United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Michele Ver Ploeg, Vince Breneman, Paula Dutko, Ryan Williams, 

Samantha Snyder, Chris Dicken, Phil Kaufman

Access to Affordable and 

Nutritious Food

Updated Estimates of Distance to 

Supermarkets Using 2010 Data Economic 

Research 

Report 

Number 143

November 2012
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo credit: Shutterstock.

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov

Find additional information on this topic: 

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute 

endorsement by USDA.

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Ver Ploeg, Michele, Vince Breneman, Paula Dutko, Ryan Williams, 

Samantha Snyder, Chris Dicken, and Phil Kaufman. Access to Affordable 

and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 

2010 Data, ERR-143, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, November 2012.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Efforts to encourage Americans to improve their diets and to eat more nutritious foods 

presume that a wide variety of these foods are accessible to everyone. But for some 

Americans and in some communities, access to healthy foods may be limited. This report 

updates population estimates of indicators of spatial access to healthy and affordable foods 

in the United States using population data from the 2010 Census, income and vehicle availability data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, and a 2010 directory of 

supermarkets. Spatial access to healthy and affordable food is proxied by measuring the 

distance to the nearest supermarket for the overall U.S. population and for subpopulations 

including households without vehicles, populations with low incomes, and populations that 

live in low-income areas. These updated data refl ect recent changes in population characteristics, the economy, and the location of supermarkets. An estimated 9.7 percent of the 

total population, or 29.7 million people, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a 

supermarket. However, most households that are far from a supermarket have vehicles: only 

1.8 percent of all households (2.1 million households) live more than 1 mile from a supermarket and do not have a vehicle. Estimated distance to the nearest three supermarkets is an 

indicator of the choices available to consumers and the level of competition among stores. 

Estimates show that half of the U.S. population lives within 2 miles of three supermarkets. 

Keywords: food access, food deserts, supermarkets, food assistance, low-income, diet and 

health

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the reviewers of this report, Parke Wilde, 

Agricultural Economist and Associate Professor, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and 

Policy, Tufts University; Angela Liese, Professor and Director of the Center for Research in 

Nutrition and Health Disparities, University of South Carolina and Tracey Farrigan of ERS. 

David Smallwood and Ephraim Leibtag of ERS also provided valuable comments on the 

report. Dale Simms and Curtia Taylor provided editorial and design support. 

Michele Ver Ploeg, Vince Breneman, Paula Dutko, Ryan Williams, 

Samantha Snyder, Chris Dicken, Phil Kaufman

Access to Affordable and Nutritious 

Food: Updated Estimates of Distance 

to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data

Economic 

Research 

Report

Number 143

November 2012
ii

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Previous National Estimates of Food Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data, Defi nitions, and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Study Limitations and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix A: Data and Methodological Details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix B: Additional Tables With Estimates 

That Include Alaska and Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
iii

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

Efforts to encourage Americans to improve their diets and to eat more 

nutritious foods presume that a wide variety of these foods are accessible 

to everyone. But, for some Americans and in some communities, access 

to healthy foods may be limited. In the 2009 report to Congress, Access 

to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food 

Deserts and Their Consequences, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated several indicators of access to healthy food sources, based on population data from the 2000 Census and supermarket location data from 2006. 

This report uses data from 2010 to provide updated population estimates 

of spatial access to affordable and nutritious food. These estimates refl ect 

openings and closings of supermarkets, changes in the distribution of the 

population in relation to supermarkets, and the effects of the 2007-09 recession, which include the expansion of the number of low-income people and 

areas. Estimates by income, vehicle availability, and other characteristics of 

the population are provided in addition to estimates for those who live in lowincome neighborhoods. These estimates are based on data from 2010 and, 

therefore, precede Federal policy initiatives to reduce barriers to food access, 

which began in 2011. 

What Did the Study Find?

Updated estimates from 2010 data present a mixed picture of the extent 

of food access challenges in the United States. First, there was very little 

change in the distance to the nearest supermarket between 2006 and 2010 

overall, both in terms of the median distance to the nearest supermarket and 

throughout the distribution. 

Second, vehicle availability for households more than 1 mile from a supermarket has improved. In 2010, 1.8 percent of all U.S. households (2.1 

million households) did not have a vehicle and were more than 1 mile from 

a supermarket. This is a decrease relative to 2006, when an estimated 2.3 

percent (2.4 million households) were more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

and without a vehicle. The number and percentage of households without 

a vehicle between one-half to 1 mile from a supermarket also decreased in 

2010. 

In contrast, the number of people in low-income areas who are more than 

1 mile from a supermarket increased. In 2010, 29.7 million people, or 9.7 

percent of the population, lived in low-income areas (1⁄2 kilometer-square 

grids where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 

200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds for family size) more than 1 mile 

from a supermarket, up from 23.5 million, or 8.4 percent, in 2006. However, 

given the stability in the distribution of the population relative to the nearest 

supermarket and in the number of supermarkets overall, growth in the share 

of population in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a store is likely due 

more to the greater number of low-income areas in 2010 than in 2006, not to 

substantial changes in store openings and closings. 
iv

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Distance to the nearest supermarket by individual income level and area 

income level differs from rural areas to urban areas. In urban areas, lowincome people (those with income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty 

thresholds for family size) and people in low-income areas are closer to 

supermarkets than moderate- and high-income people and areas. But in rural 

areas, low-income people and people in low-income areas are farther from 

supermarkets than moderate- and high-income areas. 

Examining the distance to only one supermarket does not provide information on whether that supermarket is competitive as it may be the one and only 

store in the area. Distance to the three nearest supermarkets was estimated 

for the U.S. population and for subpopulations as an additional indicator of 

the level of consumer choice and competition among supermarkets. Estimates 

show that half of the U.S. population lived within 2 miles of three supermarkets in 2010, while 80 percent lived within 5 miles.

How Was the Study Conducted?

This study estimates several distance-based measures of supermarket access. 

These measures proxy access to healthy and affordable food for the overall 

U.S. population and for subpopulations, including households without 

vehicles, populations with low incomes, and populations that live in lowincome areas. Data on the total population—along with data on age, race, 

and ethnicity—come from the 2010 Decennial Census. Data on income 

and vehicle availability come from the 2006-2010 American Community 

Survey. These population data were downcast, or allocated aerially, to 

1⁄2-kilometer-square grids that cover the entire U.S. land area. Two 2010 lists 

of supermarkets, supercenters, and large grocery stores (food stores selling 

all major categories of food and having annual sales of at least $2 million) 

were combined to produce a comprehensive list of stores that represent 

sources of affordable and nutritious food. Distances from the center of each 

1⁄2-kilometer-square grid containing population data to the center of the grid 

containing the nearest store were estimated for the entire population and 

for population subgroups. In addition to updating the previous analysis, a 

new analysis of supermarket access in Alaska Native, American Indian, and 

Native Hawaiian tribal areas is presented, as well as estimates of the distance 

to the three nearest stores as an indicator of the amount of competition and 

consumer choice available. 
1

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction and Background

Efforts to encourage Americans to improve their diets and to eat more 

nutritious foods presume that a wide variety of these foods are accessible 

to everyone. But, for some Americans and in some communities, access to 

affordable healthy foods may be limited. If healthy foods can be obtained 

only with great effort, those affected by poor access may have poorer diets 

and higher rates of diet-related disease, such as obesity and diabetes. The 

cost and effort required to access healthful food may also contribute to food 

insecurity if a household has to spend scarce budget and time resources traveling to a store that sells healthful food. The lack of full-service stores in 

some neighborhoods may also make participation in the USDA Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) less attractive if it is more diffi cult to 

redeem benefi ts. 

Policies to improve access to healthful foods have been implemented at all 

levels of government. One national effort, the First Lady Michelle Obama’s 

Let's Move! campaign, considers access to healthy food one of fi ve pillars in 

the effort to address childhood obesity. A plan, the Healthy Food Financing 

Initiative (HFFI), has been proposed in Congress to bring affordable, 

nutritious food to areas of low access and low income. A working group 

comprising staff from the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Health and Human 

Services, and Agriculture is charged with coordinating and sharing information about strategies to expand the availability of nutritious food in areas of 

limited access. (Information about this combined Federal effort can be found 

at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/.)

This tri-agency effort made its fi rst awards in the fall of 2011 and builds upon 

State and local programs already in existence. For example, the Pennsylvania 

Fresh Food Financing Initiative uses State funds, combined with funds from 

private organizations, to provide grants and loans to develop grocery stores 

in areas of limited access throughout Pennsylvania. This program has been 

underway since 2004 and served as a model for other programs in New York 

City, New Orleans, and California. Many other communities have private and 

publicly sponsored programs to improve healthy food access, as well. 

Upon request from Congress in 2009, USDA’s Economic Research Service 

published a report that estimated the extent of food access limitations in 

the United States, reviewed literature and conducted analyses on the effects 

of food access on food choices and health, studied the causes and consequences of food deserts, and outlined policy options and future research 

(USDA, 2009; http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/). The report 

presented population estimates of several indicators of access to healthy food. 

Estimated distances to the nearest supermarket were provided for the entire 

population and by characteristics such as income, age, and vehicle availability. The report also compared distances to the nearest supermarket in lowincome areas versus higher income areas. Self-reported estimates of whether 

store accessibility affected a household’s ability to provide food for household 

members were included, as well as estimates of the amount of time spent 

traveling to a grocery store. The 2009 report also analyzed price differences 

in products across store type and summarized literature on how prices paid 

for groceries differ across income levels. 
2

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

The 2009 report used population data from the 2000 Decennial Census and 

supermarket location data from 2006, both the most current data available 

at the time. This report updates and expands that analysis with data from 

the 2010 Census, the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS), and 

an updated list of stores from 2010. The analysis in this report is important 

because the past decade has seen substantial changes in population characteristics such as an aging population, migration and immigration, and wide 

swings in the economic well-being of families amid a 3-year recession. The 

development and placement of food retail stores of all types have responded 

to market, population, and economic conditions. Our analysis estimates 

supermarket access for the overall population and for those without vehicles, 

both in low-income and moderate/high-income areas.
3

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Previous National-Level Estimates 

of Food Access

The concept of food deserts and how food access limitations are measured 

continues to evolve. USDA (2009) reviews some of the ways that the concept 

of limited food access has been measured. Bitler and Haider (2010) give a 

general critique of the barriers to measurement. Defi ning which foods are 

“healthy” is not straightforward, and measuring which retailers carry healthy 

food is diffi cult, especially when detailed data on many smaller retailers are 

not available at a national level. Some of the focus has been on whether or not 

people lack access to healthy food—and whether healthy food options are not 

accessible because they are too far away and hard to get to without a vehicle. 

A separate focus that involves more of a behavioral component to food choice 

is on the relative access of healthful food options compared to less healthful 

options; while healthful options are accessible, those may be “swamped” 

by the overabundance of less healthful options. Much of the research on 

measuring food access has focused on neighborhood-level access, specifi cally 

access in low-income neighborhoods. Individual-level estimates of healthy 

food access, regardless of whether those individuals live in high- or lowincome neighborhoods, have received less attention. 

USDA (2009) was the fi rst effort to measure healthy food access on a 

national level. That report included both individual and area-based measures 

of access. For example, one key area-level measure from the report estimated 

that 23.5 million people, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. population, lived in lowincome neighborhoods, 1-kilometer-square grids where more than 40 percent 

of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty 

thresholds for family size, that were more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

or large grocery store.2 As is typical in the food access literature, this areabased measure focuses on low-income neighborhoods because they contain 

higher concentrations of residents who may have diffi culty accessing stores. 

Neighborhoods are, however, heterogeneous—not all low-income people live 

in low-income neighborhoods, and not all people who live in low-income 

neighborhoods have low incomes. Further, most households that are far from 

a supermarket have access to vehicles for personal use, which is a reasonable 

proxy for individuals’ access to supermarkets and other food stores. USDA 

(2009) estimated that 2.3 million households, or 2.2 percent of all households, were more than 1 mile from a supermarket and did not have access to 

a vehicle.3 An additional 3.4 million households (3.2 percent) were between 

one-half to 1 mile from a supermarket and without a vehicle.

USDA (2009) also estimated self-reported barriers to food access from direct 

questions in the 2001 Current Population Survey. Responses showed that 

nearly 6 percent of U.S. households did not always have the food they wanted 

or needed because of access-related problems. The 2009 USDA report also 

matched data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) to census tractlevel information on supermarket distance in order to investigate differences 

in time use and travel modes for grocery shopping trips. People living in lowincome areas more than a mile from the nearest supermarket spent slightly 

more time traveling to a grocery store (19.5 minutes) than the national 

average (15 minutes).4 Most of the people surveyed drove to the supermarket. 

This is true even for those who lived in low-income neighborhoods over a 

2For this estimate, the 1-mile marker 

was used for the entire Nation, both 

urban and rural areas, and does not 

account for vehicle availability. 

3Quasi-individual may be a better 

term for these estimates because 

although they are based on individual 

population or household characteristics 

like vehicle availability, distance to the 

store is estimated at the 1⁄2-kilometersquare grid level, not at the individual 

level. 

4Hamrick et al. (2011) extend some 

of the analysis of the ATUS data to 

measure food access by examining trip 

chaining (combining trip purposes) and 

characteristics of grocery shopping trips 

in more detail.
4

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

mile from a supermarket—over 93 percent traveled to shop for groceries in a 

vehicle that they or another household member drove. 

Finally, the 2009 USDA report also summarized research on store choices, 

shopping behaviors, and prices paid for food among low-income consumers 

and participants in SNAP. For example, almost half of all SNAP benefi ts 

are redeemed at supercenters—large stores usually 100,000 square feet or 

more of fl oor space, with a separate grocery area and general merchandise 

area under a single roof (USDA, 2011), which often offer lower prices than 

traditional supermarkets and grocery stores (Leibtag, 2006). Further, Broda 

et al. (2009) fi nd that low- and middle-income households are more likely to 

purchase foods at supercenters than higher income households and that most 

low-income consumers pay less for the same grocery items than do higher 

income consumers. 

