Community suitability of Tennessee, United States Of America
Highly suitable confidence B · live score 85
92
best land · p90
98%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 82
Climate, growing & hazards 96
Autonomy & access 94
Where it pushes back
Land cover & degradationGovernance & corruptionSoil quality
Within Tennessee — 94 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Claiborne
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (98) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Hickman
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 88
Campbell
strongest Autonomy & access (100) ·
weakest Land & water (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Cocke
strongest Climate, growing & hazards (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Giles
strongest Autonomy & access (99) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 87
Grundy
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 87
Lewis
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Marshall
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Maury
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 87
Bledsoe
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Coffee
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 86
Cumberland
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Franklin
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 86
Lawrence
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 86
Macon
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Morgan
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Scott
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 86
Fentress
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Greene
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Hancock
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Hardeman
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Jackson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
McMinn
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Monroe
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Perry
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Putnam
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Rhea
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Sequatchie
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Smith
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
Trousdale
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Union
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 85
White
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 85
Bedford
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Chester
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Crockett
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
DeKalb
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Dickson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Dyer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 84
Grainger
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Hamblen
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Houston
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Humphreys
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Lincoln
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Madison
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Meigs
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Montgomery
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Moore
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Robertson
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Sevier
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Stewart
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Van Buren
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Warren
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 84
Wayne
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Tipton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Cannon
pushes back: Water availability & quality
Highly suitable 83
Decatur
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Fayette
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Gibson
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Hawkins
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Henderson
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Lauderdale
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Overton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Polk
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Blount
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Cheatham
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Haywood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Obion
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 82
Pickett
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Roane
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Unicoi
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Bradley
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Carroll
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Clay
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Hardin
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Henry
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Jefferson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Johnson
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Sumner
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 81
Washington
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Benton
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Carter
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
McNairy
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 80
Wilson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Anderson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Sullivan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Weakley
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Williamson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Loudon
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Hamilton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Rutherford
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 72
Shelby
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Knox
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 68
Davidson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
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.