Community suitability of South Dakota, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 64
86
best land · p90
98%
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 76
Autonomy & access 25
Where it pushes back
AccessibilityFood & forage diversityWater availability & quality
Within South Dakota — 65 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
McCook
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Hanson
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Moody
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Turner
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Clay
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Davison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Hutchinson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Union
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Brookings
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Miner
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Yankton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Deuel
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Hamlin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Roberts
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Bon Homme
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Douglas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Minnehaha
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Sanborn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Codington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Aurora
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Charles Mix
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Kingsbury
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Gregory
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Day
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Beadle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Brule
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Jerauld
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Brown
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Spink
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Buffalo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Tripp
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Hand
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Lyman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
McPherson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Edmunds
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Hyde
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Faulk
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Hughes
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Walworth
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Lawrence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Potter
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Sully
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Mellette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Todd
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Campbell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Bennett
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Custer
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Jones
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Pennington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Stanley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Fall River
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Jackson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Corson
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Dewey
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Haakon
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Butte
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Shannon
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Meade
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Ziebach
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Harding
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Perkins
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
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.