Home - Agriculture - Food - Food Research

Worst U.S. Neighborhoods To Food Hunt In Apocalyptic America

by Liam Johnson

Sunday, August 9, 2015

As part of our series on Access to Healthy Food in the United States, we are look at the toughest major neighborhoods when it comes to having access to food in apocalyptic America.

In the very unlikely event that the United States of America should be hit by an apocalypse, whether it be a nuclear attack, zombies, or a highly contagious virus as seen in the movie Contagion, we took a look at the Food Access Research data from Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture to determine which of the major neighborhoods in the United States you would least like to be in where it comes to gathering food to hunker down for you and your loved ones.

We used the following criteria when selecting the areas featured in our list;

Low Access of Population to Supermarkets: Neighborhoods where its 30% of its residents had poor access to supermarkets, which basically are the most common food storage facilities we have in the country, were selected. For the urban residents in the neighborhood they had to be within a mile of the supermarkets, while rural residents were within 10 miles of a supermarket.
Population of 100,000 and above: While it may not be the case, a large population during a time of crises puts more pressure on the residents as it can create a belief that there are few resources to go around. This might cause them to make more drastic actions in looking for food.
Population Density: We looked at the number of people per household in each county, with the more densely populated areas likely to be more chaotic in food search.
Vulnerable Population: Finally, we also graded the neighborhoods by the percentage of vulnerable members of the society, mainly children under the age of 17 and seniors over the age of 65. These groups of people are likely to be dependent of others members of the society, and it might impact their ability when going out to forage for food.

Quick Stats

Georgia
State With Most Number of Major Neighborhoods In The List
(10)

Gwinnett, GA
Neighborhood With Largest Number of Residents In The List
(805,321)

Pinal, AZ
Neighborhood With The Largest Share of Vulnerable People
(45.79%)

Gwinnett, GA
Largest Number of Residents With Low Access
(326,505)

Gwinnett, GA
Largest Number of Urban Residents With Low Access
(326,505)

Rapides, LA
Largest Number of Rural Residents With Low Access
(20,448)

Bartow, GA
Largest Share of Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(85.68%)

Bartow, GA
Largest Share of Urban Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(85.68%)

Cass, ND
Largest Rate of Rural Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(70.92%)

Gwinnett, GA
Largest Number of Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(97,413)

Gwinnett, GA
Largest Number of Urban Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(97,413)

Navajo, AZ
Largest Number of Rural Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access
(6,242)

Bartow, GA
Largest Share of Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(80.1%)

Bartow, GA
Largest Share of Urban Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(80.1%)

Cass, ND
Largest Share of Rural Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(71.47%)

Lake, FL
Largest Number of Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(26,837)

Lake, FL
Largest Number of Urban Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(26,705)

Mohave, AZ
Largest Number of Rural Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access
(5,017)

