Community suitability of Chiapas, Mexico
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 64
87
best land · p90
73%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Legal & sovereignty 52
Governance, safety & tenure 39
Economy & cost 86
Society, freedom & health 100
Land & water 70
Climate, growing & hazards 81
Autonomy & access 49
Where it pushes back
Land tenure securityGovernance & corruptionWater availability & quality
Within Chiapas — 109 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Amatenango Del Valle
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Comitan De Dominguez
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Huixtan
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Teopisca
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Jiquipilas
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
La Trinitaria
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Mitontic
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Suchiapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tzimol
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Berriozabal
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Chamula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Chenalho
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tenajapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Zinacantan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Acala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Chanal
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Chiapa De Corzo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Chiapilla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
El Porvenir
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
La Grandeza
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Las Rosas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Oxchuc
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Cristobal De Casas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Fernando
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Villaflores
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Ixtapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
La Independencia
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Larrainzar
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Ocozocoautla De Espinosa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Osumacinta
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Soyalo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Totolapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
El Bosque
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Frontera Comalapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Mazapa De Madero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Nicolas Ruiz
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Bejucal De Ocampo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Bochil
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Chalchihuitan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Chicoasen
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Cintalapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Copainala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Jitotol
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Motozintla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Pantelho
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
San Lucas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Socoltenango
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Amatenango De La F.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Bella Vista
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Sitala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Suchiate
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 67
Venustiano Carranza
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Arriaga
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Coapilla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Mazatan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Pantepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Pueblo Nuevo Solistahuaca
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Rayon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Siltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Tapalapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Tapilula
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Chicomuselo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Frontera Hidalgo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Las Margaritas
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Simojovel
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Tonola
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Villa Corzo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Tapachula
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Catazaja
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Escuintla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Huehuetan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Pijijiapan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Tecpatan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Cacahoatan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Chilon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Chapultenango
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
Huitiupan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Ixhuatan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
La Libertad
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
Mapastepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Ocotepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Reforma
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Altamirano
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
La Concordia
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Tuxtla Gutierrez
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Yajalon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Juarez
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Metapa
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Palenque
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Salto De Agua
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Tila
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Tumbala
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Acacoyagua
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 58
Angel Albino Corzo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Sabanilla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 58
Francisco Leon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 57
Ocosingo
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 54
Tuxtla Chico
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 52
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
excluded excl
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Legal entity & land frameworkcountry B OECD FDI RRI + manual
Education & schooling freedomcountry B HSLDA + UNESCO UIS
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Land tenure securitycountry A IPRI (de jure) + Prindex (de facto)
Business & economic viabilitycountry A World Bank B-READY, Heritage, Fraser
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
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
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 Mexico
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.