dublin, may 20 14

Trutz Haase & Jonathan Pratschke

NEIGHBOURHOOD DEPRIVATION IN A CHANGING ECONOMIC CLIMATE

The Pobal HP Deprivation Index, 1991 - 2011

Dublin, May 2014

Demographic Decline (predominantly rural)

population loss and the social and demographic effects of emigration (age dependency, low education of adult population)

Social Class Deprivation (applying in rural and urban areas)

social class composition, education, housing quality

Labour Market Deprivation (predominantly urban)

unemployment, lone parents, low skills base

THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE

most disadvantagedmost disadvantaged most affluentmost affluent

marginally below the average marginally above the average

disadvantaged affluent

very disadvantaged very affluent

extremely disadvantaged extremely affluent

MAPPING DEPRIVATION

FROM BUST TO BOOM AND BUST AGAIN

ED-LEVELABSOLUTE INDEX SCORES1991

HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013

30 to 75 (53)20 to 30 (79)10 to 20 (252)0 to 10 (1184)

-10 to 0 (1431)-20 to -10 (360)-30 to -20 (49)



30 to 75 (52)20 to 30 (133)10 to 20 (562)0 to 10 (1625)

-10 to 0 (875)-20 to -10 (151)-30 to -20 (10)



30 to 75 (77)20 to 30 (314)10 to 20 (1021)0 to 10 (1440)

-10 to 0 (436)-20 to -10 (103)-30 to -20 (16)-50 to -30 (1)



30 to 75 (55)20 to 30 (314)10 to 20 (1201)0 to 10 (1385)

-10 to 0 (341)-20 to -10 (93)-30 to -20 (18)-50 to -30 (1)


HP Deprivation Index ED2011 absoluteHaase & Pratschke 2013

30 to 75 (14)20 to 30 (82)10 to 20 (296)0 to 10 (1026)

-10 to 0 (1414)-20 to -10 (460)-30 to -20 (98)-50 to -30 (18)

COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2011

Affluence grew significantly throughout the country over the 15-year period from 1991 to 2006.

Greatest change occurred between 1996 and 2002.

Affluence grew in concentric circles around the main urban centres, demarcating the exceptional expansion of the urban commuter belts.

The recession after 2006 wiped out all progress made over the preceding 15 years.

ED-LEVELRELATIVEINDEX SCORES1991

HP Deprivation Index ED 1991 relativeHaase & Pratschke 2013

30 to 75 (53)20 to 30 (79)10 to 20 (252)0 to 10 (1184)

-10 to 0 (1431)-20 to -10 (360)-30 to -20 (49)



30 to 75 (37)20 to 30 (100)10 to 20 (325)0 to 10 (1112)

-10 to 0 (1390)-20 to -10 (375)-30 to -20 (66)-50 to -30 (3)



30 to 75 (11)20 to 30 (86)10 to 20 (406)0 to 10 (1125)

-10 to 0 (1333)-20 to -10 (346)-30 to -20 (91)-50 to -30 (10)



30 to 75 (2)20 to 30 (76)10 to 20 (420)0 to 10 (1204)

-10 to 0 (1267)-20 to -10 (317)-30 to -20 (98)-50 to -30 (24)



30 to 75 (19)20 to 30 (91)10 to 20 (368)0 to 10 (1161)

-10 to 0 (1331)-20 to -10 (352)-30 to -20 (76)-50 to -30 (10)

RELATIVE INDEX SCORES FOR SMALL AREAS (SA) 2006

Relative Index Score 2006Haase & Pratschke 2012

30 to 50 (22)20 to 30 (293)10 to 20 (2513)0 to 10 (6857)

-10 to 0 (5925)-20 to -10 (2294)-30 to -20 (564)-60 to -30 (20)

RELATIVE INDEX SCORESFOR SMALL AREAS (SA) 2011

Relative Index Score 2011Haase & Pratschke 2012

30 to 50 (30)20 to 30 (474)10 to 20 (2412)0 to 10 (6232)

-10 to 0 (6483)-20 to -10 (2408)-30 to -20 (447)-60 to -30 (2)

COMPARISON OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION SCORES, 1991-2011

Despite the phenomenal growth and subsequent decline in Absolute Deprivation Scores, Relative Deprivation Scores have little changed between 1991 and 2011, representing random noise only.

