1There are thousands of Islands in Greece’s territory, but only a few hundred are inhabited. These islands are spread in the Thracian and Aegean Seas, the Cretan Sea, the Saronic Gulf, and the Ionian Sea. Τhey surround mainland Greece, enriching its population with several insular populations with exceptional cultural and socio-economic characteristics. The populations of the Greek insular departments (NUTS3 level) are small, as seen in Table 1 and Map 1, where the relevant sizes are reported at 1/1/2019.
2The island departments included in the present research are inhabited by 1.617 million people at 1/1/2019, i.e. they consist 15.1% of the country’s population during this year. The most populated department is Irakleio in Crete, in which 19.4% of the islands’ population resides in 2019. The second most populated department is the Dodecanese, that includes several islands such as Kalymnos, Karpathos etc., with 13.4% of the islands’ population inhabiting this area in 2019. On the other hand, the less populated insular departments are Ikaria, Samos in the eastern part of the Aegean and three departments of the Ionian islands, i.e. Zakynthos, Ithaki & Kefalonia and Lefkada. We shall underline that due to very small population sizes, the results of the demographic analysis have to be dealt with caution in these areas inhabited by less than 50.000 people in 2019. Minor changes (decreases or increases) in the number of births or deaths occurring during one year may lead to important changes in the indicators calculated, that may not signify significant modifications of demographic behaviours, but are simply related to random events.
Table 1. Population sizes of the Greek insular departments (NUTS3)
GEO (Codes)
|
GEO (Labels)
|
Males
|
Females
|
Total
|
%*
|
EL
|
Greece
|
5.208.293
|
5.516.306
|
10.724.599
|
|
EL411
|
Lesvos, Limnos
|
59.406
|
55.399
|
114.805
|
7,10%
|
EL412
|
Ikaria, Samos
|
25.713
|
22.525
|
48.238
|
3,00%
|
EL413
|
Chios
|
30.309
|
27.746
|
58.055
|
3,60%
|
EL421
|
Kalymnos, Karpathos – Iroiki Nisos, Kasos, Kos, Rodos (Dodecanese)
|
109.892
|
107.349
|
217.241
|
13,40%
|
EL422
|
Andros, Thira, Kea, Milos, Mykonos, Naxos, Paros, Syros, Tinos (Cyclades)
|
61.142
|
65.644
|
126.786
|
7,80%
|
EL431
|
Irakleio
|
152.375
|
161.391
|
313.766
|
19,40%
|
EL432
|
Lasithi
|
36.157
|
37.849
|
74.006
|
4,60%
|
EL433
|
Rethymni
|
42.383
|
45.199
|
87.582
|
5,40%
|
EL434
|
Chania
|
78.668
|
80.908
|
159.576
|
9,90%
|
EL621
|
Zakynthos
|
19.534
|
20.203
|
39.737
|
2,50%
|
EL622
|
Kerkyra
|
49.353
|
52.216
|
101.569
|
6,30%
|
EL623
|
Ithaki, Kefalonia
|
19.184
|
19.534
|
38.718
|
2,40%
|
EL624
|
Lefkada
|
12.025
|
11.820
|
23.845
|
1,50%
|
EL642
|
Evvoia
|
107.236
|
105.831
|
213.067
|
13,20%
|
* to the total population of the islands included in the present analysis.
The small islands of Saronis were omitted from the analysis because of their limited population sizes. The same holds for Thasos and Samothrace in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace.
Data source: EUROSTAT Database. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrow-ser/view/demo_r_pjanaggr3__custom_11602518/default/table?lang=en
3While the demography of Greece is well-studied [see, for example, 1. Population growth: Papadopoulos & Baltas, 2024; Salvati, 2018; 2. For fertility: Bagavos et al., 2018; Bagavos and Tragaki, 2017; Kotzamanis et al., 2017; 3. For nuptiality: Kontogiannis, 2022a, 2022b, 2024, 4. For mortality: Verropoulou and Tsimbos, 2016; Zafeiris et al., 2018; Zafeiris, 2023], little attention has been given to the comparative study of the populations living on the scattered islands in the Greek seas. Therefore, the scope of this paper is to present the demographic situation in the Greek Islands and evaluate the temporal trends of the basic demographic phenomena regarding population structure and change, fertility, and mortality. Note also that several peripheral populations have been studied in detail in the past [see, for example, Gavalas & Baltas, 2022; Zafeiris et al., 2015; Zafeiris, 2006; Zafeiris et al., 2021; Zafeiris & Kaklamani, 2019; Zafeiris and Koukli, 2022], but an overall analysis of the demographic characteristics for the whole Greek Islands is in our knowledge absent. Thus, this paper aspires to fill a significant gap in the literature concerning the demography of the insular populations of Greece.
Map 1. Map of the Greek insular departments of Table 1, % of each department’s population size to the total insular population.
