Guatemala vs Latvia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Guatemala
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 55,492 hectares against 52,384 hectares in Guatemala, a difference of 3,108 hectares.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times Guatemala's.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Guatemala ahead.
Guatemala ranks 54th and Latvia ranks 52nd of 190 countries.
Guatemala has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guatemala | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 78,613 hectares | 31,778 hectares | 46,835 hectares | Guatemala |
| 2010s | 77,511 hectares | 41,469 hectares | 36,043 hectares | Guatemala |
| 2020s | 76,719 hectares | 53,773 hectares | 22,946 hectares | Guatemala |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Guatemala or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 55,492 hectares against 52,384 hectares in Guatemala as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Guatemala and Latvia?
- 3,108 hectares, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Latvia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Guatemala and Latvia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Guatemala ranks 54th 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.