Jordan vs Libya: Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic)

Jordan
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP
in 2022
Libya
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP
in 2022
Jordan rank
168th
Libya rank
165th

Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic) over time

  • Jordan
  • Libya
0000196119912022

How they compare

Libya currently reports 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP against 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP in Jordan, a difference of 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP.

That makes Libya's figure about 1.3 times Jordan's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 58 shared years of data; in 1965 it was Jordan ahead.

Jordan ranks 168th and Libya ranks 165th of 181 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Jordan averaged higher in 6 and Libya in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Jordan Libya Difference Ahead
1960s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
1970s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
1980s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
1990s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
2000s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
2010s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Jordan
2020s 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP Libya

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic), Jordan or Libya?
Libya, at 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP against 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP in Jordan as of 2022.
What is the difference in renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic) between Jordan and Libya?
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP, with Libya ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Libya?
58 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2022.
How do Jordan and Libya rank globally for renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic)?
Jordan ranks 168th and Libya ranks 165th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic meters), per unit of GDP. 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

Jordan vs Libya: Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 31 August 2026, from https://infrastructure.statizoid.com/compare/renewable-internal-freshwater-resources-total-billion-cubic-meters-per-unit-of-gdp/jordan/libya/

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://infrastructure.statizoid.com/compare/renewable-internal-freshwater-resources-total-billion-cubic-meters-per-unit-of-gdp/jordan/libya/">Jordan vs Libya: Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic meters), per unit of GDP
Unit
billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
227 places, 12,317 data points, 1961–2022
Last refreshed

Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic meters) divided by GDP (current US$), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.