Based on these different estimates, USDA (2009) concluded that between 2 

and 5 percent of U.S. households and about 4 to 8 percent of the population 

experienced some diffi culty in accessing healthy food. 

Recently, both public and private institutions have made advancements in 

measuring food access on a national level. In order to begin understanding the 

scope of food deserts, and the characteristics of limited healthy food access, 

ERS estimated food desert locations using census tracts as the geographical 

unit of analysis. Under this defi nition, food deserts are low income census tracts 

where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. This effort resulted in the development of the 

Food Desert Locator (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodDesert/index.htm), 

an online mapping tool that indicates the location of food desert census tracts 

and selected characteristics of the population in food desert tracts (USDA/ERS, 

2012a). Data in the Food Desert Locator are used by the interagency group as a 

starting point to assess need and as one way to help guide the targeting of funds 

to develop healthy retail food options. ERS has plans to update this census 

tract-level measure of food access, which will be made available in the Food 

Desert Locator, along with additional indicators of vehicle availability and 

alternative measures of distance to the nearest supermarket.1

Others have also estimated area-based measures of food access. For example, 

The Reinvestment Fund (TRF)—a Philadelphia, PA-area community development organization that fi nances neighborhood revitalization—developed 

a national-level measure of low-access areas (LAAs) and a tool to map these 

areas (http://www.trfund.com/). LAAs are clusters of census block groups 

where residents are farther from supermarkets than high-income block groups 

that are otherwise similar in terms of population density and car ownership 

rates (TRF, 2011). The census tract unit of measurement is also used for the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Healthy Tracts measure, 

published in the 2009 State Indicator Report on Fruit and Vegetables (CDC, 

2009). The Healthy Tracts measure considers a census tract healthy if a 

healthy food retailer is within the census tract or within one-half mile of the 

tract boundary. Esri—a private company that provides geographic information systems (GIS) software and consulting services—has also developed 

area-based measures of food access that use network distance measures to 

consider supermarket walking and driving scores (Richardson, 2010). Finally, 

the Food Research Action Center (FRAC) sponsored a question on the 2011 

1ERS’ Food Environment Atlas 

offers additional data about factors 

that may contribute to healthy food 

access challenges at the county level: 

www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foodenvironment-atlas.aspx. 
5

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index project that asked respondents if it was 

easy to get affordable fresh fruits and vegetables (FRAC, 2011).

The Importance of Updated Population Estimates

USDA (2009) was unique in its broad approach to food access measurement—including both individual and area-based measures of food access and 

estimates of the distribution of food access for vulnerable subpopulations. 

Area-based measures can imply that everyone in the same area has the same 

access to healthy food, when, in reality, access varies for individuals within 

an area. Individuals have different resources available to them (income, 

vehicle ownership, social and family networks, and time), which are likely 

to translate into differences in access within areas. Focusing only on lowincome areas—instead of low-income or vehicle-less individuals—may 

overestimate the access problem in these areas while underestimating the 

access problems in higher income areas. For example, of the estimated 2.3 

million households that did not own vehicles and were more than 1 mile from 

a supermarket in 2006, 1.4 million lived in moderate- and high-income areas, 

while 900,000 lived in low-income areas (USDA, 2009).

Individual measures are also important because areas can change in ways 

that suggest improved access when, in fact, access for vulnerable populations has not changed or has worsened. For example, if enough higher income 

people move into a low-income area, the area may no longer be designated as 

low income. However, if there is still no nearby source of healthy food, then 

access has not improved for the low-income or vehicle-less people in the area. 

Alternatively, an area may become a low-income area because the overall 

incomes of people in the area falls—a point that is especially relevant for the 

current analysis because it uses income data from during and after the Great 

Recession. The locations of supermarkets in and around such areas may not 

have changed at all, but the area may now be a concern simply because the 

overall income level changed enough to make it a "low-income" neighborhood.

Thus far, most food access policy has focused on area-based estimates for 

potential interventions—specifi cally low-income areas. This focus on areas 

may have resulted in a narrow view of which policy instruments could be 

used to improve access. If individuals who lack access are concentrated in 

neighborhoods, then policy strategies that bring healthy food retailers to those 

neighborhoods may be appropriate. If, on the other hand, individuals with 

access barriers are dispersed, then other policies—like a voucher to offset 

transportation costs of getting to a store or providing stores with funds to 

deliver groceries to those with access problems—might make more sense.

This report updates many of the food access measures in USDA (2009) using 

new population and store location data and expands access estimates by 

including measures for Alaska and Hawaii, and separate estimates of food 

access for Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian tribal areas. 

We also expand upon the 2009 report by including an estimate of the distance 

to the three nearest supermarkets, which indicates both consumer choice and 

price competition (Apparicio et al., 2007; Sparks et al., 2009). This report 

uses a grid-based method similar to USDA (2009) that allocates more recent 

population data to the 1⁄2-kilometer-square grid level, enabling greater precision in measuring supermarket distances. 
6

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Data, Defi nitions, and Methods

The data and methods used to estimate food store access for this update are 

quite similar to those used in USDA (2009). However, some enhancements 

were implemented. In this section, we describe the methods used to estimate 

food store access using 2010 data and indicate where current methods diverge 

from those used in USDA (2009). 

Development of the 2010 Supermarket Directory 

The methods used to develop a 2010 directory of stores are similar to 

those used in USDA (2009). Two lists of stores were combined: a list of 

stores authorized to accept SNAP benefi ts and a list of stores from Trade 

Dimensions TDLinx®, a proprietary store directory. The combined directory 

includes only retail food stores that offer a full range of food products—

including fresh meat and poultry, produce, dairy, dry and packaged foods, 

and frozen foods—and that have at least $2 million or more in annual sales.5

Stores meeting these criteria include one of three store types: (1) supercenters—large stores usually 100,000 square feet or more of fl oor space, with 

a separate grocery area and general merchandise area under a single roof; 

(2) supermarkets—stores that are typically smaller than a supercenter and 

that primarily sell food and nonfood grocery products; and (3) large grocery 

stores—stores that sell a full range of foods and have at least $2 million in 

annual sales, but are not as large as supermarkets.6 Throughout the rest of 

this report, we use the general term “supermarket” to refer to this combined 

list of all three types of stores, except in tables where the types of stores are 

broken out separately (tables 4 and B-2). 

This combined list of stores is intended to serve as an estimate of access to 

healthy and affordable food. It is only a proxy, however, because there are 

other retailers that offer healthy and affordable food. Some convenience 

stores, drugstores, and dollar stores, for example, carry healthy foods as well. 

Farmers’ markets also provide a source of healthy food and fi ll in gaps in 

healthy food in some neighborhoods. Many community and public policy 

efforts to improve the food retail environment have started with improving 

the offerings at smaller stores (see, for example, a review of these efforts 

in Gittelsohn et al., 2012). While more of these smaller retailers may be 

carrying a greater selection of healthy foods, the offerings and their prices 

can still vary greatly from store to store. Detailed information on what 

products and prices are offered in each of these stores is not available on a 

national level. Without such information, we cannot reliably classify these 

stores as offering healthy and affordable foods, so they are not included in 

our directory. Further, we exclude military commissaries—whose size and 

product offerings are comparable to supermarkets—because they are only 

available to active-duty military personnel. Warehouse club stores—such as 

Costco, BJ’s, and Sam’s Club—are also excluded because a membership fee 

is required. The exclusion of these types of food retailers from our analysis 

is likely to result in an overestimate of the number and percentage of the 

population that lacks access to healthy food sources, because some people 

who would otherwise lack access to supermarkets may obtain healthy foods 

through these retailers. 

5The sales and product offering 

criteria follow established retail food 

industry standards used to defi ne a 

supermarket.

6The combined directory used in 

USDA (2009) also included these three 

types of stores. However, separate estimates of store numbers and types were 

not presented in that report. 
7

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Each supermarket directory provided the store name and address from which 

geo-coded location coordinates (latitude and longitude) were derived to 

measure distance from the center of each grid cell to the center of the grid 

cell containing the nearest supermarket. In total, there were 39,877 supermarkets in the 2010 merged directory. The majority of supermarkets in the 

merged list—28,693—were in both data sources. Of the remaining ones, 

7,195 were found only in the TDLinx list, and 3,989 were found only in the 

SNAP list. Details on the merging are in Appendix A. 

Population Data

Population data from the 2010 Census and the 2006-10 ACS are used in this 

analysis. We draw total population, age, race, and ethnicity data at the Census 

block level from the 2010 Census.7 We use block group-level data on incometo-poverty ratios and vehicle availability from the 2006-2010 ACS.8

The ACS is an ongoing survey that replaced the census long form after 2000 

and asks similar questions, relying on monthly, independent samples to 

collect data for small areas (i.e. census tracts and block groups) in the United 

States and separately for Puerto Rico. By producing 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year 

estimates, the ACS provides more continuous measurement than the decennial census. Five-year estimates are intended to replace the long form of the 

decennial census and thus include data for all statistical, legal, and administrative geographies for the most recent 5 years of data collection; 3-year 

estimates are released for geographies of 20,000 residents or more; and 1-year 

estimates are provided only for entities with a population of 65,000 or greater. 

For each survey year, approximately 3 million housing units and 2.5 percent 

of the expected residents of group quarters are sampled, with a slightly higher 

sampling rate for group quarters in 16 States with particularly small group 

quarters populations.9 Data collection via mail, phone, and personal interview 

lasts for 3 months for each sample. The process operates in continuous cycles 

so that, at any given time, multiple samples are in different phases of data 

collection (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

The 2006-10 data are the most recent data available at the smaller levels of 

geography required for this report’s detailed analysis (i.e., population characteristic estimates at the block, block group, and census tract levels). In 2010, 

the ACS covered 99.1 percent of all housing units and 81 percent of all group 

quarters populations, to refl ect approximately 94.6 percent of the U.S. population. The response rates from 2006 through 2010 were 97.5 percent or higher. 

For our analysis, all data are taken at the smallest geographic area that is 

available to minimize error involved in downcasting the data to 1⁄2-kilometersquare grid cells (that is, allocating the population estimates at the census 

geography level down to 1⁄2-kilometer square grids). Table 1 shows the data 

source of each population characteristic used in the analysis, as well as the 

geographic level at which the estimates are drawn. 

Downcasting Population Data to Half-KilometerSquare Grids

USDA (2009) used 1-kilometer-square grid estimates of population characteristics to measure distance to supermarkets for population subgroups. 

7Census blocks are statistical areas 

bounded by visible features, such as 

streets, roads, streams, and railroad 

tracks, and by nonvisible boundaries, 

such as selected property lines; city, 

township, school district, and county 

limits; and short line-of-sight extensions of streets and roads. They are 

the smallest geographic unit used by 

Census and are contained within block 

groups.

8The ACS records income on a 

rolling 12-month basis, which is 

different than the calendar-year 

measurement used for the income 

measure based on the 2000 Census. 

We are not sure whether or how much 

this may affect comparisons between 

measures of income and poverty levels 

between 2000 and 2010, but changes in 

income over a 10-year period are likely 

to be substantial enough to outweigh 

discrepancies due to different income 

measurements.

9Group quarters include such places 

as college residence halls, residential 

treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, 

correctional facilities, and workers’ 

dormitories.
8

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

These population grid estimates came from the Socioeconomic Data and 

Applications Center (SEDAC), 2000 Census of Population (SEDAC, 2006). 

This report uses a similar process to allocate more recent population data to 

the 1⁄2-kilometer-square grid level, which allows for even greater precision in 

measuring distance. The process of allocating population estimates to grid 

cells can introduce error in estimates of population numbers and characteristics for each grid cell. However, we expect that the improvement in estimating 

distance relative to other methods that rely on larger and irregular geographies outweighs the potential for error in the allocation process. Further 

details of this downcasting method can be found in Appendix A. 

Measuring Distance and Other Indicators 

of Food Store Access

In measuring access to affordable, nutritious food, we consider distance 

measures in addition to socioeconomic characteristics that are likely to play 

a role in food access. Distance to the nearest supermarket is the primary 

measure of access. For each 1⁄2-kilometer-square grid cell, we calculate the 

Euclidean distance from the geographic center of the cell to the geographic 

center of the cell with the nearest supermarket. Using this calculation, we 

estimate median distances to the nearest supermarket for the population and 

population subgroups, as well as distance at the 20th and 80th percentiles. 

We also calculate the percentage of the population that lives within different 

distances to at least one supermarket: within half a mile, between one-half to 

1 mile, and more than 1 mile. In estimates that separately consider urban and 

rural areas (tables 10-14 and tables 17-18), a separate categorization of access 

is used for rural areas: within 10 miles of a supermarket, between 10 and 20 

miles from a supermarket, and more than 20 miles from a supermarket. For 

some population characteristics, we also present fi gures showing cumulative 

density functions of the distance to the nearest supermarket. These fi gures 

show the distance to the supermarket on the horizontal axis and the cumulative share of the population on the vertical axis. These fi gures can be used to 

Table 1

Sources for demographic and economic data

Data Data source Source geographic level

Total population Census 2010 Block

Age Census 2010 Block

Race Census 2010 Block

Hispanic ethnicity Census 2010 Block

Sex Census 2010 Block

Household type Census 2010 Block

Housing units ACS 2006-2010 Block group

Vehicle access ACS 2006-2010 Block group

Income ACS 2006-2010 Block group

ACS = American Community Survey.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
9

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

measure the share of the population that is within a specifi c distance to the 

nearest grocery store. 

We estimate distance-based measures of access on a national level and across 

subgroups of the population—by income level, race and ethnicity, age, and 

household vehicle availability. Income, which is defi ned and collected for 

families, is reported on an individual basis (where everyone in a family is 

assigned the family income level). We also consider the income on the grid 

cell level, comparing supermarket access in low-income grids to access in 

moderate/high-income grids. Individuals are considered low-income if their 

family income is at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds for 

family size, and grids are considered low-income if more than 40 percent of 

the grid population has income at or below 200 percent of the poverty level.

