Sound Fair? The Political Ecology of Urban Traffic Noise

Urbanization processes in Malmö create uneven soundscapes and associated health risks for the urban poor. A tale of the distributive injustice of urban road traffic noise.

By Kim Wölper, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)

I’m strolling home from work through Malmö on a weekday afternoon. On the last stretch, I must switch to one of the city’s arterial roads that is funnelling numerous cars from the city centre out into the suburbs and back every day. I speed up my pace, stressed by the revving of engines and hurry around the corner to my home one block over from the road. Finally, silence.

While road traffic noise is often nothing but a temporary nuisance to pedestrians, it creates severe health impacts for those who live on busy roads. Continuous noise exposure causes sleep deprivation, stress, and mental fatigue which translate into inflammatory responses, hypertension, cardiovascular problems, and negative impacts on mental well-being among others. The World Health Organization guidelines recommend keeping average noise levels below 53 decibels (dB) and even lower at night. For reference, 53 dB is about as loud as a household refrigerator humming.

Malmö’s large roads far exceed this guideline (Figure 1). Over 95,000 Malmö residents (about 23% of the municipal population) are exposed to noise well above 55 dB. Even worse, over 24,000 (7%) experience road noise of 65-70 dB, so about as loud as a normal vacuum cleaner operating, and 3,671 (1%) must endure 65-70 db. Considering that, in Sweden, road noise above 55 dB incurs healthcare costs, these shocking statistics indicate highly uneven noise distribution.

Figure 1 Noise from road traffic in Malmö. Source: Malmö stad, 2017.

The dominant narrative follows the overall health impacts from urban traffic noise but overlooks the fact that noise does not affect everyone in Malmö equally. Some people are more exposed than others and therefore at a higher risk. We can understand this if we consider the way that urbanisation processes create uneven soundscapes.

Malmö was an industrial city until the 1990s when it evolved into an innovation and business hub with rapid population growth. Economic growth spurred expansion into the urban periphery. Wealthy developers and politicians directed the growth of the city outwards, to decentralize the population and thereby raise rents and unlock property markets. The economic capture of political processes accelerated the implementation of Malmö City’s 1950s car-centric design plans, cementing personal vehicles as the primary transport mode. Soon, tree-lined roads with cycle and footpaths had to yield to new lanes, inner-city parking and increasing motor traffic.

The expansion enabled some people to escape to suburbs and travel into town provided they could afford cars and real estate prices. On the flipside, it locked in petrocultures making car ownership a necessity for convenient commutes into the city. Consequently, urban road noise levels increased substantially.

An environmental justice perspective highlights the imbalance between noise production and noise exposure thereby illuminating the distribution of the environmental ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ of soundscapes.

In Sweden, car ownership increases with distance from city centres. Malmö is no exception to this, with car ownership being the highest in rural areas and smaller municipalities. Those who generate the most noise are, therefore, the ones who drive into the city from less dense, greener neighbourhoods. These individuals enjoy the tranquility      of their suburban or rural homes, from which they can still easily access the benefits of the city itself without being exposed to the motor noise produced by other individuals like themselves. 

The struggle surrounding urban noise, however, rarely concerns the distribution of the ‘goods’ but rather that of environmental ‘bads’.

But who is most exposed to urban traffic noise and therefore at risk of poor health outcomes? An environmental justice lens reveals that disempowered and poor communities are disproportionately located close to urban hazards including exposure to road noise. Residents along busy roads often feel a need to escape road noise. However, the ability to enjoy freedom from noise clearly correlates with the income levels of residents in Malmö (Figure 2). Yet, low-income residents are those least contributing to traffic noise considering that in Sweden car ownership per household drops with income.

Figure 2 Socioeconomic deprivation in Malmö with particularly deprived neighbourhoods being located close to arterial roads. Source: Boverket, 2021.

Malmö’s processes of urbanisation externalise the ‘bads’, with poorer urban communities bearing the costs but few of the benefits. Instead for them road noise adds health problems to the existing socioeconomic disadvantages, further decreasing their opportunities and the chance to permanently escape the noise. On top of this, those who can least afford it face the highest cost of protecting themselves from the hazard and must spend proportionately more on it which those generating it do not. This means that noise pollution hits low-income people even harder than the same exposure would wealthier people.

How come low-income communities are living in noisier environments and how is it being perpetuated? As environmental hazards increase, rents tend to fall and attract poorer communities. Moving towards hazardous areas often remains the only option as affordable accommodation is scarce in cities, with Malmö being no exception. This way the environmental externalities of urban expansion and car-centric development are offloaded onto the disenfranchised.

Additionally, noise-exposed lower-income residents generally lack political power to change the status quo of uneven soundscapes. The power imbalance exacerbates the hazard exposure as more powerful urban actors sway political decisions on urban development in their favour, including by allocating environmental ‘bads’. In fact, the Swedish state loosened noise regulations in 2015. Against scientific health advice it permitted higher urban noise levels near people’s homes in noise-exposed areas. While housing people is certainly necessary, this government intervention shows how the growth paradigm and power exercised by business interests exacerbate the uneven soundscape. Consequently, discrimination and political exclusion compound the health impact from

About this blog post:
This blog was created as part of an academic assignment for the course “Political Ecology and Sustainability” within the International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (LUMES) at the Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS).

Author Bio:
Kim Wölper is master student at the International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (LUMES)