Dublin Demographics 2013

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

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: [email protected] if you have any comments or queries on this report.

mailto:[email protected]

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

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

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 Europe1 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

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

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

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

http://www.ageingwellnetwork.ie/

http://www.cardi.ie/

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).

http://www.airo.ie/

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

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:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes

http://www.un.org/esa/population/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook_2010

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

http://www.cso.ie/

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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 7970 to 7465 to 6960 to 6455 to 5950 to 5445 to 4940 to 4435 to 3930 to 3425 to 2920 to 2415 to 1910 to 14

5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8


5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8


5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8


5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8


5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8


5 to 90 to 4

Male Female

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

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


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


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

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%


22

Figure 2.4 EU Population Change, 1960-2060


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%A

ust

ria

Bel

giu

m

Den

mar

k

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Ital

y

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Net

her

lan

ds

Po

rtu

gal

Spai

n

Swed

en

Un

ited

Kin

gdo

m

% Change 1960-2010

% Change 2010-2060

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/publications/population_projections

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database

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


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


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”

4http://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

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

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.10The 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.

http://citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity

http://www.greater-paris-investment-agency.com/pdf/GPIA-KPMG-22-juin-2010-version-definitive.pdf

http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/global-cities-index.html

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/

https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx

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

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

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

Ce

nsu

s P

eri

od

Population Change 1991 - 2011

State

Mid East

Dublin

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

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

Table 3.5 Dublin Region Population Share (%)

1991 1996 2002 2006 2011

Dublin City 46.7 45.5 44.2 42.6 41.4


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


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


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

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


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


Figure 3.4 National Share of Population in Dublin and the GDA (%)

29.1 29.2 28.728 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

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

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.

http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm

37

Figure 3.6 Census 2011 Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold.

Source: All Island Research Observatory, 2011

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

http://moland.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.uep.ie/

http://www.rpg.ie/documents/RPGPrintA4

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 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

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

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%


23

See Appendix 1 for detailed breakdown of change in inner city wards and for administrative areas in Dublin City Council

44

Figure 3.11 Population change in Dublin City 1991-2011


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

KM2 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

Axi

s Ti

tle

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


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

1601

98

7

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

'000's

Natural Increase Immigrants Emigrants Net Migration

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


population - deaths

(Number)

Average annual


population - natural increase

(Number)

Average annual


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


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

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


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



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


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

Table 3.14 Components of Population Change 2002-2006

Population change

Natural Increase


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


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



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

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


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


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


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


Dublin City

Dún Laoghaire

- Rathdown

Fingal South Dublin

Dublin Region


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


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.



Dublin City

Dún Laoghaire

- Rathdown

Fingal South Dublin

Dublin Region


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

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


0-14 15-24 25-49 50-64 65-79 80+

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


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

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

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

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

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


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


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

3.16 Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2011

Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) from Census data 2011.

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


Figure 3.17 Percentage increase in Household Numbers from 1996 to 2011

Dublin City

DLR FingalSouth Dublin

Dublin Region

Kildare Meath WicklowGreater 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

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


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

Table 3.28 Household Composition in 2011

Du

blin

Re

gio

n

Du

blin

Cit

y

Dú

n L

aogh

aire

-

Rat

hd

ow

n

Fin

gal

Sou

th D

ub

lin

Kild

are

Me

ath

Wic

klo

w

Stat

e

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


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

62

Figure 3.18 Age of Housing in Dublin City Council

Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden, Dublin City Council from Census data (2011)

Dublin City has lowest rate of home ownership in the region

Table 3.30 shows that Dublin City has a quite distinctive tenure structure when compared with the regional and national picture. The overall rate of homeownership in Dublin City council is 54% compared to 72% nationally and 73% in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. Conversely, Dublin City has a comparatively higher rate of social rented and private rented housing. Thirteen per cent of housing in Dublin City is social rented (23,949 local authority dwellings and 2,728 housing association dwellings) compared with 9% nationally while one third of housing in the City is private rented compared to 19% nationally.

63

Table 3.30 Housing Tenure in Dublin 2011 (%)

Owner occupied

with loan or mortgage

Owner occupied without loan or

mortgage

Private Rented

Social rented

Total

Dublin City 26.4% 27.1% 33.2% 13.3% 100.0%

Dún Laoghaire – Rathdown 35.7% 37.0% 20.6% 6.8% 100.0%

Fingal 48.2% 23.6% 22.0% 6.2% 100.0%

South Dublin 42.5% 28.7% 17.2% 11.6% 100.0%

Dublin Region 35.4% 28.3% 25.8% 10.5% 100.0%

Kildare 47.3% 28.4% 17.7% 6.5% 100.0%

Meath 49.5% 31.1% 14.1% 5.3% 100.0%

Wicklow 41.6% 33.5% 15.3% 9.5% 100.0%

Greater Dublin Area 38.5% 29.0% 23.0% 9.5% 100.0%

State 36.5% 35.4% 19.1% 9.0% 100.0% Source: Census of Population

Dublin city has highest proportion of apartments in the region

Table 3.31 shows the distribution of dwelling types in the different administrative areas. Only 5.5% of dwellings in Dublin City are detached while 33% are apartments. By contrast, in Fingal the respective figures are 20% and 17%. The much higher share of apartments in Dublin City reflects the policy of high density infill development pursued for the past decade.