Worst Neighborhoods In Apolcalyptic America To Search For Food

55 Monroe, Pennsylvania

169,842
Total Population

30.13%

Rate of Population With Low Access

54 Warren, New Jersey

108,692
Total Population

30.2%

Rate of Population With Low Access

53 Bartow, Georgia

100,157
Total Population

42.56%

Rate of Population With Low Access

52 Sussex, Delaware

197,145
Total Population

32.09%

Rate of Population With Low Access

51 Sussex, New Jersey

149,265
Total Population

34.18%

Rate of Population With Low Access

50 Rockingham, New Hampshire

295,223
Total Population

31.34%

Rate of Population With Low Access

49 Baldwin, Alabama

182,265
Total Population

33.31%

Rate of Population With Low Access

48 Lee, Alabama

140,247
Total Population

30.21%

Rate of Population With Low Access

47 Coweta, Georgia

127,317
Total Population

32.92%

Rate of Population With Low Access

46 Clermont, Ohio

197,363
Total Population

30.86%

Rate of Population With Low Access

45 Porter, Indiana

164,343
Total Population

31.46%

Rate of Population With Low Access

44 Fayette, Georgia

106,567
Total Population

30.25%

Rate of Population With Low Access

43 Hampshire, Massachusetts

158,080
Total Population

30.28%

Rate of Population With Low Access

42 Paulding, Georgia

142,324
Total Population

34.75%

Rate of Population With Low Access

41 Carroll, Georgia

110,527
Total Population

35.04%

Rate of Population With Low Access

40 Livingston, Louisiana

128,026
Total Population

61,809
Urban Population

66,217
Rural Population

30.48%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

59.12%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

1.83%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

39 Ascension, Louisiana

107,215
Total Population

88,364
Urban Population

18,851
Rural Population

32.96%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

65.91%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

38 Henry, Georgia

203,922
Total Population

160,239
Urban Population

43,683
Rural Population

33.11%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

66.22%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

37 Hendricks, Indiana

145,448
Total Population

113,570
Urban Population

31,878
Rural Population

31.78%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

63.56%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

36 Pickens, South Carolina

119,224
Total Population

83,249
Urban Population

35,975
Rural Population

33.79%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

67.19%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

.38%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

35 St. Clair, Michigan

163,040
Total Population

93,991
Urban Population

69,049
Rural Population

31.37%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

62.66%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

.08%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

34 Beaufort, South Carolina

162,233
Total Population

126,910
Urban Population

35,323
Rural Population

30.03%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

53.38%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

6.68%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

33 Faulkner, Arkansas

113,237
Total Population

70,157
Urban Population

43,080
Rural Population

32.2%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

63%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

1.41%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

32 Brunswick, North Carolina

107,431
Total Population

46,909
Urban Population

60,522
Rural Population

33.81%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

66.04%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

1.58%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

31 Lake, Florida

297,052
Total Population

178,736
Urban Population

118,316
Rural Population

30.92%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

61.05%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

.79%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

30 Canadian, Oklahoma

115,541
Total Population

88,154
Urban Population

27,387
Rural Population

31%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

45.24%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

16.76%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

29 Ouachita, Louisiana

153,720
Total Population

111,550
Urban Population

42,170
Rural Population

35.65%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

54.89%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

16.4%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

28 Ellis, Texas

149,610
Total Population

87,788
Urban Population

61,822
Rural Population

32.19%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

64.31%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

.08%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

27 Anderson, South Carolina

187,126
Total Population

110,780
Urban Population

76,346
Rural Population

30.03%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

54.11%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

5.94%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

26 Harrison, Mississippi

187,105
Total Population

134,250
Urban Population

52,855
Rural Population

32.96%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

57.95%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

7.97%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

25 Forsyth, Georgia

175,511
Total Population

157,059
Urban Population

18,452
Rural Population

32.94%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

65.87%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

24 Yavapai, Arizona

211,033
Total Population

110,762
Urban Population

100,271
Rural Population

36.17%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

52.4%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

19.93%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

23 Coconino, Arizona

134,421
Total Population

85,880
Urban Population

48,541
Rural Population

33.81%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

28.18%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

39.45%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

22 Tangipahoa, Louisiana

121,097
Total Population

69,497
Urban Population

51,600
Rural Population

34.3%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

65.64%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

2.95%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

21 Citrus, Florida

141,236
Total Population

87,249
Urban Population

53,987
Rural Population

35.14%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

69.9%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

.39%

15 Rapides, Louisiana

131,613
Total Population

66,756
Urban Population

64,857
Rural Population

34.25%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

38.86%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

29.64%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

14 Parker, Texas

116,927
Total Population

38,061
Urban Population

78,866
Rural Population

34.52%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

65.12%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

24.88%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

10 Cochise, Arizona

131,346
Total Population

79,843
Urban Population

51,503
Rural Population

40.44%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

48.23%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

32.66%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

26,584

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

18,618

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

7,965

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

45%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

49.19%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

35.2%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

11,962
Kids With Poor Acccess

9,158
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

2,803
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

25,019

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

14,677

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

10,341

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

43.74%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

50.29%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

34.44%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

10,942
Seniors With Poor Acccess

7,381
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

3,562
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

9 Guadalupe, Texas

131,533
Total Population

88,963
Urban Population

42,570
Rural Population

36.38%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

70.25%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

2.5%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

38,276

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

27,615

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

10,661

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

51.61%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

70.62%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

2.37%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,755
Kids With Poor Acccess

19,503
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

252
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

14,482

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

7,843

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

6,638

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

38.11%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

68.03%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

2.77%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

5,520
Seniors With Poor Acccess

5,336
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

184
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

8 Pueblo, Colorado

159,063
Total Population

137,225
Urban Population

21,838
Rural Population

41.14%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

52.57%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

29.71%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

39,267

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

32,802

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

6,465

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

48.67%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

52.9%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

27.21%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,112
Kids With Poor Acccess

17,353
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

1,759
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

25,364

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

20,669

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

4,695

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

47.01%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

50.06%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

33.58%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

11,923
Seniors With Poor Acccess

10,346
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,577
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

7 Williamson, Texas

422,679
Total Population

362,407
Urban Population

60,272
Rural Population

39.37%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

57.2%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

21.53%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

122,831

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

107,959

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

14,872

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

53.44%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

57.85%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

21.42%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

65,644
Kids With Poor Acccess

62,459
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

3,185
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

40,883

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

34,974

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

5,909

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

50.77%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

56.02%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

19.7%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

20,755
Seniors With Poor Acccess

19,592
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,164
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

