Community suitability of South Carolina, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 84
90
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 92
Autonomy & access 99
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationSoil qualityGovernance & corruption
Within South Carolina — 46 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Aiken
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Chesterfield
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Hampton
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Sumter
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Abbeville
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Clarendon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Colleton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Dillon
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Greenwood
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Kershaw
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lancaster
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lee
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Oconee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Orangeburg
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Williamsburg
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Bamberg
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Barnwell
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Cherokee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Chester
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Edgefield
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Florence
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Laurens
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Marlboro
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Saluda
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Union
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Calhoun
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Darlington
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
McCormick
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Newberry
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Allendale
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Beaufort
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Dorchester
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Fairfield
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Georgetown
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Horry
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Jasper
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Anderson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Berkeley
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Pickens
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Spartanburg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
York
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Charleston
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Lexington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Greenville
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Richland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
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.