Transport noise, vulnerability and inequalities — who is most affected?

Why is transport noise a major public health concern?

A large proportion of the European population is exposed to levels of noise — from road, rail and air traffic — that can adversely affect health.

The health impacts of transport noise extend well beyond annoyance. Chronic exposure disrupts sleep and activates the body's stress response. This can trigger physiological processes such as oxidative stress, inflammation and hormonal dysregulation. Over time, these mechanisms can contribute to the development and progression of a wide range of adverse health outcomes, including:

• cardiovascular disease;
• diabetes;
• sleep disturbance;
• impaired cognitive development in children;
• mental health conditions;
• dementia;
• premature mortality.

According to the latest assessment by the European Environment Agency (EEA), Environmental noise in Europe 2025, millions of people are affected by long-term annoyance and sleep disturbance caused by transport noise. In 2021 alone, prolonged exposure to transport noise in Europe was linked to an estimated:

• 73,000 premature deaths;
• 49,000 new cases of cardiovascular disease;
• 23,000 new cases of type 2 diabetes.

Additionally, it is estimated that more than half a million children in Europe have impaired reading ability due to transport noise (Figure 1) and emerging research suggests that noise likely contributes to thousands of cases of depression and dementia.

Figure 1. Estimated health impacts of transport noise in Europe in 2021

Measured in terms of its overall disease burden, transport noise is therefore among the most significant environmental health risks in Europe. It exceeds the health burden attributable to other environmental risk factors such as second-hand smoke, lead and radon. 

Given the widespread exposure to transport noise and its wide-ranging health impacts, reducing transport noise is an important public health concern.

Why do we need to consider both exposure and vulnerability?

Transport noise affects everyone, but its health impacts are not distributed equally. Some population groups experience greater health effects because they are more susceptible to noise. At the same time, other groups are more likely to be exposed or have fewer resources to avoid or cope with its impacts.

Understanding inequalities in the health burden of transport noise therefore requires consideration of both vulnerability and exposure. The following sections examine these two dimensions and their contribution to noise-related health inequalities.

Are some groups more vulnerable to the health impacts of noise?

Transport noise is a population-wide environmental health risk; it affects people across all population groups, including otherwise healthy individuals (Wicki et al., 2025). However, the magnitude of these effects is not necessarily the same for everyone.

Differences in exposure, susceptibility and coping capacity can influence how individuals and communities experience and respond to transport noise (see Box 1). This leads to differences in vulnerability across the population .

For instance, factors such as housing quality, access to quiet and green spaces, air pollution, urban heat and underlying health conditions can interact with noise exposure and contribute to unequal health outcomes across population groups.

Historically, research on environmental noise has largely focused on average exposure–response relationships across the general population. Increasingly, however, noise studies are examining whether health effects differ according to age, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), pre-existing health conditions and other characteristics that may influence vulnerability. Table 1 summarises the available evidence on differences in susceptibility to the health effects of transport noise across population groups. adapted. It focuses on whether some groups experience greater health effects than others for a similar level of noise exposure. Differences in vulnerability related to unequal exposure or differences in coping capacity are discussed in subsequent sections.

Table 1. Summary of evidence on population groups that may be more susceptible to the health effects of transport noise

Note: Evidence relating to pregnant women was not assessed, as this population group was outside the scope of the briefing and the available evidence reviewed.
Sources: Adapted from Vienneau et al., 2026. Summary on children from Engelmann et al., 2025.

The available literature provides only limited evidence that susceptibility to transport noise differs systematically across population groups. Many studies report subgroup analyses as secondary findings rather than primary study objectives. This means that the results are difficult to compare and synthesise.

The strongest evidence of increased susceptibility is observed among people with pre-existing cardiovascular disease — particularly coronary heart disease and previous myocardial infarction. Children are also a significant population of concern because noise exposure during critical developmental periods can affect learning and cognitive outcomes with lifelong consequences.

