Agreed. If a country managed to be 99% forest despite having a massive population (of forest druids I guess) then it’d have a lower score than an endless suburb with 5 nice trees.
Comment on World's Forests
Deme@sopuli.xyz 6 days ago
Nice visuals on these,but I really don’t see the point of measuring forest cover per capita. A percentage of surface area or similar would be much more useful.
scratchee@feddit.uk 5 days ago
5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
It kinda measures/operationalises some form of forest-urban relationship, something like a social forest scale
Skua@kbin.earth 6 days ago
Surely a percentage of forested area is better for that, though? If you had two countries with the same total area and the same forested area but one of them had twice the population in its non-forested areas, the latter looks far worse on this scale despite using less land per person.