Community suitability of Pärnu maakond, Estonia
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 80
87
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 77
Governance, safety & tenure 81
Economy & cost 92
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 83
Climate, growing & hazards 84
Autonomy & access 69
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityLand cover & degradationGrowing conditions
Within Pärnu maakond — 20 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Halinga vald
strongest Economy & cost (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (77)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Are vald
strongest Economy & cost (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (77)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Lavassaare vald
strongest Economy & cost (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (77)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Häädemeeste vald
strongest Economy & cost (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (77)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Sauga vald
strongest Economy & cost (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (77)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Tootsi vald
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Paikuse vald
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Sindi linn
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Tahkuranna vald
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Tori vald
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Surju vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Vändra vald
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Audru vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Koonga vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Pärnu linn
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Vändra vald (alev)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Saarde vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Tõstamaa vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Varbla vald
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Kihnu vald
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 72
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 Estonia
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.