Community suitability of Mazowieckie, Poland
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 76
88
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 66
Governance, safety & tenure 67
Economy & cost 91
Society, freedom & health 87
Land & water 83
Climate, growing & hazards 87
Autonomy & access 91
Where it pushes back
Legal entity & land frameworkGovernance & corruptionLand tenure security
Within Mazowieckie — 42 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Wegrow
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (66)
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 79
Ciechanow
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (66)
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 78
Mlawa
strongest Autonomy & access (92) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (66)
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 78
Zuromin
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (66)
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 78
Losice
strongest Economy & cost (91) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (66)
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Makow Mazowiecki
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Ostrow Mazowiecka
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Przasnysz
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Siedlce I
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Sokolow Podlaski
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Wyszkow
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 77
Garwolin
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 76
Lipsko
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 76
Plonsk
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 76
Przysucha
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 76
Pultusk
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 76
Bialobrzegi
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Grojec
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Minsk Mazowiecki
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Ostroleka I
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Siedlce
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 75
Sierpc
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Sochaczew
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Szydlowiec
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Zyrardow
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 75
Zwolen
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 74
Gostynin
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 73
Kozienice
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 73
Nowy Dwor Mazowiecki
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 73
Ostroleka
pushes back: Legal entity & land framework
Moderately suitable 71
Otwock
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Radom I
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Plock I
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Wolomin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Grodzisk Mazowiecki
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Warszawa I
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Legionowo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Piaseczno
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Pruszkow
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Radom
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 50
Plock
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 47
Warszawa
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 47
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Legal entity & land frameworkcountry B OECD FDI RRI + manual
Education & schooling freedomcountry B HSLDA + UNESCO UIS
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Land tenure securitycountry A IPRI (de jure) + Prindex (de facto)
Business & economic viabilitycountry A World Bank B-READY, Heritage, Fraser
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
Monetary & capital sovereigntycountry A IMF/World Bank, Chinn-Ito
Personal freedomcountry A Cato/Fraser Human Freedom Index
Healthcare qualitycountry B WHO GHO
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 Poland
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.