DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES
Demographic Trends in
Dublin
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,
Office of International Relations and Research
Dublin City Council
2012
May 2010
November 2011
1
OFFICE
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND RESEARCH
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.
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.
Jamie Cudden
Research Manager
[email protected]
Helen O’Leary
Research Officer
[email protected]
2
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 (Research
Officer) and Helen O’ Leary (Research Officer) 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.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1
1.2
2.
IRELAND IN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
EUROPE IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 14
IRELAND IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 19
GLOBAL TREND OF INCREASED URBANISATION ................................................................................................... 25
POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011 ........................................................................................ 29
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4
REPORT CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................ 10
SOURCES AND METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 11
KEY POPULATION TRENDS ............................................................................................................................. 29
POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN ................................................................................................................... 31
SPRAWL AND DISPERSION IN THE DUBLIN REGION ............................................................................................. 35
COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE ..................................................................................................... 45
AGE STRUCTURE, DEPENDENCY RATIOS AND LIFE EXPECTANCY ............................................................................ 50
NATIONALITY AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH ............................................................................................................ 54
HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 57
POPULATION FORECASTS ..................................................................................................................... 63
4.1
4.2
4.3
LONG TERM FORECASTS ............................................................................................................................... 63
CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE FORECASTS ......................................................................................................... 66
REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDELINE FORECASTS .................................................................................................... 68
5
CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 70
6
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 74
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
7
POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN INNER CITY 1991-2011.................................................................... 74
POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR DUBLIN AND STATE, 1996, 2002 AND 2006.............................................. 78
CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE LONG TERM FORECASTS........................................................................... 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................... 86
4
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 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
1
Europe’s share of global population has fallen continuously since the 1960s. In 1960 Europe accounted for
20% of global population but by 2005 it had fallen to 11%. By 2050 it is projected to be just 7.6% 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 79 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 1.6
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.
5
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 is projected to be 36%. 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 341,421 between 2006 and 2011
or by 8.1%.
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 8.1% between 2006 and 2011 but there were significant regional differences
in population growth. In the Midland and Mid-east regions, the population grew by 12%. This latter growth
reflects a continued dispersal of population beyond the Greater Dublin Area. The Dublin Region saw growth of
7%, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region had a growth of just 5%, 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 1.270 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 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 71, 75 and 40 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 9.8 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.
6
But Inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city of Dublin has seen strong
population growth. Between 1991 and 2011 the population of Dublin City increased by just 9.8 per cent.
However, in the inner city there was an increase of 62% in the same period. This increase reflects the high
level of apartment building in the inner city from the late 1980s onwards.
But 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 1.2% 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 remarkable.
Dublin City has the lowest average household size in the Greater Dublin Area.
In 2006 the average household size in Dublin City was 2.50 compared with 2.8 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 2.81
in 2006.
Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households
Almost 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and 16%
in 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 33%
in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal and South Dublin and almost 40% in Meath and Wicklow.
Dynamics of Population Change
Mass emigration has not returned, yet
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had predicted that net emigration had returned.
However, the preliminary 2011 Census figures show that there was net positive in-migration of 118, 650 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. The breakdown between emigration and immigration will become
available as more detailed Census results are published over the coming months.
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 5 per cent of
growth and in Dublin it accounted for 22 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 two 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 16.5 in 2010.
7
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 may 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 confer a form of competitive advantage
over the medium term (http://www.irisheconomy.ie). 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.
But 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 for the following:
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
8
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 cohere with regional and national planning
frameworks, though late, is still welcome and needs to be adhered to.
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 available and this will need evaluation.
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) and also decision map www.decisionmap.ie/ (created by Ordnance Survey Ireland and Twelve
Horses with the goal of encouraging enhanced use of publically available data to aid decision making in the
public and private sector)
9
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 and 2006, some of the principal demographic
trends in Dublin are examined. The preliminary population results of the 2011 Census were released
in June 2011 and these are used where appropriate.
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.
10
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 and 2006 and the series on Vital Statistics (births and deaths). In addition, the
preliminary 2011 Census figures are used where appropriate. 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:
11
Table 1.1
Census Variables Used
Demographic
Population (persons)
Households
Age cohorts
Household composition
Household size
Nationality
Country of Birth
Age of housing
Tenure
Dwelling Type
Vacancy rates
Housing
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
Dublin Region
Local Authority
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
12
Table 1.3
Region
Border
Midlands
West
Dublin
Mid East
Mid West
South East
South West
Composition of Regional Authorities
Local Authority
Cavan; Donegal; Leitrim; Louth; Monaghan; Sligo
Laois; Longford; Offaly; Westmeath
Galway; Mayo; Roscommon
Dublin City; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Fingal; South
Dublin
Kildare; Meath; Wicklow
Clare; Limerick; North Tipperary
Carlow; Kilkenny; South Tipperary; Waterford; Wexford
Cork; Kerry
13
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 2005 from
604 million to 729 million, it has in relative terms decreased significantly. In 1960 it comprised 20
per cent of the world’s population but by 2005 it accounted for just 11 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)
World
Europe
Africa
Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Northern America
Oceania
China
India
Japan
Russian Federation
United States
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
3,023
604
285
1,694
220
204
16
646
448
93
120
186
3,332
634
322
1,886
252
219
18
716
497
98
127
199
3,686
656
367
2,125
286
231
20
816
553
104
130
209
4,061
676
419
2,379
323
242
21
911
617
112
134
219
4,438
693
482
2,623
363
254
23
981
693
117
139
229
4,846
707
556
2,890
402
267
25
1,053
775
121
144
241
5,290
721
639
3,179
442
283
27
1,142
862
123
148
255
5,713
727
726
3,448
482
300
29
1,211
953
125
148
271
6,115
727
819
3,698
521
319
31
1,267
1,043
127
147
288
6,512
729
921
3,937
557
335
34
1,312
1,131
127
143
303
1970
17.8
10.0
57.7
7.8
6.3
0.5
22.1
15.0
2.8
3.5
5.7
1975
16.6
10.3
58.6
8.0
6.0
0.5
22.4
15.2
2.7
3.3
5.4
1980
15.6
10.9
59.1
8.2
5.7
0.5
22.1
15.6
2.6
3.1
5.2
1985
14.6
11.5
59.6
8.3
5.5
0.5
21.7
16.0
2.5
3.0
5.0
1990
13.6
12.1
60.1
8.4
5.3
0.5
21.6
16.3
2.3
2.8
4.8
1995
12.7
12.7
60.4
8.4
5.3
0.5
21.2
16.7
2.2
2.6
4.7
2000
11.9
13.4
60.5
8.5
5.2
0.5
20.7
17.0
2.1
2.4
4.7
2005
11.2
14.1
60.4
8.5
5.1
0.5
20.2
17.4
2.0
2.2
4.6
Source: Eurostat (2010)
Table 2.2
World Population (% of total)
Europe
Africa
Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Northern America
Oceania
China
India
Japan
Russian Federation
United States
Source: Eurostat (2010)
1960
20.0
9.4
56.0
7.3
6.8
0.5
21.4
14.8
3.1
4.0
6.2
1965
19.0
9.7
56.6
7.6
6.6
0.5
21.5
14.9
2.9
3.8
6.0
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.
14
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 halved between 1960 and 2005, falling from 19 to
10 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 2005 this had declined to
a figure of 1.4. By contrast, fertility rates in Africa in 2005 stood at 4.9 children per woman. Average
fertility rates globally have declined significantly from 4.9 children in the 1960s to 2.9 children in
2005.
Table 2.3
Crude birth rate (per 1 000 population)
World
Europe
Africa
Asia
Latin America and the
Caribbean
Northern America
Oceania
China
India
Japan
Russian Federation
United States
Source: Eurostat (2010)
Table 2.4
1960-65
34.9
19.1
47.6
39.0
41.0
65-70
33.4
16.8
46.8
37.7
37.8
70-75
30.8
15.7
46.2
33.7
35.2
75-80
28.4
14.8
45.8
29.8
33.0
80-85
27.9
14.4
44.8
28.9
30.7
85-90
27.3
13.7
43.1
28.4
27.8
90-95
24.7
11.5
40.6
25.1
25.3
95-00
22.5
10.2
38.5
22.2
23.2
00-05
21.2
10.2
37.2
20.3
21.2
22.0
26.7
38.0
40.5
17.1
21.0
21.8
17.7
24.5
36.9
38.8
17.8
14.4
17.7
15.7
24.0
28.6
37.3
19.0
15.3
15.7
15.1
21.0
21.5
36.2
15.2
15.9
15.1
15.5
20.2
21.5
34.4
12.8
16.8
15.5
15.7
20.0
23.7
32.5
11.2
16.1
15.9
15.5
19.8
18.9
30.7
9.9
10.9
15.7
14.2
18.8
15.9
27.7
9.4
8.9
14.5
13.8
17.8
14.0
25.4
8.9
9.9
14.2
85-90
3.4
1.8
6.1
3.5
3.4
1.9
2.5
2.6
4.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
90-95
3.1
1.6
5.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
3.9
1.5
1.6
2.0
95-00
2.8
1.4
5.2
2.7
2.7
2.0
2.5
1.8
3.5
1.4
1.3
2.0
00-05
2.7
1.4
4.9
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.4
1.8
3.1
1.3
1.3
2.0
Average fertility rates (average number of children)
1960-65
World
4.9
Europe
2.6
Africa
6.8
Asia
5.6
Latin America and the Caribbean
6.0
Northern America
3.4
Oceania
4.0
China
5.6
India
5.8
Japan
2.0
Russian Federation
2.6
United States
3.3
Source: Eurostat (2010)
65-70
4.8
2.4
6.7
5.5
5.5
2.6
3.6
5.9
5.6
2.0
2.0
2.6
70-75
4.3
2.2
6.7
4.8
5.0
2.1
3.3
4.8
5.3
2.1
2.0
2.0
75-80
3.8
2.0
6.6
4.0
4.5
1.8
2.7
2.9
4.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
80-85
3.6
1.9
6.4
3.7
3.9
1.8
2.6
2.6
4.5
1.8
2.0
1.8
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 2005 16 per cent of
Europe’s population were aged over 65 years whereas in Africa only 3.4 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.
