Croatia vs Serbia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Croatia
- Serbia
How they compare
Croatia currently reports 7,227 hectares against 5,788 hectares in Serbia, a difference of 1,439 hectares.
That makes Croatia's figure about 1.2 times Serbia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Croatia ahead.
Croatia ranks 96th and Serbia ranks 97th of 190 countries.
Croatia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Croatia | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3,241 hectares | 2,053 hectares | 1,187 hectares | Croatia |
| 2010s | 4,713 hectares | 3,433 hectares | 1,280 hectares | Croatia |
| 2020s | 7,398 hectares | 5,243 hectares | 2,155 hectares | Croatia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Croatia or Serbia?
- Croatia, at 7,227 hectares against 5,788 hectares in Serbia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Croatia and Serbia?
- 1,439 hectares, with Croatia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Serbia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Croatia and Serbia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Croatia ranks 96th 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.