Sacaba vs San Salvador de Jujuy
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.
San Salvador de Jujuy has more tree cover — 9.4% against 8.5%.
Sacaba has cleaner air right now — AQI 38 against 73.
- Tree cover gap
- 0.9 points
- San Salvador de Jujuy is ahead.
- Air quality gap
- 35 AQI
- Sacaba is cleaner.
- Trees between them
- 2.8K
- San Salvador de Jujuy has more standing.
Bolivia
Argentina
Tree cover
Share of the 2 km radius under canopy.
8.5%
9.4%
Air quality index
US EPA index, live, with its band. Lower is better.
38 · Good
73 · Moderate
Trees standing
Estimated from the measured canopy area.
26.7K
29.5K
Trees still needed
To reach the same canopy target. Fewer is better.
67.5K
64.7K
CO₂ absorbed each year
By the trees already standing.
587K kg
650K 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. San Salvador de Jujuy is read from nearby ground stations and Sacaba is modelled — worth knowing, since the two are not quite like for like.
PM2.5
Fine particles, the pollutant that usually sets the index.
9.1 µg/m³
22.4 µg/m³
PM10
Coarser particles — dust, pollen, road grit.
9.3 µg/m³
23 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 | Sacaba | San Salvador de Jujuy |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Sept | 39 | 40 |
| 23 Sept | 44 | 43 |
| 24 Sept | 54 | 46 |
| 25 Sept | 54 | 37 |
| 26 Sept | 41 | 66 |
| 27 Sept | 34 | 70 |
| 28 Sept | 39 | 53 |
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. San Salvador de Jujuy leads here at 9.4%.
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: Sacaba reads 38 (good) and San Salvador de Jujuy reads 73 (moderate) right now.
Frequently asked
Sacaba and San Salvador de Jujuy, answered
Which has more trees, Sacaba or San Salvador de Jujuy?
San Salvador de Jujuy, with roughly 29,531 trees inside its 2 km radius against 26,704. Tree cover tells a slightly different story from raw count: San Salvador de Jujuy has the denser canopy at 9.4%.
Which has better air quality, Sacaba or San Salvador de Jujuy?
Sacaba right now, at AQI 38 against 73 — a gap of 35 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?
Sacaba needs about 67,544 more to reach its canopy target, and San Salvador de Jujuy about 64,717. 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 Sacaba with somewhere else
This place
Sacaba
Want a different pair? Browse comparisons or measure any address.