15
Figure 2.1
Proportion of the population aged 65 and over
16
12
8
4
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Europe (1)
North America
Oceania
Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Africa
2000
2005
Source: Eurostat (2010)
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 2015 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 7.6% by 2050.
Table 2.5
Population and population projections (million)
World
Europe
Africa
Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Northern America
Oceania
China
India
Japan
Russian Federation
United States
Source: Eurostat (2010)
2005
6,512
729
921
3,937
557
335
34
1,312
1,131
127
143
303
2010
6,909
733
1,033
4,167
589
352
36
1,354
1,214
127
140
318
2015
7,302
734
1,153
4,391
618
368
38
1,396
1,294
126
138
332
2020
7,675
733
1,276
4,596
646
383
40
1,431
1,367
124
135
346
2025
8,012
729
1,400
4,773
670
398
43
1,453
1,431
121
132
359
2030
8,309
723
1,524
4,917
690
410
45
1,462
1,485
117
129
370
2035
8,571
716
1,648
5,032
706
421
46
1,462
1,528
114
125
380
2040
8,801
708
1,770
5,125
718
431
48
1,455
1,565
110
122
389
2045
8,996
700
1,887
5,193
726
440
50
1,440
1,594
106
119
397
2050
9,150
691
1,998
5,231
729
448
51
1,417
1,614
102
116
404
16
Table 2.6
World Population (% of total)
1960
20.0
21.4
14.8
3.1
4.0
6.2
2005
11.2
20.2
17.4
2.0
2.2
4.6
2050
7.6
15.5
17.6
1.1
1.3
4.4
Other (2) more developed
1.0
0.9
0.9
Other (3) less developed
29.6
41.6
51.7
Europe
China
India
Japan
Russian Federation
United States
Source: Eurostat (2010)
Figure 2.2
World Population (% of total)
60
50
40
1960
30
2005
2050
20
10
0
Europe
China
India
Japan
Russian
Federation
United States
Other more
developed
Other
less developed
17
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
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
8
6
4
2
0
Male
2
4
6
8
8
6
4
2
0
Male
Female
1990
2
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
6
8
Female
2010
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
8
6
4
2
0
Male
2
4
6
8
8
6
4
2
0
Male
Female
2030
2
Female
2050
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
8
6
4
2
Male
0
2
Female
4
6
8
8
6
4
2
Male
0
2
Female
18
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 per cent of the population
were over 65 years in 2008 but that the average for the EU27 countries was 17%. In Germany almost
20 per cent of the population was over 65 years. Looking at the figures for those in the 0-14 age
category, 20.6 per cent of Ireland’s population is in this group, the highest in Europe. By contrast,
Germany has 13.7 per cent in the 0-14 age group, while the average for the EU27 is 15.7 per cent.
Table 2.7
Population by age class, 2008 (% of total population)
EU-27
Euro area
EU 15
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Source: Eurostat (2010)
0 to 14
years
15.7
15.5
15 to 24
years
12.5
11.7
25 to 49
years
36.2
36.5
50 to 64
years
18.6
18.4
65 to 79
years
12.7
13.2
80 years
and more
4.3
4.6
15.4
16.9
18.4
16.9
18.5
13.7
14.3
20.6
14.0
18.2
17.9
15.3
14.6
16.8
17.6
12.3
12.1
11.7
12.4
12.8
11.6
11.2
14.1
10.2
11.8
12.1
11.6
11.2
13.0
13.4
37.4
35.1
34.4
32.7
33.7
36.0
37.6
38.9
37.2
38.7
35.6
37.4
40.6
33.0
34.9
17.8
18.8
19.9
21.5
18.6
18.6
18.3
15.5
18.6
17.3
19.7
18.2
16.9
19.6
18.0
12.6
12.4
11.5
12.2
11.5
15.3
14.6
8.2
14.6
10.6
11.0
13.2
12.0
12.2
11.6
4.6
4.7
4.1
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.1
2.7
5.5
3.4
3.8
2.5
4.6
5.3
4.5
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 2008, Ireland had the
lowest ratio in Europe at 15.9 per cent while the average in the EU27 is 25 per cent. In Germany and
Italy, for example the old-age ratio is just over 30 per cent. Conversely, in 2008 Ireland had the
highest young-age dependency ratio at 30 per cent, while Germany, Italy and Spain had rates of just
21 per cent. In summary, Ireland has the youngest population structure in Europe.
19
Table 2.8
Age-related dependency ratios %
Young-age dependency ratio
Old-age dependency ratio
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
EU-27
:
Euro area
:
EU 15
Austria
33.0
Belgium
36.2
Denmark
39.8
Finland
49.4
France
42.2
Germany
31.1
Greece
37.6
Ireland
53.2
Italy
37.4
Luxembourg
31.5
Netherlands
49.1
Portugal
46.8
Spain
42.6
Sweden
34.5
United Kingdom
35.9
Source: Eurostat (2010)
:
:
:
:
29.2
27.2
25.7
24.5
23.3
23.2
:
:
:
:
:
:
20.6
20.9
23.2
24.1
25.3
26.9
39.5
37.5
36.4
37.7
40.0
36.8
37.5
54.2
38.1
33.8
43.8
46.8
44.2
31.8
38.2
32.4
31.0
32.7
30.2
35.4
28.6
36.2
51.8
35.1
28.1
34.3
41.6
41.2
30.9
33.2
26.0
27.0
25.5
28.7
30.5
23.1
29.3
44.7
24.5
24.9
26.4
31.6
30.5
27.7
29.0
25.4
26.9
27.6
27.2
29.3
23.1
22.9
32.8
21.2
28.3
27.4
24.0
21.8
28.8
29.4
22.7
25.6
28.0
25.3
28.4
20.7
21.3
30.0
21.3
26.8
26.6
22.8
21.3
25.6
26.5
18.4
18.5
16.4
11.6
18.7
17.0
14.2
19.2
14.0
15.9
14.6
12.4
12.7
17.8
18.0
22.7
21.2
18.9
13.6
20.6
21.4
17.2
19.3
16.7
19.1
16.2
14.9
15.2
20.7
20.5
24.3
21.9
22.2
17.6
22.1
23.9
20.6
18.2
20.3
20.3
17.4
17.8
17.1
25.3
23.3
22.1
22.1
23.2
19.8
21.1
21.6
20.4
18.6
21.5
19.3
18.6
20.0
20.2
27.7
24.1
22.9
25.5
22.2
22.2
24.3
23.9
24.2
16.8
26.8
21.4
20.0
23.7
24.5
26.9
24.3
25.4
25.8
23.6
24.8
25.0
30.4
27.8
15.9
30.4
20.6
21.8
25.9
24.1
26.7
24.3
Box 1 Dependency Ratios Definitions
Young-age dependency ratio the population aged up to and including 14 years related to the
population aged between 15 and 64 years;
Old-age dependency ratio
the population aged 65 years or older related to the population aged
between 15 and 64 years;
Total dependency ratio
the population aged up to and including 14 years and aged 65 years or
older related to the population aged between 15 and 64 years
Source: Eurostat (2010)
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 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 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.
20
Table 2.9
Eurostat population and population projections (Million)
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
EU-27
435.5
457.1
470.4
482.8
497.4
501.0
514.4
522.
525.7
524.0
516.9
%
change
2010
to
2060
3.2%
Euro area
278.7
292.5
300.9
312.7
326.9
395.6
409.3
419.6
426.3
428.4
425.9
4.7%
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
63.8
62.6
65.6
68.0
69.9
71.0
71.8
14.7%
Germany
78.3
78.2
79.1
82.2
82.2
81.7
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%
EU 15
Source: Eurostat (2010)
21
Figure 2.4
EU Population Change 1960-2060
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
% change 1960-2008
-20%
% change to 2060
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
Austria
-30%
Source: Eurostat (2010)
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 a EU context Ireland has a high fertility rate. The fertility rate for Ireland
in 2009 was 2.07 children while in Germany, for example, it was 1.36. 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 recent Central Statistics Office preliminary
results, 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.
