Demographic Trends in Dublin Over the Past Two Decades

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

O FFICE OF INTERNATION AL RELATIONS AND RES EARCH

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]

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 10

1.1 REPORT CONTEXT ...... 10 1.2 SOURCES AND METHODS ...... 11 2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT ...... 14

2.1 EUROPE IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT ...... 14 2.2 IRELAND IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT ...... 19 2.3 GLOBAL TREND OF INCREASED URBANISATION ...... 25 3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011 ...... 29

3.1 KEY POPULATION TRENDS ...... 29 3.2 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN ...... 31 3.3 SPRAWL AND DISPERSION IN THE DUBLIN REGION ...... 35 3.4 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE ...... 45 3.5 AGE STRUCTURE, DEPENDENCY RATIOS AND LIFE EXPECTANCY ...... 50 3.6 NATIONALITY AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH ...... 54 3.7 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND HOUSING ...... 57 4 POPULATION FORECASTS ...... 63

4.1 LONG TERM FORECASTS ...... 63 4.2 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE FORECASTS ...... 66 4.3 REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDELINE FORECASTS ...... 68 5 CONSIDERATIONS ...... 70 6 APPENDICES ...... 74

APPENDIX 1 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN INNER CITY 1991-2011...... 74 APPENDIX 2 POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR DUBLIN AND STATE, 1996, 2002 AND 2006 ...... 78 APPENDIX 3 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE LONG TERM FORECASTS ...... 84 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 86

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 Europe’s share of global population has fallen continuously since the 1960s. In 1960 Europe1 accounted for 20% of global population but by 2005 it had fallen to 11%. By 2050 it is projected to be just 7.6% 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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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:

Table 1.1 Census Variables Used

Demographic Population (persons) Households Age cohorts Household composition Household size Nationality Country of Birth Housing Age of housing Tenure Dwelling Type Vacancy rates

Geographic Analysis

This report is mainly focused on the administrative area of Dublin City Council. However, in order to contextualise the data it is presented in the context of the Dublin Region and the Greater Dublin Area (See Table 1.2). Data at electoral division level are used to measure population change but not for other variables. Table 1.3 shows the composition of the eight regions.

Table 1.2 Dublin Administrative Definitions Region Local Authority Dublin Region Dublin City Council Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Fingal County Council South Dublin County Council

Mid East Region Kildare County Council Meath County Council Wicklow County Council

Greater Dublin Area Dublin City Council (combines Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council the Dublin and Mid-East Fingal County Council regions) South Dublin County Council Kildare County Council Meath County Council Wicklow County Council

Table 1.3 Composition of Regional Authorities Region Local Authority Border Cavan; Donegal; Leitrim; Louth; Monaghan; Sligo Midlands Laois; Longford; Offaly; Westmeath West Galway; Mayo; Roscommon Dublin City; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Fingal; South Dublin Dublin Mid East Kildare; Meath; Wicklow Mid West Clare; Limerick; North Tipperary South East Carlow; Kilkenny; South Tipperary; Waterford; Wexford South West Cork; Kerry

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)

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 World 3,023 3,332 3,686 4,061 4,438 4,846 5,290 5,713 6,115 6,512 Europe 604 634 656 676 693 707 721 727 727 729 Africa 285 322 367 419 482 556 639 726 819 921 Asia 1,694 1,886 2,125 2,379 2,623 2,890 3,179 3,448 3,698 3,937 Latin America and the Caribbean 220 252 286 323 363 402 442 482 521 557 Northern America 204 219 231 242 254 267 283 300 319 335 Oceania 16 18 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 34 China 646 716 816 911 981 1,053 1,142 1,211 1,267 1,312 India 448 497 553 617 693 775 862 953 1,043 1,131 Japan 93 98 104 112 117 121 123 125 127 127 Russian Federation 120 127 130 134 139 144 148 148 147 143 United States 186 199 209 219 229 241 255 271 288 303 Source: Eurostat (2010)

Table 2.2 World Population (% of total)

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Europe 20.0 19.0 17.8 16.6 15.6 14.6 13.6 12.7 11.9 11.2 Africa 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.9 11.5 12.1 12.7 13.4 14.1 Asia 56.0 56.6 57.7 58.6 59.1 59.6 60.1 60.4 60.5 60.4 Latin America and the Caribbean 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.5 Northern America 6.8 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 Oceania 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 China 21.4 21.5 22.1 22.4 22.1 21.7 21.6 21.2 20.7 20.2 India 14.8 14.9 15.0 15.2 15.6 16.0 16.3 16.7 17.0 17.4 Japan 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 Russian Federation 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 United States 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 Source: Eurostat (2010)

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.

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) 1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 World 34.9 33.4 30.8 28.4 27.9 27.3 24.7 22.5 21.2 Europe 19.1 16.8 15.7 14.8 14.4 13.7 11.5 10.2 10.2 Africa 47.6 46.8 46.2 45.8 44.8 43.1 40.6 38.5 37.2 Asia 39.0 37.7 33.7 29.8 28.9 28.4 25.1 22.2 20.3 Latin America and the 41.0 37.8 35.2 33.0 30.7 27.8 25.3 23.2 21.2 Caribbean Northern America 22.0 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.5 15.7 15.5 14.2 13.8 Oceania 26.7 24.5 24.0 21.0 20.2 20.0 19.8 18.8 17.8 China 38.0 36.9 28.6 21.5 21.5 23.7 18.9 15.9 14.0 India 40.5 38.8 37.3 36.2 34.4 32.5 30.7 27.7 25.4 Japan 17.1 17.8 19.0 15.2 12.8 11.2 9.9 9.4 8.9 Russian Federation 21.0 14.4 15.3 15.9 16.8 16.1 10.9 8.9 9.9 United States 21.8 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.5 15.9 15.7 14.5 14.2 Source: Eurostat (2010)

Table 2.4 Average fertility rates (average number of children) 1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 World 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.7 Europe 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 Africa 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.2 4.9 Asia 5.6 5.5 4.8 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.5 Latin America and the Caribbean 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.5 Northern America 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 Oceania 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 China 5.6 5.9 4.8 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.8 India 5.8 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.5 3.1 Japan 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 Russian Federation 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.3 United States 3.3 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 Source: Eurostat (2010)

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.