Table 3.31 Dwelling Type 2011 (%)

Detached house

Semi-detached

house

Terraced house

Apartment Total

Dublin City 5.5% 24.2% 37.4% 33.0% 100.0% Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 22.3% 40.6% 17.4% 19.8% 100.0% Fingal 19.8% 43.5% 19.9% 16.9% 100.0% South Dublin 10.8% 51.3% 25.4% 12.6% 100.0% Dublin Region 12.1% 36.0% 28.2% 23.6% 100.0% Kildare 41.6% 38.5% 11.2% 8.7% 100.0% Meath 45.5% 29.8% 16.4% 8.2% 100.0% Wicklow 45.5% 29.8% 16.4% 8.2% 100.0% GDA 21.9% 35.2% 23.7% 19.2% 100.0% State 43.3% 28.3% 17.4% 11.0% 100.0% Source: Census of Population

64

Vacancy rates lower in the GDA

One of the more controversial issues which has arisen as a result of the property crash has been the extent of vacant housing due to oversupply during the boom. The recently published figures from the 2011 Census show that the national average vacancy rate was 14.5 per cent or 289,451 dwellings. All local authority areas in the Greater Dublin Area have vacancy rates below the national average. Each County in the Greater Dublin Area also experienced a reduction in vacancy rates over the period 2006 and 2011. The vacant housing stock in Dublin City reduced by 5.6% over this period while Fingal County experienced the greatest reduction at 8.6%. However, counties such as Roscommon and Sligo have vacancy rates in excess of 20 per cent, with Kerry and Donegal exceeding 25% and Leitrim over 30 per cent. The figures discussed here are for total vacancies and do not distinguish between holiday homes and other vacancies. Table 3.32 Housing Stock and Vacant Housing in the GDA

Housing stock 2006 (Number)

Vacant dwellings 2006 (Number)

Vacancy rate 2006 (%)

Housing stock 2011 (Number)

Vacant dwellings 2011 (Number)

Vacancy rate 2011 (%)

Actual change in vacant dwellings 2006-2011 (Number)

Percentage change in vacant dwellings 2006-2011 (%)

Dublin Region 477,999 46,305 9.7 527,665 43,707 8.3% -2,598 -5.6

Dublin City 223,098 26,092 11.7 241,678 24,638 10.2% -1,454 -5.6

Dun Laoghaire 77,508 6,928 8.9 85,896 6,616 7.7% -312 -4.5

Fingal 89,909 7,878 8.8 102,793 7,204 7.0% -674 -8.6

South Dublin 87,484 5,407 6.2 97,298 5,249 5.4% -158 -2.9

Kildare 68,840 6,838 9.9 78,794 6,311 8.0% -527 -7.7

Meath 61,257 6,485 10.6 69,697 6,173 8.9% -312 -4.8

Wicklow 49,088 5,577 11.4 54,351 5,377 9.9% -200 -3.6

State 1,769,613 266,322 15 1,994,845 289,451 14.5% 23,129 8.7


65

4 POPULATION FORECASTS This section summarises the long term population forecasts for Ireland produced by Eurostat and the more medium term forecasts of the Central Statistics Office for the different regions. These regional forecasts were made in 2008 and in 2010 and thus do not take account of the 2011 results. The updated regional projections will be published towards the end of 2013. This report also describes the forecasts contained in the Regional Planning Guidelines. Nonetheless, it is worth summarising the forecasts and the assumptions made in generating them.

4.1 Long Term Forecasts Any textbook on demographic analysis and forecasting will issue two warnings. First, that long range forecasting is difficult and second, that forecasting for smaller geographical areas is much riskier than for larger areas. In the case of Ireland we have a relatively small population in European terms and an economy which is categorised as open with regard to the international economy. In current circumstances, where the economy is depressed, forecasts are even more hazardous and therefore the forecasts of Eurostat and the CSO must be treated with caution. Eurostat projects population to reach 6.54 million by 2060

Eurostat and the United Nations produce population projections and this section summarises the projections of the former. Table 4.1 shows the projections for 2035 and 2060. Between 2010 and 2035 they project that the national population of the Irish state will increase from 4.47 million to 5.51 million, up by just over one million. Between 2035 and 2060 they project the population will increase from 5.51 million to 6.54 million, again an increase of just over one million. Table 4.1 Eurostat Population Projections for Ireland