Evidence that older adults are inherently more susceptible is less consistent. However, older adults — particularly those with pre-existing health conditions — may be more vulnerable to certain noise-related health effects due to the higher prevalence of chronic disease in this population. Individual city-level hotspots characterised by high noise levels and high shares of older residents or children can be explored through this interactive map.

According to the current data, approximately 60,000 schools and 15,000 hospitals and health centres are located in areas affected by levels of transport noise equal or higher than 55dB for the day-evening-night period. This map shows the proportion of schools and hospitals located in areas affected by transport noise, where data are available. It thus provides an indication of the potential extent of noise exposure among certain sensitive populations.

Are some population groups more exposed to transport noise?

Environmental inequalities can arise when some population groups are disproportionately exposed to environmental risks. For transport noise, however, the relationship between exposure and socioeconomic status is less straightforward than for other environmental hazards such as air pollution. While many studies report higher transport noise exposure among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, the pattern is not consistent across all studies (Vienneau et al., 2026).

The differences in the available studies largely reflect the contextual characteristics of the built environment. These shape where people live and the levels of noise they experience. In some cities, major roads, railways and airports are located in economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods; this results in higher noise exposure among lower-income populations.

In other places, highly accessible city-centre locations may combine high transport noise levels with high property values, attracting wealthier residents. Consequently, socio-economic inequalities in transport noise exposure are highly context dependent and vary between cities and countries (Peris and Arguelles, 2023; Bocquier et al., 2013).

This highlights the importance of assessing potential noise inequalities at national, regional and local scales using individual-level exposure and socioeconomic data to identify context-specific patterns. This kind of analysis would inform targeted policy responses.

More consistent evidence has been reported for some demographic groups. Several studies have found higher transport noise exposure among people with a migrant background and some ethnic minority populations, as well as among people who have lived in a country for a shorter period of time (Hayward and Helbich, 2024; Preisendörfer et al., 2022; Chakraborty and Aun, 2023; Tonne et al., 2018; Collins et al., 2020; Casey et al., 2017; Peris and Arguelles, 2023).

These indicators likely act as proxies for broader social, economic and housing inequalities that influence residential location and environmental conditions. Similar patterns are also observed across many European urban centres (see the section ‘What do EU data tell us about inequalities in noise exposure?’).

Exposure is only one dimension of vulnerability. Even where differences in noise exposure are relatively small, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations often have fewer resources to avoid or mitigate transport noise (Dreger et al., 2019; Preisendörfer et al., 2022; Peris and Arguelles, 2023). The health burden associated with transport noise may be increased by all of the following factors:

• poorer housing quality;
• limited access to quieter environments and green spaces;
• lower residential mobility;
• a higher prevalence of pre-existing health conditions.

These combined environmental and social disadvantages can contribute to wider health inequalities.

As discussed above, overall, the evidence suggests that inequalities in transport noise exposure are also shaped by local urban context rather than by SES alone. Nevertheless, disadvantaged populations and some demographic groups are more likely to experience multiple environmental and social disadvantages that increase their overall vulnerability to transport noise.

What do EU data tell us about inequalities in noise exposure?

To assess potential inequalities in transport noise exposure, population data were combined with strategic noise maps on road traffic for 250 European Union (EU) urban centres across Europe (see Box 2 for further details on the data, methodology and associated limitations). Road traffic noise was selected because it is the most prevalent source of transport noise in EU cities (EEA, 2025).

Correlations between road noise exposure and employment status and place of birth — as indicators of socio-economic characteristics — were then examined at the urban-centre, country and EU levels. Data availability restricted the analysis such that only employment status and place of birth were considered. The purpose of the analysis is to explore whether differences in exposure are observed across selected population groups.

Other indicators commonly used to assess social inequalities — such as income or wealth — may provide a more direct measure of socio-economic disadvantage, but are not currently available at an EU-wide level. Should EU-wide data become available in the future it may be useful to include this in follow-up analysis as a more direct socio-economic indictor.

