Mexico vs Papua New Guinea: Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), per square

Mexico
5,390 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2021
Papua New Guinea
5,153 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2021
Mexico rank
20th
Papua New Guinea rank
22nd

Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), per square over time

  • Mexico
  • Papua New Guinea
02.0k4.0k6.0k197019952021

How they compare

Mexico currently reports 5,390 current US$ per square kilometre against 5,153 current US$ per square kilometre in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 237 current US$ per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 52 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Mexico ahead.

Mexico ranks 20th and Papua New Guinea ranks 22nd of 216 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Mexico averaged higher in 2 and Papua New Guinea in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Mexico Papua New Guinea Difference Ahead
1970s 74.61 current US$ per square kilometre 289.92 current US$ per square kilometre 215.32 current US$ per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1980s 256.67 current US$ per square kilometre 679.36 current US$ per square kilometre 422.69 current US$ per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1990s 184.64 current US$ per square kilometre 528.9 current US$ per square kilometre 344.26 current US$ per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2000s 491.71 current US$ per square kilometre 1,021 current US$ per square kilometre 528.93 current US$ per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2010s 1,990 current US$ per square kilometre 1,350 current US$ per square kilometre 639.89 current US$ per square kilometre Mexico
2020s 3,423 current US$ per square kilometre 3,108 current US$ per square kilometre 315.74 current US$ per square kilometre Mexico

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current us$), per square, Mexico or Papua New Guinea?
Mexico, at 5,390 current US$ per square kilometre against 5,153 current US$ per square kilometre in Papua New Guinea as of 2021.
What is the difference in adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current us$), per square between Mexico and Papua New Guinea?
237 current US$ per square kilometre, with Mexico ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mexico and Papua New Guinea?
52 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2021.
How do Mexico and Papua New Guinea rank globally for adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current us$), per square?
Mexico ranks 20th and Papua New Guinea ranks 22nd of 216 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), 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

Mexico vs Papua New Guinea: Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 28 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/adjusted-savings-mineral-depletion-current-us-per-square-kilometre/mexico/papua-new-guinea/

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://economy.statizoid.com/compare/adjusted-savings-mineral-depletion-current-us-per-square-kilometre/mexico/papua-new-guinea/">Mexico vs Papua New Guinea: Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
217 places, 10,348 data points, 1970–2021
Last refreshed

Adjusted savings: mineral depletion (current US$) 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.