Dublin Demographics 2013

1
May 2010
November 2011
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL – THINK DUBLIN! RESEARCH SERIES
2013
Demographic Trends in
Dublin v2
Declan Redmond and Brendan Williams,
School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy,
University College Dublin
Brian Hughes, School of the Built Environment,
Dublin Institute of Technology
Jamie Cudden and Paul Johnston,
Office of Economy and International Relations
Dublin City Council
O F F I C E O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L R E L A T I O N S A N D R E S E A R C H

2
This report forms part of the Think Dublin Research Series that encourages an evidence-based
approach to developing policy in the city while also highlighting the key role of Dublin in the national
and international context. It uses the final updated 2011 Census data, building on the original
demographics report published in Jan 2012 which was based on preliminary Census estimates.
This report is correct to end of March 2013.
The Office of International Relations and Research is responsible for the development of economic
indicators that monitor and benchmark Dublin’s performance. The Office also develops and
commissions research that yields a better understanding of the key strategic areas that influence
future city success. Please contact: research@dublincity.ie if you have any comments or queries on
this report.

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Office of International Relations and Research at Dublin City
Council for commissioning this report. In particular, we would like to thank Walter Foley and Helen
O’ Leary for their extensive comments on various drafts. We would like to thank Richard Waldron,
of Urban Institute Ireland at UCD, for producing the maps of population change.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................5
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................10
1.1 REPORT CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................ 10
1.2 SOURCES AND METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 11
2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT ...........................................................................................................................14
2.1 EUROPE IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2 IRELAND IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 19
2.3 GLOBAL TREND OF INCREASED URBANISATION................................................................................................... 25
3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011 ........................................................................................29
3.1 KEY POPULATION TRENDS............................................................................................................................. 29
3.2 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN ................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 SPRAWL AND DISPERSION IN THE DUBLIN REGION ............................................................................................. 35
3.4 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 45
3.5 AGE STRUCTURE, DEPENDENCY RATIOS AND LIFE EXPECTANCY ............................................................................ 50
3.6 NATIONALITY AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH ............................................................................................................ 55
3.7 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 58
4 POPULATION FORECASTS .....................................................................................................................65
4.1 LONG TERM FORECASTS ............................................................................................................................... 65
4.2 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE FORECASTS .......................................................................................................... 68
4.3 REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDELINE FORECASTS.................................................................................................... 70
5 CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................................72
6 APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................75
APPENDIX 1 POPULATION CHANGE IN DUBLIN INNER CITY 1991-2011.................................................................... 75
APPENDIX 2 POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR DUBLIN AND STATE, 1996, 2002 AND 2006.............................................. 79
APPENDIX 3 CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE LONG TERM FORECASTS........................................................................... 85
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................89

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines some of the main demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. While the
focus is on the Dublin City Council area the results are placed in the context of the Dublin Region, Greater
Dublin Area (GDA) and the State. The report also sets Ireland in its broader European and global context.
Ireland in Comparative Context
Global population reaches 7 billion
World population continues to grow strongly. According to the United Nations, the global population is
currently approximately 7 billion and is projected to reach 9.3 billion by the year 2050. On average across the
world, life expectancy at birth has increased from 47 years in the 1950s to 68 years today. This varies across
the world but in general terms it leads to population growth and an ageing population.
Urbanisation increasing rapidly
The world is rapidly urbanising. The United Nations estimate that currently half of the world’s population is
urban and that by 2050 this will rise to 70%. While just over 60% of Ireland’s population is currently urban, the
UN project that this will increase to 80% by 2050.
European population is falling in relative terms
Europe’s share of global population has fallen continuously since the 1960s. In 1960 Europe
1
accounted for
20% of global population but by 2005 it had fallen to 11%. By 2050 it is projected to be just 7.7% of the world’s
population. While the actual population of Europe has increased between 1960 and 2005, it has been
outpaced by very high population growth in Africa, India and China.
But Ireland to increase its population in medium to long term
Ireland, along with the UK, Spain and France is projected to increase in population over the next few decades.
Eurostat projects the Irish population is to increase from 4.5 million to 6.5 million between 2010 and 2060, a
47% increase. The UK is projected to increase from 62 million in 2010 to 78.9 million over the same period, an
increase of 27%. The German population, by contrast, is expected to fall by 15.3 million between 2010 and
2060, a decrease of 19%.
Birth rates and fertility rates in Europe decline
Birth rates in Europe have fallen steadily in the past thirty years and are now among the lowest in the world.
One consequence is that in comparative terms Europe has an ageing population giving rise to concerns in the
EU with regard to impacts on labour markets, pensions and the provision of care and health services.
But Ireland has a high fertility rate
According to Eurostat figures, the fertility rate for Ireland in 2009 was 2.07 children, one of the highest in
Europe while in Germany, for example, it was 1.36. The average for the EU27 member states was 1.59
Ireland has one of the youngest populations in Europe
While Europe has an ageing population, in comparative terms, Ireland does not. In 2008, for example, 11% of
our population was over 65 years while in Germany the figure was 20%. Conversely, 20% of the Irish
population was under 14 years while in Germany the figure was 13.7%. As a result, Ireland has one of the
lowest old-age dependency ratios in Europe and the highest young-age dependency ratio.
1
Defined by Eurostat as the EU-27 plus Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland and
the Ukraine.

6
In the context of an ageing Europe
Eurostat projects that by 2060 the old age dependency ratio in the EU27 states will be almost 53%. In
Germany, for example, it is projected that the ratio will be 60%. In Ireland, by contrast, it is projected that the
old age dependency ratio will be 37%. Consequently, the pressure on pensions and services in Ireland is, in the
short term at least, less than in other European countries. Rather than a reason for complacency, this provides
Ireland with the opportunity to effectively plan for an ageing population in the medium to long term.
Population Trends in Dublin 1991-2011
Ireland’s population grows strongly over the past twenty years
Ireland has seen very strong population growth over the past two decades. The population of the state has
grown by 30 per cent in the period 1991 – 2011, increasing from 3.53 to 4.58 million. Despite the recession,
and expectations that population growth would slow, the population grew by 348,505 between 2006 and 2011
or by 8.2%.
With marked regional variations in population growth
Over the period 1991-2011 there were very marked variations in regional population trends. The Dublin
Region saw growth of 24% over the period, below the national average. What stands out, however, is the
remarkable growth in the Mid-East region, with an increase of 63% over the period. The Midlands region also
saw above average growth, with an increase of 39%. These population figures clearly demonstrate the rapid
and strong outward movement of population in the eastern area.
And significant regional disparities in recent population growth
Nationally the population grew by 8.2% between 2006 and 2011 but there were significant regional differences
in population growth. In the Midland and Mid-east regions, the population grew by approximately 12%. This
latter growth reflects a continued dispersal of population beyond the Greater Dublin Area. The Dublin Region
saw growth of 7.2%, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region had a growth of just 5.1%, well
below the national trend.
Dublin region has slower growth than the national average
The Dublin region has grown at a slower pace than the state, increasing its population by 24 per cent between
1991 and 2011 (from 1.025 to 1.273 million) compared to the national average of 30 per cent. However,
within the Dublin region, Fingal was the exception, with a significant population growth of 79.4 per cent over
the past two decades.
Strong growth in the Mid-East region
Population grew very strongly in the Mid-East region over the past two decades. Kildare, Wicklow and Meath
had increases of 72, 75 and 41 per cent respectively. These figures show clearly the dispersal of population
beyond the Dublin region.
Population growth in Dublin City much slower than national and regional averages
Population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged significantly behind national
population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the State the population increased by 30
per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 10.3 per cent in Dublin City. These figures reflect the rapid outward
expansion of population and housing during the period of the residential property boom.
Dublin City share of regions population declines
Dublin City’s share of the Dublin region’s population declined from 47 to 41 per cent between 1991 and 2011.
By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per cent over
the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has remained static at 21 per cent while Dún
Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.

7
However, the inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city (see Appendix 1 for a
description of the inner city) of Dublin has seen strong population growth. Between 1991 and 2011 the
population of Dublin City increased by just 10.3 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of
63% in the same period. This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city from the
late 1980s onwards.
Nonetheless, the rest of Dublin City sees population decline
However, while the inner city saw a significant increase in population, in the rest of the city there was a
decrease of 1% between 1991 and 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population. Given
strong national and regional increases in population in this period, this loss of population is notable. Almost
half of the 162 Electoral Districts in Dublin City Council saw population decline.
Dublin City has the lowest average household size in the Greater Dublin Area.
In 2011 the average household size in Dublin City was 2.40 compared with 2.73 for the GDA. Average
household size has fallen consistently since 1991. Average household size in the state has fallen from 3.14 in
1996 to 2.73 in 2011.
Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households
Almost 31% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and South
Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised of husband and wife with
children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife with children compared with 31% in
Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal, 34% in South Dublin and almost 40% in Kildare and Meath.
Dynamics of Population Change
Mass emigration has not returned, yet
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had predicted that high levels of net emigration had
returned over the 5 year period. However, the 2011 Census figures show that overall there was net positive
in-migration of 122,292 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, of course, mean that there was no emigration
out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it. An annual pattern of net emigration
has begun to emerge over the years 2010-2012.
Natural increase accounts for two thirds of recent population growth
Nationally, two thirds of Ireland’s population growth between 2006 and 2011 was due to natural increase and
one third to net migration. However, in the Border and Midlands regions, net migration was responsible for
over half of population growth. By contrast, in the mid-west, net migration only accounted for 9 per cent of
growth and in Dublin it accounted for 23 per cent of population growth.
High rate of natural increase compared with EU average
According to recent Central Statistics Office data, in 2008 Ireland had a rate of natural increase of 10.4 per
thousand population compared with a rate of 1.2 per thousand for the EU 27, reflecting high birth and fertility
rates.
Birth rates high
The total of live births went from 58,000 in 2001 to a high of 75,000 in 2008 and declined somewhat in the
following three years. When measured per thousand population, birth rates increased from 15 per thousand in
2001 to a high of 17 per thousand in 2008 and declined to 16.3 in 2011.

