Best Cities for Forest and Conservation Workerss
Cities ranked by purchasing power — where forest and conservation workerss get the most value from their salary after accounting for cost of living. A score above 1.00 means better than national average.
How we calculate this: City Score = (Local Salary ÷ National Median) ÷ (Local Cost ÷ National Avg Cost). A score of 1.20 means 20% better purchasing power than average.
| # | Location | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | IdahoState | 1.41 |
| 2 | Pittsburgh, PAMetro | 1.27 |
| 3 | ArkansasState | 1.26 |
| 4 | OhioState | 1.23 |
| 5 | VirginiaState | 1.21 |
| 6 | PennsylvaniaState | 1.19 |
| 7 | HawaiiState | 1.17 |
| 8 | Columbus, OHMetro | 1.17 |
| 9 | South CarolinaState | 1.10 |
| 10 | MassachusettsState | 1.09 |
| 11 | Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NHMetro | 1.03 |
| 12 | OregonState | 1.02 |
| 13 | LouisianaState | 1.01 |
| 14 | TennesseeState | 1.01 |
| 15 | MissouriState | 0.96 |
| 16 | South DakotaState | 0.96 |
| 17 | WashingtonState | 0.95 |
| 18 | MinnesotaState | 0.92 |
| 19 | New MexicoState | 0.91 |
| 20 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WAMetro | 0.91 |
| 21 | CaliforniaState | 0.90 |
| 22 | WisconsinState | 0.90 |
| 23 | New JerseyState | 0.88 |
| 24 | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WAMetro | 0.88 |
| 25 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MDMetro | 0.87 |
| 26 | IowaState | 0.86 |
| 27 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CAMetro | 0.86 |
| 28 | GeorgiaState | 0.84 |
| 29 | FloridaState | 0.83 |
| 30 | ColoradoState | 0.82 |
| 31 | NevadaState | 0.82 |
| 32 | MontanaState | 0.77 |
| 33 | TexasState | 0.73 |
| 34 | ConnecticutState | 0.72 |
Data Sources: Salary: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (OEWS). Cost of Living: BEA Regional Price Parities (2024). Rent: HUD Fair Market Rents (FY2025).