Antofagasta vs Puno
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.
Puno has more tree cover — 1.4% against 0.4%.
Puno has cleaner air right now — AQI 32 against 34.
- Tree cover gap
- 1.0 points
- Puno is ahead.
- Air quality gap
- 2 AQI
- Puno is cleaner.
- Trees between them
- 2.7K
- Puno has more standing.
Chile
Peru
Tree cover
Share of the 2 km radius under canopy.
0.4%
1.4%
Air quality index
US EPA index, live, with its band. Lower is better.
34 · Good
32 · Good
Trees standing
Estimated from the measured canopy area.
797
3.5K
Trees still needed
To reach the same canopy target. Fewer is better.
59.0K
72.1K
CO₂ absorbed each year
By the trees already standing.
17.5K kg
77.6K 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.
8.1 µg/m³
7.7 µg/m³
PM10
Coarser particles — dust, pollen, road grit.
12.3 µg/m³
8.3 µg/m³
Nitrogen dioxide
Mostly traffic and combustion.
1.2 µg/m³
8 µg/m³
Ozone
Forms in sunlight; peaks on hot, still afternoons.
47 µg/m³
55 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 | Antofagasta | Puno |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Sept | 40 | 31 |
| 23 Sept | 42 | 29 |
| 24 Sept | 44 | 31 |
| 25 Sept | 47 | 35 |
| 26 Sept | 39 | 35 |
| 27 Sept | 39 | 33 |
| 28 Sept | 39 | 37 |
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. Puno leads here at 1.4%.
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: Antofagasta reads 34 (good) and Puno reads 32 (good) right now.
Frequently asked
Antofagasta and Puno, answered
Which has more trees, Antofagasta or Puno?
Puno, with roughly 3,527 trees inside its 2 km radius against 797. Tree cover tells a slightly different story from raw count: Puno has the denser canopy at 1.4%.
Which has better air quality, Antofagasta or Puno?
Puno right now, at AQI 32 against 34 — a gap of 2 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?
Antofagasta needs about 58,956 more to reach its canopy target, and Puno about 72,059. 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
- Antofagasta vs Calama2% tree cover · AQI 40Compare
- Antofagasta vs Iquique1% tree cover · AQI 24Compare
- Antofagasta vs Copiapó1% tree cover · AQI 29Compare
- Antofagasta vs Salta5% tree cover · AQI 74Compare
- Antofagasta vs Juliaca0% tree cover · AQI 43Compare
- Antofagasta vs Arequipa7% tree cover · AQI 80Compare
Build your own
Compare Antofagasta with somewhere else
This place
Antofagasta
Want a different pair? Browse comparisons or measure any address.