Annual Forest Area Change Rate 2002
Annual forest area change rate indicates how quickly a country's forests are expanding or shrinking each year.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
Rank | Actions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
1 | China | 2,360,982.8 % | |
2 | Russia | 905,656.25 % | |
3 | United States | 518,400 % | |
4 | Canada | 512,606.25 % | |
5 | Indonesia | 434,660.16 % | |
6 | India | 190,500 % | |
7 | Vietnam | 160,396 % | |
8 | Spain | 147,225.97 % | |
9 | France | 113,100 % | |
10 | Turkey | 93,473.05 % | |
11 | South Africa | 87,567.97 % | |
12 | Italy | 65,879 % | |
13 | Chile | 61,363.086 % | |
14 | Cuba | 51,035.008 % | |
15 | Serbia | 39,679.004 % | |
16 | Uzbekistan | 38,814.016 % | |
17 | Bulgaria | 36,200 % | |
18 | Uruguay | 35,964 % | |
19 | Ghana | 35,720.02 % | |
20 | Belarus | 35,700 % | |
21 | Poland | 27,000 % | |
22 | Montenegro | 20,100 % | |
23 | Nepal | 16,741.016 % | |
24 | Lithuania | 15,000 % | |
25 | Romania | 14,900 % | |
26 | Latvia | 13,112.012 % | |
27 | Hungary | 12,521.997 % | |
28 | United Kingdom | 10,500 % | |
29 | North Korea | 10,217.969 % | |
30 | Bhutan | 9,929.004 % | |
31 | Estonia | 9,713.013 % | |
32 | Ireland | 9,002.002 % | |
33 | Japan | 9,000 % | |
34 | Puerto Rico | 6,230.002 % | |
35 | Kenya | 6,226.001 % | |
36 | Georgia | 6,180.005 % | |
37 | Fiji | 6,064.002 % | |
38 | Germany | 5,500 % | |
39 | Syrian Arab Republic | 5,121.002 % | |
40 | Kyrgyzstan | 4,593.994 % | |
41 | Azerbaijan | 4,527.002 % | |
42 | Switzerland | 3,853.992 % | |
43 | Ukraine | 3,800 % | |
44 | Jamaica | 3,744 % | |
45 | Tunisia | 3,558.997 % | |
46 | Croatia | 3,500 % | |
47 | Costa Rica | 3,169.995 % | |
48 | Republic of Moldova | 3,010.001 % | |
49 | Mauritania | 2,627.002 % | |
50 | Austria | 2,350 % | |
51 | Belgium | 2,257.001 % | |
52 | South Sudan | 2,200 % | |
53 | Dominican Republic | 2,047.998 % | |
54 | Iceland | 1,652 % | |
55 | Slovakia | 1,650 % | |
56 | Denmark | 1,474.005 % | |
57 | Czech Republic | 1,472.998 % | |
58 | Slovenia | 1,400 % | |
59 | Netherlands | 1,398.001 % | |
60 | Albania | 1,277.002 % | |
61 | Greece | 1,190.015 % | |
62 | Rwanda | 700.998 % | |
63 | United Arab Emirates | 457.999 % | |
64 | Cabo Verde | 440 % | |
65 | Réunion | 302 % | |
66 | North Macedonia | 288.001 % | |
67 | Luxembourg | 200 % | |
68 | Saint Lucia | 200 % | |
69 | Martinique | 155 % | |
70 | Cyprus | 123 % | |
71 | New Caledonia | 117.004 % | |
72 | Israel | 100 % | |
73 | Palau | 98 % | |
74 | Lebanon | 98 % | |
75 | French Polynesia | 91 % | |
76 | State of Palestine | 90 % | |
77 | Andorra | 79 % | |
78 | Singapore | 73 % | |
79 | Kuwait | 40 % | |
80 | Wallis and Futuna Islands | 34 % | |
81 | Micronesia (Fed. States of) | 27 % | |
82 | Liechtenstein | 17 % | |
83 | Egypt | 17 % | |
84 | Guernsey | 15 % | |
85 | Cook Islands | 2 % | |
86 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 1 % | |
87 | Afghanistan | 0 % | |
88 | Anguilla | 0 % | |
89 | Aruba | 0 % | |
90 | Bahamas | 0 % | |
91 | Bahrain | 0 % | |
92 | Barbados | 0 % | |
93 | Bermuda | 0 % | |
94 | Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba | 0 % | |
95 | Botswana | 0 % | |
96 | Burundi | 0 % | |
97 | Curaçao | 0 % | |
98 | Falkland Islands (Malvinas) | 0 % | |
99 | Faroe Islands | 0 % | |
100 | Gibraltar | 0 % | |
101 | Greenland | 0 % | |
102 | Grenada | 0 % | |
103 | Guam | 0 % | |
104 | Iran | 0 % | |
105 | Isle of Man | 0 % | |
106 | Jersey | 0 % | |
107 | Jordan | 0 % | |
108 | Kiribati | 0 % | |
109 | Lesotho | 0 % | |
110 | Maldives | 0 % | |
111 | Malta | 0 % | |
112 | Marshall Islands | 0 % | |
113 | Monaco | 0 % | |
114 | Montserrat | 0 % | |
115 | Nauru | 0 % | |
116 | Northern Mariana Islands | 0 % | |
117 | Oman | 0 % | |
118 | Qatar | 0 % | |
119 | Saint Barthélemy | 0 % | |
120 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 0 % | |
121 | Saint Martin (French part) | 0 % | |
122 | San Marino | 0 % | |
123 | Saudi Arabia | 0 % | |
124 | Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | 0 % | |
