Air quality comparison · North Korea, 45 km apart
Namp’o vs Pyongyang Air quality index (AQI) today
Namp’o has cleaner air than Pyongyang right now: AQI 65 (Moderate) against 80 (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, Namp’o averaged AQI 63 against 65, and it was the cleaner of the two on 4 of those days. Pyongyang has lost more forest since 2001. Pyongyang has more tree cover.
Updated . Lower is better on the US EPA index: 0–50 is Good, above 300 is Hazardous. Measured by Airleaf.
Namp’o65Pyongyang80
Head to head
Namp’o vs Pyongyang at a glance
Namp’o is ahead on 4 of 6 measures, and Pyongyang on 2. The better figure in each row is marked.
| Namp’o | Pyongyang | |
|---|---|---|
| Air quality nowUS AQI. Lower is better. | 65 (better) | 80 |
| PM2.5Fine particles, µg/m³. | 17 (better) | 25.8 |
| Past week's averageUS AQI, 7 days. | 63 (better) | 65 |
| Forest lost since 2001Within 10 km of the center. | 10 ha (better) | 22 ha |
| Tree coverWithin 2 km of the center. | 6.8% | 24.3% (better) |
| Trees still neededTo reach a healthy canopy. | 61.4K | 15.3K (better) |
Air quality today
What is the air like in Namp’o and Pyongyang right now?
Namp’o has cleaner air than Pyongyang right now: AQI 65 (Moderate) against 80 (Moderate). PM2.5 is setting the index in both.
Namp’o's PM2.5 is about 1.1× the WHO's 24-hour guideline of 15 µg/m³. Pyongyang's PM2.5 is about 1.7× the WHO's 24-hour guideline of 15 µg/m³.
Both readings are model estimates, with no ground station close enough to either.
Namp’oPyongyang
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).
Namp’o: Estimate · model corrected with 6 station cities within 185 km, e.g. Kaesŏng and Gimpo-si. Data: Open-Meteo / CAMS, corrected with 6 ground-station cities within 185 km, US EPA index.
Pyongyang: Estimate · model corrected with 5 station cities within 185 km, e.g. Kaesŏng and Sinuiju. Data: Open-Meteo / CAMS, corrected with 5 ground-station cities within 185 km, US EPA index.
The past week
Which had cleaner air over the past 7 days?
Over the past 7 days, on modeled daily averages, Namp’o averaged AQI 63 against 65, and it was the cleaner of the two on 4 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
- Namp’o4Pyongyang3
- Average AQI
- Namp’o63Pyongyang65
- Worst day, AQI
- Namp’o109Pyongyang108
The daily numbers (7 days)
| Day | Namp’o | Pyongyang |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 5 | 86 | 95 |
| Nov 6 | 48 | 51 |
| Nov 7 | 42 | 40 |
| Nov 8 | 39 | 38 |
| Nov 9 | 47 | 51 |
| Nov 10 | 67 | 73 |
| Nov 11 | 109 | 108 |
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 Namp’o and Pyongyang 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 Namp’o and Pyongyang compare with the rest of the world?
Right now Namp’o's air is cleaner than 42% of the 5,420 places Airleaf tracks, and Pyongyang's is cleaner than 31%. Within North Korea, that is 54% and 39% of its 29 measured places.
Cleaner air than…
- Namp’o
- Beats 42%
- Pyongyang
- Beats 31%
More tree cover than…
- Namp’o
- Beats 14%
- Pyongyang
- Beats 56%
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, Namp’o or Pyongyang?
Pyongyang has lost more: about 22 ha of forest within 10 km of its center from 2001 to 2025, against 10 ha around Namp’o. 4 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: 2016, with 8 ha lost.
Worst year: 2006, with 13 ha lost.
| Namp’o | Pyongyang | |
|---|---|---|
| Forest lost since 2001Cleared, burned or logged. | 10 ha (better) | 22 ha |
| Share of its forestOf what it had in 2000. | 3% (better) | 7.8% |
| Cleared for goodTurned into farms, mines or towns. | under 1 ha (better) | 4 ha |
| Recent trend2021–2025 against the five years before. | Too little to call | Too little to call |
| Main known cause | Logging (92%) | Logging (48%) |
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.
Namp’o
2017: satellite photo from July 2017 of a 5 × 5 km area in the city center.
Pyongyang
2017: satellite photo from July 2017 of a 5 × 5 km area in the city center.
Trees
Which has more trees, Namp’o or Pyongyang?
Pyongyang has more tree cover: 24.3% of the land within 2 km of its center against 6.8% around Namp’o, or about 65,348 trees against 18,009.
The dark mark is each place's canopy target: 30% of the land, raised where air quality is poor.
| Namp’o | Pyongyang | |
|---|---|---|
| Trees standingEstimated from the canopy area. | 18.0K | 65.3K (better) |
| Trees still neededTo reach the target. Fewer is better. | 61.4K | 15.3K (better) |
| CO₂ absorbed each yearBy the trees already standing. | 396K kg | 1.4M kg (better) |
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
Namp’o vs Pyongyang: your questions answered
Is Namp’o cleaner than Pyongyang?
On air quality, yes, right now: Namp’o reads AQI 65 against 80, a gap of 15 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, Namp’o averaged AQI 63 against 65, and it was the cleaner of the two on 4 of those days.
Is it safe to exercise outdoors in Namp’o and Pyongyang today?
The advice is the same for both today. Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting long outdoor exertion. Namp’o reads AQI 65 and Pyongyang reads AQI 80.
Which has lost more forest, Namp’o or Pyongyang?
Pyongyang has lost more: about 22 ha of forest within 10 km of its center from 2001 to 2025, against 10 ha around Namp’o. 4 ha of that was cleared for good, for farms, mines or towns.
Which has more trees, Namp’o or Pyongyang?
Pyongyang has more tree cover: 24.3% of the land within 2 km of its center against 6.8% around Namp’o, or about 65,348 trees against 18,009. Both figures describe the same-sized circle of ground around each center, not the whole municipality.
How many more trees do Namp’o and Pyongyang need?
Namp’o needs about 61,442 more to reach its canopy target of 30%, and Pyongyang about 15,328 to reach 30%. The target starts at 30% of the land and rises where air quality is poor.
Why can two places 45 km apart read differently?
Air changes over short distances with traffic, industry, wind and hills, and each reading comes from the nearest ground stations or, where there are none, from a regional model. A gap of a few points between neighbors is within normal variation, while a gap that crosses an EPA band is worth noticing.
Are Namp’o and Pyongyang 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. Both readings are model estimates, with no ground station close enough to either. Nothing is adjusted for population, city limits or climate.
How often does the Namp’o vs Pyongyang 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 18, 2026 and Sep 18, 2026), and the forest figures are published yearly.
Keep going
Compare them with somewhere else
Build your own
Compare Namp’o with somewhere else
This place
Namp’o