Community suitability of Oestfold, Norway
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
85
best land · p90
92%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 75
Climate, growing & hazards 87
Autonomy & access 97
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGrowing conditions
Within Oestfold — 18 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Highly suitable 84
Highly suitable 83
Halden
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Vaaler
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Aremark
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Eidsberg
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Fredrikstad
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Raade
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Roemskog
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Sarpsborg
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Skiptvet
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Hvaler
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Rygge
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Troegstad
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Spydeberg
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Hoboel
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Moss
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 76
Askim
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 75
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.