Could a Clean City Mean More than Being Clean? March 18, 2008
Posted by Reginald Johnson in Culture, Environment, Life, News, Odd News.add a comment
Some civil engineers, politician and even scientists believe there is a distinct link between clean cities and quality of life. They say having a clean city improves its citizenry quality of life.
Do people who live in these clean cities have a better life than those living in dirty cities? That’s a great question. The hard part is finding an answer. I spoke with people from various NGOs and governmental agencies: from NHRA, USCC, DOL, DOHHS and NLC. After looking at the most recent list of America’s Cleanest Cities, I attempt to examine how well the people living in the states might be.
Forbes Magazine has a study on America’s cleanest cities. To do their ranking, they focused on air, water, and land pollution. Air quality is a huge health factor for everyone – moreso for urban residents. So Forbes made it a very big deal in their study. This is taken from Forbes’ website:
“To determine the cleanest major cities in the U.S., we initially measured the rankings for air pollution and ozone levels among all 49 U.S. metro areas with populations exceeding 1 million, using data from the American Lung Association. After eliminating those areas that ranked poorest in air quality, we measured the remaining 29 cities on the additional but less-weighted factors of water quality and per-capita spending on Superfund site cleanup and solid-waste management. From this list, we drew our top 10.
All figures were based on Metropolitan Statistical Areas (which include the city and surrounding area) with the exception of waste-management spending, which was based exclusively on the city proper.
Water cleanliness rankings were derived from statistics compiled by the University of Cincinnati from local reports of EPA violations. Metros were ranked based on reports of bacteria, chlorine byproducts and chemicals or metals such as arsenic, copper and lead in the drinking water. Operational expenditures for solid-waste management are recorded at city-data.com.
Beyond health, cleanliness appears to have an important economic impact. While nine of our 10 cleanest cities showed population increases between 2000 and 2006, major metro areas losing residents over that period tend to rank near the bottom of the cleanliness list; they include Philadelphia, Chicago, Buffalo, N.Y., and Detroit. Many factors, notably economic ones, go into a person’s choice to move, of course. But a reputation for clean air, water and streets seems to count as well.”
It seemed like the most interesting fact I discovered is that the state of Florida has the most cities that landed in the top 10. Florida has always been a state that has had some of the most attractive weather – even during the terrible hurricane season. The Sunshine State simply dominated the list, by holding onto four of the spots.
Topping the list was the home of the NBA’s Heat. I am talking about Miami, Florida. I’ve never been to Miami; but apparently it’s the place to go visit. The areas around the city; like Weston, Parkland, Wellington, Cooper City; are all very clean and pleasant areas. The city oganisers take time to keep it clean and there are signs posted all over the city urging tourists and residents to help keep it clean. Miami overall have healthy ozone levels and low pollution. The beaches around the city are well kept and water levels there are perfect. As far as quality of life goes….it’s Miami! Its 70 degrees year round. What do you think your quality of life would be?!
Number two on the list is located in the northwest. Good old’ Seattle, Washington. Thanks to Mother Nature (the Cascade Mountains), the city has low pollution. The people there are big on getting involved and taking care of their city. Local city government there spends more per capita on waste management than any major city. I’ve been to Seattle many many moons ago. I have to say that it felt like a tree-hugger’s paradise. The weather may not be the most exciting; but people there make the best of it. Quality of life….hmmm. That’s a toss-up. But there is Starbucks and grunge music, try watching Singles.
Jacksonville, Florida takes the number 3 spot. Jacksonville might be a shock to many of you; but it ranked in the top 10 in all categories that determined it rankings. The mayor of Jacksonville believes the city should be in the number one spot. But sadly, if you don’t think about Jacksonville, you can easily forget about it. The city is like a silent assassin on clean livin’! Quality of life there isn’t bad. It’s sunny much of the year and plus, you’re in Florida.
Number 4 goes to Orlando, Florida. Orlando, home of Disney and Tiger Woods (at least where he lives now), scores big on ozone and air pollution levels.
At the midway point, we find another northwest city: Portland, Oregon. Portland has gone all-out with city-planning and the environment. The city spent $2 billion over the last 10 years trying to clean up the Willamette River. And it’s at their advantage. The city has tired to make the city more pedestrian friendly by adding light rail and more sidewalks. The end result has cut down on auto emissions. Quality of life in Orlando is pretty good. Quality of life in Portland is pretty good. People there seem to be doing pretty well in my opinion. Maybe I should actually go there one day.
Hot on the trail of Portland is Number 6’s San Francisco, California. San Francisco and I have a close history (I was married there). The city is very hip and clean…even in the Mission District and the Tenderloin are relatively clean [considering]. The good news for the City by the Bay is that it ranks in the top five in waste-management spending and water quality. Quality of life is not a question. Things are pretty good there. Psst…the Google Campus (main headquarters) is located a short drive south.
7th place goes to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The capital city of Oklahoma is one of the few land-locked cities to make the list. I’ve last been to Oklahoma City in about 17 years ago. The Oklahoma City I remembered was dry and flat. Even with that image in my head, the city has found a way to tackle both particle pollution and ozone levels. The quality of life there might be pretty good. As I mentioned, I haven’t been there in a while. But all the people I have met from OKC are very pleasant.
Firmly in the 8 spot we travel back to the Sunshine State. The 8th place finish goes to Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida. Did you know that Tampa spends more per capita on waste management than any major city other than Seattle? It’s also in the same boat as Jacksonville – if you don’t think about the city, you’d never know well it does environmental situations. Unfortunately the city has lower rankings on water quality. I honestly cannot imagine the quality of life being that pleasant; but hey – you are in Florida.
In 9th place is Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Some of you might think about how cold it is there, or how progressive the city might be. But take a look at this: The Twin Cities rank first among major metros for healthy ozone levels. Honestly, I would have never guessed that. On the negative side, it has so-so rankings for waste removal spending and water quality. Quality of life is actually pretty good.
Rounding out the top ten is San Jose-Sunnyvale, California. Like its northern California cousin [San Francisco], San Jose is among the nation’s leaders in water quality. The area also cracks the top 10 for lowest levels of air pollution. The quality of life is interesting from what I have seen.
Florida has to have a clean environment because the state relies so heavily on tourism. And with its climate the part-time snow-bird residents, the city knows the value of keeping itself spruced up for company.
Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection has launched programs aimed at providing power plants with the equipment needed to scrub out harmful emissions before they’re discharged. The agency has singled out the Tampa Electric Co. for going beyond federal and state requirements on emission reductions.
On the water side, the agency has aimed its budget not only on fighting direct discharges into public waters but on indirect spillage from things like storm drain runoff.
