Community suitability of Oregon, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 75
86
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 77
Climate, growing & hazards 80
Autonomy & access 58
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityWater availability & quality
Within Oregon — 35 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Jackson
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Josephine
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Benton
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Land & water (76)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Columbia
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Land & water (71)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Lane
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (73)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Douglas
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Linn
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Marion
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 81
Yamhill
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Clackamas
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Hood River
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Polk
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Coos
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Clatsop
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 78
Lincoln
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 78
Umatilla
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Klamath
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Wasco
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Deschutes
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Union
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Tillamook
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 75
Curry
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Morrow
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Baker
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Sherman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Multnomah
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Gilliam
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Wheeler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Crook
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Grant
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Malheur
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Wallowa
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Harney
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 61
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.