### Rating Scale 1-3: Challenging conditions requiring significant mitigation 4-6: Workable conditions with some challenges 7-8: Good conditions with minor challenges 9-10: Excellent conditions with few limitations ### Regional Analysis | Region | Climate & Environmental (30%) | Legal & Regulatory (20%) | Economic (20%) | Infrastructure (15%) | Social & Cultural (15%) | Weighted Score | Key Advantages | Key Challenges | |--------|------------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|---------------------|----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------| | Ozarks (MO/AR) | 7 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 7.15 | - Very affordable land<br>- Good water resources<br>- Long growing season | - Extreme weather events<br>- Variable building codes<br>- Limited market access | | Southern Appalachia (NC/TN) | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7.45 | - Excellent growing conditions<br>- Strong agricultural heritage<br>- Good water resources | - Development pressure<br>- Increasing land costs<br>- Topography challenges | | Pacific Northwest (OR/WA) | 9 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 8.0 | - Progressive regulations<br>- Strong eco-community presence<br>- Established markets | - High land costs<br>- Fire risk<br>- Winter light limitations | | Upper Midwest (WI/MI) | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.3 | - Strong cooperative culture<br>- Affordable land<br>- Good water resources | - Short growing season<br>- Harsh winters<br>- Limited market access | | Northeast (VT/ME) | 7 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 7.7 | - Supportive regulations<br>- Strong local food movement<br>- Established communities | - High land costs<br>- Short growing season<br>- Property tax burden | ### Specific Locality Comparison for Forest Garden Communities | Locality | Climate & Environmental (30%) | Legal & Regulatory (20%) | Economic (20%) | Infrastructure (15%) | Social & Cultural (15%) | Weighted Score | Key Advantages | Key Challenges | |----------|------------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|---------------------|----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------| | Shannon County, MO | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 7.25 | - $2-5k/acre<br>- Springs & streams<br>- Good solar exposure | - Limited markets<br>- Poor internet<br>- Remote services | | Yancey County, NC | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7.45 | - Strong ag support<br>- Good water<br>- Established markets | - Steep terrain<br>- Rising costs<br>- Development pressure | | Douglas County, OR | 9 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 7.9 | - Progressive codes<br>- Good climate<br>- Strong networks | - Fire risk<br>- $8-15k/acre<br>- Water rights costs | | Isabella County, MI | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.1 | - Central location<br>- University presence<br>- Good infrastructure | - Heavy ag chemicals<br>- Conventional farming<br>- Cold winters | | Newaygo County, MI | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7.3 | - Sandy loam soils<br>- River access<br>- Affordable land | - Short season<br>- Limited markets<br>- Conservative area | | Mason County, MI | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.3 | - Lake effect climate<br>- Strong ag presence<br>- Tourist markets | - Higher land costs<br>- Seasonal economy<br>- Development pressure | | Vernon County, WI | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 7.75 | - Organic farming hub<br>- Strong coops<br>- Good soils | - Extreme winters<br>- Hilly terrain<br>- Limited transit | | Caledonia County, VT | 6 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7.25 | - Strong food movement<br>- Supportive laws<br>- Good networks | - Short season<br>- High costs<br>- Heavy regulations | ### High-Potential Localities | Locality | Climate (30%) | Legal (20%) | Economic (20%) | Infrastructure (15%) | Social (15%) | Weighted Score | Key Advantages | Key Challenges | | --------------------- | ------------- | ----------- | -------------- | -------------------- | ------------ | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Josephine County, OR | 9 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 8.45 | - Perfect growing climate<br>- Strong alternative community<br>- Progressive codes<br>- Established markets | - Fire risk<br>- Water rights costs<br>- Summer drought | | Nevada County, CA | 9 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 8.3 | - Mediterranean climate<br>- Strong food movement<br>- Tech corridor nearby<br>- Cultural support | - High land costs<br>- Fire risk<br>- Water competition | | Buncombe County, NC | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8.3 | - Year-round growing<br>- Supportive regulations<br>- Strong markets<br>- Cultural hub | - Development pressure<br>- Rising costs<br>- Storm risks | | Hood River County, OR | 9 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8.25 | - Protected climate<br>- Agricultural support<br>- Strong markets<br>- Water rights | - Very high land costs<br>- Limited availability<br>- Tourist pressure | ![[rogue river basin.png]]