View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Technical Aspects of the DCLG 2003-based Household Projections
Dave KingAnglia Ruskin University
Outline
2003-based resultsBob Garland later
Data inputsDifferentiation of household membershipModelling trajectoriesEvolution of modellingSub-national modelling issues
2003-based results
Summary Projection Results (E&W)
2003-20265.2 million (ph) population increase 5.1 million household increasereduction of avg hh size 2.3 to 2.1
(millions) 1981 2003 20261981-2003
2003-2026
Households 18.4 22.1 27.2 3.8 5.1Private household population 48.8 51.9 57.1 3.1 5.2Average household size 2.7 2.3 2.1 -0.3 -0.2
Household Composition Characterised by:
decline in married couplesgrowth in cohabiting householdsgrowth in one person households
1981 2003 2026 1981-2003 2003-2026
Household types:
married couple 11.7 10.2 9.4 -1.5 -0.8
cohabiting couple 0.5 2.0 3.5 1.5 1.6
lone parent 0.7 1.7 2.0 1.0 0.3
other multi-person 1.4 1.5 1.9 0.1 0.4
one person 4.2 6.8 10.4 2.6 3.6All households 18.4 22.1 27.2 3.8 5.1
How reasonable at 2026?Modelling: HRR trends look plausible? One person households (38%):
40% Sweden 1990; 35% Germany 1998Average household size (2.1)
2.1 Sweden 1990; 2.2 Germany 1998
1981 2003 2026
% One Person Households 23% 31% 38%
Average household size 2.7 2.3 2.1
Reasons for Increase:Past and Projected
Households (millions) resulting from:
1981-2003
2003-2026
growth in adult population 1.6 2.8ageing of population 0.9 1.1change in marital status -0.5 -0.2household membership rates 1.0 1.0remainder 0.7 0.3
All 3.8 5.1
Data Inputs
Data inputsEstimates to construct the time-series:
Population (age/gender)Marital StatusInstitutional PopulationHousehold membership
To control the national projection:Population projection (age/gender)Marital Status projection
Data quality issuesAvailability:
Census & LFS used; GHS/SEH previously investigated difficult to access and rework historic data to add to categories, change definitions etc
Census, LFS & 03-basedFemales aged 40-44: Composite Household Representative Rates
England and Wales
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
HOPS
Census
LFS
Data quality issuesAvailability:
Census & LFS used; GHS/SEH previously investigated difficult to access and rework historic data to add to categories, change definitions etc
Sample size e.g. LFS. Future improvements anticipated.
Census, LFS & 03-basedSNC Females aged 40-44: Composite Household Representative Rates
England and Wales
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
HOPS
Census
LFS
Data quality issues
Availability: Census & LFS used; GHS/SEH previously investigated difficult to access and rework historic data to add to categories, change definitions etc
Sample size e.g. LFS. Future improvements anticipated.Treatment of non-response bias re: household composition, particularly OPHConsistency of definitions through the time series (and access to historic data to review and revise)
Consistency of Time-Series?Divorced female non-cohabiting one person household HRRs Eng&Wales
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021
55-59 03-based 60-64 03-based 65-69 03-based 70-74 03-based 75-79 03-based 80-84 03-based 55-59 96-based 60-64 96-based 65-69 96-based 70-74 96-based 75-79 96-based 80-84 96-based
Differentiation of household membership:in different categories of population
(beyond age-gender)
Marital Status
Marital Status Married non-cohabitingDivorced non-cohabitingWidowed non-cohabitingSingle non-cohabitingMarried cohabitingDivorced cohabitingWidowed cohabitingSingle cohabiting
Single non-cohabiting having previously cohabited?
Household MembershipFor each age/gender/marital status group:
Household representatives: Concealed family representatives: married couple married couple cohabiting couple cohabiting couple lone parent lone parent other multi-person one-person Non-representatives: wives in married couples cohabiting women other non-representatives
Reasons for Increase 2003-26 :One Person Households
Related to change in: H’hold membership rates (25%)Marital status (22%)
Components of change (households: millions) Nos %adult population 0.9 24age structure 0.7 20marital status 0.8 22household membership rates 0.9 25remainder 0.3 8
All 3.6 100
OPH Household Membership Effect
Among Non-cohabiting:WidowedDivorcedSingle
Wid (M&F) (non-cohabiting) OPH Household Rep Rate 1981-2026
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84 85
+
198120032026
Div Male (non-cohabiting) OPH Household Rep Rate 1981-2026
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84 85
+
198120032026
Single (M&F) (non-cohabiting) OPH Household Rep Rate 1981-2026
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84 85
+
198120032026
Disaggregate OMPH?
“Lone parent” with non-dependent childSame gender cohabiting coupleOther
Disaggregate OPH?
Parent of dependent childParent of non-dependent childFormer couple memberNever-parent or -couple member
Differentiating Transient Populations?
StudentsArmed servicesInternational migrants
Reviewing Concealment?
Currently: concealed familiesReturners to the parental home?Key workers in the parental home?Patient under care?
Differentiating with/without children; dependant/non-dependant?
CouplesHousehold with “absent” child?
At boarding school/universityLiving with other parent but staying over
Modelling Trajectories
Typical Output TrajectoriesFig 12 SFNC 35-39 03-based
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
Lone parentOne personOther multiConc. lone parentOther non-rep
Examples of HRR trajectoriesFSNC OPH HRR 03-based
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021
15-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+
Cohort effectsSFNC HRR cohort e ffects 2003-based
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1971e 1981e 1991e 2001e 2011p 2021p
15-19 at 2021
25-29 at 2021
35-39 at 2021
45-49 at 2021
55-59 at 2021
65-69 at 2021
75-79 at 2021
“Life-Cycle” method
t-10 t0 t10 t20 15-19
25-29
35-39
45-49
55-59
65-69 75-79
85+
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
96-based SFNC HRRs
0.9-1
0.8-0.9
0.7-0.8
0.6-0.7
0.5-0.6
0.4-0.5
0.3-0.4
0.2-0.3
0.1-0.2
0-0.1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
19711981
19912001
20112021
15-19
20-24
25-290
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 19811991 2001
20112021
15-19
20-24
25-29 30-34
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 1981 1991 20012011
2021 15-19
20-24
25-29 30-34
35-39
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 15-19
25-29
35-39
45-49
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 15-19
25-29
35-39
45-49
55-59
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 15-19
25-29
35-39
45-49
55-59 65-69
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 15-19
25-29
35-39
45-49
55-59 65-69
75-79
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Modified Life-Cycle Method
1971
1981
1991
2001
2011
2021
15-19
30-34
45-49
60-64
75-79
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Evolution of Modelling?
Differentiated Modelling
Currently: one-size-fits all modelling (life-cycle model)Scope for different modelling approaches for differentiated population groups or household membership categories
e.g. lone parents
“Causal” Modelling
full dynamic modelling: key transition rates problematicPartial linking?
e.g. “lone parent with non-dependant” to “lone parent with dependant” over time?or “having previously cohabited” to “cohabiting” over time?
Extend beyond household composition?
Into dwelling consumption: tenure or dwelling size?
Estimating Propensities E&W 2001: Example of Owner Occupier Married Couples
Author’s own estimates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
age of "head"
8 +over76541 to 3
Sub-national modelling issues top-down process
Restricts sub-national what-ifs?Reconstruct hierarchy?
Integration of population and household projection?
Modelling migration in terms of age/gender/marital status/household membershipMarital status modelling?
Integration of estimates of households with dwelling counts
Recommended