by Liam Johnson

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

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

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

Low Access of Population to Supermarkets: Neighborhoods where its 30% of its residents had poor access to supermarkets, which basically are the most common food storage facilities we have in the country, were selected. For the urban residents in the neighborhood they had to be within a mile of the supermarkets, while rural residents were within 10 miles of a supermarket.

Neighborhoods where its 30% of its residents had poor access to supermarkets, which basically are the most common food storage facilities we have in the country, were selected. For the urban residents in the neighborhood they had to be within a mile of the supermarkets, while rural residents were within 10 miles of a supermarket. Population of 100,000 and above: While it may not be the case, a large population during a time of crises puts more pressure on the residents as it can create a belief that there are few resources to go around. This might cause them to make more drastic actions in looking for food.

While it may not be the case, a large population during a time of crises puts more pressure on the residents as it can create a belief that there are few resources to go around. This might cause them to make more drastic actions in looking for food. Population Density: We looked at the number of people per household in each county, with the more densely populated areas likely to be more chaotic in food search.

We looked at the number of people per household in each county, with the more densely populated areas likely to be more chaotic in food search. Vulnerable Population: Finally, we also graded the neighborhoods by the percentage of vulnerable members of the society, mainly children under the age of 17 and seniors over the age of 65. These groups of people are likely to be dependent of others members of the society, and it might impact their ability when going out to forage for food.

Quick Stats

Georgia

State With Most Number of Major Neighborhoods In The List

(10) Gwinnett, GA

Neighborhood With Largest Number of Residents In The List

(805,321) Pinal, AZ

Neighborhood With The Largest Share of Vulnerable People

(45.79%)

Gwinnett, GA

Largest Number of Residents With Low Access

(326,505) Gwinnett, GA

Largest Number of Urban Residents With Low Access

(326,505) Rapides, LA

Largest Number of Rural Residents With Low Access

(20,448)

Bartow, GA

Largest Share of Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(85.68%) Bartow, GA

Largest Share of Urban Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(85.68%) Cass, ND

Largest Rate of Rural Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(70.92%)

Gwinnett, GA

Largest Number of Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(97,413) Gwinnett, GA

Largest Number of Urban Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(97,413) Navajo, AZ

Largest Number of Rural Kids (Age 0-17) With Low Access

(6,242)

Bartow, GA

Largest Share of Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(80.1%) Bartow, GA

Largest Share of Urban Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(80.1%) Cass, ND

Largest Share of Rural Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(71.47%)

Lake, FL

Largest Number of Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(26,837) Lake, FL

Largest Number of Urban Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(26,705) Mohave, AZ

Largest Number of Rural Seniors (Aged 65+) With Low Access

(5,017)

Worst Neighborhoods In Apolcalyptic America To Search For Food

55 Monroe, Pennsylvania 169,842

Total Population



30.13% Rate of Population With Low Access 54 Warren, New Jersey 108,692

Total Population



30.2% Rate of Population With Low Access 53 Bartow, Georgia 100,157

Total Population



42.56% Rate of Population With Low Access

52 Sussex, Delaware 197,145

Total Population



32.09% Rate of Population With Low Access 51 Sussex, New Jersey 149,265

Total Population



34.18% Rate of Population With Low Access 50 Rockingham, New Hampshire 295,223

Total Population



31.34% Rate of Population With Low Access

49 Baldwin, Alabama 182,265

Total Population



33.31% Rate of Population With Low Access 48 Lee, Alabama 140,247

Total Population



30.21% Rate of Population With Low Access 47 Coweta, Georgia 127,317

Total Population



32.92% Rate of Population With Low Access

46 Clermont, Ohio 197,363

Total Population



30.86% Rate of Population With Low Access 45 Porter, Indiana 164,343

Total Population



31.46% Rate of Population With Low Access 44 Fayette, Georgia 106,567

Total Population



30.25% Rate of Population With Low Access

43 Hampshire, Massachusetts 158,080

Total Population



30.28% Rate of Population With Low Access 42 Paulding, Georgia 142,324

Total Population



34.75% Rate of Population With Low Access 41 Carroll, Georgia 110,527

Total Population



35.04% Rate of Population With Low Access

40 Livingston, Louisiana

128,026

Total Population 61,809

Urban Population 66,217

Rural Population

30.48% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 59.12% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 1.83% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

39 Ascension, Louisiana

107,215

Total Population 88,364

Urban Population 18,851

Rural Population

32.96% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 65.91% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

38 Henry, Georgia

203,922

Total Population 160,239

Urban Population 43,683

Rural Population

33.11% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 66.22% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

37 Hendricks, Indiana

145,448

Total Population 113,570

Urban Population 31,878

Rural Population

31.78% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 63.56% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

