How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Latvia?

32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.

Where does this data come from?

Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Chile vs Latvia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015

Chile

0.0134 million USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Latvia

0.0135 million USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Chile rank

127th

Latvia rank

125th

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 over time

Chile
Latvia

How they compare

Latvia currently reports 0.0135 million USD per square kilometre against 0.0134 million USD per square kilometre in Chile, a difference of 0.0001 million USD per square kilometre.

Across all 32 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.

Chile ranks 127th and Latvia ranks 125th of 180 countries.

Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Chile	Latvia	Difference	Ahead
1990s	0.005 million USD per square kilometre	0.01 million USD per square kilometre	0.005 million USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2000s	0.0082 million USD per square kilometre	0.0118 million USD per square kilometre	0.0036 million USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2010s	0.0122 million USD per square kilometre	0.0143 million USD per square kilometre	0.0021 million USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2020s	0.0133 million USD per square kilometre	0.0156 million USD per square kilometre	0.0023 million USD per square kilometre	Latvia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015, Chile or Latvia?: Latvia, at 0.0135 million USD per square kilometre against 0.0134 million USD per square kilometre in Chile as of 2023.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015 between Chile and Latvia?: 0.0001 million USD per square kilometre, with Latvia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Latvia?: 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
How do Chile and Latvia rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015?: Chile ranks 127th and Latvia ranks 125th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, 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

Chile vs Latvia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-per-square-kilometre/chile/latvia/

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-us-2015-prices-per-square-kilometre/chile/latvia/">Chile vs Latvia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per square kilometre
Unit: million USD per square kilometre
Source: Statizoid (derived)
Licence: Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage: 181 places, 9,031 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed: 11 September 2026

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices 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.