2010 % 2035 % 2060 %

Under 15 953,682 21 1,009,234 18 1,182,832 18

15-64 3,008,292 67 3,462,885 63 3,923,963 60

Over 65 505,880 11 1,040,378 19 1,437,954 22

Total 4,467,854 100 5,512,497 100 6,544,749 100

Source: Eurostat database

And population to age

Figure 4.1 depicts the proportion of the population divided by broad age category. While the working age population and children are set to fall in numbers, one of the more interesting trends is the projected increase in the over 65 age group. This is forecast to increase from 11% of the population in 2010, to 19% in 2035 and 22% in 2060. The actual numbers forecast are more striking, with the over 65 population projected to double from just over half a million persons in 2010 to just over a million in 2035 and to 1.437 million in 2060. Figure 4.2 shows the projections for the over 65 age group as well as the over 80 group. Given increased life expectancy, it is no surprise to see that the over 80 age group is forecast to increase from 124,000 in 2010 to 293,000 in 2035 and to 586,000 in 2060. While different assumptions will generate different figures, the overall trend remains clear.

66

Figure 4.1 Population Projections by Age Category

Figure 4.2 Population Projections for Over 65s and Over 80s

Note: The figures for aged over 65 are for all persons over 65, so the data for persons aged over 80 are part of that total

Population Pyramids depict changing structure

Figure 4.3 shows the population pyramid for Ireland in 2011 (Census figures) and the projected population pyramid for 2060, based on United Nations forecasts. The 2011 pyramid depicts a relatively young population with the pyramid tapering at the top showing a low proportion of elderly. However, the 2060 pyramid shows a more flattened structure, with a higher proportion of elderly.

21.3%18.3% 18.1%

67.3%62.8%

60.0%

11.3%

18.9%22.0%

2010 2035 2060

Under 15 15-64 Over 65Eurostat 2011

505,880

1,040,378

1,437,954

123,968

293,323

586,412

2010 2035 2060

Over 65 Over 80Eurostat 2011

67

Figure 4.3 Population Pyramid for Ireland in 2011 (Census) and 2060 (United Nations)

Populaition Pyramid for Ireland in 2011 (Census Data 2011)

Population Pyramid for Ireland in 2060 (United Nations Forecast)

Note: based on a forecast population of 6,273,000

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

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

6 4 2 0 2 4 6

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

68

4.2 Central Statistics Office Forecasts Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 summarise the CSO forecasts to 202624. These forecasts are based on differing assumptions with regard to fertility rates, migration patterns and whether population would follow what are called traditional or recent trends (See Box 4 for definitions). The assumptions deliver significantly differing projections for both the Greater Dublin Region overall and the Dublin Region in particular. The different scenarios lead to a high projection of 5.7 million persons in the state by 2026, with a low of 4.8 million. Each of the different scenarios comes to different estimates as to how the population is distributed regionally. For example, the M2F1 traditional scenario projects the Greater Dublin Area to grow to 2.4 million, while the M0F1 recent scenario sees population reaching just 1.8 million by 2026. These differences are mainly attributable to different assumptions with regard to migration. Box 4 CSO Forecasting assumptions and definitions

M0 The M0 assumption considers net international migration of zero

M1 and M2 Annual net inward migration in the period to 2041 was assumed to be 38,600 under M1 and 21,400 under M2.

F1 TFR (Total Fertility Rate) to remain at its 2006 level of 1.9 for the lifetime of the projections;

F2 TFR to decrease to 1.65 by 2016 and remain constant thereafter

Recent The pattern of inter-regional flows observed in the year to April 2006 is applied up to 2026.

Traditional The 1996 pattern of inter-regional flows is applied in 2016 and kept constant thereafter, with the difference between the 2006 and 1996 patterns apportioned over the years between 2006 and 2016

Table 4.2 Central Statistics Office Long Term Population Forecasts

Regional Authority Area

Population 2006 ‘000s





M2F1 Recent

M2F1 Traditional

M0F1 Recent

MOF1 Traditional

Border 470 651 592 575 523

GDA 1,662 2,195 2,413 1,816 2,010

Dublin 1,183 1,365 1,659 1,080 1,343

Mid-East 479 830 754 736 667

Midland 252 396 321 351 285

Mid-West 359 455 450 403 400

South-East 461 653 591 586 531

South-West 619 782 776 675 670

West 411 564 552 477 466

State 4,233 5,696 5,696 4,884 4,884

Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office (2008)

24 Forecasts are made at regional level and not by county

69

Figure 4.4 Population Forecasts for Dublin 2026 – Central Statistics Office

Source: Central Statistics Office (2008)

Table 4.3 examines the projected changes in population between 2006 and 2026 for the four different scenarios published by the CSO. At the high end, it is projected that population will increase in the Greater Dublin Area by 751,000. Under this scenario, (M2F1 traditional) there is an assumption of significant inward migration, high fertility and that Dublin would grow at a higher rate than the rest of the country. By contrast, at the lower end it is estimated that the Greater Dublin population would grow by only 154,000. This latter scenario (M0F1) assumes net inward migration of zero, high fertility and an assumption of higher proportionate growth outside of Dublin. This scenario is perhaps the most realistic given recent trends. This scenario also projects that the population of the Dublin Region would in fact decline by 103,000 by 2026 with the Mid-East region gaining by 257,000.

