Air quality comparison · North Korea, 233 km apart
Hamhŭng vs Kaesŏng Air quality index (AQI) today
Hamhŭng has cleaner air than Kaesŏng right now: AQI 58 (Moderate) against 86 (Moderate).
Both sit in the same EPA band, so the health advice is the same for each today. Over the past 7 days, on modeled daily averages, Hamhŭng averaged AQI 40 against 48, and it was the cleaner of the two on 5 of those days. Hamhŭng has lost more forest since 2001. Hamhŭng has more tree cover.
Updated . Lower is better on the US EPA index: 0–50 is Good, above 300 is Hazardous. Measured by Airleaf.
Hamhŭng58Kaesŏng86
Head to head
Hamhŭng vs Kaesŏng at a glance
Hamhŭng is ahead on 5 of 6 measures, and Kaesŏng on 1. The better figure in each row is marked.
| Hamhŭng | Kaesŏng | |
|---|---|---|
| Air quality nowUS AQI. Lower is better. | 58 (better) | 86 |
| PM2.5Fine particles, µg/m³. | 12.6 (better) | 28 |
| Past week's averageUS AQI, 7 days. | 40 (better) | 48 |
| Forest lost since 2001Within 10 km of the center. | 12 ha | 6 ha (better) |
| Tree coverWithin 2 km of the center. | 13.2% (better) | 10.0% |
| Trees still neededTo reach a healthy canopy. | 50.1K (better) | 62.8K |
Air quality today
What is the air like in Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng right now?
Hamhŭng has cleaner air than Kaesŏng right now: AQI 58 (Moderate) against 86 (Moderate). PM2.5 is setting the index in both.
Kaesŏng's PM2.5 is about 1.9× the WHO's 24-hour guideline of 15 µg/m³.
Kaesŏng is read from a nearby ground station and Hamhŭng is a model estimate, so the two are not quite like for like.
HamhŭngKaesŏng
Concentrations at the same moment as the index above, for the pollutants both places report. Lower is better. The dark marks on the PM2.5 and PM10 rows show the WHO's 24-hour guidelines (15 and 45 µg/m³).
Hamhŭng: Estimate · model corrected with 5 station cities within 245 km, e.g. Chuncheon-si and Kaesŏng. Data: Open-Meteo / CAMS, corrected with 5 ground-station cities within 245 km, US EPA index.
Kaesŏng: Ground station · 파주, 17.1 km away · median of 2 stations. Data: OpenAQ · Korea Air Ministry of Environment, Korea Environment Corporation · AirKorea.
The past week
Which had cleaner air over the past 7 days?
Over the past 7 days, on modeled daily averages, Hamhŭng averaged AQI 40 against 48, and it was the cleaner of the two on 5 of those days. A single reading can catch a city on a bad afternoon; the week says whether it was the weather or the place.
- Cleaner days
- Hamhŭng5Kaesŏng2
- Average AQI
- Hamhŭng40Kaesŏng48
- Worst day, AQI
- Hamhŭng73Kaesŏng83
The daily numbers (7 days)
| Day | Hamhŭng | Kaesŏng |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 5 | 73 | 79 |
| Nov 6 | 24 | 46 |
| Nov 7 | 27 | 38 |
| Nov 8 | 25 | 21 |
| Nov 9 | 40 | 27 |
| Nov 10 | 36 | 45 |
| Nov 11 | 58 | 83 |
Daily averages from the CAMS atmospheric model for both places, so the week compares like with like. They can differ from today's reading at the top of the page wherever that comes from a ground station.
What it means today
Is it safe to go outside in Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng today?
Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting long outdoor exertion. Both are in the same EPA band today (Moderate), so the advice is the same.
Exercise outdoors
Fine for most people; unusually sensitive people should take long or hard exercise easier.
Windows
Fine to open; close them if you are sensitive to pollution.
Masks
Not needed for most people.
Air purifier
Worth running if you are sensitive.
Against everywhere else
How do Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng compare with the rest of the world?
Right now Hamhŭng's air is cleaner than 49% of the 5,420 places Airleaf tracks, and Kaesŏng's is cleaner than 27%. Within North Korea, that is 57% and 25% of its 29 measured places.
Cleaner air than…
- Hamhŭng
- Beats 49%
- Kaesŏng
- Beats 27%
More tree cover than…
- Hamhŭng
- Beats 30%
- Kaesŏng
- Beats 21%
Includes model estimates as well as station readings, so it can differ from our most polluted and cleanest air rankings, which use station readings only.
Deforestation · 2001–2025
Which has lost more forest, Hamhŭng or Kaesŏng?