22
Table 2.10
Region
Total Fertility Rate (mean number of children)
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
EU 27
:
:
:
1.45
1.47
1.5
1.51
1.54
1.56
1.6
:
Eu-25
:
:
:
:
1.48
1.51
1.52
1.55
1.57
1.62
:
Belgium
1.62
1.67
:
:
1.66
1.72
1.76
1.8
1.82
1.86
1.84
Bulgaria
1.82
1.26
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.29
1.32
1.38
1.42
1.48
1.57
Czech Republic
1.9
1.14
1.14
1.17
1.18
1.23
1.28
1.33
1.44
1.5
1.49
Denmark
1.67
1.77
1.74
1.72
1.76
1.78
1.8
1.85
1.84
1.89
1.84
Germany
:
1.38
1.35
1.34
1.34
1.36
1.34
1.33
1.37
1.38
1.36
Estonia
2.05
1.38
1.34
1.37
1.37
1.47
1.5
1.55
1.63
1.65
1.62
Ireland
2.11
1.89
1.94
1.97
1.96
1.93
1.86
1.92
2.01
2.07
2.07
Greece
1.4
1.26
1.25
1.27
1.28
1.3
1.33
1.4
1.41
1.51
1.52
Spain
1.36
1.23
1.24
1.26
1.31
1.33
1.35
1.38
1.4
1.46
1.4
France
:
1.89
1.9
1.88
1.89
1.92
1.94
2
1.98
2.01
2
Italy
1.33
1.26
1.25
1.27
1.29
1.33
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.42
:
Cyprus
2.41
1.64
1.57
1.49
1.5
1.49
1.42
1.45
1.39
1.46
1.51
Latvia
:
:
:
1.23
1.29
1.24
1.31
1.35
1.41
1.44
1.31
Lithuania
2.03
1.39
1.3
1.24
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.31
1.35
1.47
1.55
Luxembourg
1.6
1.76
1.66
1.63
1.62
1.66
1.63
1.65
1.61
1.61
1.59
Hungary
1.87
1.32
1.31
1.3
1.27
1.28
1.31
1.34
1.32
1.35
1.32
Malta
2.04
1.7
1.48
1.45
1.48
1.4
1.38
1.39
1.37
1.44
1.44
Netherlands
1.62
1.72
1.71
1.73
1.75
1.72
1.71
1.72
1.72
1.77
1.79
Austria
1.46
1.36
1.33
1.39
1.38
1.42
1.41
1.41
1.38
1.41
1.39
Poland
2.06
1.35
1.31
1.25
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.27
1.31
1.39
1.4
Portugal
1.56
1.55
1.45
1.47
1.44
1.4
1.4
1.36
1.33
1.37
1.32
Romania
1.83
1.31
1.27
1.25
1.27
1.29
1.32
1.32
1.3
1.35
1.38
Slovenia
1.46
1.26
1.21
1.21
1.2
1.25
1.26
1.31
1.38
1.53
1.53
Slovakia
2.09
1.3
1.2
1.19
1.2
1.24
1.25
1.24
1.25
1.32
1.41
Finland
1.78
1.73
1.73
1.72
1.76
1.8
1.8
1.84
1.83
1.85
1.86
Sweden
2.13
1.54
1.57
1.65
1.71
1.75
1.77
1.85
1.88
1.91
1.94
United Kingdom
1.83
1.64
1.63
1.64
1.71
1.77
1.78
1.84
1.9
1.96
1.94
Iceland
2.3
2.08
1.95
1.93
1.99
2.04
2.05
2.08
2.09
2.15
2.23
:
1.57
1.52
1.47
1.36
1.44
1.49
1.43
1.42
1.43
1.71
Norway
1.93
1.85
1.78
1.75
1.8
1.83
1.84
1.9
1.9
1.96
1.98
Switzerland
1.58
1.5
1.38
1.39
1.39
1.42
1.42
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.5
Montenegro
:
:
:
:
:
:
1.6
1.63
1.69
1.77
1.85
Croatia
:
:
:
1.34
1.32
1.34
1.41
1.38
1.4
1.46
1.49
Macedonia
:
1.88
1.73
1.8
1.77
1.52
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.47
1.52
Liechtenstein
Source: Eurostat (2010)
23
Life 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
76.4 in 2004 compared with an EU average of 75.2. Recent member states such as Latvia and
Lithuania had average life expectancies of 65.9 and 66.3 years respectively.
Table 2.11
Life Expectancy at Birth
Male
EU-27
Euro area
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Female
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
:
:
73.9
67.4
70.4
73.1
73.6
64.3
73.1
75.1
74.5
:
75.5
:
:
64.6
73.3
66.3
74.8
74.7
73.7
68.1
71.6
65.1
71.1
68.8
73.1
76.6
74.3
:
:
74.4
67.4
71.2
74.0
74.5
64.1
73.4
75.4
75.3
74.8
76.1
:
:
66.0
73.7
66.5
74.9
75.2
74.5
68.9
72.4
66.3
71.3
68.6
73.6
76.9
74.8
:
:
74.6
68.4
71.7
74.5
75.1
65.5
74.0
75.5
75.8
75.3
77.0
:
:
66.8
74.6
67.6
76.2
:
75.2
69.6
73.2
67.7
72.2
69.2
74.2
77.4
75.5
74.5
76.0
75.1
68.8
72.1
74.8
75.7
65.3
75.2
76.2
76.3
75.7
77.4
76.4
64.7
66.2
74.6
68.3
76.3
76.0
75.8
70.3
73.8
67.3
72.6
69.8
74.9
77.7
76.0
75.2
76.8
76.0
68.9
72.6
75.4
76.5
66.4
76.4
76.6
76.9
76.7
77.9
76.8
65.9
66.3
75.9
68.7
77.4
76.9
76.4
70.6
75.0
68.2
73.5
70.3
75.4
78.4
76.8
:
:
76.6
69.2
73.5
76.1
77.2
67.4
77.3
77.2
77.7
77.3
:
78.8
65.4
65.3
76.8
69.2
77.0
77.7
77.2
70.9
75.5
69.2
74.5
70.4
75.9
78.8
:
:
:
80.7
74.5
77.5
78.3
80.1
75.6
78.7
80.2
82.0
:
81.8
:
:
75.9
80.2
75.0
79.6
80.5
80.2
76.6
79.0
72.8
79.0
77.0
80.7
81.7
79.5
:
:
80.7
74.6
78.2
79.0
80.8
75.4
79.1
80.3
82.4
82.6
82.2
:
:
76.6
80.8
75.6
80.0
80.8
81.0
77.4
79.5
73.8
79.2
77.0
81.0
82.1
79.8
:
:
81.0
75.0
78.5
79.2
81.2
76.2
79.2
80.6
82.9
83.0
82.9
:
:
77.5
81.3
76.2
80.3
:
81.2
78.0
80.2
74.8
79.9
77.5
81.2
82.0
80.3
80.9
82.2
81.2
75.5
78.7
79.4
81.3
77.0
80.5
81.1
83.2
83.0
83.2
81.0
76.0
77.5
81.5
76.7
81.3
80.7
81.7
78.8
80.6
74.7
80.5
77.7
81.6
82.1
80.6
81.5
82.8
81.8
75.8
79.2
80.2
81.9
77.8
81.4
81.3
83.7
83.8
83.8
82.1
76.2
77.7
82.3
77.2
81.2
81.5
82.1
79.2
81.5
75.5
80.8
78.0
82.5
82.8
81.0
:
:
82.3
76.3
79.9
80.7
82.4
78.6
82.1
81.9
84.4
84.4
:
82.4
76.3
77.0
81.9
77.8
81.9
82.0
82.8
79.7
82.3
76.2
82.0
78.4
83.1
83.1
:
Source: Eurostat (2010)
24
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 predict 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
90
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1970
1980
World
1990
2000
Ireland
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Source: UN (2011)
3
McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities”
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100325_DESA.doc.htm
5
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor.aspx
4
25
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”
OECD (2007), Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy.
8
Ibid
7
26
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.
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.
10
27
Table 2.12
Global Urbanisation Trends
Major area, region,
country or area
World
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
33
36
39
43
46
50
54
59
64
69
Africa
19
24
28
32
36
40
45
50
56
62
Asia
20
23
26
32
37
42
47
53
59
65
Europe
57
63
67
70
71
73
75
78
82
84
Austria
65
65
65
66
66
68
70
74
77
81
Belgium
92
94
95
96
97
97
98
98
98
98
Bulgaria
37
52
62
66
69
71
74
77
81
83
Czech Republic
60
64
75
75
74
74
75
78
81
83
Cyprus
36
41
59
67
69
70
73
76
79
82
Denmark
74
80
84
85
85
87
89
90
91
92
Estonia
58
65
70
71
69
69
71
73
77
80
Finland
55
64
72
79
82
85
87
89
91
92
France
62
71
73
74
77
85
90
92
93
94
Germany
71
72
73
73
73
74
76
78
81
84
Greece
43
53
58
59
60
61
65
69
74
78
Hungary
56
60
64
66
65
68
72
76
79
82
Ireland
46
52
55
57
59
62
66
70
74
78
Italy
59
64
67
67
67
68
71
75
78
81
Latvia
53
61
67
69
68
68
68
71
75
78
Lithuania
39
50
61
68
67
67
69
72
75
79
Luxembourg
70
74
80
81
84
85
87
89
91
92
Malta
90
90
90
90
92
95
96
97
97
97
Netherlands
60
62
65
69
77
83
86
89
90
92
Poland
48
52
58
61
62
61
62
65
69
74
Portugal
35
39
43
48
54
61
66
71
76
80
Romania
34
40
46
53
53
57
63
68
73
77
Slovakia
33
41
52
56
56
55
56
59
64
69
Slovenia
28
37
48
50
51
50
50
54
60
66
Spain
57
66
73
75
76
77
79
82
84
86
Sweden
72
81
83
83
84
85
86
87
89
90
United Kingdom
78
77
78
78
79
80
81
84
86
88
Latin America and the
Caribbean
United States of America
49
57
64
70
75
80
83
85
87
89
70
74
74
75
79
82
85
87
89
90
Oceania
67
71
71
71
70
70
70
71
73
75
Source: United Nations Population Division.
