Urban-rural Europe - demographic developments in rural regions and areas

Data extracted: October 2022.

Planned article update: December 2024.

Highlights

Almost 9 out of 10 predominantly rural regions in the EU (355 out of 406 regions for which data are available) reported negative crude rates of natural population change during the period 2015–2020.

While the number of younger people and working-age people living in the EU’s predominantly rural regions fell between 2015 and 2020, the number of people aged 65 years or over increased, on average, 1.8 % each year.

There are many advantages enjoyed by people living in predominantly rural regions, including (among others), more space, a better quality of life, lower living costs, and less pollution. However, these advantages may be outweighed by challenges, including (among others), fewer job opportunities, weaker infrastructure (energy, transport, information and communications networks), poorer access to public services such as healthcare or education, or commercial services (such as entertainment). When the challenges outweigh the benefits, some people – often those who are relatively young – may choose to leave rural regions in search of greater opportunities and/or prosperity. This may reduce birth rates and lower the rate of natural population change in some predominantly rural regions, which results in an ageing population and fewer people of working age (see the infographic below).

Source: Eurostat (urt_pjangrp3)

Depopulation is not exclusive to rural regions, it may also impact other regions of the European Union (EU) that have been ‘left behind’. However, many predominantly rural regions – often in the far north, south and east of the EU – have experienced an exodus of people moving to cities (or further afield, to other EU Member States) in search of economic prosperity.

This article focuses on population developments in rural regions and forms part of Eurostat’s online publication Rural Europe. Note that complementary information is presented in an article on demographic developments in cities.

Full article

Population structure

Based on the urban–rural typology, predominantly rural regions account for almost half (44.7 %) of the EU’s area. However, their share of the total number of people in the EU was considerably lower, at 20.8 % as of 1 January 2021. Figure 1 presents information on the structure of the EU’s population in the form of population pyramids. It is interesting to note that:

relatively few young people in their twenties were living in predominantly rural regions, suggesting that they left these regions to continue within education or in search for work.
up to the age of 54 there were more men than women living in predominantly rural regions, this may reflect, to some degree, the relatively narrow range of employment opportunities available for women living in predominantly rural regions.

Figure 1: Population pyramids by urban–rural typology, EU, 1 January 2021
(% share of total population)
Source: Eurostat (urt_pjangrp3)

On 1 January 2021, working-age people (aged 20–64 years) accounted for a relatively low share of the total population across EU regions characterised by their remoteness: 57.7 % of the total population in remote intermediate regions and 56.4 % in remote predominantly rural regions were of working age. By contrast, they accounted for three fifths (60.0 %) of the total population living in predominantly urban regions and for a relatively high share of the population in regions within close proximity of a city; see Figure 2.

Young people (under the age of 20) accounted for less than one in five (19.7 %) of the total number of people living in remote predominantly rural regions of the EU as of 1 January 2021; this was the lowest share recorded based on the urban–rural typology. By contrast, remote predominantly rural regions had the highest share of older people (aged 65 years or over), where they made up close to one quarter (23.9 %) of the total population.

Figure 2: Population structure by urban–rural typology, EU, 1 January 2021
(% share of population)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_pjanind3)

Figure 3 provides information on the overall change in population numbers between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2021. Overall, the EU’s population remained relatively stable during this period, as:

the population of predominantly rural regions fell, on average, 0.1 % each year;
there was no change in the population of intermediate regions;
the population of predominantly urban regions rose, on average, 0.4 % each year.

Figure 3 decomposes these overall figures, breaking down the EU population into three different age categories. The most striking aspect of population developments during the period under consideration was the rapid growth in the number of older persons: the number of people aged 65 years or over increased 1.6–1.8 % each year, with the most rapid growth (among this cohort) recorded for people living in predominantly rural regions. By contrast, the number of working-age people living in predominantly rural regions fell, on average, 0.6 % each year and the number of younger people by a slightly larger margin (down 0.7 % each year).