Cartography by the authors
4Data cover the period 1991-2018. Births and deaths are available since 1980 in the greek departments (NUTS3 level). Population sizes by age group and sex are available in these spatial units since 1/1/1981. Nevertheless, the population recorded in the period 1981-1990 was not Resident but De Facto. The use of De Facto population figures does not bias the results of the demographic analysis at country level, but it does so at sub-national levels as there are non-negligible differences between the Resident and the De Facto population figures in several departments [Duquenne & Kromydakis, 2009]. Greece’s inhabitants had and still have very close ‘bonds’ with their town or village of origin. Thus, during the Censuses, many decided to visit their place of origin in order to be enumerated in it. As a result, especially mountainous populations were found to be increasing (from one Census to the next one) despite the fact that they were constantly shrinking and ageing due to important emigration flows. Moreover, many Greeks are voting during the elections (European, National, Sub-national) in their place of origin and not in their place of permanent residence, once more showing their ‘strong connection’ with their place of origin. Thus, we decided to begin our analysis at NUTS3 level in 1991, so as to avoid bias caused by the De Facto population sizes in the 1980-1990 period.
5We decided to stop our analysis in 2018 despite the fact that data at departemental level were available until 2022 at the time in which the article was written. This decision was made due to the fact that we believe that demographic patterns exhibit important changes in the period 2019-2022 that need thorough examination which cannot be accomplished in the context of the present article. This analysis will be performed and published in a forthcoming article. Nonetheless, some aspects of these new patterns at national level are described in short in the following paragraphs and these new schemes are probably more intense in some island departments. First and foremost, the period 2020-2021 was characterized by a significant fall of life expectancies (LEs) (see Figure 1a), due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the following years (2022-2023) by a recovery in life expectancies.
Figure 1a. Life expectancies at birth, total population, females, males, Greece, 1961-2023
6More specifically, males’ LE at birth in 2023 was 79 years (i.e. somewhat lower than the LE in 2018 when it reached its highest value-79.3 years). Women’s LE has reached 84.2 years in 2023 and the total population’s LE was 81.6 during the same year (these two aforementioned values are also slightly lower than the highest values ever observed-in 2018-). The LEs in Greece, have undoubtedly increased in the first two decades of the 21st century, but at a lower pace [Kotzamanis, 2021] than in the 1980s and the 1990s. In countries life France, Italy and Switzerland life expectancies have higher values.
7Another element that further supported our decision to conclude our analysis in 2018 was the fact that out of wedlock fertility increased tremendously during the 2019-2020 period. Greece was one of the countries with the lowest extramarital fertility rates in Europe until the mid-2000s (only 5.1% of the children were born by women which were not married in 2005). Nonetheless, this proportion increased gradually eversince reaching 7.3% in 2010 and 11.1% in 2018. However, this percentage has climbed to 19.2% in 2022. Therefore, we notice a tremendous shift in attitudes concerning family formation patterns (mainly in the period 2019-2022) that has to be thoroughly exhamined. It remains to be seen if extramarital childbearing, which was ‘stigmatized’ in the Greek society at least untill the early 2000s (as well as divorce), will lead to an increase in fertility rates (by recuperating the low in-marriage fertility rates), at least in some departments, if not at country level.
8Concerning Greece’s fertility, Total Fertility Rates (TFRs) had fairly high values in the 1960s and the 1970s (2.1-2.45 children per woman during this period), it was 2.2 children/woman in 1980, but fell tremendously in the 1980s and has never surpassed 1.5 children/woman since 1987 (see Figures 1b). There was an increase in the fertility rates in 2020 and 2021 and a significant fall in the TFR in 2022. This drop in fertility in 2022 was maybe a result of an important decline of marriage rates in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and more specifically, because of the restrictions posed by the State on marriage ceremonies and the fear of the transmission of the disease [Kotzamanis & Kontogiannis, 2021]-we shall always bear in mind that until now childbearing mainly occurs within marriage in Greece-. Probably, other reasons are also responsible for this outcome (a new postponement of childbearing because of economic and employment insecurity, unemployment, high costs of living and housing etc.).
Figures 1b. Mean age at childbearing, first birth, second birth, third birth, fourth+ birth, Greece, 1991-2022
9Concerning the calendar of fertility, the age at childbearing increases unceasingly since the early 1980s (see Figures 1b). Women’s age at having children has reached 32 years in 2022 and 31 years at their first child. However, it shall be noted that there is a rather bizzare phenomenon regarding the age at the 4th+ child. More specifically, it is lower than the age at the 3rd child since 2013, it became equal to the age at 2nd child since 2019 and it is lower than the the age at 2nd child in 2020-2022. Evidently, there are population sub-groups in Greece with very different fertility behaviours. The vast majority of the Greeks are either remaining childless or have one or two children during their late 20s or 30s or even 40s, while other groups (immigrants, refugees or others, e.g. Romani people) create larger families at lower ages. Probably, many of the refugees and immigrands in the 2013-2022 period had some of their children before entering Greece and bear their third, fourth etc. child in Greece after their installation. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has to be further investigated and it is not the scope of this paper to delve into its details.
