Dam capacity per capita 1961
Dam capacity per capita measures the amount of water storage available for each individual in a country, expressed in cubic meters. This statistic highlights water resource management and its impact on sustainability and development. Understanding dam capacity is crucial for addressing water security and supporting agriculture, industry, and communities.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
Rank | ||
|---|---|---|
1 | Afghanistan | 130.235 cubic meters per inhabitant |
2 | Albania | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
3 | Canada | 11,363.9 cubic meters per inhabitant |
4 | Brazil | 5,407.99 cubic meters per inhabitant |
5 | Chile | 922.299 cubic meters per inhabitant |
6 | Côte d'Ivoire | 242.851 cubic meters per inhabitant |
7 | Algeria | 90.443 cubic meters per inhabitant |
8 | Angola | 26.766 cubic meters per inhabitant |
9 | Antigua and Barbuda | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
10 | Argentina | 137.477 cubic meters per inhabitant |
11 | Armenia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
12 | Australia | 1,927.24 cubic meters per inhabitant |
13 | Brunei Darussalam | 486.538 cubic meters per inhabitant |
14 | Botswana | 411.977 cubic meters per inhabitant |
15 | Bulgaria | 239.321 cubic meters per inhabitant |
16 | China | 224.012 cubic meters per inhabitant |
17 | Colombia | 96.649 cubic meters per inhabitant |
18 | Bolivia | 73.711 cubic meters per inhabitant |
19 | Austria | 51.721 cubic meters per inhabitant |
20 | Azerbaijan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
21 | Bahrain | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
22 | Bangladesh | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
23 | Belarus | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
24 | Burkina Faso | 31.065 cubic meters per inhabitant |
25 | Cyprus | 17.088 cubic meters per inhabitant |
26 | Congo | 7.839 cubic meters per inhabitant |
27 | Cuba | 5.659 cubic meters per inhabitant |
28 | Denmark | 4.337 cubic meters per inhabitant |
29 | Belgium | 3.943 cubic meters per inhabitant |
30 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 2.099 cubic meters per inhabitant |
31 | Cameroon | 1.255 cubic meters per inhabitant |
32 | Costa Rica | 0.363 cubic meters per inhabitant |
33 | Belize | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
34 | Benin | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
35 | Bhutan | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
36 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
37 | Cabo Verde | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
38 | Cambodia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
39 | Croatia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
40 | Czech Republic | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
41 | Dominican Republic | 0.119 cubic meters per inhabitant |
42 | Ecuador | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
43 | Egypt | 224.513 cubic meters per inhabitant |
44 | El Salvador | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
45 | Eritrea | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
46 | Estonia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
47 | Eswatini | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
48 | Ethiopia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
49 | Iraq | 13,218.3 cubic meters per inhabitant |
50 | Finland | 3,032.62 cubic meters per inhabitant |
51 | Kenya | 2,506.17 cubic meters per inhabitant |
52 | Lesotho | 1,137.42 cubic meters per inhabitant |
53 | Guyana | 312.427 cubic meters per inhabitant |
54 | Ireland | 307.644 cubic meters per inhabitant |
55 | Iran | 291.645 cubic meters per inhabitant |
56 | India | 150.831 cubic meters per inhabitant |
57 | Lebanon | 118.914 cubic meters per inhabitant |
58 | France | 116.105 cubic meters per inhabitant |
59 | Italy | 80.008 cubic meters per inhabitant |
60 | Haiti | 75.591 cubic meters per inhabitant |
61 | Greece | 58.009 cubic meters per inhabitant |
62 | Indonesia | 32.968 cubic meters per inhabitant |
63 | Germany | 28.817 cubic meters per inhabitant |
64 | Ghana | 17.796 cubic meters per inhabitant |
65 | Guatemala | 0.113 cubic meters per inhabitant |
66 | Fiji | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
67 | Gabon | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
68 | Georgia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
69 | Grenada | 0.063 cubic meters per inhabitant |
70 | Guinea | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
71 | Guinea-Bissau | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
72 | Japan | 64.84 cubic meters per inhabitant |
73 | Jamaica | 3.257 cubic meters per inhabitant |
74 | Hungary | 0.519 cubic meters per inhabitant |
75 | Honduras | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
76 | Iceland | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
77 | Jordan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
