Exposure differences in railway noise, vibration, area-level socioeconomic conditions and migration density: spatial autocorrelation and urbanicity impacts in Southwest Sweden

Le résumé fourni par la source

Environmental exposures, such as railway noise and vibration, might be unequally distributed across communities. This study investigates how area-level socioeconomic conditions and migration density vary with the distribution of railway noise and vibration in Southwest Sweden. We employed linear regression and spatial autoregressive models to analyse data from the EpiVib study, which included 7,280 individuals living within 1 km of a trafficked railway in four regions of Southwest Sweden. The study assessed the relationships between exposure levels and area-level socioeconomic conditions and migration density using Statistics Sweden's small-area division system (i.e., DeSO). Areas with lower socioeconomic conditions and higher migration density are exposed to higher levels of railway noise and vibration. Spatial autocorrelation analysis revealed that noise levels were higher in areas with more than 20% of inhabitants having a foreign background. The impact of area-level indicators on noise exposure varied with urbanicity, with higher exposure levels in rural and suburban areas compared to urban areas. Vibration exposure was more pronounced in areas with fair socioeconomic conditions and higher migration density. The study shows inequalities in railway noise and vibration exposure, according to area-level socioeconomic conditions and migration density. Areas with better socioeconomic conditions are consistently less exposed to both railway noise and vibration. Furthermore, the impact of area-level indicators on noise exposure depends on urbanicity levels. Future research, interventions and policies that account for area-level socioeconomic factors as well as urbanicity are advised to ensure environmental equity and justice regarding rail traffic exposures.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.