Bhutan vs Burkina Faso: Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data

Bhutan
0.253
in 2023
Burkina Faso
0.253
in 2023
Bhutan rank
104th
Burkina Faso rank
104th

Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data over time

  • Bhutan
  • Burkina Faso
00.10.20.30.40.5201520192023

How they compare

Bhutan currently reports 0.253 against 0.253 in Burkina Faso, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Bhutan ahead.

Bhutan ranks 104th and Burkina Faso ranks 104th of 177 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Bhutan averaged higher in 1 and Burkina Faso in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bhutan Burkina Faso Difference Ahead
2010s 0.3486 0.254 0.0946 Bhutan
2020s 0.253 0.31 0.057 Burkina Faso

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dimension 4.3: geospatial data, Bhutan or Burkina Faso?
Bhutan, at 0.253 against 0.253 in Burkina Faso as of 2023.
What is the difference in dimension 4.3: geospatial data between Bhutan and Burkina Faso?
0, with Bhutan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and Burkina Faso?
9 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2023.
How do Bhutan and Burkina Faso rank globally for dimension 4.3: geospatial data?
Bhutan ranks 104th and Burkina Faso ranks 104th of 177 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statistical Performance Indicators, The World Bank (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/statistical-performance-indicators), published as Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data
Source
Statistical Performance Indicators, The World Bank (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/statistical-performance-indicators)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
179 places, 1,551 data points, 2015–2023
Last refreshed

Geospatial data available at 1st Admin Level. We recognize that this data source provides only limited coverage but consider that it does at least provide some indication of the ability of the national statistical system to produce geospatial data. A major research and data collection effort is needed via GGIM to fill in this information, so that a more comprehensive picture of geospatial data capability at the national level can be produced. Until this is done, it we cannot even assess the scale of the data gaps in a comparable way.