78 | Kazakhstan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
79 | Kyrgyzstan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
80 | Laos | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
81 | Latvia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
82 | Liberia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
83 | Libya | 8.639 cubic meters per inhabitant |
84 | Lithuania | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
85 | Nicaragua | 17,172 cubic meters per inhabitant |
86 | Panama | 5,017.72 cubic meters per inhabitant |
87 | Mozambique | 2,660.96 cubic meters per inhabitant |
88 | Norway | 2,209.66 cubic meters per inhabitant |
89 | New Zealand | 1,711.29 cubic meters per inhabitant |
90 | North Korea | 1,426.92 cubic meters per inhabitant |
91 | Mexico | 904.791 cubic meters per inhabitant |
92 | Netherlands | 449.939 cubic meters per inhabitant |
93 | Portugal | 375.716 cubic meters per inhabitant |
94 | Peru | 259.852 cubic meters per inhabitant |
95 | Mongolia | 247.7 cubic meters per inhabitant |
96 | Morocco | 174.552 cubic meters per inhabitant |
97 | Luxembourg | 159.917 cubic meters per inhabitant |
98 | Madagascar | 93.108 cubic meters per inhabitant |
99 | Romania | 91.41 cubic meters per inhabitant |
100 | Namibia | 89.415 cubic meters per inhabitant |
101 | Mauritius | 88.04 cubic meters per inhabitant |
102 | Mali | 31.921 cubic meters per inhabitant |
103 | Saint Lucia | 27.811 cubic meters per inhabitant |
104 | Malaysia | 25.462 cubic meters per inhabitant |
105 | Malawi | 9.838 cubic meters per inhabitant |
106 | Maldives | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
107 | Malta | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
108 | Mauritania | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
109 | Montenegro | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
110 | Nigeria | 87.099 cubic meters per inhabitant |
111 | Myanmar | 68 cubic meters per inhabitant |
112 | Nepal | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
113 | Pakistan | 59.251 cubic meters per inhabitant |
114 | Niger | 1.433 cubic meters per inhabitant |
115 | North Macedonia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
116 | Oman | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
117 | Poland | 22.892 cubic meters per inhabitant |
118 | Philippines | 18.581 cubic meters per inhabitant |
119 | Papua New Guinea | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
120 | Paraguay | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
121 | Republic of Moldova | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
122 | Russia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
123 | Rwanda | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
124 | Samoa | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
125 | Sao Tome and Principe | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
126 | Saudi Arabia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
127 | Senegal | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
128 | Serbia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
129 | Seychelles | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
130 | Sierra Leone | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
131 | Singapore | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
132 | Slovakia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
133 | Slovenia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
134 | Somalia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
135 | Zambia | 29,324.2 cubic meters per inhabitant |
136 | Zimbabwe | 24,541.6 cubic meters per inhabitant |
137 | Uganda | 10,175.2 cubic meters per inhabitant |
138 | Tanzania | 9,815.58 cubic meters per inhabitant |
139 | Uruguay | 4,432.46 cubic meters per inhabitant |
140 | United States | 2,282.34 cubic meters per inhabitant |
141 | Sweden | 2,185.53 cubic meters per inhabitant |
142 | Vietnam | 669.695 cubic meters per inhabitant |
143 | Spain | 644.091 cubic meters per inhabitant |
144 | Sri Lanka | 424.66 cubic meters per inhabitant |
145 | Switzerland | 396.126 cubic meters per inhabitant |
146 | South Africa | 130.079 cubic meters per inhabitant |
147 | South Korea | 56.264 cubic meters per inhabitant |
148 | State of Palestine | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
149 | Sudan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
150 | Suriname | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
151 | Syrian Arab Republic | 61.261 cubic meters per inhabitant |
152 | Tajikistan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
153 | Turkey | 371.841 cubic meters per inhabitant |
154 | Venezuela | 304.143 cubic meters per inhabitant |
155 | Tunisia | 74.377 cubic meters per inhabitant |
156 | United Kingdom | 67.74 cubic meters per inhabitant |
157 | Trinidad and Tobago | 6.685 cubic meters per inhabitant |
158 | Togo | 3.858 cubic meters per inhabitant |
159 | Thailand | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
160 | Turkmenistan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
