Dam capacity per capita 1963
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 | Brazil | 5,386.47 cubic meters per inhabitant |
2 | Australia | 1,901.3 cubic meters per inhabitant |
3 | Botswana | 393.333 cubic meters per inhabitant |
4 | Bulgaria | 264.388 cubic meters per inhabitant |
5 | Argentina | 220.108 cubic meters per inhabitant |
6 | Afghanistan | 124.942 cubic meters per inhabitant |
7 | Bangladesh | 114.628 cubic meters per inhabitant |
8 | Algeria | 105.72 cubic meters per inhabitant |
9 | Albania | 78.156 cubic meters per inhabitant |
10 | Angola | 29.935 cubic meters per inhabitant |
11 | Antigua and Barbuda | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
12 | Armenia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
13 | Austria | 62.644 cubic meters per inhabitant |
14 | Azerbaijan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
15 | Bahrain | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
16 | Belarus | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
17 | Canada | 11,125.1 cubic meters per inhabitant |
18 | Chile | 885.563 cubic meters per inhabitant |
19 | Brunei Darussalam | 444.973 cubic meters per inhabitant |
20 | Côte d'Ivoire | 225.021 cubic meters per inhabitant |
21 | China | 224.137 cubic meters per inhabitant |
22 | Colombia | 92.675 cubic meters per inhabitant |
23 | Bolivia | 70.976 cubic meters per inhabitant |
24 | Burkina Faso | 33.675 cubic meters per inhabitant |
25 | Cyprus | 16.758 cubic meters per inhabitant |
26 | Congo | 7.435 cubic meters per inhabitant |
27 | Cuba | 5.427 cubic meters per inhabitant |
28 | Denmark | 4.27 cubic meters per inhabitant |
29 | Belgium | 3.89 cubic meters per inhabitant |
30 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 1.991 cubic meters per inhabitant |
31 | Cameroon | 1.205 cubic meters per inhabitant |
32 | Costa Rica | 0.607 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 | 0.111 cubic meters per inhabitant |
42 | Ecuador | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
43 | El Salvador | 328.526 cubic meters per inhabitant |
44 | Egypt | 213.006 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 | 12,793.5 cubic meters per inhabitant |
50 | Finland | 3,233.6 cubic meters per inhabitant |
51 | Kenya | 2,320.21 cubic meters per inhabitant |
52 | Lesotho | 1,073.85 cubic meters per inhabitant |
53 | Iran | 396.142 cubic meters per inhabitant |
54 | Ireland | 305.659 cubic meters per inhabitant |
55 | Guyana | 299.094 cubic meters per inhabitant |
56 | India | 183.806 cubic meters per inhabitant |
57 | France | 120.993 cubic meters per inhabitant |
58 | Lebanon | 111.657 cubic meters per inhabitant |
59 | Italy | 86.641 cubic meters per inhabitant |
60 | Haiti | 72.918 cubic meters per inhabitant |
61 | Greece | 57.726 cubic meters per inhabitant |
62 | Germany | 28.307 cubic meters per inhabitant |
63 | Ghana | 16.963 cubic meters per inhabitant |
64 | Guinea | 3.732 cubic meters per inhabitant |
65 | Guatemala | 0.107 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 | 0.062 cubic meters per inhabitant |
70 | Guinea-Bissau | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
71 | Japan | 70.691 cubic meters per inhabitant |
72 | Indonesia | 31.584 cubic meters per inhabitant |
73 | Jamaica | 3.167 cubic meters per inhabitant |
74 | Hungary | 0.516 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 | 7.951 cubic meters per inhabitant |
84 | Lithuania | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
85 | Nicaragua | 16,170.7 cubic meters per inhabitant |
86 | Panama | 4,723.47 cubic meters per inhabitant |
87 | Mozambique | 2,562.72 cubic meters per inhabitant |
88 | Norway | 2,510.08 cubic meters per inhabitant |
89 | New Zealand | 1,639.72 cubic meters per inhabitant |
90 | North Korea | 1,362.93 cubic meters per inhabitant |
91 | Mexico | 1,157.3 cubic meters per inhabitant |
92 | Namibia | 553.572 cubic meters per inhabitant |
93 | Netherlands | 437.541 cubic meters per inhabitant |
94 | Portugal | 375.296 cubic meters per inhabitant |
95 | Peru | 245.178 cubic meters per inhabitant |
96 | Mongolia | 233.348 cubic meters per inhabitant |
97 | Morocco | 165.581 cubic meters per inhabitant |
98 | Luxembourg | 157.761 cubic meters per inhabitant |
99 | Romania | 91.137 cubic meters per inhabitant |
100 | Madagascar | 88.406 cubic meters per inhabitant |
101 | Mauritius | 84.639 cubic meters per inhabitant |
102 | Mali | 30.992 cubic meters per inhabitant |
103 | Saint Lucia | 27.22 cubic meters per inhabitant |
104 | Malaysia | 24.213 cubic meters per inhabitant |
105 | Malawi | 9.372 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 | 83.7 cubic meters per inhabitant |
111 | Myanmar | 65.062 cubic meters per inhabitant |
