Community suitability of Sogn og Fjordane, Norway
Marginally suitable confidence B · live score 60
71
best land · p90
46%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 59
Climate, growing & hazards 69
Autonomy & access 41
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityWater availability & quality
Within Sogn og Fjordane — 26 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Hyllestad
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (45)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 68
Gulen
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (46)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Sogndal
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (55)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Solund
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (57)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Askvoll
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (48)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Fjaler
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Naustdal
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Eid
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Flora
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Gaular
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Vaagsoey
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Aurland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Leikanger
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Vik
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Foerde
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Hornindal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Laerdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
Gloppen
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Hoeyanger
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Joelster
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Selje
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Aardal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 58
Bremanger
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 56
Balestrand
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Stryn
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 53
Luster
pushes back: Accessibility
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.