8
Life Expectancy increases
Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. For males, life expectancy
has moved from 57 years to 76.8 years between 1926 and 2006. For females life expectancy has improved
from 57.9 years to 81.6 years over the same period.
Considerations
Strong natural increase in population to drive demand for education
High birth and fertility rates will have the effect of an age cohort moving through pre-school, primary and
secondary education in the coming years and will place demands on the education system. Some of these
demands will relate to the overall provision of schools and teachers but some will also relate to the locational
issues. In other words, there will be issues of where the demand occurs and how this is provided and
managed.
Age structure may confer competitive advantage in medium term
It has been suggested that Ireland’s relatively young population may result in some competitive advantage
over the medium term. This is based on the fact that Ireland will be a proportionately greater working age
population than other EU countries with consequently less pressure on pensions and services for older people.
However, there are implications for health services and pensions in long term
Although the population of Ireland is on average younger than other EU countries, medium and longer term
planning for an ageing population is important. As the population ages over the next few decades, this will
have implications in the following areas, amongst others:
The amount and type of health services
The cost funding of health services
Pension funding
Technologies for assisted living and universal design
Housing markets and wealth distribution
Family support structures and community care
These issues are already being examined by, among others, the Irish Ageing Well Network
(www.ageingwellnetwork.ie) and by the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (see
http://www.cardi.ie/. Dublin City Council has committed to promoting an age-friendly city. While an ageing
population structure presents challenges it also presents social and economic opportunities.
Sprawl and dispersion continue
The evidence from a number of sources shows that we have an American-type urban and regional settlement
pattern, that is, one which is based on low density housing and high car-dependency. The 2011 Census
confirms that a pattern of population dispersal has continued even during the recession. This presents
challenges with regard to:
Provision of infrastructure
Provision of social services
Complex commuting patterns and accessibility
Energy costs

9
Highlighting need for stronger planning
In theory the land use planning system in Ireland integrates national, regional, county and local spatial scales.
However, the reality is that the system has been ineffective in containing the sprawl and dispersion of
development in the eastern region. The amendment to the Planning and Development Act of 2010, which
requires local development plans to have ‘core strategies’ which are consistent with regional and national
planning frameworks should result in more sustainable settlement patterns. However, the lag time for this to
emerge may not be noticeable in the short to medium term due to the effects of previous sprawl and the
economic downturn.
The challenge of falling population in the suburbs
While this report has been dominated by the issue of population growth, it is worth recalling that in the Dublin
City Council administrative area, suburban areas have seen population decline in the last decade. One of the
challenges of such population decline relates to education facilities. The hard evidence to show how this
population decline has affected demand for school places is not openly available.
Further analysis of Census and land use data
This report has given an overview of the main demographic trends in Dublin for the past two decades. Once
full results are issued for Census 2011 additional and more detailed analysis could usefully be undertaken as
follows:
Analysis of demographic variables at electoral division level
Analysis of inward migration patterns and structures
Analysis of outward migration (emigration) patterns and structures
Analysis of inter-county population flows
Population forecasts
Useful reference sites for accessing demographic mapping and analysis include the All-Island Regional
Research Observatory www.airo.ie (spatial, social and economic databank resource for community, public and
private bodies).

10
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Context
This report examines some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades.
Using the Census of Population from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006, and 2011 some of the principal
demographic trends in Dublin are examined.
This report is not an exhaustive catalogue of every demographic variable but rather an overview of
some of the main trends. It is primarily descriptive in nature but does seek in the conclusions to
draw out some of the implications of the population change described. The report forms part of
Dublin City Council’s on-going strategy of generating an evidence base for policy formulation and
evaluation.
Report Rationale
Understanding population structure and dynamics is one of the key bases for social and economic
planning. More specifically, it is crucial with respect to analysing labour markets and the provision of
social services such as education and health services among others. Population dynamics are
influenced by a wide range of factors, one of which is the state of the economy. The period since
the mid 1990s has been one of tremendous socio-economic and demographic change and this
report aims to document some of the key elements of population change over those years. In
particular it seeks to:
Describe the key trends in the period 1991-2011
Describe some of the main long-range population forecasts
Consider some of the implications of the results described in the report
Report Structure
The report has four main sections. Section 1 describes the main data sources used in compiling the
report. Section 2 presents some of the key demographic trends in Europe, thus allowing the Irish and
Dublin data to be understood in a wider context. Section 3, using Census of Population data from
1991, 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 summarises some of the main population trends between 1991
and 2011. It focuses on population trends, age structure and dependency ratios and changes in
household structures. Section 4 summarises the population forecasts of the Central Statistics Office
and the Regional Planning Guidelines. Section 5 attempts to draw out some of the potential policy
implications of the results presented and is inherently somewhat speculative. While the report was
commissioned by Dublin City Council, the results are presented in the context of the Dublin Region,
the Greater Dublin Area and the State. This comparative approach allows us to see Dublin City in
context.

11
1.2 Sources and Methods
The report summarises and describes data from international and national data sources. All of the
data used in the report is freely available for download and use so readers can explore the issues in
further detail if required.
European and Global Population Sources
Section 2 of the report summarises some key global and European demographic trends. There are a
number of key sources for such data, including Eurostat:
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes) and the United Nations
population division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/). Eurostat publishes an annual yearbook of
statistics on all aspects of the EU (population, economy etc.) and as part of the compendium the
excel spread sheets with detailed tables on demography are available for download. These spread
sheets are available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook_2010).
For the most part section 2 uses these spreadsheets from the Eurostat annual yearbook. In addition
to this, Eurostat maintain a database which, in some cases, has more up to date statistics than are
available in the annual compendium (the database is available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database).
Irish Data Sources
The main sources used for demographic trends in Ireland were the Census of Population from 1991,
1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 and the series on Vital Statistics (births and deaths). The Census of
Population data was used to trace the key demographic trends over the past decade. The Vital
Statistics data were used to summarise life expectancy trends. Census of Population data were
accessed both via the published reports as well as through the interactive tables via the Central
Statistics Office website (www.cso.ie). The following data from the Census of Population were used
in compiling the tables presented:

12
Table 1.1 Census Variables Used
Demographic Population (persons)
Households
Age cohorts
Household composition
Household size
Nationality
Country of Birth
Housing Age of housing
Tenure
Dwelling Type
Vacancy rates
Geographic Analysis
This report is mainly focused on the administrative area of Dublin City Council. However, in order to
contextualise the data it is presented in the context of the Dublin Region and the Greater Dublin
Area (See Table 1.2). Data at electoral division level are used to measure population change but not
for other variables. Table 1.3 shows the composition of the eight regions.
Table 1.2 Dublin Administrative Definitions
Region Local Authority
Dublin Region Dublin City Council
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
Fingal County Council
South Dublin County Council
Mid East Region Kildare County Council
Meath County Council
Wicklow County Council
Greater Dublin Area
(combines
the Dublin and Mid-East
regions)
Dublin City Council
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council
Fingal County Council
South Dublin County Council
Kildare County Council
Meath County Council
Wicklow County Council

13
Table 1.3 Composition of Regional Authorities
Region Local Authority
Border Cavan; Donegal; Leitrim; Louth; Monaghan; Sligo
Midlands Laois; Longford; Offaly; Westmeath
West Galway; Mayo; Roscommon
Dublin
Dublin City; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Fingal; South
Dublin
Mid East Kildare; Meath; Wicklow
Mid West Clare; Limerick; North Tipperary
South East Carlow; Kilkenny; South Tipperary; Waterford; Wexford
South West Cork; Kerry

14
2. IRELAND IN CONTEXT
In order to set the analysis of Dublin’s demography in context it is important to place Ireland in a
broader European and global context. This section of the report first places Europe in a global
context and then places Ireland in its European context. The data in this section are from the most
statistics compiled by Eurostat, released in October 2010 and data from the United Nations
population division.
2.1 Europe in Comparative Context
Europe’s share of world population declines
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show that although Europe’s2
population increased between 1960 and 2010 from
604 million to 738 million, it has in relative terms decreased significantly. In 1960 it comprised 19.9
per cent of the world’s population but by 2010 it accounted for just 10.7 per cent of global
population. In relative terms the populations of Africa, Asia and India have increased significantly.
According to Eurostat, Europe’s population is in fact static in global terms.
Table 2.1 World Population (million)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
World 3,038 3,333 3,696 4,076 4,453 4,863 5,306 5,726 6,123 6,507 6,896
Europe 604 634 656 676 693 707 720 727 727 731 738
Africa 287 324 368 420 483 555 635 721 811 911 1,022
Asia 1,708 1,886 2,135 2,393 2,638 2,907 3,199 3,470 3,719 3,945 4,164
Latin America and the Caribbean 220 253 286 323 362 402 443 483 521 557 590
Northern America 204 219 231 242 254 267 281 296 313 329 345
Oceania 16 17 20 21 23 25 27 29 31 34 37
China 658 710 815 915 983 1,057 1,145 1,214 1,269 1,308 1,341
India 448 496 554 622 700 784 874 964 1,054 1,140 1,225
Japan 93 97 104 111 116 120 122 124 126 126 127
Russian Federation 120 127 130 134 139 144 148 149 147 144 143
United States of America 186 199 209 219 230 241 253 266 282 297 310
Source: Eurostat (2012)
Table 2.2 World Population (% of total)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Europe 19.9 19.0 17.7 16.6 15.6 14.5 13.6 12.7 11.9 11.2 10.7
Africa 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.8 11.4 12.0 12.6 13.2 14.0 14.8
Asia 56.2 56.6 57.8 58.7 59.2 59.8 60.3 60.6 60.7 60.6 60.4
Latin America and the Caribbean 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6
Northern America 6.7 6.6 6.3 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0
Oceania 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
China 21.7 21.3 22.0 22.4 22.1 21.7 21.6 21.2 20.7 20.1 19.5
India 14.7 14.9 15.0 15.3 15.7 16.1 16.5 16.8 17.2 17.5 17.8
Japan 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8
Russian Federation 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1
United States of America 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5
2
Defined by Eurostat as the EU-27 plus Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faeroe Islands, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, the Russian
Federation, Serbia, Switzerland and the Ukraine.

15
Birth rates and fertility rates in Europe decline
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate some of the key reasons for the static, and in some cases, declining
population of Europe. Crude birth rates in Europe almost halved between 1960 and 2010, falling
from 19 to 11 births per thousand population in that period. Likewise, average fertility rates have
declined. In 1960 average fertility rates in Europe were 2.6 children per woman but by 2010 this had
declined to a figure of 1.5. By contrast, fertility rates in Africa in 2010 stood at 4.6 children per
woman. Average fertility rates globally have declined significantly from 4.9 children in the 1960s to
2.5 children in 2010.
Table 2.3 Crude birth rate (per 1 000 population)
1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-10
World 34.6 33.6 31.3 28.3 27.7 27.0 24.5 22.4 20.8 20.0
Europe 19.1 16.7 15.6 14.8 14.3 13.7 11.5 10.2 10.2 10.8
Africa 47.4 46.6 46.1 45.5 44.3 42.5 40.2 38.4 37.1 35.6
Asia 38.5 38.1 34.6 29.6 28.8 28.0 24.8 22.0 19.8 18.6
Latin America and the
Caribbean 41.1 37.8 35.1 33.0 30.7 27.9 25.3 23.2 21.4 19.3
North America 22.0 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.4 15.5 15.1 13.9 13.7 13.7
Oceania 26.5 24.4 24.4 21.1 20.4 19.8 19.5 18.7 17.8 18.0
China 36.5 37.9 31.4 21.6 21.5 23.2 18.7 16.0 13.5 12.6
India 40.4 39.2 37.5 36.3 34.5 32.5 30.0 27.2 24.8 23.1
Japan 17.2 17.8 19.0 15.2 12.8 11.2 9.9 9.5 8.9 8.6
Russian Federation 21.0 14.4 15.3 15.9 16.8 16.1 10.9 8.9 9.9 11.4
United States of America 21.8 17.7 15.7 15.1 15.5 15.7 15.3 14.2 14.1 14.0
Table 2.4 Average fertility rates (average number of children)
1960-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05 05-10
World 4.9 4.8 4.4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.5
Europe 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5
Africa 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6
Asia 5.6 5.6 5.0 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.3
Latin America and the Caribbean 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3
North America 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0
Oceania 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5
China 5.6 5.9 4.8 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6
India 5.8 5.7 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7
Japan 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3
Russian Federation 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4
United States of America 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
Europe has an ageing population
One of the main consequences of these trends, alongside increasing life expectancy, is that Europe
has, in comparative terms, an ageing population. Figure 2.1 shows that in 2010 just over 16 per cent
of Europe’s population were aged over 65 years whereas in Africa only 3.5 per cent of the
population were over 65. This ageing of the population has given rise to concerns about the impact
on labour markets, pensions and provisions for healthcare, housing and social services.

