0
1
May 2010
November 2011
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES
2013
Demographic Trends in
Dublin v2
Declan R...
2
This report forms part of the Think Dublin Research Series that encourages an evidence-based
approach to developing poli...
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Office of International Relations and Research at Dublin City
Counc...
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines some of the main demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. While th...
6
In the context of an ageing Europe
Eurostat projects that by 2060 the old age dependency ratio in the EU27 states will b...
7
However, the inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population describe...
8
Life Expectancy increases
Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. For males,...
9
Highlighting need for stronger planning
In theory the land use planning system in Ireland integrates national, regional,...
10
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Context
This report examines some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the past two ...
11
1.2 Sources and Methods
The report summarises and describes data from international and national data sources. All of t...
12
Table 1.1 Census Variables Used
Demographic Population (persons)
Households
Age cohorts
Household composition
Household...
13
Table 1.3 Composition of Regional Authorities
Region Local Authority
Border Cavan; Donegal; Leitrim; Louth; Monaghan; S...
14
2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT
In order to set the analysis of Dublin’s demography in context it is important to place Ireland i...
15
Birth rates and fertility rates in Europe decline
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate some of the key reasons for the static,...
16
Figure 2.1 Proportion of the population aged 65 and over
Source: Data extracted from the United Nations Department of E...
17
Table 2.6 World Population (% of total)
1960 2005 2050
Europe 20.0 11.2 7.6
China 21.4 20.2 15.5
India 14.8 17.4 17.6
J...
18
Figure 2.3 shows the population pyramids for the EU 27 states from 1950 to 2050. What is of
particular interest is the ...
19
2.2 Ireland in a European Context
Ireland is not typical of average European trends and has a younger population
While ...
20
Table 2.8 Age-related dependency ratios %
Young-age dependency ratio Old-age dependency ratio
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 ...
21
Table 2.9 Eurostat population and population projections (Million)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20...
22
Figure 2.4 EU Population Change, 1960-2060
Source: Eurostat (2012)
Box 2 EU sources on population projections and agein...
23
Table 2.10 Total Fertility Rate (mean number of children)
Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010...
24
Expectancy increases
When it comes to life expectancy, Ireland is at or above the EU average. Table 2.11 shows the most...
25
2.3 Global trend of increased urbanisation
Global population increasingly urban
According to the United Nations (UN), i...
26
McKinsey’s “Mapping the economic power of cities” demonstrated that the top 600 cities in the
world accounted for 60% o...
27
average for their countries9
. These findings are supported by the Brookings, Global Metro Monitor
(2010) – “The Patch ...
28
Table 2.12 Global Urbanisation Trends
Major area, region,
country or area
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 ...
29
3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011
This section presents some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the pas...
30
Significant regional variations in recent population growth
Table 3.2 shows that while the national population grew by ...
31
Figure 3.2 Regional Population Change 2006-2011
Source: Census of Population 2011 Results
3.2 Population Change in Dubl...
32
Population growth in Dublin City slower than national and regional averages
Table 3.3 shows that population growth in D...
33
Table 3.5 Dublin Region Population Share (%)
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 46.7 45.5 44.2 42.6 41.4
Dún Laoghair...
34
Table 3.7 Percentage Share of Population of the State (%)
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 13.6 13.3 12.7 11.9 11.5...
35
3.3 Sprawl and Dispersion in the Dublin Region
Urban Sprawl and the Functional Urban Region
This section examines in mo...
36
Apart from considerable local commentary and analysis of the sprawl in the Dublin region and
beyond, the European Envir...
37
Figure 3.6 Census 2011 Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold.
Source: All Island ...
38
Moland Model and Urban Development Patterns
Under the aegis of the European Commission (Joint Research Centre at Ispra,...
39
Figure 3.7 Moland Model: Actual Land Use in 2006
40
Figure 3.8 Moland Land Use Scenario for 2026
41
Population dispersal continues
The most recent census data confirm that population dispersal (sprawl) continues to occu...
42
Figure 3.10 depicts the same data but shows the percentage change across each electoral division
for the Dublin Region ...
43
Inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, a c...
44
Figure 3.11 Population change in Dublin City 1991-2011
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.9 examines population densi...
45
3.4 Components of Population Change
Forecasts of mass levels of net emigration are off the mark
Given the severity of t...
46
Figure 3.12 Components of Population Change
Table 3.11 examines the components of population change in the counties of ...
47
Table 3.11 Components of Population Change in Leinster 2006-2011
Change in
population
- persons
(Number)
Natural
increa...
48
Table 3.12 Components of Population Change 1991-1996
Population change Natural
Increase
Total estimated
net migration
D...
49
Table 3.14 Components of Population Change 2002-2006
Population
change
Natural
Increase
Total estimated net
migration
D...
50
3.5 Age Structure, Dependency Ratios and Life Expectancy
Tables 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 examine the age structure of ...
51
Table 3.18 Age Structure in 2006 (%)
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
-
Rathdown
Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
Kildare Mea...
52
Figure 3.13 Age Structure 2011
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Dublin
City
DLR Fingal South
Dublin
Dubl...
53
Figure 3.14 Dublin Region Population Pyramid 2011 (see Appendix 2 for GDA and Dublin City
Pyramids)
Dún Laoghaire - Rat...
54
Birth rates and fertility rates are high
One of the notable aspects of Irish population growth has been the high contri...
55
Table 3.23 Period Life Expectancy by Region
Males Females
Age =0 Age=65 Age =0 Age=65
2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 200...
56
However, the impact of the economic downturn and decline in employment prospects is now
resulting in increasing numbers...
57
3.16 Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2011
Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) fr...
58
3.7 Household Change and Housing
Tables 3.26 and 3.27 show the changing numbers of households and household size since ...
59
Table 3.27 confirms that average household size has decreased over the past decade. Nationally,
average household size ...
60
Table 3.28 Household Composition in 2011
DublinRegion
DublinCity
DúnLaoghaire-
Rathdown
Fingal
SouthDublin
Kildare
Meat...
61
Housing stock in Dublin older than in suburban areas
Table 3.29 displays the age of the housing stock as of 2011. It is...
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Dublin Demographics 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Dublin Demographics 2013

1,795

Published on

This report examines some of the main demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. While the focus is on the Dublin City Council area the results are placed in the context of the Dublin Region, Greater Dublin Area (GDA) and the State. The report also sets Ireland in its broader European and global context

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Jamie can you explain the contrast between your statement that 'South Dublin's share of the pop has remained static at 21% while Dunlaoghaire's share has fallen....' to the AIRO data mapped in Irish Times article 15th Feb showing massive decrease in South Dublin pop? We in Knocklyon Network are trying to get a handle on actual unemployment in the area. Young people living at home in this catchment will not get SW and are unlikely to sign on live register accordingly.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,795
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Dublin Demographics 2013"

  1. 1. 1 May 2010 November 2011 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES 2013 Demographic Trends in Dublin v2 Declan Redmond and Brendan Williams, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin Brian Hughes, School of the Built Environment, Dublin Institute of Technology Jamie Cudden and Paul Johnston, Office of Economy and International Relations Dublin City Council O F F I C E O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S A N D R E S E A R C H
  2. 2. 2 This report forms part of the Think Dublin Research Series that encourages an evidence-based approach to developing policy in the city while also highlighting the key role of Dublin in the national and international context. It uses the final updated 2011 Census data, building on the original demographics report published in Jan 2012 which was based on preliminary Census estimates. This report is correct to end of March 2013. The Office of International Relations and Research is responsible for the development of economic indicators that monitor and benchmark Dublin’s performance. The Office also develops and commissions research that yields a better understanding of the key strategic areas that influence future city success. Please contact: research@dublincity.ie if you have any comments or queries on this report.
  3. 3. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the Office of International Relations and Research at Dublin City Council for commissioning this report. In particular, we would like to thank Walter Foley and Helen O’ Leary for their extensive comments on various drafts. We would like to thank Richard Waldron, of Urban Institute Ireland at UCD, for producing the maps of population change.
  4. 4. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................10 1.1 REPORT CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.2 SOURCES AND METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 11 2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT ...........................................................................................................................14 2.1 EUROPE IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2 IRELAND IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 19 2.3 GLOBAL TREND OF INCREASED URBANISATION................................................................................................... 25 3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011 ........................................................................................29 3.1 KEY POPULATION TRENDS............................................................................................................................. 29 3.2 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN ................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 SPRAWL AND DISPERSION IN THE DUBLIN REGION ............................................................................................. 35 3.4 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 45 3.5 AGE STRUCTURE, DEPENDENCY RATIOS AND LIFE EXPECTANCY ............................................................................ 50 3.6 NATIONALITY AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH ............................................................................................................ 55 3.7 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 58 4 POPULATION FORECASTS .....................................................................................................................65 4.1 LONG TERM FORECASTS ............................................................................................................................... 65 4.2 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE FORECASTS .......................................................................................................... 68 4.3 REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDELINE FORECASTS.................................................................................................... 70 5 CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................................72 6 APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................75 APPENDIX 1 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN INNER CITY 1991-2011.................................................................... 75 APPENDIX 2 POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR DUBLIN AND STATE, 1996, 2002 AND 2006.............................................. 79 APPENDIX 3 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE LONG TERM FORECASTS........................................................................... 85 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................89
  5. 5. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines some of the main demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. While the focus is on the Dublin City Council area the results are placed in the context of the Dublin Region, Greater Dublin Area (GDA) and the State. The report also sets Ireland in its broader European and global context. Ireland in Comparative Context Global population reaches 7 billion World population continues to grow strongly. According to the United Nations, the global population is currently approximately 7 billion and is projected to reach 9.3 billion by the year 2050. On average across the world, life expectancy at birth has increased from 47 years in the 1950s to 68 years today. This varies across the world but in general terms it leads to population growth and an ageing population. Urbanisation increasing rapidly The world is rapidly urbanising. The United Nations estimate that currently half of the world’s population is urban and that by 2050 this will rise to 70%. While just over 60% of Ireland’s population is currently urban, the UN project that this will increase to 80% by 2050. European population is falling in relative terms Europe’s share of global population has fallen continuously since the 1960s. In 1960 Europe 1 accounted for 20% of global population but by 2005 it had fallen to 11%. By 2050 it is projected to be just 7.7% of the world’s population. While the actual population of Europe has increased between 1960 and 2005, it has been outpaced by very high population growth in Africa, India and China. But Ireland to increase its population in medium to long term Ireland, along with the UK, Spain and France is projected to increase in population over the next few decades. Eurostat projects the Irish population is to increase from 4.5 million to 6.5 million between 2010 and 2060, a 47% increase. The UK is projected to increase from 62 million in 2010 to 78.9 million over the same period, an increase of 27%. The German population, by contrast, is expected to fall by 15.3 million between 2010 and 2060, a decrease of 19%. Birth rates and fertility rates in Europe decline Birth rates in Europe have fallen steadily in the past thirty years and are now among the lowest in the world. One consequence is that in comparative terms Europe has an ageing population giving rise to concerns in the EU with regard to impacts on labour markets, pensions and the provision of care and health services. But Ireland has a high fertility rate According to Eurostat figures, the fertility rate for Ireland in 2009 was 2.07 children, one of the highest in Europe while in Germany, for example, it was 1.36. The average for the EU27 member states was 1.59 Ireland has one of the youngest populations in Europe While Europe has an ageing population, in comparative terms, Ireland does not. In 2008, for example, 11% of our population was over 65 years while in Germany the figure was 20%. Conversely, 20% of the Irish population was under 14 years while in Germany the figure was 13.7%. As a result, Ireland has one of the lowest old-age dependency ratios in Europe and the highest young-age dependency ratio. 1 Defined by Eurostat as the EU-27 plus Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland and the Ukraine.