161 | Ukraine | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
162 | United Arab Emirates | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
163 | Uzbekistan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
164 | Yemen | 0.926 cubic meters per inhabitant |
↑Top 10 Countries
- #1
Afghanistan
- #2
Albania
- #3
Canada
- #4
Brazil
- #5
Chile
- #6
Côte d'Ivoire
- #7
Algeria
- #8
Angola
- #9
Antigua and Barbuda
- #10
Argentina
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
↓Bottom 10 Countries
- #164
Yemen
- #163
Uzbekistan
- #162
United Arab Emirates
- #161
Ukraine
- #160
Turkmenistan
- #159
Thailand
- #158
Togo
- #157
Trinidad and Tobago
- #156
United Kingdom
- #155
Tunisia
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
The measure of dam capacity per capita provides a critical insight into the water resource management of a country, reflecting the cubic meters of water storage available for each inhabitant. This metric is crucial for understanding how nations approach water sustainability, agriculture, industry, and community support. In 1961, this measure offered a snapshot of global disparities in water resource allocation, emphasizing the developmental challenges and opportunities faced by different regions.
Global Perspective on 1961
In 1961, dam capacity per capita varied significantly across the world, highlighting stark differences in water management strategies. The global average stood at 1553.79 cubic meters per person, with Zambia leading the chart at an impressive 29324.2 cubic meters per inhabitant. This high number underscores Zambia's robust capacity to harness water resources, largely attributable to its substantial investment in dam infrastructure, which supports both agricultural and hydroelectric needs. Conversely, several countries, including Bhutan and Thailand, reported no dam capacity per capita, indicating limited infrastructure development in this sector.
Regional Clusters and Disparities
Examining the regional distribution of dam capacity per capita in 1961 reveals clear disparities. African countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Uganda exhibited some of the world's highest values, reflecting significant investments in dam projects. This emphasis was part of broader efforts to enhance agricultural productivity and energy generation. Meanwhile, Latin American countries such as Nicaragua and Brazil also demonstrated substantial water storage capacities, driven by large-scale river management projects designed to support burgeoning agricultural sectors.
In stark contrast, many nations in Asia and Oceania, including Bhutan and Fiji, registered values at or near zero. This trend points to a historical lack of investment in water infrastructure, often due to economic constraints or alternative water strategies relying on natural sources like monsoons. The absence of significant dam infrastructure posed challenges to consistent water supply for agriculture and industry, impacting economic growth and development.
Sustainability and Development Implications
The data from 1961 underscores the critical linkage between dam capacity per capita and sustainable development. Countries with higher capacities, such as Iraq and Canada, were better positioned to stabilize water supply for agricultural and industrial use, supporting broader economic growth. The ability to regulate water flow and storage not only mitigated the impacts of seasonal variability but also enhanced resilience against droughts and water scarcity.
For countries with minimal or no dam capacity, particularly those in developing regions, the lack of infrastructure hindered agricultural productivity and increased vulnerability to climate fluctuations. This disparity highlighted the need for international investment and cooperation to improve water resource management, recognizing water security as a cornerstone of sustainable development.
Historical Context and Policy Evolution
The landscape of dam capacity per capita in 1961 was shaped by historical policies and geopolitical factors. Post-war reconstruction efforts in many regions focused on building infrastructure, with dams seen as pivotal for national development. In African countries, decolonization efforts dovetailed with initiatives to harness natural resources for economic self-sufficiency, driving the construction of major dam projects. Similarly, Latin America's push towards modernization included significant investments in water management, driven by both domestic policies and international funding.
In contrast, nations with lower capacities often faced political and economic instability, limiting their ability to undertake large infrastructural projects. Additionally, the emergent environmental awareness of the early 1960s began to influence policy decisions, with growing recognition of the ecological impacts of dam construction. These factors collectively shaped the evolving landscape of global water resource management.
