Curacao has a population density of 910 people per square mile compared to 40.3 people in Norway. Curacao has 30,642 sq ft of land per person vs 744,100 sq ft in Norway. Curacao and Norway rank 26th and 182nd by population density, respectively.
Population density is calculated as the ratio of population to land area. Curacao has 0.002% of the world's population and 0.0003% of all countries' land area, compared to 0.07% of the population and 0.24% of the land area for Norway, making the population density in Curacao 2,159% higher than in Norway.
Population density by year
people per square mile
| Year | Population density | |
|---|---|---|
Curacao
|
Norway
|
|
| 2026 | 910 | 40.3 |
| 2025 | 910 | 40 |
| 2024 | 910 | 39.6 |
| 2023 | 902 | 39.2 |
| 2022 | 894 | 38.8 |
| 2021 | 898 | 38.5 |
| 2020 | 907 | 38.2 |
| 2019 | 918 | 37.9 |
| 2018 | 929 | 37.7 |
| 2017 | 934 | 37.4 |
| 2016 | 931 | 37.1 |
| 2015 | 922 | 36.8 |
| 2014 | 909 | 36.4 |
| 2013 | 897 | 36 |
| 2012 | 887 | 35.6 |
| 2011 | 880 | 35.1 |
| 2010 | - | 34.7 |
| 2009 | - | 34.2 |
| 2008 | - | 33.8 |
| 2007 | - | 33.4 |
| 2006 | - | 33 |
| 2005 | - | 32.8 |
| 2004 | - | 32.6 |
| 2003 | - | 32.4 |
| 2002 | - | 32.2 |
| 2001 | - | 32 |
| 2000 | - | 31.8 |
| 1999 | - | 31.6 |
| 1998 | - | 31.4 |
| 1997 | - | 31.2 |
| 1996 | - | 31.1 |
| 1995 | - | 30.9 |
| 1994 | - | 30.8 |
| 1993 | - | 30.6 |
| 1992 | - | 30.4 |
| 1991 | - | 30.2 |
| 1990 | - | 30.1 |
| 1989 | - | 30 |
| 1988 | - | 29.8 |
| 1987 | - | 29.7 |
| 1986 | - | 29.6 |
| 1985 | - | 29.4 |
| 1984 | - | 29.4 |
| 1983 | - | 29.3 |
| 1982 | - | 29.2 |
| 1981 | - | 29.1 |
| 1980 | - | 29 |
| 1979 | - | 28.9 |
| 1978 | - | 28.8 |
| 1977 | - | 28.7 |
| 1976 | - | 28.5 |
| 1975 | - | 28.4 |
| 1974 | - | 28.3 |
| 1973 | - | 28.1 |
| 1972 | - | 27.9 |
| 1971 | - | 27.7 |
| 1970 | - | 27.5 |
| 1969 | - | 27.3 |
| 1968 | - | 27.1 |
| 1967 | - | 26.8 |
| 1966 | - | 26.6 |
| 1965 | - | 26.4 |
| 1964 | - | 26.2 |
| 1963 | - | 26 |
| 1962 | - | 25.8 |
| 1961 | - | 25.6 |
Data sources: World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06); United Nations | World Population Prospects (2025–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10).
GeoRank.org/population-density/curacao/norway | CC BY 
From 2011 to 2026, population density in Curacao increased by 3.41%, compared to a 14.7% growth in Norway.
In 2011, Curacao ranked 26th by population density and is 26th still. Norway was 173rd in 2011 and ranks 182nd out of 197 currently.