The ACS measures vehicle “availability” for occupied households as the 

number of passenger cars, vans, and trucks with a capacity of 1 ton or less, 

kept at the home and available for use by household members. This number 

includes vehicles that have been rented or leased for at least 1 month. It also 

counts police, government, and company vehicles, provided the vehicle is 

kept at home and is used for non-business purposes. We use the responses to 

the question as an indicator of whether a household has at least one vehicle 

available. The income and vehicle availability data both come from the 

2006-2010 ACS, which includes data from both the pre- and post-recession 

period. Data from the most recent year only, if it were available, would likely 

show greater economic hardship—lower incomes and perhaps lower vehicle 

availability. 

For some measures, we separately estimate supermarket access for rural and 

urban areas due to differences in population density and development. Urban 

areas are the most densely developed of urban geographies, with 50,000 or 

more people. The Census defi nes urban clusters as densely developed geographies with at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. Areas not meeting the 

urban cluster or urban area defi nition are considered rural. 

Changes in Population Characteristics Between 2000 and 2010

Changes in the total U.S. population and in the macroeconomy may affect 

estimates of food access. The U.S. population grew by 9.7 percent between 

2000 and 2010, from 281.4 million to 308.7 million (Mackun and Wilson, 

2011). In 2000, the economy was very strong, and real household income 

levels were at all-time high levels (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). The decade 

following 2000 saw one modest recession that began in late 2001 and one 

severe recession that began in late 2007 and continued through most of 2009. 

Over this period, real median household income was largely stagnant from 

2000 to 2007, fell substantially as the 2007 recession hit, and has continued 

to fall from the peak in 2000 (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Falling incomes 

mean that more people are poor and more neighborhoods are poor. The weak 

economy could also mean fewer grocery stores as some stores are forced to 

close. Both overall real food expenditures and real at-home food expenditures 

fell between 2008 and 2009. 

Macroeconomic trends have altered the income distribution of the population 

since 2000. Comparing data from the 2000 census and the 2006-2010 ACS, 
10

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

the share of the population classifi ed as low-income has increased from 28.8 

percent to 31.9 percent (table 2).10 Nearly all of the increase has taken place 

in urban areas, where the share of low-income people rose from 28.5 percent 

in 2000 to 32.7 percent. (The share of low-income people in rural areas 

remained constant at 29.6 percent.)

We are also interested in the income characteristics of neighborhoods. The 

share of the population residing in low-income areas increased from 25.5 

percent in 2000 to 31.4 percent in 2010. Low-income individuals represented a larger share of the population of low-income areas—overall and 

in both rural and urban areas—in 2010 when compared to 2000, which is 

not surprising given the recession of 2007-09. Moderate- and high-income 

neighborhoods, on the other hand, tend to be more homogenous in terms of 

resident income level relative to low-income neighborhoods. In both 2000 and 

2010, moderate- or high-income households comprised over three-quarters of 

the residents in moderate- and high-income neighborhoods. 

10The 2010 estimates in table 2 do 

not include Alaska and Hawaii, as they 

were not included in USDA (2009). 

Appendix table B-1 provides estimates 

including these two States. 

Table 2

Changes in income of the population and of low-income 

areas for 2000 and 2010

Population characteristics

Overall

2000 2010

Million % Million %

Total low-income population 79.3 28.8 97.9 31.9

Total moderate/high-income population 196.1 71.2 208.8 68.1

Total population 275.5 306.7 

Total population in low-income areas 71.3 25.5 96.4 31.4

Total population in moderate/highincome areas 208.3 74.5 210.3 68.6

Total population 279.6 306.7 

Low-income population in low-income 

areas

36.0 50.5 51.2 53.1

Moderate/high-income population in lowincome areas 35.3 49.5 45.2 46.9

Total population 71.3 96.4 

Low-income population in moderate/

high-income areas 43.3 21.2 46.7 22.2

Moderate/high-income population in 

moderate/high income areas 160.8 78.8 163.6 77.8

Total population 204.1 210.3 

Note: 2000 data from Census of the Population. 2010 data from 2006-2010 American 

Community Survey. 

Income data are missing for about 4.1 million people in 2000. 

Estimates do not include Alaska and Hawaii. See appendix table B-1 for national estimates 

for the entire United States in 2010. 
11

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

In 2010, about 36 percent of the U.S. population was minority, versus 30.7 

percent in 2000 (table 3). Minorities were overrepresented in low-income 

areas in both 2000 and 2010 (about 55.5 percent of the population in lowincome areas in 2010). In moderate- and high-income areas, the large 

majority of residents are non-minority, comprising nearly 73 percent of the 

population in these neighborhoods in 2010 (compared with nearly 78 percent 

in 2000). 

The elderly population (age 65 and older) as a share of the total population 

increased from 12.4 percent in 2000 to 13.0 percent in 2010. In moderateand high-income areas, the elderly share increased from 12.9 percent to 13.8 

percent (versus 11.2 to 11.4 percent in low-income areas).

Vehicle availability is measured and released at the census geographies for 

households, not individuals. In 2000, just over one-tenth of U.S. households 

did not have a vehicle available for use. By 2010 that percentage had fallen to 

8.8 percent, almost a 15-percent drop. However, as expected, vehicle availability rates are lower in low-income areas. In 2010, over 15 percent of households in low-income neighborhoods did not have a vehicle, compared with 6 

percent in moderate- and high-income areas.

Changes in the Number of Food Stores Between 2006 and 2010

The total number of supercenters, supermarkets, and large grocery stores 

decreased slightly between 2006 and 2010 (table 4).11 The number of supercenters and large grocery stores increased, while the number of supermarkets 

declined. The observed increase in large grocery stores may be due, in part, 

to our use of better individual store sales data in 2010 for some large grocery 

stores in the SNAP directory, which were not available in 2006. 

11Data on supermarkets used in 

USDA (2009) came from a 2006 

directory. The estimates in table 4 do 

not include Alaska and Hawaii, which 

were not part of the 2006 estimation. 

Appendix table B-2 shows 2010 estimates that include these two States. 

Table 3

Changes in selected population characteristics: Overall and by income of area of residence for 2000 

and 2010

Population 

characteristics

Overall Low-income areas Moderate/highincome areas

2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010

Million % Million % Million % Million % Million % Million %

Race/ethnicity:

Minority 85.7 30.7 110.6 36.1 39.7 55.7 53.5 55.5 46.0 22.1 57.2 27.2

Non-minority 193.9 69.3 196.1 63.9 31.6 44.3 42.9 44.5 162.3 77.9 153.1 72.8

Age:

Elderly (65 or older) 34.8 12.4 40.0 13.0 8.0 11.2 11.0 11.4 26.8 12.9 29.0 13.8

Under age 65 244.8 87.6 266.7 87.0 63.3 88.8 85.4 88.6 181.5 87.1 181.3 86.2

Total population 279.6 100.0 306.7 100.0 71.3 100.0 96.4 100.0 208.3 100 210.3 100.0

Occupied housing units 

without vehicles 10.8 10.3 10.2 8.8 4.5 17.9 5.3 15.2 6.3 7.9 4.9 6.0

Total occupied housing 

units 104.9 100.0 116.0 100.0 25.1 100.0 34.9 100.0 79.8 100 81.1 100

Note: 2000 data from Census of the Population. 2010 data from 2006-2010 American Community Survey.

Estimates do not include Alaska and Hawaii. 
12

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Over the past 20 years, there has been large growth in the share of grocery 

shopping at nontraditional grocery stores—supercenters, warehouse clubs, 

and other stores (Leibtag, 2005) and an increase in the share of SNAP benefi ts redeemed at what the SNAP program calls “superstores”— stores that 

sell a wide variety of nonfood goods in addition to groceries, the equivalent 

of our supercenters (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2012). Nonetheless, 

supermarkets still outnumber other types of stores and account for more than 

three-quarters of the total number of food retailers in our 2010 directory. In 

2006, supermarkets accounted for almost four-fi fths of food retailers. Large 

grocery stores were the second most common store type in 2010. 

In low-income areas, the largest proportional increase between 2006 and 

2010 was in the number of supercenters, which increased 49.1 percent from 

719 supercenters in 2006 to 1,072 in 2010. The number of food stores in 

moderate- and high-income areas decreased from 2006 to 2010 for each store 

type. However, comparisons over time of store numbers in low-income and 

moderate/high-income areas are tenuous because the number of low-income 

areas has increased. Thus, the differences in store numbers for each of these 

areas may be attributed more to the income status of an area than to the 

opening or closing of stores.

Table 4

Changes in the number of stores by store type and by income level of area, 2006 and 2010

Continental U.S. Low-income areas

Moderate/highincome areas

2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010

Num. % Num. % Num. % Num. % Num. % Num. %

Store type:

Supercenter 3,089 7.8 3,432 8.7 719 6.6 1,072 7.3 2,370 8.2 2,360 9.4

Supermarket 31,652 79.5 30,519 77.1 8,179 74.9 10,767 73.7 23,473 81.3 19,752 79.1

Large grocery store 5,050 12.7 5,627 14.2 2,026 18.5 2,765 18.9 3,024 10.5 2,862 11.5

Total (excludes Alaska 

and Hawaii) 39,791 100.0 39,578 100.0 10,924 100.0 14,604 100.0 28,867 100.0 24,974 100.0

Note: Store data for both 2006 and 2010 are combined from TDLinx and SNAP-authorized lists of stores. 

2000 income data from Census of the Population. 2010 income data from 2006-2010 American Community Survey.

Estimates do not include Alaska and Hawaii. See appendix table B-2 for national estimates for the entire United States in 2010.
13

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Results

We fi rst examine distance-based measures of food access for the entire population comparing estimates from USDA (2009) (which used 2000 census data 

and 2006 store data) with 2010 data-based estimates. The proportion of the 

total population living within a specifi c distance of the nearest supermarket 

in 2010 barely changed from 2006 to 2010 (fi g. 1). In both years, about 85 

percent of the population lived within 3 miles of the nearest supermarket, and 

nearly the entire population lived within 10 miles. It is possible, however, that 

the overall picture masks shifts in the location of individuals and population 

subgroups with respect to supermarkets. 

Household Vehicle Availability and Distance

to the Nearest Supermarket

Vehicle availability is a key indicator of how easily a household can access 

a supermarket. The number of U.S. households without a vehicle for private 

use dropped between 2000 and 2010 (table 3), and supermarket access for 

households without vehicles improved (table 5). In 2010, 2.1 million housing 

units, or 1.8 percent of all households, were more than 1 mile from a supermarket and without a vehicle, down from 2.4 million households (2.3 percent) 

in 2006. Further, the number of households without a vehicle and living 

between a half-mile to 1 mile from a supermarket also dropped from 3.4 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Figure 1

Distance to the nearest supermarket for the continental United States, 

2006 and 2010

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative share of the population

Distance to nearest supermarket (mi)

2010

2006
14

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

million (3.2 percent of all households) in 2006 to 2.7 million (2.4 percent) in 

2010.12

The number of households without vehicles in low-income areas increased 

from 2006 to 2010, but all of the increase was among those living within a 

half mile of a supermarket (table 5). Moderate- and high-income areas, like 

low-income areas, showed a decrease in the number and share of households 

without a vehicle that were more than a half mile from a supermarket. 

These estimates highlight a problem in focusing only on supermarket access 

in low-income areas. Specifi cally, in 2010 there were just over 900,000 

households in low-income areas without a vehicle that were more than 1 

mile from a supermarket. However, there were 1.4 million such households 

in moderate-/high-income areas. According to this indicator, moderate- and 

high-income areas may contain more people with supermarket access limitations than low-income areas.13

Households without vehicles are closer to the nearest supermarket than 

households with a vehicle at the 20th, 40th, 50th (median), 60th, and 80th 

percentiles of the total population of households (table 6). This pattern holds 

for low-income and moderate- and high-income areas. The distance to the 

nearest supermarket at the 20th percentile of all households without vehicles 

was 0.03 mile, compared to 0.34 mile at the 20th percentile of households 

with vehicles. For households without vehicles, the distance to the nearest 

supermarket at the 80th percentile was 0.99 mile, compared with 2.26 miles 

12This table excludes 2010 estimates 

for Alaska and Hawaii to make the 

2010 estimates comparable to the 2006 

estimates, which only covered the 

continental United States. Appendix 

table B-3 contains 2010 estimates for 

Alaska and Hawaii. 

13We do not have data to determine 

if a household is both low income 

and without a vehicle. It is possible 

that some of the households without 

vehicles have suffi cient incomes to pay 

for other ways to obtain their groceries 

(e.g., delivery services), whether they 

live in low-income or moderate- and 

high-income areas. 

Table 5

Supermarket access for households without vehicles: Overall and by income level of area, 2006 and 2010

2006 2010

# households 

% of HH 

without 

vehicles

% of all HH 

in U.S.

# households 

% of HH 

without 

vehicles

% of all HH 

in U.S.

All areas:

HH without vehicle and > 1 mile 2,400,000 22.2 2.3 2,056,174 20.1 1.8

HH without vehicle and 1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 3,400,000 31.5 3.2 2,741,044 26.8 2.4

HH without vehicle and < 1⁄2 mile 5,000,000 46.3 4.8 5,412,449 53.0 4.7

Total HH without vehicles 10,800,000 100.0 10.3 10,209,670 100.0 8.8

Low-income areas:

HH without vehicle and > 1 mile 936,700 20.9 0.9 903,568 17.0 0.8

HH without vehicle and 1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 1,596,846 35.7 1.5 1,482,819 27.9 1.3

HH without vehicle and < 1⁄2 mile 1,941,814 43.4 1.9 2,928,067 55.1 2.5

Total HH without vehicles 4,475,360 100.0 4.3 5,314,457 100.0 4.6

Moderate/high-income areas:

HH without vehicle and > 1 mile 1,449,144 22.9 1.4 1,152,606 23.5 1.0

HH without vehicle and 1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 1,821,953 28.8 1.7 1,258,225 25.7 1.1

HH without vehicle and < 1⁄2 mile 3,045,857 48.2 2.9 2,484,382 50.8 2.1

Total HH without vehicles 6,316,954 100.0 6.0 4,895,213 100.0 4.2

Total number of occupied households 104,900,000 116,002,896 

HH = households. Estimates do not include Alaska and Hawaii. See appendix table B-3 for national estimates for the entire United States in 

2010. 
15

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

for households with vehicles. The bottom two panels of the table show the 

distribution of distance to the nearest supermarket for households by arealevel income. Households without vehicles are closer to supermarkets in both 

low-income areas and in moderate- and high-income areas. Further, households in low-income areas are closer to supermarkets than households in 

moderate- and high-income areas, regardless of whether they have vehicles. 