125 | Tokelau | 0 % | |
126 | Tonga | 0 % | |
127 | Turkmenistan | 0 % | |
128 | Turks and Caicos Islands | 0 % | |
129 | Tuvalu | 0 % | |
130 | Holy See | 0 % | |
131 | Yemen | 0 % | |
132 | British Virgin Islands | -1 % | |
133 | Niue | -6 % | |
134 | Dominica | -19 % | |
135 | Cayman Islands | -21 % | |
136 | Saint Pierre and Miquelon | -22 % | |
137 | Armenia | -35.001 % | |
138 | Sao Tome and Principe | -54 % | |
139 | Antigua and Barbuda | -67 % | |
140 | Guadeloupe | -71.999 % | |
141 | United States Virgin Islands | -86 % | |
142 | American Samoa | -154 % | |
143 | Seychelles | -217 % | |
144 | Western Sahara | -231 % | |
145 | New Zealand | -232.031 % | |
146 | Morocco | -296.973 % | |
147 | Libya | -333 % | |
148 | Mauritius | -357 % | |
149 | Haiti | -400 % | |
150 | Trinidad and Tobago | -423.999 % | |
151 | Mayotte | -438 % | |
152 | Samoa | -481 % | |
153 | Comoros | -548 % | |
154 | Namibia | -645.02 % | |
155 | Algeria | -675 % | |
156 | Solomon Islands | -738.013 % | |
157 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | -898.999 % | |
158 | Iraq | -1,332.001 % | |
159 | Timor-Leste | -1,400 % | |
160 | Eswatini | -1,500 % | |
161 | Brunei Darussalam | -1,700 % | |
162 | Gabon | -1,835.938 % | |
163 | Vanuatu | -2,384.998 % | |
164 | Togo | -2,958.997 % | |
165 | El Salvador | -2,970.001 % | |
166 | Bangladesh | -3,208.997 % | |
167 | Suriname | -3,996.094 % | |
168 | French Guiana | -4,293.994 % | |
169 | Guinea-Bissau | -4,396.021 % | |
170 | Guyana | -4,441.016 % | |
171 | Norway | -4,919.043 % | |
172 | Gambia | -5,787 % | |
173 | Eritrea | -5,979.004 % | |
174 | Thailand | -7,000 % | |
175 | Kazakhstan | -7,475 % | |
176 | Sri Lanka | -7,517.993 % | |
177 | Belize | -7,590.002 % | |
178 | Mongolia | -8,000 % | |
179 | Equatorial Guinea | -8,300 % | |
180 | South Korea | -8,900 % | |
181 | Sweden | -9,000 % | |
182 | Portugal | -9,669.019 % | |
183 | Panama | -11,414.99 % | |
184 | Congo | -12,000 % | |
185 | Niger | -12,419.995 % | |
186 | Pakistan | -15,207.983 % | |
187 | Senegal | -15,545.02 % | |
188 | Cambodia | -19,176.953 % | |
189 | Sierra Leone | -19,727.002 % | |
190 | Finland | -20,364.062 % | |
191 | Papua New Guinea | -21,917.969 % | |
192 | Central African Republic | -34,991.797 % | |
193 | Zambia | -35,800 % | |
194 | Honduras | -38,478.027 % | |
195 | Liberia | -38,898 % | |
196 | Laos | -38,945.02 % | |
197 | Malawi | -42,000 % | |
198 | Philippines | -46,953.953 % | |
199 | Guatemala | -47,081.008 % | |
200 | Uganda | -50,146.996 % | |
201 | Guinea | -66,997.02 % | |
202 | Cameroon | -69,700.98 % | |
203 | Ecuador | -70,212.984 % | |
204 | Ethiopia | -72,800 % | |
205 | Malaysia | -74,369.92 % | |
206 | Somalia | -76,750 % | |
207 | Chad | -82,270.016 % | |
208 | Venezuela | -84,952.734 % | |
209 | Nicaragua | -99,320.016 % | |
210 | Mali | -100,546 % | |
211 | Zimbabwe | -105,719.05 % | |
212 | Madagascar | -106,810.06 % | |
213 | Colombia | -113,860.16 % | |
214 | Côte d'Ivoire | -116,481.01 % | |
215 | Nigeria | -126,883.01 % | |
216 | Burkina Faso | -134,310.02 % | |
217 | Benin | -141,004.98 % | |
218 | Mexico | -143,800.78 % | |
219 | Bolivia | -158,621.88 % | |
220 | Australia | -173,615.62 % | |
221 | Sudan | -174,140.03 % | |
222 | Mozambique | -267,029.3 % | |
223 | Peru | -299,337.5 % | |
224 | Myanmar | -342,710.94 % | |
225 | Argentina | -371,476.94 % | |
226 | Paraguay | -376,996.1 % | |
227 | Tanzania | -403,000 % | |
228 | Angola | -510,029.7 % | |
229 | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | -674,987.5 % | |
230 | Brazil | -3,563,293.8 % |
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
- #230
Brazil
- #229
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
- #228
Angola
- #227
Tanzania
- #226
Paraguay
- #225
Argentina
- #224
Myanmar
- #223
Peru
- #222
Mozambique
- #221
Sudan
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
