@buck, I think that's the point. When you have a large population on a small amount of land, you need a higher % of cultivated land to support/feed the population. The countries on here don't have a lot in common, but the one thing that's true of all of them is that they have high population densities.
Haiti's a perfect example--if you look at the source page, it has about the same total amount of cultivated land as its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, but since it has less land, it registers as a higher %.
Some of the microstates raised some questions for me. I've been to Comoros, not that long ago, and am no expert, but the number was hard for me to understand. On the source, it says that "cultivated land" is "the sum of the total arable land area and total area of permanent crops." "Arable land" is then defined as "any land capable of being ploughed and used to grow crops." In other words, that (far larger, in almost all cases) part of the definition is about (annual crop) potential, while "permanent crops" is defined as crops produced from "plants which last for many seasons, rather than being replanted after each harvest." So, fruit trees, olives, coffee, rubber, etc. that actually cover ground.
Long story short, I'm not sure how all of this represents actual percentages of really-cultivated land.
Haiti's a perfect example--if you look at the source page, it has about the same total amount of cultivated land as its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, but since it has less land, it registers as a higher %.
Long story short, I'm not sure how all of this represents actual percentages of really-cultivated land.
Someone should create a quiz to list all the quiz names that have a caveat about Greenland.