with low financial resources (Marquis et al., 2019). However, other factors can be investigated, including the accessibility of healthy food.

Student housing and place of study as determinants of accessibility

The choice of accommodation for a student is often based on proximity to the place of study (Séné and Cordazzo, 2014). Despite numerous initiatives in France, such as the creation of social food stores since 2011 by the general association of students (Fédération des Associations Générales Étudiantes), or the introduction of organic fruit and vegetable baskets initiated since the Covid-19 crisis by university foundations, many disparities are observed related to the accessibility to healthy food. According to Doherty et al. (2011), the lack of healthy food in and around campuses could explain the low nutritional quality of food products consumed by college students. Hannah (2014) also highlighted the difficulty of getting to food stores as a factor contributing to the food insecurity experienced by some college students. Nevertheless, the accessibility of healthy food for students living away from home remains to be investigated further, as disparities are evident in this area. College students are adults in the making, and no research has yet been conducted on their PA to healthy food.

OA study

To assess OA, we identified all food offers accessible within a 15-minute walk from the homes of the students interviewed. This criterion was chosen because previous studies (Caspi et al., 2012) refer to 1 km, equivalent to a 15-minute walk. Furthermore, this limit aligns with the objective of a growing number of cities to make all services accessible on foot within 15 minutes (Moreno et al., 2021).

Discovering the dimensions of PA

To address PA, 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with college students living away from home. Given the heterogeneity of the student population (Ellison et al., 2021), we ensured a variety of profiles among participants (age, gender, level of education, field of study, neighborhood, and type of housing) (Appendix 3). The convenience sample was drawn by proxy, ensuring one to two people between interviewer and interviewee. The interview guide (Appendix 4) was divided into five parts, covering the notion of accessibility in terms of food supplies, food products, the kitchen, and the neighborhood, followed by the theme of accessibility to healthy food. As the first wave took place during a period of lock-down (16 interviews conducted from March to May 2020), we again favored this mode of data collection during the second wave of interviews (8 interviews from April to May 2023). Thus, all interviews were conducted remotely via videoconferences using Zoom software, whose relevance in this context has been highlighted by Archibald et al. (2019). Interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 2 hours. They were fully transcribed (372 pages).

Analysis of PA data

As the data were diverse, they were analyzed both horizontally and vertically. For the vertical analysis, the student cases were divided among the co-authors to gain an in-depth understanding, using a summary on all sourcing locations, foods consumed, perception of the neighborhood, perception of healthy eating, resources available, and the student’s relationship to the parental home. The co-authors compared their summaries to highlight similarities and differences between the cases.

For the horizontal analysis, the interviews were coded and analyzed using Nvivo 12 software, which facilitates and systematizes the processing of qualitative data based on a large volume of discourse (Nowell et al., 2017). In view of the research objective, we opted for a posteriori coding, that is, based on field data.

A food offering close to the food swamp – OA approach for college students

A look at the pedestrian routes from the tramway exits to the entrances of the university sites reveals a food offer characteristic of a food swamp. The few grocery stores (with a limited range of fresh produce) are overshadowed by a concentration of fast-food outlets: tacos, kebabs, pizzas, and sandwich shops offering a few salads (see Appendix 3). Downtown sites are surrounded by a variety of catering and supply options, while those on the outskirts suffer from a lack of options. Consequently, the CROUS offer constitutes a healthy food island within the campuses, surrounded by unhealthy choices.

An ongoing study of the food supply, carried out by the metropolis and the city, has also identified priority neighborhoods as veritable food swamps (mostly located in Area A). Although these managers have chosen college students as one of their priority groups since the COVID-19 crisis (VerbVille1), ⁹ they have no specific prerogative over them, unlike the city’s ¹⁰ public school pupils. The strategy is therefore to target college students in a socially mixed context (VerbVille2).

