Community suitability of Ontario, Canada

Marginally suitable confidence B · live score 43
85
best land · p90
90%
good land
one block
Explore Ontario on the map →

How each domain holds up

Legal & sovereignty 76
Governance, safety & tenure 81
Economy & cost 98
Society, freedom & health 93
Land & water 78
Climate, growing & hazards 73
Autonomy & access 1

Where it pushes back

AccessibilityGrowing conditionsFood & forage diversity

Within Ontario — 49 sub-regions

Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.

Frontenac
strongest Economy & cost (98) · weakest Legal & sovereignty (76)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Lennox and Addington
strongest Economy & cost (98) · weakest Legal & sovereignty (76)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Grey
strongest Economy & cost (98) · weakest Legal & sovereignty (76)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Hastings
strongest Economy & cost (98) · weakest Legal & sovereignty (76)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Kawartha Lakes
strongest Autonomy & access (99) · weakest Legal & sovereignty (76)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Peterborough
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Huron
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Highly suitable 84
Prince Edward
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lanark
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Leeds and Grenville
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Bruce
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Muskoka
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Northumberland
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Highly suitable 82
Chatham-Kent
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Dufferin
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Perth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Haliburton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Prescott and Russell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Renfrew
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Simcoe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Elgin
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Highly suitable 81
Haldimand-Norfolk
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Lambton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Oxford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Wellington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Parry Sound
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Middlesex
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Durham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Essex
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
York
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Nipissing
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Ottawa
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Brant
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Niagara
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Greater Sudbury / Grand Sudbury
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Manitoulin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Hamilton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Waterloo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Sudbury
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Algoma
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Halton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Peel
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Timiskaming
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Rainy River
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Thunder Bay
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 43
Cochrane
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 42
Kenora
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 41
Toronto
pushes back: Accessibility
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 Canada

Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.