Eswatini vs Kuwait: Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data

Eswatini
0.072
in 2023
Kuwait
0.063
in 2023
Eswatini rank
160th
Kuwait rank
163rd

Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data over time

  • Eswatini
  • Kuwait
00.050.10.150.20.25201520192023

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 0.072 against 0.063 in Kuwait, a difference of 0.009.

That makes Eswatini's figure about 1.1 times Kuwait's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 8 shared years of data; in 2016 it was Kuwait ahead.

Eswatini ranks 160th and Kuwait ranks 163rd of 177 countries.

Kuwait has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Kuwait Difference Ahead
2010s 0.0625 0.1968 0.1343 Kuwait
2020s 0.036 0.1265 0.0905 Kuwait

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dimension 4.3: geospatial data, Eswatini or Kuwait?
Eswatini, at 0.072 against 0.063 in Kuwait as of 2023.
What is the difference in dimension 4.3: geospatial data between Eswatini and Kuwait?
0.009, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Kuwait?
8 years are reported by both, from 2016 to 2023.
How do Eswatini and Kuwait rank globally for dimension 4.3: geospatial data?
Eswatini ranks 160th and Kuwait ranks 163rd 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.