However, college students constitute the CROUS’s priority target, for the catering offer only, as they consider that grocery shopping is not their responsibility (VerbCrous3). Even though they emphasize that students can choose whether to eat healthy food in their restaurants (VerbCrous4 and 5), CROUS staff have implemented an information system based on the nutritional quality of their products (VerbCrous6) and are considering guiding college students toward the healthiest alternative. Currently in the process of obtaining the “Resto Responsable” label for the entire offer, the quality of supplies continues to improve. Although the “social” offer (at €1 ¹¹ for scholarship holders and €3.30 for others) only includes healthy desserts (yogurts or fruit) excluding drinks, the CROUS notes that students take advantage of the low cost of the meal to treat themselves to extras (drinks, cookies, etc.). However, field observation of cafeterias reveals a strong emphasis on unhealthy options (sweets, snacks). As for €1 meals for scholarship holders, while in cafeterias this offer has led to a drop in sales of the better-quality “premium” offer (VerbCrous7 and 8), in restaurants it poses a problem of accessibility other than price: that of time spent in queues (VerbCrous9).

An examination of the food offerings on and around campuses shows that, while the CROUS makes healthy food available to all students on the main campuses, less healthy options are nonetheless abundant and highly visible. ¹²

Observation of the OA around the place of residence of the college students interviewed (Appendix 3) reveals major individual disparities, particularly between some Area A residents and other college students. While every college student in this area has at least one grocery store or mini-market within a 15-minute walk of their place of residence, the supply of fresh produce, especially fruit and vegetables, is often absent, limited, or hidden behind the mainstay products (breakfast cereals, confectionery, cookies, snacks, and alcohol), except for national chain mini-markets with better fruit and vegetable stocks. Conversely, no area within the city qualifies as a food desert. The city has 4 food markets and 23 open-air markets.

The out-of-home catering options available within a 15-minute walk from of the residences of the interviewed college students predominantly consist of services provided by the CROUS and various fast-food establishments, particularly in Area A. The restaurants, most of which are only open for lunch on weekdays, primarily serve unhealthy dishes such as pizzas, burgers, and bagels, except for a few traditional brasseries that offer daily specials. Outside of Area A, college students have a more diverse range of choice. However, except for the city center, fast-food outlets outnumber traditional restaurants. For instance, in Area D, Inès has access to 14 fast-food outlets, 3 salad bars, and 5 restaurants (two of which are pizzerias and burger joints) in her area.

College student accessibility

College students report between 1 and 11 different food sources (Appendix 7), at varying distances from their homes and places of study. For food to be considered accessible, it must be both healthy and available at a price college students perceive as affordable. In addition, the location must be easy to reach, and it should be simple for college students to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy food options.

The affordability of food shopping is crucial for students, regardless of their income level. Some financially needy students, like Anthony, minimize their expenses by systematically collecting food baskets from Resto du Cœur to avoid seeking help from their parents. Others opt to reduce their food budget to save for other discretionary purchases (Verb10). ¹³ For instance, Tania, who frequently mentions the importance of price, accumulates CROUS meals at 1€ to save money, enabling her to dine out occasionally (Verb11). While price is a primary consideration for regular grocery shopping and CROUS meals, it becomes less significant for meals taken outside or for meal deliveries, where the hedonic aspect takes precedence.

Physical accessibility is equally important. More than mere distance, the practicality of access is paramount, even more so than travel time. Public transportation, particularly the tramway (Verb12), is essential, especially for college students without a car (Verb13). However, the journeys can be long (in distance and time) and may require complex organization (Verb14). For walking, the pleasantness of the journey is a key factor. Marie, for instance, enjoys a shaded path lined on her way to the store, which she praises (Verb15). In contrast, Victoire, following a traumatic experience of being robbed, no longer feels safe walking to nearby shops (Verb16). When college students do use a car, it is typically to reach the nearest supermarket, often opting for carpooling (Verb17). Thus, the concept of geographical proximity varies depending on the store size and mode of travel.

