Community suitability of Wisconsin, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
91
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 88
Climate, growing & hazards 87
Autonomy & access 83
Where it pushes back
Growing conditionsLand cover & degradationGovernance & corruption
Within Wisconsin — 72 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Shawano
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 87
Marquette
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Waupaca
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Door
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Pepin
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Menominee
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Oconto
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Lafayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Sauk
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Waushara
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Dunn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Polk
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Buffalo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Iowa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Pierce
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Richland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Langlade
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Adams
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Grant
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Green Lake
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jackson
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Portage
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Sheboygan
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Trempealeau
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Marinette
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Barron
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
St. Croix
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Crawford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Dodge
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Eau Claire
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Green
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Juneau
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
La Crosse
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Monroe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Forest
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Burnett
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Chippewa
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Marathon
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Columbia
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Manitowoc
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Moderately suitable 80
Vernon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Walworth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Wood
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Taylor
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Washburn
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Fond du Lac
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Kewaunee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Florence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Rusk
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Douglas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Lincoln
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Oneida
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Vilas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Calumet
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Sawyer
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Ozaukee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Bayfield
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Price
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Outagamie
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Ashland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Rock
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Iron
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Winnebago
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Dane
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Racine
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Kenosha
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Waukesha
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Brown
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Milwaukee
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 49
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.