Figure 2.1 Proportion of the population aged 65 and over

0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Europe (1) North America Oceania Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Africa

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) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 World 6,512 6,909 7,302 7,675 8,012 8,309 8,571 8,801 8,996 9,150 Europe 729 733 734 733 729 723 716 708 700 691 Africa 921 1,033 1,153 1,276 1,400 1,524 1,648 1,770 1,887 1,998 Asia 3,937 4,167 4,391 4,596 4,773 4,917 5,032 5,125 5,193 5,231 Latin America and the Caribbean 557 589 618 646 670 690 706 718 726 729 Northern America 335 352 368 383 398 410 421 431 440 448 Oceania 34 36 38 40 43 45 46 48 50 51 China 1,312 1,354 1,396 1,431 1,453 1,462 1,462 1,455 1,440 1,417 India 1,131 1,214 1,294 1,367 1,431 1,485 1,528 1,565 1,594 1,614 Japan 127 127 126 124 121 117 114 110 106 102 Russian Federation 143 140 138 135 132 129 125 122 119 116 United States 303 318 332 346 359 370 380 389 397 404 Source: Eurostat (2010)

Table 2.6 World Population (% of total)

1960 2005 2050

Europe 20.0 11.2 7.6 China 21.4 20.2 15.5 India 14.8 17.4 17.6 Japan 3.1 2.0 1.1 Russian Federation 4.0 2.2 1.3 United States 6.2 4.6 4.4 Other (2) more developed 1.0 0.9 0.9

Other (3) less developed 29.6 41.6 51.7 Source: Eurostat (2010)

Figure 2.2 World Population (% of total) 60

1960 30 2005 2050 20

0 Europe China India Japan Russian United States Other more Other Federation developed less developed

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+ 80+ 75 to 79 75 to 79 70 to 74 70 to 74 65 to 69 65 to 69 60 to 64 60 to 64 55 to 59 55 to 59 50 to 54 50 to 54 45 to 49 45 to 49 40 to 44 40 to 44 35 to 39 35 to 39 30 to 34 30 to 34 25 to 29 25 to 29 20 to 24 20 to 24 15 to 19 15 to 19 10 to 14 10 to 14 5 to 9 5 to 9 0 to 4 0 to 4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 Male Female Male Female

1990 2010 80+ 80+ 75 to 79 75 to 79 70 to 74 70 to 74 65 to 69 65 to 69 60 to 64 60 to 64 55 to 59 55 to 59 50 to 54 50 to 54 45 to 49 45 to 49 40 to 44 40 to 44 35 to 39 35 to 39 30 to 34 30 to 34 25 to 29 25 to 29 20 to 24 20 to 24 15 to 19 15 to 19 10 to 14 10 to 14 5 to 9 5 to 9 0 to 4 0 to 4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 Male Female Male Female

2030 2050 80+ 80+ 75 to 79 75 to 79 70 to 74 70 to 74 65 to 69 65 to 69 60 to 64 60 to 64 55 to 59 55 to 59 50 to 54 50 to 54 45 to 49 45 to 49 40 to 44 40 to 44 35 to 39 35 to 39 30 to 34 30 to 34 25 to 29 25 to 29 20 to 24 20 to 24 15 to 19 15 to 19 10 to 14 10 to 14 5 to 9 5 to 9 0 to 4 0 to 4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 Male Female Male Female

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) 0 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 to 79 80 years years years years years years and more EU-27 15.7 12.5 36.2 18.6 12.7 4.3 Euro area 15.5 11.7 36.5 18.4 13.2 4.6 EU 15 Austria 15.4 12.3 37.4 17.8 12.6 4.6 Belgium 16.9 12.1 35.1 18.8 12.4 4.7 Denmark 18.4 11.7 34.4 19.9 11.5 4.1 Finland 16.9 12.4 32.7 21.5 12.2 4.3 France 18.5 12.8 33.7 18.6 11.5 4.9 Germany 13.7 11.6 36.0 18.6 15.3 4.6 Greece 14.3 11.2 37.6 18.3 14.6 4.1 Ireland 20.6 14.1 38.9 15.5 8.2 2.7 Italy 14.0 10.2 37.2 18.6 14.6 5.5 Luxembourg 18.2 11.8 38.7 17.3 10.6 3.4 Netherlands 17.9 12.1 35.6 19.7 11.0 3.8 Portugal 15.3 11.6 37.4 18.2 13.2 2.5 Spain 14.6 11.2 40.6 16.9 12.0 4.6 Sweden 16.8 13.0 33.0 19.6 12.2 5.3 United Kingdom 17.6 13.4 34.9 18.0 11.6 4.5 Source: Eurostat (2010)

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.