Table 4.3 Population Change Projections 2006-2026

Population 2006

Population change

2006-2026

Population Change

2006-2026

Population Change

2006-2026

Population change 2006-

2026

M2F1 recent

M2F1 traditional

M0F1 recent

MOF1 traditional

‘000s ‘000s ‘000s ‘000s ‘000s

GDA 1,662 +533 +751 +154 +348

Dublin 1,183 +182 +476 -103 +160

Mid-East 479 +351 +275 +257 +188

State 233 +1,463 +1,463 +651 +651

Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office, 2008

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

M2F1 recent M2F1 traditional

M0F1 recent MOF1 traditional

GDA

Dublin Region

Mid-East Region

70

4.3 Regional Planning Guideline Forecasts

Summary of the purpose of the Regional Planning Guidelines

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (RPGs for the GDA) 2010-2022 is a policy document which sets out to direct a strategic planning framework for the Greater Dublin Area. The 2010 document builds on the work of the first RPGs which were delivered in 2004. The RPGs are the strategic implementation arm of the National Spatial Strategy which is the national level spatial planning framework for the 20 years from 2002. The NSS is linked to the investment priorities of the National Development Plan. The GDA comprises two NUTS III regional authority areas, namely, the Dublin and Mid East Regions and 7 local authority administrative regions, namely, Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Fingal County Council, South Dublin County Council, Meath County Council, Wicklow County Council and Kildare County Council. The latter three constitute the Mid East Region.

Regional Guidelines Population Targets

In July 2010 the Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs) for the Greater Dublin Area were published with revised population targets. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 summarise the projections and targets of the RPGs. Table 4.4 shows that the projection for the Dublin Region is for the population to increase from 1.2 million to 1.46 million by 2022, a projected increase of 246,400 persons. The Mid East is projected to increase by 125,200 persons over the same period.

Table 4.4 Regional Planning Guidelines Population Targets

2008 2010 2016 2022

Dublin Region 1,217,800 1,256,900 1,361,900 1,464,200

Mid East Region 514,500 540,000 594,600 639,700

State 4,422,000 4,584,900 4,997,000 5,375,200 Source: Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022

Table 4.5 gives more detail with regard to these projections. Dublin City is projected to increase by almost 100,000 (11%) while Fingal is projected to increase by 46,300 (19.8%). Kildare and Wicklow are projected to increase by 16% and 30% respectively. Table 4.5 Regional Planning Guidelines Population Targets

Local Authorities 2006 2016 2022 Projected change

2006-2022

2006-2016 2016-2022

% change % change

Dublin City 506,211 563,512 606,110 99,899 11.3 7.6

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown 194,038 222,800 240,338 46,300 14.8 7.9

Fingal 239,992 287,547 309,285 69,293 19.8 7.6

South Dublin 246,935 287,341 308,467 61,532 16.4 7.4

Dublin Region 1,187,176 1,361,200 1,464,200 277,024 14.7 7.6

Kildare 186,335 234,422 252,640 66,305 25.8 7.8

Meath 162,831 195,898 210,260 47,429 20.3 7.3

Wicklow 126,194 164,280 176,800 50,606 30.2 7.6

Mid-East Region 475,360 594,600 639,700 164,340 25.1 7.6

GDA total 1,662,536 1,955,800 2,103,900 441,364 17.6 7.6

Source: Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022

71

In 2009 the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government revised its national and regional population targets. Targets are different to forecasts in that they take into account not only population forecasts but the potential impact of planning policies such as the National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines. Table 4.6 shows the targets for 2008, 2010 and 2022 and also compares the 2010 target with the actual population results from 2011. Table 4.6 Regional Population Targets and NSS

2008 2010 2016 2022 2011 Census Actual

Difference with 2010

target

low high

Border 492,500 511,000 552,700 595,000 611,400 514,891 3,891

Dublin 1,217,800 1,256,900 1,361,200 1,464,200 1,504,500 1,273,069 16,169

Mid East 514,500 540,000 594,600 639,700 657,200 531,087 -8,913

Mid West 371,900 383,800 427,200 462,300 475,000 379,327 -4,473

Midlands 266,800 275,600 297,300 317,100 325,800 282,410 6,810

South East 487,800 507,900 542,200 580,500 596,500 497,578 -10,322

South West 644,600 667,500 737,100 795,000 816,900 664,534 -2,966

West 426,100 442,200 484,700 521,400 535,700 445,356 3,156

State 4,422,000 4,584,900 4,997,000 5,375,200 5,523,000 4,588,252 3,352 Source: DoEHLG National and Regional Population Targets, January 2009

