Top 100 Countries by Share of Land in Protected Areas, 2025
Protected Land Leaders: Top Countries by Share of Land in Protected Areas (2025 snapshot)
This ranking tracks terrestrial protected areas — national parks, nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and other legally designated conservation sites. The key metric is a share: what percent of a country’s land area has a formal protected status.
Interpretation note: a high share reflects designation coverage on paper. It does not automatically prove strong enforcement, biodiversity outcomes, or management quality — those require additional indicators beyond coverage.
Table 1 — Top 10 countries by protected land share
Values are shown as ≈ and rounded for readability (harmonised “snapshot” for comparison).
| Rank | Country | Protected land (% of land area) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peru | ≈ 56.1% |
| 2 | Malta | ≈ 55.6% |
| 3 | Maldives | ≈ 55.0% |
| 4 | Algeria | ≈ 53.7% |
| 5 | Zimbabwe | ≈ 53.6% |
| 6 | Sierra Leone | ≈ 53.5% |
| 7 | Niger | ≈ 53.5% |
| 8 | Norfolk Island | ≈ 53.3% |
| 9 | Paraguay | ≈ 52.9% |
| 10 | Dominican Republic | ≈ 52.8% |
Bar chart — Top 10 by protected land share
Bars show the protected land share (≈%, rounded). The chart uses a fixed-height canvas and responsive settings to avoid stretching or layout glitches.
How to read the ranking: patterns, comparability, and “why small places pop to the top”
A protected-areas share is a ratio. That sounds obvious, but it has a big consequence: a country can rank high either because it has a large protected estate in absolute terms, or because its land base is small enough that a moderate protected footprint turns into a large percentage.
In practice, the top of the list often mixes (1) small territories with extensive designations, (2) countries with strong legal frameworks for protected landscapes, and (3) large states that have set aside very large wilderness systems.
Quality vs quantity: legal status (“protected”) is not the same as conservation effectiveness. Enforcement capacity, ecological connectivity, management funding, and community governance determine whether protection changes outcomes on the ground.
Coverage caveats: protected-area databases are updated continuously. Different countries report at different speeds; categories may overlap; and “strictness” varies across designation types. Treat the ranking as a comparative lens, not a final verdict.
Table 2 — Land vs marine protection (context indicator)
This comparison adds an adjacent dimension: countries may be “land-heavy” or “ocean-heavy” in conservation. Values are shown as ≈ and rounded for readability.
| Country | Protected land (≈%) | Marine protected (≈%) |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | ≈ 56.1% | ≈ 51.3% |
| Malta | ≈ 55.6% | ≈ 52.2% |
| Maldives | ≈ 55.0% | ≈ 50.9% |
| Algeria | ≈ 53.7% | ≈ 54.3% |
| Zimbabwe | ≈ 53.6% | ≈ 68.7% |
| Sierra Leone | ≈ 53.5% | ≈ 47.3% |
| Niger | ≈ 53.5% | ≈ 65.1% |
| Norfolk Island | ≈ 53.3% | ≈ 67.1% |
| Paraguay | ≈ 52.9% | ≈ 55.4% |
| Dominican Republic | ≈ 52.8% | ≈ 52.9% |
Scatter — Protected share vs country size (Top 20)
Each point is a country from the Top 20 by protected share. X-axis uses a logarithmic scale for area (km²). This visual highlights how small land area can amplify the percentage.
What this ranking means for policy, conservation finance, and public narratives
“Protected land share” is a widely used indicator because it is simple, comparable and strongly tied to international reporting frameworks. It helps answer a basic question: how much of a country’s land has a formal conservation designation.
But it also invites deeper questions: Is the protected network ecologically representative? Is it connected? Is management funded? Are local communities and Indigenous rights respected? A high percentage can be a starting point — not the end of evaluation.
Policy takeaway
- Use the percentage as a headline, then test quality: add indicators on connectivity, management effectiveness and biodiversity outcomes.
- Watch the “small country effect”: ratios can be inflated by small land area; pair shares with absolute protected km² when communicating results.
- Align with 30×30 responsibly: the global target stresses not only coverage but also effective, equitable governance and integration into wider landscapes.
- Prioritise gaps: countries below 30% can still deliver large biodiversity wins by protecting key ecosystems and improving enforcement where protection already exists.