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 : : : 29.2 25.7 23.3 : : : 20.6 23.2 25.3 Euro area : : : 27.2 24.5 23.2 : : : 20.9 24.1 26.9 EU 15 Austria 33.0 39.5 32.4 26.0 25.4 22.7 18.4 22.7 24.3 22.1 22.9 25.4 Belgium 36.2 37.5 31.0 27.0 26.9 25.6 18.5 21.2 21.9 22.1 25.5 25.8 Denmark 39.8 36.4 32.7 25.5 27.6 28.0 16.4 18.9 22.2 23.2 22.2 23.6 Finland 49.4 37.7 30.2 28.7 27.2 25.3 11.6 13.6 17.6 19.8 22.2 24.8 France 42.2 40.0 35.4 30.5 29.3 28.4 18.7 20.6 22.1 21.1 24.3 25.0 Germany 31.1 36.8 28.6 23.1 23.1 20.7 17.0 21.4 23.9 21.6 23.9 30.4 Greece 37.6 37.5 36.2 29.3 22.9 21.3 14.2 17.2 20.6 20.4 24.2 27.8 Ireland 53.2 54.2 51.8 44.7 32.8 30.0 19.2 19.3 18.2 18.6 16.8 15.9 Italy 37.4 38.1 35.1 24.5 21.2 21.3 14.0 16.7 20.3 21.5 26.8 30.4 Luxembourg 31.5 33.8 28.1 24.9 28.3 26.8 15.9 19.1 20.3 19.3 21.4 20.6 Netherlands 49.1 43.8 34.3 26.4 27.4 26.6 14.6 16.2 17.4 18.6 20.0 21.8 Portugal 46.8 46.8 41.6 31.6 24.0 22.8 12.4 14.9 17.8 20.0 23.7 25.9 Spain 42.6 44.2 41.2 30.5 21.8 21.3 12.7 15.2 17.1 20.2 24.5 24.1 Sweden 34.5 31.8 30.9 27.7 28.8 25.6 17.8 20.7 25.3 27.7 26.9 26.7 United Kingdom 35.9 38.2 33.2 29.0 29.4 26.5 18.0 20.5 23.3 24.1 24.3 24.3 Source: Eurostat (2010)

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.

Table 2.9 Eurostat population and population projections (Million)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 % change 2010 to 2060 EU-27 435.5 457.1 470.4 482.8 497.4 501.0 514.4 522. 525.7 524.0 516.9 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%

EU 15

Austria 7.5 7.5 7.6 8 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.9 5.9%

Belgium 9.7 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.7 10.8 11.6 12.2 12.7 13.1 13.4 24.0%

Denmark 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 9.8%

Finland 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.3%

France 50.5 53.7 56.6 60.5 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 55.5 56.3 57.2 58.8 61.2 62.0 66.3 70.2 73.4 76.4 78.9 27.3% Kingdom Source: Eurostat (2010)

Figure 2.4 EU Population Change 1960-2060

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

-10% % change 1960-2008 -20% % change to 2060

-30%

Italy

Spain

Ireland

Greece

Austria

France

Finland

Sweden

Belgium

Portugal

Denmark

Germany

Netherlands Luxembourg

United Kingdom United

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.

Table 2.10 Total Fertility Rate (mean number of children)

Region 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

Liechtenstein : 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 Source: Eurostat (2010)

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 Female 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 EU-27 : : : 74.5 75.2 : : : : 80.9 81.5 : Euro area : : : 76.0 76.8 : : : : 82.2 82.8 : Belgium 73.9 74.4 74.6 75.1 76.0 76.6 80.7 80.7 81.0 81.2 81.8 82.3 Bulgaria 67.4 67.4 68.4 68.8 68.9 69.2 74.5 74.6 75.0 75.5 75.8 76.3 Czech Republic 70.4 71.2 71.7 72.1 72.6 73.5 77.5 78.2 78.5 78.7 79.2 79.9 Denmark 73.1 74.0 74.5 74.8 75.4 76.1 78.3 79.0 79.2 79.4 80.2 80.7 Germany 73.6 74.5 75.1 75.7 76.5 77.2 80.1 80.8 81.2 81.3 81.9 82.4 Estonia 64.3 64.1 65.5 65.3 66.4 67.4 75.6 75.4 76.2 77.0 77.8 78.6 Ireland 73.1 73.4 74.0 75.2 76.4 77.3 78.7 79.1 79.2 80.5 81.4 82.1 Greece 75.1 75.4 75.5 76.2 76.6 77.2 80.2 80.3 80.6 81.1 81.3 81.9 Spain 74.5 75.3 75.8 76.3 76.9 77.7 82.0 82.4 82.9 83.2 83.7 84.4 France : 74.8 75.3 75.7 76.7 77.3 : 82.6 83.0 83.0 83.8 84.4 Italy 75.5 76.1 77.0 77.4 77.9 : 81.8 82.2 82.9 83.2 83.8 : Cyprus : : : 76.4 76.8 78.8 : : : 81.0 82.1 82.4 Latvia : : : 64.7 65.9 65.4 : : : 76.0 76.2 76.3 Lithuania 64.6 66.0 66.8 66.2 66.3 65.3 75.9 76.6 77.5 77.5 77.7 77.0 Luxembourg 73.3 73.7 74.6 74.6 75.9 76.8 80.2 80.8 81.3 81.5 82.3 81.9 Hungary 66.3 66.5 67.6 68.3 68.7 69.2 75.0 75.6 76.2 76.7 77.2 77.8 Malta 74.8 74.9 76.2 76.3 77.4 77.0 79.6 80.0 80.3 81.3 81.2 81.9 Netherlands 74.7 75.2 : 76.0 76.9 77.7 80.5 80.8 : 80.7 81.5 82.0 Austria 73.7 74.5 75.2 75.8 76.4 77.2 80.2 81.0 81.2 81.7 82.1 82.8 Poland 68.1 68.9 69.6 70.3 70.6 70.9 76.6 77.4 78.0 78.8 79.2 79.7 Portugal 71.6 72.4 73.2 73.8 75.0 75.5 79.0 79.5 80.2 80.6 81.5 82.3 Romania 65.1 66.3 67.7 67.3 68.2 69.2 72.8 73.8 74.8 74.7 75.5 76.2 Slovenia 71.1 71.3 72.2 72.6 73.5 74.5 79.0 79.2 79.9 80.5 80.8 82.0 Slovakia 68.8 68.6 69.2 69.8 70.3 70.4 77.0 77.0 77.5 77.7 78.0 78.4 Finland 73.1 73.6 74.2 74.9 75.4 75.9 80.7 81.0 81.2 81.6 82.5 83.1 Sweden 76.6 76.9 77.4 77.7 78.4 78.8 81.7 82.1 82.0 82.1 82.8 83.1 United Kingdom 74.3 74.8 75.5 76.0 76.8 : 79.5 79.8 80.3 80.6 81.0 :