Estimates of access to supermarkets by vehicle availability refl ect the general 

increase in vehicle availability since the last census. It is also consistent with 

other studies that have shown a marked increase in vehicle ownership among 

low-income populations over the past two decades, as asset tests for public 

assistance programs have been reduced or eliminated and as the Earned 

Income Tax Credit has expanded (Baum and Owens, 2010; Goodman-Bacon 

and McGranahan, 2008; Hurst and Ziliak, 2006; and Sullivan, 2006). The 

2006-10 ACS data may not fully refl ect the economic downturn, which may 

stall this upward trend. 

Area Income and Supermarket Access

We compare indicators of supermarket access for people in low-income areas 

with people in moderate- and high-income areas fi rst for the entire Nation, 

and then separately for urban and rural areas. For the overall and urban estimates, we use the one-half-mile and 1-mile cutoffs to demarcate categories 

of distance to the nearest supermarket. For rural areas, we use the distance 

categories of less than 10 miles, between 10 and 20 miles, and more than 20 

miles from a supermarket. It is important to reemphasize that the number of 

people who live in low-income areas increased substantially between 2006 

and 2010. 

Low-income areas tend to be closer to supermarkets than moderate- and highincome areas (table 7). This is consistent with previous estimates in USDA 

(2009). The distance in miles to the nearest supermarket for people in lowincome areas is 0.21 at the 20th percentile, 0.69 at the median, and 1.56 at 

the 80th percentile; these numbers are 0.37, 0.88, and 2.44 for households in 

Table 6

Quintile and median distance to the nearest supermarket by household vehicle availability, 2010

Distance at 

20th percentile

Distance at 

40th percentile

Distance at 

Median

Distance at 

60th percentile

Distance at 

80th percentile

Miles

All households: 0.32 0.64 0.83 1.00 2.19

Households without vehicles 0.03 0.29 0.41 0.61 0.99

Households with vehicles 0.34 0.66 0.90 1.07 2.26

All households in low-income areas: 0.22 0.50 0.65 0.84 1.57

Households without vehicles 0.04 0.28 0.39 0.55 0.94

Households with vehicles 0.26 0.57 0.67 0.91 1.81

All households in moderate/highincome areas: 0.35 0.67 0.93 1.15 2.34

Households without vehicles 0.03 0.31 0.43 0.64 1.22

Households with vehicles 0.38 0.68 0.94 1.24 2.46
16

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 7

Supermarket access for low-income areas compared with moderate/high-income areas, 2006 and 2010

Area characteristic

Distance to Nearest Supermarket < 1⁄2 mIle 

20th Percentile Median 80th Percentile 2006 2010

2010 miles Million

Percent 

(of row) Million

Percent 

(of row)

All areas

Income of area

Low-income area 0.21 0.69 1.56 22.9 32.1 36.1 37.5

Moderate/high-income area 0.37 0.88 2.44 47.6 22.8 51.3 24.4

Total 0.33 0.83 2.19 70.5 25.2 87.4 28.5

Urban areas

Income of area

Low-income area 0.15 0.59 0.95 22.0 40.0 34.6 45.6

Moderate/high-income area 0.29 0.72 1.28 45.9 29.3 48.3 32.3

Total 0.23 0.68 1.19 67.9 32.1 82.9 36.8

Rural areas < 10 miles

Income of area

Low-income area 1.14 4.1 7.57 13.8 85.7 18.3 89.6

Moderate/high-income area 1.30 3.4 5.94 49.0 94.2 57.6 94.8

Total 1.28 3.5 6.35 62.8 92.2 75.9 93.5

--continued

Table 7

Supermarket access for low-income areas compared with moderate/high-income areas, 2006 

and 2010—continued

Area characteristic

1⁄2 mile to 1 mile > 1 mile 2000 total 

population

2010 total 

2006 2010 2006 2010 population

Mil.

Percent 

(of row) Mil.

Percent 

(of row) Mil.

Percent 

(of row) Mil.

Percent 

(of row) Million Million

All areas

Income of area

Low-income area 24.9 34.9 30.7 31.9 23.5 33.0 29.7 30.8 71.3 96.4

Moderate/high-income area 68.0 32.6 62.4 29.7 92.8 44.5 96.6 45.9 208.3 210.3

Total 92.9 33.2 93.1 30.4 116.3 41.6 126.3 41.2 279.6 306.7

Urban areas

Income of area

Low-income area 23.1 42.0 28.5 37.5 9.9 18.0 12.9 17.0 55.0 76.0

Moderate/high-income area 63.9 40.9 56.6 37.9 46.6 29.8 44.6 29.8 156.4 149.6

Total 87.0 41.2 85.1 37.7 56.5 26.7 57.5 25.5 211.4 225.5

Rural areas 10 to 20 miles > 20 miles

Income of area

Low-income area 1.9 11.8 1.8 9.0 0.4 2.5 0.3 1.4 16.1 20.4

Moderate/high-income area 2.7 5.2 2.9 4.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 52 60.7

Total 4.6 6.8 4.7 5.8 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.7 68.1 81.2

Note: Population reported in millions. 

Data do not include Alaska and Hawaii. See appendix table B-4 for national estimates that include Alaska and Hawaii.
17

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

moderate- to high-income areas. Figure 2 shows the share of the population 

in low-income areas (indicated by the orange line) and moderate/high-income 

areas (depicted by the blue line) living a specifi c distance from the nearest 

supermarket in 2010. Up to a distance of 5 miles, low-income areas are closer 

to a supermarket than moderate-/high-income areas—a greater proportion of 

people in low-income areas are within 5 miles of a supermarket. For example, 

close to 70 percent of all people in low-income areas are within 1 mile of a 

supermarket compared with about 55 percent of people in moderate-/highincome areas. However, for distances of more than 5 miles, people in lowincome areas tend to be farther from a supermarket than those in moderate/

high-income areas, although differences are small since so few people are 

that far from a supermarket. 

While the number of people living in low-income areas and more than 1 mile 

from a supermarket increased between 2006 and 2010, there was a much 

larger increase in the number of people living in low-income areas within 1⁄2 

mile of the nearest supermarket (table 7).14 Specifi cally, the number of people 

living in low-income areas that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

increased from 23.5 million, or 8.4 percent of the total population in 2006, to 

29.7 million, or 9.7 percent of the total population in 2010. The increase in the 

number of people in low-income areas living within 1⁄2 mile of a supermarket 

was much greater, however—from 22.9 million to 36.1 million. 

14This table excludes 2010 estimates 

for Alaska and Hawaii to make the 

2010 estimates comparable to the 2006 

estimates. Appendix Table B-4 contains 

2010 estimates for Alaska and Hawaii.

0 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 10

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Figure 2

Distance to the nearest supermarket for people in low-income areas 

compared with people in moderate/high-income areas, 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative share of the population

People in low-income areas

People in moderate/highincome areas

Distance to nearest supermarket (miles)
18

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Together, these indicators present a mixed picture of changes in access over 

time. Indeed, more people lived in low-income areas far from a supermarket 

in 2010 than in 2006. However, as a percentage of all people in low-income 

areas, a greater share is within a half mile of a supermarket in 2010 than in 

2006 (37.5 percent in 2010 compared with 32.1 percent in 2006). A smaller 

share of people in low-income areas is more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

(down to 30.8 percent in 2010 from 33.0 percent in 2006). Further, the 

median distance to the nearest supermarket in low-income areas in 2010 was 

essentially unchanged compared with 2006 (0.83 mile compared with 0.84 

mile (USDA, 2009)). Given the stability in median distance and the increased 

number of stores in low-income areas (table 4), growth in the share of the 

population in low-income areas more than 1 mile from a store is likely due 

more to the greater number of low-income areas in 2010, not to substantial 

changes in store openings and closings. 

Changes in urban areas follow the same trend as overall changes. For rural 

areas, though, the number of people living in low-income areas that are more 

than 20 miles from a supermarket dropped from 400,000 people in 2006 to 

about 288,000 people in 2010. There was also a slight decline in the number 

of people in low-income areas between 10 and 20 miles from a supermarket 

(table 7). Residents of moderate-/high-income areas saw less change in 

access from 2006 to 2010. The share of people living in moderate-/highincome urban areas more than 1 mile from a supermarket remained stable at 

29.8 percent, while the share in moderate/high-income rural areas fell from 

0.6 percent to 0.5 percent.

Individual Income and Supermarket Access

The income levels of neighborhoods are a general indicator of the resources 

available, but neighborhoods are not homogeneous. Low-income neighborhoods may contain residents who are not poor and higher income neighborhoods may contain residents who are poor. Focusing solely on low-income 

neighborhoods misses some households that may experience barriers 

accessing healthy foods. We compare indicators of supermarket access for 

low-income people to indicators of access for moderate and high-income 

people, regardless of the income levels of the neighborhoods in which they 

live. 

The cumulative distribution of distance to the nearest supermarket for lowincome individuals compared with moderate/high-income individuals (fi g. 3) 

shows only small differences for these two populations. Roughly parallel to 

the distribution for low-income areas compared with moderate/high-income 

areas (fi g. 2), people with low incomes are closer to supermarkets than those 

with moderate/high incomes for most of the distribution. At distances greater 

than 4 miles (the right tail of the distribution), those with low incomes tend 

to be farther from supermarkets than those with moderate and high incomes. 

These results likely refl ect that low-income people in urban areas tend to 

be closer to supermarkets than moderate- and high-income people, but in 

rural areas, low-income people tend to be farther from supermarkets than 

moderate- and high-income people. We explore urban and rural differences 

below. 
19

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

In 2006, 11 percent of the entire population, and 38.1 percent of the lowincome population, lived more than 1 mile from a supermarket (table 8). By 

2010, the number of low-income people living more than a mile from a supermarket increased to 35.6 million, which represents an increase from 2006 

to 11.6 percent of the total U.S. population. However, a smaller share (36.4 

percent) of all low-income people was more than 1 mile from a supermarket. 

There was a greater increase in the number of low-income people within 1⁄2 

mile of a supermarket, which was up by nearly 10 million from 22.6 million 

in 2006 to 32.5 million in 2010. 

The number of low-income people in low-income areas more than a mile 

from the nearest supermarket increased from 11.5 million in 2006 to 15.4 

million in 2010 (table 8), although the share of such people (in low-income 

areas) dropped nearly 2 percentage points. Further, in 2010, a greater proportion of the low-income population in low-income areas lived within 1⁄2 mile 

of the nearest supermarket than in 2006. In moderate/high-income areas, the 

proportion of the overall population and of the low-income population living 

within 1⁄2 mile of a supermarket increased between 2006 and 2010.

The number of low-income people living more than 1 mile from a supermarket is greater in moderate/high-income areas than in low-income 

areas—20.1 million or 6.6 percent of the total population compared with 15.4 

million or 5.0 percent of the total population (table 8). Low-income areas 

have a greater number of low-income people between 1⁄2 and 1 mile from a 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

Figure 3

Distance to the nearest supermarket for low-income people compared 

with moderate/high-income people, 2010

Cumulative share of the population

0 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low-income population

Moderate/highincome population

Distance to nearest supermarket (miles)
20

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

supermarket than moderate- and high-income areas. But when combined 

with those more than 1 mile from a supermarket, moderate- and high-income 

areas have a larger number of low-income people more than 1⁄2 mile from a 

supermarket (33.7 million compared with 31.6 million, or 11 percent of the 

total population compared with 10.3 percent). 

Distance to Supermarkets by Subpopulation 

Characteristics

People with low income are closer to supermarkets than those with moderate 

and high incomes at the median (0.79 mile vs. 0.94 mile) and at the 20th and 

80th percentiles of distance (table 9). Overall, 41.2 percent of the U.S. population lived more than 1 mile from a supermarket in 2010. A smaller share 

of low-income (36.3 percent) than moderate/high-income individuals (43.4 

percent) were more than 1 mile from a supermarket. These general trends by 

income group are similar to what was found in USDA (2009). 

The median distance estimates show that most racial and ethnic minorities 

are closer to supermarkets than Whites. A notable exception is for American 

Indian/Alaska Native populations—a result we explore in more detail later. 

These results are similar to fi ndings in USDA (2009) and are true not only for 

Table 8

Supermarket access for low-income populations: Overall and by income level of area, 2006 and 2010

2006 2010

# of lowincome 

people

% of lowincome 

population

% of total 

population

 # of lowincome 

people

% of lowincome 

population

% of total 

population

Million Million

All areas

> 1 mile 30.2 38.1 11.0 35.6 36.4 11.6

1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 26.4 33.3 9.6 29.8 30.4 9.7

< 1⁄2 mile 22.6 28.5 8.2 32.5 33.2 10.6

Total number of low income people 79.3 100.0 28.8 97.9 100.0 31.9

Low-income areas

> 1 mile 11.5 31.9 4.2 15.4 30.1 5.0

1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 12.5 34.7 4.5 16.2 31.6 5.3

< 1⁄2 mile 12.1 33.6 4.4 19.6 38.2 6.4

Total low-income people in low-income 

areas

36.0 100.0 13.1 51.2 100.0 16.7

Moderate/high-income areas

> 1 mile 18.7 43.2 6.8 20.1 43.1 6.6

1⁄2 mile to 1 mile 13.9 32.1 5.0 13.6 29.2 4.4

< 1⁄2 mile 10.5 24.2 3.8 12.9 27.7 4.2

Total low-income people in moderate/

high-income areas 43.3 100.0 15.7 46.7 100.0 15.2

Total number of people 275.5 306.6 

Estimates do not include Alaska and Hawaii.
21

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

median distances, but at the 20th and 80th percentiles of distance also. These 

results likely refl ect differences in the racial composition in rural, urban, and 

suburban areas. Differences in access levels across age groups are small. The 

elderly are slightly more likely to be more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

than other age groups, and slightly less likely to be within 1⁄2 mile. 

