Community suitability of Rogaland, Norway
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 73
83
best land · p90
79%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 64
Climate, growing & hazards 80
Autonomy & access 80
Where it pushes back
Water availability & qualitySoil qualityFood & forage diversity
Within Rogaland — 26 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Eigersund
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Land & water (71)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 78
Bokn
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Land & water (68)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 77
Finnoey
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Land & water (63)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 77
Moderately suitable 77
Tysvaer
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (66)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Bjerkreim
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Gjesdal
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Haugesund
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Karmoey
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Lund
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Sokndal
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 75
Strand
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 75
Kvitsoey
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 74
Utsira
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 72
Vindafjord
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 72
Time
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Klepp
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Forsand
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Hjelmeland
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Rennesoey
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Sandnes
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Suldal
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Sauda
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Sola
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Randaberg
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 52
Stavanger
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 42
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.