Looking Forward: Lessons from 1961
The data from 1961 serves as a historical benchmark, offering valuable lessons for contemporary water resource management. The disparities in dam capacity per capita underscore the importance of strategic investments in water infrastructure, tailored to the unique environmental and economic contexts of each region. As climate change intensifies, the need for resilient water management systems becomes increasingly critical, highlighting the relevance of past insights for future planning.
In conclusion, the diverse global landscape of dam capacity per capita in 1961 illustrates the complex interplay of geography, policy, and development priorities. Understanding these dynamics is essential for crafting effective water management strategies that ensure sustainability and resilience in the face of evolving environmental challenges.
Insights by country
Lithuania
In 1961, Lithuania ranked 132nd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a recorded value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic indicates that there was insufficient data or infrastructure in place to measure dam capacity effectively for the population at that time.
The low dam capacity per capita can be attributed to various factors, including Lithuania's historical context as a part of the Soviet Union, where centralized planning often led to uneven development of infrastructure. The prioritization of industrial and agricultural output over water management and hydropower projects may have further contributed to the lack of substantial dam capacity.
Additionally, during this period, many Eastern European countries faced challenges related to resource allocation and investment in public utilities, which might have hindered the development of water management systems. As a point of reference, the overall hydropower capacity in the region has seen significant improvements in subsequent decades as countries transitioned to independent governance and focused on modernizing their infrastructure.
Benin
In 1961, Benin ranked 106th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a reported value of 0 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic indicates that, at that time, the country's infrastructure for water storage and management was virtually non-existent, reflecting a significant gap in its ability to harness and store water resources for agricultural, domestic, and industrial use.
The absence of dam capacity can be attributed to several factors, including limited financial resources, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a lack of investment in water management systems. Additionally, the political instability and economic challenges faced by Benin during this period likely hindered the development of essential infrastructure that could have improved water storage capacity.
Notably, the lack of dam capacity impacts not only the availability of water but also agricultural productivity, which is crucial for a largely agrarian economy like Benin's. In subsequent decades, investments in hydraulic infrastructure have been prioritized to enhance water security and support economic growth.
Jordan
In 1961, Jordan ranked 126th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a reported value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This ranking indicates a significant limitation in water resource management and infrastructure development during this period.
The scarcity of water resources in Jordan is historically attributed to its geographic location, characterized by arid and semi-arid climates. The country's reliance on limited freshwater sources, such as the Jordan River and underground aquifers, has posed challenges for maintaining adequate dam capacity and overall water supply.
Additionally, factors such as population growth, regional conflicts, and economic constraints have further exacerbated the situation, leading to a critical need for improved water management strategies. As of 2020, Jordan continues to face water scarcity issues, ranking among the most water-scarce countries in the world, highlighting the long-standing challenges associated with water resource management.
Armenia
In 1961, Armenia ranked 100th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita. The statistic for dam capacity per capita was recorded as null cubic meters per inhabitant, indicating that there was insufficient data or infrastructure to provide a measurable figure for this metric at that time.
This lack of dam capacity per capita reflects the broader challenges Armenia faced in its water management and infrastructure development during the mid-20th century. Factors contributing to this situation included the historical impact of Soviet policies, which influenced the allocation of resources and investment in large-scale infrastructure projects.
Additionally, Armenia's geographical characteristics, which include mountainous terrain and a climate that affects water availability, further complicated the development of efficient water storage and distribution systems. The overall water resource management strategies implemented during this period were crucial for shaping the country's future water supply and usage.
Japan
In 1961, Japan ranked 63rd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a notable value of 64.8401 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic reflects Japan's significant investment in water management infrastructure during a period of rapid industrialization and urbanization.
The relatively high dam capacity per capita can be attributed to the country's geographical characteristics, which include numerous rivers and mountainous terrains that necessitate effective water resource management. Additionally, Japan's commitment to hydropower as a renewable energy source contributed to the development of dams, aimed at providing electricity and flood control.
Interestingly, Japan's focus on dam construction and water management also aligns with its historical context of natural disaster preparedness, particularly in response to typhoons and heavy rainfall, which are prevalent in the region.