Table — Top 100 countries (protected land share and protected area in km²)
Values are displayed as ≈ and rounded for readability. The protected area (km²) is shown as an analytical companion to the share.
| Rank | Country | Protected land (share & area) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peru | ≈ 56.1% (721 006 km²) |
| 2 | Malta | ≈ 55.6% (176 km²) |
| 3 | Maldives | ≈ 55.0% (165 km²) |
| 4 | Algeria | ≈ 53.7% (1 278 995 km²) |
| 5 | Zimbabwe | ≈ 53.6% (209 446 km²) |
| 6 | Sierra Leone | ≈ 53.5% (38 381 km²) |
| 7 | Niger | ≈ 53.5% (677 845 km²) |
| 8 | Norfolk Island | ≈ 53.3% (19 km²) |
| 9 | Paraguay | ≈ 52.9% (215 172 km²) |
| 10 | Dominican Republic | ≈ 52.8% (25 698 km²) |
| 11 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | ≈ 52.0% (202 km²) |
| 12 | Sudan | ≈ 51.5% (971 325 km²) |
| 13 | Colombia | ≈ 50.9% (581 150 km²) |
| 14 | Brazil | ≈ 50.9% (4 334 525 km²) |
| 15 | Honduras | ≈ 50.8% (57 146 km²) |
| 16 | Bolivia | ≈ 50.8% (578 566 km²) |
| 17 | Christmas Island | ≈ 50.3% (207 km²) |
| 18 | Japan | ≈ 50.3% (190 131 km²) |
| 19 | Ethiopia | ≈ 50.1% (553 274 km²) |
| 20 | Congo | ≈ 49.8% (170 544 km²) |
| 21 | Guinea | ≈ 49.5% (121 869 km²) |
| 22 | Nigeria | ≈ 49.1% (452 551 km²) |
| 23 | Italy | ≈ 48.8% (147 576 km²) |
| 24 | Malaysia | ≈ 48.4% (159 017 km²) |
| 25 | Estonia | ≈ 47.8% (21 329 km²) |
| 26 | Rwanda | ≈ 47.9% (12 647 km²) |
| 27 | Denmark | ≈ 47.3% (20 323 km²) |
| 28 | Pakistan | ≈ 47.0% (373 462 km²) |
| 29 | Jordan | ≈ 46.3% (41 766 km²) |
| 30 | Bhutan | ≈ 46.2% (17 650 km²) |
| 31 | Togo | ≈ 45.6% (25 719 km²) |
| 32 | Latvia | ≈ 45.2% (29 016 km²) |
| 33 | South Sudan | ≈ 44.6% (277 582 km²) |
| 34 | Argentina | ≈ 44.1% (1 225 346 km²) |
| 35 | Oman | ≈ 44.3% (135 911 km²) |
| 36 | Iran | ≈ 43.8% (718 004 km²) |
| 37 | Albania | ≈ 43.7% (12 566 km²) |
| 38 | Cameroon | ≈ 42.8% (202 884 km²) |
| 39 | United States | ≈ 42.7% (4 198 481 km²) |
| 40 | Barbados | ≈ 42.1% (182 km²) |
| 41 | Samoa | ≈ 42.1% (1 191 km²) |
| 42 | Uganda | ≈ 41.5% (99 890 km²) |
| 43 | South Africa | ≈ 41.2% (504 092 km²) |
| 44 | Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha | ≈ 40.9% (162 km²) |
| 45 | Tunisia | ≈ 40.4% (66 946 km²) |
| 46 | Macao | ≈ 40.3% (13 km²) |
| 47 | Haiti | ≈ 40.0% (11 086 km²) |
| 48 | Greece | ≈ 39.8% (52 657 km²) |
| 49 | Switzerland | ≈ 38.9% (16 025 km²) |
| 50 | Turkey | ≈ 39.4% (307 786 km²) |
| 51 | China | ≈ 38.8% (3 727 405 km²) |
| 52 | Poland | ≈ 38.7% (120 804 km²) |
| 53 | Cuba | ≈ 38.1% (41 968 km²) |
| 54 | Fiji | ≈ 37.7% (6 881 km²) |
| 55 | Lebanon | ≈ 37.4% (3 918 km²) |
| 56 | Slovakia | ≈ 36.9% (18 079 km²) |
| 57 | New Zealand | ≈ 36.8% (99 196 km²) |
| 58 | Madagascar | ≈ 36.7% (214 751 km²) |
| 59 | Portugal | ≈ 36.0% (33 150 km²) |
| 60 | Saint Lucia | ≈ 35.9% (222 km²) |
