Food in the cold: exploring food security and sovereignty in Whitehorse, Yukon

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant profiles (n = 45)

Sample characteristics	Sample composition
Age	33.3% (n = 15) age group 25–39 57.8% (n = 26) age group 39–64 8.9% (n = 4) age group 65+
Sex	71.1% (n = 32) Female 28.9% (n = 13) Male
Household size	17.8% (n = 8) 1 adult 44.4% (n = 20) 2 adults 15.5% (n = 7) ≥ 3 adults 2.2% (n = 1) 1 adult and 1 child 2.2% (n = 1) 1 adult and 2 children 6.7% (n = 3) 2 adults and 1 child 6.9% (n = 4) 2 adults and ≥ children 2.2% (n = 1) 3 adults and 1 child
Identity	84.4% (n = 38) Canadian 4.4% (n = 2) European 2.2% (n = 1) First Nation 2.2% (n = 1) Métis 6.7% (n = 3) Other
Education	11.1% (n = 5) Secondary school 4.4% (n = 2) Vocational education 44.4% (n = 20) Bachelor 40.0% (n = 18) Graduate school
Occupational sector	24.4% (n = 11) Public service 15.6% (n = 7) Education 8.9% (n = 4) Healthcare 6.7% (n = 3) Arts/Culture 4.4% (n = 2) Agriculture 4.4% (n = 2) Leisure 2.2% (n = 1) Automotive/Heavy diesel 2.2% (n = 1) Recreation 2.2% (n = 1) First Nation governance 8.9% (n = 4) Retired, 20.0% (n = 9) Other
Annual household income	20.0% (n = 9) $15.000 – $40.000 40.0% (n = 18) $40.000 – $100.000 31.1% (n = 14) $100.000 – $150.000 2.2% (n = 1) more than $200.000
Distance to Whitehorse	57.8% (n = 26) Living in Whitehorse 33.3% (n = 15) 0–50 km from Whitehorse 2.2% (n = 1) 50–100 km from Whitehorse 6.7% (n = 3) > 200 km from Whitehorse

Table 2. Obtaining household food per item (n and row percentages)

	Local Public Market (%)	Small Family Store (%)	Local Food Box Program (%)	Grocery Store (%)	Food Bank (%)	Online (%)	Self-Provisioning (%)	I do not eat this type of food (%)	Total (%)
Fruit and Vegetables (%)	4.4 (n = 2)	2.2(n = 1)	0.0 (n = 0)	82.2 (n = 37)	2.2(n = 1)	0.0(n = 0)	8.9(n = 4)	0.0(n = 0)	100.0(n = 45)
Legumes (%)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)	4.4(n = 2)	71.1(n = 32)	0.0(n = 0)	4.4(n = 2)	11.1(n = 5)	8.9(n = 4)	100.0(n = 45)
Traditional Foods (%)	8.9(n = 4)	4.4(n = 2)	0.0(n = 0)	13.3(n = 6)	0.0(n = 0	0.0(n = 0)	40(n = 18)	33.3(n = 15)	100.0(n = 45)
Bread (%)	0(n = 0)	15.6(n = 7)	0.0(n = 0)	60(n = 27)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)	22.2(n = 10)	2.2(n = 1)	100.0(n = 45)
Dairy Products (%)	4.4(n = 2)	4.4(n = 2)	0.0(n = 0)	84.4(n = 38)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)	6.7(n = 3)	100.0(n = 45)
Meat (%)	13.3(n = 6)	26.7(n = 12)	0.0(n = 0)	37.8(n = 17)	2.2(n = 1)	0.0(n = 0)	13.3(n = 6)	6.7(n = 3)	100.0(n = 45)
Fish (%)	4.4(n = 2)	24.4(n = 11)	0.0(n = 0)	40(n = 18)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)	28.9(n = 13)	2.2(n = 1)	100.0(n = 45)
All food types combined (%)	5.1(n = 16)	11.1 (n = 35)	0.6(n = 2)	55.6(n = 175)	0.6(n = 2)	0.6(n = 2)	17.8(n = 56)	8.6(n = 27)	100.0(n = 315)

Table 3. Barriers to obtaining fresh local food

	%
I do not experience any barriers	42.2 (n = 19)
I do not know where fresh local food is sold	8.9 (n = 4)
Fresh local food is too expensive	42.2 (n = 19)
I physically do not have access to places where fresh local food is sold	6.7 (n = 3)

Table 4. Local fresh food consumption

Part of Diet Consisting of Local Fresh Food	None of my diet (%)	Some of my diet (%)	About half of my diet (%)	Most of my diet (%)	All of my diet (%)
	8.9 (n = 4)	62.2 (n = 28)	15.6 (n = 7)	13.3 (n = 6)	0 (n = 0)

Table 5. Financial accessibility

Financial accessibility	Never (%)	Rarely (%)	Sometimes (%)	Often (%)	Always (%)
	0.0(n = 0)	2.2(n = 1)	6.7(n = 3)	22.2(n = 10)	68.9(n = 31)

*financial accessibility = I have enough money to buy the food I need

Table 6. Harvesting food from the land

Variable 10: Harvesting food from the land	(%)
Yes, less than 25% of total food consumption:	55.6 (n = 25)
Yes, 25% – 50% of total food consumption:	11.1 (n = 5)
No, not economically accessible	4.4 (n = 2)
No, not physical accessible	11.1 (n = 5)
No, other reason	17.8 (n = 8)

Table 7. Evaluations of initiatives

	Extremely important (%)	Very important (%)	Moderately important (%)	Slightly important (%)	Not important at all (%)
Increasing the availability of local fresh food	68.9(n = 31)	24.4(n = 11)	6.7(n = 3)	0.0(n = 0)	0.0(n = 0)
Making fresh products more affordable	57.8(n = 26)	31.3(n = 14)	8.9(n = 4)	2.2(n = 1)	0.0 (n = 0)

Figure 1. Overview of themes and their reciprocity.

Table A1. Valuation of focuses of food security initiatives

Initiatives.	Extremely important (%)	Very important (%)	Moderately important (%)	Slightly important (%)	Not at all important (%)
Increasing the amount of food available	22.2 (n = 10)	33.3 (n = 15)	33.3 (n = 15)	11.1 (n = 5)	0.0 (n = 0)
Improving the quality of food available	37.8 (n = 17)	37.8 (n = 17)	13.3 (n = 6)	8.9 (n = 4)	2.2 (n = 1)
Increasing the diversity of food available	17.8 (n = 8)	33.3 (n = 15)	31.1 (n = 14)	17.8 (n = 8)	0.0 (n = 0)
Increasing the availability of local fresh produced food	68.9 (n = 31)	24.4 (n = 11)	6.7 (n = 3)	0.0 (n = 0)	0.0 (n = 0)
Making fresh products more affordable	57.8 (n = 26)	31.3 (n = 14)	8.9 (n = 4)	2.2 (n = 1)	0.0 (n = 0)
Aimed at overcoming geographical barriers	28.9 (n = 13)	28.9 (n = 13)	28.9 (n = 13)	11.1 (n = 5)	2.2 (n = 1)
Increasing the social aspects of food	13.3 (n = 6)	26.7 (n = 12)	35.6 (n = 16)	22.2 (n = 10)	2.2 (n = 1)
Improving knowledge and skills to budget, shop and prepare nutritious food	33.3 (n = 15)	35.6 (n = 16)	22.2 (n = 10)	8.9 (n = 4)	0.0 (n = 0)
Improving the awareness of food safety and agriculture	37.8 (n = 17)	35.6 (n = 16)	22.2 (n = 10)	4.4 (n = 2)	0.0 (n = 0)