Community suitability of Missouri, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 84
95
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 91
Climate, growing & hazards 94
Autonomy & access 80
Where it pushes back
Governance & corruptionHealthcare qualityAccessibility
Within Missouri — 114 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Franklin
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Warren
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Barry
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Dallas
strongest Autonomy & access (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Douglas
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Gasconade
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Hickory
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Lincoln
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 87
Ray
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 87
Washington
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Caldwell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 86
Crawford
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Dade
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Laclede
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
McDonald
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Montgomery
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Newton
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 86
Stone
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Taney
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Johnson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 85
Lawrence
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Ozark
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Polk
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
St. Francois
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Ste. Genevieve
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Webster
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Wright
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Andrew
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Cedar
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Clinton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Lafayette
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Perry
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Pike
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
St. Clair
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Texas
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 84
Bates
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Bollinger
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Buchanan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Camden
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Cooper
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
DeKalb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Dent
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Henry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Holt
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Iron
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Jefferson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Maries
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Morgan
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Osage
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Pettis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Pulaski
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Barton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Benton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Callaway
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Cass
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 82
Christian
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Daviess
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jasper
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Mercer
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Miller
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Phelps
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Saline
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Wayne
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Carroll
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Harrison
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Howell
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Lewis
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Linn
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Livingston
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Moniteau
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Nodaway
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Oregon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Ralls
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Reynolds
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Shannon
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Vernon
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Cape Girardeau
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Audrain
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Boone
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Carter
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Cole
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Howard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Monroe
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Ripley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Worth
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Atchison
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Chariton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Clark
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Gentry
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Grundy
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Putnam
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Randolph
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Schuyler
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Sullivan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Pemiscot
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Scott
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Adair
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Butler
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Dunklin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Knox
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Scotland
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Shelby
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Mississippi
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Macon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Platte
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Stoddard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
New Madrid
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Clay
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
St. Charles
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Greene
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Jackson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
St. Louis
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 49
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.