Source: Eurostat (2010)

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 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 World Ireland

Source: UN (2011)

3 McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities” 4http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100325_DESA.doc.htm 5 http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor.aspx 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” 7 OECD (2007), Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy. 8 Ibid 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. 10 Rockefeller Foundation, Century of the City: No Time to Lose, (2008) 11 OECD Competitive cities in the global economy (2007), The Global City Indicators Project (GCIP) initiated by the World Bank, “City Indicators – From Now to Najing,” 2007. http://www.cityindicators.org 12 http://citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/ 13 http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity 14 http://www.greater-paris-investment-agency.com/pdf/GPIA-KPMG-22-juin-2010-version-definitive.pdf 15 http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/global-cities-index.html 16 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/ 17 https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx 18 CDP for Cities – Making the case, 2010, Accenture. 19 Green City Index - http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.html 20http://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. 27

Table 2.12 Global Urbanisation Trends Major area, region, 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 country or area World 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 49 57 64 70 75 80 83 85 87 89 Caribbean United States of America 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.

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 Percentage change since census (Number) 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).

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- 1991- 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 1996 2002 2006 2011 2011 Persons % 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 310,728 317,069 339,591 361,028 378,410 2.0 7.1 6.3 4.8 21.8 South East 383,188 391,517 423,616 460,838 497,305 2.2 8.2 8.8 7.9 29.8 South West 532,263 546,640 580,356 621,130 663,176 2.7 6.2 7.0 6.8 24.6 State 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

Figure 3.1 Population Change 1991-2011

2006-2011

2002-2006 State Mid East

1996-2002 Dublin Census PeriodCensus

1991-1996

0 5 10 15 20 % change on previous census

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.

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 Dublin Region 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 Mid-East Region 325,291 347,407 412,625 475,360 530,437 Greater Dublin Area 1,350,595 1,405,671 1,535,446 1,662,536 1,801,040 State 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,581,269 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.4 Inter-Censal Population Change % 1991-1996 1996-2002 2002-2006 2006-2011 1991-2011 Dublin City 0.7 2.9 2.1 3.8 9.8 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2.5 0.9 1.2 6.7 11.6 Fingal 9.8 17.1 22.2 13.8 78.7 South Dublin 4.8 9.2 3.4 7.4 27.0 Dublin Region 3.2 6.1 5.7 7.0 23.9 Kildare 10.1 21.4 13.7 12.7 71.2 Meath 4.1 22.1 21.5 13.0 74.7 Wicklow 5.6 11.7 10.0 8.1 40.3 Mid East Region 6.8 18.8 15.2 11.6 63.1 GDA 4.1 9.2 8.3 11.6 33.4 State 2.8 8.0 8.2 8.3 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.

Table 3.5 Dublin Region Population Share (%) 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 46.7 45.5 44.2 42.6 41.3 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 18.1 18.0 17.1 16.3 16.3 Fingal 14.9 15.8 17.5 20.2 21.5 South Dublin 20.4 20.7 21.3 20.8 20.9 Dublin Region 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.6 and Figure 3.3 examine the share of Dublin City’s population in the context of the Greater Dublin Area. The same shrinkage in share of population can be seen. In 1991 Dublin City had 35% of the GDA population but this had decreased to 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 (%) 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 35.4 34.3 32.3 30.4 29.2 Dún Laoghaire - 13.7 13.5 12.5 11.7 11.5 Rathdown Fingal 11.3 11.9 12.8 14.4 15.2 South Dublin 15.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 14.7 Kildare 9.1 9.6 10.7 11.2 11.7 Meath 7.8 7.8 8.7 9.8 10.2 Wicklow 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.6 GDA 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Census of Population

Figure 3.3 Changing Share of Population in Greater Dublin Area (%)

40 35 30 25 % 20 15 10 5 0 Dublin City Dún Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow Laoghaire - Rathdown

1991 1996 2002 2006 2011

Table 3.7 Percentage Share of Population of the State (%)

1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Dublin City 13.6 13.3 12.7 11.9 11.5 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.5 Fingal 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.7 6.0 South Dublin 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.8 Dublin Region 29.1 29.2 28.7 28.0 27.7 Kildare 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 Meath 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.0 Wicklow 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 GDA 38.3 38.8 39.2 39.2 39.3 Source: Census of Population

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

39.2 39.2 39.3 40 38.3 38.8

Dublin Region 30 29.1 29.2 28.7 GDA 28 27.7

20 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011

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.

