Mongolia vs Thailand: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Mongolia
4.83 square meters
in 2023
Thailand
4.69 square meters
in 2023
Mongolia rank
69th
Thailand rank
72nd
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Mongolia
- Thailand
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 4.83 square meters against 4.69 square meters in Thailand, a difference of 0.14 square meters.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Thailand ahead.
Mongolia ranks 69th and Thailand ranks 72nd of 178 countries.
Thailand has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mongolia | Thailand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.43 square meters | 9.63 square meters | 8.2 square meters | Thailand |
| 2010s | 1.35 square meters | 6.84 square meters | 5.48 square meters | Thailand |
| 2020s | 2.88 square meters | 5.44 square meters | 2.56 square meters | Thailand |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Mongolia or Thailand?
- Mongolia, at 4.83 square meters against 4.69 square meters in Thailand as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Mongolia and Thailand?
- 0.14 square meters, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Thailand?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Mongolia and Thailand rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Mongolia ranks 69th and Thailand ranks 72nd 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.