Libya vs Slovakia: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Libya
2.06 square meters
in 2023
Slovakia
2.27 square meters
in 2023
Libya rank
116th
Slovakia rank
113th
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Libya
- Slovakia
How they compare
Slovakia currently reports 2.27 square meters against 2.06 square meters in Libya, a difference of 0.21 square meters.
That makes Slovakia's figure about 1.1 times Libya's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Libya ahead.
Libya ranks 116th and Slovakia ranks 113th of 178 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Libya averaged higher in 1 and Slovakia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Libya | Slovakia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.58 square meters | 3.04 square meters | 1.54 square meters | Libya |
| 2010s | 3.47 square meters | 3.68 square meters | 0.2012 square meters | Slovakia |
| 2020s | 1.55 square meters | 2.8 square meters | 1.25 square meters | Slovakia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Libya or Slovakia?
- Slovakia, at 2.27 square meters against 2.06 square meters in Libya as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Libya and Slovakia?
- 0.21 square meters, with Slovakia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and Slovakia?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Libya and Slovakia rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Libya ranks 116th and Slovakia ranks 113th 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.