Community suitability of Colorado, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 75
80
best land · p90
98%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 77
Climate, growing & hazards 74
Autonomy & access 63
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityWater availability & quality
Within Colorado — 63 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Teller
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (73)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Larimer
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Clear Creek
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (72)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Custer
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (75)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Gilpin
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (77)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Delta
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Fremont
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Mesa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Pueblo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Weld
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Elbert
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Douglas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
El Paso
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Morgan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Park
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Boulder
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Arapahoe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Grand
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Huerfano
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Summit
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Crowley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Garfield
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Montrose
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Otero
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Ouray
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Chaffee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Eagle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Washington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Costilla
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Gunnison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Logan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Pitkin
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 73
San Miguel
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Yuma
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Las Animas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Phillips
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Rio Blanco
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Alamosa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Cheyenne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Kiowa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
San Juan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Bent
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Conejos
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Kit Carson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
La Plata
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Rio Grande
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Routt
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Saguache
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Sedgwick
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Dolores
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Prowers
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Baca
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Archuleta
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Montezuma
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Mineral
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Moffat
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Hinsdale
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Broomfield
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Denver
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
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
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 United States Of America
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.