Urban Food Store Access

The median distance to the nearest supermarkets for urban populations was 

about 0.68 mile in 2010 (table 10). Median distances were shorter for lowincome individuals, most non-Whites, and Hispanics. As was true in USDA 

(2009), the share of White urban residents living more than a mile from 

the nearest supermarket was greater than for other racial groups. Hispanics 

also tend to live within 1⁄2 mile of a supermarket in greater proportion than 

Table 9

Supermarket access for selected population characteristics, 2010

Population 

characteristics

20th percentile distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

nearest supermarket

80th percentile distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermarket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket Total

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million

All individuals 0.33 0.90 2.19 88.0 28.5 93.7 30.3 127.1 41.2 308.7 

Income

Low-income 

people 0.26 0.79 1.98 32.7 33.2 29.9 30.4 35.8 36.4 98.4 

Moderate/highincome people 0.35 0.94 2.24 55.3 26.3 63.7 30.3 91.4 43.4 210.3 

Expanded race

White 0.37 0.97 2.66 55.1 24.6 65.3 29.2 103.2 46.2 223.6 

Black 0.24 0.69 1.35 13.7 35.3 13.4 34.5 11.8 30.2 38.9

Asian 0.16 0.64 1.10 6.3 42.8 5.0 34.0 3.4 23.2 14.7 

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.23 0.69 1.42 0.2 0.2 0.2 

American Indian/

Alaska Native 0.36 1.06 5.09 0.7 0.7 1.5 

Other and 

multiple races 0.17 0.64 1.26 11.9 42.4 9.0 32.2 7.1 25.4 28.1 

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.17 0.64 1.25 21.5 42.5 16.5 32.7 12.5 24.8 50.5 

Non-hispanic 0.36 0.95 2.49 66.5 25.7 77.2 29.9 114.6 44.4 258.3 

Age

Children (age 17 

or less) 0.33 0.91 2.18 20.3 27.5 22.5 30.6 30.9 41.9 73.7 

Working age (18 

to 64) 0.32 0.90 2.19 56.2 29.1 58.6 30.4 78.2 40.5 193.0 

Elderly (65 or 

older) 0.34 0.93 2.42 10.9 27.2 12.0 30.0 17.1 42.8 40.0 
22

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 10

Urban supermarket access: Overall and by selected population characteristics, 2010

Population 

characteristics

20th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermaket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermaket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermaket Total urban

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million %

All individuals 0.23 0.68 1.19 83.5 36.8 85.6 37.7 58.0 25.5 227.1 100.0

Income

Low-income people 0.18 0.64 1.01 31.2 42.1 27.6 37.2 15.4 20.8 74.2 32.7

Moderate/highincome people 0.26 0.69 1.26 52.3 34.2 58.0 37.9 42.6 27.9 152.8 67.3

Race

White 0.28 0.71 1.26 51.5 33.4 58.9 38.2 43.8 28.4 154.2 67.9

Black 0.19 0.65 1.04 13.4 40.2 12.7 38.2 7.2 21.6 33.3 14.6

Asian 0.13 0.60 0.96 6.1 46.5 4.7 35.4 2.4 18.1 13.2 5.8

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.19 0.64 1.07 0.2 41.7 0.2 36.1 0.1 22.2 0.5 0.2

American Indian/

Alaska Native 0.20 0.66 1.11 0.7 39.7 0.6 36.6 0.4 23.7 1.7 0.8

Other and multiple 

races

0.13 0.58 0.95 11.6 48.0 8.5 35.1 4.1 16.9 24.2 10.7

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.14 0.58 0.95 21.0 47.6 15.6 35.4 7.5 17.0 44.0 19.4

Non-hispanic 0.27 0.69 1.25 62.5 34.2 70.0 38.2 50.5 27.6 183.0 80.6

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 0.25 0.68 1.24 19.3 35.6 20.6 37.9 14.4 26.4 54.3 23.9

Working age

(18 to 64) 0.22 0.67 1.17 53.9 37.4 54.0 37.5 36.1 25.1 144.0 63.4

Elderly 

(65 or older) 0.25 0.68 1.22 10.3 35.7 11.0 38.2 7.5 26.1 28.8 12.7

Family type (singleperson households 

are excluded)

All households 0.22 0.67 1.15 32.4 37.7 32.3 37.6 21.3 24.8 86.1 100.0

Married couple 0.29 0.73 1.27 12.5 32.3 14.7 38.1 11.4 29.5 38.6 44.8

Female householder 

(no husband 

present)

0.19 0.65 1.04 5.0 40.5 4.7 37.9 2.7 21.6 12.3 14.3

Male householder 

(no wife present) 0.20 0.65 1.06 1.8 40.4 1.6 37.4 1.0 22.2 4.4 5.1

1Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii.
23

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

non-Hispanics: 47.6 percent of the urban Hispanic population lived 1⁄2 mile or 

closer to the nearest supermarket in 2010, versus 34.2 percent of urban nonHispanic individuals. 

Compared with female- and male-headed households with no spouse present, 

a greater share of urban married households lived more than a mile from a 

supermarket (29.5 percent compared with almost 22 percent for both femaleand male-headed single households) in 2010. 

When the urban population is broken down by neighborhood income level 

(table 11), those who live in low-income areas tend to live closer to the 

nearest supermarket than others. In moderate/high-income areas, 29.8 percent 

of all individuals lived more than 1 mile from the nearest supermarket or 

large grocery in 2010 versus 17 percent in low-income urban areas. Further, 

moderate- and high-income urban areas had 1.6 million more low-income 

people living more than 1 mile from a supermarket than did low-income 

urban areas. Again, this demonstrates a problem in focusing only on lowincome areas. 

In low-income urban areas, 17.4 percent of both children and the elderly 

lived more than 1 mile from the nearest supermarket in 2010 (table 11). In 

moderate/high-income areas, however, children were more likely to live more 

than 1 mile from the supermarket than the elderly, with 31.6 percent of those 

under the age of 18 living a mile or more from the nearest supermarket or 

grocery store in 2010, compared to 29.5 percent of seniors.

Figure 4 uses the St. Louis, Missouri, area to illustrate supermarket access 

by population density and for low-income areas. One-mile radius circles are 

drawn around each supermarket in the area, and population density for the 

1⁄2-kilometer-square grids are shown by shading, with lighter areas being less 

dense and darker areas being more dense. Low-income 1⁄2-kilometer-square 

grids are represented by cross-hatching. Middle sections of St. Louis and 

portions of the northern and northwest parts of the city have densely populated low-income areas outside of 1 mile from a supermarket. The East St. 

Louis, Illinois, area on the east side of the Mississippi River, although less 

densely populated, also has very large swaths of areas that are low-income 

and outside of 1 mile from a supermarket. 

Rural Food Store Access

Approximately 26.5 percent of the U.S. population is located in rural census 

tracts, as defi ned by the U.S. Census Bureau. Of this population, over 93 

percent lived within 10 miles of a supermarket in 2010 (table 12). Nearly 6 

percent lived in areas between 10 and 20 miles to the nearest supermarket, 

and almost 1 percent were more than 20 miles away. 

A smaller share of low-income individuals (91.6 percent) than higher income 

individuals (94.2 percent) lived within 10 miles of a supermarket. Larger 

shares of low-income individuals live in rural areas between 10 and 20 

miles from the nearest supermarket (7.3 percent) or farther than 20 miles 

(1.1 percent) compared with higher income individuals (5.2 and 0.6 percent, 

respectively). These results differ from urban areas where low-income 
24

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 11

Urban supermarket access by income level of area and by selected population characteristics, 2010

Population 

characteristics

20th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermaket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermaket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermaket Total urban

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million %

Low-income areas

All individuals 0.15 0.61 0.96 34.6 45.5 28.5 37.5 12.9 17.0 76.0 100.0

Income

Low-income people 0.15 0.60 0.95 18.9 46.1 15.1 36.9 6.9 17.0 40.9 53.8

moderate/highincome people 0.16 0.62 0.96 15.8 44.9 13.4 38.1 6.0 17.1 35.2 46.2

Race

White 0.18 0.63 0.97 17.4 42.9 15.7 38.7 7.5 18.5 40.6 53.3

Black 0.16 0.63 0.97 8.2 43.3 7.4 38.7 3.4 18.0 19.0 24.9

Asian 0.04 0.42 0.69 1.7 60.0 0.9 31.0 0.3 9.0 2.9 3.8

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.17 0.61 0.95 0.1 45.5 0.1 38.4 0.0 16.1 0.1 0.2

American Indian/

Alaska Native 0.16 0.63 0.98 0.4 44.5 0.3 35.6 0.2 19.9 0.9 1.1

Other and multiple 

races

0.09 0.49 0.88 6.9 54.2 4.2 33.3 1.6 12.5 12.6 16.6

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.10 0.51 0.90 12.8 52.9 8.1 33.5 3.3 13.6 24.2 31.8

Non-hispanic 0.18 0.64 0.97 21.8 42.1 20.4 39.3 9.6 18.6 51.9 68.2

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 0.16 0.62 0.96 8.9 45.2 7.3 37.4 3.4 17.4 19.6 25.8

Working age

(18 to 64) 0.15 0.61 0.95 22.2 45.8 18.1 37.4 8.1 16.8 48.4 63.6

Elderly 

(65 or older) 0.16 0.62 0.96 3.6 44.4 3.1 38.1 1.4 17.4 8.0 10.6

Family type (single-person 

households are excluded)

All households 0.15 0.61 0.95

Married couple 0.17 0.63 0.97 4.1 43.4 3.5 38.0 1.7 18.6 9.3 34.2

Female householder 

(no husband 

present)

0.14 0.61 0.95 2.5 45.8 2.1 37.6 0.9 16.6 5.6 20.3

Male householder 

(no wife present) 0.14 0.59 0.94 0.8 47.3 0.7 36.8 0.3 15.9 1.8 6.6

--continued
25

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 11

Urban supermarket access by income level of area and by selected population characteristics, 

2010—continued

Population 

characteristics

20th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermaket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermaket Total urban

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million %

Moderate/high- income areas

All individuals 0.29 0.74 1.28 48.9 32.4 57.1 37.8 45.1 29.8 151.0 100.0

Income

Low-income poeple 0.23 0.68 1.19 12.4 37.1 12.5 37.5 8.5 25.4 33.3 22.1

Moderate/highincome people 0.31 0.77 1.29 36.5 31.0 44.6 37.9 36.6 31.1 117.7 77.9

Race

White 0.32 0.79 1.31 34.1 30.0 43.2 38.0 36.3 31.9 113.7 75.3

Black 0.24 0.68 1.24 5.2 36.1 5.4 37.5 3.8 26.5 14.3 9.5

Asian 0.17 0.64 1.00 4.4 42.7 3.8 36.7 2.1 20.6 10.3 6.8

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.20 0.66 1.20 0.1 40.0 0.1 35.2 0.1 24.7 0.3 0.2

American Indian/

Alaska Native 0.26 0.69 1.26 0.3 34.8 0.3 37.7 0.2 27.5 0.9 0.6

Other and multiple 

races

0.19 0.65 1.04 4.8 41.1 4.3 37.2 2.5 21.7 11.6 7.7

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.20 0.65 1.02 8.2 41.1 7.5 37.7 4.2 21.2 19.9 13.2

Non-hispanic 0.31 0.77 1.30 40.7 31.0 49.6 37.8 40.8 31.1 131.2 86.8

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 0.32 0.78 1.30 10.5 30.2 13.2 38.2 10.9 31.6 34.7 22.9

Working age

(18 to 64) 0.28 0.72 1.27 31.7 33.2 35.9 37.6 28.0 29.3 95.6 63.3

Elderly 

(65 or older) 0.29 0.74 1.27 6.7 32.3 7.9 38.2 6.1 29.5 20.7 13.7

Family type (single-person 

households are excluded)

All households 0.26 0.71 1.26 20.0 34.0 22.0 37.5 16.8 28.5 58.8 100.0 

Married couple 0.33 0.82 1.33 8.4 28.8 11.2 38.2 9.6 33.0 29.2 49.7

Female householder 

(no husband 

present)

0.24 0.68 1.20 2.4 36.1 2.6 38.1 1.7 25.8 6.7 11.5

Male householder 

(no wife present) 0.25 0.68 1.25 0.9 35.6 1.0 37.8 0.7 26.6 2.6 4.4

1Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii.
26

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

individuals are, in general, closer to supermarkets than individuals with 

higher incomes. 

Grouping the rural population by race reveals some striking differences. 

Each group follows the same general pattern illustrated in the national 

numbers—i.e., the largest portion of the population lives within 10 miles of 

the nearest supermarket, followed by those living between 10 and 20 miles, 

and those beyond 20 miles. However, for the American Indian/Alaska Native 

population, the percentages are dramatically different. While this category 

makes up just 1.5 percent of the total rural population, more than 1 in 10 

American Indians/Alaskan Natives live more than 20 miles from the nearest 

supermarket. Moreover, American Indians and Alaskan Natives are the only 

minority population living farther from the nearest supermarket than Whites. 

The difference in distance to the nearest supermarket between this population and all other racial and ethnic groups is particularly pronounced in rural 

areas: distance to the nearest supermarket at the 80th percentile is 12.2 miles 

for American Indians and Alaskan Natives, compared to 6.4 miles for Whites 

Figure 4

Supermarket access in St. Louis, Missouri

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
27

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

(table 12). Measures of access to supermarkets for residents of tribal areas are 

examined in greater detail in the next section.