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 Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold

Source: Meredith (2007)

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

Figure 3.8 Moland Land Use Scenario for 2026

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

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

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 Persons Persons Persons Persons Change % change 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 1991- 1991- 2011 2011 Dublin City 478,389 481,854 495,781 506,211 525,383 46,994 9.8% Total Inner City 84,055 94,112 112,044 124,036 135,827 51,772 61.6% Total rest of city 394,334 387,742 383,737 382,175 389,556 -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

300,000

250,000

200,000 Total PersonsTotal 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 KM2 Population density Population density 2006 2002

Dublin Region 920.66 1219.6 1289.5 Dublin City 117.61 4215.5 4304.1 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 126.95 1510.8 1528.5 Fingal 453.09 433.5 529.7 South Dublin 223.01 1071.0 1107.3 Kildare 1694.2 96.8 110.0 Meath 2334.54 57.4 69.7 Wicklow 2032.6 56.4 62.1 State 70182.24 55.8 60.4 Source: Census of Population

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

Estimated Natural Net Population Population Increase in Change Natural net Increase Migration 2006 2011 population % increase migration % % Border 468,375 514,152 45,777 10 20,108 25,669 43.93 56.07 Dublin 1,187,176 1,270,603 83,427 7 64,899 18,528 77.79 22.21 Mid East 475,360 530,437 55,077 12 36,728 18,349 66.68 33.32 Mid West 361,028 378,410 17,382 5 16,528 854 95.09 4.91 Midlands 251,664 282,195 30,531 12 14,885 15,646 48.75 51.25 South East 460,838 497,305 36,467 8 22,708 13,759 62.27 37.73 South West 621,130 663,176 42,046 7 29,200 12,846 69.45 30.55 West 414,277 444,991 30,714 7 17,715 12,999 57.68 42.32 State 4,239,848 4,581,269 341,421 8 222,771 118,650 65.25 34.75 Source: Census of Population

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.”

Figure 3.12 Components of Population Change

120

100

40 '000's 20

-20

-40

-60

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Natural increase Immigrants Emigrants 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.

Table 3.11 Components of Population Change in Leinster 2006-2011

Average annual Average rates per Average Average annual 1,000 of annual annual rates per average rates per rates per 1,000 of population Estimated 1,000 of 1,000 of average - Change in Natural net average average population estimated population increase migration population population - natural net - persons - persons - persons - births - deaths increase migration (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) Dublin Region Dublin City 19172 16880 2292 14.7 8.1 6.5 0.9 Dun Laoghaire 12957 7055 5902 13.4 6.4 7 5.9 Fingal 33059 22315 10744 20.7 3.3 17.4 8.4 South Dublin 18239 18649 -410 18.1 3.5 14.6 -0.3 Mid-East Region Kildare 23620 15104 8516 19.6 4.3 15.2 8.6 Meath 21203 13356 7847 20 4.6 15.4 9 Wicklow 10254 8268 1986 18.4 5.8 12.6 3 Rest of Leinster Carlow 4183 3298 885 18.9 6.3 12.6 3.4 Kilkenny 7802 3895 3907 14.8 6.3 8.5 8.5 Laois 13399 4631 8768 18 5.4 12.6 23.8 Longford 4579 1843 2736 17.9 7.8 10 14.9 Louth 11541 5723 5818 16.2 6.4 9.8 9.9 Offaly 5938 3791 2147 16.4 6.1 10.3 5.8 Westmeath 6615 4620 1995 17.5 6.4 11.2 4.8 Wexford 13524 6980 6544 16.9 6.8 10.1 9.4

Leinster 206085 136408 69677 17.2 5.8 11.4 5.8 State 341421 222771 118650 16.5 6.4 10.1 5.4 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.

Table 3.12 Components of Population Change 1991-1996 Population change Natural Total estimated Increase net migration

Dublin Region 32960 36570 -3610 Dublin City 3465 7969 -4504 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 4589 5377 -788 Fingal 14917 10100 4817 South Dublin 9989 13124 -3135 Kildare 12336 6438 5898 Meath 4362 3582 780 Wicklow 5418 3703 1715 State 100368 92066 8302 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.13 shows that during the main period of the economic boom 1996-2002, there was significant in migration into Dublin City, Fingal, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, however, experienced outward migration in this period

Table 3.13 Components of Population Change 1996-2002

Natural Total estimated Population change Increase net migration Dublin Region 64557 50880 13677 Dublin City 13927 11622 2305 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 1793 6698 -4905 Fingal 28730 13551 15179 South Dublin 20107 19009 1098 Kildare 28952 11043 17909 Meath 24273 6318 17955 Wicklow 11993 5278 6715 State 291116 137235 153881 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.14 examines components of population change in the more recent period of 2002-2006. It shows that there was a minor level of in migration to Dublin City but with out migration from Dun- Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin. Fingal, however, saw extensive in migration of the order of 30,000 persons. Kildare, Meath and Wicklow also witnessed significant in migration.

