Community suitability of Ghazni, Afghanistan
Marginally suitable confidence B · live score 44
72
best land · p90
63%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 31
Governance, safety & tenure 23
Economy & cost 57
Society, freedom & health 62
Land & water 64
Climate, growing & hazards 59
Autonomy & access 38
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGovernance & corruptionLand tenure security
Within Ghazni — 19 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Walimuhammad-e- Shahid
strongest Autonomy & access (92) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (23)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 49
Khwajaumari
strongest Autonomy & access (92) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (23)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 49
Andar
strongest Autonomy & access (75) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (23)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 49
Ghazni
strongest Autonomy & access (91) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (23)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Marginally suitable 49
Gelan
strongest Autonomy & access (74) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (23)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 48
Dehyak
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 48
Waghaz
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Rashidan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Muqur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Abband
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Qarabagh
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Zanakhan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 47
Jaghatu
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 46
Jaghuri
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 46
Malestan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 45
Giro
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 45
Nawa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Currently not suitable 41
Ajrestan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Currently not suitable 41
Nawur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Currently not suitable 40
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Legal entity & land frameworkcountry B OECD FDI RRI + manual
Education & schooling freedomcountry B HSLDA + UNESCO UIS
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Land tenure securitycountry A IPRI (de jure) + Prindex (de facto)
Business & economic viabilitycountry A World Bank B-READY, Heritage, Fraser
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
Monetary & capital sovereigntycountry A IMF/World Bank, Chinn-Ito
Personal freedomcountry A Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index
Healthcare qualitycountry B WHO GHO
Disease / vector burden A Malaria Atlas + dengue Index P
Soil quality A SoilGrids (ISRIC)
Water availability & quality A WRI Aqueduct + AQUASTAT
Terrain & buildability A SRTM / NASADEM
Land cover & degradation A ESA WorldCover + Global Forest Watch
Biodiversity & alignment B Biodiversity Intactness Index
Climate & natural hazards A ThinkHazard + NASA FIRMS + USGS
Growing conditions A CHELSA / FAO GAEZ
Food & forage diversity B FAO GAEZ crop suitability + GLW
Coastal risk B Climate Central CoastalDEM
Energy potential A Global Solar Atlas + Global Wind Atlas
Natural building materials B SoilGrids clay + forest + geology
Environmental quality A SEDAC PM2.5 + VIIRS night-lights
Connectivity A Ookla + ITU (+ Starlink)
Accessibility A Malaria Atlas friction surface
Remoteness / surroundings A GPWv4 population density
Contamination legacy C Maus mining polygons + WRI power plants
Phase-1 desk screening
These are desk numbers from open data. Soil tests, water rights and the welcome of actual neighbours all wait for a visit — we'd rather say so than pretend.
Other regions in Afghanistan
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.