Signature · 9.5% low-access (19th pct)
Martin County, NC
Martin County lands in the lower national band on low-access (9.5%); supermarket distance is less binding than in the upper band, though local tracts can still diverge.
- 9.5%
- low-access pop.
- 1
- food-desert tracts
- 20.1%
- on SNAP
- 22K
- residents (ACS 2024)
USDA FARA access plate
County Martin County, NC
LA-MODERATE · BELOW-NATIONAL · LILA-SINGLE · SNAP-HEAVY · VEH-TYPICAL · DENSITY-MIXED
- LA-MODERATE 9.5% low-access
- BELOW-NATIONAL -12.6 pts vs US
- LILA-SINGLE 1 food-desert tract
- SNAP-HEAVY 20.1% SNAP
- VEH-TYPICAL 8.6% no vehicle
- DENSITY-MIXED 17% tracts LILA
Nearest low-access peer: Haywood County (+ 0.0 pts)
Lower-band low-access
Martin County lands in the lower national band (9.5%, #2,521 of 3,079); local tracts can still diverge from the county mean.
- #2,521
- national by low-access %
- #65
- in NC
- 1
- low-access tracts
- 976
- food-desert residents
Lower-band county means still leave tract outliers on the table below.
Signature read: 9.5% low-access (19th pct) (-12.6 pts vs U.S. low-access).
How Martin County compares nationally
Martin County lands in the middle of the national distribution: a 9.5% low-access share that beats 19% of the 3,133 U.S. counties with USDA data (rank #2,523).
Martin County's lower-band USDA tier split
6 census tracts grouped by USDA classification · 1 LILA.
By USDA urbanicity classification, Martin County has 1 urban and 5 rural census tracts. The 1-mile (urban) vs 10-mile (rural) distance threshold above applies per tract, so a county's access rate reflects this mix.
Martin County vs nearby low low-access peers
Poles + nearest peers in North Carolina, not a full county-board reprint
- Hyde
Hyde 60.5%
60.5 % low-access
- Martin 9.5
Martin 9.5%
9.5 % low-access
- Haywood 9.5
Haywood 9.5%
9.5 % low-access
- Surry 9.3
Surry 9.3%
9.3 % low-access
- Wilson 9.3
Wilson 9.3%
9.3 % low-access
- Caswell 8.7
Caswell 8.7%
8.7 % low-access
- Greene 0.1
Greene 0.1%
0.1 % low-access
FARA 2019 · lower low-access
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Census Tracts | 6 |
| Atlas Population (2010 basis) | 24,505 |
| Low-Access Tracts | 1 |
| Food-Desert Tracts (low-income & low-access) | 1 |
| Low-Access Population | 2,319 |
| Low-Access Share | 9.5%well below the national average |
| Low-Income & Low-Access Population | 976 |
ACS 2024 · elevated SNAP band
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Population | 21,644 |
| Median Household Income | $48,578 |
| Poverty Rate | 20.4%above the national average |
| SNAP Households | 1,912 |
| SNAP Participation Rate | 20.1%well above the national average |
| Households Without a Vehicle | 8.6%near the national average |
| Group-Quarters Population | 0.8% |
Thick SNAP store book in Martin County
Martin County has 26 stores currently authorized to accept SNAP (EBT) benefits, across 4 store categories. Convenience Store lead with 12 locations (46% of the total), followed by combination grocery/other.
Convenience Store · 12
- cherry's cupboard, williamston
- duck thru food store 53, hamilton
- handy mart 4724, robersonville
- jamesville mini mart, jamesville
- murphy express 8507, williamston
- new town one stop tobacco shop, robersonville
- speedway 6964, oak city
- speedway 6965, williamston
- speedway 8212, williamston
- speedway 8225, williamston
- speedway 8671, williamston
- williamston family fare 457, williamston
Combination Grocery/Other · 10
- dollar general 15402, jamesville
- dollar general 18161, williamston
- dollar general 2895, williamston
- dollar general 30745, williamston
- dollar tree 367, williamston
- dollar tree 8050, robersonville
- family dollar 13667, williamston
- family dollar store 172, williamston
- family dollar store 8587, oak city
- roses 495, williamston
Super Store · 2
- piggly wiggly 76, williamston
- walmart supercenter 1641, williamston
Supermarket · 2
- food lion 2558, robersonville
- food lion 415, williamston
Source: USDA SNAP Retailer Locator (currently authorized stores, a live third population, not the 2019 Atlas or ACS 2024 snapshot above).
Other Counties in North Carolina
One of 99 counties in North Carolina, 6 are shown here.
Compare Martin County vs Alamance County → · All North Carolina counties →
Counties near Martin County's lower low-access or SNAP band
Two USDA/ACS-derived peer sets for Martin County, both outside North Carolina so the neighborhoods are not the same-state county list above.
Similar low-access share
Nearest low-access rates outside NC (9.5% here).
- Evangeline Parish, LA · 9.5% low-access
- Evangeline Parish, LA · 9.5% low-access
- Casey County, KY · 9.5% low-access
- Casey County, KY · 9.5% low-access
Similar SNAP participation
Nearest household SNAP rates outside NC (20.1% here).
- Washington County, MO · 20.1% SNAP
- Washington County, MO · 20.1% SNAP
- Westmoreland County, VA · 20.1% SNAP
- Westmoreland County, VA · 20.1% SNAP
Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) + Census ACS 2024 SNAP. Peers floor at 10,000 residents so stub counties cannot own the match.
Martin County inside a lower low-access state context
Martin County sits inside North Carolina (ringed). Each state is colored by population-weighted low-access; click any state to compare.
USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019), population-weighted · Census ACS 2024 context
Read with this county
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Access Research Atlas (2019) · U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2024 5-Year Estimates · methodology · compiled .
PlainFoodAccess renders this county profile directly from the USDA Food Access Research Atlas (2019) and U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (2024 5-year estimates), no number is typed in by an editor. Figures for Martin County, NC are computed from the joined Atlas and ACS records for FIPS 37117. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-06-23. Primary sources: USDA Food Access Research Atlas and Census ACS 5-year estimates.
Note: This page presents public USDA and Census data for informational purposes and is not professional advice. Figures reflect the cited dataset vintages and may differ from the most recent local conditions. How this data is sourced & verified.