Community suitability of North Carolina, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 83
91
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 94
Autonomy & access 100
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationSoil qualityGovernance & corruption
Within North Carolina — 100 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Alleghany
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Wilkes
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Ashe
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Land & water (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Surry
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
McDowell
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Moore
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Rutherford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Transylvania
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Watauga
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Alexander
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Anson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Avery
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Buncombe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Caldwell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Caswell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Columbus
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Craven
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Halifax
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Henderson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Mitchell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Montgomery
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Polk
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Scotland
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Yancey
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Bertie
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Bladen
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Burke
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Camden
pushes back: Coastal risk
Highly suitable 82
Chatham
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Cleveland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Duplin
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Gates
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Granville
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Hertford
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Jones
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Martin
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Nash
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Northampton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Onslow
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Pender
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Person
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Richmond
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Robeson
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Sampson
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Stanly
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Swain
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Vance
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Warren
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Beaufort
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Brunswick
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Catawba
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Chowan
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 81
Edgecombe
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Franklin
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Graham
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Haywood
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Hoke
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Iredell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Jackson
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Lee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Lenoir
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Pasquotank
pushes back: Coastal risk
Highly suitable 81
Randolph
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Rockingham
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Stokes
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Wilson
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Yadkin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Alamance
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Carteret
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Cherokee
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Currituck
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 80
Greene
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Harnett
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Johnston
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Lincoln
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Macon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Pamlico
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Perquimans
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 80
Rowan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Washington
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 80
Clay
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 79
Dare
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 79
Davie
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Hyde
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 78
Orange
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Union
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Davidson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Tyrrell
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 77
Cabarrus
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Gaston
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Cumberland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Pitt
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Durham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Guilford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Forsyth
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Wake
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
New Hanover
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Mecklenburg
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
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.