| 61 | Zambia | ≈ 35.3% (264 079 km²) |
| 62 | Mali | ≈ 35.0% (438 354 km²) |
| 63 | Liechtenstein | ≈ 34.5% (55 km²) |
| 64 | Costa Rica | ≈ 34.4% (17 596 km²) |
| 65 | Ecuador | ≈ 34.1% (97 848 km²) |
| 66 | Cyprus | ≈ 33.4% (3 103 km²) |
| 67 | Bahrain | ≈ 33.5% (259 km²) |
| 68 | Liberia | ≈ 33.1% (37 331 km²) |
| 69 | Moldova | ≈ 32.7% (11 040 km²) |
| 70 | El Salvador | ≈ 32.1% (6 745 km²) |
| 71 | Bangladesh | ≈ 31.8% (46 931 km²) |
| 72 | Mauritania | ≈ 31.3% (321 518 km²) |
| 73 | Guatemala | ≈ 31.2% (33 867 km²) |
| 74 | Armenia | ≈ 30.6% (9 138 km²) |
| 75 | Belgium | ≈ 30.2% (9 248 km²) |
| 76 | Morocco | ≈ 30.0% (134 018 km²) |
| 77 | Mozambique | ≈ 29.6% (237 591 km²) |
| 78 | Tanzania | ≈ 29.1% (274 420 km²) |
| 79 | Kenya | ≈ 28.7% (166 152 km²) |
| 80 | Germany | ≈ 28.3% (101 556 km²) |
| 81 | Spain | ≈ 27.8% (140 091 km²) |
| 82 | Ukraine | ≈ 27.4% (165 211 km²) |
| 83 | France | ≈ 26.9% (172 027 km²) |
| 84 | Sweden | ≈ 26.4% (118 370 km²) |
| 85 | Norway | ≈ 26.2% (84 859 km²) |
| 86 | Canada | ≈ 25.7% (2 547 132 km²) |
| 87 | Australia | ≈ 25.1% (1 929 206 km²) |
| 88 | Indonesia | ≈ 24.9% (472 555 km²) |
| 89 | Mexico | ≈ 24.2% (475 802 km²) |
| 90 | India | ≈ 23.7% (781 620 km²) |
| 91 | United Kingdom | ≈ 23.2% (56 415 km²) |
| 92 | Philippines | ≈ 22.9% (68 068 km²) |
| 93 | Nepal | ≈ 22.3% (32 897 km²) |
| 94 | Chile | ≈ 21.7% (163 332 km²) |
| 95 | Austria | ≈ 21.2% (17 794 km²) |
| 96 | Romania | ≈ 20.6% (49 122 km²) |
| 97 | Czechia | ≈ 20.1% (15 876 km²) |
| 98 | Hungary | ≈ 19.6% (18 393 km²) |
| 99 | Ireland | ≈ 18.9% (13 275 km²) |
| 100 | Finland | ≈ 18.7% (63 730 km²) |
Primary data sources and technical notes
These sources provide the official definitions, update cadence and downloadable series used for country-level comparisons.
- Protected Planet (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN) — World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Global reference database for protected areas; foundation for many international reporting pipelines.
- World Bank — World Development Indicators (WDI): Terrestrial protected areas (ER.LND.PTLD.ZS) Country series commonly used for cross-country comparisons; includes indicator metadata and access options.
- World Bank DataBank — WDI table view for ER.LND.PTLD.ZS Useful for quick inspection, downloads and embedding table outputs.
- Convention on Biological Diversity — Kunming–Montreal GBF Target 3 (“30×30”) The global target framing: conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters and seas by 2030 through protected areas and OECMs.
- UNEP — 30×30 progress context High-level reporting and framing around progress and implementation challenges.
Download data & charts (ZIP)
One archive with the tables (CSV) and chart images (PNG) used in this ranking.