28
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. The 2011 preliminary census data only
covers basic population change and does not include data on households or age structure.
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 4.58 million, that is by just over a million people. Despite the
recession, and expectations that population growth would slow, the population grew by 341,421
between 2006 and 2011 or by 8.1%.
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
4,581,269
341,421
8.1
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).
29
Significant regional variations in recent population growth
Table 3.2 shows that while the national population grew by 8.1% between 2006 and 2011, there
were significant regional variations in population growth. In the midland and mid-east regions,
population grew by 12 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 per
cent, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region only had a growth of 5 per cent, well
below the national trend.
Table 3.2
Regional Population Change 1991-2011
1991
1996
2002
2006
2011
19911996
19962002
Persons
20022006
20062011
19912011
% change
Border
402,987
407,295
432,534
468,375
514,152
1.1
6.2
8.3
9.8
27.6
Midland
202,984
205,542
225,363
251,664
282,195
1.3
9.6
11.7
12.1
39.0
West
342,974
352,353
380,297
414,277
444,991
2.7
7.9
8.9
7.4
29.7
Dublin
1,025,304
1,058,264
1,122,821
1,187,176
1,270,603
3.2
6.1
5.7
7.0
23.9
Mid East
325,291
347,407
412,625
475,360
530,437
6.8
18.8
15.2
11.6
63.1
Mid West
South
East
South
West
310,728
317,069
339,591
361,028
378,410
2.0
7.1
6.3
4.8
21.8
383,188
391,517
423,616
460,838
497,305
2.2
8.2
8.8
7.9
29.8
532,263
546,640
580,356
621,130
663,176
2.7
6.2
7.0
6.8
24.6
3,525,719
3,626,087
3,917,203
4,239,848
4,581,269
2.8
8.0
8.2
8.1
29.9
State
Figure 3.1
Population Change 1991-2011
Census Period
2006-2011
2002-2006
State
Mid East
Dublin
1996-2002
1991-1996
0
5
10
15
20
% change on previous census
30
Figure 3.2
Regional Population Change 2006-2011
Source: Census of Population 2011 Preliminary 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 per cent in the
equivalent period (from 1.025m to 1.270m) compared to the national average of 30 per cent.
However, Fingal was the exception here 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, Wicklow
and Meath had increases of 71, 75 and 40 per cent respectively. These figures show clearly the
dispersal of population beyond the Dublin region.
31
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 9.8 per cent in Dublin
City. Fingal County Council, by contrast, witnessed a population increase of 78.7 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 1991-2006
1991
1996
2002
2006
2011
Dublin City
478,389
481,854
495,781
506,211
525,383
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
185,410
189,999
191,792
194,038
206,995
Fingal
152,766
167,683
196,413
239,992
273,051
South Dublin
208,739
218,728
238,835
246,935
265,174
1,025,304
1,058,264
1,122,821
1,187,176
1,270,603
Kildare
122,656
134,992
163,944
186,335
209,955
Meath
105,370
109,732
134,005
162,831
184,034
Wicklow
97,265
102,683
114,676
126,194
136,448
325,291
1,350,595
347,407
1,405,671
412,625
1,535,446
475,360
1,662,536
530,437
1,801,040
3,525,719
3,626,087
3,917,203
4,239,848
4,581,269
Dublin Region
Mid-East Region
Greater Dublin Area
State
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.4
Inter-Censal Population Change %
1991-1996
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Dublin Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Mid East Region
GDA
State
0.7
2.5
9.8
4.8
3.2
10.1
4.1
5.6
6.8
4.1
2.8
1996-2002
2.9
0.9
17.1
9.2
6.1
21.4
22.1
11.7
18.8
9.2
8.0
2002-2006
2.1
1.2
22.2
3.4
5.7
13.7
21.5
10.0
15.2
8.3
8.2
2006-2011
3.8
6.7
13.8
7.4
7.0
12.7
13.0
8.1
11.6
11.6
8.3
1991-2011
9.8
11.6
78.7
27.0
23.9
71.2
74.7
40.3
63.1
33.4
29.9
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 there 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 regions 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.
32
Table 3.5
Dublin Region Population Share (%)
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Dublin Region
1991
46.7
18.1
14.9
20.4
100
1996
45.5
18.0
15.8
20.7
100
2002
44.2
17.1
17.5
21.3
100
2006
42.6
16.3
20.2
20.8
100
2011
41.3
16.3
21.5
20.9
100
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.6 and Figure 3.3 examine the share of Dublin City’s population in the context of the Greater
Dublin Area. The same shrinkage in share of population can be seen. In 1991 Dublin City had 35% of
the GDA population but this had decreased to 30% 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 to 27 per
cent.
Table 3.6
Greater Dublin Area Population Share (%)
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
GDA
1991
35.4
13.7
1996
34.3
13.5
2002
32.3
12.5
2006
30.4
11.7
2011
29.2
11.5
11.3
15.5
9.1
7.8
7.2
100
11.9
15.6
9.6
7.8
7.3
100
12.8
15.6
10.7
8.7
7.5
100
14.4
14.9
11.2
9.8
7.6
100
15.2
14.7
11.7
10.2
7.6
100
Source: Census of Population
Figure 3.3
%
Changing Share of Population in Greater Dublin Area (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Dublin City
Dún
Laoghaire Rathdown
1991
Fingal
South Dublin
1996
2002
2006
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
2011
33
Table 3.7
Percentage Share of Population of the State (%)
1991
13.6
5.3
4.3
5.9
29.1
3.5
3.0
2.8
38.3
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Dublin Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
GDA
1996
13.3
5.2
4.6
6.0
29.2
3.7
3.0
2.8
38.8
2002
12.7
4.9
5.0
6.1
28.7
4.2
3.4
2.9
39.2
2006
11.9
4.6
5.7
5.8
28.0
4.4
3.8
3.0
39.2
2011
11.5
4.5
6.0
5.8
27.7
4.6
4.0
3.0
39.3
Source: Census of Population
Figure 3.4
National Share of Population in Dublin and the GDA (%)
45
40
39.2
38.8
38.3
39.3
39.2
35
Dublin Region
30
29.1
29.2
28.7
28
27.7
GDA
25
20
1991
1996
2002
2006
2011
34
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.
35
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% is used to determine whether a
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 for 2008, 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, 2011c). Dublin is the employment hub of the
state with 37% of all jobs located in the Dublin Region while the GDA is home to 45% of all jobs in
the State. The travel to work patterns as demonstrated through the place of work census records
(POWCAR, 200622) show that while Dublin City Council accounts for 11% of the national population
almost 21% of all jobs in Ireland are located here.
One of the consequences of the concentration of economic development and residential sprawl, has
been the emergence of complex commuting patters. 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 3.5, based on work by Meridith (2007) and NIRSA, demonstrate the functional urban areas of
the gateways and hubs across Ireland. 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.
22
POWCAR refers to journey to work data from Census 2006. See http://www.cso.ie/census/POWCAR_2006.htm
36
Figure 3.6
Source:
Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold
Meredith (2007)
37
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 region23. 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).
23
The synthesis report on this research will be published by the EPA in late 2011 or early 2012
38
Figure 3.7
Moland Model: Actual Land Use in 2006
39
Figure 3.8
Moland Land Use Scenario for 2026
40
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 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
41
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
42
Inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city of Dublin has
seen strong population growth. 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 nearly 10 per
cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 62% in the same period24. 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.
But 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% 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
481,854
94,112
495,781
506,211
Total Inner City
478,389
84,055
112,044
Total rest of city
394,334
387,742
383,737
Dublin City
525,383
Change
19912011
46,994
% change
19912011
9.8%
124,036
135,827
51,772
61.6%
382,175
389,556
-4,778
-1.2%
Source: Census of Population
24
See Appendix 1 for detailed breakdown of change in inner city wards and for administrative areas in Dublin City Council
43
Figure 3.11
Population change in Dublin City 1991-2011
450,000
400,000
350,000
Total Persons
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Persons 1991
Persons 1996
Persons 2002
Persons 2006
Persons 2011
Rest of Dublin City
394334
387742
383737
382175
389556
Total Inner City
84055
94112
112044
124036
135827
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.9 examines population density in the Greater Dublin Area. These figures must be treated
with caution as they encompass the entire area of the administrative units and not just what might
be termed ‘urban’. For example, while Fingal has extensive new suburban developments much of its
land would not be classified as urban (as demonstrated in the Moland land use map, Figure 3.6 and
3.7). Nonetheless, we can see that Dublin City has by far the highest population density per square
kilometre.
