Costa Rica vs Zimbabwe: Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre

Costa Rica
0.1066 Square kilometres per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
0.1051 Square kilometres per square kilometre
in 2023
Costa Rica rank
103rd
Zimbabwe rank
104th

Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre over time

  • Costa Rica
  • Zimbabwe
0.020.040.060.080.10.12196119922023

How they compare

Costa Rica currently reports 0.1066 Square kilometres per square kilometre against 0.1051 Square kilometres per square kilometre in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.0015 Square kilometres per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 8 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Costa Rica ahead.

Costa Rica ranks 103rd and Zimbabwe ranks 104th of 177 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Costa Rica averaged higher in 6 and Zimbabwe in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Costa Rica Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 0.095 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0299 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0652 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica
1970s 0.097 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0449 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0522 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica
1980s 0.1012 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0647 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0366 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica
1990s 0.0987 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0823 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0164 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica
2000s 0.0978 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.1015 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0037 Square kilometres per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2010s 0.1059 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.1058 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0001 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica
2020s 0.1066 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.1053 Square kilometres per square kilometre 0.0014 Square kilometres per square kilometre Costa Rica

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher land use hidden — cropland, per square kilometre, Costa Rica or Zimbabwe?
Costa Rica, at 0.1066 Square kilometres per square kilometre against 0.1051 Square kilometres per square kilometre in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in land use hidden — cropland, per square kilometre between Costa Rica and Zimbabwe?
0.0015 Square kilometres per square kilometre, with Costa Rica ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Costa Rica and Zimbabwe rank globally for land use hidden — cropland, per square kilometre?
Costa Rica ranks 103rd and Zimbabwe ranks 104th of 177 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Costa Rica vs Zimbabwe: Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 02 October 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/land-use-hidden-cropland-per-square-kilometre/costa-rica/zimbabwe/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/land-use-hidden-cropland-per-square-kilometre/costa-rica/zimbabwe/">Costa Rica vs Zimbabwe: Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Land use hidden — Cropland, per square kilometre
Unit
Square kilometres per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
177 places, 10,465 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Land use hidden — Cropland divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.