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.
This kind of reasoning go only so far. While you are technically correct, the difference that something like batting order makes is marginal in the long run. The advantage of a fully optimized vs. a totally random batting order would equate to approximately 1-2 additional win(s) over the span of a full 162 game season.
That being said... one win can be the difference between a playoff spot or not, so it clearly does matter. I'm just trying to emphasize that the teamwork aspect of the offense is minimal, as a lineup of hitters with solid statistics is more important than the order in which they bat.
However, the defensive side of things is much more tricky to measure. Baseball statistics still have a difficult time calculating the value (for better or worse) of a player's defense and nobody is arguing that it doesn't significantly affect a team's performance.
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.