Ecuador vs Latvia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Ecuador
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 55,492 hectares against 51,763 hectares in Ecuador, a difference of 3,729 hectares.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times Ecuador's.
The two have swapped places 11 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Ecuador ahead.
Ecuador ranks 55th and Latvia ranks 52nd of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 2 and Latvia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 41,374 hectares | 31,778 hectares | 9,596 hectares | Ecuador |
| 2010s | 45,108 hectares | 41,469 hectares | 3,640 hectares | Ecuador |
| 2020s | 48,131 hectares | 53,773 hectares | 5,642 hectares | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Ecuador or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 55,492 hectares against 51,763 hectares in Ecuador as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Ecuador and Latvia?
- 3,729 hectares, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Latvia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Ecuador and Latvia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Ecuador ranks 55th and Latvia ranks 52nd 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.