Community suitability of Jalisco, Mexico
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 69
91
best land · p90
98%
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 85
Climate, growing & hazards 85
Autonomy & access 66
Where it pushes back
Land tenure securityGovernance & corruptionLegal entity & land framework
Within Jalisco — 124 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Atoyac
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Jamay
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Jesus Maria
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Amacueca
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
San Diego De Alejandria
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Sayula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Techaluta De Montenegro
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Villa Corona
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Atotonilco El Alto
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Ayotlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Ciudad Venustiano C.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Degollado
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Encarnacion De Diaz
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Gomez Farias
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Jalostotitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Jocotepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Lagos De Moreno
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
San Julian
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
San Miguel El Alto
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Teocuitatlan De Corona
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tizapan El Alto
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tototlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Union De San Antonio
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Valle De Guadalupe
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Yahualica De Gonzalez G.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Zacoalco De Torres
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Atemajac De Brisuela
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Canadas De Obregon
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Cihuatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Cocula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Cuquio
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
La Barca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
La Manzanilla De La Paz
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Magdalena
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Mazamitla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Mexticacan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Poncitlan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 72
San Cristobal De La B.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tapalpa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Teocaltiche
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tuxcueca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Villa Hidalgo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Acatlan De Juarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Antonio Escobedo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Arandas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Chapala
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 71
Concepcion De Buenos A.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Hostotipaquillo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Ocotlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Quitupan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Sebastian Del Oeste
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tecolotlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tepatitlan De Morelos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Teuchitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Toliman
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Valle De Juarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Zapotlan Del Rey
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Ahualulco De Mercado
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
El Arenal
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Ixtlahuacan Del Rio
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Mascota
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Ojuelos De Jalisco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Puerto Vallarta
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
San Juan De Los Lagos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
San Martin Hidalgo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tamazula De Gordiano
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tuxpan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Zapotitlan De Vadillo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Acatic
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Amatitan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Cabo Corrientes
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Cuatitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Huejucar
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Ixtlahuacan De Los Membri
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
La Huerta
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
San Marcos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tenamaxtlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tequila
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tonila
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Ameca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Chiquilistlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Etzatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Guachinango
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Pihuamo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Sta. Maria De Los Angeles
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Tlajomulco De Zuniga
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Tonaya
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Zapotiltic
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Atenguillo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Casimiro Castillo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Juchitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Tecalitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Tuxcacuesco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Zapopan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Colotlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
El Limon
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Mixtlan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Atengo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Ciudad Guzman
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Cuautla
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Ejutla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Jilotlan De Los Dolores
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Juanacatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Talpa De Allende
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Tomatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Union De Tula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
El Grullo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Manuel M. Dieguez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Zapotlanejo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Autlan De Navarro
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Chimaltitan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Huejuquilla El Alto
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Totatiche
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Ayutla
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
San Martin De Bolanos
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Villa Purificacion
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 61
Villa Guerrero
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Bolanos
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Mezquitic
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
El Salto
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 57
Tonala
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 48
Tlaquepaque
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 45
Guadalajara
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
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.