Botswana vs Guatemala: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%)
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%) over time
- Botswana
- Guatemala
How they compare
Botswana currently reports 52.0% against 49.0% in Guatemala, a difference of 3.0%.
That makes Botswana's figure about 1.1 times Guatemala's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Botswana ahead.
Botswana ranks 26th and Guatemala ranks 29th of 130 countries.
Botswana has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | Guatemala | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 51.6% | 45.0% | 6.6% | Botswana |
| 2020s | 54.4% | 52.2% | 2.2% | Botswana |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, Botswana or Guatemala?
- Botswana, at 52.0% against 49.0% in Guatemala as of 2024.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Botswana and Guatemala?
- 3.0%, with Botswana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Guatemala?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do Botswana and Guatemala rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Botswana ranks 26th and Guatemala ranks 29th of 130 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The percentage of people in the population who live in households classified as moderately or severely food insecure. A household is classified as moderately or severely food insecure when at least one adult in the household has reported to have been exposed, at times during the year, to low quality diets and might have been forced to also reduce the quantity of food they would normally eat because of a lack of money or other resources.