Consolidating the metropolitan area

The Greater Dublin Area is formed by seven local authority areas as described above. However, it is additionally constituted into a hinterland and metropolitan area. The metropolitan area represents a largely continuous urban fabric in terms of built up land extending from the core Dublin city centre area outwards. The NSS defines the metropolitan area as the physical area of Dublin city and suburbs and directs policy towards consolidation of this area. While the natural progression from this core is for the urban fabric to reflect a more discontinuous pattern, all towns and suburbs located along the edge of the metropolitan area can be said to have some or all of the following characteristics

They are well served by existing bus and rail services with these services highly subscribed

They have a largely urban dynamic with strong commuting patterns across or into Dublin

Many of these areas are central to the delivery of further services under national transport plans

They are intrinsically part of the Dublin economic area

They are within walking or cycling distance to existing Dublin suburbs

The metropolitan area includes all of Dublin City Council, the majority of counties South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and a selection of EDs in Fingal, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. The current RPGs have directed the majority of future growth apportioned to the GDA into the metropolitan area. Of note, this will see 85% of future growth in Fingal situated within its metropolitan area, 35% in Kildare, 11% in Meath and 42% in Wicklow. These proportional splits between metropolitan and hinterland areas are a minimum requirement for local authorities planning housing strategies and population distribution. This process of consolidation of the spatial distribution of future population growth will impact on the efficiency of city functioning and the cost and delivery of services.

72

5 CONSIDERATIONS

The primary aim of this report was to collate and describe some of the key demographic statistics for Dublin and to place these in a national and international context. While this report does not consider the implications in depth, this section presents some speculative suggestions as to some of the potential implications of the results presented.

Strong natural increase in population to drive demand for education

The report has detailed the high birth and fertility rates that Ireland has experienced in recent years. This will have the effect of an age cohort moving through pre-school, primary and secondary education in the short and medium term 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 with regard to where the demand occurs and how this is serviced and managed. Will age structure confer competitive advantage?

Some commentators have suggested (http://www.irisheconomy.ie) that our relatively young population may confer a form of competitive advantage over the medium term. This is in part based on the fact that we will have a proportionately greater working age population than other EU countries with consequently less pressure on pensions etc. However, this relatively optimistic scenario may be affected by higher emigration in future years and by the how well the economy recovers from recession. Old Age dependency ratio may reach 36 per cent by 2060

In comparative European terms Ireland is atypical. It has strong natural increase in population and some of the lowest old-age dependency ratios. However, forecasts from Eurostat suggest that the population structure will age and that the old-age dependency ratio will have increased from 16.8% in 2010 to 36.6 per cent in 2060. According to Eurostat’s projections, the over 65 population is projected to double from just over half a million persons in 2010 to just over one million in 2035 and to 1.437 million in 2060. So, both in absolute and relative terms, there will be more older people in the country. With implications for health services and pensions

Planning for the transition in population is important. From an economic perspective an ageing population will generate pressures on the following:

The amount, type and location of health services

The funding of health services

Pension funding and the pension age

Housing markets and wealth distribution (realising asset values; trading down etc)

These are major and very complex issues and require long term planning.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/

73

As well as how we live

As a greater proportion of the population move into the older age groups, this will have implications for some of the following;

Family structures (provision of care by families)

Technologies and services for assisted living

Care in the community

These issues are already being examined by among others the Irish Ageing Well Network (http://www.ageingwellnetwork.ie/) and by the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (see http://www.cardi.ie/). In addition, Dublin City Council has engaged in the age-friendly city initiative (http://www.afc-internationalconference.ie/index.php/declaration). While an ageing population structure presents challenges it also presents social and economic opportunities. Forecasting and uncertainty

Until the publication of the 2011 Census data there had been a consensus that mass emigration had reasserted itself. However, the data showed positive net inward migration over the 5 year period. There is however evidence of net emigration between 2010 and 2012. The current economic uncertainty illustrates the difficulty of forecasting generally. This in turn leads to the following broad questions regarding future population patterns:

Are the high birth and fertility rates of recent years likely to continue?

Are current migration trends likely to continue?

When will the National and European economy recover from its current challenges?

The challenge of sprawl and dispersal of population

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 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

The importance of core strategies in development plans

Since 2010, in order to ensure that city and county development plans are consistent with the policies and recommendations of the RPGs for the GDA, local authorities must prepare evidenced based “Core Strategies.” These core strategies are designed to consider all parts of physical and land use planning and economic development including the quantum, distribution and phasing of proposed development. Details of transport plans, strategies for retail development and growth scenarios must also be included.

http://www.ageingwellnetwork.ie/

http://www.cardi.ie/

http://www.afc-internationalconference.ie/index.php/declaration

74

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. These suburbs clearly have an older population and one where there is a degree of what is colloquially called ‘empty nesting’. One of the challenges of such population decline is related to underutilisation of education facilities. We do not have the hard evidence as to how this population decline has affected demand for school places and this will need evaluation.

Can suburban population and density be increased?