Cognitive accessibility is also a critical component. Access to a healthy diet also presupposes that college students possess the necessary information to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy foods. However, some college students regret their lack of solid knowledge in this area. This requires an investment of effort, a certain level of mindfulness while shopping (Verb18), and prior knowledge, either from family or university education (Verb19).

Existing food shopping conflicts

College students often complain that the shops nearest to their homes are the most expensive (Verb20). Many students feel exploited by national chains, which vary their prices based on store size and location. Aside from free food distribution for college students living in university halls of residence, and a social grocery store for low-income students, stores located further away tend to be perceived as cheaper (Figure 2). Within a 15-minute walk from college student residences, convenience stores are often criticized for price gouging. Consequently, respondents rarely patronize these stores, or avoid them altogether, due to perceptions of exorbitant prices, sometimes exaggerated, relative to observations (Verb21, Verb22). In addition to high prices, some college students lament the lack of diversity and of fresh produce (Verb23). Specialized stores also suffer from a reputation for high prices, like Anthony, who says he was surprised by a friend who bought meat in a butcher’s shop and praised its value for money (Verb24). Supermarkets within a 15-minute walk are used for convenience shopping but are also criticized for their high prices (Verb25). Within the radius close to their homes, there are no stores that respondents would deem entirely suitable for shopping.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Summary of conflicts between perceived price and distance for food shopping.

Gap between OA and PA for food shopping

The discrepancy between OA and PA in food shopping underscores a significant gap resulting from inadequate consideration of local shop availability. Consequently, hypermarkets or discount stores offering the easiest access are often deemed the “nearest” option, evaluated primarily in terms of convenience and time rather than geographical distance, despite practical inconveniences (Verb14, Verb26). For instance, Medhi (A) predominantly shops at a hypermarket “because it’s the nearest thing,” despite its location along a ring road more than 3 km from his residence. This choice necessitates planning his shopping every 6–8 weeks, and seeking assistance from a friend for help, despite the presence of 39 closer supply ¹⁴ sources, including a large supermarket 1 km away, which he overlooks. Similarly, Olivia (A) visits the nearest discount store approximately twice a month, although it is also over 3 km from her home and requires intricate logistical arrangements (Verb27). Although the options within a 15-minute walk from Olivia’s residence are limited, she does have access to three general food stores and a supermarket.

Observations conducted within a 15-minute walking radius of the residences of the 24 college students interviewed ¹⁵ reveal a notable disparity between the objectively available supply options and their PA. For instance, Estelle (A) has access to two grocery stores, a butcher’s shop, and a bakery within this radius, yet she does not consider any of these establishments.

These options are regarded as the “closest” choices, as only hypermarkets and discount stores are typically included in the college students’ consideration set, perceived as the more often affordable alternatives. This finding underscores the inadequacy of physically accessible options in meeting the needs of students. Such perceptions often stem not from direct experience, but from a heuristic belief that smaller stores inherently charge higher prices. Indeed, their feedback reflects a certain degree of hesitancy, indicating unfamiliarity with local offerings (Verb28, Verb29). The initial narrow scope of consideration upon their arrival in the city (Verb30) has persisted over time, as there has been little proactive effort on their part to explore additional options (Verb31).

Figure 2 exhibits a comprehensive overview of the supply sources mentioned by respondents in terms of perceived price and distance from their homes, illustrating the conflict between both perceived affordability and distance. It is noteworthy that two extreme situations mitigate this conflict: college students living in university halls of residence and benefiting from food distribution, and those heavily reliant on parental provisioning.

