Community suitability of Puebla, Mexico
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 71
92
best land · p90
93%
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 80
Climate, growing & hazards 90
Autonomy & access 91
Where it pushes back
Land tenure securityGovernance & corruptionLegal entity & land framework
Within Puebla — 212 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Santiago Miahuatlan
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 76
Chignahuapan
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Chila
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Huehuetlan El Grande
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
San Miguel Ixitlan
strongest Society, freedom & health (100) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (39)
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 75
Acajete
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Acatzingo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Atexcal
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
General Felipe Angeles
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Ixtacamaxtitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Juan M. Mendez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
La Magdelena Tlatlauquit.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Nicolas Bravo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Rafael Lara Grajales
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
San Antonio Canada
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
San Juan Atenco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
San Juan Atzompa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Teopantlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Tlacotepec De Benito J.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Zinacatepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 74
Acteopan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Aljojuca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Aquixtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Chapulco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Chigmecatitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Cohuecan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Coxcatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Coyotepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Epatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Huatlatlauca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Huitziltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Quecholac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
San Diego La Mesa T.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
San Jose Miahuatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
San Salvador El Seco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tecamachalco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tepamco De Lopez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tepatlaxco De Hidalgo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Tetela De Ocampo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Vicente Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 73
Ahuatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Ixcaquixtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Lafragua
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Mazapiltepec De Juarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Molcaxac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Nopalucan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Oriental
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Petlalcingo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
San Jose Chiapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
San Nicolas Los Ranchos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
San Pedro Yeloixtlahuaca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Santa Catarina Tlaltempan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Soltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tepeaca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tepeojuma
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tepeyahualco De Cuahtemoc
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tochtepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Totoltepec De Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Tzicatlacoyan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Xochitlan Todos Santos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Yehualtepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Zacapala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Zacatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 72
Ajalpan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Albino Zertuche
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Altepexi
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Atoyatempa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Atzitzintla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Caltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Coatzingo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Esperanza
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Francisco Z. Mena
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Guadalupe Victoria
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Izucar De Matamoros
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Los Reyes De Juarez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Palmar De Bravo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Nicolas De Buenos A.
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Pablo Anicano
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
San Salvador Huixcolotla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tehuacan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tepemaxalco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tepexi De Rodriguez
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tlachichuca
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tlanepantla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tlapanala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Tochimilco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Xayacatlan De Bravo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Xochiltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Zapotitlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 71
Acatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Chalchicomula De Sesma
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Chilchotla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Cuapiaxtla De Madero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Cuyoaco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Guadalupe
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Huaquechula
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Ocotepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Pantepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Santa Ines Ahuatempan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Santo Tomas Hueyotlipan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tenampulco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tepexco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tepeyahualco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Tilapa
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 70
Acateno
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Ahuehuetitla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Atzala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Axutla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Ayotoxco De Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Canada Morelos
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Chetla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Chichiquila
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Chila Honey
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Chinantla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Cuayuca De Andrade
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Huehuetlan El Chico
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Hueytamalco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Jolalpan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Piaxtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Quimixtlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
San Jeronimo Xayacatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tecali De Herrera
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tehuitzingo
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Teotlalco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tlahuapan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Tulcinango
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Venustiano Carranza
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Xalpan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 69
Xicotlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Xochiapulco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 69
Chiautla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Chila De La Sal
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Cohetzala
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Cuahtempan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Ixcamilpa De Guerrero
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Tecomatlan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Tlaxco
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 68
Xiutetelco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Zacapoaxtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 68
Ahuazotepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Cuautinchan
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Mixtla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Pahuatlan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Tlatlauquitepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Xochitlan De Vicente S.
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 67
Zautla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 67
Chiconcuautla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
San Gabriel Chilac
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
San Martin Totoltepec
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 66
Tepetzintla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Tlacuilotepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Xicotepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 66
Ahuacatlan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Amozoc
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Cuetzalan De Progreso
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Domingo Arenas
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 65
Huehuetla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Naupan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Zihuateutla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 65
Caxhuacan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Jonotla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Olintla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Puebla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Teteles De Avila Castillo
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 64
Tianguismanalco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 64
Chignautla
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 63
Coyomeapan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Hermenegildo Galeana
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Hueyapan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
San Matias Tlalancaleca
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Teziutlan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 63
Zaragoza
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 63
Atlixco
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 62
Jopala
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
San Salvador El Verde
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Tepango De Rodriguez
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Tlaola
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 62
Atempam
pushes back: Land tenure security
Moderately suitable 61
Calpan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 61
Hueytlalpan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 61
Ixtepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
Nauzontla
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
San Felipe Tepatlan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 61
Huitzilan De Serdan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Juan Galindo
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Tlapacoya
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Yaonahuac
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Zoquitlan
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 60
Chiautzingo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Huauchinango
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Huejotzingo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
Nealtican
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 59
San Sebastian Tlacotepec
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Marginally suitable 59
Santa Isabel Cholula
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 53
San Felipe Teotlalcingo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 52
Tlaltenango
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 51
Cuautlancingo
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 50
Juan C. Bonilla
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 50
Ocoyucan
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 49
Coronango
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 36
San Jeronimo Tecuanipan
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 36
San Miguel Xoxtla
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 36
San Gregorio Atzompa
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
San Pedro Cholula
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 34
San Andres Cholula
pushes back: Accessibility
Currently not suitable 33
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.