The only real evidence of significant urban densification has been in inner city Dublin where the number of new apartment developments has led to an increase of population and density. However, many areas of Dublin City outside the inner city have lost population and population densities have decreased. One of the policy challenges will be to consider to what extent these areas can or should be increased with regard to population and housing. Lower housing vacancies in Dublin

One of the consequences of the property boom and subsequent crash in Ireland was an oversupply of housing. Part of the problem relates to unfinished housing estates but another relates to an overhang of unsold properties on the market. The 2011 Census data, which give overall vacancy rates, shows that Dublin has a rate which is lower than the national average. The recovery of a normally functioning property market is complex, tied in with NAMA and a host of other factors. Further analysis of Census data

This report has given an overview of the main demographic trends in Dublin for the past two decades. 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

Developing the Evidence Base

Dublin City Council has been actively developing an evidence base in order to help develop, monitor and evaluate policy and this report is part of that strategy. One of the issues that has arisen during the course of the research is the need, in our view, for the development of a comprehensive evidence base on key socio-economic data for Dublin. While the Census data is readily available, there is a lack of readily available data on education and health at neighbourhood, city and regional level. Given the importance of the Dublin area in population and economic terms we suggest the development of a comprehensive evidence base which would cover population, housing, the economy, health and education among others. Some of this has already been done by the City Council. There are examples of other European cities which have such a system which feed into policy making and the monitoring of policy (for Example Helsinki Urban Facts (link) http://www.hel2.fi/tietokeskus/eng/index.html). Useful reference sites for accessing demographic mapping and analysis include the All-Island

Regional Research Observatory www.airo.ie (spatial mapping resource for community, public and

private bodies)

