Community suitability of Minnesota, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 78
89
best land · p90
95%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 86
Climate, growing & hazards 81
Autonomy & access 64
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityGrowing conditions
Within Minnesota — 86 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Mille Lacs
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Morrison
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Houston
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Winona
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Kanabec
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
McLeod
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Todd
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Fillmore
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Le Sueur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Sibley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Steele
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Becker
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Chisago
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Crow Wing
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Isanti
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Kandiyohi
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Mahnomen
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Meeker
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Wadena
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Mower
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Douglas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Hubbard
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Otter Tail
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Pine
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Pope
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Stearns
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Wilkin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Freeborn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Goodhue
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Nicollet
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Pipestone
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Rice
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Wabasha
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Waseca
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Aitkin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Benton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Norman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Wright
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Blue Earth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Dodge
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Nobles
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Cass
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Chippewa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Renville
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Sherburne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Traverse
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Lyon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Murray
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Rock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Carlton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Carver
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Clearwater
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Lac qui Parle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Polk
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Red Lake
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Swift
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Yellow Medicine
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Brown
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Faribault
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Redwood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Big Stone
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Stevens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Cottonwood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Watonwan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Pennington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Martin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Anoka
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Kittson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Itasca
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Beltrami
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Roseau
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Olmsted
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Dakota
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
St. Louis
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Hennepin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Koochiching
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Lake of the Woods
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Cook
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Ramsey
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.