Dominican Republic vs Namibia: How have things changed?, per square kilometre

Dominican Republic
0.4408 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Namibia
0.4536 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Dominican Republic rank
137th
Namibia rank
134th

How have things changed?, per square kilometre over time

  • Dominican Republic
  • Namibia
00.250.50.751196519942023

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 0.4536 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.4408 metric tons per square kilometre in Dominican Republic, a difference of 0.0128 metric tons per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 59 shared years of data; in 1965 it was Dominican Republic ahead.

Dominican Republic ranks 137th and Namibia ranks 134th of 215 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Dominican Republic averaged higher in 3 and Namibia in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Dominican Republic Namibia Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0836 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0049 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0788 metric tons per square kilometre Dominican Republic
1970s 0.1282 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0091 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1191 metric tons per square kilometre Dominican Republic
1980s 0.3154 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0211 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2943 metric tons per square kilometre Dominican Republic
1990s 0.3333 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6821 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3488 metric tons per square kilometre Namibia
2000s 0.3289 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6891 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3602 metric tons per square kilometre Namibia
2010s 0.3371 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6111 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2741 metric tons per square kilometre Namibia
2020s 0.4243 metric tons per square kilometre 0.4259 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0017 metric tons per square kilometre Namibia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher how have things changed?, per square kilometre, Dominican Republic or Namibia?
Namibia, at 0.4536 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.4408 metric tons per square kilometre in Dominican Republic as of 2023.
What is the difference in how have things changed?, per square kilometre between Dominican Republic and Namibia?
0.0128 metric tons per square kilometre, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Dominican Republic and Namibia?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do Dominican Republic and Namibia rank globally for how have things changed?, per square kilometre?
Dominican Republic ranks 137th and Namibia ranks 134th of 215 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as How have things changed?, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Dominican Republic vs Namibia: How have things changed?, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 28 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/how-have-things-changed-per-square-kilometre/dominican-republic/namibia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/how-have-things-changed-per-square-kilometre/dominican-republic/namibia/">Dominican Republic vs Namibia: How have things changed?, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
How have things changed?, per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
215 places, 11,549 data points, 1965–2023
Last refreshed

How have things changed? divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.