Costa Rica vs Germany: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Costa Rica
5.93 square meters
in 2023
Germany
5.73 square meters
in 2023
Costa Rica rank
60th
Germany rank
62nd
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Costa Rica
- Germany
How they compare
Costa Rica currently reports 5.93 square meters against 5.73 square meters in Germany, a difference of 0.2 square meters.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Costa Rica ahead.
Costa Rica ranks 60th and Germany ranks 62nd of 178 countries.
Costa Rica has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Costa Rica | Germany | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 14.59 square meters | 10.35 square meters | 4.24 square meters | Costa Rica |
| 2010s | 11.61 square meters | 9.42 square meters | 2.19 square meters | Costa Rica |
| 2020s | 7.87 square meters | 7.02 square meters | 0.8596 square meters | Costa Rica |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Costa Rica or Germany?
- Costa Rica, at 5.93 square meters against 5.73 square meters in Germany as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Costa Rica and Germany?
- 0.2 square meters, with Costa Rica ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Germany?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Costa Rica and Germany rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Costa Rica ranks 60th and Germany ranks 62nd 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.