  6. 6. 6 In the context of an ageing Europe Eurostat projects that by 2060 the old age dependency ratio in the EU27 states will be almost 53%. In Germany, for example, it is projected that the ratio will be 60%. In Ireland, by contrast, it is projected that the old age dependency ratio will be 37%. Consequently, the pressure on pensions and services in Ireland is, in the short term at least, less than in other European countries. Rather than a reason for complacency, this provides Ireland with the opportunity to effectively plan for an ageing population in the medium to long term. Population Trends in Dublin 1991-2011 Ireland’s population grows strongly over the past twenty years Ireland has seen very strong population growth over the past two decades. The population of the state has grown by 30 per cent in the period 1991 – 2011, increasing from 3.53 to 4.58 million. Despite the recession, and expectations that population growth would slow, the population grew by 348,505 between 2006 and 2011 or by 8.2%. With marked regional variations in population growth Over the period 1991-2011 there were very marked variations in regional population trends. The Dublin Region saw growth of 24% over the period, below the national average. What stands out, however, is the remarkable growth in the Mid-East region, with an increase of 63% over the period. The Midlands region also saw above average growth, with an increase of 39%. These population figures clearly demonstrate the rapid and strong outward movement of population in the eastern area. And significant regional disparities in recent population growth Nationally the population grew by 8.2% between 2006 and 2011 but there were significant regional differences in population growth. In the Midland and Mid-east regions, the population grew by approximately 12%. This latter growth reflects a continued dispersal of population beyond the Greater Dublin Area. The Dublin Region saw growth of 7.2%, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region had a growth of just 5.1%, well below the national trend. Dublin region has slower growth than the national average The Dublin region has grown at a slower pace than the state, increasing its population by 24 per cent between 1991 and 2011 (from 1.025 to 1.273 million) compared to the national average of 30 per cent. However, within the Dublin region, Fingal was the exception, with a significant population growth of 79.4 per cent over the past two decades. Strong growth in the Mid-East region Population grew very strongly in the Mid-East region over the past two decades. Kildare, Wicklow and Meath had increases of 72, 75 and 41 per cent respectively. These figures show clearly the dispersal of population beyond the Dublin region. Population growth in Dublin City much slower than national and regional averages Population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged significantly behind national population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the State the population increased by 30 per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 10.3 per cent in Dublin City. These figures reflect the rapid outward expansion of population and housing during the period of the residential property boom. Dublin City share of regions population declines Dublin City’s share of the Dublin region’s population declined from 47 to 41 per cent between 1991 and 2011. By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per cent over the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has remained static at 21 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
  7. 7. 7 However, the inner City Dublin shows population increase In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city (see Appendix 1 for a description of the inner city) of Dublin has seen strong population growth. Between 1991 and 2011 the population of Dublin City increased by just 10.3 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 63% in the same period. This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city from the late 1980s onwards. Nonetheless, the rest of Dublin City sees population decline However, while the inner city saw a significant increase in population, in the rest of the city there was a decrease of 1% between 1991 and 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population. Given strong national and regional increases in population in this period, this loss of population is notable. Almost half of the 162 Electoral Districts in Dublin City Council saw population decline. Dublin City has the lowest average household size in the Greater Dublin Area. In 2011 the average household size in Dublin City was 2.40 compared with 2.73 for the GDA. Average household size has fallen consistently since 1991. Average household size in the state has fallen from 3.14 in 1996 to 2.73 in 2011. Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households Almost 31% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and South Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised of husband and wife with children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife with children compared with 31% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal, 34% in South Dublin and almost 40% in Kildare and Meath. Dynamics of Population Change Mass emigration has not returned, yet Given the severity of the recession many commentators had predicted that high levels of net emigration had returned over the 5 year period. However, the 2011 Census figures show that overall there was net positive in-migration of 122,292 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, of course, mean that there was no emigration out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it. An annual pattern of net emigration has begun to emerge over the years 2010-2012. Natural increase accounts for two thirds of recent population growth Nationally, two thirds of Ireland’s population growth between 2006 and 2011 was due to natural increase and one third to net migration. However, in the Border and Midlands regions, net migration was responsible for over half of population growth. By contrast, in the mid-west, net migration only accounted for 9 per cent of growth and in Dublin it accounted for 23 per cent of population growth. High rate of natural increase compared with EU average According to recent Central Statistics Office data, in 2008 Ireland had a rate of natural increase of 10.4 per thousand population compared with a rate of 1.2 per thousand for the EU 27, reflecting high birth and fertility rates. Birth rates high The total of live births went from 58,000 in 2001 to a high of 75,000 in 2008 and declined somewhat in the following three years. When measured per thousand population, birth rates increased from 15 per thousand in 2001 to a high of 17 per thousand in 2008 and declined to 16.3 in 2011.
  8. 8. 8 Life Expectancy increases Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. For males, life expectancy has moved from 57 years to 76.8 years between 1926 and 2006. For females life expectancy has improved from 57.9 years to 81.6 years over the same period. Considerations Strong natural increase in population to drive demand for education High birth and fertility rates will have the effect of an age cohort moving through pre-school, primary and secondary education in the coming years and will place demands on the education system. Some of these demands will relate to the overall provision of schools and teachers but some will also relate to the locational issues. In other words, there will be issues of where the demand occurs and how this is provided and managed. Age structure may confer competitive advantage in medium term It has been suggested that Ireland’s relatively young population may result in some competitive advantage over the medium term. This is based on the fact that Ireland will be a proportionately greater working age population than other EU countries with consequently less pressure on pensions and services for older people. However, there are implications for health services and pensions in long term Although the population of Ireland is on average younger than other EU countries, medium and longer term planning for an ageing population is important. As the population ages over the next few decades, this will have implications in the following areas, amongst others: The amount and type of health services The cost funding of health services Pension funding Technologies for assisted living and universal design Housing markets and wealth distribution Family support structures and community care These issues are already being examined by, among others, the Irish Ageing Well Network (www.ageingwellnetwork.ie) and by the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (see http://www.cardi.ie/. Dublin City Council has committed to promoting an age-friendly city. While an ageing population structure presents challenges it also presents social and economic opportunities. Sprawl and dispersion continue The evidence from a number of sources shows that we have an American-type urban and regional settlement pattern, that is, one which is based on low density housing and high car-dependency. The 2011 Census confirms that a pattern of population dispersal has continued even during the recession. This presents challenges with regard to: Provision of infrastructure Provision of social services Complex commuting patterns and accessibility Energy costs
  9. 9. 9 Highlighting need for stronger planning In theory the land use planning system in Ireland integrates national, regional, county and local spatial scales. However, the reality is that the system has been ineffective in containing the sprawl and dispersion of development in the eastern region. The amendment to the Planning and Development Act of 2010, which requires local development plans to have ‘core strategies’ which are consistent with regional and national planning frameworks should result in more sustainable settlement patterns. However, the lag time for this to emerge may not be noticeable in the short to medium term due to the effects of previous sprawl and the economic downturn. The challenge of falling population in the suburbs While this report has been dominated by the issue of population growth, it is worth recalling that in the Dublin City Council administrative area, suburban areas have seen population decline in the last decade. One of the challenges of such population decline relates to education facilities. The hard evidence to show how this population decline has affected demand for school places is not openly available. Further analysis of Census and land use data This report has given an overview of the main demographic trends in Dublin for the past two decades. Once full results are issued for Census 2011 additional and more detailed analysis could usefully be undertaken as follows: Analysis of demographic variables at electoral division level Analysis of inward migration patterns and structures Analysis of outward migration (emigration) patterns and structures Analysis of inter-county population flows Population forecasts Useful reference sites for accessing demographic mapping and analysis include the All-Island Regional Research Observatory www.airo.ie (spatial, social and economic databank resource for community, public and private bodies).
  10. 10. 10 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Context This report examines some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. Using the Census of Population from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006, and 2011 some of the principal demographic trends in Dublin are examined. This report is not an exhaustive catalogue of every demographic variable but rather an overview of some of the main trends. It is primarily descriptive in nature but does seek in the conclusions to draw out some of the implications of the population change described. The report forms part of Dublin City Council’s on-going strategy of generating an evidence base for policy formulation and evaluation. Report Rationale Understanding population structure and dynamics is one of the key bases for social and economic planning. More specifically, it is crucial with respect to analysing labour markets and the provision of social services such as education and health services among others. Population dynamics are influenced by a wide range of factors, one of which is the state of the economy. The period since the mid 1990s has been one of tremendous socio-economic and demographic change and this report aims to document some of the key elements of population change over those years. In particular it seeks to: Describe the key trends in the period 1991-2011 Describe some of the main long-range population forecasts Consider some of the implications of the results described in the report Report Structure The report has four main sections. Section 1 describes the main data sources used in compiling the report. Section 2 presents some of the key demographic trends in Europe, thus allowing the Irish and Dublin data to be understood in a wider context. Section 3, using Census of Population data from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 summarises some of the main population trends between 1991 and 2011. It focuses on population trends, age structure and dependency ratios and changes in household structures. Section 4 summarises the population forecasts of the Central Statistics Office and the Regional Planning Guidelines. Section 5 attempts to draw out some of the potential policy implications of the results presented and is inherently somewhat speculative. While the report was commissioned by Dublin City Council, the results are presented in the context of the Dublin Region, the Greater Dublin Area and the State. This comparative approach allows us to see Dublin City in context.
  11. 11. 11 1.2 Sources and Methods The report summarises and describes data from international and national data sources. All of the data used in the report is freely available for download and use so readers can explore the issues in further detail if required. European and Global Population Sources Section 2 of the report summarises some key global and European demographic trends. There are a number of key sources for such data, including Eurostat: (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes) and the United Nations population division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/). Eurostat publishes an annual yearbook of statistics on all aspects of the EU (population, economy etc.) and as part of the compendium the excel spread sheets with detailed tables on demography are available for download. These spread sheets are available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook_2010). For the most part section 2 uses these spreadsheets from the Eurostat annual yearbook. In addition to this, Eurostat maintain a database which, in some cases, has more up to date statistics than are available in the annual compendium (the database is available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database). Irish Data Sources The main sources used for demographic trends in Ireland were the Census of Population from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 and the series on Vital Statistics (births and deaths). The Census of Population data was used to trace the key demographic trends over the past decade. The Vital Statistics data were used to summarise life expectancy trends. Census of Population data were accessed both via the published reports as well as through the interactive tables via the Central Statistics Office website (www.cso.ie). The following data from the Census of Population were used in compiling the tables presented:
  12. 12. 12 Table 1.1 Census Variables Used Demographic Population (persons) Households Age cohorts Household composition Household size Nationality Country of Birth Housing Age of housing Tenure Dwelling Type Vacancy rates Geographic Analysis This report is mainly focused on the administrative area of Dublin City Council. However, in order to contextualise the data it is presented in the context of the Dublin Region and the Greater Dublin Area (See Table 1.2). Data at electoral division level are used to measure population change but not for other variables. Table 1.3 shows the composition of the eight regions. Table 1.2 Dublin Administrative Definitions Region Local Authority Dublin Region Dublin City Council Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Fingal County Council South Dublin County Council Mid East Region Kildare County Council Meath County Council Wicklow County Council Greater Dublin Area (combines the Dublin and Mid-East regions) Dublin City Council Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council Fingal County Council South Dublin County Council Kildare County Council Meath County Council Wicklow County Council
  13. 13. 13 Table 1.3 Composition of Regional Authorities Region Local Authority Border Cavan; Donegal; Leitrim; Louth; Monaghan; Sligo Midlands Laois; Longford; Offaly; Westmeath West Galway; Mayo; Roscommon Dublin Dublin City; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Fingal; South Dublin Mid East Kildare; Meath; Wicklow Mid West Clare; Limerick; North Tipperary South East Carlow; Kilkenny; South Tipperary; Waterford; Wexford South West Cork; Kerry
  14. 14. 14 2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT In order to set the analysis of Dublin’s demography in context it is important to place Ireland in a broader European and global context. This section of the report first places Europe in a global context and then places Ireland in its European context. The data in this section are from the most statistics compiled by Eurostat, released in October 2010 and data from the United Nations population division. 2.1 Europe in Comparative Context Europe’s share of world population declines Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that although Europe’s2 population increased between 1960 and 2010 from 604 million to 738 million, it has in relative terms decreased significantly. In 1960 it comprised 19.9 per cent of the world’s population but by 2010 it accounted for just 10.7 per cent of global population. In relative terms the populations of Africa, Asia and India have increased significantly. According to Eurostat, Europe’s population is in fact static in global terms. Table 2.1 World Population (million) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 World 3,038 3,333 3,696 4,076 4,453 4,863 5,306 5,726 6,123 6,507 6,896 Europe 604 634 656 676 693 707 720 727 727 731 738 Africa 287 324 368 420 483 555 635 721 811 911 1,022 Asia 1,708 1,886 2,135 2,393 2,638 2,907 3,199 3,470 3,719 3,945 4,164 Latin America and the Caribbean 220 253 286 323 362 402 443 483 521 557 590 Northern America 204 219 231 242 254 267 281 296 313 329 345 Oceania 16 17 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 34 37 China 658 710 815 915 983 1,057 1,145 1,214 1,269 1,308 1,341 India 448 496 554 622 700 784 874 964 1,054 1,140 1,225 Japan 93 97 104 111 116 120 122 124 126 126 127 Russian Federation 120 127 130 134 139 144 148 149 147 144 143 United States of America 186 199 209 219 230 241 253 266 282 297 310 Source: Eurostat (2012) Table 2.2 World Population (% of total) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Europe 19.9 19.0 17.7 16.6 15.6 14.5 13.6 12.7 11.9 11.2 10.7 Africa 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.2 14.0 14.8 Asia 56.2 56.6 57.8 58.7 59.2 59.8 60.3 60.6 60.7 60.6 60.4 Latin America and the Caribbean 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 Northern America 6.7 6.6 6.3 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 Oceania 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 China 21.7 21.3 22.0 22.4 22.1 21.7 21.6 21.2 20.7 20.1 19.5 India 14.7 14.9 15.0 15.3 15.7 16.1 16.5 16.8 17.2 17.5 17.8 Japan 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 Russian Federation 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 United States of America 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 Source: Eurostat (2012) 2 Defined by Eurostat as the EU-27 plus Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland and the Ukraine.
