Hong Kong vs Poland: Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data

Hong Kong
0.756
in 2023
Poland
0.657
in 2023
Hong Kong rank
2nd
Poland rank
3rd

Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data over time

  • Hong Kong
  • Poland
00.20.40.60.8201620192023

How they compare

Hong Kong currently reports 0.756 against 0.657 in Poland, a difference of 0.099.

That makes Hong Kong's figure about 1.2 times Poland's.

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

Hong Kong ranks 2nd and Poland ranks 3rd of 177 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Hong Kong averaged higher in 1 and Poland in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong Poland Difference Ahead
2010s 0.5525 0.603 0.0505 Poland
2020s 0.7245 0.625 0.0995 Hong Kong

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dimension 4.3: geospatial data, Hong Kong or Poland?
Hong Kong, at 0.756 against 0.657 in Poland as of 2023.
What is the difference in dimension 4.3: geospatial data between Hong Kong and Poland?
0.099, with Hong Kong ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Poland?
8 years are reported by both, from 2016 to 2023.
How do Hong Kong and Poland rank globally for dimension 4.3: geospatial data?
Hong Kong ranks 2nd and Poland ranks 3rd 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.