Figure 3: Average annual population change by age and urban–rural typology, EU, 2015–2020
(%)
Source: Eurostat (urt_pjangrp3)

Multi-locality living in the Nordic Member States, Norway and Iceland
As European populations became wealthier during the 1960s and 1970s there was a tendency for a growing share of people buying a second home. This pattern has since continued – and expanded with an explosion in short-stay accommodation booked via collaborative economy platforms – driving up demand for dwellings in some of the most picturesque regions of the EU. The cost of homes in these sought after locations has sometimes risen rapidly, preventing many young locals from getting on the housing ladder, which may in turn lead to issues such as local labour shortages. Furthermore, new developments may result in environmental impacts (local areas becoming congested during weekends and holiday periods, or additional resources being used to construct dwellings that are rarely used outside of peak periods). The highest counts of second homes in 2020 for NUTS level 3 regions in the Nordic Member States, Norway and Iceland (2018 data) were generally recorded in regions within close proximity of some of the largest cities (Copenhagen, Malmö, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tampere, Oslo or Trondheim).

Map B1: Number of second homes in the Nordic Member States, Norway and Iceland by local administrative units and NUTS 3 regions, 2020
Source: Second homes 2020 – Nordregio; for more information Slätmo, E., Ormstrup Vestergård, L., Lidmo, J., and Turunen, E. (2019), Urban–rural flows from seasonal tourism and second homes: planning challenges and strategies in the Nordics (accessed via: this link; DOI: 10.6027/R2019:13.1403-2503)

To measure the community impact of second homes, Nordregio developed an indicator. It is defined as a ratio based on an estimate for the annual number of inhabitants in relation to the permanent (or regular) population. The annual number of inhabitants is calculated as the number of permanent inhabitants plus three times the number of second homes; the latter being an estimate of the average population in second homes. This ratio is high – as shown by the darkest shades in the second map – in municipalities/regions characterised by relatively few inhabitants and a high number of second homes. By contrast, in populous municipalities with few second homes, the two measures (annual population and regular population) are closely aligned, yielding a ratio approaching 1. The results can be used to inform local municipalities about the likely demand for local infrastructure, welfare and planning resources.
The second map shows that at a regional level (NUTS level 3), the highest community impact of second homes was in the heart of the Finnish Lakeland in Etelä-Savo. There was also a relatively high degree of community impact in:

two Baltic island regions
the south-western Finnish archipelago of Åland;

the eastern Swedish region of Gotlands län;

the central Swedish region of Jämtlands län;

the northern Finnish region of Lappi;

the southern Norwegian region of Innlandet.

Map B2: Community impact of multi-locality living in the Nordic Member States, Norway and Iceland by local administrative units and NUTS 3 regions, 2020
Source: Nordregio maps and data, for more information Slätmo, E., Ormstrup Vestergård, L., Lidmo, J., and Turunen, E. (2019), Urban–rural flows from seasonal tourism and second homes: planning challenges and strategies in the Nordics (accessed via: this link; DOI: 10.6027/R2019:13.1403-2503)

Map 1 shows average annual population changes based on the urban–rural typology for the period 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2021. During this period, the population count rose at a relatively fast pace – increasing on average by at least 0.3 % per year – in 108 predominantly rural regions of the EU. By contrast, the population fell at a relatively fast pace – more than 0.3 % per year – in 155 predominantly rural regions. There were seven predominantly rural regions with particularly high rates of depopulation – on average, at least 2.0 % per year:

four interior regions of Croatia – Vukovarsko-srijemska županija, Požeško-slavonska županija, Virovitičko-podravska županija and Sisačko-moslavačka županija;
two Lithuanian regions that border the Russian province of Kaliningrad – Tauragės apskritis and Marijampolės apskritis;
a single region in the north-west of Bulgaria – Vidin.