  15. 15. 15 Birth rates and fertility rates in Europe decline Tables 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate some of the key reasons for the static, and in some cases, declining population of Europe. Crude birth rates in Europe almost halved between 1960 and 2010, falling from 19 to 11 births per thousand population in that period. Likewise, average fertility rates have declined. In 1960 average fertility rates in Europe were 2.6 children per woman but by 2010 this had declined to a figure of 1.5. By contrast, fertility rates in Africa in 2010 stood at 4.6 children per woman. Average fertility rates globally have declined significantly from 4.9 children in the 1960s to 2.5 children in 2010. Table 2.3 Crude birth rate (per 1 000 population) 1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-10 World 34.6 33.6 31.3 28.3 27.7 27.0 24.5 22.4 20.8 20.0 Europe 19.1 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.3 13.7 11.5 10.2 10.2 10.8 Africa 47.4 46.6 46.1 45.5 44.3 42.5 40.2 38.4 37.1 35.6 Asia 38.5 38.1 34.6 29.6 28.8 28.0 24.8 22.0 19.8 18.6 Latin America and the Caribbean 41.1 37.8 35.1 33.0 30.7 27.9 25.3 23.2 21.4 19.3 North America 22.0 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.4 15.5 15.1 13.9 13.7 13.7 Oceania 26.5 24.4 24.4 21.1 20.4 19.8 19.5 18.7 17.8 18.0 China 36.5 37.9 31.4 21.6 21.5 23.2 18.7 16.0 13.5 12.6 India 40.4 39.2 37.5 36.3 34.5 32.5 30.0 27.2 24.8 23.1 Japan 17.2 17.8 19.0 15.2 12.8 11.2 9.9 9.5 8.9 8.6 Russian Federation 21.0 14.4 15.3 15.9 16.8 16.1 10.9 8.9 9.9 11.4 United States of America 21.8 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.5 15.7 15.3 14.2 14.1 14.0 Source: Eurostat (2012) Table 2.4 Average fertility rates (average number of children) 1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-10 World 4.9 4.8 4.4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.5 Europe 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 Africa 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6 Asia 5.6 5.6 5.0 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.3 Latin America and the Caribbean 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 North America 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 Oceania 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5 China 5.6 5.9 4.8 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 India 5.8 5.7 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 Japan 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 Russian Federation 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 United States of America 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 Source: Eurostat (2012) Europe has an ageing population One of the main consequences of these trends, alongside increasing life expectancy, is that Europe has, in comparative terms, an ageing population. Figure 2.1 shows that in 2010 just over 16 per cent of Europe’s population were aged over 65 years whereas in Africa only 3.5 per cent of the population were over 65. This ageing of the population has given rise to concerns about the impact on labour markets, pensions and provisions for healthcare, housing and social services.
  16. 16. 16 Figure 2.1 Proportion of the population aged 65 and over Source: Data extracted from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs online database (2012) Europe’s population to decline in long term Tables 2.5 and 2.6 (see also Figure 2.2) illustrate Eurostat’s population projections for Europe to the year 2050. These show that the population will increase in Europe to 2020 but thereafter begin to decline. With population increasing in Africa and India for example, it is forecast that Europe’s share of the global population will decline to 7.7% by 2050. Table 2.5 Population and population projections (million) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 World 6,507 6,896 7,284 7,657 8,003 8,321 8,612 8,874 9,106 9,306 Europe 731 738 742 744 744 741 737 732 726 719 Africa 911 1,022 1,145 1,278 1,417 1,562 1,713 1,870 2,030 2,192 Asia 3,945 4,164 4,375 4,566 4,730 4,868 4,978 5,061 5,115 5,142 Latin America and the Caribbean 557 590 622 652 679 702 720 735 745 751 Northern America 329 345 360 374 388 402 414 425 436 447 Oceania 34 37 39 42 45 47 49 51 53 55 China 1,308 1,341 1,370 1,388 1,395 1,393 1,382 1,361 1,332 1,296 India 1,140 1,225 1,308 1,387 1,459 1,523 1,580 1,627 1,665 1,692 Japan 126 127 126 125 123 120 117 114 111 109 Russian Federation 144 143 142 141 139 136 134 131 129 126 United States 297 310 324 337 350 362 373 383 393 403 Source: Eurostat (2012) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Europe Northern America Oceania Asia Latin America Africa
  17. 17. 17 Table 2.6 World Population (% of total) 1960 2005 2050 Europe 20.0 11.2 7.6 China 21.4 20.2 15.5 India 14.8 17.4 17.6 Japan 3.1 2.0 1.1 Russian Federation 4.0 2.2 1.3 United States 6.2 4.6 4.4 Other (2) more developed 1.0 0.9 0.9 Other (3) less developed 29.6 41.6 51.7 Source: Eurostat (2010) Figure 2.2 World Population (% of total) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Europe China India Japan Russian Federation United States Other more developed Other less developed 1960 2005 2050
  18. 18. 18 Figure 2.3 shows the population pyramids for the EU 27 states from 1950 to 2050. What is of particular interest is the forecast for 2030 and 2050, which shows that the structure of the EU population will be one which has a high proportion of elderly persons. One of the most interesting aspects which the 2030 and the 2050 pyramids show is the increasing proportion of population over 80 years of age. While demographers have traditionally used the category of 65 and over to define elderly, given longer life expectancies, increasingly they are using 80 and over as an additional category. Figure 2.3 Population Pyramids for EU 27 1950-2050 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 80+ 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 Male Female
  19. 19. 19 2.2 Ireland in a European Context Ireland is not typical of average European trends and has a younger population While the previous section has shown that the European population is stagnating and declining in relative terms, this section examines Ireland in its European context and demonstrates that Ireland is atypical of general European trends. Table 2.7 shows that in Ireland 11.3 per cent of the population were over 65 years in 2010 but that the provisional average for the EU27 countries was 17.4 per cent. In Germany 20.7 per cent of the population was over 65 years. Looking at the figures for those in the 0-14 age category, 21.3 per cent of Ireland’s population is in this group, the highest in Europe. By contrast, Germany has 13.5 per cent in the 0-14 age group, while the provisional average for the EU27 is 15.6 per cent. Table 2.7 Population by age class, 2010 (% of total population) 0 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 to 79 80 years years years years years years and more EU-27 15.6p 12.1p 35.8p 19.1p 12.7p 4.7p Euro Area 17 15.4p 11.4p 36p 18.9p 13.3p 5p Euro Area 16 15.4p 11.4p 36p 18.9p 13.3p 5p EU 15 Austria 14.9 12.2 37 18.4 12.8 4.8 Belgium 16.9 12.1 34.6 19.3 12.2 4.9 Denmark 18.1 12.2 33.7 19.6 12.2 4.1 Finland 16.6 12.3 32.3 21.7 12.4 4.6 France 18.5p 12.5p 33.2p 19.2p 11.4p 5.2p Germany 13.5 11.3 35.3 19.3 15.6 5.1 Greece 14.4 10.6 37.2 18.9 14.3 4.6 Ireland 21.3 12.5 38.8 16 8.5 2.8 Italy 14.1 10.1 36.7 19 14.5 5.8 Luxembourg 17.7 11.9 38.6 17.8 10.3 3.6 Netherlands 17.6 12.2 34.8 20.1 11.4 3.9 Portugal 15.2 11.1 37.2 18.6 13.4 4.5 Spain 14.9 10.6 40.2 17.4 12 4.9 Sweden 16.6 13.3 32.9 19.1 12.8 5.3 United Kingdom 17.5 13.3 34.7 18.2 11.8 4.6 Source: Eurostat: (2012) Ireland has one of the lowest old age dependency ratios in Europe Table 2.8 explores the issue in more detail through examining the young and old-age dependency ratios (definitions in Box 1). With regard to the old-age dependency ratio in 2010, Ireland had the lowest ratio in Europe at 16.8 per cent while the average in the EU27 is 25.9 per cent. In Germany and Italy, for example the old-age ratio is just over 30 per cent. Conversely, in 2010 Ireland had the highest young-age dependency ratio at 31.7 per cent, while Germany, Italy and Spain had rates between 20 and 22 per cent. In summary, Ireland has the youngest population structure in Europe.