Table 3.9
Population Density per Square Kilometre
KM
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
2
920.66
117.61
126.95
453.09
223.01
1694.2
2334.54
2032.6
70182.24
Population density
2002
Population density 2006
1219.6
4215.5
1510.8
433.5
1071.0
96.8
57.4
56.4
55.8
1289.5
4304.1
1528.5
529.7
1107.3
110.0
69.7
62.1
60.4
Source: Census of Population
44
3.4
Components of Population Change
Forecasts of net emigration are off the mark
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had calculated that mass emigration had
returned. However, the preliminary 2011 Census figures (Table 3.10) show in fact that there was net
positive in migration of 118, 650 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. We will
not know the breakdown between emigration and immigration until more detailed census results
are published in 2012. Figure 3.12 displays the key components of population change from 1990 to
2011. This data (The Population and Migration Estimates) for 2007-2011 must be treated with
caution and are to be revised by the CSO25.
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 5 per cent of growth and in Dublin it accounted for
22 per cent of population growth.
Table 3.10
Regional Population Change 2006-2011
Population Population
2006
2011
Border
468,375
514,152
Dublin
1,187,176
1,270,603
Mid East
475,360
530,437
Mid West
361,028
378,410
Midlands
251,664
282,195
South East
460,838
497,305
South West
621,130
663,176
West
414,277
444,991
State
4,239,848
4,581,269
Source: Census of Population
Increase in
population
45,777
83,427
55,077
17,382
30,531
36,467
42,046
30,714
341,421
Change
%
10
7
12
5
12
8
7
7
8
Natural
increase
20,108
64,899
36,728
16,528
14,885
22,708
29,200
17,715
222,771
Estimated
net
migration
25,669
18,528
18,349
854
15,646
13,759
12,846
12,999
118,650
Natural
Increase
%
43.93
77.79
66.68
95.09
48.75
62.27
69.45
57.68
65.25
Net
Migration
%
56.07
22.21
33.32
4.91
51.25
37.73
30.55
42.32
34.75
25
The CSO state the following in the population and migration estimates “The Preliminary population estimate from the
2011 Census was 4.58 million, a difference of 97,000 persons with these estimates. It is planned to publish revised
population estimates for the years 2007 to 2011 (i.e. the period over which this differential arose) next year once a
thorough analysis at a detailed level of the final Census results has been completed.”
45
Figure 3.12
Components of Population Change
120
100
80
60
40
'000's
20
0
-20
-40
Natural increase
Immigrants
Emigrants
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
-60
Net migration
Note: The data for 2007-2011 is to be revised by the CSO.
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 10.1 per thousand population and net
migration of 5.4. 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 -0.3 per thousand. By contrast, Laois had a net inward migration figure of 23.9
per thousand.
46
Table 3.11
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dun Laoghaire
Fingal
South Dublin
Mid-East Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Rest of Leinster
Carlow
Kilkenny
Laois
Longford
Louth
Offaly
Westmeath
Wexford
Components of Population Change in Leinster 2006-2011
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
- deaths
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
- natural
increase
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
estimated
net
migration
(Number)
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)
19172
12957
33059
18239
16880
7055
22315
18649
2292
5902
10744
-410
14.7
13.4
20.7
18.1
8.1
6.4
3.3
3.5
6.5
7
17.4
14.6
0.9
5.9
8.4
-0.3
23620
21203
10254
15104
13356
8268
8516
7847
1986
19.6
20
18.4
4.3
4.6
5.8
15.2
15.4
12.6
8.6
9
3
4183
7802
13399
4579
11541
5938
6615
13524
3298
3895
4631
1843
5723
3791
4620
6980
885
3907
8768
2736
5818
2147
1995
6544
18.9
14.8
18
17.9
16.2
16.4
17.5
16.9
6.3
6.3
5.4
7.8
6.4
6.1
6.4
6.8
12.6
8.5
12.6
10
9.8
10.3
11.2
10.1
3.4
8.5
23.8
14.9
9.9
5.8
4.8
9.4
136408
222771
69677
118650
17.2
16.5
5.8
6.4
11.4
10.1
5.8
5.4
Leinster
206085
State
341421
Source: Census of Population
Tables 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 examine the components of population change in three inter-censal
periods, looking in particular at migration trends. Table 3.12 which examines change in the period
1991-1996, shows outward migration from Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin,
with in migration to Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Fingal is the only local authority in the Dublin
Region with inward migration.
47
Table 3.12
Components of Population Change 1991-1996
Population change
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
32960
3465
4589
14917
9989
12336
4362
5418
100368
Natural
Increase
36570
7969
5377
10100
13124
6438
3582
3703
92066
Total estimated
net migration
-3610
-4504
-788
4817
-3135
5898
780
1715
8302
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.13 shows that during the main period of the economic boom 1996-2002, there was
significant in migration into Dublin City, Fingal, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown, however, experienced outward migration in this period
Table 3.13
Components of Population Change 1996-2002
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
Population change
64557
13927
1793
28730
20107
28952
24273
11993
291116
Natural
Increase
50880
11622
6698
13551
19009
11043
6318
5278
137235
Total estimated
net migration
13677
2305
-4905
15179
1098
17909
17955
6715
153881
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.14 examines components of population change in the more recent period of 2002-2006. It
shows that there was a minor level of in migration to Dublin City but with out migration from DunLaoghaire 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.
48
Table 3.14
Components of Population Change 2002-2006
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
Population
change
64355
10430
2246
43579
8100
22391
28826
11518
322645
Natural
Increase
41704
9817
4381
13710
13796
9830
7441
4611
131314
Total estimated net
migration
22651
613
-2135
29869
-5696
12561
21385
6907
191331
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.15, shows the changes in the most recent intercensal period. Almost 90 per cent of the
population growth in Dublin City was accounted for by natural increase while this fell to 54 per cent
in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.
Table 3.15
Components of Population Change 2006-2011
Population change
Dublin Region
Dublin City
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
19,172
12,957
33,059
18,239
23,620
21,203
10,254
341,421
Natural
Increase
16,880
7,055
22,315
18,649
15,104
13,356
8,268
222,771
Total estimated
net migration
2,292
5,902
10,744
-410
8,516
7,847
1,986
118,650
Source: Census of Population
49
3.5
Age Structure, Dependency Ratios and Life Expectancy
Tables 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18 examine the age structure of the population in 1996, 2002 and 2006 (see
appendix 2 for population pyramids for 1996, 2002 and 2006). 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
2.8
2.5
1.2
0.9
2.1
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.5
80+
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.17 displays the age structure of the population in 2002. The most obvious pattern to emerge
is that Dublin City had 32% of its population in the 20-34 age group compared with 27% for Fingal
and 23% in Kildare and 22% in Wicklow. However, Dublin has only 16% of its population in the 0-14
age group as compared with 22% in Fingal and South Dublin and 24% in Meath.
Table 3.17
Age Structure in 2002 (%)
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
Rathdown
Fingal
South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
GDA
State
0-14
16.2
19.2
22.7
22.5
19.2
23.7
23.6
22.5
20.3
21.1
15-24
18.0
16.6
17.3
18.5
17.7
16.5
15.4
15.4
17.2
16.4
25-49
39.3
35.7
40.4
38.8
38.7
40.0
38.3
36.9
38.7
36.5
50-64
13.8
16.1
13.7
14.0
14.2
13.1
13.9
15.3
14.1
14.9
65-79
9.9
9.6
4.8
5.2
8.0
5.1
6.6
7.6
7.5
8.6
80+
2.9
2.8
1.2
1.0
2.2
1.5
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.6
Source: Census of Population
Meath and Fingal have younger population profile than Dublin City
Table 3.18 presents the age structure of the population as of 2006 (see also Figure 3.13). 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.
They also correspond with the results which show that Dublin City has a lower proportion of
households with children when compared with other counties.
50
Table 3.18
Age Structure in 2006 (%)
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
Rathdown
Fingal
South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
GDA
State
0-14
15.0
18.2
22.1
21.7
18.3
23.1
23.4
21.5
19.6
20.4
15-24
16.9
15.7
14.9
16.4
16.2
15.0
13.5
14.1
15.6
14.9
25-49
41.5
36.2
43.8
39.5
40.7
41.1
41.1
38.7
40.6
38.2
50-64
13.9
16.5
13.2
15.2
14.5
14.0
14.0
15.8
14.5
15.4
65-79
9.6
10.3
4.8
6.0
8.0
5.2
6.1
7.6
7.5
8.4
80+
3.1
3.1
1.2
1.3
2.3
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.2
2.7
Source: Census of Population
Figure 3.13
Age Structure 2006
45
40
35
30
25
%
20
15
10
5
0
Dublin City
DLR
0-14
Fingal
15-24
South
Dublin
25-49
Kildare
50-64
Meath
65-79
Wicklow
State
80+
51
Age Class
Figure 3.14 Dublin Region Population Pyramid 2006 (see Appendix 2 for GDA and Dublin City
Pyramids)
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
%
Dublin City Council has highest old-age ratio
Table 3.19 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 13.7 per cent Dublin City Council’s rate is
higher at 18 per cent and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown stands at 20 per cent. However, Fingal has the
lowest old-age dependency ratio at 8.3% with Kildare and South Dublin approximately 10 per cent.
