5 ms·
Population density and terrain are important factors as well. Including those two other factors on top of size actually supports my argument further. The United
by foofoo4u 5y ago
Population density and terrain are important factors as well. Including those two other factors on top of size actually supports my argument further. The United States is significantly larger, less dense, and has a wider range of terrain/elemental conditions (ie. mountains, wetlands, deserts, forests, etc.). The fact that the United States ranks this high with these un-optimal conditions is again rather good.
And to address your point that size does not matter is incorrect. Size certainly does matter. It is more cost effective to service a small region of land where high amounts of people are concentrated than it is to spread infrastructure thin across great swaths of land to service the few.
- lucb1e 5y ago> your point that size does not matter is incorrect. Size certainly does matter. It is more cost effective to service a small region of land where high amounts of people are concentrated Size as a standalone statistic does not matter. You're correct in this quote but it contradicts your earlier point: you earlier put it forth as a separate metric with that land area tool to compare different countries without looking at population at all. I would explain it further but I think we're on the same page, just not sure what makes you think what I wrote is incorrect.
- foofoo4u 5y agoAh, yes. I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I think we are on the same page.