I don’t consider that a good Wikipedia article because it does a bad job distinguishing between natural forests and mono-/bicultural plantations of which there are vast areas of here. It’s quite like calling wheat fields ”grasslands”. Both fundamentally lack biodiversity.
Not really for a mountain island. Being near the coast means increased moisture and wind, which hits mountains to make rain. Take a japanese-sized slice off the coast of most countries and you will find lots of forrest. Think the pacific northwest, or the bits of hawaii not covered in lava. Then compare parts of the australian coast with no mountains.
Maine is 89.46% [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_and_terr...
Yeah but Maine is not really known for miles of urban sprawl
Maine has less than a tenth of Japan's population density.
Sorry, I can't edit it now but I just meant it as a neat fact and not a comparison.
75% of it is mountains, and not exactly inhabited.
The nation has also had declining population (hence deflationary housing) for years
Still behind Finland (73.7%) and Sweden (68.7%) though and Laos (71.6%) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_ar...
I don’t consider that a good Wikipedia article because it does a bad job distinguishing between natural forests and mono-/bicultural plantations of which there are vast areas of here. It’s quite like calling wheat fields ”grasslands”. Both fundamentally lack biodiversity.
Not really for a mountain island. Being near the coast means increased moisture and wind, which hits mountains to make rain. Take a japanese-sized slice off the coast of most countries and you will find lots of forrest. Think the pacific northwest, or the bits of hawaii not covered in lava. Then compare parts of the australian coast with no mountains.
Would not count it as forest, but plantation, if it is heavily managed.