16
Figure 2.1 Proportion of the population aged 65 and over
Source: Data extracted from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs online database (2012)
Europe’s population to decline in long term
Tables 2.5 and 2.6 (see also Figure 2.2) illustrate Eurostat’s population projections for Europe to the
year 2050. These show that the population will increase in Europe to 2020 but thereafter begin to
decline. With population increasing in Africa and India for example, it is forecast that Europe’s share
of the global population will decline to 7.7% by 2050.
Table 2.5 Population and population projections (million)
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
World 6,507 6,896 7,284 7,657 8,003 8,321 8,612 8,874 9,106 9,306
Europe 731 738 742 744 744 741 737 732 726 719
Africa 911 1,022 1,145 1,278 1,417 1,562 1,713 1,870 2,030 2,192
Asia 3,945 4,164 4,375 4,566 4,730 4,868 4,978 5,061 5,115 5,142
Latin America and the Caribbean 557 590 622 652 679 702 720 735 745 751
Northern America 329 345 360 374 388 402 414 425 436 447
Oceania 34 37 39 42 45 47 49 51 53 55
China 1,308 1,341 1,370 1,388 1,395 1,393 1,382 1,361 1,332 1,296
India 1,140 1,225 1,308 1,387 1,459 1,523 1,580 1,627 1,665 1,692
Japan 126 127 126 125 123 120 117 114 111 109
Russian Federation 144 143 142 141 139 136 134 131 129 126
United States 297 310 324 337 350 362 373 383 393 403
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Europe
Northern America
Oceania
Asia
Latin America
Africa

17
Table 2.6 World Population (% of total)
1960 2005 2050
Europe 20.0 11.2 7.6
China 21.4 20.2 15.5
India 14.8 17.4 17.6
Japan 3.1 2.0 1.1
Russian Federation 4.0 2.2 1.3
United States 6.2 4.6 4.4
Other (2) more developed 1.0 0.9 0.9
Other (3) less developed 29.6 41.6 51.7
Figure 2.2 World Population (% of total)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Europe China India Japan Russian
Federation
United States Other more
developed
Other
less developed
1960
2005
2050

18
Figure 2.3 shows the population pyramids for the EU 27 states from 1950 to 2050. What is of
particular interest is the forecast for 2030 and 2050, which shows that the structure of the EU
population will be one which has a high proportion of elderly persons. One of the most interesting
aspects which the 2030 and the 2050 pyramids show is the increasing proportion of population over
80 years of age. While demographers have traditionally used the category of 65 and over to define
elderly, given longer life expectancies, increasingly they are using 80 and over as an additional
category.
Figure 2.3 Population Pyramids for EU 27 1950-2050
1950 1970
1990 2010
2030 2050
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
80+
75 to 79
70 to 74
65 to 69
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
15 to 19
10 to 14
5 to 9
0 to 4
Male Female

19
2.2 Ireland in a European Context
Ireland is not typical of average European trends and has a younger population
While the previous section has shown that the European population is stagnating and declining in
relative terms, this section examines Ireland in its European context and demonstrates that Ireland is
atypical of general European trends. Table 2.7 shows that in Ireland 11.3 per cent of the population
were over 65 years in 2010 but that the provisional average for the EU27 countries was 17.4 per
cent. In Germany 20.7 per cent of the population was over 65 years. Looking at the figures for those
in the 0-14 age category, 21.3 per cent of Ireland’s population is in this group, the highest in Europe.
By contrast, Germany has 13.5 per cent in the 0-14 age group, while the provisional average for the
EU27 is 15.6 per cent.
Table 2.7 Population by age class, 2010 (% of total population)
0 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 64 65 to 79 80 years
years years years years years and more
EU-27 15.6p 12.1p 35.8p 19.1p 12.7p 4.7p
Euro Area 17 15.4p 11.4p 36p 18.9p 13.3p 5p
Euro Area 16 15.4p 11.4p 36p 18.9p 13.3p 5p
EU 15
Austria 14.9 12.2 37 18.4 12.8 4.8
Belgium 16.9 12.1 34.6 19.3 12.2 4.9
Denmark 18.1 12.2 33.7 19.6 12.2 4.1
Finland 16.6 12.3 32.3 21.7 12.4 4.6
France 18.5p 12.5p 33.2p 19.2p 11.4p 5.2p
Germany 13.5 11.3 35.3 19.3 15.6 5.1
Greece 14.4 10.6 37.2 18.9 14.3 4.6
Ireland 21.3 12.5 38.8 16 8.5 2.8
Italy 14.1 10.1 36.7 19 14.5 5.8
Luxembourg 17.7 11.9 38.6 17.8 10.3 3.6
Netherlands 17.6 12.2 34.8 20.1 11.4 3.9
Portugal 15.2 11.1 37.2 18.6 13.4 4.5
Spain 14.9 10.6 40.2 17.4 12 4.9
Sweden 16.6 13.3 32.9 19.1 12.8 5.3
United Kingdom 17.5 13.3 34.7 18.2 11.8 4.6
Source: Eurostat: (2012)
Ireland has one of the lowest old age dependency ratios in Europe
Table 2.8 explores the issue in more detail through examining the young and old-age dependency
ratios (definitions in Box 1). With regard to the old-age dependency ratio in 2010, Ireland had the
lowest ratio in Europe at 16.8 per cent while the average in the EU27 is 25.9 per cent. In Germany
and Italy, for example the old-age ratio is just over 30 per cent. Conversely, in 2010 Ireland had the
highest young-age dependency ratio at 31.7 per cent, while Germany, Italy and Spain had rates
between 20 and 22 per cent. In summary, Ireland has the youngest population structure in Europe.

20
Table 2.8 Age-related dependency ratios %
Young-age dependency ratio Old-age dependency ratio
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
EU-27 : : : 29.2 25.7 23.3 : : : 20.6 23.2 25.9
Euro area : : : 27.2 24.5 23.3 : : : 20.9 24.1 27.5
EU 15
Austria 33 39.5 32.4 26 25.4 19.7 18.4 22.7 24.3 22.1 22.9 26.1
Belgium 36.2 37.5 31 27 26.9 25.6 18.5 21.2 21.9 22.1 25.5 26
Denmark 39.8 36.4 32.7 25.5 27.6 27.6 16.4 18.9 22.2 23.2 22.2 24.9
Finland 49.4 37.7 30.2 28.7 27.2 25 11.6 13.6 17.6 19.8 22.2 25.6
France 42.2 40 35.4 30.5 29.3 28.6 18.7 20.6 22.1 21.1 24.3 25.6
Germany 31.1 36.8 28.6 23.1 23.1 20.5 17 21.4 23.9 21.6 23.9 31.4
Greece 37.6 37.5 36.2 29.3 22.9 21.5 14.2 17.2 20.6 20.4 24.2 28.4
Ireland 53.2 54.2 51.8 44.7 32.8 31.7 19.2 19.3 18.2 18.6 16.8 16.8
Italy 37.4 38.1 35.1 24.5 21.2 21.4 14 16.7 20.3 21.5 26.8 30.8
Luxembourg 31.5 33.8 28.1 24.9 28.3 26 15.9 19.1 20.3 19.3 21.4 20.4
Netherlands 49.1 43.8 34.3 26.4 27.4 26.2 14.6 16.2 17.4 18.6 20 22.8
Portugal 46.8 46.8 41.6 31.6 24 22.7 12.4 14.9 17.8 20 23.7 26.7
Spain 42.6 44.2 41.2 30.5 21.8 21.9 12.7 15.2 17.1 20.2 24.5 24.7
Sweden 34.5 31.8 30.9 27.7 28.8 25.4 17.8 20.7 25.3 27.7 26.9 27.7
United Kingdom 35.9 38.2 33.2 29 29.4 26.4 18 20.5 23.3 24.1 24.3 24.9
Box 1 Dependency Ratios Definitions
Young-age dependency ratio the population aged up to and including 14 years related to the
population aged between 15 and 64 years;
Old-age dependency ratio the population aged 65 years or older related to the population aged
between 15 and 64 years;
Total dependency ratio the population aged up to and including 14 years and aged 65 years or
older related to the population aged between 15 and 64 years
Ireland one of small group of countries in the EU where population is forecast to grow strongly
Table 2.9 and Figure 2.4 present Eurostat’s population projections for Europe to 2060. In overall
terms the projections show very limited population growth in Europe (EU27) over this long time
frame, with the population projected to increase from 501 million in 2010 to only 517 million in
2060. However, this disguises significant differences between different countries. The population of
Ireland, France, Spain and the UK are projected to grow significantly, but that of Italy to remain static
and that of Germany to decline. The population of the UK is projected to increase from 62 million to
almost 79 million between 2010 and 2060. The population of Germany, on the other hand, is
projected to decline by 15.4 million over the same period. These variations in population
projections, if broadly correct, would give rise to quite different challenges for different countries.
Germany, with a declining and ageing population could, according to Eurostat, face difficulties with
respect to labour shortages and pension provision. The UK, by contrast, would face the pressures of
accommodating a significantly increased population.

21
Table 2.9 Eurostat population and population projections (Million)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 %
change
2010
to
2060
EU-27 435.5 457. 470.4 482.8 497.7 501.1 514.4 522. 525.7 524.0 516.9 3.2%
EU 15
Austria 7.5 7.5 7.6 8 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.9 5.9%
Belgium 9.7 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.7 10.8 11.6 12.2 12.7 13.1 13.4 24.0%
Denmark 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 9.8%
Finland 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.3%
France 50.5 53.7 56.6 60.5 64 64.7 65.6 68.0 69.9 71.0 71.8 14.7%
Germany 78.3 78.2 79.1 82.2 82.2 81.8 80.1 77.9 74.8 70.8 66.4 -18.8%
Greece 8.8 9.6 10.1 10.9 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.3 -0.1%
Ireland 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.2 6.5 46.5%
Italy 53.7 56.4 56.7 56.9 59.6 60.3 62.9 64.5 65.7 65.9 65.0 7.7%
Luxembourg 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 45.0%
Netherlands 13 14.1 14.9 15.9 16.4 16.6 17.2 17.6 17.6 17.4 17.1 3.0%
Portugal 8.7 9.7 10 10.2 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.6 10.3 -3.5%
Spain 33.6 37.2 38.8 40 45.3 46.0 48.0 50.0 51.7 52.7 52.3 13.7%
Sweden 8 8.3 8.5 8.9 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.5 23.4%
United
Kingdom
55.5 56.3 57.2 58.8 61.2 62.0 66.3 70.2 73.4 76.4 78.9 27.3%

22
Figure 2.4 EU Population Change, 1960-2060
Box 2 EU sources on population projections and ageing
Link to latest reports on EU population projections
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/publications/population_projections
Links to demographic databases EUrostat:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database
Ireland has a high fertility rate
Table 2.10 confirms that in the EU context Ireland has a high fertility rate. The fertility rate for
Ireland in 2010 was 2.07 children while in Germany, for example, it was 1.39. This high fertility rate,
in conjunction with lower mortality rates, has meant that natural increase in Ireland is relatively
more important than in other EU states. According to the Census of 2011, Ireland had a rate of
natural increase of 10.2 per thousand population compared with a provisional rate of 0.8per
thousand for the EU 27.
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0% Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UnitedKingdom
% Change 1960-2010
% Change 2010-2060

