Chile vs Malaysia: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Chile
13.85 square meters
in 2023
Malaysia
12.47 square meters
in 2023
Chile rank
23rd
Malaysia rank
26th
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Chile
- Malaysia
How they compare
Chile currently reports 13.85 square meters against 12.47 square meters in Malaysia, a difference of 1.38 square meters.
That makes Chile's figure about 1.1 times Malaysia's.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Chile ahead.
Chile ranks 23rd and Malaysia ranks 26th of 178 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Malaysia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chile | Malaysia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 22.68 square meters | 23.02 square meters | 0.3484 square meters | Malaysia |
| 2010s | 25.37 square meters | 28.88 square meters | 3.51 square meters | Malaysia |
| 2020s | 17.51 square meters | 16.66 square meters | 0.8543 square meters | Chile |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Chile or Malaysia?
- Chile, at 13.85 square meters against 12.47 square meters in Malaysia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Chile and Malaysia?
- 1.38 square meters, with Chile ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Malaysia?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Chile and Malaysia rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Chile ranks 23rd and Malaysia ranks 26th 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
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.