CAN vs PER: Renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves
CAN
0 current US$
in 2020
PER
4.1 current US$
in 2020
CAN rank
63rd
PER rank
60th
Renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves over time
- CAN
- PER
How they compare
PER currently reports 4.1 current US$ against 0 current US$ in CAN, a difference of 4.1 current US$.
Across all 26 years both countries report, PER has been ahead every year.
CAN ranks 63rd and PER ranks 60th of 150 countries.
PER has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | CAN | PER | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0 current US$ | 0.1476 current US$ | 0.1476 current US$ | PER |
| 2000s | 0 current US$ | 0.2103 current US$ | 0.2103 current US$ | PER |
| 2010s | 0 current US$ | 1.25 current US$ | 1.25 current US$ | PER |
| 2020s | 0 current US$ | 4.1 current US$ | 4.1 current US$ | PER |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves, CAN or PER?
- PER, at 4.1 current US$ against 0 current US$ in CAN as of 2020.
- What is the difference in renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves between CAN and PER?
- 4.1 current US$, with PER ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for CAN and PER?
- 26 years are reported by both, from 1995 to 2020.
- How do CAN and PER rank globally for renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves?
- CAN ranks 63rd and PER ranks 60th of 150 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Renewable natural capital per capita, mangroves (current US$). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.