Barbados vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Barbados
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 9 hectares against 7 hectares in Barbados, a difference of 2 hectares.
That makes Saint Kitts and Nevis's figure about 1.3 times Barbados's.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 20 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
Barbados ranks 157th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 155th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Barbados averaged higher in 2 and Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Barbados | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 11.88 hectares | 23.12 hectares | 11.25 hectares | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| 2010s | 26.8 hectares | 7.8 hectares | 19 hectares | Barbados |
| 2020s | 19.5 hectares | 9.5 hectares | 10 hectares | Barbados |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Barbados or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 9 hectares against 7 hectares in Barbados as of 2021.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 2 hectares, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 20 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2021.
- How do Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Barbados ranks 157th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 155th 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.