I've never seen a link between environment and population density. Obviously, very harsh places have lower density. Beyond that man has congregated near food, water and jobs. Maybe that is you're answer. High density areas are prone to be near trade conduits. So you'd see rivers or harbors nearby. After people start moving in they'll chop down forests, drain swamps or whatever they have to do to keep expanding.
2007-01-15 03:20:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lew 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wouldn't that depend on where it is?
Alaska has the least population density of all the United States.
Followed by Wyoming the Dakotas.
Nevada dessert, Or dessert. Because no one wants to live where they have to shovel their way out of the house for 9 months out of the year.
Or look at a tree less Terran as in the dessert and bake all year.
We like a moderate climate. Which Texas and Oklahoma has and low population density, with tornado's and ice storms.
No place is perfect but some places are worst than others.
2007-01-15 01:09:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Steven 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here's a link to Mauritania, located on the western side of Africa. Although this is just one example, you can compare and contrast the physical environment of this desolate nation with the population density.
Then there's Canada, of course, which is almost opposite of Mauritania. But with the great expanse of wilderness, particularly in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the population density of Canada is suddenly on par with Mauritania.
2007-01-15 01:42:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by wheresdean 4
·
0⤊
0⤋