Al Aḩmadī vs Al Fāw
Tree cover and air quality for both, measured the same way: Sentinel-2 imagery at 10 m detail over a 2 km radius from each city centre, and the live US EPA air quality index. Same radius and same index, so the two numbers compare directly.
Al Aḩmadī has more tree cover — 1.2% against 0.8%.
Al Fāw has cleaner air right now — AQI 96 against 131.
- Tree cover gap
- 0.4 points
- Al Aḩmadī is ahead.
- Air quality gap
- 35 AQI
- Al Fāw is cleaner.
- Trees between them
- 1.6K
- Al Aḩmadī has more standing.
Tree cover
Share of the 2 km radius under canopy.
1.2%
0.8%
Air quality index
US EPA index, live, with its band. Lower is better.
131 · Unhealthy for sensitive groups
96 · Moderate
Trees standing
Estimated from the measured canopy area.
3.8K
2.2K
Trees still needed
To reach the same canopy target. Fewer is better.
106K
79.5K
CO₂ absorbed each year
By the trees already standing.
82.9K kg
47.9K kg
Air quality in detail
What each city is breathing
Concentrations in µg/m³, measured at the same moment as the index above. Lower is better in every row. Both are modelled, with no ground station close enough to either.
PM2.5
Fine particles, the pollutant that usually sets the index.
47.6 µg/m³
33.6 µg/m³
PM10
Coarser particles — dust, pollen, road grit.
75.7 µg/m³
79.4 µg/m³
Nitrogen dioxide
Mostly traffic and combustion.
36.9 µg/m³
5.9 µg/m³
Ozone
Forms in sunlight; peaks on hot, still afternoons.
24 µg/m³
60 µg/m³
The last week, day by day
A single reading can catch a city on a bad afternoon. The week says whether it was the weather or the place.
| Day | Al Aḩmadī | Al Fāw |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Sept | 140 | 108 |
| 23 Sept | 150 | 107 |
| 24 Sept | 239 | 120 |
| 25 Sept | 441 | 153 |
| 26 Sept | 449 | 102 |
| 27 Sept | 157 | 100 |
| 28 Sept | 108 | 85 |
Reading these numbers
What is actually being measured
Tree cover
The share of ground under canopy inside a 2 km radius of each city centre, read from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery at 10 m detail. It is a measurement of that circle, not of the whole municipality — which is exactly what makes the two comparable, since city boundaries are drawn to wildly different rules around the world. Al Aḩmadī leads here at 1.2%.
Air quality index
The live US EPA index, computed from current pollutant concentrations — ground stations where a city has them nearby, and a model everywhere else. It moves hour to hour, so this is a snapshot rather than a verdict on either place: Al Aḩmadī reads 131 (unhealthy for sensitive groups) and Al Fāw reads 96 (moderate) right now.
Frequently asked
Al Aḩmadī and Al Fāw, answered
Which has more trees, Al Aḩmadī or Al Fāw?
Al Aḩmadī, with roughly 3,770 trees inside its 2 km radius against 2,179. Tree cover tells a slightly different story from raw count: Al Aḩmadī has the denser canopy at 1.2%.
Which has better air quality, Al Aḩmadī or Al Fāw?
Al Fāw right now, at AQI 96 against 131 — a gap of 35 points. This is a live reading rather than an annual average, so it can reverse within a day.
How many more trees does each city need?
Al Aḩmadī needs about 106,186 more to reach its canopy target, and Al Fāw about 79,534. The target is the same share of ground for both, so the figures are directly comparable.
Are these two measured the same way?
Yes — that is the point of the page. Identical radius, identical satellite source at 10 m detail, and the same US EPA index for air. Nothing here is adjusted for population, city limits or climate, so the numbers describe the same-sized circle of ground in each place.
Keep going
Other comparisons nearby
- Al Aḩmadī vs Şabāḩ as Sālim4% tree cover · AQI 115Compare
- Al Aḩmadī vs Kuwait City5% tree cover · AQI 115Compare
- Al Aḩmadī vs Al Jahrā’1% tree cover · AQI 73Compare
- Al Aḩmadī vs Abadan11% tree cover · AQI 102Compare
- Al Aḩmadī vs Umm Qaşr1% tree cover · AQI 163Compare
- Al Aḩmadī vs Khorramshahr4% tree cover · AQI 99Compare
Build your own
Compare Al Aḩmadī with somewhere else
This place
Al Aḩmadī
Want a different pair? Browse comparisons or measure any address.