Haiti vs Lithuania: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Haiti
1.6 square meters
in 2023
Lithuania
1.43 square meters
in 2023
Haiti rank
130th
Lithuania rank
132nd
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Haiti
- Lithuania
How they compare
Haiti currently reports 1.6 square meters against 1.43 square meters in Lithuania, a difference of 0.17 square meters.
That makes Haiti's figure about 1.1 times Lithuania's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Lithuania ahead.
Haiti ranks 130th and Lithuania ranks 132nd of 178 countries.
Lithuania has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Haiti | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.8987 square meters | 2.89 square meters | 1.99 square meters | Lithuania |
| 2010s | 1.22 square meters | 3.61 square meters | 2.39 square meters | Lithuania |
| 2020s | 1.17 square meters | 2.39 square meters | 1.21 square meters | Lithuania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Haiti or Lithuania?
- Haiti, at 1.6 square meters against 1.43 square meters in Lithuania as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Haiti and Lithuania?
- 0.17 square meters, with Haiti ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Haiti and Lithuania?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Haiti and Lithuania rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Haiti ranks 130th and Lithuania ranks 132nd 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.