Community suitability of Kansas, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 76
92
best land · p90
100%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 89
Climate, growing & hazards 85
Autonomy & access 61
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityAccessibilityGovernance & corruption
Within Kansas — 105 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Atchison
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Doniphan
strongest Land & water (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Geary
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Linn
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Bourbon
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Brown
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Cowley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Harvey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Jackson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Lyon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Pottawatomie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Reno
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Wabaunsee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Anderson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Butler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Chase
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Cherokee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Franklin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Greenwood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jefferson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Kingman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Labette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
McPherson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Montgomery
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Riley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Sumner
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Allen
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Chautauqua
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Coffey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Dickinson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Leavenworth
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Miami
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 81
Morris
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Nemaha
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Osage
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Saline
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Wilson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Crawford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Woodson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Harper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Marshall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Rice
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Elk
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Neosho
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Pratt
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Ellsworth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Washington
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Barber
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Barton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Ottawa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Republic
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Stafford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Cloud
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Edwards
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Jewell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Sedgwick
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Shawnee
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Comanche
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Douglas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Ford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Kiowa
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Lincoln
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Pawnee
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Mitchell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Russell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Rush
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Smith
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Clark
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Ellis
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Hodgeman
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Morton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Ness
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Osborne
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
Seward
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Gray
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Greeley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Meade
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Stevens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Cheyenne
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Hamilton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Lane
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Phillips
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Rooks
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Trego
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 67
Finney
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Grant
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Haskell
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Sherman
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Wallace
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 66
Norton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Gove
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Sheridan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Stanton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 64
Wyandotte
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 64
Graham
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Kearny
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Logan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Rawlins
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Thomas
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Wichita
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 63
Decatur
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
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.