(Updated) Most Geographically Diverse Region of the Following: (rated, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I recently made a thread about the most geographically diverse regions of the U.S. contained by approximately a 3 hour drive radius. The comments eventually diverged and turned into arguing in favor of fewer, but larger regions, which was interesting and got me thinking. Suppose the US was split into the following sections:
1: Non-contiguous (Alaska and Hawaii)
2: Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho)
3: Pacific Southwest (California, Nevada, and Arizona)
4: Northwest/Mountain (Montana, North/South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado)
5: Southwest/Southcentral? (Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana)
6: Great Plains/Great Lakes (Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan)
7: Northeast/East Coast (West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania and everything NORTH/EAST)
8: South/Southeast (Kentucky and everything SOUTH/EAST, besides Virginia)
Which region would you say contains the most geographic diversity?
I tried to organize the regions as fairly as possible, which is why some may contain more states than others. If you think the regions are organized unfairly, that's fine, just say why.
Hopefully, this makes it more interesting.
This is a map of the grouping of states I'm describing: (aside from combining I, II, and III into the Northeast, combining V and VIII into the Great Plains/Lakes, and grouping Alaska/Hawaii). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...egions.svg.png
Not to divulge the thread again, I want it to go off as it should, but with all of California, DEFINITELY the Pacific Southwest, or even with the part of California South of San Francisco. Various forms of Deserts, Various Forms of Forest, Rugged and Sandy Coastline, Unique Rugged Geology, Canyons, Islands, etc.
Not to divulge the thread again, I want it to go off as it should, but with all of California, DEFINITELY the Pacific Southwest, or even with the part of California South of San Francisco. Various forms of Deserts, Various Forms of Forest, Rugged and Sandy Coastline, Unique Rugged Geology, Canyons, Islands, etc.
Interesting. So you're saying California alone could possibly be its own grouping?
I haven't made up my mind yet, but it would be either PSW, PNW, or AK+HI. I'm inclined to say PSW, but AK+HI seems to be a very strong contender, can't get any bigger difference than Honolulu and Anchorage, but I think it's also a bit unfair to group these two together, if anything HI should be with PSW and AK with PNW. It would be like pairing New England and Florida, or Puerto Rico and Greenland, it's just not a natural pairing.
Interesting. So you're saying California alone could possibly be its own grouping?
I really do think so, and I think placed by itself, California might be able to match or best any sub-region in the US. However, I did miss that AK and HI were together (I was just thinking of the contiguous 48). I still think CA offers more variety and distinctiveness than AK and HI together, but with that said, AK and HI are vastly different from one another, and their most spectacular features (Denali, Tundra, Glaciers/Fjords, Wildlife/Biodiversity, Active Volcano, Rainforest) would certainly be more stunning on a world scale than a grouping of the top features of California, at least IMO. For example, no mountain in the contiguous US would be able to remotely match Mauna Kea or Denali. They are superlatives (one is the most prominent in the world, the other is the tallest from base to peak above ground, and as a volcano). That's just one example, though there certainly are others.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but it would be either PSW, PNW, or AK+HI. I'm inclined to say PSW, but AK+HI seems to be a very strong contender, can't get any bigger difference than Honolulu and Anchorage, but I think it's also a bit unfair to group these two together, if anything HI should be with PSW and AK with PNW. It would be like pairing New England and Florida, or Puerto Rico and Greenland, it's just not a natural pairing.
Hmmm...I see what you're saying, but I feel adding each of Alaska and Hawaii to either of PSW or PNW makes it unfair for the other regions. I agree the grouping is definitely unnatural on the basis of climate, but I still think it is a fair grouping. Like another poster has mentioned, Alaska and Hawaii provide the superlatives and exaggerated versions regarding geographic features, but an argument can be made that they don't best represent overall diversity. Almost all of the regions listed share some of Alaska's and Hawaii's geographic features, but the two states have some of the most extreme or spectacular examples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
