Community suitability of Uttar Pradesh, India
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 64
81
best land · p90
97%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 53
Governance, safety & tenure 54
Society, freedom & health 75
Land & water 91
Climate, growing & hazards 63
Autonomy & access 79
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGrowing conditionsGovernance & corruption
Within Uttar Pradesh — 70 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Mirzapur
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (53)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 67
Hamirpur
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (53)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Mahoba
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (53)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Bahraich
strongest Land & water (90) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (53)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Shravasti
strongest Land & water (91) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (53)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Banda
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Balrampur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Chandauli
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 66
Chitrakoot
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 66
Lalitpur
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 66
Sonbhadra
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 66
Jalaun
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Jhansi
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Siddharth Nagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Gonda
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Basti
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Sant Kabir Nagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Fatehpur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Hardoi
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Lakhimpur Kheri
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Mainpuri
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Shahjahanpur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Badaun
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Maharajganj
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Allahabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Etawah
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Farrukhabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Kannauj
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Bijnor
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Etah
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Jaunpur
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 63
Pilibhit
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Kanpur Dehat
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Gorakhpur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Sant Ravi Das Nagar
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Moradabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Jyotiba Phule Nagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Auraiya
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Azamgarh
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Bareilly
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Pratapgarh
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Rampur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Sitapur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Sultanpur
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Unnao
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Firozabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Faizabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Ambedkar Nagar
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 61
Agra
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Ballia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Bara Banki
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Ghazipur
pushes back: Growing conditions
Marginally suitable 61
Saharanpur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Mau
pushes back: Growing conditions
Marginally suitable 61
Deoria
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Kushinagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Mathura
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Hathras
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Rae Bareli
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Kaushambi
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Bulandshahr
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Meerut
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Muzaffarnagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Aligarh
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 58
Varanasi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Baghpat
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 57
Lucknow
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 57
Ghaziabad
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 54
Kanpur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 54
Gautam Buddha Nagar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 52
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
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
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
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 India
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.