New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Measuring Beauty

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Books such as Places Rated Almanac and America's Most Charming Towns and Villages have long been publishing staples, but in recent years the U.S. government has joined the trend by rating each county in the contiguous 48 states in terms of its natural amenities. The ratings, made by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are based on six measures: January temperature, January sunshine, temperature gain between January and July (less is better), July humidity, water area, and topographic variation.

The map, which summarizes the ratings, reveals a distinct pattern, with the western states and southern Florida at the top of the scale and scoring well on most measures. In contrast, the upper Midwest, from Ohio through the Dakotas, shows a relative lack of amenities. This region, of course, tends to have cold winters. But even when January temperatures are removed from the equation, the ratings in the region do not improve significantly (the region generally lacks topographic variation). Among the few northern areas to rank high is Glacier County, Montana, which includes the eastern face of the Rocky Mountains, extensive plains area, buttes, lakes and rivers, together with diverse recreational opportunities such as fishing, skiing and big game hunting. The eastern third of the country, aside from Florida, has no top-rated counties except for several in southern Appalachia, which has a hospitable climate, many lakes and rivers, and considerable topographic diversity.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe