Let’s be honest: There’s a significant perception gap in the livability of Los Angeles and Orange counties and the Inland Empire.

This chasm, often more emotional than scientific, can be tied to many things. It’s coast vs. desert. It’s new vs. developed. It’s wealth vs. affordable. It’s a bit of snobbery vs. chip-on-the-shoulder, too.

One nationwide ranking of regional livability gives us a window into the relative differences between life in L.A.-O.C. and Riverside and San Bernardino counties. And by this metric — by no means the only such yardstick — the livability gap between the two pairs of counties has grown wider in a year.

Gallup’s annual “well-being” rankings for the nation’s 186 major metropolitan areas shows L.A.-O.C. in 53rd place for the second straight year – sandwiched between Des Moines and Ocala, Fla. That’s a “second quintile” score, or to what a school teacher might give a “B” grade. Two years ago, though, L.A.-O.C ranked No. 40, almost at the “A” level of livability.

The Inland Empire didn’t fare as well. It’s latest ranking was a mid-range 98th, between Lansing, Mich. and Savannah, Ga. That “C” grade is well off from the previous year’s 73rd and slightly worse than 2015’s 93rd place.

So Gallup’s math suggests this local livability gap (45 ranking spots) is nearly back to where it was two years ago (52 spots), and the narrow gap from a year ago (20 spots) was perhaps just a blip.

I enjoy reviewing Gallup’s livability rankings because they’re more touchy-feely than other quality-of-city scorecards. This “well-being index” is based on the firm’s constant polling of American adults’ feelings on five regional attributes: the sense of daily purpose, the social climate, financial opportunities, community pride and local health.

And L.A.-O.C. managed to stay stable in this latest scorecard despite ranking declines in four of the five well-being categories. The only improvement was in the measurement of community pride, up to 99th from No. 114 a year earlier. L.A.-O.C.’s best attribute, by this yardstick, is how healthy locals feel: No. 22 in the most current ranking.

The Inland Empire also had only one improvement: in the gauge of personal relationships, up to No. 101 from 134rd a year earlier. The best scores for Riverside and San Bernardino counties came in health at No. 57 and in purpose at No. 60.

It’s not that Gallup doesn’t like California; the state placed seven of its metro areas in the Top 25: No. 4. Santa Cruz, No. 8. Santa Rosa, No. 10 San Luis Obispo, No. 11. Santa Barbara, No. 13 Salinas, No. 20. San Diego and No. 23 Visalia–Porterville.

And this well-being index is quite discerning about what’s hot and what’s not-so-hot in California with three metros near the bottom of the rankings: No 150 Chico, No. 155. Fresno, and No. 171 Bakersfield.

I guess you could say this metric likes smaller towns as the top scores were found in modest-sized locales: Naples, Fla., Barnstable Town, Mass., and Boulder, Colo. But lowest livability wasn’t in giant metros either: Gulfport, Miss., Canton, Ohio and Fort Smith, Ark.

Of course, livability can be a very personal issue. Some folks like the hustle-and-bustle of densely populated regions. Others enjoy a life that’s less crowded. A heightened sense of community could be like nosy people. A healthiness vibe can twist into vanity.

And there’s the financial slice in this kind of debate. Locally, coastal or inland, it can come down to “how much would you pay?” Using census data on housing costs, for example, it’s 15 percent more expensive to live in Los Angeles and Orange counties than the Inland Empire.

Is livability worth that much?

In case you missed it …

Los Angeles-Orange County homeownership at 9-year high, but 4th lowest in U.S.

California migration: Come for jobs, leave to retire

Southern California’s job growth only boosts its unaffordability