Cape Verde vs Dominica: Consumption-based deforestation per person

Cape Verde
0 square meters
in 2017
Dominica
0 square meters
in 2023
Cape Verde rank
156th
Dominica rank
156th

Consumption-based deforestation per person over time

  • Cape Verde
  • Dominica
00.20.40.60.81200520142023

How they compare

Cape Verde currently reports 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Dominica, a difference of 0 square meters.

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

Cape Verde ranks 156th and Dominica ranks 156th of 178 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cape Verde Dominica Difference Ahead
2000s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters
2010s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Cape Verde or Dominica?
Cape Verde, at 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Dominica as of 2017.
What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Cape Verde and Dominica?
0 square meters, with Cape Verde ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Dominica?
8 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2014.
How do Cape Verde and Dominica rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
Cape Verde ranks 156th and Dominica ranks 156th of 178 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Singh et al. (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Consumption-based deforestation per person. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Consumption-based deforestation per person
Unit
square meters
Source
Singh et al. (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
178 places, 3,320 data points, 2005–2023
Last refreshed

Estimated average deforestation for agricultural and forestry products, per person. This is adjusted for trade, so it reflects deforestation caused by consumption, not domestic production.