The average young-age ratio for the GDA is 27.7% but it is 30 per cent or over in Fingal, South Dublin,
Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. By contrast Dublin City Council has the lowest young-age ratio at 21%.
Table 3.19
Dependency Ratios 2006
0-14
years
15-64
years
over 65
years
Young
age ratio
Old age
ratio
n
N
N
%
%
Total
dependency
ratio
%
Dublin City
75854
366089
64268
21
18
38
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
35244
132807
25987
27
20
46
Fingal
52974
172623
14395
30.7
8.3
39.0
South Dublin
53580
175494
17861
30.5
10.2
40.7
Dublin Region
217652
847013
122511
25.7
14.5
40.2
Kildare
43009
130547
12779
32.9
9.8
42.7
Meath
38150
111657
13024
34.2
11.7
45.8
Wicklow
27137
86540
12517
31.4
14.5
45.8
GDA
325948
1175757
160831
27.7
13.7
41.4
State
864449
2907473
467926
29.7
16.1
45.8
Source: Census of Population
52
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 3.20. The total of live births went from 58,000 in 2001 to a high of 75,000 in 2008 and has
declined somewhat in the past two years. When measured per thousand population we can see that
birth rates increase from 15 per thousand in 2001 to a high of 17 per thousand in 2008 and has
declined to 16.5 in 2010. 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.
Table 3.20
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Birth Rates-State
Live Births
number
Birth rates per 1000
Total period Fertility Rate
(TPFR)*
57882
60521
61517
61684
61042
64237
70620
75065
74278
73724
15.0
15.5
15.5
15.2
14.8
15.2
16.3
17.0
16.7
16.5
1.96
1.98
1.98
1.95
1.88
1.94
2.05
2.10
2.07
2.07
A fertility rate of 2.1 is considered the long run replacement rate. Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011
Life Expectancy increases
Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. As table 3.21
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 3.21
Year
1926
1946
1966
1986
2006
Life Expectancy in Ireland
Males
57.4
60.5
68.6
71.0
76.8
females
57.9
62.4
72.0
76.7
81.6
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011
53
Table 3.22 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.
Table 3.22
Period Life Expectancy by Region
Males
Border
Midland
West
Dublin
Mid-East
Mid-West
South-East
South- West
Age =0
2002
2006
74.8
77.0
74.8
77.2
75.5
77.1
75.2
76.7
75.9
77.2
74.4
76.3
75.3
76.8
75.2
76.5
Age=65
2002
2006
15.3
16.5
15.3
16.8
15.6
16.8
15.5
16.9
15.5
16.6
15.3
16.1
15.4
16.7
15.3
16.4
Females
Age =0
2002
2006
80.9
81.7
79.7
81.5
80.9
82.7
80.2
81.2
80.5
81.4
79.8
80.4
80.3
81.7
80.5
81.6
2002
19.2
28.5
19.0
18.9
18.8
18.6
18.6
18.8
Age=65
2006
19.8
19.3
20.6
19.7
19.5
18.7
19.9
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 3.23, 3.24 and Figure 3.13 show this. The demographic profile of Dublin has
changed over the past decade due to the rapid influx of international populations in particular from
Eastern Europe (over 15% of the city population are non-Irish nationals) (CSO, 2006). Dublin is now a
culturally diverse and cosmopolitan city with over 150 nationalities living here now (CSO, 2006). The
Dublin Region has a higher rate of non-Irish nationals than other areas in the Greater Dublin Area.
Dublin experienced a major increase of 367% of non-Irish Born residents over a 20 year period up to
2006 increasing from 5.5% to over 17% of the total population (see figure 3.15). Within the Dublin
City Council area the largest groups are from the UK (24%) and Poland (12%).
Figure 3.15
Population born outside of Ireland
54
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 3.23
Population by Nationality 2006 (%)
Dublin
Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Total
Irish
85.5
89.0
90.2
90.5
88.8
UK
1.8
2.2
2.4
3.1
2.7
EU15 excluding Ireland and UK
1.8
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
EU15 to EU25 accession states
3.3
3.6
3.2
2.0
2.9
Other European Nationality
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.6
America (United States)
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
Africa
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
Asia
2.4
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
Other Nationalities
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
Multi Nationality
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
No Nationality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Not Stated
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
Total
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.24
Population by Country of Birth 2006 (%)
Dublin
Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Total
County of usual residence
68.4
41.1
40.0
44.4
65.0
Other county
14.5
44.7
46.4
42.1
20.4
Northern Ireland
1.1
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
England and Wales
3.4
4.4
4.6
5.3
4.9
Scotland
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Poland
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
Lithuania
0.6
0.6
1.4
0.5
0.6
Other EU
2.8
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.9
Other European countries
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
USA
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
Africa
1.7
1.3
1.2
0.6
1.0
Asia
2.8
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.3
Other countries
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
State
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Census of Population
Figure 3.16 shows the concentrations of non-Irish Nationals by electoral division in 2006. It is
interesting to note the concentration of non-Irish nationals in the city centre (there are three
enumeration districts that have more that 50% non-Irish nationals) and in the north-west fringe of
the city around the Blanchardstown area.
55
Figure 3.16
Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2006
Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) from Census data 2006.
56
3.7
Household Change and Housing
Tables 3.25 and 3.26 show the changing numbers of households and household size since 1996.
Nationally, the number of private households increased 28.8% between 1996 and 2006. Dublin City
has the lowest increase in numbers of households over the decade 1996-2006, while Fingal saw the
number of households increase by one-third in the same period. Meath saw an increase of almost
30% while Kildare increased by 21%.
Table 3.25
Number of Private Households
Dublin City
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Dublin Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Greater Dublin Area
State
No of private
households
1996
No of private
households
2002
172,433
61,465
47,599
61,708
343,205
38,929
31,798
31,134
445,066
1,123,238
180,852
64,132
60,872
73,516
379,372
50,477
41,675
36,572
508,096
1,287,958
No of
private
households
2006
190,984
68,412
80,402
80,631
420,429
60,957
53,938
42,870
578,194
1,469,521
%
change
19962002
4.9
4.3
27.9
19.1
10.5
29.7
31.1
17.5
14.2
14.7
%
change
20022006
5.6
6.7
32.1
9.7
10.8
20.8
29.4
17.2
13.8
14.1
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.26 confirms that average household size has decreased over the past decade. Nationally,
average household size had gone from 3.14 in 1996, to 2.94 in 2002 and 2.81 in 2006. Average
household size is smaller in Dublin City, going from 2.67 in 1996 to 2.59 in 2002 and 2.50 in 2006.
Table 3.26
Average Household Size
Average number of persons per private household
Dublin City
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Dublin Region
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
Greater Dublin Area
State
1996
2002
2006
2.67
3.01
3.46
3.50
2.99
3.39
3.41
3.22
3.07
3.14
2.59
2.9
3.18
3.21
2.86
3.18
3.17
3.06
2.93
2.94
2.50
2.77
2.95
3.03
2.73
3.01
2.99
2.89
2.80
2.81
Source: Census of Population
57
Table 3.27 examines household composition or type in 2006. The most obvious result from this table
is that Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households than other
counties. Almost 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with
17% in Fingal and 16% in 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 33% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal and South Dublin and
almost 40% in Meath and Wicklow. 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.
Dublin City
Dún LaoghaireRathdown
Fingal
South Dublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
Household Composition in 2006
Dublin Region
Table 3.27
One person
23.2
29.3
22.3
16.8
15.9
16.5
17.2
19.1
22.4
Husband and wife
12.5
11.2
15.9
12.6
12.5
13.5
14.2
14.6
13.9
Cohabiting couple
5.5
5.7
3.9
7
4.8
5.3
5.9
5.2
4.4
Husband and wife with children (of any age)
27.9
19.4
32.8
35.9
35.8
38.3
39.5
35.4
32.5
Cohabiting couple with children (of any age)
2.5
2
1.6
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.8
3.6
2.7
Lone mother with children (of any age)
9.5
9.6
7.8
9
11.4
8.5
7.2
9.6
8.9
Lone father with children (of any age)
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
Husband and wife with other persons
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
Cohabiting couple with other persons
1
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
Husband and wife with children (of any age) and other
persons
Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) and other
persons
Lone mother with children (of any age) and other
persons
Lone father with children (of any age) and other
persons
Two family units with or without other persons
1.8
1.6
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.2
1.4
1
1
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
2.1
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
Three or more family units with or without other
persons
Non-family households containing related persons
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
3.5
4.7
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.1
3
Non-family households containing no related persons
6.9
9.5
5.6
4.7
4.2
4
2.3
2.3
4.4
Households with Children
44.7
35.9
46.8
53
56.3
55.2
55.4
53.9
48.9
Total private households
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: Census of Population
58
Housing stock in Dublin older than in suburban areas
Table 3.28 displays the age of the housing stock as of 2006. It is hardly surprising that Dublin City
has an older housing stock than other areas (see Figure 3.17 for Dublin City housing age). Eighty five
per cent of the housing stock was built before 1996 while only 15% was built post 1996. By contrast,
in the newly expanding area of Fingal, 43% of the stock is post 1996. Meath and Kildare show that
approximately 40% of the housing stock was built post 1996 as housing supply spread into the
hinterland of the Greater Dublin Area.