Existing conflicts in out-of-home dining

The conflict centers on the juxtaposition of access to nutritious dining options and physical proximity, where nearby restaurant choices are often perceived as lacking in healthfulness (Figure 3). Primarily utilized for the consumption of unhealthy food such as tacos, hamburgers, and pizza, home delivery services underscore this preference among students (Verb32). Observational data around their residences indicates a predominance of fast-food outlets (Verb33). Respondents express dissatisfaction with the necessity of traveling outside their immediate neighborhoods to access healthier dining alternatives (Verb34, Verb35). The proliferation of fast-food establishments near their homes and universities contributes to a constant temptation as mentioned by Émile (A), to opt for less nutritious options both on campus and elsewhere. The university restaurant (RU) emerges as the sole nearby venue widely regarded as very affordable and potentially offering healthy menu choices, depending on college student selections. However, CROUS officials acknowledge challenges following the introduction of the €1 meal initiative for scholarship holders, leading to substantial wait times during peak lunch periods and reducing accessibility for those with limited time to spare. It is noteworthy that while CROUS managers consider maintaining uniform quality across their services, college students observed differences in distinguishing between the university restaurant and cafeteria offerings. For instance, Estelle (A) favors the university restaurant, located more than a 15 minutes’ walk away over a closer cafeteria due to its perceived healthier options (Verb36). Beyond their immediate neighborhood, college students patronize diverse restaurant types ranging from fast-food to traditional establishments. Therefore, apart from the university restaurant, attaining a nutritious meal often necessitates venturing beyond students’ local neighborhoods. Figure 3 succinctly illustrates this clash between physical accessibility and healthy dietary choices. In addition, we classify parental provision of “home-cooked meals” as originating from a distance from the college student’s residence during their university period because, unlike home delivery services, college students need to return to their parental homes to access these meals. College students who partake in these dishes consider them healthier due to their greater variety and superior level of preparation (Verb37).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Conflicts between perceived healthiness and distance of catering choices.

Contextualizing the discrepancy between OA and PA

Types of literacy observed among college students

College students with higher levels of food literacy – defined as “a set of knowledge, skills and practices that enable them to plan, manage, select, prepare and consume food that meets their needs” (Vidgen and Gallegos, 2014: 54) – are more profoundly affected by food-related conflicts. These college students employ specific strategies to ensure the quality of their food supply. Those committed to long-term residence in the city often explore various neighborhoods, comparing and evaluating food options for both quality and price. This behavior exemplifies what we term “urban food literacy,” which is “a set of knowledge, skills and practices enabling one to identify and find healthy sources of food supply within the urban space, while being aware of the consequences of these choices for one’s health” (case 1, Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Four typical cases of students according to their type of literacy.

	Definition	Respondents
Case 1: urban food literacy (double)	The knowledge, skills, and practices needed to identify and find healthy sources of food in the urban environment, while being aware of the consequences of these choices for one’s health.	Eight respondents: Eric, Inès, Jules, Laurent, Léna, Marie, Nora, Thaïssia
Case 2: food literacy	Knowledge, skills, and practices for planning, managing, selecting, preparing, and consuming foods that meet identified needs (Vidgen and Gallegos, 2014: 54). Dimensions:- level of culinary experience- nutritional knowledge- budget and resource management practices- knowledge of product quality and different sources of supply.	Eight respondents: Estelle, Jean, Laura, Martin, Matthis, Mehdi, Victoire, Vincent
Case 3: urban literacy	Knowledge, skills, know-how, and know-how for the future that enable a sensitive, reflective, and critical reading of an urban environment, an understanding of the city based on personal cultural biases, and a reaction to this reading (Pruneau and Desjardins, 2003). Dimensions:- knowledge of the city and its offerings (transport, cultural, etc.)- traffic practices in urban areas	Five respondents: Emile, Luc, Maël, Olivia, Tania
Case 4: illiteracy	Lack of knowledge about the urban food environment (whether in terms of “knowledge of the city” or “knowledge of food in the city”).Lack of food-related knowledge and know-how.	Three respondents: Anthony, Jonathan, William

Strategies of dual-literate students

Two distinct strategies emerge among students who possess both food and urban literacy, contingent upon the resources available in their neighborhoods:

College students with urban food literacy demonstrate no significant gap between OA and PA, because they have developed a thorough knowledge of their surrounding food options and adapt their strategies according to their neighborhood’s resources and financial means.