  20. 20. 20 Table 2.8 Age-related dependency ratios % Young-age dependency ratio Old-age dependency ratio 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 EU-27 : : : 29.2 25.7 23.3 : : : 20.6 23.2 25.9 Euro area : : : 27.2 24.5 23.3 : : : 20.9 24.1 27.5 EU 15 Austria 33 39.5 32.4 26 25.4 19.7 18.4 22.7 24.3 22.1 22.9 26.1 Belgium 36.2 37.5 31 27 26.9 25.6 18.5 21.2 21.9 22.1 25.5 26 Denmark 39.8 36.4 32.7 25.5 27.6 27.6 16.4 18.9 22.2 23.2 22.2 24.9 Finland 49.4 37.7 30.2 28.7 27.2 25 11.6 13.6 17.6 19.8 22.2 25.6 France 42.2 40 35.4 30.5 29.3 28.6 18.7 20.6 22.1 21.1 24.3 25.6 Germany 31.1 36.8 28.6 23.1 23.1 20.5 17 21.4 23.9 21.6 23.9 31.4 Greece 37.6 37.5 36.2 29.3 22.9 21.5 14.2 17.2 20.6 20.4 24.2 28.4 Ireland 53.2 54.2 51.8 44.7 32.8 31.7 19.2 19.3 18.2 18.6 16.8 16.8 Italy 37.4 38.1 35.1 24.5 21.2 21.4 14 16.7 20.3 21.5 26.8 30.8 Luxembourg 31.5 33.8 28.1 24.9 28.3 26 15.9 19.1 20.3 19.3 21.4 20.4 Netherlands 49.1 43.8 34.3 26.4 27.4 26.2 14.6 16.2 17.4 18.6 20 22.8 Portugal 46.8 46.8 41.6 31.6 24 22.7 12.4 14.9 17.8 20 23.7 26.7 Spain 42.6 44.2 41.2 30.5 21.8 21.9 12.7 15.2 17.1 20.2 24.5 24.7 Sweden 34.5 31.8 30.9 27.7 28.8 25.4 17.8 20.7 25.3 27.7 26.9 27.7 United Kingdom 35.9 38.2 33.2 29 29.4 26.4 18 20.5 23.3 24.1 24.3 24.9 Source: Eurostat (2012) Box 1 Dependency Ratios Definitions Young-age dependency ratio the population aged up to and including 14 years related to the population aged between 15 and 64 years; Old-age dependency ratio the population aged 65 years or older related to the population aged between 15 and 64 years; Total dependency ratio the population aged up to and including 14 years and aged 65 years or older related to the population aged between 15 and 64 years Source: Eurostat (2012) Ireland one of small group of countries in the EU where population is forecast to grow strongly Table 2.9 and Figure 2.4 present Eurostat’s population projections for Europe to 2060. In overall terms the projections show very limited population growth in Europe (EU27) over this long time frame, with the population projected to increase from 501 million in 2010 to only 517 million in 2060. However, this disguises significant differences between different countries. The population of Ireland, France, Spain and the UK are projected to grow significantly, but that of Italy to remain static and that of Germany to decline. The population of the UK is projected to increase from 62 million to almost 79 million between 2010 and 2060. The population of Germany, on the other hand, is projected to decline by 15.4 million over the same period. These variations in population projections, if broadly correct, would give rise to quite different challenges for different countries. Germany, with a declining and ageing population could, according to Eurostat, face difficulties with respect to labour shortages and pension provision. The UK, by contrast, would face the pressures of accommodating a significantly increased population.
  21. 21. 21 Table 2.9 Eurostat population and population projections (Million) 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 % change 2010 to 2060 EU-27 435.5 457. 470.4 482.8 497.7 501.1 514.4 522. 525.7 524.0 516.9 3.2% EU 15 Austria 7.5 7.5 7.6 8 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.9 5.9% Belgium 9.7 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.7 10.8 11.6 12.2 12.7 13.1 13.4 24.0% Denmark 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 9.8% Finland 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.3% France 50.5 53.7 56.6 60.5 64 64.7 65.6 68.0 69.9 71.0 71.8 14.7% Germany 78.3 78.2 79.1 82.2 82.2 81.8 80.1 77.9 74.8 70.8 66.4 -18.8% Greece 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.9 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.3 -0.1% Ireland 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.2 6.5 46.5% Italy 53.7 56.4 56.7 56.9 59.6 60.3 62.9 64.5 65.7 65.9 65.0 7.7% Luxembourg 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 45.0% Netherlands 13 14.1 14.9 15.9 16.4 16.6 17.2 17.6 17.6 17.4 17.1 3.0% Portugal 8.7 9.7 10 10.2 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.6 10.3 -3.5% Spain 33.6 37.2 38.8 40 45.3 46.0 48.0 50.0 51.7 52.7 52.3 13.7% Sweden 8 8.3 8.5 8.9 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.5 23.4% United Kingdom 55.5 56.3 57.2 58.8 61.2 62.0 66.3 70.2 73.4 76.4 78.9 27.3% Source: Eurostat (2012)
  22. 22. 22 Figure 2.4 EU Population Change, 1960-2060 Source: Eurostat (2012) Box 2 EU sources on population projections and ageing Link to latest reports on EU population projections http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/publications/population_projections Links to demographic databases EUrostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database Ireland has a high fertility rate Table 2.10 confirms that in the EU context Ireland has a high fertility rate. The fertility rate for Ireland in 2010 was 2.07 children while in Germany, for example, it was 1.39. This high fertility rate, in conjunction with lower mortality rates, has meant that natural increase in Ireland is relatively more important than in other EU states. According to the Census of 2011, Ireland had a rate of natural increase of 10.2 per thousand population compared with a provisional rate of 0.8per thousand for the EU 27. -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UnitedKingdom % Change 1960-2010 % Change 2010-2060
  23. 23. 23 Table 2.10 Total Fertility Rate (mean number of children) Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 EU 27 : : 1.45 1.47 1.5 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.6 1.59 1.6 Eu-25 : : : 1.48 1.51 1.52 1.55 1.57 1.62 : : Belgium 1.67 : : 1.66 1.72 1.76 1.8 1.82 1.86 1.84 1.86 Bulgaria 1.26 1.21 1.21 1.23 1.29 1.32 1.38 1.42 1.48 1.57 1.49 Czech Republic 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.44 1.5 1.49 1.49 Denmark 1.77 1.74 1.72 1.76 1.78 1.8 1.85 1.84 1.89 1.84 1.87 Germany 1.38 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.36 1.34 1.33 1.37 1.38 1.36 1.39 Estonia 1.38 1.34 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.5 1.55 1.63 1.65 1.62 1.63 Ireland 1.89 1.94 1.97 1.96 1.93 1.86 1.92 2.01 2.07 2.07 2.07 Greece 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.3 1.33 1.4 1.41 1.51 1.52 1.51 Spain 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.31 1.33 1.35 1.38 1.4 1.46 1.4 1.38 France 1.89 1.9 1.88 1.89 1.92 1.94 2 1.98 2.01 2 2.03 Italy 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.33 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.41 1.41 Cyprus 1.64 1.57 1.49 1.5 1.49 1.42 1.45 1.39 1.46 1.51 1.44 Latvia : : 1.23 1.29 1.24 1.31 1.35 1.41 1.44 1.31 1.17 Lithuania 1.39 1.3 1.24 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.31 1.35 1.47 1.55 1.55 Luxembourg 1.76 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.66 1.63 1.65 1.61 1.61 1.59 1.63 Hungary 1.32 1.31 1.3 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.32 1.35 1.32 1.25 Malta 1.7 1.48 1.45 1.48 1.4 1.38 1.39 1.37 1.44 1.44 1.38 Netherlands 1.72 1.71 1.73 1.75 1.72 1.71 1.72 1.72 1.77 1.79 1.79 Austria 1.36 1.33 1.39 1.38 1.42 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.41 1.39 1.44 Poland 1.35 1.31 1.25 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.27 1.31 1.39 1.4 1.38 Portugal 1.55 1.45 1.47 1.44 1.4 1.4 1.36 1.33 1.37 1.32 1.36 Romania 1.31 1.27 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.32 1.32 1.3 1.35 1.38 1.33 Slovenia 1.26 1.21 1.21 1.2 1.25 1.26 1.31 1.38 1.53 1.53 1.57 Slovakia 1.3 1.2 1.19 1.2 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.32 1.41 1.4 Finland 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.76 1.8 1.8 1.84 1.83 1.85 1.86 1.87 Sweden 1.54 1.57 1.65 1.71 1.75 1.77 1.85 1.88 1.91 1.94 1.98 United Kingdom 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.71 1.77 1.78 1.84 1.9 1.96 1.94 1.98 Iceland 2.08 1.95 1.93 1.99 2.04 2.05 2.08 2.09 2.15 2.23 2.2 Liechtenstein 1.57 1.52 1.47 1.36 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.42 1.43 1.71 1.4 Norway 1.85 1.78 1.75 1.8 1.83 1.84 1.9 1.9 1.96 1.98 1.95 Switzerland 1.5 1.38 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.5 1.52 Montenegro : : : : : 1.6 1.63 1.69 1.77 1.85 1.69 Croatia : : 1.34 1.32 1.34 1.41 1.38 1.4 1.46 1.49 1.46 Macedonia 1.88 1.73 1.8 1.77 1.52 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.47 1.52 1.56 Source: Eurostat (2012)
  24. 24. 24 Expectancy increases When it comes to life expectancy, Ireland is at or above the EU average. Table 2.11 shows the most recent Eurostat data on life expectancy and shows that for males Ireland had a life expectancy of 77.3 in 2006 compared with an EU average of 75.8. Recent member states such as Latvia and Lithuania had average life expectancies of 65.4 and 65.3 years respectively. Table 2.11 Life Expectancy at Birth Male Female 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 EU-27 : 74.5 75.2 75.8 : : : 80.9 81.5 82 82.4 : Euro area : 76 76.8 : : : : 82.2 82.8 : : : Belgium 74.6 75.1 76 76.6 76.9 77.6 81 81.2 81.8 82.3 82.6 83 Bulgaria 68.4 68.8 68.9 69.2 69.8 70.3 75 75.5 75.8 76.3 77 77.4 Czech Republic 71.7 72.1 72.6 73.5 74.1 74.5 78.5 78.7 79.2 79.9 80.5 80.9 Denmark 74.5 74.8 75.4 76.1 76.5 77.2 79.2 79.4 80.2 80.7 81 81.4 Germany 75.1 75.7 76.5 77.2 77.6 78 81.2 81.3 81.9 82.4 82.7 83 Estonia 65.5 65.3 66.4 67.4 68.7 70.6 76.2 77 77.8 78.6 79.5 80.8 Ireland 74 75.2 76.4 77.3 77.8 78.7 79.2 80.5 81.4 82.1 82.4 83.2 Greece 75.5 76.2 76.6 77.2 77.7 78.4 80.6 81.1 81.3 81.9 82.3 82.8 Spain 75.8 76.3 76.9 77.7 78.2 79.1 82.9 83.2 83.7 84.4 84.5 85.3 France 75.3 75.7 76.7 77.3 77.8 78.3 83 83 83.8 84.4 84.8 85.3 Italy 77 77.4 77.9 78.5 79.1 : 82.9 83.2 83.8 84.2 84.5 : Cyprus 75.4 76.4 76.8 78.8 78.5 : : 81 82.1 82.4 83.1 : Latvia : 64.7 65.9 65.4 67 68.6 : 76 76.2 76.3 77.8 78.4 Lithuania 66.8 66.2 66.3 65.3 66.3 68 77.5 77.5 77.7 77 77.6 78.9 Luxembourg 74.6 74.6 75.9 76.8 78.1 77.9 81.3 81.5 82.3 81.9 83.1 83.5 Hungary 67.6 68.3 68.7 69.2 70 70.7 76.2 76.7 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.6 Malta 76.2 76.3 77.4 77 77.1 79.2 80.3 81.3 81.2 81.9 82.3 83.6 Netherlands 75.6 76 76.9 77.7 78.4 78.9 : 80.7 81.5 82 82.5 83 Austria 75.2 75.8 76.4 77.2 77.8 77.9 81.2 81.7 82.1 82.8 83.3 83.5 Poland 69.6 70.3 70.6 70.9 71.3 72.1 78 78.8 79.2 79.7 80 80.7 Portugal 73.2 73.8 75 75.5 76.2 76.7 80.2 80.6 81.5 82.3 82.4 82.8 Romania 67.7 67.3 68.2 69.2 69.7 70.1p 74.8 74.7 75.5 76.2 77.2 77.6p Slovenia 72.2 72.6 73.5 74.5 75.5 76.4 79.9 80.5 80.8 82 82.6 83.1 Slovakia 69.2 69.8 70.3 70.4 70.8 71.7 77.5 77.7 78 78.4 79 79.3 Finland 74.2 74.9 75.4 75.9 76.5 76.9 81.2 81.6 82.5 83.1 83.3 83.5 Sweden 77.4 77.7 78.4 78.8 79.2 79.6 82 82.1 82.8 83.1 83.3 83.6 United Kingdom 75.5 76 76.8 77.3 77.8 78.7 80.3 80.6 81 81.7 81.9 82.6 Source: Eurostat (2010)