Table 3.28
Age of Housing in 2006 (%)
Pre 1996
Dublin City
85
Post
1996
15
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown
85
15
Fingal
57
43
South Dublin
74
26
Dublin Region
77
23
Kildare
60
40
Meath
56
44
Wicklow
70
30
Greater Dublin Area
73
27
State
71
29
Source: Census of Population 2006
59
Figure 3.17
Age of Housing in Dublin City Council
Source: produced by Jamie Cudden from Census data(2006)
Dublin City has lowest rate of home ownership in the region
Table 3.29 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 59%
compared to 75% nationally and 80% in Fingal County Council. Conversely, Dublin City has a
comparatively higher rate of social rented and private rented housing. Seventeen per cent of
housing in Dublin is social rented (22,597 local authority dwellings and 9,297 housing association
dwellings) compared with 11% nationally, while one fifth of housing in the City is private rented
compared to 10% nationally.
60
Table 3.29
Housing Tenure in Dublin 2006 (%)
Owner
occupied
with loan
or
mortgage
30.9%
Owner
occupied
without
loan or
mortgage
27.8%
Being
purchased
from a
Local
Authority
3.1%
Private
rented
Total
17.8%
20.4%
100%
Dún Laoghaire – Rathdown
42.2%
36.6%
1.4%
8.3%
11.6%
100%
Fingal
58.1%
22.2%
1.2%
8.6%
9.9%
100%
South Dublin
50.9%
26.5%
2.0%
12.6%
8.0%
100%
Dublin Region
41.8%
27.9%
2.2%
13.5%
14.5%
100%
Kildare
53.7%
27.4%
1.5%
8.5%
8.9%
100%
Meath
55.3%
30.8%
1.0%
6.8%
6.1%
100%
Wicklow
46.2%
33.2%
1.4%
11.4%
7.9%
100%
Greater Dublin Area
44.7%
28.5%
2.0%
12.2%
12.6%
100%
State
40.9%
35.8%
1.7%
11.2%
10.4%
100%
Dublin City
Social
rented
Source: Census of Population
Dublin city has highest proportion of apartments in the region
Table 3.30 shows the distribution of dwelling types in the different administrative areas. Only 5% of
dwellings in Dublin City are detached while almost 30% are apartments. By contrast, in Fingal the
respective figures are 21% and 13%. The much higher share of apartments in Dublin City reflects the
policy of high density infill development pursued for the past decade.
Table 3.30
Dwelling Type 2006 (%)
Detached
house
Dublin City
5.0%
Semidetached
house
25.5%
Terraced
house
Apartment
Total
39.3%
30.2%
100%
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown
23.6%
43.8%
17.6%
15.0%
100%
Fingal
20.7%
47.2%
19.4%
12.7%
100%
South Dublin
10.8%
54.9%
26.2%
8.0%
100%
Dublin Region
12.3%
38.4%
29.3%
20.0%
100%
Kildare
43.1%
39.7%
10.3%
7.0%
100%
Meath
56.3%
29.1%
9.2%
5.3%
100%
Wicklow
46.4%
29.9%
16.4%
7.2%
100%
GDA
22.2%
37.1%
24.4%
16.3%
100%
State
44.1%
28.0%
18.1%
9.8%
100%
Source: Census of Population
61
Vacancy rates lower in Dublin
One of the controversial issues which has arisen as a result of the property crash has been the extent
of vacant housing due to over supply during the boom. The recent preliminary figures from the 2011
Census show that the national average vacancy rate was 14.7 per cent or 294,202 dwellings. All of
the local authority areas in the Greater Dublin area are below this national average. However,
counties like Roscommon, Sligo, Kerry and Donegal have vacancy rates of over 20 per cent, with
Leitrim having the highest rate at over 30 per cent. The figures are for total vacancies and do not
distinguish between holiday homes and other vacancies.
Table 3.31
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
529,312
45,703
8.6
-602
-1.3
Dublin City
223,098
26,092
11.7
242,388
26,003
10.7
-89
-0.3
Dun Laoghaire
77,508
6,928
8.9
86,088
6,865
8
-63
-0.9
Fingal
89,909
7,878
8.8
103,295
7,453
7.2
-425
-5.4
South Dublin
87,484
5,407
6.2
97,541
5,382
5.5
-25
-0.5
Kildare
68,840
6,838
9.9
79,170
6,439
8.1
-399
-5.8
Meath
61,257
6,485
10.6
70,079
6,365
9.1
-120
-1.9
Wicklow
49,088
5,577
11.4
54,687
5,422
9.9
-155
-2.8
State
1,769,613
266,322
15
2,004,175
294,202
14.7
27880
10.5
Source: Census of Population
62
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 preliminary
results. It 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 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.
63
Figure 4.1
Population Projections by Age Category
67.3%
62.8%
21.3%
60.0%
18.9%
18.3%
22.0%
18.1%
11.3%
2010
Under 15
Eurostat 2011
Figure 4.2
2035
2060
15-64
Over 65
Population Projections for Over 65s and Over 80s
1,437,954
1,040,378
586,412
505,880
293,323
123,968
2010
Eurostat 2011
2035
Over 65
2060
Over 80
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 2006 (Census figures) and the projected
population pyramid for 2060, based on United Nations forecasts. The 2006 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.
64
Figure 4.3
Population Pyramid for Ireland in 2006 and 2060 (United Nations)
Age Class
Populaition Pyramid for Ireland in 2006 (Census Data 2006)
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Age Class
%
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
Population Pyramid for Ireland in 2060 (United Nations Forecast)
Note: based on a forecast population of 6,273,000
65
4.2
Central Statistics Office Forecasts
Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 summarise the CSO forecasts to 202626. 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 Boxes 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
M0
M1 and M2
F1
F2
Recent
Traditional
Table 4.2
Regional
Authority
Area
Border
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
Midland
Mid-West
South-East
South-West
West
CSO Forecasting assumptions and definitions
The M0 assumption considers net international migration of zero
Annual net inward migration in the period to 2041
was assumed to be 38,600 under M1 and 21,400 under M2.
TFR (Total Fertility Rate) to remain at its 2006 level of 1.9 for the
lifetime of the projections;
TFR to decrease to 1.65 by 2016 and remain constant thereafter
The pattern of inter-regional flows observed in the year to April
2006 is applied up to 2026.
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
Central Statistics Office Long Term Population Forecasts
Population
2006
‘000s
470
1,662
1,183
479
252
359
461
619
411
Population 2026
‘000s
Population
2026
‘000s
Population 2026
‘000s
Population 2026
‘000s
M2F1
Recent
651
2,195
1,365
830
396
455
653
782
564
M2F1
Traditional
592
2,413
1,659
754
321
450
591
776
552
M0F1
Recent
575
1,816
1,080
736
351
403
586
675
477
MOF1
Traditional
523
2,010
1,343
667
285
400
531
670
466
5,696
4,884
4,884
State
4,233
5,696
Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office (2008)
26
Forecasts are made at regional level and not by county
66
Figure 4.4
Population Forecasts for Dublin 2026 – Central Statistics Office
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
GDA
Dublin Region
1,000,000
Mid-East Region
500,000
0
M2F1 recent
M2F1
traditional
M0F1 recent
MOF1
traditional
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
‘000s
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
State
1,662
1,183
479
233
Population
change
2006-2026
M2F1
recent
‘000s
Population
Change
2006-2026
M2F1
traditional
‘000s
Population
Change
2006-2026
M0F1
recent
‘000s
Population
change 20062026
MOF1
traditional
‘000s
+533
+182
+351
+1,463
+751
+476
+275
+1,463
+154
-103
+257
+651
+348
+160
+188
+651
Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office, 2008
67
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
1,217,800
514,500
4,422,000
Dublin Region
Mid East Region
State
2010
1,256,900
540,000
4,584,900
2016
1,361,900
594,600
4,997,000
2022
1,464,200
639,700
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
1,662,536
1,955,800
2,103,900
441,364
17.6
7.6
GDA total
Source: Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022
68
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
Border
Dublin
Mid East
Mid West
Midlands
South East
South West
West
State
492,500
1,217,800
514,500
371,900
266,800
487,800
644,600
426,100
4,422,000
2010
511,000
1,256,900
540,000
383,800
275,600
507,900
667,500
442,200
4,584,900
2016
552,700
1,361,200
594,600
427,200
297,300
542,200
737,100
484,700
4,997,000
2022
2011
Census
Actual
low
high
595,000
1,464,200
639,700
462,300
317,100
580,500
795,000
521,400
5,375,200
611,400
1,504,500
657,200
475,000
325,800
596,500
816,900
535,700
5,523,000
514,152
1,270,603
530,437
378,410
282,195
497,305
663,176
444,991
4,581,269
Difference
with 2010
target
3,152
13,703
-9,563
-5,390
6,595
-10,595
-4,324
2,791
-3,631
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.
69
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 may 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 2050
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% in
2010 to 36 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.
70
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 committed to promoting an
age-friendly city (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 preliminary 2011 Census data there had been a consensus that mass
emigration had reasserted itself. However, the data showed positive net inward migration. This
illustrates the difficulty of forecasting generally and in particular at a time of economic upheaval.
This is turn leads to two 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?
Once the more detailed Census results are produced next year these questions may be answered
with more confidence. More generally, however, what will be required is a consideration and
examination of the assumptions for future population change.
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.
71
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.