36 Pickens, South Carolina

119,224

Total Population 83,249

Urban Population 35,975

Rural Population

33.79% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 67.19% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .38% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

35 St. Clair, Michigan

163,040

Total Population 93,991

Urban Population 69,049

Rural Population

31.37% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 62.66% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .08% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

34 Beaufort, South Carolina

162,233

Total Population 126,910

Urban Population 35,323

Rural Population

30.03% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 53.38% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 6.68% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

33 Faulkner, Arkansas

113,237

Total Population 70,157

Urban Population 43,080

Rural Population

32.2% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 63% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 1.41% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

32 Brunswick, North Carolina

107,431

Total Population 46,909

Urban Population 60,522

Rural Population

33.81% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 66.04% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 1.58% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

31 Lake, Florida

297,052

Total Population 178,736

Urban Population 118,316

Rural Population

30.92% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 61.05% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .79% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

30 Canadian, Oklahoma

115,541

Total Population 88,154

Urban Population 27,387

Rural Population

31% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 45.24% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 16.76% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

29 Ouachita, Louisiana

153,720

Total Population 111,550

Urban Population 42,170

Rural Population

35.65% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 54.89% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 16.4% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

28 Ellis, Texas

149,610

Total Population 87,788

Urban Population 61,822

Rural Population

32.19% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 64.31% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .08% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

27 Anderson, South Carolina

187,126

Total Population 110,780

Urban Population 76,346

Rural Population

30.03% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 54.11% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 5.94% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

26 Harrison, Mississippi

187,105

Total Population 134,250

Urban Population 52,855

Rural Population

32.96% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 57.95% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 7.97% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

25 Forsyth, Georgia

175,511

Total Population 157,059

Urban Population 18,452

Rural Population

32.94% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 65.87% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

24 Yavapai, Arizona

211,033

Total Population 110,762

Urban Population 100,271

Rural Population

36.17% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 52.4% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 19.93% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

23 Coconino, Arizona

134,421

Total Population 85,880

Urban Population 48,541

Rural Population

33.81% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 28.18% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 39.45% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

22 Tangipahoa, Louisiana

121,097

Total Population 69,497

Urban Population 51,600

Rural Population

34.3% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 65.64% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 2.95% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

21 Citrus, Florida

141,236

Total Population 87,249

Urban Population 53,987

Rural Population

35.14% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 69.9% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .39% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

20 DeSoto, Mississippi

161,252

Total Population 130,144

Urban Population 31,108

Rural Population

34.43% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 60.12% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 8.74% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

19 Montgomery, Tennessee

172,331

Total Population 141,824

Urban Population 30,507

Rural Population

30.61% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 57.82% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 3.39% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

18 Kendall, Illinois

114,736

Total Population 55,198

Urban Population 59,538

Rural Population

31.98% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 63.82% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access .14% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

17 Hawaii, Hawaii

185,079

Total Population 73,512

Urban Population 111,567

Rural Population

37.6% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 64.16% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 11.04% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

16 Muscogee, Georgia

189,885

Total Population 189,885

Urban Population -

Rural Population

33.84% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 33.84% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

15 Rapides, Louisiana

131,613

Total Population 66,756

Urban Population 64,857

Rural Population

34.25% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 38.86% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 29.64% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

14 Parker, Texas

116,927

Total Population 38,061

Urban Population 78,866

Rural Population

34.52% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 65.12% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 3.93% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

13 Cobb, Georgia

688,078

Total Population 688,078

Urban Population -

Rural Population

40.33% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 40.33% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

12 Rockland, New York

311,687

Total Population 311,687

Urban Population -

Rural Population

35.2% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 35.2% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

11 San Juan, New Mexico

130,044

Total Population 77,998

Urban Population 52,046

Rural Population

34.33% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 43.78% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 24.88% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

10 Cochise, Arizona

131,346

Total Population 79,843

Urban Population 51,503

Rural Population

40.44% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 48.23% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 32.66% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

26,584 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 18,618 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 7,965 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

45% Rate of Kids With Low Access 49.19% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 35.2% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

11,962

Kids With Poor Acccess 9,158

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 2,803

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

25,019 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 14,677 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 10,341 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

43.74% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 50.29% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 34.44% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

10,942

Seniors With Poor Acccess 7,381

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 3,562

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

9 Guadalupe, Texas

131,533

Total Population 88,963

Urban Population 42,570

Rural Population

36.38% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 70.25% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 2.5% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

38,276 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 27,615 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 10,661 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

51.61% Rate of Kids With Low Access 70.62% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 2.37% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,755

Kids With Poor Acccess 19,503

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 252

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

14,482 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 7,843 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 6,638 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