Cabo Verde
Cabo Verde was ranked 109th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita in the year 1961. The country's dam capacity per inhabitant was recorded as null cubic meters, indicating a lack of significant water storage infrastructure at the time.
This statistic reflects Cabo Verde's geographical challenges, as the archipelago consists of ten volcanic islands with limited freshwater resources. The scarcity of water has historically hindered agricultural development and contributed to reliance on rain-fed agriculture, making water management crucial for the country's sustainability.
Factors contributing to the low dam capacity include the islands' arid climate and the economic constraints faced by the country during the mid-20th century. Additionally, the lack of investment in large-scale water infrastructure has historically impacted the availability of potable water and agricultural irrigation, which are essential for the country's growth.
Indonesia
In 1961, Indonesia ranked 69th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a capacity of 32.9678 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic reflects the country's infrastructure development and its ability to manage water resources effectively during a period marked by significant social and economic changes.
The relatively low dam capacity per capita can be attributed to several factors, including the geographical challenges of Indonesia's archipelagic nature, which consists of over 17,000 islands. Furthermore, the country's focus on agricultural development and rapid population growth during this time likely strained existing water management systems and infrastructure.
In comparison to other nations, this statistic highlights the importance of investing in water infrastructure to support both agricultural and urban needs. As Indonesia continues to develop, enhancing dam capacity remains critical for flood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation, which are essential for sustainable growth and resilience against climate-related challenges.
El Salvador
In 1961, El Salvador ranked 114th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita. The recorded value for dam capacity was null cubic meters per inhabitant, indicating a significant lack of water storage infrastructure relative to its population size. This statistic reflects the country's limited investment in hydropower and irrigation systems during this period, which can be attributed to various socio-economic challenges, including political instability and insufficient economic resources.
The absence of substantial dam capacity per capita in El Salvador may have hindered agricultural productivity and access to clean water for its citizens. Moreover, the reliance on rainfall for agriculture, coupled with frequent natural disasters such as droughts and floods, exacerbated the challenges faced by the population. At the time, El Salvador was also undergoing significant demographic changes, with a rapidly growing population that increased the demand for water resources.
In a broader context, investments in water management and infrastructure have been crucial for many countries in the region. For instance, countries that prioritized dam construction and water resource management have often seen improvements in agricultural yields and economic stability, emphasizing the importance of such infrastructure in national development.
Afghanistan
In 1961, Afghanistan ranked 46th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a notable value of 130.235 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic reflects the country's water resource management and infrastructure development during a period of relative stability before the onset of prolonged conflict.
The relatively high dam capacity per capita can be attributed to Afghanistan's geographical features, including significant river systems such as the Kabul and Helmand rivers, which provided opportunities for the construction of dams and irrigation systems. Furthermore, the 1950s and early 1960s saw investments in infrastructure, supported by international aid, aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and water management.
However, the potential of this capacity was not fully realized due to subsequent decades of conflict, which severely hampered infrastructure development and maintenance. Interestingly, Afghanistan's water resources, while abundant, remain underutilized, highlighting a persistent challenge in effectively managing and distributing these resources in the face of ongoing socio-political issues.
Laos
In 1961, Laos ranked 129th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a reported value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This indicates that at the time, the infrastructure for water storage and hydroelectric power generation was either extremely limited or non-existent for the population.
The absence of dam capacity can be attributed to Laos' economic status and developmental challenges during this period, as the country was recovering from the impacts of colonial rule and was not yet fully capitalizing on its abundant water resources. The rugged terrain and limited financial resources further hindered large-scale infrastructure projects.
Interestingly, Laos has since made significant strides in hydropower development, becoming known as the "Battery of Southeast Asia" due to its vast potential for hydroelectric projects, which has transformed its energy landscape in subsequent decades.
Data Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Dam capacity per capita data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.
More Geography Facts
Percentage of land area by degree of urbanization
Explore the percentage of land area by degree of urbanization, highlighting how urban development shapes countries' landscapes and influences economic growth. Understanding this statistic reveals the balance between urban and rural spaces, essential for sustainable planning.
View dataBrowse All Geography
Explore more facts and statistics in this category
All Categories
Discover more categories with comprehensive global data