http://www.hel2.fi/tietokeskus/eng/index.html

http://www.airo.ie/

75

6 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN INNER CITY 1991-2011

Electoral Divisions Persons 1991

Persons 1996

Persons 2002

Persons 2006

Persons 2011

Change 1991-2011

Change 1991-2011 %

Change 2006-2011

Change 2006-2011

%

Dublin City 478389 481854 495781 506211 527,612 49,223 10.3% 21,401 4.2%

Inner City North

001 Arran Quay A 1092 1336 1390 1502 1555 463 42.4% 53 3.5%

002 Arran Quay B 1946 1963 3089 3692 3861 1915 98.4% 169 4.6%

003 Arran Quay C 921 1914 2375 3714 4170 3249 352.8% 456 12.3%

004 Arran Quay D 3196 3264 3675 3600 3218 22 0.7% -382 -10.6%

005 Arran Quay E 2965 2957 2902 2889 3037 72 2.4% 148 5.1%

009 Ballybough A 3581 3570 3368 3624 3482 -99 -2.8% -142 -3.9%

010 Ballybough B 2466 2571 3009 3215 3349 883 35.8% 134 4.2%

066 Inns Quay A 3109 3235 3373 3715 3951 842 27.1% 236 6.4%

067 Inns Quay B 2528 2680 2953 3113 3368 840 33.2% 255 8.2%

068 Inns Quay C 1698 1748 2359 2672 2709 1011 59.5% 37 1.4%

073 Mountjoy A 2983 3108 3242 3760 5326 2343 78.5% 1,566 41.6%

074 Mountjoy B 1657 1994 2725 3446 2732 1075 64.9% -714 -20.7%

075 North City 819 2391 3942 3867 5345 4526 552.6% 1,478 38.2%

076 North Dock A 1222 1188 1287 1200 1303 81 6.6% 103 8.6%

077 North Dock B 3503 3655 3628 3690 6895 3392 96.8% 3,205 86.9%

078 North Dock C 2324 2411 3568 4179 4345 2021 87.0% 166 4.0%

088 Rotunda A 1837 2522 4199 4672 4698 2861 155.7% 26 0.6%

089 Rotunda B 896 1122 1752 2137 2439 1543 172.2% 302 14.1%

Inner City South

117 Mansion House A 3011 3139 4269 4462 4347 1336 44.4% -115 -2.6%

118 Mansion House B 602 770 990 869 1069 467 77.6% 200 23.0%

119 Merchants Quay A 1124 1513 1824 2062 2275 1151 102.4% 213 10.3%

120 Merchants Quay B 1621 2356 3449 3901 3822 2201 135.8% -79 -2.0%

121 Merchants Quay C 2012 2079 2639 2850 3480 1468 73.0% 630 22.1%

122 Merchants Quay D 2142 2060 2084 2059 2024 -118 -5.5% -35 -1.7%

123 Merchants Quay E 1221 1463 1660 2369 2353 1132 92.7% -16 -0.7%

124 Merchants Quay F 2414 2296 2264 2459 2405 -9 -0.4% -54 -2.2%

125 Pembroke East A 4427 4349 4304 4754 4929 502 11.3% 175 3.7%

130 Pembroke West A 3070 3292 3241 4262 4673 1603 52.2% 411 9.6%

144 Royal Exchange A 1140 2267 3569 3602 4481 3341 293.1% 879 24.4%

145 Royal Exchange B 1183 1613 1936 2020 1914 731 61.8% -106 -5.2%

146 St. Kevin's 3047 3497 4601 5206 4910 1863 61.1% -296 -5.7%

147 South Dock 2589 3307 3764 5123 7129 4540 175.4% 2,006 39.2%

152 Ushers A 654 845 1679 1928 3089 2435 372.3% 1,161 60.2%

153 Ushers B 565 926 1072 1255 1292 727 128.7% 37 2.9%

154 Ushers C 2610 2571 2708 3089 3730 1120 42.9% 641 20.8%

155 Ushers D 1875 1802 1752 1658 2075 200 10.7% 417 25.2%

156 Ushers E 1946 1894 1935 1934 1830 -116 -6.0% -104 -5.4%

157 Ushers F 2648 2554 3064 3237 3381 733 27.7% 144 4.4%

161 Wood Quay A 1949 2351 2866 2743 2669 720 36.9% -74 -2.7%

162 Wood Quay B 3462 3539 3538 3507 3482 20 0.6% -25 -0.7%

Total Inner City 84055 94112 112044 124036 137142 53087 63.2% 13,106 10.6%

Rest of Dublin City 394334 387742 383737 382175 390470 -3864 -1.0% 8,295 2.2%

76

77

84055

94112

112044

124036

137142

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Persons 1991 Persons 1996 Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Persons 2011

Tota

l Pe

rso

ns

Dublin Inner City Growth (1991 - 2011)

Persons 1991

Persons 1996

Persons 2002

Persons 2006

Persons 2011

Rest of Dublin City 394334 387742 383737 382175 390470

376,000

378,000

380,000

382,000

384,000

386,000

388,000

390,000

392,000

394,000

396,000

Tota

l Pe

rso

ns

Dublin City - Outside the Canals Growth (1991 -2011)

78

Population change in Administrative Areas of Dublin City 1991-2011

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1991 1996 2002 2006 2011

Dublin Central Dublin North Central

Dublin North West Dublin South Central

Dublin Southeast

79

Appendix 2 Population Pyramids for Dublin and State, 1996, 2002 and 2006

Dublin City Council 1996

Dublin Region 1996

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4 5-9

10-1415-19 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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

80

Greater Dublin Area 1996

State 1996

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

81


Dublin Region 2002

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4 5-9

10-1415-19 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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

82


State 2002

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

83


Dublin Region 2006

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4 5-9

10-1415-19 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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

84


State 2006

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

85

Dublin City Area 2011

Dublin Region 2011

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

80-84

%

Age

Cla

ss

2011

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

86


State 2011

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0-4

5-9

10-14

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 +

%

Age

Cla

ss

Female %

Male %

87

Appendix 3 Central Statistics Office - Long Term Forecasts

M2F1 Recent


Population 2006

Population Share

2006

Births Deaths Internal

migration

External Migratio

n

Population 2026

Population

Share 2026

Total Increase

Average

annual increas

e

Border 470 11.1 157 69 35 57 651 11.4 181 1.6

GDA 1,662 39.3 569 198 -114 276 2,195 38.5 533 1.4

Dublin 1,183 28.0 348 143 -242 217 1,365 24.0 181 0.7

Mid-East 479 11.3 221 56 128 59 830 14.6 352 2.8

Midland 252 6.0 99 34 45 33 396 6.9 144 2.3

Mid-West 359 8.5 115 50 -2 32 455 8.0 96 1.2

South-East 461 10.9 156 66 43 59 653 11.5 192 1.8

South-West 619 14.6 194 87 -13 70 782 13.7 164 1.2

West 411 9.7 136 61 6 72 564 9.9 153 1.6

State 4,233 100.0 1,427 564 0 600 5,696 100.0 1,463 1.5

Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.

