Community suitability of Idaho, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 68
81
best land · p90
97%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 79
Climate, growing & hazards 71
Autonomy & access 37
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityFood & forage diversityWater availability & quality
Within Idaho — 44 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Kootenai
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Benewah
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Bonner
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Latah
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Gem
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (72)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Payette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Boise
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Franklin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Ada
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Nez Perce
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Shoshone
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Washington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Bear Lake
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Oneida
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Bannock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Boundary
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Elmore
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Lewis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Gooding
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Camas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Canyon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Caribou
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Jerome
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Bingham
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Cassia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Twin Falls
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Power
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Owyhee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Bonneville
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Minidoka
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Blaine
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Clearwater
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Teton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Valley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Fremont
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Idaho
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Custer
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Lemhi
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Butte
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
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.