The predominantly rural regions of the EU with the highest population growth rates – at least 1.0 % each year – during the period under consideration, included:

five German regions, Biberach, Kelheim, Landshut (Landkreis), Cloppenburg, and Landshut (Kreisfreie Stadt);
three Irish regions, South-West, West and South-East;
two island regions in Canarias (Spain) – La Gomera and El Hierro;
two eastern island regions of Greece that were within close proximity of Türkiye – Lesvos, Limnos and Ikaria, Samos;
single regions from southern France (Haute-Corse), south-east Belgium (Arr. Bastogne) and southern Sweden (Kronobergs län).

Map 1: Average annual population change by urban–rural typology, 2015–2020
(%)
Note: Italy and Luxembourg, break in series.
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

The median age is a value which divides the population into two equal groups when ranked by age. Given that predominantly rural regions tend to have a relatively high share of older people, it is not surprising that the median age of these regions is usually above the average for the whole of the EU’s population.

In 2021, the median age of the EU population was 44.1 years. More than two thirds of predominantly rural regions close to a city (181 out of 265 NUTS level 3 regions for which data are available) had a higher than average median age. The highest median ages for predominantly rural regions that were close to a city were recorded in eastern regions of Germany and north-western regions of Spain.

Between 2015 and 2021, the median age of the EU population rose by 1.4 years. Approximately two thirds of predominantly rural regions close to a city (170 out of 263 NUTS level 3 regions for which data are available) recorded a larger increase, indicating that they were ageing at a faster pace than the EU average. The most rapid increases in median ages across predominantly rural regions close to a city were recorded in south-western Romanian regions of Vâlcea and Gorj, while there were six others where the median age increased by at least 3.0 years:

Požeško-slavonska županija and Vukovarsko-srijemska županija in eastern Croatia;
the southern Italian regions of Campobasso and Potenza;
the south-western Lithuanian region of Marijampolės apskritis;
an additional region in south-west Romania, Mehedinţi.

Figure 4: Median age of population, selected predominantly rural regions (close to a city), 2021 and 2015–2021
(years)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_pjanind3)

The old-age dependency ratio is defined here as the number of people at an age when they are generally economically inactive (aged 65 years or over) compared with the number of people of working age (aged 20–64 years), expressed in percentage terms. In 2021, the EU’s old-age dependency ratio was 35.4 %.

Map 2 shows that old-age dependency ratios were particularly high in predominantly rural regions of northern, western and southern Member States; this was especially the case in rural regions of central and northern Finland, most of Germany, central and southern France, central Italy, as well as the interior regions of Portugal and Greece.

In 2021, almost 7 out of 10 (or 285 out of 412) predominantly rural regions across the EU reported an old-age dependency ratio above the EU average of 35.4 %. Looking in more detail, 195 of these 412 regions had an old-age dependency ratio of at least 40.0 % (as shown by the darkest shade of green in Map 2), 51 of which had a ratio of at least 50.0 %, and five of which had a ratio of more than 60.0 %. These five predominantly rural regions with the highest old-age dependency ratios were:

Nièvre, Lot and Creuse in France, where the old-age dependency ratio was in the range of 61.3–61.9 %;
Etelä-Savo in south-east Finland, where the old-age dependency ratio was 62.7 %;
Evrytania in central Greece, that had, by far, the highest old-age dependency ratio in the EU, at 81.5 %.

Map 2: Old-age dependency ratio by urban–rural typology, 2021
(%)
Note: based on the ratio of the population aged ≥ 65 years / population aged 20-64 years, expressed in percentage terms.
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_pjanind3)

Depopulation of rural regions/population change due to migration

Population developments are a function of

natural population change – the difference between births and deaths, and
net migration – the difference between the number of people coming into and the number of people leaving a region/country.

Eurostat produces figures on net migration plus statistical adjustment by calculating the difference between total population change and natural change. In other words, these statistical adjustments cover changes in population between 1 January of two consecutive years which cannot be attributed to births, deaths, immigration or emigration.

Map 3: Average annual crude rate of natural change by urban–rural typology, 2015–2020
(‰)
Note: Italy and Luxembourg, break in series.
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

Maps 3 and 4 provide a detailed picture of population developments between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2021. Across the EU, the average annual crude rate of natural population change during this period was a fall of 0.9 ‰ (or 0.09 %), while the crude rate of net migration plus statistical adjustment (hereafter referred to simply as net migration) was a rise of 2.5 ‰ each year. As such, although there were fewer births than deaths within the EU, its population continued to expand as a result of a higher number of immigrants compared with emigrants.

Almost 9 out of 10 predominantly rural regions in the EU (355 out of 406 regions for which data are available) reported negative crude rates of natural population change during the period 2015–2020. There were 11 regions across the EU where the annual average crude rate of natural change fell at least 10.0 ‰:

the Bulgarian regions of Sofia – which surrounds the capital region of Sofia (stolitsa) – and Vidin (in the north-west of Bulgaria) had the lowest crude rates of natural population change (down, on average, 17.4 ‰ per year);
four interior Portuguese regions – Alto Tâmega, Beiras e Serra da Estrela, Alto Alentejo and Beira Baixa;
the north-western Spanish regions of Ourense and Zamora;
the north-western coastal region of Ličko-senjska županija in Croatia, the northern Greek region of Serres and the southern Romanian region of Teleorman.

Approximately one third of predominantly rural regions in the EU (143 out of 406 regions for which data are available) reported a negative crude rate of net migration during the period 2015–2020. Note that migrant flows between regions may reflect internal flows within a particular EU Member State (from one region to another) or external flows (from other EU Member States or non-member countries). There were six regions where the annual average crude rate of net migration represented a fall of more than 10.0 ‰; they were located in just two of the EU Member States, with four regions from Croatia and two from Lithuania. More generally, negative crude rates of net migration were relatively common across rural regions of eastern EU Member States (particularly in Poland and Romania), as well as central and eastern regions of France and southern regions of Italy.

Map 4: Average annual crude rate of net migration plus statistical adjustment by urban–rural typology, 2015–2020
(‰)
Note: Italy and Luxembourg, break in series.
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

There were 14 predominantly rural regions across the EU where the annual average crude rate of net migration was a rise of more than 10.0 ‰:

four German regions – Landshut, Kreisfreie Stadt; Passau, Kreisfreie Stadt; Mühldorf a. Inn (all in Bavaria), as well as Schwerin, Kreisfreie Stadt (in the north-east);
two regions in Bulgaria – Sofia and Kardzhali;
two island regions in Greece – Ikaria, Samos and Lesvos, Limnos – that received large numbers of migrants during the Syrian refugee crisis;
two island regions in Spain – El Hierro and La Gomera in Canarias – that receive relatively high numbers of migrants from Africa;
two French regions within Corsica – Haute-Corse and Corse-du-Sud;
Nordburgenland in eastern Austria and the Baltic island region of Gotlands län in southern Sweden.

Figure 5: Average annual population change, by urban–rural typology, 2015–2020
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (urt_gind3)

Figure 5 shows that population growth during the period 2015–2020 was generally much higher in predominantly urban regions than it was in predominantly rural regions. Aggregated figures for total population change – therefore taking account of natural changes and net migration – were higher in predominantly urban regions in all but one of the 23 EU Member States for which data are available. Greece was the only exception, as its population in predominantly rural regions fell, on average, 3.1 ‰ each year, compared with a fall of 3.6 ‰ for predominantly urban regions.

In some cases there were considerable differences in population developments between predominantly rural and urban regions, with the gap primarily explained by differences in net migration rates. For example, in Romania, the population of predominantly urban regions grew, on average, 3.1 ‰ per year between 2015 and 2020 in contrast to a fall of 8.8 ‰ in predominantly rural regions. Both types of regions had more deaths than births (in other words, a negative crude rate of natural population change – albeit considerably greater in predominantly rural regions), whereas the crude rate of net migration was negative in predominantly rural regions but positive in predominantly urban regions. There were seven EU Member States where the annual average crude rate of total population change was notably higher for predominantly urban regions than for predominantly rural regions: Lithuania, Estonia (2015–2018), Finland (the rate for predominantly rural regions is for 2015–2018), Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Romania.

Figure 6: Overall population change in selected predominantly rural regions, 2012–2020
(%)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

A more detailed analysis is presented in Figure 6. This shows the 10 predominantly rural (NUTS level 3) regions with the highest and lowest overall changes in population during the period 2012–2020; note that the values here are in percent (%) rather than per thousand (‰) as used in Figure 5. The size of each bubble in Figure 6 is scaled to reflect the population living in each region as of 1 January 2021. The largest overall fall in population numbers was recorded in the north-western Bulgarian region of Vidin, where the population fell by almost one fifth (down overall 18.4 %). At the other end of the range, the fastest expansion (up 15.6 % overall) was recorded in the Greek island region of Ikaria, Samos.

Figure 7 provides a more detailed picture for population changes in predominantly rural regions of the EU, insofar as it also presents an analysis of this aggregated information by detailing the contribution from natural population change and the impact of net migration.

Figure 7: Population change in predominantly rural regions, 2012–2020
(%)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

This section concludes with two figures that present crude rates of population change for two periods (an average for 2012–2020 and the latest changes for 2019–2020). Figure 8 shows the 10 predominantly rural (NUTS level 3) regions with the highest and lowest crude rates of natural population change.

The lowest crude rate of natural population change – for both periods under consideration – was in Vidin (Bulgaria). The latest annual crude rate of natural population change (2019–2020) for Vidin was lower than the average recorded for 2012–2020, emphasising that its regional population was becoming progressively smaller.
The other regions that recorded very low crude rates of natural population change – with their populations contracting by an annual average of at least 10.0 ‰ between 2012 and 2020 – were located either in southern EU Member States (Spain, Portugal and Greece) or in eastern EU Member States (Croatia and Romania).
Comparing the regions with the lowest crude rates of natural population change for both periods under consideration, there were seven regions that appeared towards the bottom of each ranking – Vidin (Bulgaria), Serres (Greece), Zamora (Spain), Beira Baixa, Alto Alentejo (both Portugal), Licko-senjska zupanija (Croatia) and Teleorman (Romania).
The highest crude rates of natural population change for 2019–2020 were recorded in six Irish regions, with a peak of 6.0 ‰ in the region of Midland (the other five Irish regions all recorded rates of at least 4.0 ‰).

Figure 9 shows a similar set of information (as Figure 8) but with the focus on the 10 predominantly rural regions with the highest and lowest crude rates of net migration.

The lowest average crude rate of net migration for the period 2012–2020 was in the most easterly region of Croatia, Vukovarsko-srijemska zupanija. The lowest rate for 2019–2020 was in the central German region of Wartburgkreis (that forms part of Thuringia).
There were six predominantly rural regions in the EU where the annual average crude rate of net migration between 2012 and 2020 reflected a fall of more than 10.0 ‰: four of these were in Croatia with the other two in Lithuania.
Comparing the regions with the lowest crude rates of net migration for both periods under consideration, there were four regions that appeared towards the bottom of each ranking – Taurages apskritis (Lithuania), Viroviticko-podravska zupanija, Pozesko-slavonska zupanija and Vukovarsko-srijemska zupanija (all Croatia).
The highest crude rates of net migration for 2019–2020 were recorded in two Bulgarian regions, Sofia (which surrounds the capital city region) and Kardzhali (in the south).

Figure 8: Crude rate of natural change of population in predominantly rural regions, 2012–2020 and 2020
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

Figure 9: Crude rate of net migration plus statistical adjustment in predominantly rural regions, 2012–2020 and 2020
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_gind3)

Population projections

Population projections are ‘what-if’ scenarios that aim to show hypothetical developments based on a set of assumptions for fertility, mortality and net migration. They can be used by the public, statisticians and policymakers, contributing to an informed debate on demographic and societal changes, for example as part of an assessment of regional policies, the ageing population, or the long-term sustainability of public finances. The latest projections (EUROPOP2019) were produced at national and subnational levels for all of the EU Member States and EFTA countries, for the period through to 2100. Within this article, population projections data are analysed over a 50 years’ time period, between 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2051, thus the demographic changes are occurring during the years 2021 to 2050.

Depopulation is likely to be one of the main challenges facing the EU in coming years, particularly across predominantly rural regions. While some dynamic regions are thriving due to an inflow of younger people, others are lagging behind, with progressively smaller and ageing populations. Map 5 shows how the population of NUTS level 3 regions is projected to change during the period 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2050; note the projections were made on the basis of official statistics received up to reference year 2019. Looking in more detail at predominantly rural regions:

there are 183 regions (or 45.1 % of all 406 predominantly rural regions for which data are available) where the population is projected to fall by more than 10.0 % during the period under consideration;
there are 156 regions (38.4 % of all predominantly rural regions) where the population is projected to fall by up to 10.0 %;
there are 67 regions (16.5 % of all predominantly rural regions) where the population is projected to remain unchanged or to increase.

Map 5: Overall projected population change by urban–rural typology, 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2050
(%)
Source: Eurostat (demo_r_pjangrp3) and (proj_19rp3)

Between 1 January 2021 and 1 January 2051, the EU’s population is projected to fall by 1.5 % overall to 440.5 million. An analysis based on the urban–rural typology suggests that there will be different patterns of development, as illustrated in Figure 10.

The population of predominantly urban regions in the EU is projected to continue growing for most of the period under consideration (although the rate of change will slow and is projected to fall from 2047 onwards).
By contrast, the latest projections suggest that the population living in intermediate regions and predominantly rural regions of the EU will fall every year between 2022 and 2050.
While the decline in population numbers across intermediate regions is projected to accelerate, the fall in the number of people living in the EU’s predominantly rural regions is projected to remain relatively constant (falling by 264 000–311 000 each year).

Figure 10: Projected population developments by component of change, EU, 2021–2050
(1 000)
Source: Eurostat (proj_19rdbi3)

Table 1 presents average annual rates of projected population changes, analysed by five-year intervals for the period 2021–2050. It confirms that the growth in the number of people living in the EU’s predominantly urban regions will slow and turn negative by the end of the period under consideration, while the decline in the population of intermediate regions will accelerate. The number of people living in predominantly rural regions of the EU is projected to fall during each five-year period, by an average of 3.1–3.6 ‰ each year.

Table 1: Average annual projected population change by urban–rural typology, EU, 2021–2050
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (proj_19rdbi3)

Table 2: Average annual projected population change by urban–rural typology, 2021–2050
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (proj_19rdbi3)

Between 1 January 2021 and 1 January 2051, the EU’s population living in predominantly rural regions is projected to fall 3.2 ‰ per year on average. This figure may be contrasted with the projections for intermediate regions (down 1.1 ‰ per year on average) and predominantly urban regions (up 1.2 ‰ per year on average). Looking in more detail across the EU Member States:

the population of predominantly rural regions is projected to fall in 20 out of 24 Member States for which data are available – the exceptions being Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland;
the population living in predominantly rural regions is projected to fall at its most rapid pace across Baltic and eastern Member States – with the rural populations of Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia projected to decline, on average, by more than 8.0 ‰ per year;
the population of intermediate regions is projected to fall in 17 out of 26 Member States for which data are available – double-digit decreases are projected in all three Baltic Member States;
the population of predominantly urban regions is projected to fall in nine Baltic, eastern and southern Member States, while the most rapid increases in the number of people living in predominantly urban regions are projected for Malta, Ireland and Sweden.