Figure 1c. Median age of females, males and total population, Greece, 1970-2023
10As regards the median age of the resident population in Greece it is constantly increasing since the 1970s (see Figure 1c), reaching 45 years for men and 48 years for women in 2023. Concerning men, there was a temporary slowdown in the rise in the median age during the period of very intense immigration and refugee flows (2015-2020), but it increased again significantly in 2021.
11Data come from the EUROSTAT database [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database] in the form of year distributions by age and gender of births, deaths and populations (see Table 1), and also from the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT, 2023) and the Laboratory of Demographic & Social Analyses of the University of Thessaly database (LADS, 2023).
12The following variables were calculated using the well-known conventional methods [see Preston et al., 2000]:
-
Population structure: Median age of the population, age dependency ratio [(0-19 & 65+)/(0-64)] and women per 100 men (sex ratio)
-
Crude birth, death and natural increase rates
-
Fertility: Total fertility rate and mean age at Childbearing
-
Mortality: life expectancy at birth
13During the initial stages of the analysis, it became apparent that the heterogeneity in the 14 departments studied was significant. This situation complicated the visualisation and interpretation of the data. At the same time, it did not allow for conclusions about the possible relationships between the populations in terms of the intensity of the phenomena and their change over time. Then, the question is how to analyse the data to arrive at safe conclusions. It was found that hierarchical cluster analysis, based on Euclidean distances and the unweighted pair-groups averages, gave the best results [see Zafeiris, 2022b] by considering both the variables’ intensity and temporal trends. After applying this method, the cophenetic correlation coefficient was high, indicating the validity of the analysis. Of course, note that the data in question are in the form of time series, for which various analysis methods have been developed, such as Dynamic Time Warping [DTW; see Salvador and Chan, 2007]; however, these do not contribute significantly to the approach here, which refers to equidistant years and not to small units of time, for which it would be necessary to apply it.
14Finally, for each of the four axes described previously, a discriminant analysis will take place to estimate divergences and convergences between the populations. Before applying the analysis, the calculated Variance Inflation Factors revealed no problem with multicollinearity. Also, within-class covariance matrices are assumed to be different, and prior probabilities were not considered [for discriminant analysis, see Ayinla and Adekunle, 2015].
15One of the most significant problems of the demographic profile in Greece is population ageing, a general and ongoing problem in all the insular populations studied (Figures 2). A group of populations is very close to the national one of Greece, forming the 1st cluster (EL: Greece, EL642: Evvoia, EL434: Chania, EL422: Cylades, EL621: Zakynthos), but the rest are pretty different. The insular complex around Rodos (EL421: i.e. the Dodecanese islands), along with Irakleio (EL431) and Rethymni (EL433) in Crete, consistently have the youngest population. All the others (Lefkada and Ithaki-Kefalonia in the Ionian islands and Lesvos-Limnos, Chios and Ikaria-Samos located in the Aegean near the eastern borders of Greece) are significantly older, with some exceptions in the last years of the study (immigration and refugee flows are undoubtedly responsible for this development).
16The differential effects of mortality, fertility, and migration on these populations are recorded in the population’s median age. Insular Greece had significant economic and developmental problems in the past. Besides working in the agricultural sector, in those days, many of its people worked as sailors, and a few were shipowners. However, others moved to Athens and other major urban centres or emigrated outside Greece to find work. In recent years, tourist development has given a substantial economic boost to these islands while at the same time attracting many Europeans to live permanently there or at least for some months every year. EL421 (Rodos and the surrounding islands, i.e. Dodecanese) and EL431 (Irakleio in Crete) could be the best examples of this development. Also, the Aegean Islands have become a refuge for immigrants [see Gemi and Triantafyllidou, 2019], but whether these people wish to stay in Greece or move to another country is doubtful. One should also note that for many of the Greek Islands, the population structure indicators are biased because of the existing Universities (Univ. of the Aegean, Crete and Ionian) along with military bases. Unfortunately, any effects cannot be accurately measured.
17The second characteristic of the population structure is the Age Dependency Ratio (Figure 2), denoting the analogy of the non-working (0-19 and 65+) to the working population. In all the populations studied, there is a decreasing tendency for the population of the younger age groups (0-19 years) and an increase for the older ones (65+). In contrast, the working population has mixed trends (not cited here). As a result of the action of these opposite or mixed forces, the age dependency ratio decreases in all the populations studied but at different paces, indicating the temporal differentiation of their population pyramids. It is worth noting that all the populations have higher ratios than Greece except for EL622 (Kerkyra), EL421 (the Dodecanese) and EL422 (Cyclades).
