Natural amenities scale and Frequent physical distress
Where Natural amenities scale is higher, Frequent physical distress tends to be higher. The link is moderate: +0.41 across 2,856 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 37 states, the middle value of the link is -0.14.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Natural amenities scale
A score for the natural features most people say they like in a place to live: warm, sunny winters, mild summers that are not humid, hills or mountains, and lakes or coast. It adds up six scores, each showing how far a county is above or below the average county, so 0 is average and nine in ten counties fall between -4 and +4. The weather parts are averages for 1941 to 1970. It covers the lower 48 states, not Alaska or Hawaii.
USDA ERS Natural Amenities Scale · USDA ERS natural amenities scale, Scale
Frequent physical distress
The estimated percentage of adults who report poor physical health on 14 or more days a month. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.
CDC PLACES · PLACES PHLTH, age-adjusted
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By natural amenities scale
| Natural amenities scale | Frequent physical distress | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Ventura County, CA | 11.2 | 12.5% |
| Humboldt County, CA | 11.2 | 14.3% |
| Santa Barbara County, CA | 11 | 13.8% |
| Mendocino County, CA | 10.9 | 14.7% |
| Del Norte County, CA | 10.8 | 14.7% |
| Lowest | ||
| Red Lake County, MN | -6.4 | 11.8% |
| Wilkin County, MN | -6.1 | 12.4% |
| Tipton County, IN | -5.4 | 12.9% |
| Norman County, MN | -5.37 | 12.2% |
| Pembina County, ND | -5.18 | 12.1% |
By frequent physical distress
| Natural amenities scale | Frequent physical distress | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | -0.1 | 23.6% |
| Todd County, SD | -0.98 | 22.7% |
| McKinley County, NM | 3.39 | 21.8% |
| Sioux County, ND | -0.96 | 21.4% |
| Dimmit County, TX | 0.48 | 20.8% |
| Lowest | ||
| Howard County, MD | -1.42 | 8.9% |
| Arlington County, VA | -2.25 | 9% |
| Los Alamos County, NM | 3.04 | 9% |
| Douglas County, CO | 5.15 | 9.1% |
| Johnson County, KS | -1.69 | 9.1% |
Metro areas — Natural amenities scale is not published for metro areas
By frequent physical distress
| Natural amenities scale | Frequent physical distress | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Gallup, NM | — | 21.8% |
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | — | 20.2% |
| Zapata, TX | — | 19.9% |
| Raymondville, TX | — | 18.7% |
| Deming, NM | — | 18.6% |
| Lowest | ||
| Los Alamos, NM | — | 9% |
| Raleigh-Cary, NC | — | 9.84% |
| Nantucket, MA | — | 9.9% |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | — | 9.92% |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | — | 10.1% |
Cities and towns — Natural amenities scale is not published for cities and towns
By frequent physical distress
| Natural amenities scale | Frequent physical distress | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| East Bakersfield CDP, CA | — | 23.7% |
| Lamont CDP, CA | — | 23.6% |
| Kiryas Joel village, NY | — | 22.9% |
| Anthony city, NM | — | 22.8% |
| Zuni Pueblo CDP, NM | — | 22.5% |
| Lowest | ||
| West University Place city, TX | — | 7% |
| Morrisville town, NC | — | 7% |
| Scarsdale village, NY | — | 7.1% |
| Short Hills CDP, NJ | — | 7.1% |
| Princeton Meadows CDP, NJ | — | 7.1% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,874 counties: the five with far more frequent physical distress than their natural amenities scale would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Natural amenities scale | Frequent physical distress | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | -0.1 | 23.6% |
| Todd County, SD | -0.98 | 22.7% |
| McKinley County, NM | 3.39 | 21.8% |
| Sioux County, ND | -0.96 | 21.4% |
| Dimmit County, TX | 0.48 | 20.8% |
| Below the line | ||
| Douglas County, CO | 5.15 | 9.1% |
| Los Alamos County, NM | 3.04 | 9% |
| Howard County, MD | -1.42 | 8.9% |
| San Francisco County, CA | 10.5 | 10% |
| Teton County, WY | 5.39 | 9.6% |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.104 | 2,856 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.406 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.378 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.013 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | +0.433 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 253 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | -0.142 | the link worked out inside each of 37 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.426 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 8.8e-114. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 2.2e-9. The site tested 29,403 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 9.5e-113.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.41 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.
Related pairs
- Frequent physical distress and Material security score — -0.65
- Median home value and Natural amenities scale — +0.61
- Median gross rent and Natural amenities scale — +0.61
- Frequent physical distress and Social connection score — -0.56
- Frequent physical distress and Returns claiming the earned income credit — +0.54
- Natural amenities scale and House price index (2000 = 100) — +0.53
- Natural amenities scale and Mainline Protestant adherents — -0.52
- Frequent physical distress and Premature mortality — +0.50
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Natural amenities scale and Frequent physical distress