Algeria vs Serbia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Algeria
- Serbia
How they compare
Serbia currently reports 5,788 hectares against 4,498 hectares in Algeria, a difference of 1,290 hectares.
That makes Serbia's figure about 1.3 times Algeria's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Algeria ahead.
Algeria ranks 100th and Serbia ranks 97th of 190 countries.
Algeria has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Algeria | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 5,356 hectares | 2,053 hectares | 3,302 hectares | Algeria |
| 2010s | 11,004 hectares | 3,433 hectares | 7,571 hectares | Algeria |
| 2020s | 12,985 hectares | 5,243 hectares | 7,742 hectares | Algeria |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Algeria or Serbia?
- Serbia, at 5,788 hectares against 4,498 hectares in Algeria as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Algeria and Serbia?
- 1,290 hectares, with Serbia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Algeria and Serbia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Algeria and Serbia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Algeria ranks 100th and Serbia ranks 97th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA), published as Tree Cover Loss (hectares). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Shows year-by-year tree cover loss, defined as stand level replacement of vegetation greater than 5 meters, within the selected area. The tree cover loss data set is a collaboration of the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, and uses Landsat satellite images to map annual tree cover loss at a 30 × 30 meter resolution. Note that “tree cover loss” is not the same as “deforestation” – tree cover loss includes change in both natural and planted forest, and does not need to be human caused. The data from 2011 onward were produced with an updated methodology that may capture additional loss. Comparisons between the original 2001-2010 data and future years should be performed with caution.