Community suitability of Alabama, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 84
89
best land · p90
98%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 78
Climate, growing & hazards 92
Autonomy & access 95
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationSoil qualityWater availability & quality
Within Alabama — 67 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Blount
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 86
Bullock
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Fayette
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Land & water (77)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 86
Pike
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Barbour
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Bibb
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Crenshaw
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Cullman
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Jackson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Macon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Pickens
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Butler
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Calhoun
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Chilton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Cleburne
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
DeKalb
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Greene
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lawrence
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Marion
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Talladega
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Walker
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Winston
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Chambers
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Cherokee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Coffee
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Coosa
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Dale
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Dallas
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Etowah
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Franklin
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Hale
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Lamar
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Lowndes
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Morgan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
St. Clair
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Tallapoosa
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Autauga
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Baldwin
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Clay
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Colbert
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Lauderdale
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Lee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Limestone
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Marshall
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Randolph
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Russell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Shelby
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Sumter
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Conecuh
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Escambia
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Geneva
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Marengo
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Washington
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Clarke
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Covington
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Elmore
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Henry
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Monroe
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Tuscaloosa
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Wilcox
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Choctaw
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Houston
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Mobile
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 78
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Jefferson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
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
Healthcare qualitycountry B WHO GHO
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
Connectivity A Ookla + ITU (+ Starlink)
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 United States Of America
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.