Community suitability of Ohio, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 83
94
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 91
Climate, growing & hazards 92
Autonomy & access 91
Where it pushes back
Governance & corruptionFood & forage diversityHealthcare quality
Within Ohio — 87 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Hocking
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 89
Harrison
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Highland
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 88
Guernsey
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Perry
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Belmont
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Coshocton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Knox
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Pike
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Ross
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Athens
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Seneca
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Holmes
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Jefferson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Muskingum
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Vinton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Adams
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Brown
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Putnam
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Ashland
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Carroll
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Champaign
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Crawford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Mercer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Morgan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Noble
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Scioto
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Fayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Richland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Wyandot
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Allen
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Ashtabula
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Hancock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Hardin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Huron
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Logan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Jackson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Shelby
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Tuscarawas
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Williams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Auglaize
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Darke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Defiance
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Fairfield
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Morrow
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Washington
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Gallia
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Meigs
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Pickaway
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Preble
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Union
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Columbiana
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Fulton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Licking
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Madison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Monroe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Lawrence
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Sandusky
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Van Wert
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Clark
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Erie
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Henry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Paulding
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Wayne
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Ottawa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Clermont
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Geauga
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Miami
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Wood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Medina
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Portage
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Greene
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Trumbull
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Warren
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Delaware
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Lorain
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Stark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Mahoning
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Butler
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Lucas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Summit
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Hamilton
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Franklin
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Cuyahoga
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 51
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.