Ecuador vs New Zealand: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Ecuador
- New Zealand
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 51,763 hectares against 39,723 hectares in New Zealand, a difference of 12,040 hectares.
That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.3 times New Zealand's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was New Zealand ahead.
Ecuador ranks 55th and New Zealand ranks 57th of 190 countries.
New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | New Zealand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 41,374 hectares | 57,451 hectares | 16,076 hectares | New Zealand |
| 2010s | 45,108 hectares | 71,242 hectares | 26,134 hectares | New Zealand |
| 2020s | 48,131 hectares | 52,561 hectares | 4,430 hectares | New Zealand |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Ecuador or New Zealand?
- Ecuador, at 51,763 hectares against 39,723 hectares in New Zealand as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Ecuador and New Zealand?
- 12,040 hectares, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and New Zealand?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Ecuador and New Zealand rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Ecuador ranks 55th and New Zealand ranks 57th 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.