Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) vs Zambia: Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate (Area)

Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
-81.92 % change on previous year
in 2024
Zambia
39.65 % change on previous year
in 2024
Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) rank
28th
Zambia rank
28th

Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate (Area) over time

  • Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
  • Zambia
0200400600199120072024

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 39.65 % change on previous year against -81.92 % change on previous year in Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs), a difference of 121.57 % change on previous year.

The two have swapped places 18 times across 34 shared years of data; in 1991 it was Zambia ahead.

Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) ranks 28th and Zambia ranks 28th of 32 groups.

Across the 4 decades both report, Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) averaged higher in 3 and Zambia in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) Zambia Difference Ahead
1990s 1.28 % change on previous year 32.6 % change on previous year 31.32 % change on previous year Zambia
2000s 27 % change on previous year -12.39 % change on previous year 39.39 % change on previous year Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
2010s 100.91 % change on previous year -1.36 % change on previous year 102.26 % change on previous year Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
2020s 110.23 % change on previous year 2.03 % change on previous year 108.2 % change on previous year Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher closed and open shrubland — burned area, annual growth rate, Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) or Zambia?
Zambia, at 39.65 % change on previous year against -81.92 % change on previous year in Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) as of 2024.
What is the difference in closed and open shrubland — burned area, annual growth rate between Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and Zambia?
121.57 % change on previous year, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and Zambia?
34 years are reported by both, from 1991 to 2024.
How do Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and Zambia rank globally for closed and open shrubland — burned area, annual growth rate?
Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) ranks 28th and Zambia ranks 28th of 32 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) vs Zambia: Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 October 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/closed-and-open-shrubland-burned-area-annual-growth-rate/land-locked-developing-countries-lldcs/zambia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/closed-and-open-shrubland-burned-area-annual-growth-rate/land-locked-developing-countries-lldcs/zambia/">Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) vs Zambia: Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area, annual growth rate
Unit
% change on previous year
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
201 places, 4,247 data points, 1991–2024
Last refreshed

The year-on-year percentage change in Closed and open shrubland — Burned Area. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.