Australia vs Zambia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Australia
- Zambia
How they compare
Australia currently reports 384,105 hectares against 277,033 hectares in Zambia, a difference of 107,072 hectares.
That makes Australia's figure about 1.4 times Zambia's.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 9th and Zambia ranks 12th of 190 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Zambia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 241,674 hectares | 53,605 hectares | 188,068 hectares | Australia |
| 2010s | 393,534 hectares | 122,037 hectares | 271,497 hectares | Australia |
| 2020s | 582,006 hectares | 206,664 hectares | 375,342 hectares | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Australia or Zambia?
- Australia, at 384,105 hectares against 277,033 hectares in Zambia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Australia and Zambia?
- 107,072 hectares, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Zambia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Australia and Zambia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Australia ranks 9th and Zambia ranks 12th 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.