Figure 4 shows the median percentage of area exposed to high noise levels (≥65dB) across quintiles of the share of residents in employment in EU urban centres. Areas with lower employment shares tend to have marginally higher proportions of land exposed to high noise levels.

Overall, at the European scale, the share of residents in employment is only weakly correlated with the proportion of area affected by high noise levels. However, substantial variation is observed across cities, highlighting the importance of local context (see city-level maps).

One possible explanation for these variations is that employment status alone may not be an equally informative indicator of SES across all cities. This could partly explain the weak and inconsistent correlations observed.

Figure 4. Relationship between the share of population in employment and the share of area exposed to high noise levels across 1km × 1km grid cells in EU urban centres.

Figure 5 shows the median percentage of area exposed to high noise levels (≥65dB) across quintiles of the share of residents by birthplace in EU urban centres. Areas with a higher proportion of native-born residents tended to be less affected by high noise levels. Likewise, areas with a higher proportion of non-native residents also tended to be more affected by high noise levels.

This relationship is most pronounced for residents born outside the EU (Figure 5). This pattern is consistent with previous research, which has identified associations between higher transport noise exposure and characteristics such as ethnicity, migration background and length of residence in a country (see section “Are some population groups more exposed to transport noise?”).

These findings suggest that indicators relating to place of birth may be more effective for capturing broader social, economic and residential factors influencing environmental noise exposure than employment status alone. One possible explanation is that place of birth may reflect a wider range of factors that shape residential location and, consequently, environmental exposures.

As such, any observed inequalities are likely to reflect wider structural and socio-economic conditions rather than place of birth itself. Addressing these underlying drivers extends beyond the scope of noise policy alone.

Figure 5. Relationship between residents' birthplace and the share of area exposed to high noise levels across 1km × 1km grid cells in EU urban centres.

The consistency of this pattern is also reflected in the country-level results, where 19 of the 21 countries analysed show a positive correlation between the share of residents born outside the EU and the proportion of area affected by high noise levels from traffic (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

Figure 6. Correlation between the share of residents born outside the EU and the share of area exposed to high noise levels across 1km × 1km grid cells in EU urban centres, by country.

Figure 7. Relationships between the share of residents born outside the EU and the share of area exposed to high noise levels across 1km × 1km grid cells in EU urban centres, by country.

The strength — and in a very few cases the direction — of these relationships was also found to vary across urban centres (see city-level maps). This suggests that local conditions — including urban structure, transport infrastructure, housing markets, historic settlement patterns and broader socio-economic factors — play an important role in shaping how areas affected by high noise levels are distributed within cities.

It is important to note that local urban characteristics and small-scale spatial heterogeneity are not adequately captured by the aggregated data used in this analysis. This may contribute to the observed variation in results.

Taken together, the results suggest that place of birth may be a more informative indicator of potential inequalities in the distribution of environmental noise than employment status. One possible explanation is that place of birth — which is often linked to ethnicity or a background of migration— may capture a broader range of social and economic factors that influence residential location and, consequently, environmental exposures.

However, the generally weak correlations and the strong variability across locations suggest that these characteristics explain only part of the observed patterns and that local context is likely to be a key determinant of noise inequalities. This highlights that national and city-level analyses are also needed to understand the specific drivers of inequality in each place.

Future research could also benefit from indicators more directly related to socio-economic disadvantage. These include income, together with data that enable residential noise exposure to be linked directly to individual socio-economic characteristics. Such analyses would provide a more robust basis for assessing noise inequalities than area-level correlations alone.

Key considerations for policy, practice and future research

Current European noise policy and World Health Organization recommendations primarily focus on reducing overall population exposure to harmful noise levels. This remains relevant given the substantial health burden associated with exposure to transport noise and the large number of people affected by harmful noise levels across Europe. Effective noise reduction typically requires coordinated action across multiple governance levels, combining European, national and local measures (EEA, 2025). For example, measures to reduce transport noise may include regulatory and source-oriented actions, transport and infrastructure policies, and local initiatives such as traffic and speed management, the protection of quiet areas and urban planning measures.

