Community suitability of Akershus, Norway

Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 79
85
best land · p90
94%
good land
one block
Explore Akershus on the map →

How each domain holds up

Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 76
Climate, growing & hazards 83
Autonomy & access 82

Where it pushes back

Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGrowing conditions

Within Akershus — 22 sub-regions

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

Aurskog-Hoeland
strongest Autonomy & access (98) · weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Hurdal
strongest Autonomy & access (97) · weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Eidsvoll
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) · weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Nannestad
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) · weakest Land & water (77)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Nes
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) · weakest Land & water (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Enebakk
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Vestby
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 75
Ullensaker
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Gjerdrum
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Nesodden
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Soerum
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Frogn
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Nittedal
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Raelingen
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Aas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Asker
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Fet
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Baerum
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Ski
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Loerenskog
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Skedsmo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Oppegaard
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 46

Reading the land, criterion by criterion

Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.

Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
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 Norway

Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.