Juba vs Kajansi
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.
Kajansi has more tree cover — 31.5% against 5.8%.
Juba has cleaner air right now — AQI 40 against 125.
- Tree cover gap
- 25.7 points
- Kajansi is ahead.
- Air quality gap
- 85 AQI
- Juba is cleaner.
- Trees between them
- 80.7K
- Kajansi has more standing.
Tree cover
Share of the 2 km radius under canopy.
5.8%
31.5%
Air quality index
US EPA index, live, with its band. Lower is better.
40 · Good
125 · Unhealthy for sensitive groups
Trees standing
Estimated from the measured canopy area.
18.2K
99.0K
Trees still needed
To reach the same canopy target. Fewer is better.
76.0K
11.0K
CO₂ absorbed each year
By the trees already standing.
401K kg
2.2M 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. Kajansi is read from nearby ground stations and Juba is modelled — worth knowing, since the two are not quite like for like.
PM2.5
Fine particles, the pollutant that usually sets the index.
9.5 µg/m³
45.4 µg/m³
PM10
Coarser particles — dust, pollen, road grit.
10.3 µg/m³
57.5 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 | Juba | Kajansi |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Sept | 46 | 92 |
| 23 Sept | 52 | 79 |
| 24 Sept | 46 | 93 |
| 25 Sept | 30 | 82 |
| 26 Sept | 35 | 98 |
| 27 Sept | 33 | 68 |
| 28 Sept | 40 | 82 |
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. Kajansi leads here at 31.5%.
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: Juba reads 40 (good) and Kajansi reads 125 (unhealthy for sensitive groups) right now.
Frequently asked
Juba and Kajansi, answered
Which has more trees, Juba or Kajansi?
Kajansi, with roughly 98,960 trees inside its 2 km radius against 18,221. Tree cover tells a slightly different story from raw count: Kajansi has the denser canopy at 31.5%.
Which has better air quality, Juba or Kajansi?
Juba right now, at AQI 40 against 125 — a gap of 85 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?
Juba needs about 76,027 more to reach its canopy target, and Kajansi about 10,996. 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
Build your own
Compare Juba with somewhere else
This place
Juba
Want a different pair? Browse comparisons or measure any address.