23
Table 2.10 Total Fertility Rate (mean number of children)
Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
EU 27 : : 1.45 1.47 1.5 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.6 1.59 1.6
Eu-25 : : : 1.48 1.51 1.52 1.55 1.57 1.62 : :
Belgium 1.67 : : 1.66 1.72 1.76 1.8 1.82 1.86 1.84 1.86
Bulgaria 1.26 1.21 1.21 1.23 1.29 1.32 1.38 1.42 1.48 1.57 1.49
Czech Republic 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.44 1.5 1.49 1.49
Denmark 1.77 1.74 1.72 1.76 1.78 1.8 1.85 1.84 1.89 1.84 1.87
Germany 1.38 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.36 1.34 1.33 1.37 1.38 1.36 1.39
Estonia 1.38 1.34 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.5 1.55 1.63 1.65 1.62 1.63
Ireland 1.89 1.94 1.97 1.96 1.93 1.86 1.92 2.01 2.07 2.07 2.07
Greece 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.3 1.33 1.4 1.41 1.51 1.52 1.51
Spain 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.31 1.33 1.35 1.38 1.4 1.46 1.4 1.38
France 1.89 1.9 1.88 1.89 1.92 1.94 2 1.98 2.01 2 2.03
Italy 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.33 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.41 1.41
Cyprus 1.64 1.57 1.49 1.5 1.49 1.42 1.45 1.39 1.46 1.51 1.44
Latvia : : 1.23 1.29 1.24 1.31 1.35 1.41 1.44 1.31 1.17
Lithuania 1.39 1.3 1.24 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.31 1.35 1.47 1.55 1.55
Luxembourg 1.76 1.66 1.63 1.62 1.66 1.63 1.65 1.61 1.61 1.59 1.63
Hungary 1.32 1.31 1.3 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.32 1.35 1.32 1.25
Malta 1.7 1.48 1.45 1.48 1.4 1.38 1.39 1.37 1.44 1.44 1.38
Netherlands 1.72 1.71 1.73 1.75 1.72 1.71 1.72 1.72 1.77 1.79 1.79
Austria 1.36 1.33 1.39 1.38 1.42 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.41 1.39 1.44
Poland 1.35 1.31 1.25 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.27 1.31 1.39 1.4 1.38
Portugal 1.55 1.45 1.47 1.44 1.4 1.4 1.36 1.33 1.37 1.32 1.36
Romania 1.31 1.27 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.32 1.32 1.3 1.35 1.38 1.33
Slovenia 1.26 1.21 1.21 1.2 1.25 1.26 1.31 1.38 1.53 1.53 1.57
Slovakia 1.3 1.2 1.19 1.2 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.32 1.41 1.4
Finland 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.76 1.8 1.8 1.84 1.83 1.85 1.86 1.87
Sweden 1.54 1.57 1.65 1.71 1.75 1.77 1.85 1.88 1.91 1.94 1.98
United Kingdom 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.71 1.77 1.78 1.84 1.9 1.96 1.94 1.98
Iceland 2.08 1.95 1.93 1.99 2.04 2.05 2.08 2.09 2.15 2.23 2.2
Liechtenstein 1.57 1.52 1.47 1.36 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.42 1.43 1.71 1.4
Norway 1.85 1.78 1.75 1.8 1.83 1.84 1.9 1.9 1.96 1.98 1.95
Switzerland 1.5 1.38 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.5 1.52
Montenegro : : : : : 1.6 1.63 1.69 1.77 1.85 1.69
Croatia : : 1.34 1.32 1.34 1.41 1.38 1.4 1.46 1.49 1.46
Macedonia 1.88 1.73 1.8 1.77 1.52 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.47 1.52 1.56

24
Expectancy increases
When it comes to life expectancy, Ireland is at or above the EU average. Table 2.11 shows the most
recent Eurostat data on life expectancy and shows that for males Ireland had a life expectancy of
77.3 in 2006 compared with an EU average of 75.8. Recent member states such as Latvia and
Lithuania had average life expectancies of 65.4 and 65.3 years respectively.
Table 2.11 Life Expectancy at Birth
Male Female
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
EU-27 : 74.5 75.2 75.8 : : : 80.9 81.5 82 82.4 :
Euro area : 76 76.8 : : : : 82.2 82.8 : : :
Belgium 74.6 75.1 76 76.6 76.9 77.6 81 81.2 81.8 82.3 82.6 83
Bulgaria 68.4 68.8 68.9 69.2 69.8 70.3 75 75.5 75.8 76.3 77 77.4
Czech Republic 71.7 72.1 72.6 73.5 74.1 74.5 78.5 78.7 79.2 79.9 80.5 80.9
Denmark 74.5 74.8 75.4 76.1 76.5 77.2 79.2 79.4 80.2 80.7 81 81.4
Germany 75.1 75.7 76.5 77.2 77.6 78 81.2 81.3 81.9 82.4 82.7 83
Estonia 65.5 65.3 66.4 67.4 68.7 70.6 76.2 77 77.8 78.6 79.5 80.8
Ireland 74 75.2 76.4 77.3 77.8 78.7 79.2 80.5 81.4 82.1 82.4 83.2
Greece 75.5 76.2 76.6 77.2 77.7 78.4 80.6 81.1 81.3 81.9 82.3 82.8
Spain 75.8 76.3 76.9 77.7 78.2 79.1 82.9 83.2 83.7 84.4 84.5 85.3
France 75.3 75.7 76.7 77.3 77.8 78.3 83 83 83.8 84.4 84.8 85.3
Italy 77 77.4 77.9 78.5 79.1 : 82.9 83.2 83.8 84.2 84.5 :
Cyprus 75.4 76.4 76.8 78.8 78.5 : : 81 82.1 82.4 83.1 :
Latvia : 64.7 65.9 65.4 67 68.6 : 76 76.2 76.3 77.8 78.4
Lithuania 66.8 66.2 66.3 65.3 66.3 68 77.5 77.5 77.7 77 77.6 78.9
Luxembourg 74.6 74.6 75.9 76.8 78.1 77.9 81.3 81.5 82.3 81.9 83.1 83.5
Hungary 67.6 68.3 68.7 69.2 70 70.7 76.2 76.7 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.6
Malta 76.2 76.3 77.4 77 77.1 79.2 80.3 81.3 81.2 81.9 82.3 83.6
Netherlands 75.6 76 76.9 77.7 78.4 78.9 : 80.7 81.5 82 82.5 83
Austria 75.2 75.8 76.4 77.2 77.8 77.9 81.2 81.7 82.1 82.8 83.3 83.5
Poland 69.6 70.3 70.6 70.9 71.3 72.1 78 78.8 79.2 79.7 80 80.7
Portugal 73.2 73.8 75 75.5 76.2 76.7 80.2 80.6 81.5 82.3 82.4 82.8
Romania 67.7 67.3 68.2 69.2 69.7 70.1p 74.8 74.7 75.5 76.2 77.2 77.6p
Slovenia 72.2 72.6 73.5 74.5 75.5 76.4 79.9 80.5 80.8 82 82.6 83.1
Slovakia 69.2 69.8 70.3 70.4 70.8 71.7 77.5 77.7 78 78.4 79 79.3
Finland 74.2 74.9 75.4 75.9 76.5 76.9 81.2 81.6 82.5 83.1 83.3 83.5
Sweden 77.4 77.7 78.4 78.8 79.2 79.6 82 82.1 82.8 83.1 83.3 83.6
United Kingdom 75.5 76 76.8 77.3 77.8 78.7 80.3 80.6 81 81.7 81.9 82.6

25
2.3 Global trend of increased urbanisation
Global population increasingly urban
According to the United Nations (UN), in 2010 half of the world’s population was urban and they
predict that by 2050 this will have risen to 70 per cent (See table 2.12 and Figure 2.5). In Ireland,
currently 62 per cent of our population live in urban areas but the UN predicts that this will rise to
almost 80 per cent by 2050. Cities occupy 2 per cent of land but use two thirds of all energy and
generate two thirds of all emissions, hence the increasing focus of environmental policy on the
development and management of urban areas.
As cities become more important economically
There is a significant body of evidence on the growing importance of cities as economic drivers.
Cities are responsible for generating more than 80% of global GDP3
yet they occupy just 2% of the
world’s land surface4
. A recent report by the Brookings Global Metro Monitor5
of the world’s 150
largest metro economies demonstrated that in 2007 they accounted for just under 12% of the global
population but generated approximately 46% of world GDP.
Figure 2.5 An Increasingly Urban World
Source: UN (2012)
3
McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities”
4
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100325_DESA.doc.htm
5
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor.aspx
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Increasing Urbanisation of the World
World Ireland

26
McKinsey’s “Mapping the economic power of cities” demonstrated that the top 600 cities in the
world accounted for 60% of global GDP yet only hold about one-fifth of the global population6
. The
increasing importance of cities in their contribution to regional GDP and how this varies across the
world is highlighted by the fact that (see Figure 2.6):
1) Chinese cities in the top 600 global cities accounted for almost 74% of GDP in China (and is
predicted to rise to 90% in 2025),
2) Western European cities accounted for 59% of European GDP.
3) American cities accounted for 92% of national GDP in 2005.
Figure 2.6 Role of Cities and Economic Development
Source: McKInsey 2011
A comprehensive analysis of competitive cities in the global economy by the OECD in 2007 showed
that the role of cities also varies in significance from region to region. For example, there are a
number of cities such as Budapest, Seoul, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki, Randstad-Holland and
Brussels that concentrate nearly half of their national GDP whilst Oslo, Auckland, Prague, London,
Stockholm, Tokyo, and Paris account for around one third 7
. Cities are also significant in terms of job
creation and employment - almost 50% of the jobs in many nations are found in their largest city8
.
In addition, most metro-regions have a higher GDP per capita than their national average, a higher
labour productivity level, and many of them tend to have faster growth rates than the national
6
McKinsey “Mapping the economic power of Cities”
7
OECD (2007), Territorial Reviews, Competitive Cities in the Global Economy.
8
Ibid

27
average for their countries9
. These findings are supported by the Brookings, Global Metro Monitor
(2010) – “The Patch to Economic Recovery”, which found that nearly 4 in 5 of the metro regions had
average incomes that exceed averages for their nations. Many observers talk about the 21st
century
being the century of the city.10
The increasing importance of cities is also reflected in the increasing
attention focused on cities by many national and international organisations. Institutions such as the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations and the
World Bank have all published detailed analysis and research on global cities11
.
Cities are also a hot topic amongst many of the world’s leading professional and consultancy firms.
For example, IBM’s Smarter Cities programme, Citi Bank ‘Citi for Cities’ Programme12
, Price
Waterhouse Cooper’s (PWC) ‘Cities of Opportunity’13
, McKinsey Global Institute’s, “Urban World,
Mapping the Economic Power of Cities”, KPMG’s, “Global Cities Investment Monitor”14
, and AT.
Kearney’s – “Global Cities Index”15
. There are also increasing numbers of research institutes focusing
on cities including the LSE for Cities Institute who recently produced the Global Metro Monitor, the
Globalisation and World Cities (GAWC) programme led by Peter Taylor and the University of
Loughborough16
and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) “Global Urban Competitiveness
Project”.
Cities and the environment
Other initiatives such as The Carbon Disclosure Project17
– “The Case for City Disclosure” recognise
the increasing economic importance of cities and the pivotal roles that they can play in tackling
climate change18
. The Siemens Green City Index (2010) in conjunction with the Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) benchmarks the green credentials of global cities19
. More recently UN-Habitat
have launched the World Urban Campaign20
and the 100 cities initiative21
.
9
Ibid.
10
Rockefeller Foundation, Century of the City: No Time to Lose, (2008)
11
OECD Competitive cities in the global economy (2007), The Global City Indicators Project (GCIP) initiated by the World
Bank, “City Indicators – From Now to Najing,” 2007. http://www.cityindicators.org
12
http://citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/
13
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity
14
http://www.greater-paris-investment-agency.com/pdf/GPIA-KPMG-22-juin-2010-version-definitive.pdf
15
http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/global-cities-index.html
16
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/
17
https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx
18
CDP for Cities – Making the case, 2010, Accenture.
19
Green City Index - http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.html
20
http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=63
21
The 100 Cities Initiative is a forum for the best stories of change in cities that all aim for a smarter urban future.

