Median gross rent and Natural amenities scale
Where Median gross rent is higher, Natural amenities scale tends to be higher. The link is strong: +0.61 across 3,012 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 39 states, the middle value of the link is +0.13.
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
Median gross rent
The rent paid by the middle renting household, plus any utilities the renter pays. That is why it is called 'gross' rent, not just the rent in the lease.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B25064_001
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
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 median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| San Mateo County, CA | $2,893 | 8.19 |
| Santa Clara County, CA | $2,814 | 5.95 |
| Marin County, CA | $2,584 | 8.14 |
| San Francisco County, CA | $2,419 | 10.5 |
| Orange County, CA | $2,352 | 8.74 |
| Lowest | ||
| Issaquena County, MS | $253 | -0.89 |
| Cottle County, TX | $323 | -0.19 |
| Hardin County, IL | $342 | 0.07 |
| Worth County, MO | $353 | -1.56 |
| Sheridan County, ND | $373 | -1.89 |
By natural amenities scale
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Ventura County, CA | $2,248 | 11.2 |
| Humboldt County, CA | $1,249 | 11.2 |
| Santa Barbara County, CA | $2,050 | 11 |
| Mendocino County, CA | $1,325 | 10.9 |
| Del Norte County, CA | $1,182 | 10.8 |
| Lowest | ||
| Red Lake County, MN | $628 | -6.4 |
| Wilkin County, MN | $561 | -6.1 |
| Tipton County, IN | $854 | -5.4 |
| Norman County, MN | $752 | -5.37 |
| Pembina County, ND | $692 | -5.18 |
States — Natural amenities scale is not published for states
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| California | $1,956 | — |
| Hawaii | $1,938 | — |
| District of Columbia | $1,900 | — |
| Colorado | $1,693 | — |
| Massachusetts | $1,687 | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Puerto Rico | $562 | — |
| West Virginia | $850 | — |
| South Dakota | $912 | — |
| Arkansas | $914 | — |
| Mississippi | $923 | — |
Cities and towns — Natural amenities scale is not published for cities and towns
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 61 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| Key Biscayne village, FL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Nocatee CDP, FL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Hickam Housing CDP, HI | $3,500 or more | — |
| Inverness village, IL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lincolnwood village, IL | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Guánica zona urbana, PR | $300 | — |
| Aguadilla zona urbana, PR | $336 | — |
| San Germán zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
| Juana Díaz zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
| Guayama zona urbana, PR | $404 | — |
ZIP codes — Natural amenities scale is not published for ZIP codes
By median gross rent
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest — 68 are at $3,500 or more; five shown. | ||
| ZIP 10005 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10007 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10018 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10069 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| ZIP 10280 (New York city, NY) | $3,500 or more | — |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 00913 (San Juan zona urbana, PR) | $268 | — |
| ZIP 00653 (Guánica Municipio, PR) | $326 | — |
| ZIP 00670 (Las Marías Municipio, PR) | $355 | — |
| ZIP 00638 (Ciales Municipio, PR) | $404 | — |
| ZIP 00606 (Maricao Municipio, PR) | $405 | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,026 counties: the five with far more natural amenities scale than their median gross rent would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Median gross rent | Natural amenities scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Humboldt County, CA | $1,249 | 11.2 |
| Del Norte County, CA | $1,182 | 10.8 |
| Mendocino County, CA | $1,325 | 10.9 |
| Santa Barbara County, CA | $2,050 | 11 |
| Sierra County, NM | $695 | 6.72 |
| Below the line | ||
| Arlington County, VA | $2,275 | -2.25 |
| Red Lake County, MN | $628 | -6.4 |
| Kendall County, IL | $1,763 | -2.85 |
| Fairfax County, VA | $2,230 | -1.31 |
| Dodge County, MN | $1,007 | -5.08 |
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 | +0.401 | 3,012 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.609 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.548 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.167 | 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 | +0.776 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 276 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.130 | the link worked out inside each of 39 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.457 | 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 = 3.3e-305. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 3.1e-10. 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 6.4e-304.
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 +0.55 (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
- Median gross rent and Median household income — +0.64
- Median home value and Natural amenities scale — +0.61
- Median gross rent and Median home value — +0.59
- Natural amenities scale and House price index (2000 = 100) — +0.53
- Natural amenities scale and Mainline Protestant adherents — -0.52
- Median gross rent and Share foreign-born — +0.49
- Natural amenities scale and Community resilience to disasters — -0.48
- Median gross rent and House price index (2000 = 100) — +0.47
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 Median gross rent and Natural amenities scale