The rural elderly also appear to be slightly farther from the nearest supermarket than other age groups. Approximately 94 percent of both rural 

Table 12

Rural supermarket access: Overall and by selected population characteristics, 2010

Population characteristics

20th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance 

to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

< 10 miles 

to nearest 

supermarket

10-20 miles 

to nearest 

supermaket

> 20 miles 

to nearest 

supermarket Total

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million

All individuals 1.3 3.2 6.4 76.3 93.4 4.7 5.8 0.6 0.8 81.7

Income

Low-income people 1.3 3.5 7.0 22.2 91.6 1.8 7.3 0.3 1.1 24.2

Moderate/high-income 

people 1.3 3.1 6.1 54.2 94.2 3.0 5.2 0.4 0.6 57.5

Race

White 1.3 3.3 6.4 64.9 93.5 4.0 5.8 0.5 0.7 69.3

Black 1.0 2.6 6.0 5.3 94.3 0.3 5.7 0.0 0.1 5.7

Asian 0.7 1.6 2.9 1.5 98.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.5

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi c 

Islander 0.9 2.2 5.3 0.1 94.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.7 0.1

American Indian/Alaska 

Native 1.6 4.7 12.2 0.9 75.1 0.2 14.5 0.1 10.4 1.2

Other and multiple races 1.0 2.5 5.7 3.6 93.8 0.2 5.3 0.0 0.9 3.9

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 1.0 2.4 5.5 6.1 93.9 0.3 5.1 0.1 1.0 6.4

Non-hispanic 1.3 3.2 6.4 70.3 93.4 4.4 5.9 0.6 0.7 75.2

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 1.3 3.1 6.2 18.7 93.8 1.1 5.5 0.1 0.7 19.9

Working age

(18 to 64) 1.3 3.2 6.3 47.1 93.6 2.9 5.7 0.4 0.7 50.3

Elderly 

(65 or older) 1.3 3.3 6.7 10.6 92.1 0.8 6.9 0.1 1.0 11.5

Family type (single-person 

households are excluded)

All households 1.3 3.19 6.5 28.5 93.1 1.9 6.1 0.2 0.8 30.6

Married couple 1.4 3.3 6.4 16.8 93.5 1.0 5.8 0.1 0.7 17.9

Female householder 

(no husband present) 1.0 2.9 6.2 2.8 93.6 0.2 5.7 0.0 0.7 3.0

Male householder 

(no wife present) 1.3 3.4 6.6 1.3 92.8 0.1 6.4 0.0 0.9 1.4

1Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii.
28

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

children and working-age adults lived within 10 miles of the nearest supermarket in 2010, while only 92 percent of those aged 65 and older lived within 

the same distance. A slightly higher proportion of the elderly population lived 

farther than 20 miles from the nearest supermarket as well, but those more 

than 20 miles away represent only 1 percent of all elderly in rural areas.

Separate estimates for low-income areas versus moderate/high-income areas 

show that those living in low-income rural areas tend to be farther from a 

supermarket than those in moderate- and high-income rural areas (table 13). 

The median distance that individuals in low-income rural areas must travel to 

the nearest supermarket is 3.6 miles, compared with 3.1 miles for individuals 

in moderate/high-income rural areas. Just under 90 percent of individuals 

in low-income rural areas live within 10 miles of the nearest supermarket 

versus nearly 95 percent of individuals in moderate/high-income rural areas. 

Similarly, 1.5 percent of individuals in low-income rural areas lived more 

than 20 miles from the nearest supermarket in 2010 versus 0.5 percent in 

moderate/high-income areas. 

For several demographic subgroups, those in low-income areas are farther 

from supermarkets. In every case, a larger percentage of the subgroup population living in low-income rural areas is at least 20 miles from the nearest 

supermarket than for the same subgroup living in moderate/high-income 

rural areas. For example, while the problem of access for American Indian/

Alaska Native individuals is apparent overall, it is even more striking when 

area income is considered. Over 15 percent of American Indian/Alaska 

Native individuals in low-income rural areas lived farther than 20 miles from 

a supermarket in 2010 (table 13) versus 2.8 percent in moderate/high-income 

areas. 

Figure 5 shows supermarket access in South Dakota, again using shading 

to indicate more densely populated areas and cross-hatches to indicate 

low-income areas. In contrast to the St. Louis map, this map uses 10- and 

20-mile radii around supermarkets to indicate access levels. The map shows 

that signifi cant portions of the State, including many low-income areas, 

are beyond 20 miles from a supermarket. These parts of South Dakota are 

sparsely populated, but there are still areas with sizable numbers of people far 

from supermarkets, including some tribal areas. 

Food Access in Tribal Areas

We now describe access to healthful food for populations living in federally designated tribal areas, including American Indian Tribal Areas, Alaska 

Native Village Areas, and Native Hawaiian Homelands. As in the rest of 

this report, access is measured as the distance to the nearest supermarket—

regardless of whether this supermarket is located within tribal lands or not. 

The analysis is conducted separately for rural and urban tribal areas. Due to 

data limitations, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs) were excluded 

from the analysis.15

More than 1.3 million individuals reside in tribal areas in the United 

States, representing American Indian (AI), Alaska Native (AN), and Native 

Hawaiian (NH) homelands. Of the total tribal area population, 71.5 percent 

live in rural areas while the remaining live in urban areas.

15OTSAs are areas in Oklahoma that 

have high concentrations of American 

Indian (AI) populations, but include 

considerable non-AI populations. Only 

a small portion of OTSAs are federally 

designated tribal lands.
29

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 13

Rural supermarket access by income level of area and by selected population characteristics, 2010

Population 

characteristics

20th

percentile 

distance to 

nearest supermarket

Median 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile 

distance to 

nearest supermarket

< 10 miles to 

nearest supermarket

10-20 miles to 

nearest supermarket

> 20 miles to 

nearest supermarket Total

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million

Low-income areas

All individuals 1.1 3.6 7.6 18.4 89.4 1.9 9.0 0.3 1.5 20.5

Income

Low-income people 1.2 3.7 7.7 9.3 89.0 1.0 9.3 0.2 1.7 10.4

Moderate/highincome people 1.1 3.6 7.5 9.1 89.8 0.9 8.8 0.1 1.4 10.1

Race

White 1.2 3.8 7.6 14.3 90.1 1.4 8.8 0.2 1.1 15.8

Black 1.0 3.0 7.2 2.3 91.0 0.2 8.9 0.0 0.1 2.5

Asian 0.7 1.7 4.9 0.1 94.4 0.0 4.5 0.0 1.1 0.1

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.9 2.7 6.5 0.0 90.3 0.0 8.6 0.0 1.1 0.0

American Indian/

Alaska Native 1.6 5.8 16.4 0.5 66.4 0.1 18.4 0.1 15.2 0.7

Other and multiple 

races

0.9 2.9 6.8 1.2 90.9 0.1 7.6 0.0 1.5 1.3

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.9 2.8 6.4 2.2 91.4 0.2 6.9 0.0 1.7 2.4

Non-hispanic 1.2 3.8 7.7 16.2 89.2 1.7 9.3 0.3 1.5 18.2

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 1.1 3.6 7.5 4.5 89.6 0.4 8.8 0.1 1.6 5.0

Working age

(18 to 64) 1.2 3.6 7.5 11.2 89.7 1.1 8.9 0.2 1.5 12.5

Elderly 

(65 or older) 1.0 3.7 7.9 2.6 88.2 0.3 10.1 0.1 1.8 3.0

Family type (single-person 

households are excluded)

All households 1.1 3.7 7.7

Married couple 1.3 4.0 7.8 3.5 89.1 0.4 9.4 0.1 1.5 3.9

Female householder 

(no husband 

present)

0.9 3.1 7.2 0.9 90.3 0.1 8.3 0.0 1.4 1.0

Male householder 

(no wife present) 1.1 3.7 7.7 0.4 89.1 0.0 9.2 0.0 1.7 0.4

--continued
30

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 13

Rural supermarket access by income level of area and by selected population characteristics, 

2010—continued

Population 

characteristics

20th

percentile 

distance to 

nearest supermarket

Median 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile 

distance to 

nearest supermarket

< 10 miles to 

nearest supermarket

10-20 miles to 

nearest supermarket

> 20 miles to 

nearest supermarket Total

Miles Miles Miles Million % Million % Million % Million

Moderate/high-income areas

All individuals 1.3 3.1 5.9 57.9 94.8 2.9 4.7 0.3 0.5 61.1

Income

Low-income people 1.3 3.3 6.5 12.9 93.5 0.8 5.9 0.1 0.7 13.8

Moderate/highincome people 1.3 3.0 5.8 45.1 95.1 2.1 4.4 0.2 0.5 47.4

Race

White 1.4 3.2 6.1 50.6 94.6 2.6 4.9 0.3 0.5 53.5

Black 1.1 2.4 5.0 3.1 96.8 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.1 3.2

Asian 0.7 1.5 2.8 1.3 99.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.4

Native Hawaiian/

Pacifi c Islander 0.9 2.1 4.8 0.1 96.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.1

American Indian/

Alaska Native 1.5 3.7 7.3 0.4 88.7 0.0 8.5 0.0 2.8 0.5

Other and multiple 

races

1.0 2.4 5.3 2.4 95.3 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.5 2.6

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 1.0 2.2 4.9 3.9 95.4 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.6 4.1

Non-hispanic 1.3 3.1 6.0 54.1 94.7 2.7 4.8 0.3 0.5 57.1

Age

Children

(age 17 or less) 1.3 2.9 5.8 14.2 95.2 0.6 4.3 0.1 0.4 14.9

Working age

(18 to 64) 1.3 3.1 5.9 35.8 94.9 1.8 4.6 0.2 0.5 37.8

Elderly 

(65 or older) 1.3 3.2 6.3 8.0 93.5 0.5 5.8 0.1 0.7 8.5

Family type (single-person 

households are excluded)

All households 1.3 3.11 6.0

Married couple 1.4 3.1 6.0 13.3 94.7 0.7 4.8 0.1 0.5 14.0

Female householder 

(no husband 

present)

1.1 2.9 5.8 1.9 95.3 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 1.9

Male householder 

(no wife present) 1.3 3.3 6.2 0.9 94.3 0.1 5.2 0.0 0.5 1.0

1Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii.
31

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Urban Tribal Areas

Of the total urban population, 47.9 percent lived more than 1 mile from the 

nearest supermarket in 2010, while 23.4 percent were within 1⁄2 mile (table 

14). Levels of supermarket access vary across population subgroups. The 

share of low-income population living more than 1 mile from a supermarket 

(43.6 percent) was lower than the share of moderate/high-income individuals 

(50.7 percent). As in all urban areas, those households without vehicles in 

urban tribal areas were closer to the nearest supermarket than those with 

vehicles. 

Rural Tribal Areas

Among the total population in rural tribal areas, 14.0 percent lived more than 

20 miles from a supermarket in 2010 (table 15). Another 18.2 percent live 

between 10 and 20 miles from the nearest supermarket. The median distance 

to a supermarket was 5.3 miles in 2010.

Disadvantaged populations in rural tribal areas tend to be farther from supermarkets than those with higher incomes and with vehicles: 18.4 percent of 

low-income people were more than 20 miles from a supermarket, compared 

with 10 percent of those with higher incomes. Though only about 10 percent 

of all households in rural tribal areas lack vehicles, those households were 

located much farther from the nearest supermarket (9.9 miles, median 

distance) than those with vehicles (4.9 miles). Among rural tribal households 

Figure 5

Supermarket access in South Dakota

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
32

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

without a vehicle, 31.3 percent were more than 20 miles from the nearest 

supermarket in 2010. 

By age group, the share of individuals more than 20 miles from a supermarket ranged from 12.5 percent for the elderly (65 and older) to 15.4 percent 

among children (age 17 or younger). The share of rural tribal households 

without a vehicle (10.6 percent) was slightly higher than the share for urban 

tribal areas (8.2 percent).

This analysis does not include distribution sites served by the USDA Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Including these 

distribution sites in the store directory would likely reduce the distance to 

the nearest source of healthful food, particularly in rural areas.16 Future ERS 

research will measure tribal area population access to FDPIR sites in greater 

detail. 

16Tribal areas designated as urban are 

largely excluded from participation in 

FDPIR.

Table 14

Supermarket access in urban Tribal Areas of the United States: Overall and selected population 

characteristics, 2010

Urban population 

characteristics

20th

percentile 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance 

to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermarket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

Total urban 

tribal areas

Miles Miles Miles Number % Number % Number % Number

All individuals 0.39 1.0 2.1 87,884 23.4 108,006 28.7 180,249 47.9 376,139

Income

Low-income people 0.35 1.0 2.0 38,548 26.0 44,938 30.4 64,492 43.6 147,977 

Moderate/highincome people 0.41 1.1 2.1 49,336 21.6 63,068 27.6 115,757 50.7 228,161 

Age

Children 

(age 17 or less) 0.40 1.0 2.2 22,762 22.5 28,856 28.5 49,518 49.0 101,136 

Working age 

(18 to 64) 0.39 1.0 2.1 52,882 23.3 64,479 28.4 109,733 48.3 227,094 

Elderly 

(65 or older) 0.36 1.0 1.9 12,240 25.5 14,671 30.6 20,998 43.8 47,909

Household vehicle 

availability

All households 0.37 1.0 2.0 33,484 24.6 39,823 29.2 62,969 46.2 136,276 

With vehicle 

available 0.38 1.0 2.0 29,911 23.9 36,273 29.0 58,970 47.1 125,153 

Without vehicle 

available 0.29 0.8 1.6 3,574 32.1 3,550 31.9 4,000 36.0 11,123 

Note: Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas are excluded.
33

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Distance to Three Supermarkets

Estimated distance to the nearest supermarket indicates the ease of access 

to one source of healthy food, but the nearest store may not offer the best 

prices or quality. Distance to the nearest store does not indicate whether other 

sources of healthful food are just beyond the nearest store or if that store is 

the only store for miles. If a number of food stores are relatively close by, 

competition on price, quality, and other store attributes is likely to be greater, 

and consumers are likely to benefi t. If a store is the only one nearby, there 

is likely to be less competition on these attributes. Previous studies have 

used measures of the distance to three stores selling healthy foods in order 

to capture this concept of competition (Apparicio et al., 2007; Sparks et al., 

2009). We estimate the median distance to the third nearest supermarket, 

along with the distances at the 20th and 80th percentiles by population characteristics, fi rst for the whole country and then, separately, for urban and rural 

areas in order to provide additional insight into the extent of access challenges across the United States (tables 16-18). 

