OECD members vs Zambia: Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic)

OECD members
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP
in 2022
Zambia
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP
in 2022
OECD members rank
36th
Zambia rank
39th

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

  • OECD members
  • Zambia
000000196119912022

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP against 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP in OECD members, a difference of 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP.

That makes Zambia's figure about 13.2 times OECD members's.

Across all 62 years both countries report, Zambia has been ahead every year.

OECD members ranks 36th and Zambia ranks 39th of 43 groups.

Zambia has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade OECD members Zambia 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 Zambia
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 Zambia
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 Zambia
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 Zambia
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 Zambia
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 Zambia
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 Zambia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic), OECD members or Zambia?
Zambia, at 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP against 0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP in OECD members as of 2022.
What is the difference in renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic) between OECD members and Zambia?
0 billion cubic meters per US$ of GDP, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for OECD members and Zambia?
62 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2022.
How do OECD members and Zambia rank globally for renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic)?
OECD members ranks 36th and Zambia ranks 39th of 43 groups.
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

OECD members vs Zambia: Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 07 September 2026, from https://infrastructure.statizoid.com/compare/renewable-internal-freshwater-resources-total-billion-cubic-meters-per-unit-of-gdp/oecd-members/zambia/

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/oecd-members/zambia/">OECD members vs Zambia: 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.