  25. 25. 25 2.3 Global trend of increased urbanisation Global population increasingly urban According to the United Nations (UN), in 2010 half of the world’s population was urban and they predict that by 2050 this will have risen to 70 per cent (See table 2.12 and Figure 2.5). In Ireland, currently 62 per cent of our population live in urban areas but the UN predicts that this will rise to almost 80 per cent by 2050. Cities occupy 2 per cent of land but use two thirds of all energy and generate two thirds of all emissions, hence the increasing focus of environmental policy on the development and management of urban areas. As cities become more important economically There is a significant body of evidence on the growing importance of cities as economic drivers. Cities are responsible for generating more than 80% of global GDP3 yet they occupy just 2% of the world’s land surface4 . A recent report by the Brookings Global Metro Monitor5 of the world’s 150 largest metro economies demonstrated that in 2007 they accounted for just under 12% of the global population but generated approximately 46% of world GDP. Figure 2.5 An Increasingly Urban World Source: UN (2012) 3 McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities” 4 http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100325_DESA.doc.htm 5 http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor.aspx 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Increasing Urbanisation of the World World Ireland
  26. 26. 26 McKinsey’s “Mapping the economic power of cities” demonstrated that the top 600 cities in the world accounted for 60% of global GDP yet only hold about one-fifth of the global population6 . The increasing importance of cities in their contribution to regional GDP and how this varies across the world is highlighted by the fact that (see Figure 2.6): 1) Chinese cities in the top 600 global cities accounted for almost 74% of GDP in China (and is predicted to rise to 90% in 2025), 2) Western European cities accounted for 59% of European GDP. 3) American cities accounted for 92% of national GDP in 2005. Figure 2.6 Role of Cities and Economic Development Source: McKInsey 2011 A comprehensive analysis of competitive cities in the global economy by the OECD in 2007 showed that the role of cities also varies in significance from region to region. For example, there are a number of cities such as Budapest, Seoul, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki, Randstad-Holland and Brussels that concentrate nearly half of their national GDP whilst Oslo, Auckland, Prague, London, Stockholm, Tokyo, and Paris account for around one third 7 . Cities are also significant in terms of job creation and employment - almost 50% of the jobs in many nations are found in their largest city8 . In addition, most metro-regions have a higher GDP per capita than their national average, a higher labour productivity level, and many of them tend to have faster growth rates than the national 6 McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities” 7 OECD (2007), Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy. 8 Ibid
  27. 27. 27 average for their countries9 . These findings are supported by the Brookings, Global Metro Monitor (2010) – “The Patch to Economic Recovery”, which found that nearly 4 in 5 of the metro regions had average incomes that exceed averages for their nations. Many observers talk about the 21st century being the century of the city.10 The increasing importance of cities is also reflected in the increasing attention focused on cities by many national and international organisations. Institutions such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations and the World Bank have all published detailed analysis and research on global cities11 . Cities are also a hot topic amongst many of the world’s leading professional and consultancy firms. For example, IBM’s Smarter Cities programme, Citi Bank ‘Citi for Cities’ Programme12 , Price Waterhouse Cooper’s (PWC) ‘Cities of Opportunity’13 , McKinsey Global Institute’s, “Urban World, Mapping the Economic Power of Cities”, KPMG’s, “Global Cities Investment Monitor”14 , and AT. Kearney’s – “Global Cities Index”15 . There are also increasing numbers of research institutes focusing on cities including the LSE for Cities Institute who recently produced the Global Metro Monitor, the Globalisation and World Cities (GAWC) programme led by Peter Taylor and the University of Loughborough16 and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) “Global Urban Competitiveness Project”. Cities and the environment Other initiatives such as The Carbon Disclosure Project17 – “The Case for City Disclosure” recognise the increasing economic importance of cities and the pivotal roles that they can play in tackling climate change18 . The Siemens Green City Index (2010) in conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) benchmarks the green credentials of global cities19 . More recently UN-Habitat have launched the World Urban Campaign20 and the 100 cities initiative21 . 9 Ibid. 10 Rockefeller Foundation, Century of the City: No Time to Lose, (2008) 11 OECD Competitive cities in the global economy (2007), The Global City Indicators Project (GCIP) initiated by the World Bank, “City Indicators – From Now to Najing,” 2007. http://www.cityindicators.org 12 http://citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/ 13 http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity 14 http://www.greater-paris-investment-agency.com/pdf/GPIA-KPMG-22-juin-2010-version-definitive.pdf 15 http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/global-cities-index.html 16 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/ 17 https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx 18 CDP for Cities – Making the case, 2010, Accenture. 19 Green City Index - http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.html 20 http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=63 21 The 100 Cities Initiative is a forum for the best stories of change in cities that all aim for a smarter urban future.
  28. 28. 28 Table 2.12 Global Urbanisation Trends Major area, region, country or area 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 World 34 37 39 43 47 52 56 60 64 67 Africa 19 24 28 32 36 39 43 48 53 58 Asia 21 24 27 32 37 44 50 56 60 64 Europe 57 63 67 70 71 73 75 77 80 82 Austria 65 65 65 66 66 67 70 73 75 78 Belgium 92 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 98 98 Bulgaria 37 52 62 66 69 73 78 81 83 85 Czech Republic 60 64 75 75 74 73 74 75 77 80 Cyprus 36 41 59 67 69 70 72 75 78 80 Denmark 74 80 84 85 85 87 88 89 90 91 Estonia 58 65 70 71 69 69 70 72 75 78 Finland 55 64 72 79 82 84 85 86 87 89 France 62 71 73 74 77 85 90 91 92 93 Germany 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 77 80 82 Greece 43 53 58 59 60 61 64 68 71 75 Hungary 56 60 64 66 65 69 73 77 79 82 Ireland 46 52 55 57 59 62 65 69 72 75 Italy 59 64 67 67 67 68 70 73 76 79 Latvia 53 61 67 69 68 68 68 70 73 76 Lithuania 39 50 61 68 67 67 68 71 74 77 Luxembourg 70 74 80 81 84 85 87 89 90 92 Malta 90 90 90 90 92 95 96 97 97 98 Netherlands 60 62 65 69 77 83 86 88 89 91 Poland 48 52 58 61 62 61 61 63 66 70 Portugal 35 39 43 48 54 61 66 70 74 77 Romania 34 40 46 53 53 53 54 56 60 65 Slovakia 33 41 52 56 56 55 55 57 62 66 Slovenia 28 37 48 50 51 50 50 53 58 62 Spain 57 66 73 75 76 77 79 81 83 85 Sweden 72 81 83 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 United Kingdom 78 77 78 78 79 80 81 83 84 86 Latin America and the Caribbean 49 57 64 70 75 79 81 83 85 87 United States of America 70 74 74 75 79 82 84 86 88 89 Oceania 67 71 71 71 70 71 71 71 72 73 Source: United Nations Population Division (2012)
  29. 29. 29 3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011 This section presents some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. It is based on Census data from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011. 3.1 Key Population Trends National population grows strongly Table 3.1 shows that the population of the state has grown by 30 per cent in the period 1991 – 2011, increasing from 3.53 million to 4.59 million, that is by just over a million people. Despite the recession, and expectations that population growth would slow, the population grew by 348,404 between 2006 and 2011 or by 8.2%. Table 3.1 National Population Change 1961-2011 Population (Number) Actual change since previous census (Number) Percentage change since previous census (%) 1961 2,818,341 79,923 -2.8 1966 2,884,002 65,661 2.3 1971 2,978,248 94,246 3.3 1979 3,368,217 389,969 13.1 1981 3,443,405 75,188 2.2 1986 3,540,643 97,238 2.8 1991 3,525,719 14,924 -0.4 1996 3,626,087 100,368 2.8 2002 3,917,203 291,116 8.0 2006 4,239,848 322,645 8.2 2011 4,588,252 348,404 8.2 Marked regional variations in population growth Over the period 1991-2011 there were very marked variations in regional population trends. The Dublin Region saw growth of 24% over the period, below the national average. What stands out, however, is the remarkable growth in the Mid-East region, with an increase of 63% over the period. The Midlands region also saw above average growth, with an increase of 39%. These population figures clearly demonstrate the rapid and strong outward movement of population in the eastern area (See Figure 3.1 for intercensal change).
  30. 30. 30 Significant regional variations in recent population growth Table 3.2 shows that while the national population grew by 8.2% between 2006 and 2011, there were significant regional variations in population growth. In the midland and mid-east regions, population grew by 12.2 per cent. This latter growth reflects, we suggest, a continued dispersal of population beyond the Greater Dublin Area (See Figure 3.2).The Dublin Region saw growth of 7.2 per cent, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region only had a growth of 5.1 per cent, well below the national trend. Table 3.2 Regional Population Change 1991-2011 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 1991- 1996 1996- 2002 2002- 2006 2006- 2011 1991- 2011 Persons % change Border 402,987 407,295 432,534 468,375 514,891 1.1 6.2 8.3 9.9 27.8 Midland 202,984 205,542 225,363 251,664 282,410 1.3 9.6 11.7 12.2 39.1 West 342,974 352,353 380,297 414,277 445,356 2.7 7.9 8.9 7.5 29.9 Dublin 1,025,304 1,058,264 1,122,821 1,187,176 1,273,069 3.2 6.1 5.7 7.2 24.2 Mid East 325,291 347,407 412,625 475,360 531,087 6.8 18.8 15.2 11.7 63.3 Mid West 310,728 317,069 339,591 361,028 379,327 2.0 7.1 6.3 5.1 22.1 South East 383,188 391,517 423,616 460,838 497,578 2.2 8.2 8.8 8.0 29.9 South West 532,263 546,640 580,356 621,130 664,534 2.7 6.2 7.0 7.0 24.9 State 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,588,252 2.8 8.0 8.2 8.2 30.1 Figure 3.1 Population Change 1991-2011 0 5 10 15 20 1991-1996 1996-2002 2002-2006 2006-2011 % change on previous census CensusPeriod Population Change 1991 - 2011 State Mid East Dublin
  31. 31. 31 Figure 3.2 Regional Population Change 2006-2011 Source: Census of Population 2011 Results 3.2 Population Change in Dublin Dublin region has slower growth than the national average Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarise population change in Dublin between 1991 and 2011. The Dublin region has grown at a slower pace than the state, increasing its population by 24.2 per cent in the equivalent period (from 1.025m to 1.273m) compared to the national average of 30.1 per cent. However, Fingal was the exception with a population growth of some 79 per cent over the past two decades. Strong growth in the Mid-East region Population grew very strongly in the Mid-East region over the past two decades. Kildare, Meath and Wicklow had increases of 72, 75 and 41 per cent respectively. These figures clearly show the dispersal of population beyond the Dublin region.