Table 15

Supermarket access in rural Tribal Areas of the United States: Overall and selected population 

characteristics, 2010

Rural population 

characteristics

20th

percentile 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance 

to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile 

distance 

to nearest 

supermarket

< 10 miles 

to nearest 

supermarket

10-20 miles 

to nearest 

supermarket

> 20 miles 

to nearest 

supermarket

Total rural 

tribal areas

Miles Miles Miles Number % Number % Number % Number

All individuals 1.8 5.3 15.6 639,100 67.8 171,698 18.2 131,926 14.0 942,724 

Income

Low-income people 1.9 6.5 18.9 274,602 61.1 92,023 20.5 82,826 18.4 449,450 

Moderate/highincome people 1.7 4.7 12.5 364,498 73.9 79,675 16.2 49,100 10.0 493,274 

Age

Children 

(age 17 or less) 1.8 5.6 16.6 187,534 65.9 53,282 18.7 43,716 15.4 284,532 

Working age 

(18 to 64) 1.8 5.3 15.2 379,831 68.6 98,773 17.8 75,189 13.6 553,793 

Elderly 

(65 or older) 1.6 5.3 14.7 71,735 68.7 19,643 18.8 13,021 12.5 104,400 

Household vehicle 

availability

All households 1.7 5.1 14.6 218,015 69.6 55,725 17.8 39,406 12.6 313,146 

With vehicle 

available 1.6 4.9 13.4 201,303 71.9 49,575 17.7 29,006 10.4 279,885 

Without vehicle 

available 1.9 9.9 30.3 16,711 50.2 6,150 18.5 10,399 31.3 33,261 

Note: Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas are excluded.
34

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Half the U.S. population is within 2 miles of three supermarkets. Further, 

80 percent of the population is within 5 miles of three supermarkets. These 

results indicate that overall, Americans have several choices of supermarkets 

within a few miles of their homes.

The same general patterns across subpopulations hold for measures of 

distance to the three nearest supermarkets as they do for the nearest supermarket (table 5). At the median, households without vehicles are closer to 

three supermarkets than households with vehicles (1.3 miles compared with 

2.0 miles). Further, 80 percent of households without vehicles are within 2.2 

miles of three supermarkets (table 16). Low-income people and areas are also 

closer to three supermarkets than moderate/high-income people and areas at 

the median. Distance to the nearest (single) supermarket has been criticized 

as a poor indicator of supermarket quality and affordability, especially for 

low-income individuals, given the presumed lack of competition on price and 

quality. To the extent that the distance to the third nearest supermarket is an 

indicator of competition, differences across income levels are small overall. 

In urban areas, the median distance to the third nearest supermarket is 

1.6 miles (table 17), and in rural areas, the median is 6.2 miles (table 18). 

Differences across subpopulations in urban areas are small, but the general 

patterns of distance to the nearest three supermarkets for the 20th, 50th and 

80th percentiles are similar to the overall distribution. This is not the case for 

subpopulations in rural areas. Rural low-income people and low-income areas 

are farther from three supermarkets than moderate/high-income people and 

areas at the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles. Rural American Indians/Alaska 

Natives are much farther from three supermarkets than other racial groups at 

the 20th, median, and 80th percentiles of distance. 
35

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 16

Distance to nearest three supermarkets: Overall and by population 

characteristics, 2010

Population characteristics

Overall

20th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

80th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Miles

All people 1.0 1.9 4.8

Income

Low-income people 0.9 1.8 5.0

Moderate/high-income people 1.0 2.0 4.7

Race

White 1.1 2.2 5.7

Black 0.9 1.6 2.6

Asian 0.7 1.4 2.1

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi c 

Islander 0.8 1.6 3.1

American Indian/Alaska 

Native 1.1 2.8 12.8

Other and multiple races 0.7 1.5 2.5

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.7 1.4 2.5

Non-hispanic 1.1 2.1 5.3

Age

Children 

(age 17 or less) 1.0 2.0 4.8

Working age 

(18 to 64) 1.0 1.9 4.6

Elderly 

(65 or older) 1.0 2.0 5.5

All households 1.0 1.9 4.8

Household vehicle 

ownership

Own vehicle 1.0 2.0 5.0

Do not own vehicle 0.4 1.3 2.2

Low-income areas 0.8 1.6 4.5

Moderate/high-income areas 1.1 2.1 4.8

Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii. 
36

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 17

Urban areas' distance to nearest three supermarkets: Overall and by 

population characteristics, 2010

Population characteristics

Urban areas

20th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

80th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Miles

All individuals 0.8 1.6 2.3

Income

Low-income people 0.8 1.5 2.2

Moderate/high-income people 0.9 1.6 2.4

Race

White 0.9 1.7 2.5

Black 0.8 1.5 2.0

Asian 0.7 1.3 1.8

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi c 

Islander 0.8 1.5 2.3

American Indian/Alaska 

Native 0.8 1.6 2.6

Other and multiple races 0.7 1.3 1.9

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 0.7 1.3 1.9

Non-hispanic 0.9 1.6 2.4

Age

Children 

(age 17 or less) 0.9 1.6 2.4

Working age 

(18 to 64) 0.8 1.6 2.3

Elderly 

(65 or older) 0.9 1.6 2.4

All households 0.8 1.6 2.3

Household vehicle 

ownership

Own vehicle 0.9 1.6 2.4

Do not own vehicle 0.4 1.2 1.7

Low-income areas 0.7 1.4 2.0

Moderate/high-income areas 0.9 1.7 2.5

Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii. 
37

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 18

Rural areas' distance to nearest three supermarkets: Overall and by 

population characteristics, 2010

Population characteristics

Rural areas

20th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

80th percentile 

distance to 

3rd nearest 

supermarket

Miles

All individuals 3.1 6.2 10.7

Income

Low-income people 3.4 7.1 11.9

Moderate/high-income people 3.0 5.9 10.2

Race

White 3.2 6.4 10.7

Black 2.6 5.5 10.7

Asian 1.7 2.9 5.0

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi c 

Islander 2.2 4.8 9.9

American Indian/Alaska 

Native 4.8 10.4 26.3

Other and multiple races 2.5 5.3 10.3

Hispanic ethnicity

Hispanic 2.4 5.0 10.1

Non-hispanic 3.1 6.3 10.8

Age

Children 

(age 17 or less) 3.0 6.1 10.5

Working age 

(18 to 64) 3.1 6.2 10.6

Elderly 

(65 or older) 3.3 6.7 11.6

All households 3.1 6.3 10.9

Household vehicle 

ownership

Own vehicle 3.1 6.3 10.8

Do not own vehicle 2.8 6.8 10.8

Low-income areas 3.7 8.1 13.3

Moderate/high-income areas 3.0 5.8 9.8

Estimates include Alaska and Hawaii. 
38

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Study Limitations and Future Research

Our analysis updates estimates of food access across the United States, and 

provides the impetus for further research on food access measures and on 

the effects of economic and demographic changes on retail food markets. 

Future research could address the issue of store type and its connection to 

healthy food access. In this report, we use the location of supermarkets as a 

proxy for access to healthy foods. Some smaller stores, however, may also 

offer healthier items. Further, many community efforts and some Federal and 

publicly sponsored interventions have focused on improving the retail environment through non-supermarket interventions (like the opening of farmers’ 

markets or improvements in supply distribution chains for smaller vendors in 

areas of low access). Consistent data on the availability of healthy foods by 

smaller vendors were unavailable, so this study excluded smaller stores from 

analysis. 

Another limiting factor of our study is that the industry defi nition of a supermarket as having $2 million or more in annual sales has not been updated to 

refl ect infl ation over many years. As a result, some retailers categorized as 

“small grocery stores” in our store directory may meet this defi nition without 

the typical offerings of a large, full-service grocery store. Future analysis 

could examine how sensitive our results are to different defi nitions of large 

grocery stores (e.g., excluding stores with sales between $2 million and $4 

million annually). 

Whereas straight-line distance measures are used in our study to measure 

access to food retailers, existing roadways, natural and manmade barriers, 

and other factors may extend the distance that consumers actually have to 

walk or drive. Computing these distances on a national level, however, would 

require substantial computational resources. This potential problem is likely 

to be a greater in less densely populated areas where there are likely to be 

more man-made and natural barriers and less dense street networks. One 

study showed that differences in distance measurement methods matter more 

in less dense urban areas than in dense areas, but do not differ greatly for 

overall food access patterns (Sparks et al., 2011). Performing related sensitivity analyses using our measurements could provide guidance for future 

efforts to measure food access.

The measures of food access in this report are meant to proxy access to 

supermarkets by measuring distance to supermarkets and the resources available to consumers, such as vehicles and income, that may help or hinder their 

ability to get to those stores. As a complement to these measures, it would be 

useful to directly ask individuals whether they perceive or experience barriers 

to access supermarkets and other sources of healthy foods. As noted above, 

there are some precedents of asking such questions on a nationally representative survey. Adding questions of this type to already existing national-level 

surveys may be worth considering. 

These limitations and potential extensions notwithstanding, estimates 

presented in this report show a mixed picture of changes in supermarket 

access over the past decade. Perhaps the best indicator of supermarket 

access shows improvement. In 2010, 1.8 percent of all households did not 
39

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

have a vehicle and were more than 1 mile from a supermarket, down from 

2.3 percent in 2006. Further, the share of households without a vehicle and 

between 1⁄2 and 1 mile from a supermarket is also down from 2006 (2.4 

percent compared with 3.2 percent). 

There has, however, been growth in the number and percentage of people 

who live in low-income areas who are at least 1 mile from the nearest 

supermarket (up to 9.7 percent of the population in 2010 from 8.4 percent in 

2006). The distribution of distance to the nearest supermarket for the overall 

population has remained essentially unchanged since 2006. And although 

the number of supermarkets has declined slightly since 2006, this decline 

occurred in moderate/high-income areas while the number of supermarkets 

in low-income areas increased. As a result, it is likely that changes in this 

indicator of access between the USDA (2009) analysis and this report are due 

more to increases in the number of low-income areas than to changes in store 

location. 

While there are many low-income areas with supermarket access limitations, 

our results show that for some indicators, access limitations may be greater 

outside of low-income areas. For example, moderate/high-income areas 

contain a greater number and share of households without vehicles that are 

far from food stores than do low-income areas. Moderate- and high-income 

areas also contain a greater number and share of low-income people who 

are far from stores. Results from this study show that focusing only on lowincome areas will miss access limitations of those who do not have a vehicle 

or are poor but do not live in low-income areas. 
40

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Apparicio, P., M.S. Cloutier, and R. Shearmur. 2007. “The case of Montréal’s 

missing food deserts: Evaluation of accessibility to food supermarkets,” 

International Journal of Health Geographics 6(4).

Barnes, Patricia M., P. Adams, and E. Powell-Griner. 2010. “Health 

Characteristics of the American Indian or Alaska Native Adult Population: 

United States, 2004–2008,” National Health Statistics Reports, Number 

20. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, March 9.

Baum, C.L., and M.F. Owens (2010). “The Effect of Vehicle Asset Rules on 

Vehicle Assets.” Department of Economics and Finance Working Paper 

Series, Middle Tennessee State University, Feb.

Bitler, M., and S.J. Haider (2010). “An Economic View of Food Deserts in the 

United States.”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 30, No. 

1, 153–176.

Block, J.P., N.A. Christakis, J. O’Malley, and S.V. Subramanian. 2011. 

“Proximity to food establishments and body mass index in the 

Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort over 30 years,”American 

Journal of Epidemiology 174(10): 1108-1114. 

Boone-Heinonen, J., P. Gordon-Larsen, C.I. Kiefe, J.M. Shikany, C.E. 

Lewis, and B.M. Popkin. 2011. “Fast food restaurants and food stores: 

Longitudinal associations with diet in young to middle-aged adults,” 

Archives of Internal Medicine 171(13): 1162-1170. 

Broda, C., E. Leibtag, and D.E. Weinstein. 2009. “The role of prices in 

measuring the poor’s living standards,” Journal of Economic Perspectives

23(2): 77–97. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. State Indicator Report 

on Fruit and Vegetables, 2009. http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/

downloads/StateIndicatorReport2009.pdf

Chen, S., R.J.G.M. Florax, and S.D. Snyder. 2010. “Does where you live make 

you fat? Obesity and access to chain grocers,”Economic Geography 86(4): 

431-452.

Currie, Janet, S. DellaVigna, E. Moretti, and V. Pathania. 2010. “The Effect 

of Fast Food Restaurants on Obesity and Weight Gain,” American 

Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2(3): 32–63.

Das Gupta, P. 1993. “Standardization and Decomposition of Rates: A User’s 

Manual,” Current Population Reports, Series P23 186. U.S. Bureau of the 

Census.

DeNavas-Walt, C., B.D. Proctor, and J.C. Smith. 2011. Income, Poverty, 

and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-239.
41

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dutko, P., M. Ver Ploeg, and T. Farrigan. 2012. Characteristics and 

Infl uential Factors of Food Deserts. ERR-140. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Aug.

Food Research and Action Center. 2011. “A Half-Empty Plate: Fruit and 

Vegetable Affordability and Access Challenges in America.” Washington, 

DC. http://frac.org/pdf/half_empty_plate_dec2011.pdf

Gittelsohn J., M. Rowan, and P. Gadhoke. 2012. “Interventions in small food 

stores to change the food environment, improve diet, and reduce risk of 

chronic disease,” Preventing Chronic Disease, Vol. 9:110015

Goodman-Bacon, A., and L. McGranahan. 2008. “How Do EITC Recipients 

Spend Their Refunds?” Economic Perspectives 32(2): 17-32.

Hamrick, K.S., D. Hopkins, and R. Kranz-Kent. 2011. “The Time Cost of 

Access to Food: Distance to the Grocery Store as Measured in Minutes.” 

Working Paper, Sept. 7.

Hurst, Erik, and James P. Ziliak. 2006. “Do Welfare Asset Limits Affect 

Household Saving? Evidence from Welfare Reform,” Journal of Human 

Resources 41(1): 46-71.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2009. The Public 

Health Effects of Food Deserts: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. 

Larson, N., M. Story, and M. Nelson. 2009. “Neighborhood environments: 

disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S.” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine 36 (1): 74–81.

Lee, H. 2012. “The Role of Local Food Availability in Explaining Obesity 

Risk Among Young School-Aged Children,” Social Science and Medicine

74 (2012): 1193-1203. 

