Community suitability of Wyoming, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 62
76
best land · p90
90%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 76
Climate, growing & hazards 64
Autonomy & access 27
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityWater availability & quality
Within Wyoming — 23 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Laramie
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (71)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Albany
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (58)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Uinta
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (64)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Sheridan
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (44)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Goshen
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Autonomy & access (53)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Platte
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Big Horn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Carbon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Washakie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Park
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Teton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Crook
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Hot Springs
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Sublette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Campbell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Weston
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Converse
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Natrona
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Niobrara
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Fremont
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 59
Sweetwater
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 58
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.