112 | Pakistan | 59.778 cubic meters per inhabitant |
113 | Niger | 1.352 cubic meters per inhabitant |
114 | Nepal | 0 cubic meters per inhabitant |
115 | North Macedonia | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
116 | Oman | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
117 | Poland | 25.448 cubic meters per inhabitant |
118 | Philippines | 17.441 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 | 27,532 cubic meters per inhabitant |
136 | Zimbabwe | 23,074.8 cubic meters per inhabitant |
137 | Uganda | 9,599.62 cubic meters per inhabitant |
138 | Tanzania | 9,259.66 cubic meters per inhabitant |
139 | Uruguay | 4,328.19 cubic meters per inhabitant |
140 | United States | 2,560.44 cubic meters per inhabitant |
141 | Sweden | 2,445.14 cubic meters per inhabitant |
142 | Spain | 708.216 cubic meters per inhabitant |
143 | Vietnam | 634.736 cubic meters per inhabitant |
144 | Switzerland | 439.942 cubic meters per inhabitant |
145 | Sri Lanka | 404.411 cubic meters per inhabitant |
146 | South Africa | 129.299 cubic meters per inhabitant |
147 | South Korea | 53.842 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 | 57.725 cubic meters per inhabitant |
152 | Tajikistan | NaN cubic meters per inhabitant |
153 | Turkey | 363.283 cubic meters per inhabitant |
154 | Venezuela | 361.214 cubic meters per inhabitant |
155 | United Kingdom | 76.773 cubic meters per inhabitant |
156 | Tunisia | 74.425 cubic meters per inhabitant |
157 | Trinidad and Tobago | 27.732 cubic meters per inhabitant |
158 | Togo | 4.232 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 | 0.886 cubic meters per inhabitant |
↑Top 10 Countries
- #1
Brazil
- #2
Australia
- #3
Botswana
- #4
Bulgaria
- #5
Argentina
- #6
Afghanistan
- #7
Bangladesh
- #8
Algeria
- #9
Albania
- #10
Angola
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
Tunisia
- #155
United Kingdom
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
In 1963, dam capacity per capita emerged as a crucial metric in evaluating global water resource management. This measure, which calculates water storage availability for each individual in a country, expressed in cubic meters, plays a vital role in assessing how different nations manage water resources to support agriculture, industry, and community needs. Understanding the variations in dam capacity per capita offers insights into environmental sustainability and development patterns worldwide.
Global Leaders in Dam Capacity
The year 1963 saw Zambia standing at the forefront of global dam capacity per capita with an impressive 27,532 cubic meters per inhabitant. This remarkable figure underscores the nation's significant investments in water infrastructure, reflecting its commitment to ensuring water security and supporting its agrarian economy. Closely following Zambia, Zimbabwe reported a capacity of 23,074.8 cubic meters per inhabitant, further highlighting the Southern African region's dedication to robust water management strategies.
Other notable mentions include Nicaragua, with a capacity of 16,170.7, and Iraq, at 12,793.5 cubic meters per inhabitant. These figures indicate a well-established network of dams supporting these countries' agricultural and industrial sectors. Canada, with 11,125.1 cubic meters per inhabitant, exemplified its abundant natural resources, utilizing vast water storage capabilities to address domestic needs and export demands.
Regions with Minimal Capacity
Conversely, several countries reported minimal to no dam capacity per capita, reflecting disparities in water resource management. Nations like Bhutan and Papua New Guinea recorded a capacity of zero cubic meters per inhabitant, illustrating the challenges faced by countries with limited infrastructure or those heavily reliant on natural water sources. This lack of infrastructure can hinder economic development and exacerbate vulnerabilities to climate change.
The bottom ten countries, which include Honduras, Thailand, and Nepal, among others, highlight a critical need for investment in water management infrastructure. These nations must prioritize developing sustainable water solutions to support their growing populations and diverse economic activities.
Year-over-Year Trends and Changes
The year 1963 witnessed several notable year-over-year changes in dam capacity per capita. Mexico experienced the largest increase, with a rise of 281.16 cubic meters per inhabitant, indicating significant infrastructure development to address water scarcity issues and support agricultural growth. Similarly, Finland and the United States recorded substantial increases, suggesting advancements in water management policies and infrastructure improvements.