  32. 32. 32 Population growth in Dublin City slower than national and regional averages Table 3.3 shows that population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged significantly behind national population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the State the population increased by 30 per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 10.3 per cent in Dublin City. Fingal County Council, by contrast, witnessed a population increase of 79.4 per cent over the same period. These figures reflect the rapid outward expansion of population and housing during the period of the residential property boom and are in some ways to be expected. However, the low levels of population growth in Dublin City are quite noticeable. Table 3.3 Population Change 1991-2011 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 478,389 481,854 495,781 506,211 527,612 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 185,410 189,999 191,792 194,038 206,261 Fingal 152,766 167,683 196,413 239,992 273,991 South Dublin 208,739 218,728 238,835 246,935 265,205 Dublin Region 1,025,304 1,058,264 1,122,821 1,187,176 1,273,069 Kildare 122,656 134,992 163,944 186,335 210,312 Meath 105,370 109,732 134,005 162,831 184,135 Wicklow 97,265 102,683 114,676 126,194 136,640 Mid-East Region 325,291 347,407 412,625 475,360 531,087 Greater Dublin Area 1,350,595 1,405,671 1,535,446 1,662,536 1,804,156 State 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,588,252 Source: Census of Population Table 3.4 Inter-Censal Population Change % 1991-1996 1996-2002 2002-2006 2006-2011 1991-2011 Dublin City 0.7 2.9 2.1 4.2 10.3 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2.5 0.9 1.2 6.3 11.2 Fingal 9.8 17.1 22.2 14.2 79.4 South Dublin 4.8 9.2 3.4 7.4 27.1 Dublin Region 3.2 6.1 5.7 7.2 24.2 Kildare 10.1 21.4 13.7 12.9 71.5 Meath 4.1 22.1 21.5 13.1 74.8 Wicklow 5.6 11.7 10.0 8.3 40.5 Mid East Region 6.8 18.8 15.2 11.7 63.3 GDA 4.1 9.2 8.3 8.5 33.6 State 2.8 8.0 8.2 8.2 30.1 Source: Census of Population Dublin City share of region’s population declines When we examine the distribution of the population within the Dublin Region since 1991 (Table 3.5) we can see that Dublin City’s share of the region’s population has declined from 47 to 41 per cent. By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per cent over the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has increased from 20 to 21 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
  33. 33. 33 Table 3.5 Dublin Region Population Share (%) 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 46.7 45.5 44.2 42.6 41.4 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 18.1 18.0 17.1 16.3 16.2 Fingal 14.9 15.8 17.5 20.2 21.5 South Dublin 20.4 20.7 21.3 20.8 20.8 Dublin Region 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population Table 3.6 and Figure 3.3 examine the share of Dublin City’s population in the context of the Greater Dublin Area. The same shrinkage in share of population can be seen. In 1991 Dublin City had 35% of the GDA population but this had decreased to 29% by 2011, once again reflecting the growth of population and housing in counties such as Fingal, Meath and Kildare. Table 3.7 demonstrates the declining population share between the Dublin region and state having declined from 29.1 to 27.7 per cent. Table 3.6 Greater Dublin Area Population Share (%) 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 35.4 34.3 32.3 30.4 29.2 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 13.7 13.5 12.5 11.7 11.4 Fingal 11.3 11.9 12.8 14.4 15.2 South Dublin 15.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 14.7 Kildare 9.1 9.6 10.7 11.2 11.7 Meath 7.8 7.8 8.7 9.8 10.2 Wicklow 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.6 GDA 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population Figure 3.3 Changing Share of Population in Greater Dublin Area (%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Dublin City Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
  34. 34. 34 Table 3.7 Percentage Share of Population of the State (%) 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 13.6 13.3 12.7 11.9 11.5 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.5 Fingal 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.7 6.0 South Dublin 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.8 Dublin Region 29.1 29.2 28.7 28.0 27.7 Kildare 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 Meath 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.0 Wicklow 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 GDA 38.3 38.8 39.2 39.2 39.3 Source: Census of Population Figure 3.4 National Share of Population in Dublin and the GDA (%) 29.1 29.2 28.7 28 27.7 38.3 38.8 39.2 39.2 39.3 20 25 30 35 40 45 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin Region GDA
  35. 35. 35 3.3 Sprawl and Dispersion in the Dublin Region Urban Sprawl and the Functional Urban Region This section examines in more detail some of the more notable spatial changes in Dublin over the past two decades. One of the most remarkable aspects of population growth over the past two decades has been the dispersal of population across the Greater Dublin Area and into the other counties of Leinster. Work by Williams et al (2002, 2007 and 2011) over the past decade or so has shown that much of this development has been of a sprawl-like pattern and often discontinuous in nature. Figure 3.5 depicts what Williams et al term the Dublin Functional Urban Region as of 2006. The Functional Urban Region of Dublin, broadly defined as the economic sphere of influence of a region, has spread well beyond the formal administrative boundary of the Greater Dublin Area (See Box 3 for more detailed definition). Figure 3.5 Dublin Functional Urban Region 2006 Note: ECA refers to Economic Core Area and ERDO refers to the 1985 study by the Eastern Regional Development Organisation. See Williams et all (2011) for more detail.
  36. 36. 36 Apart from considerable local commentary and analysis of the sprawl in the Dublin region and beyond, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) cited Dublin as being one of the worst examples of the urban sprawl problem (European Environment Agency, 2006, p22). They concluded that Dublin's outward expansion was unsustainable in terms of resources, services and quality of life. The housing market, and an ineffective planning system, had been allowed to drive homebuyers further and further out of the city to low density settlements with poor provision of services. Box 3 Defining Functional Urban Regions A Functional Urban Region (FUR) is defined as the geographic space appropriate for the comparison of economic development in urban areas (Williams, 2007). It is the space within which businesses enjoy access to a wide range of infrastructure and services including: 1) Telecommunications 2) Business premises 3) Skilled labour Force 4) Educational institutions and research centres Antikainen (2005) provides a more quantitative definition whereby the FUR is described as: the ‘travel to work area’, principally it is an agglomeration of work places attracting the work force from the surrounding area. If a certain share of the labour force in a defined fringe area are out-commuters it is attached to the municipality to which the largest portion of commuters go. This method is good for defining the most pronounced employment centres to which the more simple threshold level of commuting applies. In many international studies, a commuting threshold of 15 – 20% of residents in a given municipality is used to determine whether that municipality is attached to a particular centre or not. Source: Williams et al (2011) Commuting patterns and sprawl The pattern of settlement across the eastern region of Ireland is very much centred on Dublin’s role as the national economic driver. According to the most recent regional accounts the Dublin region accounts for over 40% of the national economy while combined with the mid east accounts for 47% of Gross Value Added (Central Statistics Office, 2012). One of the consequences of the concentration of economic development has been the emergence of complex commuting patterns. The commuting patterns that are developing as a result of the urban sprawl that has encroached the mid east and further afield, have resulted in a dominance in car usage with few public transport options available for residents in these low density outer suburban areas. A recent European green city benchmarking report shows Dublin as being one of the worst performing cities in relation to public transport users across all European capital cities (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010; http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm). Figure 3.6, based on work by the All Island Research Observatory, demonstrate the functional urban area of Dublin using the most recent Census 2011 commuting data. The map is based on a 20% threshold, whereby 20% or over of the population of an electoral district commute to the Dublin Region for work purposes.
  37. 37. 37 Figure 3.6 Census 2011 Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold. Source: All Island Research Observatory, 2011
  38. 38. 38 Moland Model and Urban Development Patterns Under the aegis of the European Commission (Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy), the University of Maastricht developed the MOLAND model (http://moland.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) , which for a given area generates predictions as to future land uses under various economic and demographic scenarios. The Urban Environment Project (http://www.uep.ie/), a research project funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and based at University College Dublin, has produced extensive research on projecting future urban development patterns in the Dublin region22 . Over the period 2009 to 2011, this research pilot tested the MOLAND model in the Greater Dublin Area using 1990, 2000 and 2006 data. It established a detailed land use map of the region in 2006 and, using different scenarios, projected future land uses to 2026. Figure 3.7 shows land uses as of 2006 and Figure 3.8 shows land use in 2026 based in a continuation of current land use trends. Using this assumption, we can see a continuation of a dispersed settlement pattern. Other scenarios tested include, for example, the consolidation of the metropolitan footprint. This form of scenario testing will be of crucial importance in policy making and evaluation. In addition to this scenario testing, the model has been updated and extended by incorporating environmental variables and the production of sample environmental indicators. As environmental impacts often depend also on location, where the development and associated impacts take place is also an important consideration. This project has developed the analytical capacity to link development-space-environment dimensions of this important policy debate. This policy input is now published in Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010 – 2022 (2011) (http://www.rpg.ie/documents/RPGPrintA4). The work involved formulation of the preferred Settlement Strategy for the Dublin and Mid East Regional Authorities was informed by scenarios developed using the MOLAND framework (see Brennan et al, 2009). 22 The synthesis report on this research will be published by the EPA in late 2011 or early 2012
  39. 39. 39 Figure 3.7 Moland Model: Actual Land Use in 2006
  40. 40. 40 Figure 3.8 Moland Land Use Scenario for 2026
  41. 41. 41 Population dispersal continues The most recent census data confirm that population dispersal (sprawl) continues to occur in the Greater Dublin Area and beyond into other counties of Leinster. Figure 3.9 depicts the percentage population change across the electoral divisions of Leinster in the 2006-2011 period. The map shows strong population growth to the north (especially along the “northern fringe”) and west of the Dublin built up area but also strong population growth across Leinster in what is a sporadic manner. Figure 3.9 Percentage Population Change in Leinster by Electoral Division 2006-2011 Copyright © Ordnance Survey Ireland. Licence number 2011/22/CCMA/ Dublin City Council
  42. 42. 42 Figure 3.10 depicts the same data but shows the percentage change across each electoral division for the Dublin Region and some of the neighbouring electoral districts. Population in the Greater Dublin Area increased by an average of 8% in the 2006-2011 period, but the map shows that large swathes of Leinster increased by well over the average, indicating a strong pattern of population dispersal. Figure 3.10 Percentage Population Change in Dublin Area by Electoral Division 2006-2011 Copyright © Ordnance Survey Ireland. Licence number 2011/22/CCMA/ Dublin City Council
