Community suitability of Stockholms Laen, Sweden
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 80
83
best land · p90
84%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 81
Governance, safety & tenure 85
Economy & cost 96
Society, freedom & health 96
Land & water 72
Climate, growing & hazards 86
Autonomy & access 75
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationWater availability & quality
Within Stockholms Laen — 26 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Highly suitable 85
Highly suitable 82
Moderately suitable 80
Moderately suitable 79
Soedertaelje
strongest Economy & cost (96) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (56)
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Vaermdoe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Upplands-bro
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Haninge
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 77
Sigtuna
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Ekeroe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 76
Vallentuna
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Vaxholm
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Botkyrka
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Salem
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Taeby
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Tyresoe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Huddinge
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Upplands-vaesby
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Danderyd
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Jaerfaella
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Lidingoe
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Nacka
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Sollentuna
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Solna
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 41
Stockholm
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 41
Sundbyberg
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 41
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
Connectivity A Ookla + ITU (+ Starlink)
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 Sweden
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.