Kakamega vs Kira
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.
Kakamega has more tree cover — 63.3% against 28.2%.
Kakamega has cleaner air right now — AQI 68 against 148.
- Tree cover gap
- 35.1 points
- Kakamega is ahead.
- Air quality gap
- 80 AQI
- Kakamega is cleaner.
- Trees between them
- 110K
- Kakamega has more standing.
Tree cover
Share of the 2 km radius under canopy.
63.3%
28.2%
Air quality index
US EPA index, live, with its band. Lower is better.
68 · Moderate
148 · Unhealthy for sensitive groups
Trees standing
Estimated from the measured canopy area.
199K
88.6K
Trees still needed
To reach the same canopy target. Fewer is better.
0
21.4K
CO₂ absorbed each year
By the trees already standing.
4.4M kg
1.9M 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. Kira is read from nearby ground stations and Kakamega is modelled — worth knowing, since the two are not quite like for like.
PM2.5
Fine particles, the pollutant that usually sets the index.
20.3 µg/m³
54.7 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 | Kakamega | Kira |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Sept | 53 | 81 |
| 23 Sept | 62 | 71 |
| 24 Sept | 61 | 72 |
| 25 Sept | 65 | 75 |
| 26 Sept | 74 | 100 |
| 27 Sept | 79 | 70 |
| 28 Sept | 73 | 77 |
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. Kakamega leads here at 63.3%.
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: Kakamega reads 68 (moderate) and Kira reads 148 (unhealthy for sensitive groups) right now.
Frequently asked
Kakamega and Kira, answered
Which has more trees, Kakamega or Kira?
Kakamega, with roughly 198,863 trees inside its 2 km radius against 88,593. Tree cover tells a slightly different story from raw count: Kakamega has the denser canopy at 63.3%.
Which has better air quality, Kakamega or Kira?
Kakamega right now, at AQI 68 against 148 — a gap of 80 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?
Kakamega needs about 0 more to reach its canopy target, and Kira about 21,363. 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 Kakamega with somewhere else
This place
Kakamega
Want a different pair? Browse comparisons or measure any address.