Malawi vs Turks and Caicos Islands: Tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled
Tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled over time
- Malawi
- Turks and Caicos Islands
How they compare
Malawi currently reports 8.49 hectares against 6.51 hectares in Turks and Caicos Islands, a difference of 1.98 hectares.
That makes Malawi's figure about 1.3 times Turks and Caicos Islands's.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 24 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Malawi ahead.
Malawi ranks 136th and Turks and Caicos Islands ranks 139th of 186 countries.
Malawi has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malawi | Turks and Caicos Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 27.4 hectares | 17.61 hectares | 9.79 hectares | Malawi |
| 2010s | 21.2 hectares | 8.27 hectares | 12.92 hectares | Malawi |
| 2020s | 26.2 hectares | 6.25 hectares | 19.95 hectares | Malawi |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled, Malawi or Turks and Caicos Islands?
- Malawi, at 8.49 hectares against 6.51 hectares in Turks and Caicos Islands as of 2024.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled between Malawi and Turks and Caicos Islands?
- 1.98 hectares, with Malawi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Turks and Caicos Islands?
- 24 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2024.
- How do Malawi and Turks and Caicos Islands rank globally for tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled?
- Malawi ranks 136th and Turks and Caicos Islands ranks 139th of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Tree cover loss by dominant driver with 111 missing years estimated by linear interpolation between the nearest real observations. Only gaps of 4 years or fewer are filled, and never beyond the first or last actual measurement — these are filled holes, not forecasts.