Mauritius vs Saint Lucia: Consumption-based deforestation per person

Mauritius
0 square meters
in 2018
Saint Lucia
0 square meters
in 2022
Mauritius rank
156th
Saint Lucia rank
156th

Consumption-based deforestation per person over time

  • Mauritius
  • Saint Lucia
00.20.40.60.81200520132022

How they compare

Mauritius currently reports 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Saint Lucia, a difference of 0 square meters.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Saint Lucia has been ahead every year.

Mauritius ranks 156th and Saint Lucia ranks 156th of 178 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Mauritius Saint Lucia Difference Ahead
2000s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters
2010s 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, Mauritius or Saint Lucia?
Mauritius, at 0 square meters against 0 square meters in Saint Lucia as of 2018.
What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Mauritius and Saint Lucia?
0 square meters, with Mauritius ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritius and Saint Lucia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Mauritius and Saint Lucia rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
Mauritius ranks 156th and Saint Lucia 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.