On the other hand, Zambia and Zimbabwe faced notable decreases in capacity, with reductions of 883.90 and 707.10 cubic meters per inhabitant, respectively. These declines may be attributed to increased population pressure or changes in water management practices, urging a reassessment of strategies to maintain water security and support development.
Geographic Distribution of Resources
Examining the geographic distribution of dam capacity per capita reveals intriguing patterns and disparities across continents. African nations, particularly in the southern region, dominate the upper echelons of dam capacity, showcasing their commitment to harnessing water resources for economic development. Meanwhile, countries in Asia and the Pacific, such as Bhutan and Fiji, face significant challenges in establishing similar infrastructures, often relying on alternative water sources to meet demand.
North America, with Canada among the top-ranking nations, illustrates a robust capacity for water management. This capacity is pivotal in supporting diverse industrial activities and sustaining large urban populations. The presence of vast natural resources and advanced infrastructure development further cements North America’s position as a leader in water resource management.
Sustainability and Policy Implications
The disparities in dam capacity per capita among countries underscore the importance of sustainable water resource management policies. Nations with high capacity can leverage their resources to promote industrial growth and agricultural productivity, while those with limited infrastructure must seek innovative solutions to optimize water use. Ensuring equitable water distribution and access remains a critical challenge, calling for international cooperation and investment in water management technologies.
Furthermore, understanding the dynamics of dam capacity per capita allows policymakers to identify potential vulnerabilities and opportunities for collaboration. By fostering partnerships and sharing best practices, countries can develop resilient water management strategies that support sustainable development and address the challenges posed by climate change.
In conclusion, 1963 presents a compelling snapshot of global dam capacity per capita, highlighting both achievements and challenges in water resource management. As nations continue to grapple with the demands of population growth and environmental changes, the strategic management of water resources will remain pivotal in shaping sustainable futures worldwide.
Insights by country
Chile
In 1963, Chile ranked 22nd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, boasting an impressive capacity of 885.563 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic highlights the significant investment in water infrastructure, reflecting the country's commitment to harnessing its water resources for agriculture, industry, and urban consumption.
The high dam capacity per capita can be attributed to Chile's diverse geography, which includes the Andes mountains that provide ample opportunities for hydropower generation. Additionally, the country's extensive river systems have facilitated the construction of numerous dams, thereby enhancing water storage and management capabilities.
Interestingly, Chile's focus on hydropower has made it one of the leading countries in renewable energy production in the region. As of the early 1960s, the reliance on hydroelectric power was a crucial component of Chile's energy strategy, which has continued to evolve into the modern era.
Senegal
In 1963, Senegal ranked 148th out of 164 countries regarding dam capacity per capita, with a reported value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic indicates a significant lack of developed water storage infrastructure in the country during that period.
The absence of dam capacity per capita can be attributed to several socio-economic factors, including limited investment in water infrastructure, reliance on traditional agricultural practices, and the challenges posed by the country's geography. Senegal's climate, characterized by a seasonal rainfall pattern, further exacerbates the difficulties in establishing reliable water reservoirs.
Additionally, infrastructural development in Senegal has historically lagged behind that of more industrialized nations, impacting both agricultural productivity and access to clean water. This situation has been a persistent challenge, as water scarcity remains a critical issue in many regions of the country.
Cameroon
In 1963, Cameroon ranked 95th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a recorded capacity of 1.20459 cubic meters per inhabitant. This relatively modest figure reflects the country's developing infrastructure and the overall availability of water resources at that time.
The dam capacity per capita is an important metric, as it indicates the potential for water storage and management, which is crucial for agriculture, energy production, and domestic use. In Cameroon, the limited dam capacity was influenced by various factors including geographical challenges, economic constraints, and historical underinvestment in water management infrastructure.
Furthermore, the significance of dam capacity is underscored by its impact on agricultural productivity and energy supply, particularly in a country where a substantial portion of the population relies on subsistence farming and hydropower. Overall, the statistics from 1963 reflect the broader context of Cameroon’s developmental stage during that period.
Denmark
In 1963, Denmark held the rank of 88th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita. The country recorded a dam capacity of 4.26961 cubic meters per inhabitant, indicating a relatively moderate level of water resource management compared to other nations.
This statistic reflects Denmark's emphasis on effective water management systems, which are vital for agriculture, drinking water supply, and flood control. The relatively low dam capacity per capita may be attributed to Denmark's extensive network of smaller water bodies and rivers, alongside its commitment to sustainability and efficient water use.
Additionally, Denmark's focus on renewable energy and environmental protection has influenced its water infrastructure, promoting practices that optimize existing resources rather than solely expanding dam capacities. Such initiatives align with the country's broader environmental objectives and commitment to sustainable development.