Population density comparison
|
Curacao
|
Norway
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Population density | 910 ppl/mi² | 40.3 ppl/mi² |
| Population density rank | 26/197 | 182/197 |
| Population |
155976
|
5671119
|
| Land area | 171.4 sq mi | 140,645 sq mi |
| Land area per capita | 30,642 sq ft | 703,656 sq ft |
| Rural population | 8.57% | 16.7% |
| Urban population | 91.4% | 83.3% |
| Living in agglomerations of 1M+ people | 0% | 0% |
Share of urban population by year
| Year | Urban population | |
|---|---|---|
|
Curacao
|
Norway
|
|
| 2024 | 91.4% | 83.3% |
| 2023 | 91.4% | 83.1% |
| 2022 | 91.4% | 83% |
| 2021 | 91.4% | 82.9% |
| 2020 | 91.4% | 82.7% |
| 2019 | 91.4% | 82.5% |
| 2018 | 91.4% | 82.2% |
| 2017 | 91.3% | 82% |
| 2016 | 91.3% | 81.7% |
| 2015 | 91.3% | 81.2% |
| 2014 | 91.3% | 80.6% |
| 2013 | 91.3% | 80% |
| 2012 | 91.3% | 79.5% |
| 2011 | 91.3% | 79.3% |
| 2010 | 91.2% | 79.2% |
| 2009 | 91.2% | 79.1% |
| 2008 | 91.2% | 78.8% |
| 2007 | 91.2% | 78.4% |
| 2006 | 91.2% | 78.1% |
| 2005 | 91.2% | 77.8% |
| 2004 | 91.2% | 77.6% |
| 2003 | 91.1% | 77.3% |
| 2002 | 91.1% | 76.8% |
| 2001 | 91.1% | 76.4% |
| 2000 | 90.9% | 76.1% |
| 1999 | 90.4% | 75.8% |
| 1998 | 89.8% | 75.3% |
| 1997 | 89% | 74.7% |
| 1996 | 88.1% | 74.2% |
| 1995 | 87.2% | 73.9% |
| 1994 | 86.4% | 73.7% |
| 1993 | 85.7% | 73.2% |
| 1992 | 85.1% | 72.6% |
| 1991 | 84.7% | 72.2% |
| 1990 | 84.2% | 71.9% |
| 1989 | 83.9% | 71.7% |
| 1988 | 83.5% | 71.6% |
| 1987 | 83.2% | 71.5% |
| 1986 | 82.8% | 71.4% |
| 1985 | 82.5% | 71.3% |
| 1984 | 82.2% | 71.2% |
| 1983 | 82% | 71.1% |
| 1982 | 81.7% | 71% |
| 1981 | 81.5% | 70.8% |
| 1980 | 81.2% | 70.6% |
| 1979 | 81% | 70.4% |
| 1978 | 80.7% | 70.1% |
| 1977 | 80.5% | 69.7% |
| 1976 | 80.3% | 69.3% |
| 1975 | 80.1% | 68.9% |
| 1974 | 79.8% | 68.3% |
| 1973 | 79.6% | 67.7% |
| 1972 | 79.3% | 67.1% |
| 1971 | 79.1% | 66.4% |
| 1970 | 78.8% | 65.6% |
| 1969 | 78.5% | 64.4% |
| 1968 | 78.3% | 62.6% |
| 1967 | 77.9% | 60.5% |
| 1966 | 77.6% | 58.2% |
| 1965 | 77.3% | 55.9% |
| 1964 | 76.9% | 53.6% |
| 1963 | 76.5% | 51.6% |
| 1962 | 76.1% | 50.1% |
| 1961 | 75.6% | 49% |
| 1960 | 75.2% | 48.7% |
Data sources: World Bank | Health (1960–2024, retrieved 2026-04-06).
GeoRank.org/population-density/curacao/norway | CC BY
From 2004 to 2024, the share of urban population changed from 91.2% to 91.4% in Curacao and from 77.6% to 83.3% in Norway.
Densely populated cities
|
Norway
|
|
|---|---|
| City | Population |
| Oslo | 718K |
| Bergen | 291K |
| Trondheim | 199K |
| Stavanger | 150K |
| Baerum | 132K |
| Drammen | 105K |
| Asker | 100K |
| Lillestrom | 95.8K |
| Fredrikstad | 85.9K |
| Sandnes | 84.9K |
Compare countries by 7 more topics
Population density in other countries
Data sources: World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06); United Nations | World Population Prospects (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10); U.S. Census Bureau (1961–2025, retrieved 2026-02-08); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2000–2019, retrieved 2026-02-20).
GeoRank.org/population-density/curacao/norway | CC BY
Help us show the world through your eyes
Share a photo of your city and help others discover what it looks like to live there. Your contribution makes our data come alive.
Data sources:
- World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06)
- United Nations | World Population Prospects (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10)
- U.S. Census Bureau (1961–2025, retrieved 2026-02-08)
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2000–2019, retrieved 2026-02-20)
- Wikidata (2023–2025, retrieved 2026-02-08)
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) — you’re free to copy, share, remix, adapt, and use even commercially as long as you give appropriate credit and clearly indicate if you made changes. Other sources may be subject to different license terms.