28
Table 2.12 Global Urbanisation Trends
Major area, region,
country or area
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
World 34 37 39 43 47 52 56 60 64 67
Africa 19 24 28 32 36 39 43 48 53 58
Asia 21 24 27 32 37 44 50 56 60 64
Europe 57 63 67 70 71 73 75 77 80 82
Austria 65 65 65 66 66 67 70 73 75 78
Belgium 92 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 98 98
Bulgaria 37 52 62 66 69 73 78 81 83 85
Czech Republic 60 64 75 75 74 73 74 75 77 80
Cyprus 36 41 59 67 69 70 72 75 78 80
Denmark 74 80 84 85 85 87 88 89 90 91
Estonia 58 65 70 71 69 69 70 72 75 78
Finland 55 64 72 79 82 84 85 86 87 89
France 62 71 73 74 77 85 90 91 92 93
Germany 71 72 73 73 73 74 75 77 80 82
Greece 43 53 58 59 60 61 64 68 71 75
Hungary 56 60 64 66 65 69 73 77 79 82
Ireland 46 52 55 57 59 62 65 69 72 75
Italy 59 64 67 67 67 68 70 73 76 79
Latvia 53 61 67 69 68 68 68 70 73 76
Lithuania 39 50 61 68 67 67 68 71 74 77
Luxembourg 70 74 80 81 84 85 87 89 90 92
Malta 90 90 90 90 92 95 96 97 97 98
Netherlands 60 62 65 69 77 83 86 88 89 91
Poland 48 52 58 61 62 61 61 63 66 70
Portugal 35 39 43 48 54 61 66 70 74 77
Romania 34 40 46 53 53 53 54 56 60 65
Slovakia 33 41 52 56 56 55 55 57 62 66
Slovenia 28 37 48 50 51 50 50 53 58 62
Spain 57 66 73 75 76 77 79 81 83 85
Sweden 72 81 83 83 84 85 87 88 89 90
United Kingdom 78 77 78 78 79 80 81 83 84 86
Latin America and the
Caribbean
49 57 64 70 75 79 81 83 85 87
United States of America 70 74 74 75 79 82 84 86 88 89
Oceania 67 71 71 71 70 71 71 71 72 73
Source: United Nations Population Division (2012)

29
3 POPULATION TRENDS IN DUBLIN 1991-2011
This section presents some of the key demographic trends in Dublin over the past two decades. It is
based on Census data from 1991, 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011.
3.1 Key Population Trends
National population grows strongly
Table 3.1 shows that the population of the state has grown by 30 per cent in the period 1991 – 2011,
increasing from 3.53 million to 4.59 million, that is by just over a million people. Despite the
recession, and expectations that population growth would slow, the population grew by 348,404
between 2006 and 2011 or by 8.2%.
Table 3.1 National Population Change 1961-2011
Population (Number) Actual change since previous
census (Number)
Percentage change since
previous census (%)
1961 2,818,341 79,923 -2.8
1966 2,884,002 65,661 2.3
1971 2,978,248 94,246 3.3
1979 3,368,217 389,969 13.1
1981 3,443,405 75,188 2.2
1986 3,540,643 97,238 2.8
1991 3,525,719 14,924 -0.4
1996 3,626,087 100,368 2.8
2002 3,917,203 291,116 8.0
2006 4,239,848 322,645 8.2
2011 4,588,252 348,404 8.2
Marked regional variations in population growth
Over the period 1991-2011 there were very marked variations in regional population trends. The
Dublin Region saw growth of 24% over the period, below the national average. What stands out,
however, is the remarkable growth in the Mid-East region, with an increase of 63% over the period.
The Midlands region also saw above average growth, with an increase of 39%. These population
figures clearly demonstrate the rapid and strong outward movement of population in the eastern
area (See Figure 3.1 for intercensal change).

30
Significant regional variations in recent population growth
Table 3.2 shows that while the national population grew by 8.2% between 2006 and 2011, there
were significant regional variations in population growth. In the midland and mid-east regions,
population grew by 12.2 per cent. This latter growth reflects, we suggest, a continued dispersal of
population beyond the Greater Dublin Area (See Figure 3.2).The Dublin Region saw growth of 7.2 per
cent, slightly below the national average. The Mid-West region only had a growth of 5.1 per cent,
well below the national trend.
Table 3.2 Regional Population Change 1991-2011
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
1991-
1996
1996-
2002
2002-
2006
2006-
2011
1991-
2011
Persons % change
Border 402,987 407,295 432,534 468,375 514,891 1.1 6.2 8.3 9.9 27.8
Midland 202,984 205,542 225,363 251,664 282,410 1.3 9.6 11.7 12.2 39.1
West 342,974 352,353 380,297 414,277 445,356 2.7 7.9 8.9 7.5 29.9
Dublin 1,025,304 1,058,264 1,122,821 1,187,176 1,273,069 3.2 6.1 5.7 7.2 24.2
Mid East 325,291 347,407 412,625 475,360 531,087 6.8 18.8 15.2 11.7 63.3
Mid West 310,728 317,069 339,591 361,028 379,327 2.0 7.1 6.3 5.1 22.1
South
East 383,188 391,517 423,616 460,838 497,578 2.2 8.2 8.8 8.0 29.9
South
West 532,263 546,640 580,356 621,130 664,534 2.7 6.2 7.0 7.0 24.9
State 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,588,252 2.8 8.0 8.2 8.2 30.1
Figure 3.1 Population Change 1991-2011
0 5 10 15 20
1991-1996
1996-2002
2002-2006
2006-2011
% change on previous census
CensusPeriod
Population Change 1991 - 2011
State
Mid East
Dublin

31
Figure 3.2 Regional Population Change 2006-2011
Source: Census of Population 2011 Results
3.2 Population Change in Dublin
Dublin region has slower growth than the national average
Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarise population change in Dublin between 1991 and 2011. The Dublin
region has grown at a slower pace than the state, increasing its population by 24.2 per cent in the
equivalent period (from 1.025m to 1.273m) compared to the national average of 30.1 per cent.
However, Fingal was the exception with a population growth of some 79 per cent over the past two
decades.
Strong growth in the Mid-East region
Population grew very strongly in the Mid-East region over the past two decades. Kildare, Meath
and Wicklow had increases of 72, 75 and 41 per cent respectively. These figures clearly show the
dispersal of population beyond the Dublin region.

32
Population growth in Dublin City slower than national and regional averages
Table 3.3 shows that population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged
significantly behind national population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the
State the population increased by 30 per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 10.3 per cent in Dublin
City. Fingal County Council, by contrast, witnessed a population increase of 79.4 per cent over the
same period. These figures reflect the rapid outward expansion of population and housing during
the period of the residential property boom and are in some ways to be expected. However, the low
levels of population growth in Dublin City are quite noticeable.
Table 3.3 Population Change 1991-2011
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 478,389 481,854 495,781 506,211 527,612
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 185,410 189,999 191,792 194,038 206,261
Fingal 152,766 167,683 196,413 239,992 273,991
South Dublin 208,739 218,728 238,835 246,935 265,205
Dublin Region 1,025,304 1,058,264 1,122,821 1,187,176 1,273,069
Kildare 122,656 134,992 163,944 186,335 210,312
Meath 105,370 109,732 134,005 162,831 184,135
Wicklow 97,265 102,683 114,676 126,194 136,640
Mid-East Region 325,291 347,407 412,625 475,360 531,087
Greater Dublin Area 1,350,595 1,405,671 1,535,446 1,662,536 1,804,156
State 3,525,719 3,626,087 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,588,252
Source: Census of Population
Table 3.4 Inter-Censal Population Change %
1991-1996 1996-2002 2002-2006 2006-2011 1991-2011
Dublin City 0.7 2.9 2.1 4.2 10.3
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2.5 0.9 1.2 6.3 11.2
Fingal 9.8 17.1 22.2 14.2 79.4
South Dublin 4.8 9.2 3.4 7.4 27.1
Dublin Region 3.2 6.1 5.7 7.2 24.2
Kildare 10.1 21.4 13.7 12.9 71.5
Meath 4.1 22.1 21.5 13.1 74.8
Wicklow 5.6 11.7 10.0 8.3 40.5
Mid East Region 6.8 18.8 15.2 11.7 63.3
GDA 4.1 9.2 8.3 8.5 33.6
State 2.8 8.0 8.2 8.2 30.1
Dublin City share of region’s population declines
When we examine the distribution of the population within the Dublin Region since 1991 (Table 3.5)
we can see that Dublin City’s share of the region’s population has declined from 47 to 41 per cent.
By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per
cent over the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has increased from 20 to 21 per
cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.

