The 2025 World Bank series for terrestrial and marine protected areas shows a strikingly wide spread across 213 countries and areas. The median published share is 11.6% of total territorial area, while the simple unweighted mean is 15.42%. That gap matters: most observations sit well below the very highest values, but a small group reaches 40%, 50%, and in a few cases more than 90%. The distribution therefore tells more than a single average can.
The indicator used here is World Bank code ER.PTD.TOTL.ZS, “Terrestrial and marine protected areas (% of total territorial area).” Every row in the verified dataset is labelled 2025, so this is a same-year comparison rather than a mixture of each economy’s latest observation. The dataset contains countries as well as some separately reported territories and areas, so it is best described as 213 country-and-area observations rather than a ranking of 213 sovereign states.
Table of Contents
A same-year view of 213 countries and areas
The World Bank indicator page describes terrestrial protected areas as nationally designated reserves and protected landscapes, including categories such as national parks, natural monuments, nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and areas managed mainly for sustainable use. Marine protected areas cover intertidal or subtidal terrain, overlying water and associated natural or cultural features that are reserved by law or other effective means to protect some or all of the enclosed environment.
That definition also sets boundaries around what the number means. The World Bank description notes that sites protected only under local or provincial law are excluded. A low value therefore should not be treated as proof that a country has no conservation activity, and a high value is not a direct score of management quality. The indicator measures the spatial share designated under its stated scope; it does not directly measure enforcement, ecological condition, biodiversity outcomes, financing, connectivity or the effectiveness of protection on the ground.
The median is 11.6%, but the upper tail raises the mean
Across the 213 observations, the first quartile is 3.6%, the median is 11.6% and the third quartile is 22.1%. In practical terms, half of the published values are at or below 11.6%, and the middle half lies roughly between 3.6% and 22.1%. The unweighted mean is higher at 15.42%, about 3.82 percentage points above the median, because the distribution contains a relatively small number of very high shares.
Threshold counts make the shape clearer. Sixty-seven observations are below 5%, and 96 are below 10%. At the other end, 61 are at least 20%, 28 are at least 30%, and 12 are at least 40%. Only six reach 50% or more, and five reach at least 75%. The global set is therefore highly heterogeneous: a large number of countries and areas report single-digit shares, while a small upper group has protection recorded across most of its territorial area.
The highest percentages are not the same as the largest protected areas
The highest 2025 values are Monaco at 99.5%, Palau at 98.0%, New Caledonia at 96.0%, St. Martin (French part) at 92.3% and French Polynesia at 87.3%. Bhutan follows at 51.6%, then Liechtenstein at 44.8% and the United Kingdom at 42.1%. Several of the very highest observations are small states or territories, which is an important clue to how the denominator works.
| Country or area | Protected share, 2025 |
|---|---|
| Monaco | 99.5% |
| Palau | 98.0% |
| New Caledonia | 96.0% |
| St. Martin (French part) | 92.3% |
| French Polynesia | 87.3% |
| Bhutan | 51.6% |
| Liechtenstein | 44.8% |
| United Kingdom | 42.1% |
A percentage answers “what share of this jurisdiction is protected?”, not “how many square kilometres are protected?” Monaco at 99.5% does not imply that Monaco contains a larger protected area than a much bigger country reporting 20% or 30%. Absolute protected area depends on the size of the underlying territory. Anyone comparing the physical extent of protected land and sea needs area data in addition to this percentage series.
Large countries also occupy very different parts of the distribution
Looking at several large countries illustrates the range without relying only on small territories. Australia is at 33.5% and Brazil at 29.4%, both above the third quartile of 22.1%. The United States is at 15.8% and China at 14.7%, near the middle-to-upper part of the distribution. Canada is exactly at the 11.6% median, while the Russian Federation is at 8.6%, Indonesia at 5.2% and India at 4.5%.
Those numbers should not be converted into a policy ranking. Countries differ in land area, marine jurisdiction, ecological geography, legal designation systems and the mix of terrestrial and marine protection. The series is useful for comparing the reported spatial share under a common indicator, but a conclusion about which country protects nature “better” would require evidence about ecological representativeness, management effectiveness, enforcement and outcomes that this percentage does not provide.
How to read published zeros and very small values
Ten observations in the dataset are published as 0.0%. It would be too strong to translate that directly into “there are no protected places.” The indicator follows a specific coverage and designation definition, and locally or provincially protected sites may fall outside that scope. Published values are also expressed at limited precision. The safe conclusion is simply that these entries are recorded at 0.0% in this World Bank series for 2025.