  43. 43. 43 Inner City Dublin shows population increase In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, a concentration of strong growth is evident in the inner city of Dublin (area between the canals). Table 3.8 summarises population change in Dublin City between 1991 and 2011. In that inter-censal period the population of Dublin City increased by 10.3 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 63.2% in the same period23 . This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city from the late 1980s onwards, due in large part to tax and other fiscal incentives aimed at stimulating urban regeneration. However, rest of Dublin City sees population decline While the inner city saw a significant increase in population in the rest of the city there was a decrease of 1% from 1991- 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population (see Figure 3.11 on the following page). Given strong national and regional increases in population in this period, this loss of population is striking. Without undertaking more extensive analysis of age structure and household type at electoral division level, it is not possible to be definitive as to the reasons for this, but clearly we are dealing with households which are at a later stage of the life cycle (empty nesting etc). The 2011 Census results show continuing growth in the inner city with a slight decline in the outer areas. Table 3.8 Population Change in Dublin City 1991-2011 Persons 1991 Persons 1996 Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Persons 2011 Change 1991- 2011 % change 1991- 2011 Dublin City 478,389 481,854 495,781 506,211 527,612 49,223 10.3% Total Inner City 84,055 94,112 112,044 124,036 137,142 53,087 63.2% Total rest of city 394,334 387,742 383,737 382,175 390,470 -3,864 -1.0% Source: Census of Population 23 See Appendix 1 for detailed breakdown of change in inner city wards and for administrative areas in Dublin City Council
  44. 44. 44 Figure 3.11 Population change in Dublin City 1991-2011 Source: Census of Population Table 3.9 examines population density in the Greater Dublin Area. These figures must be treated with caution as they encompass the entire area of the administrative units and not just what might be termed ‘urban’. For example, while Fingal has extensive new suburban developments much of its land would not be classified as urban (as demonstrated in the Moland land use map, Figure 3.6 and 3.7). Nonetheless, we can see that Dublin City has by far the highest population density per square kilometre. Table 3.9 Population Density per Square Kilometre KM 2 Population density 2002 Population density 2006 Population density 2011 Dublin Region 920.66 1219.6 1289.5 1382.8 Dublin City 117.61 4215.5 4304.1 4486.1 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 126.95 1510.8 1528.5 1624.7 Fingal 453.09 433.5 529.7 604.7 South Dublin 223.01 1071.0 1107.3 1189.2 Kildare 1694.2 96.8 110.0 124.1 Meath 2334.54 57.4 69.7 78.9 Wicklow 2032.6 56.4 62.1 67.2 State 70182.24 55.8 60.4 65.4 Source: Census of Population Persons 1991 Persons 1996 Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Persons 2011 Rest of Dublin City 394334 387742 383737 382175 390470 Total Inner City 84055 94112 112044 124036 137142 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 AxisTitle
  45. 45. 45 3.4 Components of Population Change Forecasts of mass levels of net emigration are off the mark Given the severity of the recession many commentators had calculated that mass emigration had returned over the census period. However, the 2011 Census figures (Table 3.10) show in fact that there was net positive in-migration of 122,292 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, infer that there was no emigration out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it over the 5 year Census Period. The years 2010 – 2012 demonstrate the emergence of net emigration for the first time since the mid 1990’s. Figure 3.12 displays the key components of population change from 1990 to 2011. Contribution of natural increase and net inward migration varies When we examine the contribution to population growth of natural increase versus net inward migration, we can see some significant differences (Table 3.10). Nationally, two thirds of population growth was due to natural increase and one third to net migration. However, in the Border and Midlands regions, net migration was responsible for over half of population growth. By contrast in the mid-west net migration only accounted for 9 per cent of growth and in Dublin it accounted for 23 per cent of population growth. Table 3.10 Regional Population Change 2006-2011 Population 2006 Population 2011 Increase in population Change % Natural increase Estimated net migration Natural Increase % Net Migration % Border 468,375 514,891 46,516 10 20,494 26,022 44.06 55.94 Dublin 1,187,176 1,273,069 85,893 7 66,421 19,472 77.33 22.67 Mid East 475,360 531,087 55,727 12 37,174 18,553 66.71 33.29 Mid West 361,028 379,327 18,299 5 16,713 1586 91.33 8.67 Midlands 251,664 282,410 30,746 12 15,144 15,602 49.26 50.74 South East 460,838 497,578 36,740 8 22,845 13,895 62.18 37.82 South West 621,130 664,534 43,404 7 29,558 13,846 68.10 31.90 West 414,277 445,356 31,079 8 17,763 13,316 57.15 42.85 State 4,239,848 4,588,252 348,404 8 226,112 122,292 64.90 35.10 Source: Census of Population
  46. 46. 46 Figure 3.12 Components of Population Change Table 3.11 examines the components of population change in the counties of Leinster between 2006 and 2011. It is useful here to examine the rates of natural increase and net migration per thousand population. Nationally, there was natural increase of 10.2 per thousand population and net migration of 5.5. When we examine these figures at a county level we see quite dramatic differences. In South Dublin for example we see that there was net migration out of the county, leading to a figure of -0.6 per thousand. By contrast, Laois had a net inward migration figure of 23.8 per thousand. -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 '000's Natural Increase Immigrants Emigrants Net Migration
  47. 47. 47 Table 3.11 Components of Population Change in Leinster 2006-2011 Change in population - persons (Number) Natural increase - persons (Number) Estimated net migration - persons (Number) Average annual rates per 1,000 of average population - births (Number) Average annual rates per 1,000 of average population - deaths (Number) Average annual rates per 1,000 of average population - natural increase (Number) Average annual rates per 1,000 of average population - estimated net migration (Number) Dublin Region Dublin City 21401 17357 4044 14.8 8.1 6.7 1.6 Dun Laoghaire 12223 7273 4950 13.7 6.4 7.3 4.9 Fingal 33999 22711 11288 21 3.3 17.7 8.8 South Dublin 18270 19080 -810 18.4 3.5 14.9 -0.6 Mid-East Region Kildare 23977 15362 8615 19.8 4.3 15.5 8.7 Meath 21304 13444 7860 20.1 4.6 15.5 9.1 Wicklow 10446 8368 2078 18.6 5.9 12.7 3.2 Rest of Leinster Carlow 4263 3314 949 19.1 6.5 12.6 3.6 Kilkenny 7861 3966 3895 15 6.3 8.7 8.5 Laois 13500 4703 8797 18.2 5.4 12.7 23.8 Longford 4609 1851 2758 18 7.9 10.1 15 Louth 11630 5820 5810 16.3 6.4 9.9 9.9 Offaly 5819 3845 1974 16.6 6.2 10.4 5.4 Westmeath 6818 4745 2073 17.9 6.4 11.5 5 Wexford 13571 7069 6502 17 6.8 10.2 9.4 Leinster 209691 138908 70783 17.4 5.8 11.6 5.9 State 348404 226112 122292 16.6 6.4 10.2 5.5 Source: Census of Population Tables 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 examine the components of population change in three inter-censal periods, looking in particular at migration trends. Table 3.12 which examines change in the period 1991-1996, shows outward migration from Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin, with in migration to Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Fingal is the only local authority in the Dublin Region with inward migration.
  48. 48. 48 Table 3.12 Components of Population Change 1991-1996 Population change Natural Increase Total estimated net migration Dublin Region 32960 36570 -3610 Dublin City 3465 7969 -4504 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 4589 5377 -788 Fingal 14917 10100 4817 South Dublin 9989 13124 -3135 Kildare 12336 6438 5898 Meath 4362 3582 780 Wicklow 5418 3703 1715 State 100368 92066 8302 Source: Census of Population Table 3.13 shows that during the main period of the economic boom 1996-2002, there was significant in migration into Dublin City, Fingal, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, however, experienced outward migration in this period Table 3.13 Components of Population Change 1996-2002 Population change Natural Increase Total estimated net migration Dublin Region 64557 50880 13677 Dublin City 13927 11622 2305 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 1793 6698 -4905 Fingal 28730 13551 15179 South Dublin 20107 19009 1098 Kildare 28952 11043 17909 Meath 24273 6318 17955 Wicklow 11993 5278 6715 State 291116 137235 153881 Source: Census of Population Table 3.14 examines components of population change in the more recent period of 2002-2006. It shows that there was a minor level of in migration to Dublin City but without migration from Dun- Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin. Fingal, however, saw extensive in migration of the order of 30,000 persons. Kildare, Meath and Wicklow also witnessed significant in migration.
  49. 49. 49 Table 3.14 Components of Population Change 2002-2006 Population change Natural Increase Total estimated net migration Dublin Region 64355 41704 22651 Dublin City 10430 9817 613 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2246 4381 -2135 Fingal 43579 13710 29869 South Dublin 8100 13796 -5696 Kildare 22391 9830 12561 Meath 28826 7441 21385 Wicklow 11518 4611 6907 State 322645 131314 191331 Source: Census of Population Table 3.15, shows the changes in the most recent intercensal period. Just over eighty per cent of the population growth in Dublin City was accounted for by natural increase while this fell to 60 per cent in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown. Table 3.15 Components of Population Change 2006-2011 Population change Natural Increase Total estimated net migration Dublin Region Dublin City 21,401 17,357 4,044 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 12,223 7,273 4,950 Fingal 33,999 22,711 11,288 South Dublin 18,270 19,080 -810 Kildare 23,977 15,362 8,615 Meath 21,304 13,444 7,860 Wicklow 10,446 8,368 2,078 State 348,404 226,112 122,292 Source: Census of Population
  50. 50. 50 3.5 Age Structure, Dependency Ratios and Life Expectancy Tables 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 examine the age structure of the population in 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 (see Appendix 2 for population pyramids for 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011). The most notable aspect of Table 3.16 is that Dublin City has a lower proportion of its population in the 0-14 age group than other counties. Dublin City has 18.3% of its population in this cohort as compared with 27 % in Fingal and South Dublin. Table 3.16 Age Structure in 1996 (%) Dublin City Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State 0-14 18.3 20.9 27.3 27.1 22.0 26.5 26.1 24.9 23.0 23.7 15-24 19.1 17.4 17.8 19.3 18.6 18.1 16.8 16.5 18.3 17.5 25-49 35.6 35.6 38.1 37.4 36.4 37.2 34.9 35.2 36.2 34.2 50-64 13.9 14.9 11.3 11.0 13.1 11.0 12.5 13.2 12.8 13.2 65-79 10.3 8.8 4.4 4.3 7.9 5.7 7.6 7.9 7.6 8.9 80+ 2.8 2.5 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.5 Source: Census of Population Table 3.17 displays the age structure of the population in 2002. The most obvious pattern to emerge is that Dublin City had 32% of its population in the 20-34 age group compared with 27% for Fingal and 23% in Kildare and 22% in Wicklow. However, Dublin has only 16% of its population in the 0-14 age group as compared with 22% in Fingal and South Dublin and 24% in Meath. Table 3.17 Age Structure in 2002 (%) Dublin City Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State 0-14 16.2 19.2 22.7 22.5 19.2 23.7 23.6 22.5 20.3 21.1 15-24 18.0 16.6 17.3 18.5 17.7 16.5 15.4 15.4 17.2 16.4 25-49 39.3 35.7 40.4 38.8 38.7 40.0 38.3 36.9 38.7 36.5 50-64 13.8 16.1 13.7 14.0 14.2 13.1 13.9 15.3 14.1 14.9 65-79 9.9 9.6 4.8 5.2 8.0 5.1 6.6 7.6 7.5 8.6 80+ 2.9 2.8 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6 Source: Census of Population Meath and Fingal have younger population profile than Dublin City Table 3.18 presents the age structure of the population as of 2006. One of the striking features is the relatively high proportion of 20 to 34 year olds in Dublin City when compared with other areas. In Dublin City 33% of the population are in the 20-34 age group compared to 24% in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and 25% nationally. However, Dublin City has only 16% of its population in the under 14 age category while Fingal has 22% and Kildare and Meath have 23%. These latter figures reflect more recent settlement patterns and hence a higher proportion of school going age.
