Community suitability of Pennsylvania, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 83
92
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 83
Climate, growing & hazards 94
Autonomy & access 93
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGovernance & corruption
Within Pennsylvania — 67 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Juniata
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 87
Crawford
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Greene
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Fulton
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Venango
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Bedford
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Clinton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Mifflin
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Snyder
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Union
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Clearfield
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Forest
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Jefferson
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Sullivan
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Butler
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Mercer
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Armstrong
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Blair
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Bradford
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Clarion
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Columbia
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Fayette
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Huntingdon
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Indiana
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Lycoming
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Montour
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Northumberland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Pike
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Warren
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Wayne
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Cambria
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Cameron
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
McKean
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Potter
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Somerset
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Susquehanna
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Centre
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Elk
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Franklin
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Moderately suitable 81
Tioga
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Westmoreland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Wyoming
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Adams
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Carbon
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Monroe
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Schuylkill
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Beaver
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Lawrence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Erie
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Cumberland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Lebanon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Luzerne
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Dauphin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Chester
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Berks
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Lackawanna
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Lancaster
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
York
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Bucks
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Northampton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Allegheny
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Lehigh
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Delaware
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 56
Philadelphia
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 36
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.