Community suitability of Guerrero, Mexico
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 68
87
best land · p90
99%
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 82
Climate, growing & hazards 79
Autonomy & access 60
Where it pushes back
Land tenure securityGovernance & corruptionLegal entity & land framework
Within Guerrero — 76 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Cualac
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Ixcateopan De Cuauhtemoc
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Alpoyeca
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Atlamajalcingo Del Monte
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Pedro Ascencio Alquisiras
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Tlalixtaquilla De M.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Alcozauca De Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Atlixtac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Buenavista De Cuellar
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Copanatoyac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Eduardo Neri
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Huamuxtitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Xalpatlahuac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Ahuacuotzingo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Cocula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Cuetzala Del Progreso
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Jose Azueta
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Leonardo Bravo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Pilcaya
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Taxco De Alarcon
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Teloloapan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tepecoacuilco De Trujano
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tetipac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tixtla De Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tlapa De Comonfort
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Chilapa De Alvarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
General Canuto A. Neri
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Huitzuico De Los Figueroa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Martir De Cuilapan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Olinala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tlacoapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Chilpancingo De Los Bravo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Iguala De Independencia
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
La Union
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Malinaltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Xochihuehuetlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Acapulco De Juarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
General Heliodoro
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Juan R. Escudero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Metlatonoc
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Mochitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Petatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Zapotitlan Tablas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Zitlala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Atenango Del Rio
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Benito Juarez
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 68
Copalillo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Coyuca De Benitez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Quechultenango
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
San Marcos
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 68
Apaxtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Tecoanapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Arcelia
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Atoyac De Alvarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Copala
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 65
Florencio Villareal
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 65
San Luis Acatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Tlacoachistlahuaca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Tlalchapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Ayutla De Los Libres
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Coahuayutla De Jose M. I.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Cuautepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Tlapehuala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Cuitzamala De Pinzon
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 63
Tecpan De Galeana
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Azoyu
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Coyuca De Catalan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Ometepec
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Pungarabato
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 62
Xochistlahuaca
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Igualapa
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
San Miguel Totolapan
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Ajuchitlan Del Progreso
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Cuajinicuilapa
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Zirandaro
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
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.