In 2002, the Annual Forest Area Change Rate was led by China with a remarkable increase of 2,360,982.8%, while the global range spanned from -50,147.00% to 2,360,982.80%. The median change rate across the 200 countries with available data was 0.00%, reflecting a balance between countries experiencing forest loss and gain.
Economic Growth and Forest Expansion
Economic factors play a significant role in forest area changes, as seen in China and India. China's substantial forest area increase of 2,360,982.8% can be attributed to aggressive reforestation policies and its rapid economic growth, which has enabled significant investment in sustainable practices. Similarly, India saw a notable increase of 190,500%. This growth is partly due to government initiatives aimed at expanding forest cover to combat environmental degradation and support biodiversity.
In contrast, Uganda experienced the greatest decline at -50,146.996%. The decrease is largely driven by economic dependence on agriculture and logging, which leads to deforestation. In Guatemala and the Philippines, with declines of -47,081.008% and -46,953.953% respectively, similar economic pressures have resulted in forest loss as these countries prioritize agricultural expansion and timber extraction to boost economic growth.
Policy Impact on Forest Dynamics
Government policies significantly influence the Annual Forest Area Change Rate. In Vietnam, which recorded an increase of 160,396%, government-led reforestation programs and community forestry initiatives have played a crucial role. By involving local communities in forest management, Vietnam has not only curbed deforestation but also enhanced forest area.
Conversely, Indonesia experienced an increase of 434,660.16% despite facing challenges like illegal logging and palm oil plantation expansion. This paradox highlights the complex interplay between policy effectiveness and external economic pressures. While Indonesia has implemented policies to curb deforestation, enforcement remains a challenge, affecting overall forest area dynamics.
Geographical and Demographic Influences
Geographical and demographic factors also contribute to forest area changes. In the United States and Canada, with increases of 518,400% and 512,606.25% respectively, vast land areas and lower population densities provide opportunities for forest preservation and expansion. Both countries have robust forest management policies that balance economic use with conservation efforts.
In contrast, Zambia and the Central African Republic report declines of -35,800% and -34,991.797%. These countries face demographic pressures such as rapid population growth, which increases demand for land and resources, leading to deforestation. Additionally, limited resources for effective forest management exacerbate the challenge of maintaining forest cover.
Stability and Lack of Change
The data for 2002 shows a median change rate of 0.00%, indicating that many countries maintained a stable forest area. For instance, Russia and the United States experienced no significant year-over-year changes, with increases of 905,656.25% and 518,400% respectively, but no recorded decrease. This stability suggests effective forest management practices and policies that counterbalance potential deforestation threats.
In summary, the Annual Forest Area Change Rate in 2002 reveals the complex interactions between economic growth, policy effectiveness, and geographical factors. Countries with proactive policies and economic resources tend to see forest area increases, while those facing economic and demographic pressures struggle to maintain their forest cover. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing strategies to promote sustainable forest management worldwide.
Frequently Asked Questions About Annual Forest Area Change Rate in 2002
Which country had the highest annual forest area change rate in 2002?
China had the highest annual forest area change rate in 2002, with a rate of 2,360,983%.
Which country had the lowest annual forest area change rate in 2002?
Brazil had the lowest annual forest area change rate in 2002, with a rate of -3,563,294%.
