South Sudan vs Zimbabwe: Tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled
South Sudan
25.73 hectares
in 2024
Zimbabwe
29.41 hectares
in 2024
South Sudan rank
117th
Zimbabwe rank
116th
Tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled over time
- South Sudan
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 29.41 hectares against 25.73 hectares in South Sudan, a difference of 3.68 hectares.
That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times South Sudan's.
The two have swapped places 7 times across 24 shared years of data; in 2001 it was South Sudan ahead.
South Sudan ranks 117th and Zimbabwe ranks 116th of 186 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, South Sudan averaged higher in 2 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | South Sudan | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 421.77 hectares | 30.38 hectares | 391.38 hectares | South Sudan |
| 2010s | 139.51 hectares | 34.21 hectares | 105.31 hectares | South Sudan |
| 2020s | 24.62 hectares | 40.94 hectares | 16.32 hectares | Zimbabwe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled, South Sudan or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 29.41 hectares against 25.73 hectares in South Sudan as of 2024.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled between South Sudan and Zimbabwe?
- 3.68 hectares, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for South Sudan and Zimbabwe?
- 24 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2024.
- How do South Sudan and Zimbabwe rank globally for tree cover loss by dominant driver, gaps filled?
- South Sudan ranks 117th and Zimbabwe ranks 116th 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.