33
Table 3.5 Dublin Region Population Share (%)
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 46.7 45.5 44.2 42.6 41.4
Fingal 14.9 15.8 17.5 20.2 21.5
South Dublin 20.4 20.7 21.3 20.8 20.8
Dublin Region 100 100 100 100 100
Table 3.6 and Figure 3.3 examine the share of Dublin City’s population in the context of the Greater
Dublin Area. The same shrinkage in share of population can be seen. In 1991 Dublin City had 35% of
the GDA population but this had decreased to 29% by 2011, once again reflecting the growth of
population and housing in counties such as Fingal, Meath and Kildare. Table 3.7 demonstrates the
declining population share between the Dublin region and state having declined from 29.1 to 27.7
per cent.
Table 3.6 Greater Dublin Area Population Share (%)
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 35.4 34.3 32.3 30.4 29.2
Dún Laoghaire -
Rathdown
13.7 13.5 12.5 11.7 11.4
Fingal 11.3 11.9 12.8 14.4 15.2
South Dublin 15.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 14.7
Kildare 9.1 9.6 10.7 11.2 11.7
Meath 7.8 7.8 8.7 9.8 10.2
Wicklow 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.6
GDA 100 100 100 100 100
Figure 3.3 Changing Share of Population in Greater Dublin Area (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Dublin City Dún
Laoghaire -
Rathdown
Fingal South Dublin Kildare Meath Wicklow
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011

34
Table 3.7 Percentage Share of Population of the State (%)
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 13.6 13.3 12.7 11.9 11.5
Fingal 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.7 6.0
South Dublin 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.8
Dublin Region 29.1 29.2 28.7 28.0 27.7
Kildare 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6
Meath 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.0
Wicklow 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0
GDA 38.3 38.8 39.2 39.2 39.3
Figure 3.4 National Share of Population in Dublin and the GDA (%)
29.1 29.2 28.7
28 27.7
38.3 38.8 39.2 39.2 39.3
20
25
30
35
40
45
1991 1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin Region
GDA

35
3.3 Sprawl and Dispersion in the Dublin Region
Urban Sprawl and the Functional Urban Region
This section examines in more detail some of the more notable spatial changes in Dublin over the
past two decades. One of the most remarkable aspects of population growth over the past two
decades has been the dispersal of population across the Greater Dublin Area and into the other
counties of Leinster. Work by Williams et al (2002, 2007 and 2011) over the past decade or so has
shown that much of this development has been of a sprawl-like pattern and often discontinuous in
nature. Figure 3.5 depicts what Williams et al term the Dublin Functional Urban Region as of 2006.
The Functional Urban Region of Dublin, broadly defined as the economic sphere of influence of a
region, has spread well beyond the formal administrative boundary of the Greater Dublin Area (See
Box 3 for more detailed definition).
Figure 3.5 Dublin Functional Urban Region 2006
Note: ECA refers to Economic Core Area and ERDO refers to the 1985 study by the Eastern Regional Development
Organisation. See Williams et all (2011) for more detail.

36
Apart from considerable local commentary and analysis of the sprawl in the Dublin region and
beyond, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) cited Dublin as being one of the worst examples
of the urban sprawl problem (European Environment Agency, 2006, p22). They concluded that
Dublin's outward expansion was unsustainable in terms of resources, services and quality of life. The
housing market, and an ineffective planning system, had been allowed to drive homebuyers further
and further out of the city to low density settlements with poor provision of services.
Box 3 Defining Functional Urban Regions
A Functional Urban Region (FUR) is defined as the geographic space appropriate for the comparison of
economic development in urban areas (Williams, 2007). It is the space within which businesses enjoy access
to a wide range of infrastructure and services including:
1) Telecommunications
2) Business premises
3) Skilled labour Force
4) Educational institutions and research centres
Antikainen (2005) provides a more quantitative definition whereby the FUR is described as:
the ‘travel to work area’, principally it is an agglomeration of work places attracting the work force from the
surrounding area. If a certain share of the labour force in a defined fringe area are out-commuters it is
attached to the municipality to which the largest portion of commuters go. This method is good for defining
the most pronounced employment centres to which the more simple threshold level of commuting applies.
In many international studies, a commuting threshold of 15 – 20% of residents in a given municipality is
used to determine whether that municipality is attached to a particular centre or not.
Source: Williams et al (2011)
Commuting patterns and sprawl
The pattern of settlement across the eastern region of Ireland is very much centred on Dublin’s role
as the national economic driver. According to the most recent regional accounts the Dublin region
accounts for over 40% of the national economy while combined with the mid east accounts for 47%
of Gross Value Added (Central Statistics Office, 2012).
One of the consequences of the concentration of economic development has been the emergence
of complex commuting patterns. The commuting patterns that are developing as a result of the
urban sprawl that has encroached the mid east and further afield, have resulted in a dominance in
car usage with few public transport options available for residents in these low density outer
suburban areas. A recent European green city benchmarking report shows Dublin as being one of
the worst performing cities in relation to public transport users across all European capital cities
(Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010; http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm).
Figure 3.6, based on work by the All Island Research Observatory, demonstrate the functional urban
area of Dublin using the most recent Census 2011 commuting data. The map is based on a 20%
threshold, whereby 20% or over of the population of an electoral district commute to the Dublin
Region for work purposes.

37
Figure 3.6 Census 2011 Commuting Patterns and Functional Territories: 20% travel to work threshold.
Source: All Island Research Observatory, 2011

38
Moland Model and Urban Development Patterns
Under the aegis of the European Commission (Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy), the University of
Maastricht developed the MOLAND model (http://moland.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) , which for a given area
generates predictions as to future land uses under various economic and demographic scenarios.
The Urban Environment Project (http://www.uep.ie/), a research project funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency and based at University College Dublin, has produced extensive
research on projecting future urban development patterns in the Dublin region22
. Over the period
2009 to 2011, this research pilot tested the MOLAND model in the Greater Dublin Area using 1990,
2000 and 2006 data. It established a detailed land use map of the region in 2006 and, using different
scenarios, projected future land uses to 2026. Figure 3.7 shows land uses as of 2006 and Figure 3.8
shows land use in 2026 based in a continuation of current land use trends. Using this assumption,
we can see a continuation of a dispersed settlement pattern. Other scenarios tested include, for
example, the consolidation of the metropolitan footprint. This form of scenario testing will be of
crucial importance in policy making and evaluation.
In addition to this scenario testing, the model has been updated and extended by incorporating
environmental variables and the production of sample environmental indicators. As environmental
impacts often depend also on location, where the development and associated impacts take place is
also an important consideration. This project has developed the analytical capacity to link
development-space-environment dimensions of this important policy debate. This policy input is
now published in Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010 – 2022 (2011)
(http://www.rpg.ie/documents/RPGPrintA4). The work involved formulation of the preferred
Settlement Strategy for the Dublin and Mid East Regional Authorities was informed by scenarios
developed using the MOLAND framework (see Brennan et al, 2009).
22
The synthesis report on this research will be published by the EPA in late 2011 or early 2012

39
Figure 3.7 Moland Model: Actual Land Use in 2006

40
Figure 3.8 Moland Land Use Scenario for 2026

41
Population dispersal continues
The most recent census data confirm that population dispersal (sprawl) continues to occur in the
Greater Dublin Area and beyond into other counties of Leinster. Figure 3.9 depicts the percentage
population change across the electoral divisions of Leinster in the 2006-2011 period. The map shows
strong population growth to the north (especially along the “northern fringe”) and west of the
Dublin built up area but also strong population growth across Leinster in what is a sporadic manner.
Figure 3.9 Percentage Population Change in Leinster by Electoral Division 2006-2011
Copyright © Ordnance Survey Ireland. Licence number 2011/22/CCMA/ Dublin City Council

42
Figure 3.10 depicts the same data but shows the percentage change across each electoral division
for the Dublin Region and some of the neighbouring electoral districts. Population in the Greater
Dublin Area increased by an average of 8% in the 2006-2011 period, but the map shows that large
swathes of Leinster increased by well over the average, indicating a strong pattern of population
dispersal.
Figure 3.10 Percentage Population Change in Dublin Area by Electoral Division 2006-2011
Copyright © Ordnance Survey Ireland. Licence number 2011/22/CCMA/ Dublin City Council

43
Inner City Dublin shows population increase
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, a concentration of strong
growth is evident in the inner city of Dublin (area between the canals). Table 3.8 summarises
population change in Dublin City between 1991 and 2011. In that inter-censal period the population
of Dublin City increased by 10.3 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 63.2%
in the same period23
. This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city
from the late 1980s onwards, due in large part to tax and other fiscal incentives aimed at stimulating
urban regeneration.
However, rest of Dublin City sees population decline
While the inner city saw a significant increase in population in the rest of the city there was a
decrease of 1% from 1991- 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population (see
Figure 3.11 on the following page). Given strong national and regional increases in population in this
period, this loss of population is striking. Without undertaking more extensive analysis of age
structure and household type at electoral division level, it is not possible to be definitive as to the
reasons for this, but clearly we are dealing with households which are at a later stage of the life cycle
(empty nesting etc). The 2011 Census results show continuing growth in the inner city with a slight
decline in the outer areas.
Table 3.8 Population Change in Dublin City 1991-2011
Persons
1991
Persons
1996
Persons
2002
Persons
2006
Persons
2011
Change
1991-
2011
% change
1991-
2011
Dublin City 478,389 481,854 495,781 506,211 527,612 49,223 10.3%
Total Inner City 84,055 94,112 112,044 124,036 137,142 53,087 63.2%
Total rest of city 394,334 387,742 383,737 382,175 390,470 -3,864 -1.0%
23
See Appendix 1 for detailed breakdown of change in inner city wards and for administrative areas in Dublin City Council

44
Figure 3.11 Population change in Dublin City 1991-2011
Table 3.9 examines population density in the Greater Dublin Area. These figures must be treated
with caution as they encompass the entire area of the administrative units and not just what might
be termed ‘urban’. For example, while Fingal has extensive new suburban developments much of its
land would not be classified as urban (as demonstrated in the Moland land use map, Figure 3.6 and
3.7). Nonetheless, we can see that Dublin City has by far the highest population density per square
kilometre.
Table 3.9 Population Density per Square Kilometre
KM
2
Population
density 2002
Population density
2006
Population density
2011
Dublin Region 920.66 1219.6 1289.5 1382.8
Dublin City 117.61 4215.5 4304.1 4486.1
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 126.95 1510.8 1528.5 1624.7
Fingal 453.09 433.5 529.7 604.7
South Dublin 223.01 1071.0 1107.3 1189.2
Kildare 1694.2 96.8 110.0 124.1
Meath 2334.54 57.4 69.7 78.9
Wicklow 2032.6 56.4 62.1 67.2
State 70182.24 55.8 60.4 65.4
Persons
1991
Persons
1996
Persons
2002
Persons
2006
Persons
2011
Rest of Dublin City 394334 387742 383737 382175 390470
Total Inner City 84055 94112 112044 124036 137142
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
AxisTitle

45
3.4 Components of Population Change
Forecasts of mass levels of net emigration are off the mark
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had calculated that mass emigration had
returned over the census period. However, the 2011 Census figures (Table 3.10) show in fact that
there was net positive in-migration of 122,292 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, infer that
there was no emigration out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it over
the 5 year Census Period. The years 2010 – 2012 demonstrate the emergence of net emigration for
the first time since the mid 1990’s. Figure 3.12 displays the key components of population change
from 1990 to 2011.
Contribution of natural increase and net inward migration varies
When we examine the contribution to population growth of natural increase versus net inward
migration, we can see some significant differences (Table 3.10). Nationally, two thirds of population
growth was due to natural increase and one third to net migration. However, in the Border and
Midlands regions, net migration was responsible for over half of population growth. By contrast in
the mid-west net migration only accounted for 9 per cent of growth and in Dublin it accounted for
23 per cent of population growth.
Table 3.10 Regional Population Change 2006-2011
Population
2006
Population
2011
Increase in
population
Change
%
Natural
increase
Estimated
net
migration
Natural
Increase
%
Net
Migration
%
Border 468,375 514,891 46,516 10 20,494 26,022 44.06 55.94
Dublin 1,187,176 1,273,069 85,893 7 66,421 19,472 77.33 22.67
Mid East 475,360 531,087 55,727 12 37,174 18,553 66.71 33.29
Mid West 361,028 379,327 18,299 5 16,713 1586 91.33 8.67
Midlands 251,664 282,410 30,746 12 15,144 15,602 49.26 50.74
South East 460,838 497,578 36,740 8 22,845 13,895 62.18 37.82
South West 621,130 664,534 43,404 7 29,558 13,846 68.10 31.90
West 414,277 445,356 31,079 8 17,763 13,316 57.15 42.85
State 4,239,848 4,588,252 348,404 8 226,112 122,292 64.90 35.10

