Among the measures used to evaluate states' natural environments are drinking water quality, air quality and total toxic chemical pollution per square. The ranking also considers how much each state puts its citizens at risk for long-term, chronic health effects from pollution. Social environment, on the other hand, investigates how involved people are in their communities. Two of the measures, community engagement and social support, are based on surveys where people shared how often they participate in community events and how often they spend time with family members, friends and work colleagues. Political involvement was also determined by evaluating average voter turnout at the 2016 presidential and congressional elections.
North Dakota -- a desolate wind-swept plain littered with fracking wells -- is #1 for Quality of Life, which makes me seriously question the metrics used here.
It doesn't seem too unreasonable that states with lower populations would rank so favorably given the criteria described.
Less people could mean less air pollution and fewer contaminants in municipal water supplies from runoff. This would theoretically decrease the occurrence of pollution related illness. I would imagine that fracking in ND, though a huge business, only occurs in a few key areas of the state, thus limiting it's negative affects on quality of life.
Smaller communities are also known for their close social circles. When there are only a handful of people in a town, it is not uncommon to interact with the same individuals regularly. If you look at the rankings, Alaska ranks number one in the "Social Environment" category. Only in a large city can one feel alone despite being surrounded by people everywhere they go.
I do agree with your point though. The criteria is very narrow and doesn't discuss many of the aspects of what "quality of life" is in the minds of most people. What about entertainment? Employment? Poverty levels? Prices? These things are important to people and I think fall under the umbrella of "quality of life" in general.
I'd imagine those other factors you cited wouldn't favor California by all that much, entertainment being the exception (and one narrowly concentrated in certain metropolitan areas); in my experience and observation (having lived in California all my life up until about a year ago), employment, poverty levels, and prices are all dismal at best.
That's an interesting point about social environment and engagement. As a native Californian, I struggled socially when I was living in the DC metro area for 5 years. Simply put, it was the weather. If there was rain (which was nothing like the light sprinkle I was used to) or a slight dusting of snow, I did not want to go out. I slipped on icy sidewalks (breaking my tailbone); got regularly drenched while walking to the metro; and had my fair share of heart-stopping moments driving in inclement weather. As someone who's already introverted, it became very easy for me to just hole up in my apartment.
Wow, after a year you could have learned how to deal with the weather better. Better shoes, defensive driving classes, etc. All for less than the cost of one month's rent.
I live in California and love it, but bad weather is just something you need a few tools to deal with.
Have you ever lived in a place like that? With real community? Neighbors that care about you? Who know who you are? Who notice if you are having an issue? Who go out of their way to help you if you need it?
Could you, right now, walk over to a neighbor and say "I need to go to xxx for reason xxx, could you watch my kids for 2 days?", and expect them to either say yes, or help you find someone who can?
While I don’t have kids, a friend of mine in San Francisco does. She’s good friends with the neighbors who have a son the same age as hers. If she had to leave suddenly, I’m certain they’d do anything they could to help.
Outside of Silicon Valley where I grew up, in the Santa Cruz mountains, we also had neighbors we could trust who would help us if they could.
I do feel that Silicon Valley is less friendly than nearby Santa Cruz, but anecdotally we do have neighbors who will help.
Knowing a few neighbors is different from knowing entire community, participating in town events, walking around the town and seeing familiar faces everywhere.
Certainly. That just isn’t what was discussed in the original comment. If it’s about knowing lots of your neighbors then I would say I haven’t had that in California.
Among the measures used to evaluate states' natural environments are drinking water quality, air quality and total toxic chemical pollution per square. The ranking also considers how much each state puts its citizens at risk for long-term, chronic health effects from pollution. Social environment, on the other hand, investigates how involved people are in their communities. Two of the measures, community engagement and social support, are based on surveys where people shared how often they participate in community events and how often they spend time with family members, friends and work colleagues. Political involvement was also determined by evaluating average voter turnout at the 2016 presidential and congressional elections.
North Dakota -- a desolate wind-swept plain littered with fracking wells -- is #1 for Quality of Life, which makes me seriously question the metrics used here.