Puerto Rico vs Zimbabwe: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre

Puerto Rico
0.2423 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
0.2378 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Puerto Rico rank
142nd
Zimbabwe rank
145th

Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre over time

  • Puerto Rico
  • Zimbabwe
00.20.40.6196119922023

How they compare

Puerto Rico currently reports 0.2423 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2378 metric tons per square kilometre in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.0045 metric tons per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Puerto Rico ahead.

Puerto Rico ranks 142nd and Zimbabwe ranks 145th of 216 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Puerto Rico averaged higher in 5 and Zimbabwe in 2.

Head to head by decade

Decade Puerto Rico Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 0.3107 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0045 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3061 metric tons per square kilometre Puerto Rico
1970s 0.282 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0114 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2706 metric tons per square kilometre Puerto Rico
1980s 0.2147 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0543 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1604 metric tons per square kilometre Puerto Rico
1990s 0.3259 metric tons per square kilometre 0.157 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1688 metric tons per square kilometre Puerto Rico
2000s 0.3863 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2181 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1682 metric tons per square kilometre Puerto Rico
2010s 0.1879 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3224 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1345 metric tons per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2020s 0.2102 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2635 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0533 metric tons per square kilometre Zimbabwe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre, Puerto Rico or Zimbabwe?
Puerto Rico, at 0.2423 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2378 metric tons per square kilometre in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre between Puerto Rico and Zimbabwe?
0.0045 metric tons per square kilometre, with Puerto Rico ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Puerto Rico and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Puerto Rico and Zimbabwe rank globally for capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
Puerto Rico ranks 142nd and Zimbabwe ranks 145th of 216 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Capture fisheries production (metric tons), 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

Puerto Rico vs Zimbabwe: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/puerto-rico-us/zimbabwe/

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://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/puerto-rico-us/zimbabwe/">Puerto Rico vs Zimbabwe: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
264 places, 15,328 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Capture fisheries production (metric tons) 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.