Community suitability of North Dakota, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 66
80
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 83
Climate, growing & hazards 71
Autonomy & access 32
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityFood & forage diversityWater availability & quality
Within North Dakota — 53 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Cass
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (70)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Richland
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Grand Forks
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (71)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Ransom
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Sargent
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (72)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Traill
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Barnes
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Steele
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Griggs
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
LaMoure
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Nelson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Dickey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Foster
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Stutsman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Eddy
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Logan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Pembina
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Walsh
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Kidder
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Wells
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Cavalier
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
McIntosh
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Ramsey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Benson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Burleigh
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Emmons
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Divide
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Sheridan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Towner
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Burke
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Pierce
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Rolette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Bottineau
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
McHenry
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Morton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Sioux
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Ward
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
McLean
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Mountrail
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Renville
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Stark
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Williams
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Dunn
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Grant
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Hettinger
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Mercer
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Oliver
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Adams
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Bowman
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Golden Valley
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
McKenzie
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Billings
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Slope
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.