Community suitability of Virginia, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 84
93
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 84
Climate, growing & hazards 94
Autonomy & access 95
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationSoil qualityGovernance & corruption
Within Virginia — 129 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Rappahannock
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Rockbridge
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Prince Edward
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Sussex
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Albemarle
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Appomattox
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Augusta
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Bland
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Campbell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Craig
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Culpeper
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Cumberland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Essex
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Floyd
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Frederick
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Lexington
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Lunenburg
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Nelson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Patrick
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Pulaski
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Shenandoah
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Warren
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Alleghany
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Amherst
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Botetourt
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Buckingham
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Carroll
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Charlottesville
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Dinwiddie
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Fluvanna
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Franklin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Giles
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Greene
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Henry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lancaster
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Northumberland
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Nottoway
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Orange
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Pittsylvania
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Smyth
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Southampton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Westmoreland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Wythe
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Amelia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Buena Vista
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Caroline
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Charlotte
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Grayson
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Halifax
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
King and Queen
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
King George
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
King William
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Louisa
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Mecklenburg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Page
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Staunton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Surry
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Tazewell
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Waynesboro
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Bedford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Bath
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Brunswick
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Clarke
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Fauquier
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Greensville
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Lynchburg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Middlesex
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Montgomery
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Rockingham
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Spotsylvania
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Covington
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Galax
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Goochland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Martinsville
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Mathews
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Northampton
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Norton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Prince George
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Richmond
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Wise
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Charles City
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Danville
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Emporia
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Gloucester
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Isle of Wight
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
New Kent
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Powhatan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Radford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Accomack
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Dickenson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Highland
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Suffolk
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Russell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Winchester
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 78
Buchanan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
James City
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Stafford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Fredericksburg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 76
Bristol
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 75
Hanover
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Harrisonburg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 75
Chesapeake
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Petersburg
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Chesterfield
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Colonial Heights
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Hopewell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Loudoun
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Williamsburg
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
York
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Poquoson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Prince William
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Virginia Beach
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Roanoke
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Henrico
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Fairfax
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 51
Hampton
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
Newport News
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
Portsmouth
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
Falls Church
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 38
Manassas Park
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 38
Alexandria
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 37
Arlington
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 37
Manassas
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 37
Salem
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 37
Norfolk
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.