Priority Places for Food Index – FAQ’s

No. The Priority Places for Food Index uses a variety of open data sources to tell us areas most likely to be at risk of food insecurity and why. This enables those best-placed to support those communities (e.g. local government and community groups) to target bespoke support to these Priority Places. 

No. It is not appropriate to compare between versions of the Priority Places for Food Index as the different versions use different types of data and data collected at different points in time. The Index is a relative measure, so the priority of one area is compared to the priority in other areas at that point in time.  

Because the tool prioritises the use of open data, some data were previously collected using methods that cannot now be replicated in an open and reproducible way.

Using these older data means we are able to keep the tool open and free to use, and the impact of these older data is only upon one of our seven domains.

However, in each update of the Index, as well as part of our ongoing and additional programmes of work that validate the Index, we will continue to review the representativeness of historic data that cannot be updated and consider ways in which the same information can be captured or modelled without impacting the accessibility of the Index itself. If you have any suggestions or questions about our older data, please get in touch. 

No. Because each devolved nation within the UK has different methods of collecting and grouping neighbourhoods (LSOAs in England and Wales versus Data Zones in Scotland), and because each devolved nation has different policies and eligibility criteria for support with food, it is not possible to compare nation to nation.

We have introduced usability and data visualisation updates to the 2024 version of the tool that makes this clearer for users. 

The 2024 update allows users to “zoom to” your chosen local authority or region of the UK in order to understand food insecurity risk drivers across larger areas. This will be beneficial for users looking at larger, but specific, areas such as local authorities.

This focus will be useful for retail planning, local authority providers and policymakers, as well as users who support interventions at a regional level. The “zoom to” function can be found on the right-hand side of the map and locations are sorted alphabetically. 

We continue to take feedback on the usability of the tool. Please contact us if you would find other selection elements useful. 

The data domains for ‘access to food’ and ‘barriers to food’ have been split 50%-50%.

This means that the socio-economic indicators are given an increased weighting of 16.7% (where there are 3 domains) and access domains are given a reduced weighting of 12.5% (where there are 4 domains).

This does not mean that socio-economic indicators are over-weighted compared to access. It means that they have been made equal. 

To construct the Index we ranked, standardized, and normalised the data before combining the indicators into their respective domains.

We combined these seven domains into a single composite Index using similar methods to previous composite Index construction such as the UK Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (Noble et al., 2016) or CDRC’s Access to Healthy Assets and Hazards Index (Green et al., 2018).

When combining the domains, we exponentially transformed the data to minimise cancellation effects across the domains. So, what this means is that a low score in one domain does not cancel out with a high score in another domain for a given neighbourhood. Instead, all of the domains can contribute to indicating a high priority place.

We then equally weighted the 4 domains that capture availability of food in neighbourhoods and the 3 domains that capture the ability of neighbourhood to purchase these foods. These each contribute 50% to the total Index. 

If you’re interested in a particular population group, we recommend identifying the domains that would impact that group the most (e.g. Family Food Support for children or Public Transport Access to Supermarkets for older adults) and filter the Index using the dropdown on the right-hand side. You can also download our data and join this with any data you hold locally for deeper insights. 

If you’re interested in a particular population group, we recommend identifying the domains that would impact that group the most (e.g. Family Food Support for children or Public Transport Access to Supermarkets for older adults) and filter the Index using the dropdown on the right-hand side. You can also download our data and join this with any data you hold locally for deeper insights. 

If you’re interested in a particular population group, we recommend identifying the domains that would impact that group the most (e.g. Family Food Support for children or Public Transport Access to Supermarkets for older adults) and filter the Index using the dropdown on the right-hand side. You can also download our data and join this with any data you hold locally for deeper insights. 

Our forthcoming paper does some sensitivity work around urban-rural neighbourhoods and the likelihood of being ranked a high priority area in the overall Index and for each domain.

Beyond this, living in a rural area does not place anyone at a greater risk of food insecurity. Instead, priority level might be driven by the physical access elements that are common in rural areas but which are not specific to them.

This is also true of the socio-economic indicators in some rural areas, where there may be large pockets of deprivation, but this is not linked specifically to rurality. 

