Gambia vs Mauritius: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Gambia
- Mauritius
How they compare
Mauritius currently reports 34 hectares against 28 hectares in Gambia, a difference of 6 hectares.
That makes Mauritius's figure about 1.2 times Gambia's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Mauritius ahead.
Gambia ranks 146th and Mauritius ranks 145th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Gambia averaged higher in 1 and Mauritius in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Gambia | Mauritius | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 53.89 hectares | 182.11 hectares | 128.22 hectares | Mauritius |
| 2010s | 17.3 hectares | 141.3 hectares | 124 hectares | Mauritius |
| 2020s | 16.83 hectares | 5.67 hectares | 11.17 hectares | Gambia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Gambia or Mauritius?
- Mauritius, at 34 hectares against 28 hectares in Gambia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Gambia and Mauritius?
- 6 hectares, with Mauritius ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Gambia and Mauritius?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Gambia and Mauritius rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Gambia ranks 146th and Mauritius ranks 145th 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.