Nonetheless, when additional census data on vacancies and household change are released next
year, consideration will have to be given to forecasting future housing need and demand.
Further analysis of Census 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
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).
72
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) and also decision map www.decisionmap.ie/ (created by Ordnance Survey Ireland and Twelve
Horses with the goal of encouraging enhanced use of publically available data to aid decision making in the
public and private sector).
73
6
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Population change in Dublin Inner City 1991-2011
Electoral Divisions
Dublin City
Persons
1991
Persons
1996
Persons
2002
Persons
2006
Persons
2011
Change
1991-2011
n
Change
1991-2011
%
478389
481854
495781
506211
525,383
46,994
9.8
001 Arran Quay A
1092
1336
1390
1502
1550
458
41.9
002 Arran Quay B
1946
1963
3089
3692
3862
1916
98.5
003 Arran Quay C
921
1914
2375
3714
4207
3286
356.8
004 Arran Quay D
3196
3264
3675
3600
3223
27
0.8
005 Arran Quay E
2965
2957
2902
2889
3030
65
2.2
009 Ballybough A
3581
3570
3368
3624
3444
-137
-3.8
010 Ballybough B
2466
2571
3009
3215
3330
864
35.0
066 Inns Quay A
3109
3235
3373
3715
3963
854
27.5
067 Inns Quay B
2528
2680
2953
3113
3330
802
31.7
068 Inns Quay C
1698
1748
2359
2672
2698
1000
58.9
073 Mountjoy A
2983
3108
3242
3760
5237
2254
75.6
074 Mountjoy B
1657
1994
2725
3446
2703
1046
63.1
075 North City
819
2391
3942
3867
5243
4424
540.2
076 North Dock A
1222
1188
1287
1200
1291
69
5.6
077 North Dock B
3503
3655
3628
3690
6843
3340
95.3
078 North Dock C
2324
2411
3568
4179
4419
2095
90.1
088 Rotunda A
1837
2522
4199
4672
4370
2533
137.9
089 Rotunda B
896
1122
1752
2137
2440
1544
172.3
117 Mansion House A
3011
3139
4269
4462
4148
1137
37.8
118 Mansion House B
602
770
990
869
1077
475
78.9
119 Merchants Quay A
1124
1513
1824
2062
2079
955
85.0
120 Merchants Quay B
1621
2356
3449
3901
3815
2194
135.3
121 Merchants Quay C
2012
2079
2639
2850
3447
1435
71.3
122 Merchants Quay D
2142
2060
2084
2059
2033
-109
-5.1
123 Merchants Quay E
1221
1463
1660
2369
2345
1124
92.1
124 Merchants Quay F
2414
2296
2264
2459
2413
-1
0.0
125 Pembroke East A
4427
4349
4304
4754
4916
489
11.0
130 Pembroke West A
3070
3292
3241
4262
4686
1616
52.6
144 Royal Exchange A
1140
2267
3569
3602
4233
3093
271.3
145 Royal Exchange B
1183
1613
1936
2020
1911
728
61.5
146 St. Kevin's
3047
3497
4601
5206
4845
1798
59.0
147 South Dock
2589
3307
3764
5123
7146
4557
176.0
152 Ushers A
654
845
1679
1928
3084
2430
371.6
Inner City North
Inner City South
74
153 Ushers B
565
926
1072
1255
1260
695
123.0
154 Ushers C
2610
2571
2708
3089
3724
1114
42.7
155 Ushers D
1875
1802
1752
1658
2073
198
10.6
156 Ushers E
1946
1894
1935
1934
1831
-115
-5.9
157 Ushers F
2648
2554
3064
3237
3397
749
28.3
161 Wood Quay A
1949
2351
2866
2743
2663
714
36.6
162 Wood Quay B
3462
3539
3538
3507
3518
56
1.6
Total Inner City
84055
94112
112044
124036
135827
51772
61.6
75
Dublin Inner City Growth (1991 - 2011)
160,000
140,000
135827
124036
120,000
Total Persons
112044
100,000
94112
84055
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Persons 1991 Persons 1996 Persons 2002 Persons 2006 Persons 2011
Dublin City - Outside the Canals Growth (1991 2011)
396,000
394,000
392,000
Total Persons
390,000
388,000
386,000
384,000
382,000
380,000
378,000
376,000
Rest of Dublin City
Persons
1991
Persons
1996
Persons
2002
Persons
2006
Persons
2011
394334
387742
383737
382175
389556
76
Population change in Administrative Areas of Dublin City 1991-2011
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
1991
1996
2002
2006
2011
Dublin Central
Dublin North Central
Dublin North West
Dublin South Central
Dublin Southeast
77
Appendix 2 Population Pyramids for Dublin and State, 1996, 2002 and 2006
Age Class
Dublin City Council 1996
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
%
Age Class
Dublin Region 1996
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
78
Age Class
Greater Dublin Area 1996
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
Age Class
State 1996
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
79
Age Class
Dublin City Council 2002
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
%
Age Class
Dublin Region 2002
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
80
Age Class
Greater Dublin Area 2002
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
Age Class
State 2002
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
81
Age Class
Dublin City Council 2006
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
%
Age Class
Dublin Region 2006
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
%
82
Age Class
Greater Dublin Area 2006
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
Age Class
State 2006
85 +
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
Female %
Male %
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
%
83
Appendix 3 Central Statistics Office - Long Term Forecasts
M2F1 Recent
Regional
Authority
Area
Population
2006
Populati
on Share
2006
Border
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
Midland
Mid-West
South-East
South-West
West
470
1,662
1,183
479
252
359
461
619
411
11.1
39.3
28.0
11.3
6.0
8.5
10.9
14.6
9.7
State
4,233
100.0
Births
Deaths
Interna
l
migrati
on
External
Migratio
n
Population
2026
Popula
tion
Share
2026
Total
Increase
157
569
348
221
99
115
156
194
136
69
198
143
56
34
50
66
87
61
35
-114
-242
128
45
-2
43
-13
6
57
276
217
59
33
32
59
70
72
651
2,195
1,365
830
396
455
653
782
564
11.4
38.5
24.0
14.6
6.9
8.0
11.5
13.7
9.9
181
533
181
352
144
96
192
164
153
Averag
e
annual
increas
e
1.6
1.4
0.7
2.8
2.3
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.6
1,427
564
0
600
5,696
100.0
1,463
1.5
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.
M2F1 Traditional
Regional
Population
Authority
2006
Area
Populati
on Share
2006
Births
Death
s
Internal
migratio
n
External
Migrati
on
Population
2026
Populati
on
Share
2026
Total
Increas
e
Border
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
Midland
Mid-West
South-East
South-West
West
470
1,662
1,183
479
252
359
461
619
411
11.1
39.3
28.0
11.3
6.0
8.5
10.9
14.6
9.7
149
606
403
202
84
115
144
195
135
68
200
146
55
34
49
65
87
61
-16
69
0
69
-15
-6
-8
-21
-4
57
276
217
59
33
32
59
70
72
592
2,413
1,659
754
321
450
591
776
552
10.4
42.4
29.1
13.2
5.6
7.9
10.4
13.6
9.7
122
751
476
275
69
92
130
157
142
Averag
e
annual
increas
e
1.2
1.9
1.7
2.3
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.5
State
4,233
100.0
1,427
564
0
600
5,696
100.0
1,463
1.5
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.
84
M0F1 Recent
Regional
Authority
Area
Population
2006
Populatio
n Share
2006
Border
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
Midland
Mid-West
South-East
South-West
West
470
1,662
1,183
479
252
359
461
619
411
11.1
39.3
28.0
11.3
6.0
8.5
10.9
14.6
9.7
State
4,233
100.0
Births
Deaths
Internal
migration
External
Migratio
n
136
467
274
193
88
101
138
163
110
67
193
139
54
34
49
65
86
60
32
-104
-221
117
41
-2
39
-12
6
4
-15
-17
2
4
-5
12
-9
10
1,204
554
0
0
Population
2026
Populatio
n Share
2026
Total
Increase
Average
annual
increase
575
1,816
1,080
736
351
403
586
675
477
11.8
37.2
22.1
15.1
7.2
8.3
12.0
13.8
9.8
105
155
-103
258
100
45
125
56
66
1.0
0.4
-0.5
2.2
1.7
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.7
4,884
100.0
651
0.7
Population
2026
Populatio
n Share
2026
Total
Increase
Average
annual
increase
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.
M0F1 Traditional
Regional
Authority
Area
Border
Population
2006
Populatio
n Share
2006
Births
Deaths
Internal
migration
External
Migratio
n
470
11.1
129
67
-13
4
523
10.7
53
0.5
1,662
39.3
500
195
59
-15
2,010
41.2
348
1.0
1,183
28.0
323
142
-5
-17
1,343
27.5
160
0.6
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
GDA
Dublin
Mid-East
Source: Cent
85
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
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor.aspx
Path
to
economic
recovery
Central Statistics Office (various) Census 1996, 2002 and 2006,.
http://www.cso.ie/census/
Stationery Office, Dublin. Available at
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 (2011a) Census of Population 2011 Preliminary Results, Stationery Office, Dublin. Available at
http://www.cso.ie/census/2011_preliminaryreport.htm
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
86
87
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES
2012
88
OFFICE
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND RESEARCH