Students’ food literacy strategies

College students with a transient mindset, perceiving themselves more as visitors than residents in their university city, often do not exert the effort to explore their urban environment. Unlike college students with dual literacy, they possess only food literacy (case 2, Table 2). To access quality food without delving into the city to uncover good deals, they adopt two primary strategies based on their familial involvement:

College students possessing only food literacy demonstrate a significant gap between their OA and PA due to their unawareness of the local food options and often distorted perceptions. However, these students rarely express dissatisfaction as they have identified satisfactory food sources outside their immediate neighborhood for the duration of their studies.

Student strategies for urban literacy

Conversely, some students exhibit a lack of food literacy. With minimal interest in cooking and limited nutritional knowledge, these individuals consider food as a constraint in terms of time, financial resources, and personal engagement. Nevertheless, some students have developed urban literacy, defined as a blend of knowledge, interpersonal skills, practical know-how, and future-oriented capabilities that enable them to effectively navigate an urban environment (Pruneau and Desjardins, 2003) (Case 3, Table 2). These urban-literate students have adopted two primary least-effort strategies to minimize the time spent on procuring food supplies:

Student strategies for illiteracy

A subset of students demonstrates what we have termed “illiteracy” (Case 4, Table 2), which refers to an absence of knowledge and skills concerning both the city and food. These students exhibit a lack of interest in food-related issues and perceive their time in the city of study as temporary, thus they are unwilling to invest time in engaging with their surroundings. Among these illiterate students, two primary strategies have been identified:

Students experiencing illiteracy exhibit a significant disparity between OA and PA, as they typically do not investigate available options in their neighborhood, whether for shopping or dining.

From accessibility conflicts to student coping strategies

In alignment with previous work, this research showed that students’ PA to healthy eating is often misaligned with their OA (Caspi et al., 2012; Gustafson et al., 2011). This misalignment highlights the significance of PA in relation to OA (Vitman-Schorr et al., 2019; Vonthron, 2021; Wang et al., 2015; Wilkins et al., 2017; Yamaguchi et al., 2019). While this discrepancy is partly attributed to variables already identified in the literature, such as feelings of safety, the pleasantness of the journey and practicality of the journey (particular access by public transport) rather than distance or travel time (Calise et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015), and available material resources including car ownership (Caspi et al., 2012), our interview analysis reveals that a significant portion of the surrounding food supply is not considered by respondents. Residing in an environment where PA variables are unmet (specifically, an affordable and nearby food offer), college students living outside their parents’ house face accessibility conflicts. This study expands on previous work by illustrating that the types of conflict between OA and PA differ between food shopping (price–proximity conflict) and out-of-home dining (healthy–proximity conflict). These conflicts arise partly from (1) the surrounding offer (OA), which aligns with the description of the food swamps, and (2) the students’ lack of knowledge about the available options (PA), leading them to rely on heuristics that associate nearby small shops with more expensive choices.

In the context of college students living away from home, OA relies on the decisions of both institutional players (such as CROUS, city, food aid associations) and the commercial sector (including retail and catering services). The CROUS, recognized as “one of the key operators in the student experience,” ¹⁶ assumes a regulatory role in the management and implementation of standards and procedures related to university services and social aid. However, it does not extend its influence on students’ access to food outside its scope. To date, municipal strategies have generally not included specific provisions for this specific target, primarily due to the territorial competences assigned by the French State. Consequently, despite their significant presence in urban spaces and their identification as a priority group, college students often lack dedicated facilities within city environments. Following de Certeau’s (1990) framework, the CROUS and municipal authorities can be considered isolable actors of power, functioning within defined boundaries where they pursue specific objectives. This leads to a fragmented approach within their respective domains of authority. In a constrained food supply context, college students adapt by employing everyday tactical practices (de Certeau, 1990). These students, who have moved away from their familial homes, design and implement innovative strategies to mitigate the limitations imposed by the accessible food supply, shaped by both institutional and market forces. They are not merely passive consumers of the objectively accessible food supply. Despite the uniformity of OA within a given neighborhood, our findings reveal a diverse array of adaptive strategies shaped by students’ types of literacy (Table 2), highlighting the complexity of food behaviors within this population. The level of literacy (food, urban, urban food, or illiteracy) serves as an individual characteristic that creates discrepancies between OA and PA and shapes a unique creative space for each student (de Certeau, 1990). Each student’s tactic reflects the heterogeneous nature of their practices. This heterogeneity underscores various ways of positioning oneself within the food environment and, consequently, of experiencing student life (Le Quéau, 2014). The diversity of college student practices aligns with Recchia et al.’s (2023) research on households, supporting the assertion that systemic rather than sequential actions on OA and PA are necessary, even for this specific population. This approach addresses the multifaceted nature of food access and usage, recognizing the complex interplay between institutional structures and individual practices.

