Kenya vs Slovakia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Kenya
- Slovakia
How they compare
Kenya currently reports 10,418 hectares against 9,474 hectares in Slovakia, a difference of 944 hectares.
That makes Kenya's figure about 1.1 times Slovakia's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Kenya ahead.
Kenya ranks 84th and Slovakia ranks 87th of 190 countries.
Kenya has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kenya | Slovakia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18,475 hectares | 9,575 hectares | 8,901 hectares | Kenya |
| 2010s | 17,550 hectares | 12,472 hectares | 5,077 hectares | Kenya |
| 2020s | 11,504 hectares | 8,372 hectares | 3,133 hectares | Kenya |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Kenya or Slovakia?
- Kenya, at 10,418 hectares against 9,474 hectares in Slovakia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Kenya and Slovakia?
- 944 hectares, with Kenya ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kenya and Slovakia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Kenya and Slovakia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Kenya ranks 84th and Slovakia ranks 87th 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.