Community suitability of Georgia, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 83
89
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 81
Climate, growing & hazards 91
Autonomy & access 90
Where it pushes back
Soil qualityLand cover & degradationGovernance & corruption
Within Georgia — 159 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Banks
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Franklin
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Lumpkin
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 87
Webster
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Bulloch
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Chattooga
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Thomas
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Brantley
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Dawson
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Evans
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Floyd
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Gordon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Haralson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Meriwether
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Pickens
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Randolph
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Schley
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Screven
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Terrell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 85
Troup
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
White
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Calhoun
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Carroll
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Colquitt
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Crawford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Elbert
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Gilmer
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Greene
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Hart
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Heard
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Marion
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Monroe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Morgan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Murray
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Oglethorpe
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Pierce
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Pike
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Polk
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Quitman
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Stewart
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Sumter
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Tattnall
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Brooks
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Camden
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Charlton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Cook
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Grady
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Habersham
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Jasper
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Jones
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Lamar
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Long
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Macon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Peach
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Putnam
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Stephens
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Taliaferro
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Taylor
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Tift
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Upson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Walker
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Wilkes
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Baker
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Baldwin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Berrien
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Bryan
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Butts
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Coweta
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Decatur
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Dooly
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Fannin
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Jackson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Lee
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Liberty
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
McDuffie
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Miller
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Montgomery
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Oconee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Pulaski
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Talbot
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Toombs
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Union
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Atkinson
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Bacon
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Ben Hill
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Bibb
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Candler
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Clay
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Coffee
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Crisp
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Dodge
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Early
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Effingham
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Emanuel
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Hall
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Irwin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Jenkins
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Lincoln
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Mitchell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Seminole
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Spalding
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Towns
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Treutlen
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Turner
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Ware
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Warren
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Wheeler
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Wilcox
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Wilkinson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Appling
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Bartow
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Bleckley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Burke
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Chattahoochee
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Clarke
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Clinch
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Columbia
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Dade
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Dougherty
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Hancock
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Harris
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Houston
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
McIntosh
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Rabun
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 80
Whitfield
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Worth
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Echols
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Glascock
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Glynn
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Lanier
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Laurens
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Lowndes
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Newton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Paulding
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Richmond
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Telfair
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Twiggs
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Walton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Cherokee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Jeff Davis
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Jefferson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Douglas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Fayette
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Barrow
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Henry
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Catoosa
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Forsyth
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Chatham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Muscogee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Rockdale
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Fulton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Gwinnett
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Clayton
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
Cobb
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 60
DeKalb
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 50
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.