The evidence reviewed in this briefing suggests that some population groups may be more vulnerable to noise-related health impacts — particularly older adults, children and people with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (Vienneau et al., 2026; Engelmann et al., 2025). However, the evidence base is limited regarding the extent to which transport noise exacerbates existing health conditions or disproportionately affects populations that are already vulnerable.

With regard to social and economic inequalities, both the analysis presented in this briefing and the wider literature suggest generally weak and inconsistent associations between noise exposure and socio-economic indicators — although indicators related to migration background show somewhat more consistent patterns.

The findings also indicate that the drivers of noise inequalities are highly context-specific and may differ substantially between countries, regions and cities. Furthermore, limitations in the availability of spatially resolved and individual-level socioeconomic and exposure data constrain the ability to draw firm conclusions regarding the magnitude and distribution of noise inequalities.

Against this background, several potential policy messages emerge for consideration. These include:

• continuing to reduce noise exposure across the whole population;
• giving greater consideration to vulnerable and sensitive population groups;
• strengthening the evidence base on noise inequalities;
• supporting assessments at multiple geographical scales;
• adopting a broader environmental health perspective;
• ensuring that equity considerations are embedded in the design and implementation of mitigation measures.

These are now each discussed in turn:

Continuing to reduce transport noise exposure across the whole population

Population-wide noise reduction should remain the foundation of transport noise policy. Measures that reduce noise at source — including quieter vehicles, traffic management and urban planning interventions — can deliver broad public health benefits while helping to prevent inequalities from arising. Ensuring adequate noise protection across all residential areas is particularly important, as it can reduce inequalities at source regardless of individual or community characteristics. At the same time, targeted local measures may be needed in specific areas where high noise exposure coincides with vulnerable populations or other forms of disadvantage.

Giving greater consideration to vulnerable and sensitive population groups

Emerging evidence suggests that some groups — particularly older adults, children and people with pre-existing cardiovascular disease — may be more susceptible to the adverse health effects of transport noise. Reducing noise exposure across the whole population remains essential; however, additional measures may be needed in locations where vulnerable populations are concentrated.

For example, alongside city-wide measures to reduce transport noise, interventions may be needed around sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals. These could include targeted measures that reduce traffic volumes in the immediate surroundings during certain times of the day, such as low-traffic zones or traffic restrictions (Tirico et al., 2025).

Better consideration of vulnerability within local and national strategic noise mapping and action planning could help to identify where additional protection measures are warranted. Such measures could then complement population-wide noise reduction strategies. This may be particularly relevant around sensitive receptors such as schools, where the evidence for adverse effects on children's learning and cognitive development is well established.

Strengthening the evidence base on noise-vulnerable groups and inequalities

Significant knowledge gaps remain regarding both vulnerable populations and the social distribution of noise exposure. Improving the availability of relevant individual-level and spatially resolved data would support a better understanding of who is most affected and where additional action may be needed.

Supporting assessments at multiple geographical scales

The substantial variation observed across countries and cities suggests that the drivers of noise inequalities are highly context specific. Continued European-level assessments are needed to identify broad patterns and monitor progress. Meanwhile, national and local analyses could help to identify the specific drivers of inequalities and guide targeted actions.

Adopting a broader environmental health perspective

Transport noise rarely occurs in isolation. Considering transport noise alongside other environmental factors — such as air pollution and urban heat, as well as housing conditions and access to green and quiet spaces — could provide a more comprehensive understanding of environmental health inequalities. It could also help to identify populations experiencing multiple forms of disadvantage.

Ensuring that equity considerations are embedded in the design and implementation of mitigation measures

Equity considerations should inform both the design and implementation of noise mitigation measures. For example, policies that rely heavily on citizen participation should ensure that communities with fewer resources and less capacity to engage in decision-making processes are adequately represented (Riedel et al., 2017). Similarly, investments in noise reduction should prioritise disadvantaged communities and areas facing the highest levels of noise exposure.