Table 3.14 Components of Population Change 2002-2006

Population Natural Total estimated net change Increase migration Dublin Region 64355 41704 22651 Dublin City 10430 9817 613 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2246 4381 -2135 Fingal 43579 13710 29869 South Dublin 8100 13796 -5696 Kildare 22391 9830 12561 Meath 28826 7441 21385 Wicklow 11518 4611 6907 State 322645 131314 191331 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.15, shows the changes in the most recent intercensal period. 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

Natural Total estimated Population change Increase net migration Dublin Region

Dublin City 19,172 16,880 2,292 Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 12,957 7,055 5,902 Fingal 33,059 22,315 10,744 South Dublin 18,239 18,649 -410 Kildare 23,620 15,104 8,516 Meath 21,203 13,356 7,847 Wicklow 10,254 8,268 1,986 State 341,421 222,771 118,650 Source: Census of Population

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 Dún Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State City Laoghaire Dublin Region - Rathdown

0-14 18.3 20.9 27.3 27.1 22.0 26.5 26.1 24.9 23.0 23.7 15-24 19.1 17.4 17.8 19.3 18.6 18.1 16.8 16.5 18.3 17.5 25-49 35.6 35.6 38.1 37.4 36.4 37.2 34.9 35.2 36.2 34.2 50-64 13.9 14.9 11.3 11.0 13.1 11.0 12.5 13.2 12.8 13.2 65-79 10.3 8.8 4.4 4.3 7.9 5.7 7.6 7.9 7.6 8.9 80+ 2.8 2.5 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.5 Source: Census of Population

Table 3.17 displays the age structure of the population in 2002. The most obvious pattern to emerge is that Dublin City had 32% of its population in the 20-34 age group compared with 27% for Fingal and 23% in Kildare and 22% in Wicklow. However, Dublin has only 16% of its population in the 0-14 age group as compared with 22% in Fingal and South Dublin and 24% in Meath.

Table 3.17 Age Structure in 2002 (%) Dublin Dún Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State City Laoghaire Dublin Region - Rathdown

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.

Table 3.18 Age Structure in 2006 (%) Dublin Dún Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State City Laoghaire Dublin Region - Rathdown

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

25 % 20

0 Dublin City DLR Fingal South Kildare Meath Wicklow State Dublin

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

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 Female %

Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 25-29 Male % 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

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 15-64 over 65 Young Old age Total years years years age ratio ratio dependency ratio n N N % % % 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

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 Birth Rates-State Live Births Birth rates per 1000 Total period Fertility Rate number (TPFR)*

2001 57882 15.0 1.96 2002 60521 15.5 1.98 2003 61517 15.5 1.98 2004 61684 15.2 1.95 2005 61042 14.8 1.88 2006 64237 15.2 1.94 2007 70620 16.3 2.05 2008 75065 17.0 2.10 2009 74278 16.7 2.07 2010 73724 16.5 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 Life Expectancy in Ireland Year Males females 1926 57.4 57.9 1946 60.5 62.4 1966 68.6 72.0 1986 71.0 76.7 2006 76.8 81.6 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011

Table 3.22 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 Females Age =0 Age=65 Age =0 Age=65 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 Border 74.8 77.0 15.3 16.5 80.9 81.7 19.2 19.8 Midland 74.8 77.2 15.3 16.8 79.7 81.5 28.5 19.3 West 75.5 77.1 15.6 16.8 80.9 82.7 19.0 20.6 Dublin 75.2 76.7 15.5 16.9 80.2 81.2 18.9 19.7 Mid-East 75.9 77.2 15.5 16.6 80.5 81.4 18.8 19.5 Mid-West 74.4 76.3 15.3 16.1 79.8 80.4 18.6 18.7 South-East 75.3 76.8 15.4 16.7 80.3 81.7 18.6 19.9 South- West 75.2 76.5 15.3 16.4 80.5 81.6 18.8 20.0 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011

3.6 Nationality and Country of Birth Over the past fifteen years Ireland has become a more ethnically and racially diverse society than previously and Tables 3.23, 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

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 Kildare Meath Wicklow Total Region 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 Kildare Meath Wicklow Total Region 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.

Figure 3.16 Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2006

Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) from Census data 2006.

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 No of private No of private No of % % households households private change change 1996 2002 households 1996- 2002- 2006 2002 2006 Dublin City 172,433 180,852 190,984 4.9 5.6 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 61,465 64,132 68,412 4.3 6.7 Fingal 47,599 60,872 80,402 27.9 32.1 South Dublin 61,708 73,516 80,631 19.1 9.7 Dublin Region 343,205 379,372 420,429 10.5 10.8 Kildare 38,929 50,477 60,957 29.7 20.8 Meath 31,798 41,675 53,938 31.1 29.4 Wicklow 31,134 36,572 42,870 17.5 17.2 Greater Dublin Area 445,066 508,096 578,194 14.2 13.8 State 1,123,238 1,287,958 1,469,521 14.7 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

1996 2002 2006

Dublin City 2.67 2.59 2.50 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 3.01 2.9 2.77 Fingal 3.46 3.18 2.95 South Dublin 3.50 3.21 3.03 Dublin Region 2.99 2.86 2.73 Kildare 3.39 3.18 3.01 Meath 3.41 3.17 2.99 Wicklow 3.22 3.06 2.89 Greater Dublin Area 3.07 2.93 2.80 State 3.14 2.94 2.81 Source: Census of Population

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.

Table 3.27 Household Composition in 2006

State

Fingal

Meath

Kildare

Wicklow

Rathdown

Dublin City Dublin

South Dublin South

Dublin Region Dublin Dún Laoghaire Dún 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 1.8 1.6 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 persons Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) and other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 persons Lone mother with children (of any age) and other 1.2 1.4 1 1 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.1 1 persons Lone father with children (of any age) and other 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 persons Two family units with or without other persons 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 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 persons Non-family households containing related persons 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

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 Post 1996 Dublin City 85 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

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.

Table 3.29 Housing Tenure in Dublin 2006 (%) Owner Owner Being Social Private Total occupied occupied purchased rented rented with loan without from a or loan or Local mortgage mortgage Authority Dublin City 30.9% 27.8% 3.1% 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% 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 Semi- Terraced Apartment Total house detached house house Dublin City 5.0% 25.5% 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

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 Vacant Vacancy Housing Vacant Vacancy Actual Percentage stock dwellings rate stock dwellings rate change in change in 2006 2006 2006 (%) 2011 2011 2011 (%) vacant vacant (Number) (Number) (Number) (Number) dwellings dwellings 2006-2011 2006-2011 (Number) (%)

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

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.

