As part of our series on Access to Healthy Food in the United States, we are look at the 20 toughest neighborhoods in the Great Lakes region of the United States for gaining access to healthy food.
Great Lakes Region Of U.S.
46,421,564
Total Population
34,809,216
Urban Population
11,612,348
Rural Population
16.48%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
27.35%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
5.6%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
10,790,497
Population With Poor Acccess
10,313,523
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
476,975
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
1.07%
Population With No Vehicular Acccess
1.91%
Urban Population With No Vehicular Acccess
.22%
Rural Population With No Vehicular Acccess
Kids (Age 0-17)
11,257,339
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Region (2010)
9,344,487
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences In Region (2010)
1,912,852
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences In Region (2010)
23.71%
Rate of Kids With Low Access
27.43%
Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access
5.53%
Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access
2,668,697
Population With Poor Acccess
2,562,987
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
105,710
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
Seniors (Age 65+)
6,330,041
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In America (2010)
4,854,414
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences In America (2010)
1,475,627
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences In America (2010)
22.19%
Rate of Seniors With Low Access
27.17%
Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access
5.81%
Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access
1,404,668
Population With Poor Acccess
1,318,897
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
85,771
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
Worst 20 Neighborhoods For Healthy Food Access
20 Otsego, Michigan
24,164
Total Population
13,653
Urban Population
10,511
Rural Population
37.92%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
66.16%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
9.68%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
19 Huron, Michigan
33,118
Total Population
3,891
Urban Population
29,227
Rural Population
38.6%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
48.21%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
28.98%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
18 Florence, Wisconsin
4,423
Total Population
0
Urban Population
4,423
Rural Population
40.84%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
40.84%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
17 Dearborn, Indiana
50,047
Total Population
24,825
Urban Population
25,222
Rural Population
41.75%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
83.5%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
16 Fayette, Illinois
22,140
Total Population
7,227
Urban Population
14,913
Rural Population
42.78%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
55.33%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
30.23%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
15 Steuben, Indiana
34,185
Total Population
13,891
Urban Population
20,294
Rural Population
43.49%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
86.07%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
.91%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
14 Noble, Ohio
14,645
Total Population
7,384
Urban Population
7,261
Rural Population
43.9%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
68.22%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
19.59%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
13 Alexander, Illinois
8,238
Total Population
3,138
Urban Population
5,100
Rural Population
43.92%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
23.48%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
64.35%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
12 Crawford, Wisconsin
16,644
Total Population
5,832
Urban Population
10,812
Rural Population
43.99%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
72.27%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
15.71%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
11 Bureau, Illinois
34,978
Total Population
10,578
Urban Population
24,400
Rural Population
46.34%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
64.11%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
28.58%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
10 Tipton, Indiana
15,936
Total Population
6,739
Urban Population
9,197
Rural Population
46.45%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
85.64%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
7.26%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
9 Jackson, Wisconsin
20,449
Total Population
4,824
Urban Population
15,625
Rural Population
46.54%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
71.29%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
21.79%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
8 Edgar, Illinois
18,576
Total Population
9,834
Urban Population
8,742
Rural Population
46.65%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
33.65%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
59.66%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
7 Sawyer, Wisconsin
16,557
Total Population
4,584
Urban Population
11,973
Rural Population
47.48%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
43.43%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
51.52%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
6 Hocking, Ohio
29,380
Total Population
4,489
Urban Population
24,891
Rural Population
47.68%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
94.93%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
.44%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
5 Mercer, Illinois
16,434
Total Population
3,918
Urban Population
12,516
Rural Population
47.96%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
84.44%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
11.48%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
4 Cass, Michigan
52,293
Total Population
6,962
Urban Population
45,331
Rural Population
50%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
3 Pulaski, Illinois
6,161
Total Population
0
Urban Population
6,161
Rural Population
57.62%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
57.62%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
2 Hancock, Illinois
19,104
Total Population
6,118
Urban Population
12,986
Rural Population
67.07%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
34.15%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
1 Gallatin, Illinois
5,589
Total Population
0
Urban Population
5,589
Rural Population
87.83%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
87.83%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
Source: Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET