8 Socio-Economic
Assessment
8.8 Bibliography
The following
sources of information have been consulted:
Carlow County
Development Plan 1997
Carlow
Urban District Development Plan 1998
Census of population
of Ireland, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996
Kildare County
Development Plan 1998
Kilkenny County
& City Development Plan 2000 (Draft)
Strategic
Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 1999
Various Web sites
Table 8.1
: Towns and Villages with over 200 people in 1996.
|
DED
Name
|
County
|
Pop
1996
|
|
Paulstown
|
Shankill,
Paulstown
|
Kilkenny
|
221
|
|
Clogh-Chatsworth
|
Clogh
|
Kilkenny
|
272
|
|
Mullinavat
|
Killahy,
Farnoge
|
Kilkenny
|
275
|
|
Kernanstown
|
Carlow
Rural, Johnstown
|
Carlow
|
277
|
|
Ballitore
|
Ballitore,
Narraghmore
|
Kildare
|
295
|
|
Slieverue
|
Rathpatrick
|
Kilkenny
|
296
|
|
Tinriland
|
Kellistown
|
Carlow
|
331
|
|
Ballylinan
|
Ballylynan
|
Laois
|
406
|
|
Goresbridge
|
Goresbridge
|
Kilkenny
|
407
|
|
Kilberry
|
Kilberry,
Bert
|
Kildare
|
466
|
|
Gowran
|
Gowran
|
Kilkenny
|
476
|
|
Suncroft
|
Ballysax
West
|
Kildare
|
490
|
|
Leighlinbridge
|
Leighlinbridge
|
Carlow
|
508
|
|
Kilmacow
|
Ullid
|
Kilkenny
|
599
|
|
Bennettsbridge
|
Bennettsbridge,
Danesfort, Outrath
|
Kilkenny
|
601
|
|
Moneenrow
|
Moneenroe,
Clogh
|
Kilkenny
|
655
|
|
Castledermot
|
Castledermot,
Graney
|
Kildare
|
733
|
|
Castlecomer-Donaguile
|
Castlecomer
|
Kilkenny
|
1380
|
|
Thomastown
|
Thomastown,
Jerpoint Church
|
Kilkenny
|
1581
|
|
Kilcullen
|
Kilcullen,
Carnalway
|
Kildare
|
1604
|
|
Muinebheag
& Environs
|
Muinebheag
Urban
|
Carlow
|
2695
|
|
Kildare
|
Kildare
|
Kildare
|
4278
|
|
Athy
|
Athy
Urban District
|
Kildare
|
5306
|
|
Carlow
& Environs
|
Carlow
Urban District
|
Carlow
|
14979
|
|
Kilkenny
& Environs
|
Kilkenny
Municipal Borough
|
Kilkenny
|
18696
|
Table 8.2
: Cluster Area Types
|
Cluster
Area 1
Peri
urban Areas
|
These
areas have relatively high average scores in components
relating to dominance of non agricultural employment,
socio economic profile and demographic viability. These
are DEDs characterised by high population densities,
advanced level of transition to a higher socio economic
profile (higher proportions with advanced levels of
education, larger shares of the workforce in professional
services and commerce functions) and low reliance on
agricultural employment. They are generally found in
close proximity to urban centres and are particularly
in evidence around the larger towns and the cities.
|
|
Cluster
Area 2
Very
Strong Areas
|
High
in components relating to strength of agricultural;
sector, dominance of non agricultural employment and
labour force participation. These areas are characterised
by large farms, high levels of economic return and greater
stability. DEDs assigned to this cluster also exhibit
an above average level of transition to non-agricultural
employment. There is evidence of generally favourable
demographic structures where the effect of natural increase
has been augmented by selective in-migration, leading
to over average levels of growth in employment and population.
However, the main difference between 1 and 2 is the
higher percentage of population with relatively low
levels of education, lower female participation rates,
higher levels of employment in manufacturing and / or
higher levels of unemployment. These areas are suggestive
of present conditions in areas previously characterised
by a strong rural industrial base linked to natural
resources but it has been decline since the 1970s. Therefore
these areas represent zones where the agricultural rural
economy remains strong but there are weaknesses in the
socio-economic profile which may in part be due to residential
consequences of the restructuring of rural industrialisation.
|
|
Cluster
Area 3
Strong
area adjusting to restrictions on agricultural output
|
Characterised
by large farms, strong orientation towards dairying,
younger farmers. The cluster represents those strong
agricultural areas which have been relatively stable,
but slower to make the transition to non agricultural
activities.
|
|
Cluster
Area 4
Structurally
weak area
|
Characterised
by weak farm structure with elderly farmers on small
farms producing low levels of output, with a significant
decline in number of farms, low levels of employment
in manufacturing or services and a below average level
of self employment outside agriculture. These attributes
have contributed to the very weak demographic profile
based on an ageing population with relatively fewer
households with young children.
|
|
Cluster Area 5
Very marginal rural
areas
|
These
are mainly in peripheral locations. Here, the agriculture
structures are weakest, and labour force participation
rates are among the lowest which may reflect the age profile
and the greater proportions of adults classified as either
retired or in home duties. Many of these aresa are also
characterised by above average levels of unemployment. |
|
Cluster Area 6
High Amenity Diversified
area
|
These
areas tend to have higher levels of self employment outside
agriculture ad higher levels of part-time work though
the contribution of manufacturing is very weak. This is
suggestive of a very high level of reliance on tourism,
but also may be an indication of new residential and work
place locational preference for often highly-educated
professionals. In terms of demographics the cluster is
weaker relative to other clusters with fewer younger persons
and greater percentages of elderly people. The clusters
consist of districts which may be described as consisting
of new consumption space particularity for residents of
the urban and peri-urban clusters and also for people
abroad, many of whom have settled in these areas. |
|