As PPFI is an indicator of risk in a specific area, it is not possible to make deductions around individual, family, or household risk of food insecurity. This would be an ecological fallacy, a common error in the interpretation of statistical data wherein inferences about individuals are based on the aggregate of the group from which they belong. 

This means that users who have detailed, real-world understanding of small geographical areas may find that the neighbourhoods depicted in PPFI do not reflect completely what is happening on the ground. The value in PPFI is being able to highlight areas where there is bigger risk of food insecurity in order to focus interventions and to invest in further qualitative local investigation. 

The included indices for socio-economic indicators are typically percentage of the population (so control for number of individuals/households/other baseline where applicable) in that LSOA or Data Zone. For physical access metrics distances from the centre of each postcode to each point of interest are calculated and then averaged for the whole LSOA.   

These data have been changed to reflect the changing policy landscape around Free School Meal (FSM) eligibility. Some areas within England, such as London, as well as some of the devolved nations, have rolled out universal FSM.

This means that FSM eligibility could no longer be used as an indicator that families need support with food. Instead, PPFI V2 uses Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) Children in relative Low-Income Families (CiLIF), as a proxy for school aged children requiring food support. This is based on recommendations made by both the National Food Strategy Independent Review (2020) and the Food Foundation that FSM eligibility be extended to children living in relative low-income households.

The DWP ‘Children in relative low-income families’ local area statistics provide information on the number and proportion of children living in relative low income by local area across the United Kingdom. Relative low-income is defined as a family in low income Before Housing Costs (BHC) in the reference year.

A family must have claimed Child Benefit and at least one other household benefit (Universal Credit, tax credits, or Housing Benefit) at any point in the year to be classed as low income in these statistics. Gross income measure is BHC and includes contributions from earnings, state support, and pensions.  

The motivation from moving away from FSM to using Children in relative Low-Income Families (CiLIF), as a proxy for school aged children requiring food support is that FSM eligibility criteria are no longer universal within the devolved nations and so are not suitable for determining relative priority of local areas.

Whilst the recommendation in the National Food Strategy Independent Review is also to expand the eligibility criteria for HSV, there is less evidence of a decentralised approach to HSV eligibility. Most local authority/local action is focused on increasing uptake in those groups currently eligible and improving the messaging around HSV to improve their popularity, rather than making these universal regionally or nationally. 

CiLIF data have replaced the Free School Meals data used in version 1 of the Index. Without these data, it would not have been possible to use Free School Meal eligibility as a marker of food need, as some local areas and devolved nations have now made free school meals universal.

Free School Meal eligibility was previously used to indicate need for family food support, rather than provision of additional food sources (this is the same way we use foodbank and community food initiatives data – as indicators of need for support, not another source of food). The use of CiLIF to determine Free School Meal eligibility is based on recommendations by the National Food Strategy Independent review (2021) and the Food Foundation. 

The different versions of the Index use different types of data and data collected at different points in time.  The Index is a relative measure so the priority of one area is compared to the priority in other areas at that point in time.  

In version 2 we have captured changing geographies, neighbourhood demographics, the opening and closing of food retail stores and food banks, and refined how we define and capture the variables included in the Index. This means we cannot contribute any changes in PPFI rank or decile between versions to any one factor.  

The main changes in V2 which could impact priority ranking across PPFI are: 

• New LSOAs or redefined LSOA boundaries; 
• Local demographic changes between indices (due to inclusion of 2021 census data in version 2); 
• Changed access due to stores opening and closing; 
• Refinements in how we define convenience stores: switching to retailer definitions rather than floor size and supplementary Food Standards Authority data which will allow us to better understand access barriers in urban areas where space is at a premium; 
• Addition of a second source of food bank and larder locations in absence of a comprehensive UK list; 
• Using households with Children in relative Low-Income Families (CiLIF) in in place of Free School Eligibility as this measure is increasingly determined by local rather than national government (see Why have data around Free School Meals changed? for more information);  

• Local and National changes in Health Start Voucher Uptake. 

Areas may look different to Version 1 as a result of the new data incorporated or changes to neighbourhood boundaries. Because of these changes we recommend that you don’t make comparisons between the versions. If you would like to continue to use version 1, you can find it here.