The most disadvantaged areas in 1991 are still the most disadvantaged in 2011 and the most affluent areas in 1991 are still the most affluent in 2011.

The only exception to this general rule is Dublin Inner City, where the boom years have led to a substantial gentrification of previously disadvantaged areas.

POBAL HP DEPRIVATION INDEX1991 – 2011

LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING1991 – 2011

(NOT USED IN INDEX)


The following slides contain an analysis of key socio-economic indicators of high density social housing areas over the 20-year period from 1991 to 2011.

Areas are defined on the basis of their share of households in Local Authority rented housing, using 3 contrasts:

Low: less than 5% in LA rented accommodation Medium: between 5% and 50% in LA rented accommodation High: more than 50% in LA rented accommodation

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS WITH GREATER THAN 50% LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING IN 1991 (N=43)

County ED County ED County EDDublin City USHERS B Dublin City NORTH DOCK C Limerick City BALLYNANTY

Dublin City PRIORSWOOD C Dublin City BALLYMUN B Limerick City JOHN'S A

South County Dublin TALLAGHT-FETTERCAIRN Dublin City PRIORSWOOD B Dublin City USHERS C

Dublin City MERCHANTS QUAY A Dublin City ROTUNDA B Dublin City USHERS E

Dublin City BALLYMUN D Limerick City CUSTOM HOUSE Cork City GURRANEBRAHER C

Dublin City CHERRY ORCHARD A Dublin City BALLYMUN C Dublin City MERCHANTS QUAY C

Dublin City CHERRY ORCHARD C Waterford City BALLYBEG NORTH Cork City BLACKPOOL A

Dublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN-TYRRELSTOWN Limerick City GALVONE B Waterford City LARCHVILLE

Dublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN-MULHUDDART Dublin City BALLYMUN A South County Dublin CLONDALKIN-

CAPPAGHMORE

South County Dublin TALLAGHT-KILLINARDAN Cork City THE GLEN A Dublin City ROYAL EXCHANGE A

South County Dublin TALLAGHT-JOBSTOWN Dublin City ARRAN QUAY C Dublin Fingal BLANCHARDSTOWN-COOLMINE

Dublin City MANSION HOUSE A Cork City MAYFIELD Cork City MAHON B

Dublin City ROYAL EXCHANGE B South County Dublin CLONDALKIN-ROWLAGH Dublin City INNS QUAY C

Cork City KNOCKNAHEENY Wicklow RATHMICHAEL (BRAY)

Dublin City MOUNTJOY A Dublin City ROTUNDA A

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS WITH LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH LEVELS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING

LA rented * 1991 1996 2002 2006 2011 20 Year Change

Low (<5%) 47.6 47.9 47.9 48.0 48.1 .5

Medium (5-50%) 48.9 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.4 -.4

High (>50%) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 -.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 .0


Low (<5%) 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.8 1.1

Medium (5-50%) 13.9 11.7 9.9 10.3 11.0 -2.9

High (>50%) 69.2 53.9 41.2 40.4 35.8 -33.5

Total 9.8 8.3 7.1 7.5 7.9 -1.8

Population Share based on Definition as Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas

Percentage of Households in Local Authority Housing

* Based on the proportion of Low, Medium and High Density LA Housing Areas in 1991



Low (<5%) 37.6 34.8 32.1 31.5 33.2 -4.5

Medium (5-50%) 38.3 35.3 32.6 31.6 33.2 -5.1

High (>50%) 41.4 36.3 30.7 28.0 27.7 -13.7

Total 38.1 35.1 32.3 31.4 33.0 -5.1


Low (<5%) 7.4 9.4 10.5 14.5 15.5 8.1

Medium (5-50%) 12.1 15.8 20.2 25.3 25.4 13.3

High (>50%) 30.1 39.6 49.3 54.0 50.5 20.4

Total 10.7 13.8 16.7 21.3 21.6 10.9

Age Dependency Rate (%)

