Eswatini vs Taiwan: Consumption-based deforestation per person

Eswatini
0 square meters
in 2023
Taiwan
0 square meters
in 2023
Eswatini rank
156th
Taiwan rank
156th

Consumption-based deforestation per person over time

  • Eswatini
  • Taiwan
00.20.40.60.81200520142023

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Taiwan, a difference of 0 square meters.

Across all 19 years both countries report, Taiwan has been ahead every year.

Eswatini ranks 156th and Taiwan ranks 156th of 178 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Taiwan Difference Ahead
2000s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters
2010s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters
2020s 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, Eswatini or Taiwan?
Eswatini, at 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Taiwan as of 2023.
What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Eswatini and Taiwan?
0 square meters, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Taiwan?
19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
How do Eswatini and Taiwan rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
Eswatini ranks 156th and Taiwan 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.