What was the average annual forest area change rate across all countries in 2002?
The average annual forest area change rate across all countries in 2002 was -15,472%.
What was the median annual forest area change rate in 2002?
The median annual forest area change rate in 2002 was 0%.
How many countries are included in the dataset for annual forest area change rate in 2002?
The dataset for annual forest area change rate in 2002 includes 230 countries.
Which countries were in the top 3 for annual forest area change rate in 2002?
The top 3 countries for annual forest area change rate in 2002 were China, Russia, and the United States.
Insights by country
Iceland
Iceland ranked #54 globally for its Annual Forest Area Change Rate in 2002, with a remarkable rate of 1652 %. This figure is notably higher than many countries, reflecting Iceland's unique reforestation efforts compared to its Nordic neighbors. The significant increase in forest area is primarily driven by government policies aimed at combating soil erosion and restoring native vegetation, alongside a growing awareness of environmental conservation among the Icelandic population.
Belize
In 2002, Belize ranked #177 globally with an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of -7590.0024 %. This significant loss of forest area was among the highest in the world, reflecting challenges that surpass many regional neighbors. Key drivers include extensive agricultural expansion and illegal logging, which have severely impacted the country's rich biodiversity and forest resources.
Bhutan
In 2002, Bhutan achieved a remarkable 30 global rank for its Annual Forest Area Change Rate of 9929.004 %. This figure significantly surpasses the global average, highlighting Bhutan's commitment to forest conservation and sustainable practices. The country's unique policy of prioritizing Gross National Happiness over economic growth has led to extensive reforestation efforts and the preservation of natural habitats.
El Salvador
In 2002, El Salvador had an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of -2970.0012 %, ranking #165 out of 230 countries. This significant deforestation rate is among the highest globally, reflecting severe environmental challenges compared to neighboring countries like Honduras, which also faces similar issues but at a less drastic rate. Key drivers include agricultural expansion and urban development, which have led to extensive forest loss, exacerbated by a lack of effective conservation policies.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica achieved a global rank of #47 with an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of 3169.995 % in 2002. This figure is notably higher than many countries, reflecting a strong commitment to reforestation and sustainable land management practices. The country's extensive conservation policies and eco-tourism initiatives have significantly contributed to restoring forest areas after previous deforestation. Additionally, Costa Rica's unique geographic conditions and biodiversity have fostered a national ethos prioritizing environmental preservation.
American Samoa
In 2002, American Samoa had an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of -153.99991 %, ranking #142 out of 230 countries. This significant rate of deforestation is notably worse than many of its Pacific neighbors, which tend to have more stable forest areas. The primary drivers behind this decline include land conversion for agriculture and development, alongside pressures from invasive species that impact native ecosystems.
Cambodia
In 2002, Cambodia had an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of -19176.953 %, ranking #188 out of 230 countries. This drastic rate of deforestation is notably worse than many of its Southeast Asian neighbors, contributing to significant ecological concerns in the region. Key drivers include illegal logging, agricultural expansion, and insufficient enforcement of environmental regulations, which have severely impacted the country's forest cover.
Solomon Islands
In 2002, the Solomon Islands had an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of -738.0127 %, ranking #156 out of 230 countries. This drastic decline in forest area stands in stark contrast to many Pacific Island nations that typically face less severe deforestation rates. Key drivers of this change include extensive logging practices, driven by both domestic needs and international demand, alongside agricultural expansion that has significantly impacted forest cover.
Austria
In 2002, Austria had an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of 2350 %, ranking #50 out of 230 countries. This figure is significantly higher than many of its neighbors, indicating a unique forestry management approach. Austria's extensive reforestation efforts, driven by strong environmental policies and a commitment to sustainable land use, have contributed to this impressive change rate.
Albania
In 2002, Albania achieved a global rank of #60 with an Annual Forest Area Change Rate of 1277.002 %. This figure is significantly higher than many countries, indicating a remarkable increase in forest area compared to the global average. Contributing factors include Albania's ongoing reforestation efforts and a shift towards sustainable land management practices, driven by both governmental policies and international support.
Data Source
Annual change in forest area | Our World in Data
Our World in Data is a research organization that provides comprehensive datasets on global development, including statistics on annual changes in forest area by country. The dataset offers insights into deforestation and reforestation trends, enabling comparisons across different nations and time periods.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Annual Forest Area Change Rate data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.
More Environment Facts
Above-Ground Biomass in Forest (tonnes/ha)
Above-ground biomass in forest measures carbon storage per hectare. Explore rankings and compare data across 266+ countries with interactive maps.
View dataBrowse All Environment
Explore more facts and statistics in this category
All Categories
Discover more categories with comprehensive global data