Community suitability of Texas, United States Of America
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 79
89
best land · p90
96%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 78
Economy & cost 95
Society, freedom & health 88
Land & water 83
Climate, growing & hazards 79
Autonomy & access 81
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversitySoil qualityGrowing conditions
Within Texas — 254 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Kendall
strongest Autonomy & access (96) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 86
Rains
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 86
Van Zandt
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 86
Walker
strongest Autonomy & access (97) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 86
Austin
strongest Economy & cost (95) ·
weakest Governance, safety & tenure (78)
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 85
Bandera
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 85
Coryell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 85
Fannin
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Hopkins
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 85
Madison
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 85
Panola
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 85
Blanco
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Henderson
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Hunt
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 84
Kerr
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Leon
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Limestone
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Medina
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Milam
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Navarro
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
San Jacinto
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Shelby
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 84
Smith
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Washington
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 84
Wood
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 84
Anderson
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Bowie
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 83
Burnet
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Caldwell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Cass
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Cooke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Delta
pushes back: Governance & corruption
Highly suitable 83
Hardin
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Harrison
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Hill
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Houston
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Kaufman
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Liberty
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Montague
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 83
Polk
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Trinity
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 83
Upshur
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 83
Wharton
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 83
Angelina
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Bastrop
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Bee
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Bosque
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Colorado
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Falls
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Freestone
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Gillespie
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Grayson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Jasper
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Lampasas
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Lee
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Marion
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Nacogdoches
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Highly suitable 82
Tyler
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 82
Waller
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 82
Wise
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 82
Burleson
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Callahan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Chambers
pushes back: Coastal risk
Highly suitable 81
Cherokee
pushes back: Accessibility
Highly suitable 81
Eastland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Erath
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Fayette
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Franklin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 81
Gonzales
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Gregg
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Grimes
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Hale
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 81
Hamilton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Hays
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Hood
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Highly suitable 81
Karnes
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Lavaca
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Newton
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Refugio
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Robertson
pushes back: Growing conditions
Highly suitable 81
Rusk
pushes back: Soil quality
Highly suitable 81
Sabine
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
San Augustine
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 81
Wilson
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 81
Aransas
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 80
Brazoria
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Brown
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Clay
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Comal
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
DeWitt
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Jackson
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Jim Wells
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Lamar
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Llano
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Morris
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 80
Palo Pinto
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Parker
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Red River
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Somervell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 80
Stephens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Terry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 80
Titus
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 80
Atascosa
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Bell
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Camp
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 79
Castro
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Cochran
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Coleman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Ellis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Goliad
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Guadalupe
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Hockley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Matagorda
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Real
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 79
Runnels
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Swisher
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Uvalde
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Victoria
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 79
Young
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Armstrong
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Comanche
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Deaf Smith
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Frio
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Garza
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Gray
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Jack
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Johnson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Jones
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Lamb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
Live Oak
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 78
Mason
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Randall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 78
San Patricio
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 78
San Saba
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Willacy
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 78
Williamson
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 78
Archer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Bailey
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Baylor
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Dawson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Donley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Haskell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Maverick
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
McCulloch
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
McLennan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 77
Mills
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Shackelford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Throckmorton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Tom Green
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Webb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Wilbarger
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Zavala
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Andrews
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Carson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Collingsworth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Crosby
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Duval
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Fisher
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Gaines
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Howard
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Jefferson
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 76
Kimble
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 76
Kleberg
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 76
Lynn
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Martin
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Moore
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Parmer
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Potter
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Taylor
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Val Verde
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Wichita
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Brooks
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Calhoun
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 75
Childress
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Concho
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Dickens
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Dimmit
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Edwards
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Hardeman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Hutchinson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Kinney
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Knox
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
La Salle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Montgomery
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 75
Nolan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Starr
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Stonewall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Wheeler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Yoakum
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Zapata
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Brazos
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Cameron
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 74
Coke
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Cottle
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Dallam
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Floyd
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Foard
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Fort Bend
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Hall
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Hemphill
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Hidalgo
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Kent
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Menard
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 74
Midland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Nueces
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Orange
pushes back: Land cover & degradation
Moderately suitable 74
Scurry
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 74
Briscoe
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Crane
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Glasscock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Hansford
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Hartley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
King
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Lipscomb
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
McMullen
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Mitchell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Roberts
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Sherman
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Upton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Borden
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Irion
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Jim Hogg
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Kenedy
pushes back: Growing conditions
Moderately suitable 72
Motley
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Ochiltree
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Oldham
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Reagan
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Sterling
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Sutton
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Winkler
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Collin
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Crockett
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Denton
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 71
Ector
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Galveston
pushes back: Coastal risk
Moderately suitable 71
Schleicher
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Ward
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 71
Lubbock
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Rockwall
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Hudspeth
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Pecos
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Travis
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 69
El Paso
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Jeff Davis
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Loving
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Reeves
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 68
Terrell
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 67
Bexar
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Culberson
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 65
Brewster
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 61
Presidio
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Marginally suitable 60
Harris
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 58
Dallas
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
Tarrant
pushes back: Accessibility
Marginally suitable 54
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.