Latvia has a population density of 77.5 people per square mile compared to 280.3 people in Malaysia. Latvia has 373,317 sq ft of land per person vs 100,140 sq ft in Malaysia. In the list of countries ranked from the most to the least densely populated, Latvia and Malaysia are ranked 155th and 85th, respectively.
Population density is calculated as the ratio of population to land area. Latvia has 0.02% of the world's population and 0.04% of the land area of all countries, compared to 0.44% of the population and 0.22% of the land area for Malaysia, hence the population density in Latvia is 72.3% lower than in Malaysia.
Population density comparison
Latvia
|
Malaysia
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Population density | 77.5 ppl/mi² | 280.3 ppl/mi² |
| Population density rank | 155/197 | 85/197 |
| Population |
1844219
|
36304998
|
| Land area | 24,027 sq mi | 126,854 sq mi |
| Land area per capita | 359,656 sq ft | 99,458 sq ft |
| Rural population | 31.2% | 20.8% |
| Urban population | 68.8% | 79.2% |
| Living in agglomerations of 1M+ people | 0% | 5.57% |
Latvia vs Malaysia:
Population density chart by year
From 2004 to 2024, population density in Latvia decreased by 17.7%, compared to a 40.8% growth in Malaysia.
In 2004, Latvia ranked 135th for population density and is in 155th place now. Malaysia was 93rd in 2004 and ranks 85th out of 197 currently.
people per square mile
| Year | Population density | |
|---|---|---|
|
Latvia
|
Malaysia
|
|
| 2024 | 77.5 | 280.3 |
| 2023 | 78.1 | 276.9 |
| 2022 | 78.2 | 273.5 |
| 2021 | 78.4 | 270.3 |
| 2020 | 79.1 | 267.2 |
| 2019 | 79.7 | 263.6 |
| 2018 | 80.2 | 259.4 |
| 2017 | 80.8 | 255.1 |
| 2016 | 81.6 | 250.6 |
| 2015 | 82.3 | 246.2 |
| 2014 | 83 | 242 |
| 2013 | 83.8 | 237.9 |
| 2012 | 84.7 | 233.8 |
| 2011 | 85.7 | 229.9 |
| 2010 | 87.3 | 225.9 |
| 2009 | 89.1 | 221.7 |
| 2008 | 90.6 | 217.3 |
| 2007 | 91.6 | 212.8 |
| 2006 | 92.3 | 208.3 |
| 2005 | 93.2 | 203.7 |
| 2004 | 94.2 | 199.1 |
| 2003 | 95.2 | 194.6 |
| 2002 | 96.2 | 190 |
| 2001 | 97.3 | 185.5 |
| 2000 | 98.5 | 181.1 |
| 1999 | 99.5 | 176.9 |
| 1998 | 100.3 | 172.7 |
| 1997 | 101.3 | 168.5 |
| 1996 | 102.3 | 164.4 |
| 1995 | 103.4 | 160.3 |
| 1994 | 104.9 | 156.2 |
| 1993 | 106.7 | 152.3 |
| 1992 | 108.8 | 148.5 |
| 1991 | - | 144.6 |
| 1990 | - | 140.6 |
| 1989 | - | 136.5 |
| 1988 | - | 132.4 |
| 1987 | - | 128.3 |
| 1986 | - | 124.2 |
| 1985 | - | 120.2 |
| 1984 | - | 116.3 |
| 1983 | - | 112.6 |
| 1982 | - | 109 |
| 1981 | - | 105.6 |
| 1980 | - | 102.3 |
| 1979 | - | 99.5 |
| 1978 | - | 97.2 |
| 1977 | - | 94.9 |
| 1976 | - | 92.6 |