Hamhŭng has lost more: about 12 ha of forest within 10 km of its center from 2001 to 2025, against 6 ha around Kaesŏng. under 1 ha of that was cleared for good, for farms, mines or towns.
Measured within 10 km of each center, from the yearly satellite maps of forest loss: a wider circle than the one for tree cover, because forest is usually lost at a city's edges.
Worst year: 2004, with 10 ha lost.
Worst year: 2011, with 1 ha lost.
| Hamhŭng | Kaesŏng | |
|---|---|---|
| Forest lost since 2001Cleared, burned or logged. | 12 ha | 6 ha (better) |
| Share of its forestOf what it had in 2000. | 2.6% | under 1% (better) |
| Cleared for goodTurned into farms, mines or towns. | under 1 ha | under 1 ha (better) |
| Recent trend2021–2025 against the five years before. | Too little to call | Too little to call |
| Main known cause | Wildfires (84%) | Logging (78%) |
Satellite timelapses
Watch both change, year by year
A clear satellite photo a year of the land around each city. Press play, turn on the forest cleared since the first year, or drag the before and after.
Hamhŭng
2017: satellite photo from August 2017 of a 5 × 5 km area in the city center.
Kaesŏng
2017: satellite photo from September 2017 of a 5 × 5 km area in the city center.
Trees
Which has more trees, Hamhŭng or Kaesŏng?
Hamhŭng has more tree cover: 13.2% of the land within 2 km of its center against 10.0% around Kaesŏng, or about 39,396 trees against 31,416.
The dark mark is each place's canopy target: 30% of the land, raised where air quality is poor.
| Hamhŭng | Kaesŏng | |
|---|---|---|
| Trees standingEstimated from the canopy area. | 39.4K (better) | 31.4K |
| Trees still neededTo reach the target. Fewer is better. | 50.1K (better) | 62.8K |
| CO₂ absorbed each yearBy the trees already standing. | 867K kg (better) | 691K kg |
Tree cover on the satellite image
The same 2 km radius around each center, with the tree cover the satellite found marked on it.
Reading these numbers
How this comparison is made
Air quality index
The US EPA index, computed from current pollutant concentrations: ground stations where a place has them nearby, and the CAMS atmospheric model everywhere else. It moves hour to hour, so it is a snapshot rather than a verdict on either place. The guideline marks are from the WHO's 2021 air quality guidelines.
Trees and forest
Tree cover is the share of ground under canopy within 2 km of each center, read from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery at 10 m detail. It measures that circle, not the whole municipality, which is what makes the two comparable. Forest loss comes from the University of Maryland's Global Forest Change maps.
More on the method on the About Airleaf page.
Frequently asked
Hamhŭng vs Kaesŏng: your questions answered
Is Hamhŭng cleaner than Kaesŏng?
On air quality, yes, right now: Hamhŭng reads AQI 58 against 86, a gap of 28 points on the US EPA index. This is a live reading rather than an annual average, so it can reverse within a day. Over the past 7 days, on modeled daily averages, Hamhŭng averaged AQI 40 against 48, and it was the cleaner of the two on 5 of those days.
Is it safe to exercise outdoors in Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng today?
The advice is the same for both today. Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting long outdoor exertion. Hamhŭng reads AQI 58 and Kaesŏng reads AQI 86.
Which has lost more forest, Hamhŭng or Kaesŏng?
Hamhŭng has lost more: about 12 ha of forest within 10 km of its center from 2001 to 2025, against 6 ha around Kaesŏng. under 1 ha of that was cleared for good, for farms, mines or towns.
Which has more trees, Hamhŭng or Kaesŏng?
Hamhŭng has more tree cover: 13.2% of the land within 2 km of its center against 10.0% around Kaesŏng, or about 39,396 trees against 31,416. Both figures describe the same-sized circle of ground around each center, not the whole municipality.
How many more trees do Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng need?
Hamhŭng needs about 50,140 more to reach its canopy target of 30%, and Kaesŏng about 62,832 to reach 30%. The target starts at 30% of the land and rises where air quality is poor.
Are Hamhŭng and Kaesŏng measured the same way?
The method is the same: the US EPA index for air, and Sentinel-2 satellite imagery at 10 m detail over an identical radius for trees. Kaesŏng is read from a nearby ground station and Hamhŭng is a model estimate, so the two are not quite like for like. Nothing is adjusted for population, city limits or climate.
How often does the Hamhŭng vs Kaesŏng comparison update?
The air readings refresh about once an hour, and each reading's local time is shown at the top of the page. Tree cover comes from the latest clear satellite image of each area (Sep 3, 2026 and Sep 18, 2026), and the forest figures are published yearly.
Keep going
Compare them with somewhere else
Build your own
Compare Hamhŭng with somewhere else
This place
Hamhŭng