Community suitability of Mississippi, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 80
87
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 79
Climate, growing & hazards 90
Autonomy & access 72
Where it pushes back
AccessibilitySoil qualityWater availability & quality
Within Mississippi — 82 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Tate
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Tunica
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Pearl River
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Amite
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Greene
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Lafayette
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Marshall
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Adams
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Wilkinson
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Alcorn
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Hancock
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Stone
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Tippah
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Marion
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Panola
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Pike
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Quitman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Tallahatchie
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Benton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Forrest
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
George
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 82
Itawamba
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Lowndes
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Monroe
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Oktibbeha
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Pontotoc
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Prentiss
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Tishomingo
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Union
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Yalobusha
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Franklin
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Grenada
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Clay
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Lamar
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 81
Lee
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Neshoba
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Noxubee
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 81
Perry
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Wayne
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Winston
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Coahoma
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Jefferson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Lincoln
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Calhoun
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Jones
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Copiah
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Sunflower
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Walthall
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 79
Covington
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Jackson
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Moderately suitable 79
Lauderdale
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Newton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Webster
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Bolivar
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Carroll
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Claiborne
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Simpson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Chickasaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Kemper
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 78
Leake
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
DeSoto
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Holmes
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Lawrence
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Leflore
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Rankin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Choctaw
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Clarke
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Jasper
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Jefferson Davis
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 77
Smith
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Hinds
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Attala
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Humphreys
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Madison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Warren
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Sharkey
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Issaquena
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Yazoo
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 73
Harrison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
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.