Figure 4.1 Population Projections by Age Category

67.3% 62.8% 60.0%

21.3% 22.0% 18.3% 18.9% 18.1% 11.3%

2010 2035 2060

Under 15 15-64 Over 65 Eurostat 2011

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

1,437,954

1,040,378

586,412 505,880

293,323 123,968

2010 2035 2060

Over 65 Over 80 Eurostat 2011

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.

Figure 4.3 Population Pyramid for Ireland in 2006 and 2060 (United Nations) 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 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female %

Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

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

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 CSO Forecasting assumptions and definitions M0 The M0 assumption considers net international migration of zero M1 and M2 Annual net inward migration in the period to 2041 was assumed to be 38,600 under M1 and 21,400 under M2. F1 TFR (Total Fertility Rate) to remain at its 2006 level of 1.9 for the lifetime of the projections; F2 TFR to decrease to 1.65 by 2016 and remain constant thereafter Recent The pattern of inter-regional flows observed in the year to April 2006 is applied up to 2026. Traditional The 1996 pattern of inter-regional flows is applied in 2016 and kept constant thereafter, with the difference between the 2006 and 1996 patterns apportioned over the years between 2006 and 2016

Table 4.2 Central Statistics Office Long Term Population Forecasts Regional Population Population 2026 Population Population 2026 Population 2026 Authority 2006 ‘000s 2026 ‘000s ‘000s Area ‘000s ‘000s

M2F1 M2F1 M0F1 MOF1 Recent Traditional Recent Traditional Border 470 651 592 575 523 GDA 1,662 2,195 2,413 1,816 2,010 Dublin 1,183 1,365 1,659 1,080 1,343 Mid-East 479 830 754 736 667 Midland 252 396 321 351 285 Mid-West 359 455 450 403 400 South-East 461 653 591 586 531 South-West 619 782 776 675 670 West 411 564 552 477 466

State 4,233 5,696 5,696 4,884 4,884 Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office (2008)

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

1,000,000 Dublin Region Mid-East Region

500,000

0 M2F1 recent M2F1 M0F1 recent MOF1 traditional 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 Population Population Population Population 2006 change Change Change change 2006- 2006-2026 2006-2026 2006-2026 2026 M2F1 M2F1 M0F1 MOF1 recent traditional recent traditional ‘000s ‘000s ‘000s ‘000s ‘000s GDA 1,662 +533 +751 +154 +348 Dublin 1,183 +182 +476 -103 +160 Mid-East 479 +351 +275 +257 +188 State 233 +1,463 +1,463 +651 +651 Source: adapted from Central Statistics Office, 2008

4.3 Regional Planning Guideline Forecasts

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

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

Table 4.4 Regional Planning Guidelines Population Targets 2008 2010 2016 2022 Dublin Region 1,217,800 1,256,900 1,361,900 1,464,200 Mid East Region 514,500 540,000 594,600 639,700 State 4,422,000 4,584,900 4,997,000 5,375,200 Source: Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022

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

Table 4.5 Regional Planning Guidelines Population Targets Local Authorities 2006 2016 2022 Projected 2006-2016 2016-2022 change 2006-2022 % change % change Dublin City 506,211 563,512 606,110 99,899 11.3 7.6 Dun Laoghaire Rathdown 194,038 222,800 240,338 46,300 14.8 7.9 Fingal 239,992 287,547 309,285 69,293 19.8 7.6 South Dublin 246,935 287,341 308,467 61,532 16.4 7.4 Dublin Region 1,187,176 1,361,200 1,464,200 277,024 14.7 7.6 Kildare 186,335 234,422 252,640 66,305 25.8 7.8 Meath 162,831 195,898 210,260 47,429 20.3 7.3 Wicklow 126,194 164,280 176,800 50,606 30.2 7.6 Mid-East Region 475,360 594,600 639,700 164,340 25.1 7.6 GDA total 1,662,536 1,955,800 2,103,900 441,364 17.6 7.6 Source: Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 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 2010 2016 2022 2011 Difference Census with 2010 Actual target

low high Border 492,500 511,000 552,700 595,000 611,400 514,152 3,152 Dublin 1,217,800 1,256,900 1,361,200 1,464,200 1,504,500 1,270,603 13,703 Mid East 514,500 540,000 594,600 639,700 657,200 530,437 -9,563 Mid West 371,900 383,800 427,200 462,300 475,000 378,410 -5,390 Midlands 266,800 275,600 297,300 317,100 325,800 282,195 6,595 South East 487,800 507,900 542,200 580,500 596,500 497,305 -10,595 South West 644,600 667,500 737,100 795,000 816,900 663,176 -4,324 West 426,100 442,200 484,700 521,400 535,700 444,991 2,791 State 4,422,000 4,584,900 4,997,000 5,375,200 5,523,000 4,581,269 -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.

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.

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.

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:

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).

