Community suitability of Buskerud, Norway

Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 73
80
best land · p90
89%
good land
one block
Explore Buskerud on the map →

How each domain holds up

Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 77
Climate, growing & hazards 72
Autonomy & access 70

Where it pushes back

Food & forage diversityGrowing conditionsSoil quality

Within Buskerud — 21 sub-regions

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

Ringerike
strongest Autonomy & access (99) · weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Kongsberg
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) · weakest Land & water (76)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Modum
strongest Autonomy & access (99) · weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Oevre Eiker
strongest Autonomy & access (99) · weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Hurum
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) · weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Kroedsherad
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Lier
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Nedre Eiker
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Drammen
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Flesberg
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Flaa
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 76
Hole
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 76
Roeyken
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Sigdal
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 74
Gol
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 73
Nes
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 72
Rollag
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 71
Aal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Hemsedal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Hol
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Nore Og Uvdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64

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.