Statizoid

Registering property: Geographic coverage index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The geographic coverage index assesses the extent to which the land registry and cadastre provide complete geographic coverage of privately held land parcels. It has four components: (i) how complete the coverage of the land registry is at the level of the largest business city; (ii) how complete the coverage of...

Countries reporting
186
Highest
8 DB16-20 methodology
Austria
Lowest
0 DB16-20 methodology
Zimbabwe
Median
2 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
930

What the numbers show

Registering property: Geographic coverage index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 186 countries. The highest value is 8 DB16-20 methodology in Austria; the lowest is 0 DB16-20 methodology in Zimbabwe.

The median across all reporting countries is 2 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 2.84 DB16-20 methodology.

Registering property: Geographic coverage index (0-8): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Austria 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Belgium 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Bhutan 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Switzerland 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Cyprus 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Czechia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Germany 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Denmark 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Estonia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Finland 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Fiji 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 France 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Hong Kong 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Croatia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Hungary 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Iceland 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Italy 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Japan 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Kyrgyz Republic 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Korea, Rep. 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Kuwait 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 St. Lucia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Lithuania 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Luxembourg 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Malaysia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Netherlands 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 New Zealand 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Qatar 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Rwanda 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Singapore 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 San Marino 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Slovak Republic 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Slovenia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Sweden 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Tonga 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Turkiye 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Kosovo 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Taiwan 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Djibouti 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
38 Canada 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
38 Spain 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
38 Jordan 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
38 North Macedonia 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
38 Uruguay 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 United Arab Emirates 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Armenia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Antigua and Barbuda 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Australia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Azerbaijan 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
43 Bulgaria 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Bahrain 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Belarus 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Brunei Darussalam 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Botswana 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Chile 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 China 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Costa Rica 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 United Kingdom 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Gambia, The 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Ireland 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Iran, Islamic Rep. 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Iraq 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Israel 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Lao PDR 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Lebanon 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Latvia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Moldova 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Maldives 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Montenegro 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Mauritius 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Malawi 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Norway 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Oman 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Philippines 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Poland 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Portugal 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 West Bank and Gaza 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Russian Federation 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Solomon Islands 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Serbia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Eswatini 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Seychelles 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Thailand 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 United States 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Uzbekistan 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Vanuatu 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
85 Mexico 2.34 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Brazil 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Colombia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Ecuador 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
86 Kiribati 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Paraguay 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 Trinidad and Tobago 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
86 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Afghanistan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Angola 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Albania 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Burundi 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Benin 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Burkina Faso 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Bangladesh 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Bahamas, The 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Belize 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Bolivia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Barbados 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Central African Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Cote d'Ivoire 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Cameroon 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Congo, Rep. 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Comoros 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Cabo Verde 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Dominica 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Dominican Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Algeria 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Egypt, Arab Rep. 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Eritrea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Ethiopia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Gabon 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Ghana 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Guinea-Bissau 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Equatorial Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Greece 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Grenada 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Guatemala 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Guyana 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Honduras 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Haiti 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Indonesia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 India 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Jamaica 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Kazakhstan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Kenya 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Cambodia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 St. Kitts and Nevis 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Liberia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Sri Lanka 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Lesotho 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Madagascar 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Mali 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Malta 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Myanmar 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Mongolia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Mozambique 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Mauritania 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Namibia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Niger 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Nigeria 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Nicaragua 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Nepal 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Pakistan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Panama 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Peru 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Papua New Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Puerto Rico (US) 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Romania 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Saudi Arabia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Senegal 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Sierra Leone 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 El Salvador 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Somalia, Fed. Rep. 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 South Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Sao Tome and Principe 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Suriname 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Syrian Arab Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
98 Chad 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Togo 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Tajikistan 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Tunisia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Tanzania 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Uganda 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Ukraine 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Venezuela, RB 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Viet Nam 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Samoa 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Yemen, Rep. 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Zambia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
98 Zimbabwe 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Geographic coverage index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 930 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The geographic coverage index assesses the extent to which the land registry and cadastre provide complete geographic coverage of privately held land parcels. It has four components: (i) how complete the coverage of the land registry is at the level of the largest business city; (ii) how complete the coverage of the land registry is at the level of the economy; (iii) how complete the coverage of the mapping agency is at the level of the largest business city; and (iv) how complete the coverage of the mapping agency is at the level of the economy. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.