Community suitability of West Virginia, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
91
best land · p90
100%
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 98
Autonomy & access 69
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityAccessibilityLand cover & degradation
Within West Virginia — 55 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Morgan
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Monroe
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Hampshire
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Mercer
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Marshall
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Summers
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Taylor
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Marion
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Monongalia
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Ohio
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Wetzel
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Hardy
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Lewis
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Wyoming
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Preston
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Doddridge
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Greenbrier
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Harrison
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
McDowell
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Mineral
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Raleigh
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Tyler
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Wirt
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Brooke
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Hancock
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Barbour
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Berkeley
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Gilmer
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Jackson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Jefferson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Mason
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Ritchie
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Upshur
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Braxton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Calhoun
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Fayette
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Grant
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Logan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Mingo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Pendleton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Pleasants
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Pocahontas
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Roane
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Wayne
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Webster
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Wood
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Clay
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Nicholas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Randolph
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Tucker
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Boone
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Cabell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Lincoln
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Putnam
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Kanawha
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
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.