Community suitability of Arkansas, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 83
91
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 84
Climate, growing & hazards 89
Autonomy & access 84
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationGovernance & corruptionSoil quality
Within Arkansas — 75 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Boone
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Carroll
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
White
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Conway
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Johnson
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Lafayette
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Logan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Newton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Scott
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
St. Francis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Van Buren
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Columbia
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Cross
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Faulkner
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Franklin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Miller
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Poinsett
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Pope
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Prairie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Saline
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Grant
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Monroe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Polk
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Searcy
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Yell
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Cleburne
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Cleveland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Crawford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Garland
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Hot Spring
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Lonoke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Montgomery
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Nevada
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Sharp
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Stone
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Baxter
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Clark
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Craighead
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Crittenden
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Dallas
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Hempstead
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Lawrence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Mississippi
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Phillips
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Randolph
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Arkansas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Drew
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Fulton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Greene
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Howard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Independence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Little River
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Sevier
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Washington
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Woodruff
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Clay
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Izard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Ouachita
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Pike
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Union
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Bradley
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Calhoun
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Sebastian
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Ashley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Desha
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Benton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Chicot
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Pulaski
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
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.