Community suitability of Michigan, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
92
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 87
Climate, growing & hazards 90
Autonomy & access 79
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationGovernance & corruptionAccessibility
Within Michigan — 82 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Chippewa
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Arenac
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Montcalm
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Newaygo
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Oceana
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Mackinac
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lapeer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Emmet
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Barry
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Branch
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Gladwin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Gratiot
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Hillsdale
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Isabella
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Lenawee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Mason
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Mecosta
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Midland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Ogemaw
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Sanilac
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Van Buren
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Benzie
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Calhoun
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Cass
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Clare
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Ionia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Roscommon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
St. Joseph
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Tuscola
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Menominee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Allegan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Berrien
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Moderately suitable 81
Huron
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 81
Livingston
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Osceola
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Shiawassee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Cheboygan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Grand Traverse
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Luce
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Eaton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Iosco
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Manistee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Missaukee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
St. Clair
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Wexford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Antrim
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Leelanau
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Oscoda
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Presque Isle
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Schoolcraft
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Bay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Crawford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Alcona
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Alger
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Charlevoix
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Delta
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Dickinson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Montmorency
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Otsego
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Kalkaska
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Alpena
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Monroe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Muskegon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Saginaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Iron
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Ingham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Washtenaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Kalamazoo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Marquette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Kent
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Gogebic
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Ottawa
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Baraga
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Houghton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Genesee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Ontonagon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Macomb
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Oakland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Keweenaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Wayne
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
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.