Hong Kong vs Sri Lanka: Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data

Hong Kong
0.756
in 2023
Sri Lanka
0.619
in 2023
Hong Kong rank
2nd
Sri Lanka rank
4th

Dimension 4.3: Geospatial Data over time

  • Hong Kong
  • Sri Lanka
00.20.40.60.8201520192023

How they compare

Hong Kong currently reports 0.756 against 0.619 in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0.137.

That makes Hong Kong's figure about 1.2 times Sri Lanka's.

Across all 8 years both countries report, Hong Kong has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong ranks 2nd and Sri Lanka ranks 4th of 177 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong Sri Lanka Difference Ahead
2010s 0.5525 0.3727 0.1798 Hong Kong
2020s 0.7245 0.619 0.1055 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 Sri Lanka?
Hong Kong, at 0.756 against 0.619 in Sri Lanka as of 2023.
What is the difference in dimension 4.3: geospatial data between Hong Kong and Sri Lanka?
0.137, with Hong Kong ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Sri Lanka?
8 years are reported by both, from 2016 to 2023.
How do Hong Kong and Sri Lanka rank globally for dimension 4.3: geospatial data?
Hong Kong ranks 2nd and Sri Lanka ranks 4th 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.