# District-Level Food Environment Indicators and Social Vulnerability in S~ao Paulo

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26299 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26299/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1302.4964/) (2013)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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 S~ao Paulo. We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional ecological analysis integrating the S~ao Paulo Social Vulnerability Index (IPVS), establishment records from the Relacc~ao Anual de Informacc~oes 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.