Community suitability of Indiana, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
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 90
Autonomy & access 85
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGovernance & corruptionHealthcare quality
Within Indiana — 91 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Crawford
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Jennings
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 88
Decatur
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 87
Jackson
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Martin
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Orange
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Ripley
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Starke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Bartholomew
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Washington
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Fulton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Kosciusko
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Parke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Brown
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Franklin
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Jefferson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Putnam
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Fountain
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Pulaski
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Steuben
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Wabash
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Daviess
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Dubois
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Fayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Knox
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Owen
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Cass
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
LaGrange
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Miami
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Vermillion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Warren
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Greene
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Lawrence
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Pike
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Rush
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Scott
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Sullivan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Switzerland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Huntington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jasper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Newton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Noble
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Dearborn
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Gibson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Harrison
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Ohio
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Spencer
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Union
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Vigo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Carroll
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Howard
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
LaPorte
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Montgomery
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Wells
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Morgan
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Posey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Shelby
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
DeKalb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Randolph
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Tipton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
White
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Whitley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Warrick
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Benton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Blackford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Boone
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Henry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Elkhart
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Monroe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Hancock
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Porter
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Delaware
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Hendricks
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Tippecanoe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
St. Joseph
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Floyd
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Allen
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Hamilton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Vanderburgh
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Marion
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 49
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.