46
Figure 3.12 Components of Population Change
Table 3.11 examines the components of population change in the counties of Leinster between 2006
and 2011. It is useful here to examine the rates of natural increase and net migration per thousand
population. Nationally, there was natural increase of 10.2 per thousand population and net
migration of 5.5. When we examine these figures at a county level we see quite dramatic
differences. In South Dublin for example we see that there was net migration out of the county,
leading to a figure of -0.6 per thousand. By contrast, Laois had a net inward migration figure of 23.8
per thousand.
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160 1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
'000's
Natural Increase Immigrants Emigrants Net Migration

47
Table 3.11 Components of Population Change in Leinster 2006-2011
Change in
population
- persons
(Number)
Natural
increase
- persons
(Number)
Estimated
net
migration
- persons
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
- births
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
- deaths
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
- natural
increase
(Number)
Average
annual
rates per
1,000 of
average
population
-
estimated
net
migration
(Number)
Dublin Region
Dublin City 21401 17357 4044 14.8 8.1 6.7 1.6
Dun Laoghaire 12223 7273 4950 13.7 6.4 7.3 4.9
Fingal 33999 22711 11288 21 3.3 17.7 8.8
South Dublin 18270 19080 -810 18.4 3.5 14.9 -0.6
Mid-East Region
Kildare 23977 15362 8615 19.8 4.3 15.5 8.7
Meath 21304 13444 7860 20.1 4.6 15.5 9.1
Wicklow 10446 8368 2078 18.6 5.9 12.7 3.2
Rest of Leinster
Carlow 4263 3314 949 19.1 6.5 12.6 3.6
Kilkenny 7861 3966 3895 15 6.3 8.7 8.5
Laois 13500 4703 8797 18.2 5.4 12.7 23.8
Longford 4609 1851 2758 18 7.9 10.1 15
Louth 11630 5820 5810 16.3 6.4 9.9 9.9
Offaly 5819 3845 1974 16.6 6.2 10.4 5.4
Westmeath 6818 4745 2073 17.9 6.4 11.5 5
Wexford 13571 7069 6502 17 6.8 10.2 9.4
Leinster 209691 138908 70783 17.4 5.8 11.6 5.9
State 348404 226112 122292 16.6 6.4 10.2 5.5
Tables 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 examine the components of population change in three inter-censal
periods, looking in particular at migration trends. Table 3.12 which examines change in the period
1991-1996, shows outward migration from Dublin City, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin,
with in migration to Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Fingal is the only local authority in the Dublin
Region with inward migration.

48
Table 3.12 Components of Population Change 1991-1996
Population change Natural
Increase
Total estimated
net migration
Dublin Region 32960 36570 -3610
Dublin City 3465 7969 -4504
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 4589 5377 -788
Fingal 14917 10100 4817
South Dublin 9989 13124 -3135
Kildare 12336 6438 5898
Meath 4362 3582 780
Wicklow 5418 3703 1715
State 100368 92066 8302
Table 3.13 shows that during the main period of the economic boom 1996-2002, there was
significant in migration into Dublin City, Fingal, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown, however, experienced outward migration in this period
Population change
Natural
Increase
Total estimated
net migration
Dublin Region 64557 50880 13677
Dublin City 13927 11622 2305
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 1793 6698 -4905
Fingal 28730 13551 15179
South Dublin 20107 19009 1098
Kildare 28952 11043 17909
Meath 24273 6318 17955
Wicklow 11993 5278 6715
State 291116 137235 153881
Table 3.14 examines components of population change in the more recent period of 2002-2006. It
shows that there was a minor level of in migration to Dublin City but without migration from Dun-
Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin. Fingal, however, saw extensive in migration of the order of
30,000 persons. Kildare, Meath and Wicklow also witnessed significant in migration.

49
Population
change
Natural
Increase
Total estimated net
migration
Dublin Region 64355 41704 22651
Dublin City 10430 9817 613
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 2246 4381 -2135
Fingal 43579 13710 29869
South Dublin 8100 13796 -5696
Kildare 22391 9830 12561
Meath 28826 7441 21385
Wicklow 11518 4611 6907
State 322645 131314 191331
Table 3.15, shows the changes in the most recent intercensal period. Just over eighty per cent of the
population growth in Dublin City was accounted for by natural increase while this fell to 60 per cent
in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.
Population change
Natural
Increase
Total estimated
net migration
Dublin Region
Dublin City 21,401 17,357 4,044
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 12,223 7,273 4,950
Fingal 33,999 22,711 11,288
South Dublin 18,270 19,080 -810
Kildare 23,977 15,362 8,615
Meath 21,304 13,444 7,860
Wicklow 10,446 8,368 2,078
State 348,404 226,112 122,292

50
3.5 Age Structure, Dependency Ratios and Life Expectancy
Tables 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 examine the age structure of the population in 1996, 2002, 2006
and 2011 (see Appendix 2 for population pyramids for 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011). The most
notable aspect of Table 3.16 is that Dublin City has a lower proportion of its population in the 0-14
age group than other counties. Dublin City has 18.3% of its population in this cohort as compared
with 27 % in Fingal and South Dublin.
Table 3.16 Age Structure in 1996 (%)
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
-
Rathdown
Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
Kildare Meath Wicklow GDA State
0-14 18.3 20.9 27.3 27.1 22.0 26.5 26.1 24.9 23.0 23.7
15-24 19.1 17.4 17.8 19.3 18.6 18.1 16.8 16.5 18.3 17.5
25-49 35.6 35.6 38.1 37.4 36.4 37.2 34.9 35.2 36.2 34.2
50-64 13.9 14.9 11.3 11.0 13.1 11.0 12.5 13.2 12.8 13.2
65-79 10.3 8.8 4.4 4.3 7.9 5.7 7.6 7.9 7.6 8.9
80+ 2.8 2.5 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.5
Table 3.17 displays the age structure of the population in 2002. The most obvious pattern to emerge
is that Dublin City had 32% of its population in the 20-34 age group compared with 27% for Fingal
and 23% in Kildare and 22% in Wicklow. However, Dublin has only 16% of its population in the 0-14
age group as compared with 22% in Fingal and South Dublin and 24% in Meath.
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
-
Rathdown
Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
0-14 16.2 19.2 22.7 22.5 19.2 23.7 23.6 22.5 20.3 21.1
15-24 18.0 16.6 17.3 18.5 17.7 16.5 15.4 15.4 17.2 16.4
25-49 39.3 35.7 40.4 38.8 38.7 40.0 38.3 36.9 38.7 36.5
50-64 13.8 16.1 13.7 14.0 14.2 13.1 13.9 15.3 14.1 14.9
65-79 9.9 9.6 4.8 5.2 8.0 5.1 6.6 7.6 7.5 8.6
80+ 2.9 2.8 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6
Meath and Fingal have younger population profile than Dublin City
Table 3.18 presents the age structure of the population as of 2006. One of the striking features is the
relatively high proportion of 20 to 34 year olds in Dublin City when compared with other areas. In
Dublin City 33% of the population are in the 20-34 age group compared to 24% in Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown and 25% nationally. However, Dublin City has only 16% of its population in the under 14
age category while Fingal has 22% and Kildare and Meath have 23%. These latter figures reflect more
recent settlement patterns and hence a higher proportion of school going age.

51
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
-
Rathdown
Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
0-14 15.0 18.2 22.1 21.7 18.3 23.1 23.4 21.5 19.6 20.4
15-24 16.9 15.7 14.9 16.4 16.2 15.0 13.5 14.1 15.6 14.9
25-49 41.5 36.2 43.8 39.5 40.7 41.1 41.1 38.7 40.6 38.2
50-64 13.9 16.5 13.2 15.2 14.5 14.0 14.0 15.8 14.5 15.4
65-79 9.6 10.3 4.8 6.0 8.0 5.2 6.1 7.6 7.5 8.4
80+ 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.3 2.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.7
Table 3.19 shows the age structure of the most recent Census figures of 2011 (see also Figure 3.13).
The 20-34 year old age grouping represents 32% of the population in Dublin. This figure is the
highest in the GDA followed by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown at 26%. Dublin City remains well above the
national average which stands at 24%. In line with previous Census findings the proportion of 0-14
year olds in Dublin City remains low at 15%, while this age grouping represents 24% of the
population in Fingal and 25% in Kildare and Meath. The latter figures also correspond with the
results which show that Dublin City has a lower proportion of households with children when
compared with other counties.
Dublin
City
Dún
Laoghaire
-
Rathdown
Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
0-14 15.2 18.2 24.2 23.1 19.3 24.5 25.2 22.8 20.1 21.3
15-24 14.5 14.0 11.9 13.1 13.6 12.5 11.4 12.1 13.3 12.6
25-49 43.3 36.5 42.9 39.2 41.2 40.3 40.0 37.7 40.9 38.3
50-64 14.4 16.8 13.7 15.9 15.0 14.8 14.6 16.4 15.0 16.1
65-79 9.2 10.8 5.9 7.1 8.3 6.2 6.9 8.6 8.1 8.9
80+ 3.4 3.7 1.3 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8

52
Figure 3.13 Age Structure 2011
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Dublin
City
DLR Fingal South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
0-14 15-24 25-49 50-64 65-79 80+

53
Figure 3.14 Dublin Region Population Pyramid 2011 (see Appendix 2 for GDA and Dublin City
Pyramids)
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown have the highest old-age ratios
Table 3.20 displays dependency ratios for the different areas of the GDA. With regard to the old age
ratio we can see that while the average for the GDA is 15.1 per cent Dublin City Council’s rate is
higher at 17.4 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown stands at 21.5 per cent. However, Fingal has
the lowest old-age dependency ratio at 10.6% with Kildare and South Dublin at 11.7% and 12.7%
respectively. The average young-age ratio for the GDA is 30.1% but it is 35 per cent or over in Fingal,
Kildare and Meath. By contrast Dublin City Council has the lowest young-age ratio at 21%.
Table 3.20 Dependency Ratios 2011
0-14
years
15-64
years
over 65
years
Young
age ratio
Old age
ratio
Total
dependency
ratio
n N N % % %
Dublin City 80029 381093 66490 21.0 17.4 38.4
Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown 37535 138854 29872 27.0 21.5 48.5
Fingal 66407 187723 19861 35.4 10.6 46.0
South Dublin 61281 180871 23053 33.9 12.7 46.6
Dublin Region 245252 888541 139276 27.6 15.7 43.3
Kildare 51568 142088 16656 36.3 11.7 48.0
Meath 46466 121347 16322 38.3 13.5 51.7
Wicklow 31172 90467 15001 34.5 16.6 51.0
GDA 374458 1242443 187255 30.1 15.1 45.2
State 979590 3073269 535393 31.9 17.4 49.3
6 4 2 0 2 4 6
0-4
10-14
20-24
30-34
40-44
50-54
60-64
70-74
80-84
%
AgeClass
Female %
Male %

54
Birth rates and fertility rates are high
One of the notable aspects of Irish population growth has been the high contribution of natural
increase as compared with migration. This is illustrated by the continued high birth rates as seen in
Table 3.21. The total of live births went from 58,000 in 2001 to a high of 76,000 in 2008 and has
declined somewhat in the past three years. When measured per thousand population we can see
that birth rates increase from 15 per thousand in 2001 to a high of 17.1 per thousand in 2008 and
has declined to 16.3 in 2011. When we examine the fertility rate we can see that fertility rates have
been increasing over the past decade from 1.96 per woman in 2001 to a high of 2.10 in 2008 and
2010.
Table 3.21 Birth Rates-State
Live Births
number
Birth rates per 1000 Total period Fertility Rate
(TPFR)*
2001 57882 15.0 1.96
2002 60521 15.5 1.98
2003 61517 15.5 1.98
2004 61684 15.2 1.95
2005 61042 14.8 1.88
2006 64237 15.2 1.94
2007 70620 16.3 2.05
2008 75724 17.1 2.1
2009 74928 16.8 2.09
2010 74976 16.8 2.1
2011 74650 16.3 2.04
A fertility rate of 2.1 is considered the long run replacement rate. Source: Central Statistics Office, 2012 (Vital Statistics)
Life Expectancy increases
Since the foundation of the state average life expectancy has continued to improve. As table 3.22
shows, for males life expectancy has moved from 57 years to 76.8 years between 1926 and 2006.
For females life expectancy has improved from 57.9 years to 81.6 years over the same period.
Table 3.22 Life Expectancy in Ireland
Year Males females
1926 57.4 57.9
1946 60.5 62.4
1966 68.6 72.0
1986 71.0 76.7
2006 76.8 81.6
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011
Table 3.23 shows life expectancy by region at birth and at aged 65 years. There are only very minor
differences between the regions and they are in line with the national averages.

