As part of our series on Access to Healthy Food in the United States, we are look at the 20 toughest neighborhoods in the Southwest region of the United States for gaining access to healthy food.
Southwest Region Of U.S.
37,348,108
Total Population
29,394,551
Urban Population
7,953,557
Rural Population
27.17%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
31.74%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
22.59%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
11,081,409
Population With Poor Acccess
9,977,879
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
1,103,530
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
1.88%
Population With No Vehicular Acccess
2.12%
Urban Population With No Vehicular Acccess
1.63%
Rural Population With No Vehicular Acccess
Kids (Age 0-17)
9,964,026
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Region (2010)
8,789,921
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences In Region (2010)
1,174,105
Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences In Region (2010)
30.65%
Rate of Kids With Low Access
31.79%
Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access
22.14%
Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access
3,054,052
Population With Poor Acccess
2,794,074
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
259,978
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
Seniors (Age 65+)
4,068,267
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In America (2010)
3,271,780
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences In America (2010)
796,487
Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences In America (2010)
30.09%
Rate of Seniors With Low Access
31.68%
Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access
23.57%
Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access
1,224,092
Population With Poor Acccess
1,036,377
Urban Population With Poor Acccess
187,715
Rural Population With Poor Acccess
Worst 20 Neighborhoods For Healthy Food Access
20 Ellis, Oklahoma
4,151
Total Population
0
Urban Population
4,151
Rural Population
99.6%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
99.6%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
19 Armstrong, Texas
1,901
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,901
Rural Population
99.75%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
99.75%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
18 Hudspeth, Texas
3,476
Total Population
0
Urban Population
3,476
Rural Population
99.92%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
99.92%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
17 Irion, Texas
1,599
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,599
Rural Population
99.97%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
99.97%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
16 Coke, Texas
3,320
Total Population
0
Urban Population
3,320
Rural Population
99.98%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
99.98%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
15 Lipscomb, Texas
3,302
Total Population
0
Urban Population
3,302
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
14 Loving, Texas
82
Total Population
0
Urban Population
82
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
13 King, Texas
286
Total Population
0
Urban Population
286
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
12 Real, Texas
3,309
Total Population
0
Urban Population
3,309
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
11 Terrell, Texas
984
Total Population
0
Urban Population
984
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
10 Harding, New Mexico
695
Total Population
0
Urban Population
695
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
9 Dewey, Oklahoma
4,810
Total Population
0
Urban Population
4,810
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
8 Borden, Texas
641
Total Population
0
Urban Population
641
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
7 Briscoe, Texas
1,637
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,637
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
6 De Baca, New Mexico
2,022
Total Population
0
Urban Population
2,022
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
5 Throckmorton, Texas
1,641
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,641
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
4 Oldham, Texas
2,052
Total Population
0
Urban Population
2,052
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
3 Sterling, Texas
1,143
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,143
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
2 Foard, Texas
1,336
Total Population
0
Urban Population
1,336
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
Rate of Rural Population With Low Access
1 Catron, New Mexico
3,725
Total Population
0
Urban Population
3,725
Rural Population
100%
Rate of Total Population With Low Access
%
Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access
100%
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