Community suitability of Nord-troendelag, Norway
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 66
79
best land · p90
88%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 75
Climate, growing & hazards 71
Autonomy & access 43
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityFood & forage diversitySoil quality
Within Nord-troendelag — 24 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Frosta
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Land & water (77)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Stjoerdal
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (75)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Levanger
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (76)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Inderoey
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (76)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Leksvik
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (77)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Mosvik
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 73
Steinkjer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Verdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Namdalseid
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Namsos
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Meraaker
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Verran
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Overhalla
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Flatanger
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Grong
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Snaasa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Hoeylandet
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Namsskogan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Vikna
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Fosnes
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Leka
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Naeroey
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Lierne
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 55
Roeyrvik
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 53
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.