Percentage of Lone Parent Families with Dependent Children




Low (<5%) 31.8 25.7 19.1 16.1 13.4 -18.4

Medium (5-50%) 40.2 32.4 24.7 21.2 18.1 -22.1

High (>50%) 57.4 43.2 30.2 26.9 22.6 -34.9

Total 36.7 29.5 22.2 18.9 16.0 -20.7


Low (<5%) 16.0 23.4 29.7 34.4 34.6 18.6

Medium (5-50%) 10.7 16.7 22.8 27.1 27.0 16.3

High (>50%) 3.8 9.0 18.8 22.5 23.1 19.3

Total 13.0 19.7 26.0 30.5 30.6 17.5

Percentage of Adult Population with Primary Education only

Percentage of Adult Population with Third Level Education




Low (<5%) 30.3 32.9 37.2 38.7 40.2 9.9

Medium (5-50%) 21.4 23.1 27.4 28.4 30.2 8.8

High (>50%) 7.3 8.9 14.4 15.4 17.9 10.6

Total 25.2 27.3 31.6 32.9 34.6 9.5


Low (<5%) 22.0 19.1 16.0 14.8 14.2 -7.8

Medium (5-50%) 33.1 28.5 23.7 21.8 20.4 -12.7

High (>50%) 47.8 43.7 35.1 31.7 28.2 -19.6

Total 28.2 24.4 20.2 18.6 17.5 -10.6

Percentage of Adult Population in Higher and Lower Professional Classes

Percentage of Adult Population in Unskilled and Semi-skilled Professions




Low (<5%) 12.3 10.9 6.6 6.2 17.9 5.6

Medium (5-50%) 22.6 20.2 11.5 10.5 25.9 3.3

High (>50%) 48.4 43.9 21.5 20.8 34.6 -13.9

Total 18.4 16.4 9.4 8.8 22.3 4.0


Low (<5%) 10.1 8.6 5.9 6.0 11.9 1.8

Medium (5-50%) 16.7 14.2 9.5 9.6 17.4 .7

High (>50%) 38.5 31.1 16.6 17.2 24.5 -14.0

Total 14.1 12.0 8.0 8.1 15.0 .9

Male Unemployment Rate

Female Unemployment Rate




Low (<5%) 9.3 12.9 17.0 16.3 6.6 -2.7

Medium (5-50%) -2.6 2.7 6.9 6.4 -3.0 -.5

High (>50%) -19.9 -12.4 -6.3 -6.3 -10.0 9.8

Total 2.5 7.0 11.3 10.7 1.4 -1.1


Low (<5%) 9.3 9.3 8.7 7.6 8.0 -1.3

Medium (5-50%) -2.6 -1.7 -1.5 -2.9 -1.6 .9

High (>50%) -19.9 -18.2 -14.9 -16.6 -8.6 11.3

Total 2.5 3.0 2.9 1.7 2.8 .3

Absolute Pobal HP Deprivation Index

Relative Pobal HP Deprivation Index



Although relative deprivation has by and large not changed over a 20 year period, the deprivation of high density social housing areas appears to have significantly improved between 1991 to 2011, at least when measured at the level of Electoral Divisions (EDs).

Half of the areas characterised as high density LA housing areas (with more than 50% LA housing at ED level in 1991) are situated in Dublin City.

Dublin Inner City was subject to significant gentrification during the boom years in terms of the development of previously vacant sites and the in-movement of significant populations of higher socio-economic background.

Analysis of Small Area data from the 2006 and 2011 Census show that the EDs of Dublin Inner City now comprise of a patchwork of highly disadvantaged and affluent neighbourhoods in close proximity, masking the continued disadvantage of social housing estates.

dublin, may 20 14

Documents

affluentmapping deprivation

bust againchart1

demographic decline

lone parents

ruralpopulation loss