EcoHubs COMMUNITY SUITABILITY INDEX
← all regions

Community suitability of Iowa, United States Of America

Highly suitable confidence B · live score 82
93
best land · p90
99%
good land
—
one block
Explore Iowa on the map →

How each domain holds up

Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 94
Climate, growing & hazards 85
Autonomy & access 91

Where it pushes back

Food & forage diversityGovernance & corruptionHealthcare quality

Within Iowa — 99 sub-regions

Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.

Clarke
strongest Autonomy & access (96) · weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Lucas
strongest Economy & cost (95) · weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Jefferson
strongest Economy & cost (95) · weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Keokuk
strongest Economy & cost (95) · weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Louisa
strongest Autonomy & access (98) · weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Washington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Harrison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Marion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Sioux
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Buchanan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Decatur
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Des Moines
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Dubuque
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Henry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Jones
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Lee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Monona
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Monroe
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Montgomery
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Van Buren
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Wayne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Boone
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Cherokee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Delaware
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Fremont
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Guthrie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Iowa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jasper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Madison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Mahaska
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Mills
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Tama
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Union
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Benton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Black Hawk
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Cass
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Clayton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Fayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Greene
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Hamilton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Ida
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Page
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Plymouth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Pottawattamie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Poweshiek
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Ringgold
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Shelby
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Story
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Wapello
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Warren
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Adair
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Appanoose
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Audubon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Bremer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Butler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Cedar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Crawford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Dallas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Hardin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Howard
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Lyon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Muscatine
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Sac
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Webster
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Winneshiek
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Woodbury
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Adams
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Allamakee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Buena Vista
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Carroll
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Chickasaw
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Davis
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Grundy
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Humboldt
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Mitchell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
O'Brien
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Taylor
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Calhoun
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Franklin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Osceola
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Worth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Wright
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Cerro Gordo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Dickinson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Floyd
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Emmet
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Hancock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Winnebago
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Kossuth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Palo Alto
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Pocahontas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Linn
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Polk
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69

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.

Tennessee 85 Kentucky 85 Virginia 84 Alabama 84 Illinois 84 Missouri 84 South Carolina 84 Ohio 83 Pennsylvania 83 Arkansas 83 Georgia 83 North Carolina 83 Wisconsin 82 Michigan 82 +36 more