| 1975 | - | 90.4 |
| 1974 | - | 88.3 |
| 1973 | - | 86.2 |
| 1972 | - | 84.2 |
| 1971 | - | 82.2 |
| 1970 | - | 80.2 |
| 1969 | - | 78.4 |
| 1968 | - | 76.7 |
| 1967 | - | 74.9 |
| 1966 | - | 73.2 |
| 1965 | - | 71.4 |
| 1964 | - | 69.6 |
| 1963 | - | 67.8 |
| 1962 | - | 66.1 |
| 1961 | - | 64.4 |
Share of urban population by year
| Year | Urban population | |
|---|---|---|
|
Latvia
|
Malaysia
|
|
| 2024 | 68.8% | 79.2% |
| 2023 | 68.7% | 78.7% |
| 2022 | 68.5% | 78.2% |
| 2021 | 68.4% | 77.7% |
| 2020 | 68.3% | 77.2% |
| 2019 | 68.2% | 76.6% |
| 2018 | 68.1% | 76% |
| 2017 | 68.1% | 75.4% |
| 2016 | 68% | 74.8% |
| 2015 | 68% | 74.2% |
| 2014 | 68% | 73.6% |
| 2013 | 67.9% | 72.9% |
| 2012 | 67.9% | 72.3% |
| 2011 | 67.9% | 71.6% |
| 2010 | 67.8% | 70.9% |
| 2009 | 67.8% | 70.1% |
| 2008 | 67.8% | 69.2% |
| 2007 | 67.9% | 68.4% |
| 2006 | 68% | 67.5% |
| 2005 | 68% | 66.6% |
| 2004 | 67.9% | 65.7% |
| 2003 | 67.8% | 64.8% |
| 2002 | 67.8% | 63.9% |
| 2001 | 67.9% | 62.9% |
| 2000 | 68.1% | 62% |
| 1999 | 68.2% | 60.7% |
| 1998 | 68.5% | 59.5% |
| 1997 | 68.6% | 58.2% |
| 1996 | 68.7% | 57% |
| 1995 | 68.8% | 55.7% |
| 1994 | 68.9% | 54.4% |
| 1993 | 68.8% | 53.1% |
| 1992 | 68.9% | 51.8% |
| 1991 | 69.2% | 50.6% |
| 1990 | 69.2% | 49.8% |
| 1989 | 69.2% | 49% |
| 1988 | 69.1% | 48.2% |
| 1987 | 68.9% | 47.5% |
| 1986 | 68.8% | 46.7% |
| 1985 | 68.6% | 45.9% |
| 1984 | 68.3% | 45.1% |
| 1983 | 68% | 44.3% |
| 1982 | 67.7% | 43.6% |
| 1981 | 67.4% | 42.8% |
| 1980 | 67.1% | 42% |
| 1979 | 66.7% | 41.2% |
| 1978 | 66.1% | 40.3% |
| 1977 | 65.5% | 39.4% |
| 1976 | 64.8% | 38.5% |
| 1975 | 64.2% | 37.7% |
| 1974 | 63.5% | 36.8% |
| 1973 | 62.8% | 35.9% |
| 1972 | 62.1% | 35.1% |
| 1971 | 61.4% | 34.3% |
| 1970 | 60.7% | 33.5% |
| 1969 | 59.9% | 32.7% |
| 1968 | 59.2% | 32% |
| 1967 | 58.4% | 31.3% |
| 1966 | 57.6% | 30.6% |
| 1965 | 56.8% | 29.9% |
| 1964 | 56% | 29.2% |
| 1963 | 55.3% | 28.6% |
| 1962 | 54.5% | 27.9% |
| 1961 | 53.7% | 27.2% |
| 1960 | 52.9% | 26.6% |
From 2004 to 2024 share of the urban population changed from 67.9% to 68.8% in Latvia and from 65.7% to 79.2% in Malaysia.
Densely populated cities
|
Malaysia
|
|
|---|---|
| City | Population |
| Kuala Lumpur | 1.98M |
| Klang | 878K |
| Ipoh | 867K |
| Johor Bahru | 798K |
| George Town | 794K |
| Shah Alam | 741K |
| Subang Jaya | 708K |
| Petaling Jaya | 639K |
| Kuantan | 608K |
| Sungai Petani | 545K |
Compare countries by 7 more topics
Population density in other countries
people per square mile
Population density
Relevant pages:
By topic
vs
comparisons:
Population density comparisons
