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.
#LocationScore
1IdahoState1.41
2Pittsburgh, PAMetro1.27
3ArkansasState1.26
4OhioState1.23
5VirginiaState1.21
6PennsylvaniaState1.19
7HawaiiState1.17
8Columbus, OHMetro1.17
9South CarolinaState1.10
10MassachusettsState1.09
11Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NHMetro1.03
12OregonState1.02
13LouisianaState1.01
14TennesseeState1.01
15MissouriState0.96
16South DakotaState0.96
17WashingtonState0.95
18MinnesotaState0.92
19New MexicoState0.91
20Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WAMetro0.91
21CaliforniaState0.90
22WisconsinState0.90
23New JerseyState0.88
24Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WAMetro0.88
25Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MDMetro0.87
26IowaState0.86
27Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CAMetro0.86
28GeorgiaState0.84
29FloridaState0.83
30ColoradoState0.82
31NevadaState0.82
32MontanaState0.77
33TexasState0.73
34ConnecticutState0.72
Data Sources: Salary: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (OEWS). Cost of Living: BEA Regional Price Parities (2024). Rent: HUD Fair Market Rents (FY2025).