M2F1 Traditional


Population 2006

Population Share

2006

Births Deaths

Internal migratio

n

External Migrati

on

Population 2026

Population

Share 2026

Total Increas

e

Average

annual increas

e

Border 470 11.1 149 68 -16 57 592 10.4 122 1.2

GDA 1,662 39.3 606 200 69 276 2,413 42.4 751 1.9

Dublin 1,183 28.0 403 146 0 217 1,659 29.1 476 1.7

Mid-East 479 11.3 202 55 69 59 754 13.2 275 2.3

Midland 252 6.0 84 34 -15 33 321 5.6 69 1.2

Mid-West 359 8.5 115 49 -6 32 450 7.9 92 1.1

South-East 461 10.9 144 65 -8 59 591 10.4 130 1.3

South-West 619 14.6 195 87 -21 70 776 13.6 157 1.1

West 411 9.7 135 61 -4 72 552 9.7 142 1.5

State 4,233 100.0 1,427 564 0 600 5,696 100.0 1,463 1.5


88

M0F1 Recent Regional Authority Area

Population 2006

Population Share

2006

Births Deaths Internal migration

External Migratio

n

Population 2026

Population Share

2026

Total Increase

Average annual

increase

Border 470 11.1 136 67 32 4 575 11.8 105 1.0

GDA 1,662 39.3 467 193 -104 -15 1,816 37.2 155 0.4

Dublin 1,183 28.0 274 139 -221 -17 1,080 22.1 -103 -0.5

Mid-East 479 11.3 193 54 117 2 736 15.1 258 2.2

Midland 252 6.0 88 34 41 4 351 7.2 100 1.7

Mid-West 359 8.5 101 49 -2 -5 403 8.3 45 0.6

South-East 461 10.9 138 65 39 12 586 12.0 125 1.2

South-West 619 14.6 163 86 -12 -9 675 13.8 56 0.4

West 411 9.7 110 60 6 10 477 9.8 66 0.7

State 4,233 100.0 1,204 554 0 0 4,884 100.0 651 0.7


M0F1 Traditional Regional Authority Area

Population 2006

Population Share

2006

Births Deaths Internal migration

External Migratio

n

Population 2026

Population Share

2026

Total Increase

Average annual

increase

Border 470 11.1 129 67 -13 4 523 10.7 53 0.5

GDA 1,662 39.3 500 195 59 -15 2,010 41.2 348 1.0

Dublin 1,183 28.0 323 142 -5 -17 1,343 27.5 160 0.6

Mid-East 479 11.3 176 53 64 2 667 13.7 189 1.7

Midland 252 6.0 75 33 -12 4 285 5.8 33 0.6

Mid-West 359 8.5 100 49 -6 -5 400 8.2 41 0.5

South-East 461 10.9 128 65 -6 12 531 10.9 70 0.7

South-West 619 14.6 164 86 -18 -9 670 13.7 51 0.4

West 411 9.7 110 60 -4 10 466 9.6 56 0.6

State 4,233 100.0 1,204 554 0 0 4,884 100.0 651 0.7

Source: Cent

89

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Accenture, “The Case for City Disclosure” (2010), Carbon Disclosure Project. Available at: www.cdproject.net Brennan, M., Shahumyan, H., Walsh, C., Carty, J., Williams, B. and Convery, S. (2009) Regional planning guideline review: using MOLAND as part of the strategic environmental assessment process, Urban Institute Ireland Working Papers Series; 09/07. Available at http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%200907%20W.pdf Brookings, Global Metro Monitor (2011), The Path to economic recovery http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor.aspx Central Statistics Office (various) Census 1996, 2002 and 2006,. Stationery Office, Dublin. Available at http://www.cso.ie/census/

Central Statistics Office (2009) Population and Migration Estimates, April 2009, Stationery Office, Dublin

Central Statistics Office (2008) Regional Population Projections, 2011-2026, Stationery Office, Dublin

Central Statistics Office (2011b) Population and Migration Estimates, April 2011, Stationery Office, Dublin.

Central Statistics Office (2011c) County Incomes and Regional GDP 2008, Stationery Office, Dublin.

Dublin Regional Authority (2010) Draft Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022, available at http://www.rpg.ie/rpg-2D2010.html Economic and Social Research Institute (2010) Quarterly Economic Commentary, October 2010, Dublin: ESRI.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2010) Siemens, European Green City Index

European Environment Agency (2006) Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Challenge, EEA Report No10/2006 available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_10/eea_report_10_2006.pdf

Eurostat (2010) Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook 2010. Luxembourg: European Commission, available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook_2010

McKinsey (2011) Urban World: Mapping the economic power of cities, McKinsey Global Institute, available at http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/urban_world/index.asp

Meredith, D. (2007) unpublished Conference presentation on POWCAR data.

OECD (2006), Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy.

Rockefeller Foundation (2008), Century of the City: No Time to Lose. Walsh, B. (2010) Demography and Irish economic growth: Past and Future, in Kinsella, SD. And Leddin, A. (eds) Understanding Ireland’s Economic Crisis: Prospects for Recovery¸ Dublin: Blackhall Publishing

Williams, B. and Shiels, P. (2002). The expansion of Dublin and the Policy Implications of Dispersal Journal of Irish Urban Studies, Vol.1, Issue 1.

Williams, B., Hughes, B. and Redmond, D. (2010) Managing an Unstable Housing Market, Urban Institute Ireland. Available at http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%201002%20W.pdf

Williams, B., Hughes, B. and Shiels, P. (2007). Urban Sprawl and Market Fragmentation in the Greater Dublin Area Society of Chartered Surveyors (SCS) Housing Study (2007).

Williams, B., Walsh, C. and Boyle, I. (2011) The Development of the Functional Urban Region of Dublin: Implications for Regional Development Markets and Planning, Journal of Irish Urban Studies. Available at http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/fur_markets_WilliamsWalshBoyle.pdf UN world population prospects 2010 available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm

http://www.cdproject.net/

http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%200907%20W.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor.aspx

http://www.cso.ie/census/

http://www.rpg.ie/rpg-2D2010.html

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_10/eea_report_10_2006.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook_2010

http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/urban_world/index.asp

http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%201002%20W.pdf

http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/fur_markets_WilliamsWalshBoyle.pdf

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm

90

91

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES

2013

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