Cyprus
In 1963, Cyprus ranked 83rd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a capacity of 16.7575 cubic meters per inhabitant. This statistic reflects the country's ability to manage and store water resources for agricultural, domestic, and industrial use, which is particularly crucial given its Mediterranean climate.
The relatively modest per capita dam capacity can be attributed to Cyprus's geographic size and population density, which limit the scale of water storage infrastructure. Additionally, the political division of the island has historically impacted investment in infrastructure development, affecting overall water management strategies.
Furthermore, Cyprus's reliance on both surface water and groundwater sources necessitates careful management of its water resources, particularly in response to seasonal fluctuations in rainfall. As a point of interest, the country has faced challenges related to water scarcity in recent decades, prompting efforts to enhance water conservation and management practices.
Ecuador
Ecuador ranked 115th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita in the year 1963. The specific value for dam capacity per inhabitant during this period was recorded as null cubic meters, indicating a lack of sufficient data or the absence of developed dam infrastructure relative to its population.
This low ranking and capacity can be attributed to several factors, including the country's economic conditions at the time, limited investment in large-scale infrastructure projects, and the geographical challenges posed by the Andes Mountains, which may have complicated the construction of dams. Furthermore, Ecuador's focus on agricultural development may have diverted resources away from water management projects.
In comparison, by the early 21st century, Ecuador has made significant strides in improving its water resource management and dam capacity, reflecting a broader trend of investment in infrastructure across many developing nations.
Ukraine
In 1963, Ukraine ranked 162nd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a recorded value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This low ranking indicates a significant lack of large-scale water reservoir infrastructure relative to its population at the time.
The absence of dam capacity is reflective of several factors, including the historical context of Ukraine, which was heavily influenced by the policies of the Soviet Union. During this period, there was a focus on industrialization and agricultural production rather than the development of water management systems. Additionally, the geographic and climatic conditions in certain regions of Ukraine may have posed challenges for the construction of dams.
As a related statistic, it's noteworthy that many countries with significant dam capacity have utilized these infrastructures for hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, and flood control, all of which contribute to enhanced economic stability and agricultural productivity. In contrast, Ukraine's limitations in dam capacity during this era may have hindered its development in these areas.
Eswatini
In 1963, Eswatini ranked 118 out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a recorded value of null cubic meters per inhabitant. This indicates that the country had insufficient data or capacity to measure dam storage relative to its population at that time.
The lack of recorded dam capacity per capita in Eswatini could be attributed to several factors including limited infrastructure development, economic constraints, and a focus on agricultural practices that relied more on traditional water collection methods rather than large-scale dam construction. Additionally, the political and social landscape of the time may have influenced investment in water infrastructure.
Eswatini's water management strategies have evolved since 1963, as the country has worked towards improving water storage and distribution systems to support its population and agricultural needs. The overall development of dam infrastructure is crucial for ensuring water security, especially in a region prone to droughts and variable rainfall patterns.
Brazil
In 1963, Brazil ranked 8th out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a notable value of 5,386.47 cubic meters per inhabitant. This impressive statistic reflects Brazil's extensive investment in hydroelectric power and water management infrastructure during the mid-20th century.
The significant dam capacity per capita can be attributed to Brazil's vast river systems, including the Amazon, Paraná, and São Francisco rivers, which provide ample opportunities for hydroelectric projects. Additionally, the country's emphasis on developing renewable energy sources was driven by the need to support its growing industrial sector and urban population.
Furthermore, this capacity not only highlights Brazil's energy potential but also underscores its commitment to sustainable energy practices. As of recent years, Brazil continues to be a leader in hydroelectric power, producing over 60% of its electricity from such sources, which remains a critical component of its energy strategy.
Haiti
In 1963, Haiti ranked 63rd out of 164 countries in terms of dam capacity per capita, with a significant capacity of 72.918 cubic meters per inhabitant. This figure highlights the country's ability to store and manage water resources, a crucial aspect for agricultural and domestic use in a nation that frequently faces challenges related to water scarcity.
The relatively high dam capacity per capita can be attributed to Haiti's efforts to harness its natural water resources, including rivers and rainfall, to support irrigation and hydroelectric power generation. However, the infrastructural development related to these resources has been inconsistent, primarily due to economic difficulties and political instability that have plagued the country for decades.
Interestingly, while Haiti's dam capacity per capita in 1963 was commendable, the country has faced ongoing challenges related to water management, including deforestation and environmental degradation, which have impacted water quality and availability in subsequent years. This statistic serves as a reminder of the importance of sustainable water resource management in developing nations.
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