Perceived high food prices

The perceived high cost of living, particularly regarding food prices, is a critical factor influencing accessibility for students (Pothin et al., 2022). This perception is intertwined with both spatial logics and status logics. College students, irrespective of their actual income levels, commonly perceive themselves as having limited financial resources due to their student status. In essence, while the perception of high prices is significant for the general population during inflationary periods, it is especially pronounced among college students, particularly in relation to food expenses. Discussions about the high cost of food are nearly ubiquitous among students. Students with constrained financial resources are naturally compelled to pay attention to food prices. Conversely, those with relative higher incomes remain price-sensitive to save money for other discretionary expenditures, such as clothing and social activities. In both cases, students justify their acute price sensitivity by their student’s status. For instance, the €1 social pricing offered by the university restaurant enhances the OA of healthy food options for scholarship holders. However, over time, this pricing can become a reference price (Hamelin, 2000; Zollinger, 1993), potentially distorting perceptions of the cost of healthy eating outside subsidized environments. The €1 price may in fact lead to a skewed perception of what it means to eat healthily outside the university restaurant. The disparity between a €1 ready-to-eat meal and the actual cost of raw ingredients reinforces misconceptions about the pricing of comparable, non-subsidized food options. Food shopping and dining to the university restaurant are perceived as utilitarian and as a routine in students’ life, yet they lack the pleasure and social dimensions, resulting in low perceived value. In contrast, fast food provides a more social and hedonic experience, where price is less of a deterrent. Consequently, the practicalities of daily food–related activities diminish the prioritizing of healthy eating, thereby reducing the perceived benefits relative to the effort required.

Furthermore, aligning with the findings of Bertrandias and Lapeyre (2017) and the more recent research of Pothin et al. (2022), compensatory mechanisms among college students are evident. For instance, some students may adopt a strategy of weekday deprivation, allowing them to allocate resources for shared moments of pleasure, underscoring the social dynamics of their consumption behavior.

Dissociated students versus integrated students

Our findings indicate that some of our respondents have not integrated themselves into the urban space, whether at the neighborhood level or within the broader city context. Even after several years, their student experience remains transient, echoing Bodin’s (1959) concept of temporariness. This lack of engagement with the city’s food landscape highlights a broader issue of disconnection from their place of study (Prohansky et al., 1970). Consequently, these students do not perceive their city of study as “home” (Carù and Cova, 2003). In addition, for college students, the degree of dependence on parental support can conflict with local commerce in their city of study. This phenomenon occurs when students do not actively engage with their city beyond the academic sphere. In contrast, our research reveals that students possessing food literacy who receive minimal parental assistance and lack access to a car tend to achieve greater autonomy within the city. These students, motivated by a willingness to practice healthy eating, make concerted efforts to navigate the urban environment (utilizing public transportation and seeking out food solutions), thereby exhibiting urban literacy. As a result, they emerge as a group with urban food literacy. In essence, the dichotomy between dissociated and integrated college students underscores the importance of engagement and self-sufficiency in fostering a sense of belonging and competence within the urban landscape. The present research contributes to our understanding by highlighting how college students living outside their parents’ home but with higher levels of food and urban literacy demonstrate greater adaptability and integration into their urban environments.

