Community suitability of Montana, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 62
79
best land · p90
98%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 79
Climate, growing & hazards 70
Autonomy & access 24
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityFood & forage diversityWater availability & quality
Within Montana — 55 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Yellowstone
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (68)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Musselshell
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (67)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Carbon
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (68)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Moderately suitable 73
Stillwater
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (62)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Golden Valley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Sweet Grass
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Big Horn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Sanders
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Treasure
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Gallatin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Lincoln
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Fergus
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Glacier
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Wheatland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Judith Basin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Park
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Missoula
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Petroleum
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Meagher
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Rosebud
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Broadwater
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Flathead
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Ravalli
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Sheridan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Toole
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Jefferson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Cascade
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Granite
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Pondera
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Silver Bow
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Blaine
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Deer Lodge
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Lewis and Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Powder River
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Beaverhead
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Chouteau
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Custer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Daniels
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Hill
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Phillips
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Powell
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Teton
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Garfield
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Liberty
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Richland
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Roosevelt
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Carter
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Dawson
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Fallon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 58
McCone
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Prairie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 58
Valley
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Wibaux
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
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.