Have you ever considered that maybe you could have a better life if you lived somewhere else, far away from where you live now? Well, it turns out that not all cities are made equal; people who live in certain cities are much more likely to enjoy less health and wellness.
One city where we see a lot of people who do a lot of walking, which is healthier for you is New York, but it may not be as healthy because of all the congestion, traffic and pollution.
A new ranking from Gallup and Healthways researchers reveals which U.S. metro areas have the highest and lowest well-being, based on healthy behaviors, emotional and physical health, work environment, access to basic services and life evaluation.
Researchers found some differences between the metro areas that scored higher for well-being and those that scored lower. Those that scored higher had better physical health — in that they had lower hypertension, obesity and diabetes rates — and they also had more positive views of their living environment (seeing it as “getting better as a place to live”).
Depression rates were also lower and “positive workplaces” were more common in the metro areas with higher well-being. People living in these areas were also more likely to exercise and eat fruits and vegetables.
The 11 metro areas that scored lowest for overall well-being are:
1. Charleston, W.Va., which scored a 60.8.
2. Huntington-Ashland, W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio, which scored a 61.2.
3. Mobile, Ala., which scored a 62.4.
4. Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas, which scored a 62.5.
5. Hickory-Lenoir-Morgantown, N.C., which scored a 62.7.
6. Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla., which scored a 62.9.
7. Bakersfield, Calif., which scored a 63.
8. Evansville, Ind.-Ky., which scored a 63.1.
9. Rockford, Ill., which scored a 63.1.
10. Spartanburg, S.C., which scored a 63.4.
11. Utica-Rome, N.Y., which scored a 63.4.
To see which metro areas ranked the highest for well-being, click here