Gambia vs Kiribati: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%)
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%) over time
- Gambia
- Kiribati
How they compare
Gambia currently reports 47.2% against 43.9% in Kiribati, a difference of 3.3%.
That makes Gambia's figure about 1.1 times Kiribati's.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Gambia has been ahead every year.
Gambia ranks 30th and Kiribati ranks 33rd of 130 countries.
Gambia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Gambia | Kiribati | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 55.1% | 41.0% | 14.1% | Gambia |
| 2020s | 55.9% | 42.1% | 13.8% | Gambia |
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, Gambia or Kiribati?
- Gambia, at 47.2% against 43.9% in Kiribati as of 2024.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Gambia and Kiribati?
- 3.3%, with Gambia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Gambia and Kiribati?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2018 to 2024.
- How do Gambia and Kiribati rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Gambia ranks 30th and Kiribati ranks 33rd 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.