Community suitability of Oppland, Norway
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 68
77
best land · p90
78%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 75
Climate, growing & hazards 65
Autonomy & access 54
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGrowing conditionsAccessibility
Within Oppland — 26 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Highly suitable 82
Oestre Toten
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Moderately suitable 81
Moderately suitable 80
Gjoevik
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Lunner
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Soendre Land
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Lillehammer
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 75
Soer-aurdal
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 74
Nordre Land
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 73
Etnedal
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 72
Nord-aurdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Oeyer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Gausdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Vestre Slidre
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Ringebu
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Dovre
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Sel
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Soer-fron
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Nord-fron
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Oeystre Slidre
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Vaagaa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Vang
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Lesja
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Lom
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 53
Skjaak
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.
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.