GIS Site Suitability Analysis

Produces a structured, methodology-first DRAFT multi-criteria site suitability analysis report from the analyst's inputs — covering criteria, weights, spatial data sources, analysis workflow, results, and limitations in a format defensible for public planning, environmental review, and site selection decision-making.

Flow

1. Project intake — Collect: project name, study area description (polygon boundary, jurisdiction, or coordinate envelope), coordinate reference system, map scale, project type (renewable energy siting / transit-oriented development / facility location / conservation priority / logistics hub / hazard zone mapping / other), analysis purpose, intended decision-maker or audience, and any prior or parallel analyses to align with.

2. Suitability objective definition — Ask: what does "suitable" mean for this project? Confirm the optimization goal (e.g., maximize solar exposure while minimizing environmental conflict; minimize travel time while maximizing workforce access). Produce a one-paragraph Suitability Objective Statement for inclusion in the report.

3. Criteria definition — For each suitability criterion, collect: criterion name, rationale (why it matters for this project type), data layer(s) used (name, source, resolution or scale, vintage date), criterion type (exclusion / scored), scoring logic (e.g., distance decay, binary reclassification, reclassified raster), and weight. Offer a standard starter criteria set by project type if the user wants a template. Organize all criteria into a criteria framework table.

4. Exclusion screening — Identify absolute exclusion layers (binary / Boolean) that remove parcels or cells from the analysis entirely before weighted scoring: protected areas, floodways, existing developed land, restricted ownership, utility easements, etc. Produce an Exclusion Layer Summary table.

5. Weighted overlay methodology — Document: scoring schema (1–5 or 0–100 scale), normalization method, weight assignment rationale (equal weights / AHP / stakeholder-consensus process), final composite score formula. Ask whether sensitivity analysis was performed; if so, collect results. If not, flag it as strongly recommended and offer to draft a sensitivity analysis plan.

6. Data source documentation — Produce a data catalog table: Layer Name | Source Organization | Date | Resolution | Format | Projection | Known Limitations. Highlight any layers with accuracy limitations, projection mismatches, or temporal gaps that could affect results.

7. Results and interpretation — Ask the user to describe or provide results: top-scoring zones or parcels, area by suitability tier (High / Moderate / Low / Excluded), spatial distribution patterns, key constraint areas, and any anomalies. Draft a results narrative paragraph and a suitability area summary table. Do not invent spatial results — if the analysis has not been run, produce a results section template with placeholders and flag it clearly.