用食品环境数据预测圣保罗市街区社会脆弱性,发现健康与不健康食品店密度是关键指标。
District-Level Food Environment Indicators and Social Vulnerability in São Paulo

- 基于食品店和街市分布数据,构建街区社会脆弱性预测模型。
- XGBoost模型F分数达0.75,健康与不健康食品店密度贡献60%特征重要性。
- 适用于城市规划与公共卫生政策制定者参考。
城市食品环境可能反映更广泛的社会经济不平等,但巴西城市中区级层面的证据仍有限。本研究分析了圣保罗市96个行政区的食品零售与街市可及性指标是否能区分不同社会脆弱性水平。整合圣保罗社会脆弱性指数(IPVS)、RAIS年度社会信息登记数据及CAISAN街市数据,将普查区信息聚合至行政区层级。排除20个无IPVS分类的行政区后,保留76个观测样本。因变量将IPVS等级1与其他等级(2-7)区分。预测变量包括健康与不健康食品店密度、街市数量以及新鲜/原生食品销售点数量。使用留一法交叉验证评估八种传统机器学习分类器,平均F分数在0.62至0.75之间,其中XGBoost表现最佳。随机森林模型显示,健康与不健康食品店密度联合解释约60%的特征重要性。结果表明,公开的食品环境指标包含与街区社会脆弱性分布相关的信息。但生态样本量小、类别不平衡、因变量二值化及横断面设计限制了预测泛化能力,并无法支持因果或家庭层面推断。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Urban food environments may reflect broader socioeconomic inequalities, but district-level evidence remains limited in Brazilian cities. This study examined whether indicators of food retail and street-market availability discriminate between levels of social vulnerability across the 96 districts of São Paulo. We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional ecological analysis integrating the São Paulo Social Vulnerability Index (IPVS), establishment records from the Relação Anual de Informações Sociais (RAIS), and street-market data from CAISAN. Census-sector information was aggregated at the district level. Twenty districts without an IPVS classification were excluded, resulting in 76 observations. The outcome distinguished districts classified as IPVS level 1 from those classified as levels 2--7. Predictors described the densities of healthy and unhealthy food establishments, the number of street markets, and the availability of establishments selling fresh or in natura food. Eight conventional machine-learning classifiers were evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Reported mean F-scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.75, with XGBoost obtaining the highest value. In the Random Forest model, the densities of healthy and unhealthy food establishments jointly accounted for approximately 60% of the total impurity-based feature importance. These findings indicate that publicly available food-environment indicators contain information associated with the district-level distribution of social vulnerability. However, the small ecological sample, class imbalance, outcome binarization, and cross-sectional design limit predictive generalization and preclude causal or household-level interpretations.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。