38.11% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 68.03% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 2.77% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

5,520

Seniors With Poor Acccess 5,336

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 184

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

8 Pueblo, Colorado

159,063

Total Population 137,225

Urban Population 21,838

Rural Population

41.14% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 52.57% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 29.71% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

39,267 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 32,802 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 6,465 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

48.67% Rate of Kids With Low Access 52.9% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 27.21% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,112

Kids With Poor Acccess 17,353

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 1,759

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

25,364 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 20,669 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 4,695 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

47.01% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 50.06% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 33.58% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

11,923

Seniors With Poor Acccess 10,346

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,577

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

7 Williamson, Texas

422,679

Total Population 362,407

Urban Population 60,272

Rural Population

39.37% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 57.2% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 21.53% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

122,831 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 107,959 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 14,872 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

53.44% Rate of Kids With Low Access 57.85% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 21.42% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

65,644

Kids With Poor Acccess 62,459

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 3,185

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

40,883 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 34,974 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 5,909 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

50.77% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 56.02% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 19.7% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

20,755

Seniors With Poor Acccess 19,592

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,164

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

6 Cass, North Dakota

149,778

Total Population 135,850

Urban Population 13,928

Rural Population

42.12% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 13.63% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 70.61% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

50,678 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 47,111 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 3,567 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

20.63% Rate of Kids With Low Access 16.82% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 70.92% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

10,455

Kids With Poor Acccess 7,925

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 2,530

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

14,243 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 12,543 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 1,701 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

21.34% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 14.54% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 71.47% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

3,040

Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,824

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,216

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

5 Pinal, Arizona

375,770

Total Population 265,771

Urban Population 109,999

Rural Population

31.76% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 59.06% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 4.47% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

108,289 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 79,996 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 28,293 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

45.55% Rate of Kids With Low Access 60.13% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 4.33% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

49,324

Kids With Poor Acccess 48,098

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 1,226

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

63,778 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 42,258 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 21,520 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

39.45% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 57.17% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 4.66% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

25,163

Seniors With Poor Acccess 24,161

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,002

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

4 Mohave, Arizona

200,186

Total Population 135,128

Urban Population 65,058

Rural Population

41.58% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 54.24% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 28.92% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

37,716 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 28,340 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 9,376 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

46.32% Rate of Kids With Low Access 53.28% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 25.27% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

17,470

Kids With Poor Acccess 15,101

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 2,369

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

48,682 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 32,160 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 16,522 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

47.07% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 55.65% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 30.37% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

22,915

Seniors With Poor Acccess 17,898

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 5,018

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

3 Gwinnett, Georgia

805,321

Total Population 805,321

Urban Population -

Rural Population

34.49% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 34.49% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access % Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

278,836 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 278,836 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) - Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

34.94% Rate of Kids With Low Access 34.94% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access % Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

97,413

Kids With Poor Acccess 97,413

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess -

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

67,421 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 67,421 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) - Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

33.64% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 33.64% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access % Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

22,683

Seniors With Poor Acccess 22,683

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess -

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

2 Navajo, Arizona

107,449

Total Population 32,914

Urban Population 74,535

Rural Population

42.03% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 53.45% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 30.62% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

29,867 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 9,457 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 20,410 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

37.66% Rate of Kids With Low Access 52.92% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 30.58% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

11,247

Kids With Poor Acccess 5,005

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 6,242

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

10,825 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 3,663 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 7,161 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

39.44% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 53.6% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 32.19% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

4,269

Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,963

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 2,305

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

1 Sandoval, New Mexico

131,561

Total Population 99,967

Urban Population 31,594

Rural Population

50.34% Rate of Total Population With Low Access 53.85% Rate of Total Urban Population With Low Access 46.84% Rate of Rural Population With Low Access

Population Urbanization Housing Units

36,606 Estimated Total Number of Kids (2010) 29,663 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Urban Residences (2010) 6,944 Estimated Total Number of Kids In Rural Residences (2010)

53.84% Rate of Kids With Low Access 55.46% Rate of Urban Kids With Low Access 46.89% Rate of Rural Kids With Low Access

19,707

Kids With Poor Acccess 16,452

Urban Kids With Poor Acccess 3,255

Rural Kids With Poor Acccess

13,588 Estimated Total Number of Seniors (2010) 10,455 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Urban Residences (2010) 3,133 Estimated Total Number of Seniors In Rural Residences (2010)

50.86% Rate of Seniors With Low Access 52.07% Rate of Urban Seniors With Low Access 46.83% Rate of Rural Seniors With Low Access

6,911

Seniors With Poor Acccess 5,444

Urban Seniors With Poor Acccess 1,467

Rural Seniors With Poor Acccess

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET

Source: O*NET