Community suitability of Illinois, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 84
94
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 94
Climate, growing & hazards 89
Autonomy & access 99
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGovernance & corruptionHealthcare quality
Within Illinois — 101 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Macoupin
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 87
Calhoun
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Cass
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Coles
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Hardin
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Fulton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Greene
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Knox
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Morgan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Randolph
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Warren
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Edwards
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Gallatin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Lawrence
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Saline
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Carroll
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Jersey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Mason
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Schuyler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Bond
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Franklin
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 84
Jefferson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Montgomery
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Richland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Wabash
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Washington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
White
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Henderson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Jo Daviess
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Menard
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Mercer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Pike
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Scott
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Vermilion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Whiteside
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Christian
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Edgar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Marion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Pope
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Brown
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Bureau
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
LaSalle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Lee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Logan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Macon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
McDonough
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Monroe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Putnam
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Stephenson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Crawford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Cumberland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Douglas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Fayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Hamilton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jackson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Moultrie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Perry
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Shelby
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Union
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Ford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Iroquois
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Livingston
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Stark
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Alexander
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Clark
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Effingham
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Jasper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Williamson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
De Witt
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Grundy
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Hancock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Henry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Ogle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Piatt
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Woodford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Pulaski
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
DeKalb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Massac
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
McLean
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
St. Clair
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Tazewell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Champaign
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Peoria
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Sangamon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Boone
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
McHenry
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Kankakee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Rock Island
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Kendall
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Winnebago
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Will
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Kane
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
DuPage
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 37
Cook
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 36
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.