Leibtag, E. 2005. “Where You Shop Matters: Store Formats Drive Variation 

in Retail Food Prices,” Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, Nov.

Leibtag, E. 2006. The Impact of Big-Box Stores on Retail Food Prices and 

the Consumer Price Index. ERR-33. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, Dec.

Mackun, P., and S. Wilson. 2011. Population Distribution and Change: 2000 

and 2010. 2010 Census Briefs, CB2010BR-01. U.S. Census Bureau, 

March. 

National Research Council. 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for 

Reducing Chronic Disease. Committee on Diet and Health, Washington, 

DC: National Academies Press.

Richardson, K. 2010. “Exploring food environments: Assessing access to 

nutritious food,” ArcUser, Fall: 50-52. 
42

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). 2006. www.sedac.

ciesin.columbia.edu/.

Sparks, A., N. Bania, and L. Leete. 2009. “Finding Food Deserts: 

Methodology and Measurement of Food Access in Portland, Oregon.” 

National Poverty Center Working Paper, http://www.npc.umich.edu/news/

events/food-access/index.php.

Sparks, A., N. Bania, and L. Leete. 2011. “Comparative Approaches to 

Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas: The Case of Portland Oregon,” 

Urban Studies 11, 48(8):1715-1737. June.

Sullivan, James X. 2006. “Welfare Reform, Saving, and Vehicle Ownership: 

Do Asset Limits and Vehicle Exemptions Matter?” Journal of Human 

Resources 41: 72-105.

The Reinvestment Fund. 2011. “Estimating supermarket access: Summary of 

TRF’s research and analysis.” http://www.trfund.com/fi nancing/realestate/

EstimatingSupermarketAccess-1pg.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Design and Methodology: American Community 

Survey. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2012a. “Food 

Desert Locator.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodDesert/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2012b. “Food 

CPI and Expenditures: Table 1.” Food Expenditures, http://www.ers.usda.

gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2009. Access 

to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food 

Deserts and Their Consequences, Report to Congress, June. http://www.

ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2012. 

“Redemptions and Authorized Stores by Store Type FY 2010,” 

Unpublished table.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2011. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Benefi t Redemption 

Division. 2010 Annual Report, May 3. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

retailers/pdfs/2010-annual-report.pdf. 
43

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix A: Data and Methodological 

Details

Methods for Developing and Geo-coding a National 

List of Stores 

Methods to develop and assign geographic coordinates—or geo-code—a 

2010 list of stores (consisting of large grocery stores, supermarkets, and 

supercenters) are largely consistent with the method used in USDA (2009). 

We note below where methods for the 2010 analysis diverged from USDA 

(2009) and explain the methods in more detail. 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service changed the method used to assign store 

types for SNAP-authorized stores in 2008. Where prior store types were 

assigned primarily using retailer self-classifi cation, SNAP now uses confi dential methods and more complete information obtained from a new application 

form for store authorization. To ensure that SNAP stores were comparable to 

those included in the TDLinx store directory, ERS requested a special tabulation of all SNAP stores meeting minimum annual sales (food and nonfood 

items) and offering four major food groups: milk, meat, fruits and vegetables, 

and bread, in any form (canned, fresh, frozen). Almost 35,000 of 204,705 

total stores met these criteria and were included in the 2010 ERS store 

directory.

The Trade Dimensions TDLinx® store directory consisted of 39,502 retail 

food stores with at least $2 million or more in sales (food and nonfood). 

Additional information included annual sales volume range and store format, 

allowing for the identifi cation of supercenters, supermarkets, and large 

grocery stores. 

In addition to descriptive information, both SNAP and TDLinx provided the 

store name, address, and geo-coded location coordinates (latitude and longitude) to allow for measurement of distance from each grid area to the nearest 

store.

Matching the TDLinx and SNAP Store Lists

TDLinx and SNAP stores were merged and stores common to each were 

counted as the same store to avoid duplication. Both the geographic coordinates of each store’s location and the use of automated scripting in ArcGIS 

software to compare store names and addresses among potential matches 

were employed in combining the two store lists. First, a proximity analysis 

using a 1/3-mile buffer to identify a subset of potential store matches from 

the two store lists was performed. Next, the resultant potential matches were 

analyzed through an automated script to compare the store name and address 

from each of the store lists and denote exact matches. 

Both automated and manual review methods were used for the remaining 

unmatched stores. Any partial matches—such as having the same store 

name but a different street address, or vice versa—were manually reviewed. 

The Trade Dimensions Marketing Guidebook (2012) was used to verify 
44

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

current store names and addresses. Online sources, such as company Web 

sites and Google maps, were used to verify store name and location data. 

Any remaining unmatched stores in the same ZIP Code area were manually 

checked for potential matches using the store name and street address. Once 

all store matches were identifi ed, the store lists were combined into one data 

set encompassing the matched stores, TDLinx-only stores, and SNAP-only 

stores. 

When a SNAP store matched to a TDLinx store, the TDLinx store classifi cation was used. We did this because many SNAP “superstores” were found 

to include larger traditional supermarkets, mass-merchandise stores selling 

some food varieties, and supercenters. They were reclassifi ed according to 

the TDLinx store defi nitions. For SNAP stores that did not match the TDLinx 

store directory, all large mass-merchandise stores that sell some food varieties 

but typically do not offer fresh meat and produce—such as Target, Wal-Mart, 

and Kmart—were eliminated (3,078 SNAP-only mass merchandise stores 

eliminated). SNAP-only large grocery stores that did not meet the minimum 

annual sales and food category requirement were also eliminated (1,620 

SNAP-only stores eliminated). SNAP-only superstores were reclassifi ed as 

supercenters if stores with the same name (but a different location) had been 

classifi ed as a supercenter by TDLinx. 

Assignment of Store Locations for 2006 and 2010

Because store location is critical to measures of access, it is important to have 

the greatest possible consistency when comparing change in food access and 

food deserts between 2006 and 2010. Those stores common to both 2006 and 

2010 directories had up to four different geographic coordinates assigned, 

depending on its source. When applying geo-codes to the 2010 stores, a 

protocol was developed to address potential inconsistencies of store location 

due to differences in geo-code precision. First, all 2010 stores that were also 

in the 2006 directory and had an address that was geo-coded to an exact 

street address in 2006 were assigned the 2006 geo-code to fi x the location of 

those stores and to eliminate artifi cial change in store location between the 

two years. Second, the selection of location coordinates for the remaining 

stores (those 2010 stores not present in 2006) was based on the method used 

to obtain the geo-code. Stores that had been geo-coded to an exact street 

address were deemed to have the greatest accuracy, while stores that had 

been geo-coded to a ZIP Code centroid were deemed to have more potential 

inaccuracy. For example, if the store was newly opened and was geo-coded to 

an exact street address, then the 2010 coordinates were selected as the location of the store. Third, any remaining stores were either manually reviewed 

with geographic coordinates assigned based upon the manual inspection, or 

taken from stores that had been geo-coded to a census block group centroid 

or the centroid of a ZIP Code + 4 polygon. Store locations that could not be 

determined manually were assigned lat/long coordinates from populationweighted ZIP Code centroids since store locations are most likely to be 

located in population centers.

Taken together, these methods ensure that the best available store location 

coordinates were applied, and that among stores common to both years, locations are consistent when used to compare change in access measures over 

time. 
45

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Methods for Developing 1⁄2-km Square Grids and 

Downcasting Population Data

To link supermarket distance with census population, housing, and urban 

characteristics, a grid-based approach was used. The grid-based approach 

provides a common unit for which all data inputs can be linked and effi -

ciently aggregated and summarized at many levels of geography. It also 

provides a method for gaining greater spatial detail to population characteristics that are only available at more aggregate spatial resolutions. A grid 

composed of 500-meter cells, with a unique value for each grid cell, was 

developed so that every half-kilometer region in the entire land area of the 

50 States is represented by its own distinct value. Based on this common grid 

cell identifi er, we developed supermarket distance and grid population characteristics (e.g., low income or urban) to the same common grid. 

To allocate census population data, the unique value grid was overlaid with 

the census block geographies to get the combined set of block–grid cell 

pieces. The area of each of these pieces is used to calculate the area-weighted 

average of block-level people or household counts at the grid-cell level. First, 

for each of the block–grid cell pieces, we calculated the share of each block’s 

area. For each of these block–grid cell pieces we multiplied this share by the 

population of the block and then aggregated the populations to the grid-cell 

level. 

While most of our data were population counts from the 2010 census, income 

and vehicle access data came from the 2006-2010 American Community 

Survey (ACS) and were only available at the more aggregate block-group 

level. These were apportioned to grid cells through a population and area 

weighting technique. First, the share of the block-group population that was 

low income was calculated. The share was then multiplied by the population 

for all the blocks that made up that block-group. The area weighting downcasting method discussed above was then used to allocate low-income populations to the grid-cell level.

Our downcasting approach is consistent with a simple aerial allocation 

method, which allocates population counts from census geographies (e.g., 

the number of people at the block, block-group, or tract level) evenly across 

that census geography.17 It is important to note that there may be error in the 

process of allocating populations and their characteristics to 1⁄2-kilometer 

grid cells (e.g., some people who actually live in one grid cell may be allocated to neighboring grid cells). We are not able to estimate the extent of this 

error. However, the grid-cell method that we use is likely to result in better 

estimates of distance to supermarkets by population characteristics than 

other methods, such as a centroid approach, in which the entire population 

of that census geography is assigned to the centroid of that geography (either 

geographic or population weighted). This is because the centroid method 

assigns distance from the centroid for the entire geography, which will likely 

result in even greater error. For example, using the centroid approach, the 

distance to the nearest supermarket at the tract centroid is the distance to 

the nearest supermarket for everyone in that tract. The grid-cell approach is 

likely to be most advantageous compared with a centroid approach in rural 

and less densely populated census geographies, which are larger in land area. 

17For variables not available at the 

block level (income, vehicle availability, and poverty rates), we use the 

more detailed block-level population 

distribution to allocate these larger 

aggregations to the grid level. 
46

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix B: Additional Tables With 

Estimates That Include Alaska and Hawaii

Table B1

National individual and area measures of income, including Alaska and Hawaii, 2010

Overall Urban Rural

Million Percent Million Percent Million Percent

Total low-income population 98.4 31.9 74.2 32.7 24.2 29.6

Total moderate/high-income population 210.3 68.1 152.8 67.3 57.5 70.4

Total population in low-income areas 96.6 31.3 76.0 33.5 20.5 25.1

Total population in moderate/high-income areas 212.2 68.7 151.0 66.5 61.1 74.9

Low-income population in low-income areas 51.3 16.6 40.9 18.0 10.4 12.7

Low-income population in moderate/highincome areas 47.1 15.3 33.3 14.7 13.8 16.9

Total population 308.7 100.0 227.1 100.0 81.7 100

Table B2

Change in total number of stores by type, including Alaska and Hawaii by area income level, 

2006 and 2010

Total U.S. Low-income areas Moderate/high-income areas

2006 2010 2010 2010

Million Percent Million Percent Millions Percent Million Percent

Store type

 Supercenter 3,099 7.5 3,432 8.6 1,072 7.3 2,360 9.4

 Supermarket 31,894 79.8 30,762 77.1 10,789 73.7 19,973 79.2

 Large grocery store 5,094 12.7 5,683 14.3 2,784 19.0 2,899 11.5

Total 40,087 100.0 39,877 100.0 14,645 100.0 25,232 100.0
47

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table B3

Supermarket access for housing units without vehicles, including Alaska and Hawaii: Overall and by area 

income level, 2010

Area characteristics

Total number of 

households

Households without access to a vehicle (distance to supermarket)

< 1⁄2 mile 1⁄2 mile to 1 mile > 1 mile

All areas

Low-income area 5.3 2.9 55.0 1.5 27.9 0.9 17.1 

Moderate/high-income area 4.9 2.5 50.8 1.3 25.6 1.2 23.5 

Urban areas

Low-income area 4.8 2.9 60.0 1.4 29.5 0.5 10.5 

Moderate/high-income area 4.2 2.4 57.8 1.2 28.1 0.6 14.1 

Rural areas

Low-income area 0.6 0.5 88.8 0.0 8.6 0.0 2.6 

Moderate/high-income area 0.7 0.7 94.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.7 

aHigh access = less than 0.5 mile; medium access = between 0.5 to 1.0 miles; low access = more than 1.0 mile.

bHigh access = less than 10 miles; medium access = between 10 to 20 miles; low access = more than 20 miles.
48

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Updated Estimates of Distance to Supermarkets Using 2010 Data / ERR-143

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table B4

Supermarket access for low-income areas compared with moderate/high-income areas, including 

Alaska and Hawaii, 2010

Area characteristics

20th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

Median 

distance 

to 

nearest 

supermarket

80th

percentile distance to 

nearest 

supermarket

< 1⁄2 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

1⁄2 mile to 1 

mile to nearest 

supermarket

> 1 mile 

to nearest 

supermarket

Total 

# of 

people

% of 

total 

population

Miles Miles Miles Million % 

(of row) Million % (of row) Million %(of row) Million %(of row)

All areasa 0.33 2.19

Low-income area 0.22 0.69 1.56 36.1 37.4 30.7 31.8 29.8 30.8 96.6 31.3

Moderate/highincome area 0.37 0.98 2.43 51.9 24.5 62.9 29.7 97.3 45.9 212.2 68.7

Urban areasa 308.7

Low-income area 0.15 0.62 0.96 34.6 45.5 28.5 37.5 12.9 17.0 76.0 24.6

Moderate/highincome area 0.29 0.69 1.28 48.9 32.4 57.1 37.8 45.1 29.8 151.0 48.9

Rural areasb 1.28 6.36

Low-income area 1.14 3.64 7.60 18.4 89.4 1.9 9.0 0.3 1.5 20.5 6.7

Moderate/highincome area 1.30 3.08 5.95 57.9 94.8 2.9 4.7 0.3 0.5 61.1 19.8

aHigh access = less than 0.5 mile; medium access = between 0.5 to 1.0 miles; low access = more than 1.0 mile.

bHigh access = less than 10 miles; medium access = between 10 to 20 miles; low access = more than 20 miles.