Ghana vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard

Ghana
0.7806 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Guatemala
0.7458 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Ghana rank
75th
Guatemala rank
76th

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard over time

  • Ghana
  • Guatemala
00.20.40.60.8197019962023

How they compare

Ghana currently reports 0.7806 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.7458 million SLC per square kilometre in Guatemala, a difference of 0.0348 million SLC per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Guatemala ahead.

Ghana ranks 75th and Guatemala ranks 76th of 180 countries.

Guatemala has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ghana Guatemala Difference Ahead
1970s 0 million SLC per square kilometre 0.005 million SLC per square kilometre 0.005 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala
1980s 0.0002 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0167 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0166 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala
1990s 0.0023 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0978 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0954 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala
2000s 0.0269 million SLC per square kilometre 0.2326 million SLC per square kilometre 0.2057 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala
2010s 0.1594 million SLC per square kilometre 0.4271 million SLC per square kilometre 0.2677 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala
2020s 0.5078 million SLC per square kilometre 0.6265 million SLC per square kilometre 0.1188 million SLC per square kilometre Guatemala

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard, Ghana or Guatemala?
Ghana, at 0.7806 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.7458 million SLC per square kilometre in Guatemala as of 2023.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard between Ghana and Guatemala?
0.0348 million SLC per square kilometre, with Ghana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Guatemala?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Ghana and Guatemala rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard?
Ghana ranks 75th and Guatemala ranks 76th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency, 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

Ghana vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 12 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-standard-local-currency-per-square/ghana/guatemala/

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/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-standard-local-currency-per-square/ghana/guatemala/">Ghana vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency, per square kilometre
Unit
million SLC per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
180 places, 8,977 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency 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.