6 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Population change in Dublin Inner City 1991-2011 Electoral Divisions Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Change Change 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 1991-2011 1991-2011 n % Dublin City 478389 481854 495781 506211 525,383 46,994 9.8 Inner City North 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 Inner City South 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

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

Dublin Inner City Growth (1991 - 2011) 160,000

140,000 135827 124036 120,000 112044 100,000 94112 84055 80,000

Total PersonsTotal 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) 396,000 394,000 392,000 390,000 388,000 386,000

384,000 Total PersonsTotal 382,000 380,000 378,000 376,000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 Rest of Dublin City 394334 387742 383737 382175 389556

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

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

Dublin City Council 1996

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 %

Dublin Region 1996

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

Greater Dublin Area 1996

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

State 1996

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

Dublin City Council 2002

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 %

Dublin Region 2002

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

Greater Dublin Area 2002

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

State 2002

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

Dublin City Council 2006

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 %

Dublin Region 2006

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 %

Greater Dublin Area 2006

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

State 2006

85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 Female % Age Class Age 35-39 30-34 Male % 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

6 4 2 0 2 4 6 %

Appendix 3 Central Statistics Office - Long Term Forecasts

M2F1 Recent

Regional Population Populati Births Deaths Interna External Population Popula Total Averag Authority 2006 on Share l Migratio 2026 tion Increase e Area 2006 migrati n Share annual on 2026 increas e Border 470 11.1 157 69 35 57 651 11.4 181 1.6 GDA 1,662 39.3 569 198 -114 276 2,195 38.5 533 1.4 Dublin 1,183 28.0 348 143 -242 217 1,365 24.0 181 0.7 Mid-East 479 11.3 221 56 128 59 830 14.6 352 2.8 Midland 252 6.0 99 34 45 33 396 6.9 144 2.3 Mid-West 359 8.5 115 50 -2 32 455 8.0 96 1.2 South-East 461 10.9 156 66 43 59 653 11.5 192 1.8 South-West 619 14.6 194 87 -13 70 782 13.7 164 1.2 West 411 9.7 136 61 6 72 564 9.9 153 1.6

State 4,233 100.0 1,427 564 0 600 5,696 100.0 1,463 1.5 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.

M2F1 Traditional Regional Population Populati Births Death Internal External Population Populati Total Averag Authority 2006 on Share s migratio Migrati 2026 on Increas e Area 2006 n on Share e annual 2026 increas e Border 470 11.1 149 68 -16 57 592 10.4 122 1.2 GDA 1,662 39.3 606 200 69 276 2,413 42.4 751 1.9 Dublin 1,183 28.0 403 146 0 217 1,659 29.1 476 1.7 Mid-East 479 11.3 202 55 69 59 754 13.2 275 2.3 Midland 252 6.0 84 34 -15 33 321 5.6 69 1.2 Mid-West 359 8.5 115 49 -6 32 450 7.9 92 1.1 South-East 461 10.9 144 65 -8 59 591 10.4 130 1.3 South-West 619 14.6 195 87 -21 70 776 13.6 157 1.1 West 411 9.7 135 61 -4 72 552 9.7 142 1.5

State 4,233 100.0 1,427 564 0 600 5,696 100.0 1,463 1.5 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.

M0F1 Recent Regional Population Populatio Births Deaths Internal External Population Populatio Total Average Authority 2006 n Share migration Migratio 2026 n Share Increase annual Area 2006 n 2026 increase

Border 470 11.1 136 67 32 4 575 11.8 105 1.0 GDA 1,662 39.3 467 193 -104 -15 1,816 37.2 155 0.4 Dublin 1,183 28.0 274 139 -221 -17 1,080 22.1 -103 -0.5 Mid-East 479 11.3 193 54 117 2 736 15.1 258 2.2 Midland 252 6.0 88 34 41 4 351 7.2 100 1.7 Mid-West 359 8.5 101 49 -2 -5 403 8.3 45 0.6 South-East 461 10.9 138 65 39 12 586 12.0 125 1.2 South-West 619 14.6 163 86 -12 -9 675 13.8 56 0.4 West 411 9.7 110 60 6 10 477 9.8 66 0.7

State 4,233 100.0 1,204 554 0 0 4,884 100.0 651 0.7 Source: Central Statistics Office, 2008.

M0F1 Traditional Regional Population Populatio Births Deaths Internal External Population Populatio Total Average Authority 2006 n Share migration Migratio 2026 n Share Increase annual Area 2006 n 2026 increase

Border 470 11.1 129 67 -13 4 523 10.7 53 0.5 GDA 1,662 39.3 500 195 59 -15 2,010 41.2 348 1.0

Dublin 1,183 28.0 323 142 -5 -17 1,343 27.5 160 0.6 Mid-East 479 11.3 176 53 64 2 667 13.7 189 1.7 Midland 252 6.0 75 33 -12 4 285 5.8 33 0.6 Mid-West 359 8.5 100 49 -6 -5 400 8.2 41 0.5 South-East 461 10.9 128 65 -6 12 531 10.9 70 0.7 South-West 619 14.6 164 86 -18 -9 670 13.7 51 0.4 West 411 9.7 110 60 -4 10 466 9.6 56 0.6

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

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accenture, “The Case for City Disclosure” (2010), Carbon Disclosure Project. Available at: www.cdproject.net

Brennan, M., Shahumyan, H., Walsh, C., Carty, J., Williams, B. and Convery, S. (2009) Regional planning guideline review: using MOLAND as part of the strategic environmental assessment process, Urban Institute Ireland Working Papers Series; 09/07. Available at http://www.uep.ie/pdfs/WP%200907%20W.pdf

Brookings, Global Metro Monitor (2011), The Path to economic recovery http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor.aspx

Central Statistics Office (various) Census 1996, 2002 and 2006,. Stationery Office, Dublin. Available at http://www.cso.ie/census/ Central Statistics Office (2009) Population and Migration Estimates, April 2009, Stationery Office, Dublin Central Statistics Office (2008) Regional Population Projections, 2011-2026, Stationery Office, Dublin Central Statistics Office (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

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES

2012

O FFICE OF INTERNATION AL RELATIONS AND RES EARCH