Figures 11 and 12 conclude this section, providing a more detailed analysis of projected population changes within predominantly rural regions. Figure 11 shows relative changes highlighting the 10 predominantly rural regions with the highest and lowest rates of projected change during the period 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2051; note that the size of each bubble reflects the total number of people living in each region as of 1 January 2021. There are 34 predominantly rural regions across the EU where the population is projected to fall at an average annual rate of more than 10.0 ‰ between 2021 and 2050; a majority of these are located in the eastern EU Member States of Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania. The southern Bulgarian region of Smolyan has the lowest rate of change, with its population projected to fall 20.1 ‰ per year on average. By contrast, there are three predominantly rural regions where the total population is projected to increase at an annual rate of more than 10.0 ‰, all of which are island regions: Lesvos, Limnos and Ikaria, Samos (both in Greece) and El Hierro (Spain). Relatively high rates of population growth are also projected across predominantly rural regions of Ireland, as well as in the northern Italian region of Bolzano-Bozen.

Figure 11: Average annual projected population change in selected predominantly rural regions, 2021–2050
(‰)
Source: Eurostat (proj_19rdbi3)

Figure 12 shows a similar set of information (as that presented in Figure 11) but with the focus of the analysis shifting to absolute changes in population numbers. Between 2021 and 2050, there are four predominantly rural regions across the EU where the local population is projected to increase by upwards of 100 000 persons – the Irish regions of South-West, Border and South-East, as well as Bolzano-Bozen. During the same period, the latest projections suggest that nine predominantly rural regions will see their populations decline by more than 100 000. Eight of these are situated in Romania, the exception being the eastern Polish region of Chelmsko-zamojski. The largest overall fall is projected in the central Romanian region of Arges, where the latest projections suggest the population will decline by 152 thousand during the period under consideration.

Figure 12: Projected population change in selected predominantly rural regions, 2021–2050
(1 000)
Source: Eurostat (proj_19rdbi3)

Source data for tables and graphs

Demographic developments in rural regions and areas: tables and figures

Context

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has stated that, ‘Rural areas are the fabric of our society and the heartbeat of our economy. They are a core part of our identity and our economic potential. We will cherish and preserve our rural areas and invest in their future.’

To ensure that rural areas continue to play an essential role in providing, among others, homes, jobs, food, biodiversity and varied ecosystems, a European Commission Communication set out A long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas – Towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 (COM(2021) 345 final). In shaping this vision, the Commission gathered views of rural communities and businesses via public consultations and stakeholder-led events, to outline a comprehensive plan designed to help rural communities and businesses reach their full potential in the coming decades. It highlights four complementary areas of action.

Stronger rural areas: home to empowered and vibrant local communities.
Connected rural areas: maintaining or improving public transport services and connections, as well as deepening digital infrastructures.
More resilient rural areas: by preserving natural resources, restoring landscapes, greening farming activities and shortening supply chains, rural areas should become more resilient to climate change, natural hazards and economic crises.
Prosperous rural areas: by diversifying economic activities into sustainable local economic strategies and improving the value added of farming and agri-food activities.

The EU’s Rural Action Plan is a proposal contained within the long-term vision. The introductory article for this online publication provides more information about the long-term vision and, more broadly, the EU’s rural development policy. The vision is based around five key areas (supported by a range of flagship initiatives):

foster territorial cohesion and create new opportunities to attract innovative businesses;
provide access to quality jobs;
promote new and improved skills;
ensure better infrastructure and services;
leverage the role of sustainable agriculture and diversified economic activities.

The Rural Pact provides a framework for cooperation at European, national, regional and local levels. It is designed to facilitate interaction on rural matters between public authorities, civil society, businesses, academia and citizens. It has three objectives:

amplify the voice of rural areas and raise them higher on the political agenda;
structure and enable collaboration and mutual learning;
encourage and monitor voluntary commitment for action.

Direct access to

Visualisations

Regions and cities illustrated (RCI) – Urban–rural typology

Urban Agenda for the EU

European Commission – Directorate-General Agriculture and rural development

European Commission – Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy

European Committee of the Regions

European Committee of the Regions

European networks

United Nations