Community suitability of New York, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
90
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 81
Climate, growing & hazards 91
Autonomy & access 95
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGovernance & corruption
Within New York — 62 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Chenango
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Cattaraugus
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Highly suitable 85
Jefferson
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Washington
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Chautauqua
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Chemung
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Cortland
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Fulton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Greene
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Otsego
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Schuyler
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Oneida
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Schoharie
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Seneca
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Sullivan
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Tioga
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Tompkins
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Yates
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Warren
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Allegany
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Columbia
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Dutchess
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Livingston
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Montgomery
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Oswego
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Steuben
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Ulster
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Cayuga
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Madison
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Ontario
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Orleans
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 81
Saratoga
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
St. Lawrence
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Genesee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Orange
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Wyoming
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Herkimer
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Lewis
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Clinton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Essex
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Franklin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Hamilton
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Broome
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Putnam
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Niagara
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Rensselaer
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Albany
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Erie
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Onondaga
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Monroe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Schenectady
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Westchester
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Suffolk
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Rockland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Nassau
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
Richmond
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 35
Bronx
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
Kings
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
New York
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
Queens
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
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.