Community suitability of Maryland, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 81
94
best land · p90
94%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 84
Climate, growing & hazards 95
Autonomy & access 89
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationSoil qualityGovernance & corruption
Within Maryland — 23 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Caroline
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Allegany
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
St. Mary's
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Talbot
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Kent
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Queen Anne's
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Calvert
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Charles
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Dorchester
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 80
Garrett
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Wicomico
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Worcester
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Somerset
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Carroll
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Cecil
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Frederick
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Harford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Howard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Anne Arundel
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Prince George's
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Baltimore
pushes back: Accessibility
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.