Designing a territorial strategy dedicated to students

Improving access to healthy food requires a thoughtful approach to public policy, incorporating social marketing actions to prevent the pitfalls of past initiatives. All too often, despite good intentions, municipal initiatives fall short of expectations due to ineffective communication and fail to induce significant behavioral changes. Active participation of target audiences in participatory approaches is essential for fostering long-term adhesion. A noteworthy example of a comprehensive holistic approach to food accessibility is the multi-partner agreement established in Lyon ¹⁷ in 2022. This initiative involved a financial scheme that distributed a monthly allowance in a complementary currency called La Gonette, ¹⁸ support from a local association promoting organic farming, and a gamification interface to assess the impact on students’ eating habits. Preliminary results indicate that economic autonomy, through complementary alternative currency, positively influences purchasing behaviors and attitudes toward healthy, sustainable, and locally sourced food. The impact is more pronounced when students receive training to raise awareness of these issues. This experiment – involving a diverse array of stakeholders, including universities, production associations, city and metropolitan authorities, as well as regional and state entities – fosters the development of a shared vision within the territory and effectively addresses the needs of students.

Enhancing OA

Partnerships between private and public entities are essential to enhance OA to healthy food options. In student areas, often described as food deserts, financial incentives should be provided to establish food shops and restaurants offering healthy options. This should be accompanied by process support and awareness campaigns directed at project developers. Initiatives such as TooGoodToGo could be specifically tailored for student populations. In addition, existing retail and catering businesses could benefit from awareness and training programs aimed at enhancing their current offerings. Beyond increasing the availability of healthy food, it is crucial to improve the overall atmosphere of these neighborhoods. These services should be seamlessly integrated into an urban design that prioritizes ease of movement and pleasant experiences for pedestrians and public transport users.

Regarding open-air markets, the potential of food cooperatives and short distribution channels is rarely mentioned, indicating a lack of awareness and/or interest in these structures. Private-sector players or associations could introduce flexible, mobile distribution systems (such as carts) along student routes (e.g. tramway stops, university entrances) to minimize the effort required for students to access healthy food options.

Improving PA

Communication campaigns promoting healthy eating among young people ¹⁹ are regularly implemented. However, these initiatives are often not localized and primarily focus on cognitive and/or financial accessibility. It is crucial to address all three components of food accessibility to ensure that the messages resonate more effectively with college students’ daily lives.

To enhance communication, it is essential to deconstruct the heuristic that students automatically associate the food on offer in specialized boutiques and small stores close to student neighborhoods with exorbitant prices. Shopkeepers should consider and promote differentiated pricing for healthy food aimed at students. Coordination between retailers’ associations and economic development policy could boost the visibility of such actions (e.g. labeling local shops offering student prices). Furthermore, healthy, low-cost initiatives should emphasize the “smart shopping” aspect rather than the “solidarity” aspect. Applications such as TooGoodtoGo exemplify this approach, avoiding stereotype about the precarious student contenting himself with the products that associations are willing to give him. Similarly, solidarity grocery stores and food donations by associations are often perceived as reserved for the highly precarious public residing in university halls. Public and association players should work on reshaping the perceived image of these supply methods to rethink the value proposition offered to students.

Moreover, it would be beneficial to draw up an educational note detailing the composition of the prices charged by the CROUS, even for its non-social services. This initiative would raise students’ awareness of the price components, facilitating a better understanding of the real cost of a healthy diet and the financial implications of a balanced meal. In addition, this would enhance the perceived value of a meal in the university restaurant.

In conclusion, it would be appropriate to rethink the segmentation of college students based on their level of literacy rather than solely on their status as scholarship holders or residents of university halls of residence. Priority should be given to improving the urban food supply for categories characterized by low “food literacy” and “urban literacy” (Appendix 11).