6 Cass, North Dakota

149,778
Total Population

135,850
Urban Population

13,928
Rural Population

42.12%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

13.63%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

70.61%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

50,678

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

47,111

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

3,567

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

20.63%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

16.82%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

70.92%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

10,455
Kids With Poor Acccess

7,925
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

2,530
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

14,243

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

12,543

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

1,701

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

21.34%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

14.54%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

71.47%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

3,040
Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,824
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,216
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

5 Pinal, Arizona

375,770
Total Population

265,771
Urban Population

109,999
Rural Population

31.76%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

59.06%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

4.47%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

108,289

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

79,996

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

28,293

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

45.55%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

60.13%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

4.33%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

49,324
Kids With Poor Acccess

48,098
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

1,226
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

63,778

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

42,258

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

21,520

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

39.45%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

57.17%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

4.66%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

25,163
Seniors With Poor Acccess

24,161
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,002
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

4 Mohave, Arizona

200,186
Total Population

135,128
Urban Population

65,058
Rural Population

41.58%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

54.24%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

28.92%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

37,716

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

28,340

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

9,376

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

46.32%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

53.28%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

25.27%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

17,470
Kids With Poor Acccess

15,101
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

2,369
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

48,682

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

32,160

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

16,522

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

47.07%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

55.65%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

30.37%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

22,915
Seniors With Poor Acccess

17,898
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

5,018
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

3 Gwinnett, Georgia

805,321
Total Population

805,321
Urban Population

-
Rural Population

34.49%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

34.49%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

278,836

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

278,836

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

-

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

34.94%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

34.94%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

97,413
Kids With Poor Acccess

97,413
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

-
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

67,421

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

67,421

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

-

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

33.64%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

33.64%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

22,683
Seniors With Poor Acccess

22,683
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

-
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

2 Navajo, Arizona

107,449
Total Population

32,914
Urban Population

74,535
Rural Population

42.03%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

53.45%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

30.62%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

29,867

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

9,457

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

20,410

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

37.66%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

52.92%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

30.58%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

11,247
Kids With Poor Acccess

5,005
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

6,242
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

10,825

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

3,663

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

7,161

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

39.44%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

53.6%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

32.19%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

4,269
Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,963
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

2,305
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

1 Sandoval, New Mexico

131,561
Total Population

99,967
Urban Population

31,594
Rural Population

50.34%

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

53.85%

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

46.84%

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population

Urbanization

Housing Units

36,606

Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010)

29,663

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010)

6,944

Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

53.84%

Rate of Kids With Low Access

55.46%

Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access

46.89%

Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,707
Kids With Poor Acccess

16,452
Urban Kids With Poor Acccess

3,255
Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

13,588

Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010)

10,455

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010)

3,133

Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

50.86%

Rate of Seniors With Low Access

52.07%

Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access

46.83%

Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

6,911
Seniors With Poor Acccess

5,444
Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess

1,467
Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

Source: Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture

Source: O*NET

American Luster

Worst U.S. Neighborhoods To Food Hunt In Apocalyptic America

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Quick Stats

Worst Neighborhoods In Apolcalyptic America To Search For Food

55

Monroe, Pennsylvania

Rate of Population With Low Access

54

Warren, New Jersey

Rate of Population With Low Access

53

Bartow, Georgia

Rate of Population With Low Access

52

Sussex, Delaware

Rate of Population With Low Access

51

Sussex, New Jersey

Rate of Population With Low Access

50

Rockingham, New Hampshire

Rate of Population With Low Access

49

Baldwin, Alabama

Rate of Population With Low Access

48

Lee, Alabama

Rate of Population With Low Access

47

Coweta, Georgia

Rate of Population With Low Access

46

Clermont, Ohio

Rate of Population With Low Access

45

Porter, Indiana

Rate of Population With Low Access

44

Fayette, Georgia

Rate of Population With Low Access

43

Hampshire, Massachusetts

Rate of Population With Low Access

42

Paulding, Georgia

Rate of Population With Low Access

41

Carroll, Georgia

Rate of Population With Low Access

40 Livingston, Louisiana

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

39 Ascension, Louisiana

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

38 Henry, Georgia

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

37 Hendricks, Indiana

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

36 Pickens, South Carolina

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

35 St. Clair, Michigan

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

34 Beaufort, South Carolina

Rate of Total Population With Low Access

Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access

Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

33 Faulkner, Arkansas

Rate of Total Population With Low Access