Community suitability of Vaestra Goetalands Laen, Sweden
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 85
86
best land · p90
82%
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 74
Climate, growing & hazards 88
Autonomy & access 85
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGrowing conditions
Within Vaestra Goetalands Laen — 51 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Highly suitable 88
Highly suitable 88
Highly suitable 88
Highly suitable 87
Essunga
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Legal & sovereignty (81)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Herrljunga
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Lysekil
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Sotenaes
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Vara
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Faergelanda
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Falkoeping
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Munkedal
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Orust
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Skara
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Svenljunga
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Tanum
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Tranemo
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Uddevalla
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Ulricehamn
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Alingsaas
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Graestorp
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Skoevde
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Tibro
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Toereboda
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Gullspaang
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Mullsjoe
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Stroemstad
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Tidaholm
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Ale
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Goetene
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Habo
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Karlsborg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Lilla Edet
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Trollhaettan
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Vaenersborg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Dals-ed
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Hjo
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Lidkoeping
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Tjoern
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Bengtsfors
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Mellerud
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Stenungsund
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Lerum
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Mariestad
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Aamaal
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Haerryda
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Kunglv
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Moelndal
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Oeckeroe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 71
Partille
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Gteborg
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
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.