Community suitability of Kentucky, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 85
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 85
Climate, growing & hazards 96
Autonomy & access 90
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationGovernance & corruptionHealthcare quality
Within Kentucky — 120 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Bath
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Lincoln
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 88
Menifee
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 88
Rockcastle
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Allen
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Bell
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Casey
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Crittenden
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Fleming
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Grayson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Hart
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Hopkins
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Jackson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Logan
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Marion
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Robertson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Rowan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Simpson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Todd
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Washington
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Wolfe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Breckinridge
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Caldwell
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Christian
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Edmonson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Larue
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Lee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Owsley
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Warren
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Anderson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Clay
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Elliott
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Morgan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Nicholas
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Powell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Union
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Whitley
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Adair
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Boyle
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Breathitt
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Butler
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Carter
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Estill
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Franklin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Green
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Hardin
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Harlan
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Harrison
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Knox
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Mason
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
McCreary
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Meade
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Metcalfe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Monroe
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Montgomery
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Muhlenberg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Nelson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Ohio
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Owen
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Pulaski
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Taylor
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Trigg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Webster
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Bracken
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Carroll
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Floyd
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Garrard
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Grant
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Hancock
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Henry
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Johnson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Laurel
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Leslie
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Letcher
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Lewis
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Madison
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Magoffin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
McLean
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Spencer
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Barren
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Calloway
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Daviess
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Knott
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Livingston
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Mercer
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Pendleton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Russell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Trimble
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Cumberland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Greenup
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Hickman
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Lyon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Martin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Pike
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Shelby
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Carlisle
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Clinton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Fulton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Gallatin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Graves
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Lawrence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Marshall
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Ballard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Bourbon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Bullitt
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Boyd
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Henderson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
McCracken
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Woodford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Oldham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Jessamine
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Campbell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Boone
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Kenton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Fayette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Jefferson
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.