The same caution applies to values such as 0.1% or 0.2%. They describe the share captured by this indicator, not the full conservation system of a country or territory. A serious assessment would need complementary evidence on protected-area categories, management regimes, key biodiversity areas, habitat condition, marine restrictions, community-managed areas and other measures that may not be summarized by a single territorial percentage.
This is a combined terrestrial-and-marine indicator
One of the most important interpretive points is that the series combines terrestrial and marine protected areas. It is not a land-only measure and not a marine-only measure. Coastal states, island territories and landlocked countries can therefore arrive at similar percentages through very different geographic compositions. A combined value of 30% does not tell the reader how much came from terrestrial protection and how much came from marine protection.
That is why the separate terrestrial protected-area and marine protected-area series are useful companions. A high combined share could reflect broad coverage in both domains, or it could be driven primarily by one of them. A moderate combined share could still include highly important ecosystems. Without the component indicators, the combined number should be treated as a broad coverage measure rather than an explanation of the protection mix.
Why the 15.42% average is not a global protected-area percentage
The 15.42% figure used here is a simple arithmetic mean of 213 observations. Each row receives the same weight, so Monaco and Brazil each count as one observation despite their radically different territorial sizes. It would therefore be incorrect to say that 15.42% of the world’s total territorial area is protected on the basis of this mean. A global area-weighted measure would require compatible territorial-area weights and careful treatment of geographic coverage.
This distinction is common in country-level datasets. An unweighted mean is useful for describing the typical observation, while an area-weighted statistic answers a different question about the total physical surface represented. Because the two questions are not interchangeable, the median, quartiles and threshold counts are more informative here than presenting the mean as if it were a planetary total.
What the 2025 series can and cannot answer
The data are well suited to straightforward descriptive questions: which countries and areas fall above or below the median, how many exceed 20% or 30%, how far the top values extend, and where a selected jurisdiction sits within the overall distribution. The series can also be a practical starting point for deciding where to examine separate terrestrial and marine indicators or more detailed conservation data.
The data cannot by themselves explain why a country has its observed value. They also cannot establish whether protection is effective, whether biodiversity is improving, whether local communities benefit, or whether protected areas are adequately funded and enforced. Those are different questions. The protected-area share is a spatial designation statistic, and its most defensible use is to describe coverage rather than to infer ecological success or policy quality.
Useful reference points for reading the distribution
For a quick reading, 11.6% is the central reference point. Values below 3.6% fall in the lowest quarter of the observed distribution, while values above 22.1% fall in the highest quarter. A share of 40% or more is uncommon in this dataset, appearing in only 12 of 213 observations. Shares above 75% are rarer still, with only five entries. These benchmarks make it easier to understand whether a value is ordinary, low or unusually high without relying on a subjective label.
The denominator should remain visible throughout the comparison. A protected-area percentage describes the fraction of a jurisdiction, whereas protected-area size describes physical extent. Keeping those concepts separate prevents small jurisdictions with very high percentages from being mistaken for the places with the largest absolute protected area. It also keeps the analysis focused on what the World Bank indicator actually measures.
Summary
In the 2025 World Bank data, terrestrial and marine protected areas range from 0.0% to 99.5% of total territorial area across 213 countries and areas. The median is 11.6%, the unweighted mean is 15.42%, and 61 observations are at or above 20%. The upper end is dominated by several small states and territories, reinforcing the need to distinguish percentage coverage from absolute area.
The series is a useful first look at how widely protected-area designations cover each jurisdiction. It becomes much more informative when paired with separate terrestrial and marine measures and with evidence about management and ecological outcomes. In short, this indicator answers a spatial coverage question: how much of the territorial area is recorded as protected under the stated definition. It does not, on its own, answer how well that area is protected.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the median protected-area share in the 2025 dataset?
The median across 213 countries and areas is 11.6%. The simple unweighted mean is higher at 15.42%, reflecting a relatively small number of very high observations.
Does a value above 90% mean the jurisdiction has one of the world’s largest protected areas?
No. The indicator is a percentage of that jurisdiction’s own territorial area. Absolute protected area requires physical area data and can be much larger in a big country with a lower percentage.
Does a published 0.0% prove that there are no protected places?
No. The indicator follows a specific designation and reporting scope, and some locally or provincially protected sites may be outside that definition. The safe reading is that the World Bank series records 0.0% for that observation.
Can this indicator measure how effective conservation policy is?
Not by itself. It measures spatial coverage under the stated definition, not management effectiveness, enforcement, biodiversity outcomes or ecological condition.
Related Articles
Green Map creates custom-edited map images using open geographic data sources such as geoBoundaries, Natural Earth, OpenStreetMap, and government open data. These maps are edited visual materials, not raw data files, and are provided for education, documents, presentations, and graphic reference.