  51. 51. 51 Table 3.18 Age Structure in 2006 (%) Dublin City Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State 0-14 15.0 18.2 22.1 21.7 18.3 23.1 23.4 21.5 19.6 20.4 15-24 16.9 15.7 14.9 16.4 16.2 15.0 13.5 14.1 15.6 14.9 25-49 41.5 36.2 43.8 39.5 40.7 41.1 41.1 38.7 40.6 38.2 50-64 13.9 16.5 13.2 15.2 14.5 14.0 14.0 15.8 14.5 15.4 65-79 9.6 10.3 4.8 6.0 8.0 5.2 6.1 7.6 7.5 8.4 80+ 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.3 2.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.7 Source: Census of Population Table 3.19 shows the age structure of the most recent Census figures of 2011 (see also Figure 3.13). The 20-34 year old age grouping represents 32% of the population in Dublin. This figure is the highest in the GDA followed by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown at 26%. Dublin City remains well above the national average which stands at 24%. In line with previous Census findings the proportion of 0-14 year olds in Dublin City remains low at 15%, while this age grouping represents 24% of the population in Fingal and 25% in Kildare and Meath. The latter figures also correspond with the results which show that Dublin City has a lower proportion of households with children when compared with other counties. Table 3.19 Age Structure in 2011 (%) Source: Census of Population Dublin City Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State 0-14 15.2 18.2 24.2 23.1 19.3 24.5 25.2 22.8 20.1 21.3 15-24 14.5 14.0 11.9 13.1 13.6 12.5 11.4 12.1 13.3 12.6 25-49 43.3 36.5 42.9 39.2 41.2 40.3 40.0 37.7 40.9 38.3 50-64 14.4 16.8 13.7 15.9 15.0 14.8 14.6 16.4 15.0 16.1 65-79 9.2 10.8 5.9 7.1 8.3 6.2 6.9 8.6 8.1 8.9 80+ 3.4 3.7 1.3 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8
  52. 52. 52 Figure 3.13 Age Structure 2011 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Dublin City DLR Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State 0-14 15-24 25-49 50-64 65-79 80+
  53. 53. 53 Figure 3.14 Dublin Region Population Pyramid 2011 (see Appendix 2 for GDA and Dublin City Pyramids) Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown have the highest old-age ratios Table 3.20 displays dependency ratios for the different areas of the GDA. With regard to the old age ratio we can see that while the average for the GDA is 15.1 per cent Dublin City Council’s rate is higher at 17.4 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown stands at 21.5 per cent. However, Fingal has the lowest old-age dependency ratio at 10.6% with Kildare and South Dublin at 11.7% and 12.7% respectively. The average young-age ratio for the GDA is 30.1% but it is 35 per cent or over in Fingal, Kildare and Meath. By contrast Dublin City Council has the lowest young-age ratio at 21%. Table 3.20 Dependency Ratios 2011 0-14 years 15-64 years over 65 years Young age ratio Old age ratio Total dependency ratio n N N % % % Dublin City 80029 381093 66490 21.0 17.4 38.4 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 37535 138854 29872 27.0 21.5 48.5 Fingal 66407 187723 19861 35.4 10.6 46.0 South Dublin 61281 180871 23053 33.9 12.7 46.6 Dublin Region 245252 888541 139276 27.6 15.7 43.3 Kildare 51568 142088 16656 36.3 11.7 48.0 Meath 46466 121347 16322 38.3 13.5 51.7 Wicklow 31172 90467 15001 34.5 16.6 51.0 GDA 374458 1242443 187255 30.1 15.1 45.2 State 979590 3073269 535393 31.9 17.4 49.3 Source: Census of Population 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 0-4 10-14 20-24 30-34 40-44 50-54 60-64 70-74 80-84 % AgeClass Female % Male %
  54. 54. 54 Birth rates and fertility rates are high One of the notable aspects of Irish population growth has been the high contribution of natural increase as compared with migration. This is illustrated by the continued high birth rates as seen in Table 3.21. The total of live births went from 58,000 in 2001 to a high of 76,000 in 2008 and has declined somewhat in the past three years. When measured per thousand population we can see that birth rates increase from 15 per thousand in 2001 to a high of 17.1 per thousand in 2008 and has declined to 16.3 in 2011. When we examine the fertility rate we can see that fertility rates have been increasing over the past decade from 1.96 per woman in 2001 to a high of 2.10 in 2008 and 2010. Table 3.21 Birth Rates-State Live Births number Birth rates per 1000 Total period Fertility Rate (TPFR)* 2001 57882 15.0 1.96 2002 60521 15.5 1.98 2003 61517 15.5 1.98 2004 61684 15.2 1.95 2005 61042 14.8 1.88 2006 64237 15.2 1.94 2007 70620 16.3 2.05 2008 75724 17.1 2.1 2009 74928 16.8 2.09 2010 74976 16.8 2.1 2011 74650 16.3 2.04 A fertility rate of 2.1 is considered the long run replacement rate. Source: Central Statistics Office, 2012 (Vital Statistics) Life Expectancy increases Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. As table 3.22 shows, for males life expectancy has moved from 57 years to 76.8 years between 1926 and 2006. For females life expectancy has improved from 57.9 years to 81.6 years over the same period. Table 3.22 Life Expectancy in Ireland Year Males females 1926 57.4 57.9 1946 60.5 62.4 1966 68.6 72.0 1986 71.0 76.7 2006 76.8 81.6 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011 Table 3.23 shows life expectancy by region at birth and at aged 65 years. There are only very minor differences between the regions and they are in line with the national averages.
  55. 55. 55 Table 3.23 Period Life Expectancy by Region Males Females Age =0 Age=65 Age =0 Age=65 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 Border 74.8 77.0 15.3 16.5 80.9 81.7 19.2 19.8 Midland 74.8 77.2 15.3 16.8 79.7 81.5 28.5 19.3 West 75.5 77.1 15.6 16.8 80.9 82.7 19.0 20.6 Dublin 75.2 76.7 15.5 16.9 80.2 81.2 18.9 19.7 Mid-East 75.9 77.2 15.5 16.6 80.5 81.4 18.8 19.5 Mid-West 74.4 76.3 15.3 16.1 79.8 80.4 18.6 18.7 South-East 75.3 76.8 15.4 16.7 80.3 81.7 18.6 19.9 South- West 75.2 76.5 15.3 16.4 80.5 81.6 18.8 20.0 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011 3.6 Nationality and Country of Birth Over the past fifteen years Ireland has become a more ethnically and racially diverse society than previously and Tables 3.24, 3.25 and Figure 3.15 show this. Recognising the dramatic increase in diversity and multiculturalism across the Dublin Region, the latest Census figures show that in 2011 the foreign born population represented 20% of the total population. In 2011 there were 248,917 foreign born persons residing in Dublin, up from 127,933 in 2002 (+51%). Persons born in the United Kingdom accounted for 23% of the foreign born population in Dublin in 2011 while persons born in Poland accounted for 13.5% with Romania at 4.7% and Lithuania at 4%. There were 766,770 foreign born persons residing within the state in 2011, up from 400,016 in 2002, (+52%). A significant proportion of the foreign born population living within the state were born in Great Britain (38%), Poland (15%) and Lithuania (4.5%). Figure 3.15 Foreign born population (usually resident and present on Census night) State Dublin 2002 10.4 11.6 2006 14.7 17.0 2011 16.9 20.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
  56. 56. 56 However, the impact of the economic downturn and decline in employment prospects is now resulting in increasing numbers emigrating. This is likely to be especially true for those who lost their jobs in the construction sectors and lower skilled services sectors. More recent trends show that between 2007 and 2010 the numbers of immigrants arriving in Ireland dropped by over 70% while emigration flows increased by 80% between 2006 and 2010 (CSO, 2011). Table 3.24 Population by Nationality 2011 (%) Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow State Total Irish 82.7 87.3 88.1 89.3 86.8 UK 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.8 2.5 Lithuanian 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.6 0.8 Polish 2.9 3.4 2.1 2.0 2.7 EU15 excluding Irish and UK 1.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.1 EU15 to EU27 states excluding Polish and Lithuania 2.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.5 Other European (4) 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 African 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 Asian 2.9 1.3 0.7 1.1 1.4 American (US) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Other nationalities (14) 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 Multi nationality 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No nationality 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not stated 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.2 All nationalities 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population Table 3.25 Population by Country of Birth 2011 (%) Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow State Ireland 80.0 84.1 84.7 85.3 83.1 UK 4.5 5.1 5.5 6.3 6.4 Poland 2.7 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.5 Lithuania 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.8 EU 15 excluding Irish and UK 1.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.1 EU 15 to 27 excluding Poland and Lithuania 2.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.5 Rest of World 7.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 4.7 Source: Census of Population Figure 3.16 shows the concentrations of Irish Nationals by electoral division in 2011. It is interesting to note the concentration of non-Irish nationals in the city centre and in the north-west fringe of the city around the Blanchardstown area.
  57. 57. 57 3.16 Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2011 Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) from Census data 2011.
  58. 58. 58 3.7 Household Change and Housing Tables 3.26 and 3.27 show the changing numbers of households and household size since 1996 (see also Figure 2.17). Nationally, the number of private households increased by 47.3% from 1996 and 2011. Dublin City recorded an increase of only 20.6% over the same period. On the other hand, an extraordinary increase in the number of private households was recorded in Fingal between 1996 and 2011 as total household numbers effectively doubled, increasing by 95.7%. Similarly, Meath and Kildare also experienced substantial growth in household numbers over this period increasing by 95.6% and 81.8%. Table 3.26 Number of Private Households No of private households 1996 No of private households 2002 No of private households 2006 No of private households 2011 % change 1996- 2002 % change 2002- 2006 % Change 2006- 2011 Dublin City 172,433 180,852 190,984 208,008 4.9 5.6 8.9 Dun Laoghaire- Rathdown 61,465 64,132 68,412 75,819 4.3 6.7 10.8 Fingal 47,599 60,872 80,402 93,146 27.9 32.1 15.9 South Dublin 61,708 73,516 80,631 90,019 19.1 9.7 11.6 Dublin Region 343,205 379,372 420,429 466,992 10.5 10.8 11.1 Kildare 38,929 50,477 60,957 70,763 29.7 20.8 16.1 Meath 31,798 41,675 53,938 62,201 31.1 29.4 15.3 Wicklow 31,134 36,572 42,870 47,798 17.5 17.2 11.5 Greater Dublin Area 445,066 508,096 578,194 647,754 14.2 13.8 12.0 State 1,123,238 1,287,958 1,469,521 1,654,208 14.7 14.1 12.6 Source: Census of Population Figure 3.17 Percentage increase in Household Numbers from 1996 to 2011 Dublin City DLR Fingal South Dublin Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow Greater Dublin Area State Area 20.6 23.0 95.7 45.9 36.1 81.8 95.6 53.5 45.5 47.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
  59. 59. 59 Table 3.27 confirms that average household size has decreased over the past decade. Nationally, average household size had gone from 3.14 in 1996 to 2.4 in 2011. Average household size is smaller in Dublin City, going from 2.67 in 1996 to 2.4 in 2011. Table 3.27 Average Household Size Average number of persons per private household 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 2.67 2.59 2.50 2.40 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 3.01 2.9 2.77 2.67 Fingal 3.46 3.18 2.95 2.92 South Dublin 3.50 3.21 3.03 2.93 Dublin Region 2.99 2.86 2.73 2.65 Kildare 3.39 3.18 3.01 2.95 Meath 3.41 3.17 2.99 2.97 Wicklow 3.22 3.06 2.89 2.83 Greater Dublin Area 3.07 2.93 2.80 2.73 State 3.14 2.94 2.81 2.73 Source: Census of Population Table 3.28 examines household composition or type in 2011. The most obvious result from this table is that Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households than other counties. Over 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and South Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised of husband and wife with children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife with children compared with 31% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal, 34% in South Dublin and almost 40% in Meath and Kildare. Approximately one-third of households in the city have children compared to Kildare, Wicklow and Meath which all have over 50% of households with children.
  60. 60. 60 Table 3.28 Household Composition in 2011 DublinRegion DublinCity DúnLaoghaire- Rathdown Fingal SouthDublin Kildare Meath Wicklow State One person 24.2 30.7 23.0 17.2 17.3 17.8 18.2 20.2 23.7 Husband and wife 13.4 11.8 16.7 13.7 13.8 14.0 14.4 15.1 14.5 Cohabiting couple 5.7 6.7 5.1 5.5 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.4 Husband and wife with children (of any age) 27.0 18.6 31.1 35.7 33.7 37.7 39.6 34.8 31.6 Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) 3.0 2.4 2.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.3 Lone mother with children (of any age) 10.0 9.8 8.0 10.0 12.3 9.1 8.2 10.2 9.4 Lone father with children (of any age) 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 Husband and wife with other persons 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Cohabiting couple with other persons 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 Husband and wife with children (of any age) and other persons 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.6 Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) and other persons 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Lone mother with children (of any age) and other persons 1.2 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 Lone father with children (of any age) and other persons 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Two family units with or without other persons 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 Three or more family units with or without other persons 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Non-family households containing related persons 2.8 3.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.4 Non-family households containing no related persons 6.1 8.7 5.4 3.7 3.4 3.2 1.9 1.9 3.8 Households with Children 44.5 35.1 45.2 54.7 55.5 55.6 56.9 54.0 48.7 Total private households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population
  61. 61. 61 Housing stock in Dublin older than in suburban areas Table 3.29 displays the age of the housing stock as of 2011. It is hardly surprising that Dublin City has an older housing stock than other areas (see Figure 3.18 for Dublin City housing age). Seventy four per cent of the housing stock was built before 1991 while only 26% was built post 1991. By contrast, in the newly expanding area of Fingal, 56% of the stock is post 1991. Meath and Kildare show that approximately 56% of the housing stock was built post 1991 as housing supply spread into the hinterland of the Greater Dublin Area. Table 3.29 Age of Housing in 2011 (%) Pre 1991 Post 1991 Dublin City 73.6 26.4 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 71.1 28.9 Fingal 43.7 56.3 South Dublin 61.2 38.8 Dublin Region 64.7 35.3 Kildare 44.6 55.4 Meath 44.2 55.8 Wicklow 57.7 42.3 Greater Dublin Area 60.0 40.0 State 56.9 43.1 Source: Census of Population 2011
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×