Hungary vs Sri Lanka: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Hungary
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Hungary currently reports 15,508 hectares against 15,243 hectares in Sri Lanka, a difference of 265 hectares.
The two have swapped places 8 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Hungary ahead.
Hungary ranks 75th and Sri Lanka ranks 76th of 190 countries.
Hungary has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hungary | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 8,855 hectares | 6,563 hectares | 2,292 hectares | Hungary |
| 2010s | 12,255 hectares | 11,813 hectares | 442.1 hectares | Hungary |
| 2020s | 14,755 hectares | 11,944 hectares | 2,812 hectares | Hungary |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Hungary or Sri Lanka?
- Hungary, at 15,508 hectares against 15,243 hectares in Sri Lanka as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Hungary and Sri Lanka?
- 265 hectares, with Hungary ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Sri Lanka?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Hungary and Sri Lanka rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Hungary ranks 75th and Sri Lanka ranks 76th 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.