Community suitability of Washington, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 77
85
best land · p90
91%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 73
Climate, growing & hazards 83
Autonomy & access 73
Where it pushes back
Water availability & qualityFood & forage diversityAccessibility
Within Washington — 39 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
San Juan
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Mason
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Land & water (64)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 81
Cowlitz
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (64)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Kitsap
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Land & water (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Pierce
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (69)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Franklin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Island
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Kittitas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Lewis
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 79
Snohomish
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 79
Walla Walla
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
King
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 78
Pend Oreille
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Stevens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Thurston
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Yakima
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Benton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Klickitat
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Whitman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Pacific
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Skagit
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Spokane
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Wahkiakum
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 76
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Grays Harbor
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 75
Asotin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Clallam
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 74
Columbia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Ferry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Skamania
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 74
Whatcom
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Chelan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Clark
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 73
Douglas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Garfield
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Jefferson
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 69
Okanogan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
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.