55
Table 3.23 Period Life Expectancy by Region
Males Females
Age =0 Age=65 Age =0 Age=65
2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006 2002 2006
Border 74.8 77.0 15.3 16.5 80.9 81.7 19.2 19.8
Midland 74.8 77.2 15.3 16.8 79.7 81.5 28.5 19.3
West 75.5 77.1 15.6 16.8 80.9 82.7 19.0 20.6
Dublin 75.2 76.7 15.5 16.9 80.2 81.2 18.9 19.7
Mid-East 75.9 77.2 15.5 16.6 80.5 81.4 18.8 19.5
Mid-West 74.4 76.3 15.3 16.1 79.8 80.4 18.6 18.7
South-East 75.3 76.8 15.4 16.7 80.3 81.7 18.6 19.9
South- West 75.2 76.5 15.3 16.4 80.5 81.6 18.8 20.0
Source: Central Statistics Office, 2011
3.6 Nationality and Country of Birth
Over the past fifteen years Ireland has become a more ethnically and racially diverse society than
previously and Tables 3.24, 3.25 and Figure 3.15 show this. Recognising the dramatic increase in
diversity and multiculturalism across the Dublin Region, the latest Census figures show that in 2011
the foreign born population represented 20% of the total population. In 2011 there were 248,917
foreign born persons residing in Dublin, up from 127,933 in 2002 (+51%). Persons born in the United
Kingdom accounted for 23% of the foreign born population in Dublin in 2011 while persons born in
Poland accounted for 13.5% with Romania at 4.7% and Lithuania at 4%. There were 766,770 foreign
born persons residing within the state in 2011, up from 400,016 in 2002, (+52%). A significant
proportion of the foreign born population living within the state were born in Great Britain (38%),
Poland (15%) and Lithuania (4.5%).
Figure 3.15 Foreign born population (usually resident and present on Census night)
State Dublin
2002 10.4 11.6
2006 14.7 17.0
2011 16.9 20.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%

56
However, the impact of the economic downturn and decline in employment prospects is now
resulting in increasing numbers emigrating. This is likely to be especially true for those who lost their
jobs in the construction sectors and lower skilled services sectors. More recent trends show that
between 2007 and 2010 the numbers of immigrants arriving in Ireland dropped by over 70% while
emigration flows increased by 80% between 2006 and 2010 (CSO, 2011).
Table 3.24 Population by Nationality 2011 (%)
Dublin
Region
Kildare Meath Wicklow State Total
Irish 82.7 87.3 88.1 89.3 86.8
UK 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.8 2.5
Lithuanian 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.6 0.8
Polish 2.9 3.4 2.1 2.0 2.7
EU15 excluding Irish and UK 1.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.1
EU15 to EU27 states excluding Polish and
Lithuania 2.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.5
Other European (4) 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4
African 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.9
Asian 2.9 1.3 0.7 1.1 1.4
American (US) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
Other nationalities (14) 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
Multi nationality 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No nationality 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Not stated 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.2
All nationalities 100 100 100 100 100
Table 3.25 Population by Country of Birth 2011 (%)
Dublin Region Kildare Meath Wicklow State
Ireland 80.0 84.1 84.7 85.3 83.1
UK 4.5 5.1 5.5 6.3 6.4
Poland 2.7 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.5
Lithuania 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.8
EU 15 excluding Irish and UK 1.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.1
EU 15 to 27 excluding Poland and Lithuania 2.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.5
Rest of World 7.8 4.6 3.8 3.8 4.7
Figure 3.16 shows the concentrations of Irish Nationals by electoral division in 2011. It is interesting
to note the concentration of non-Irish nationals in the city centre and in the north-west fringe of the
city around the Blanchardstown area.

57
3.16 Non-Irish Nationals by Electoral Division in Dublin 2011
Source: Produced by Jamie Cudden (Dublin City Council) from Census data 2011.

58
3.7 Household Change and Housing
Tables 3.26 and 3.27 show the changing numbers of households and household size since 1996 (see
also Figure 2.17). Nationally, the number of private households increased by 47.3% from 1996 and
2011. Dublin City recorded an increase of only 20.6% over the same period. On the other hand, an
extraordinary increase in the number of private households was recorded in Fingal between 1996
and 2011 as total household numbers effectively doubled, increasing by 95.7%. Similarly, Meath and
Kildare also experienced substantial growth in household numbers over this period increasing by
95.6% and 81.8%.
Table 3.26 Number of Private Households
No of
private
households
1996
No of
private
households
2002
No of
private
households
2006
No of
private
households
2011
%
change
1996-
2002
%
change
2002-
2006
%
Change
2006-
2011
Dublin City 172,433 180,852 190,984 208,008 4.9 5.6 8.9
Dun
Laoghaire-
Rathdown
61,465 64,132 68,412 75,819 4.3 6.7 10.8
Fingal 47,599 60,872 80,402 93,146 27.9 32.1 15.9
South Dublin 61,708 73,516 80,631 90,019 19.1 9.7 11.6
Dublin
Region
343,205 379,372 420,429 466,992 10.5 10.8 11.1
Kildare 38,929 50,477 60,957 70,763 29.7 20.8 16.1
Meath 31,798 41,675 53,938 62,201 31.1 29.4 15.3
Wicklow 31,134 36,572 42,870 47,798 17.5 17.2 11.5
Greater
Dublin Area
445,066 508,096 578,194 647,754 14.2 13.8 12.0
State 1,123,238 1,287,958 1,469,521 1,654,208 14.7 14.1 12.6
Figure 3.17 Percentage increase in Household Numbers from 1996 to 2011
Dublin
City
DLR Fingal
South
Dublin
Dublin
Region
Kildare Meath Wicklow
Greater
Dublin
Area
State
Area 20.6 23.0 95.7 45.9 36.1 81.8 95.6 53.5 45.5 47.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%

59
Table 3.27 confirms that average household size has decreased over the past decade. Nationally,
average household size had gone from 3.14 in 1996 to 2.4 in 2011. Average household size is
smaller in Dublin City, going from 2.67 in 1996 to 2.4 in 2011.
Table 3.27 Average Household Size
Average number of persons per private household
1996 2002 2006 2011
Dublin City 2.67 2.59 2.50 2.40
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 3.01 2.9 2.77 2.67
Fingal 3.46 3.18 2.95 2.92
South Dublin 3.50 3.21 3.03 2.93
Dublin Region 2.99 2.86 2.73 2.65
Kildare 3.39 3.18 3.01 2.95
Meath 3.41 3.17 2.99 2.97
Wicklow 3.22 3.06 2.89 2.83
Greater Dublin Area 3.07 2.93 2.80 2.73
State 3.14 2.94 2.81 2.73
Table 3.28 examines household composition or type in 2011. The most obvious result from this table
is that Dublin City has a higher than average proportion of one person households than other
counties. Over 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17%
in Fingal and South Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised
of husband and wife with children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife
with children compared with 31% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal, 34% in South Dublin and almost
40% in Meath and Kildare. Approximately one-third of households in the city have children
compared to Kildare, Wicklow and Meath which all have over 50% of households with children.

60
Table 3.28 Household Composition in 2011
DublinRegion
DublinCity
DúnLaoghaire-
Rathdown
Fingal
SouthDublin
Kildare
Meath
Wicklow
State
One person 24.2 30.7 23.0 17.2 17.3 17.8 18.2 20.2 23.7
Husband and wife 13.4 11.8 16.7 13.7 13.8 14.0 14.4 15.1 14.5
Cohabiting couple 5.7 6.7 5.1 5.5 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.4
Husband and wife with children (of any age) 27.0 18.6 31.1 35.7 33.7 37.7 39.6 34.8 31.6
Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) 3.0 2.4 2.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.3
Lone mother with children (of any age) 10.0 9.8 8.0 10.0 12.3 9.1 8.2 10.2 9.4
Lone father with children (of any age) 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5
Husband and wife with other persons 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Cohabiting couple with other persons 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
Husband and wife with children (of any age) and other
persons
1.6 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.6
Cohabiting couple with children (of any age) and other
persons
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lone mother with children (of any age) and other
persons
1.2 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
Lone father with children (of any age) and other
persons
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Two family units with or without other persons 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1
Three or more family units with or without other
persons
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Non-family households containing related persons 2.8 3.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.4
Non-family households containing no related persons 6.1 8.7 5.4 3.7 3.4 3.2 1.9 1.9 3.8
Households with Children 44.5 35.1 45.2 54.7 55.5 55.6 56.9 54.0 48.7
Total private households 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

61
Housing stock in Dublin older than in suburban areas
Table 3.29 displays the age of the housing stock as of 2011. It is hardly surprising that Dublin City
has an older housing stock than other areas (see Figure 3.18 for Dublin City housing age). Seventy
four per cent of the housing stock was built before 1991 while only 26% was built post 1991. By
contrast, in the newly expanding area of Fingal, 56% of the stock is post 1991. Meath and Kildare
show that approximately 56% of the housing stock was built post 1991 as housing supply spread into
the hinterland of the Greater Dublin Area.
Table 3.29 Age of Housing in 2011 (%)
Pre
1991
Post
1991
Dublin City 73.6 26.4
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 71.1 28.9
Fingal 43.7 56.3
South Dublin 61.2 38.8
Dublin Region 64.7 35.3
Kildare 44.6 55.4
Meath 44.2 55.8
Wicklow 57.7 42.3
Greater Dublin Area 60.0 40.0
State 56.9 43.1
Source: Census of Population 2011

Dublin Demographics 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Dublin Demographics 2013

Similar to Dublin Demographics 2013 (20)

More from Jamie Cudden

More from Jamie Cudden (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dublin Demographics 2013