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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture 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
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
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
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
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
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
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET
Source: O*NET