Which has higher woody savanna — burned area, China, Hong Kong SAR or Latvia?

China, Hong Kong SAR, at 0 ha against 0 ha in Latvia as of 2024.

What is the difference in woody savanna — burned area between China, Hong Kong SAR and Latvia?

0 ha, with China, Hong Kong SAR ahead.

How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and Latvia?

33 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2024.

Where does this data come from?

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Woody savanna — Burned Area. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

China, Hong Kong SAR vs Latvia: Woody savanna — Burned Area

China, Hong Kong SAR

0 ha

in 2024

Latvia

0 ha

in 2024

China, Hong Kong SAR rank

98th

Latvia rank

98th

Woody savanna — Burned Area over time

China, Hong Kong SAR
Latvia

How they compare

China, Hong Kong SAR currently reports 0 ha against 0 ha in Latvia, a difference of 0 ha.

The two have swapped places 10 times across 33 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Latvia ahead.

China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 98th and Latvia ranks 98th of 220 countries.

Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade	China, Hong Kong SAR	Latvia	Difference	Ahead
1990s	123.79 ha	357 ha	233.21 ha	Latvia
2000s	183.74 ha	1,558 ha	1,374 ha	Latvia
2010s	70.66 ha	414.2 ha	343.54 ha	Latvia
2020s	0 ha	21.57 ha	21.57 ha	Latvia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher woody savanna — burned area, China, Hong Kong SAR or Latvia?: China, Hong Kong SAR, at 0 ha against 0 ha in Latvia as of 2024.
What is the difference in woody savanna — burned area between China, Hong Kong SAR and Latvia?: 0 ha, with China, Hong Kong SAR ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and Latvia?: 33 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2024.
How do China, Hong Kong SAR and Latvia rank globally for woody savanna — burned area?: China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 98th and Latvia ranks 98th of 220 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Woody savanna — Burned Area. 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

China, Hong Kong SAR vs Latvia: Woody savanna — Burned Area. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 13 September 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/woody-savanna-burned-area-fao-tier-1/china-hong-kong-sar/latvia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/woody-savanna-burned-area-fao-tier-1/china-hong-kong-sar/latvia/">China, Hong Kong SAR vs Latvia: Woody savanna — Burned Area</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Woody savanna — Burned Area
Unit: ha
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage: 273 places, 9,329 data points, 1990–2024
Last refreshed: 12 August 2026

The FAOSTAT domain on Emissions from Fires consists of estimates of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated from biomass burning in a range of vegetation types and from fires in organic soils.