Figures 2. Population structure indicators
18A more thorough examination of the ageing schemes (see Figure 1d: percentage of inhabitants aged 65+ to the total population) clarifies the age dependency trends. Rethymni (EL433), i.e. cluster 5 in the age dependency ratio cluster analysis (see Figures 2), stands out as the department with the highest age dependency ratio in almost all the years in our study, but this is not due to its aged population. More specifically, the percentage of 65+ in the 2010s is the second lowest (after Dodekanese, EL421). Hence, a non-negligible part of its ‘dependents’ are children and young adults and this finding is crucial concerning the formulation of demographic policies (health and childcare infrasturctures etc.). The demographic schemes are completely different in the second cluster, that consists of Lesvos, Limnos (EL411) and Ikaria, Samos (EL412) which also exhibit a high dependency ratio. These islands, located in the eastern parts of the Aegean, are characterized by some of the oldest populations in the insular space in Greece. The third cluster is composed of two departments in the Ionian Arhipelago (Lefkada (EL624) and Ithaki, Kefalonia (EL623)) and two departments in the Aegean Archipelago (Chios (EL413) and Lasithi (EL432)). Its high dependency ratio is also a result of these islands’ aged populations. More specifically, Lefkada is constantly characterized by the highest percentages of inhabitants aged 65 or more. Furthermore, cluster 4 is characterized by a rather young population and this is mainly the case in Irakleio in Crete (EL431), which has the third youngest population in the 2010s after the Dodecanese and Rethymni. Finally, the first cluster has the lowest age dependency ratios. Nevertheless, this outcome hides some differences concerning ageing patterns. Dodecanese (EL 421) is inhabited by the youngest population, while Kerkyra’s (EL622) population is rather old and Cyclades (EL422) are also inhabited by rather young population figures especially during the 21st century.
Figure 1d. % 65+ Greece and insular departments (NUTS3), 1991-2019
19Finally, the analogy of women per 100 men (Figures 2) is very diverse among the populations studied. While Greece (EL) and Kerkyra (EL622) have proportionally more women, in the other populations, mixed trends prevail. In cluster 5, there is a deficit of women, considering that their average ratio to the male population in Greece during the period 1991-2019 is 103.8/100. According to the abovementioned analogy, the women are usually less than expected in cluster 3 (Ikaria and Samos, EL412), and during the last years of the study, they become minimal. The same happens in the North Aegean (EL411: Lesvos, Limnos and EL413: Chios), which was not the case for several years (for more details concerning the department of Ikaria and Samos and the department of Levos-Limnos see section 5. The influence of migration and refugee flows in the country level and islands’ demographics). It shall be underlined that the high variability in some clusters is mainly the result of changes in the migration and refugee flows in the islands, with the recent flows (in the post 2014 period) causing significant changes in population sizes, but also in the ratios of women per 100 men. On the contrary, the Southern Aegean (EL421: Cyclades and EL422: the Dodecanese) progressively have more women in their population composition.
20The discriminant analysis (Figures 2) portrays the heterogeneity, especially after studying the centroids. It seems that all populations share a common destiny, but at the same time, they keep their peculiarities. As a result, the population diversity is high in the Greek Seas despite some population convergences. In this scheme, distant populations (like EL422, i.e. Cyclades in the Aegean and EL621, i.e. Zakynthos in the Ionian) may have more similarities than neighbouring ones (like EL431, i.e. Irakleio and EL432, i.e. Lasithi in Crete).
21The temporal trends of the Crude Birth Rates (CBRs), denoting the rhythm of population increase due to births, reveal the common fate of the insular populations in Greece (Figures 3A). However, this happens with different paces and timetables. While most of the insular populations follow the trends of the national one, CBRs are very high in Cluster 3, i.e. Rethymni and Irakleio in Crete (EL433 and EL431) along with the Dodecanese Islands (Rodos and surrounding islands; EL421). The CBRs in Chania (EL434) and Zakynthos (EL621) are somewhat lower. On the opposite side, with lower rates than the national population, lies Lefkada (EL624). Ikaria, Samos (EL412) keeps a unique position, exhibiting some of the lowest CBRs, but in the end, it converges with the national population, as Lefkada does.
22By keeping the analogies, a similar picture emerges for the Crude Death Rates (CDRs), denoting the rhythm of population decrease because of deaths (Figures 2B). Most populations follow the National one, but Dodecanese (EL421) and Irakleion (EL431) have constantly lower rates. On the other hand, CDRs are higher than the national one in all the other populations, which form 3 different Clusters. Kerkyra (EL622) is the most diverse one (exhibiting a significant increase in the CDRs in the 2010s probably due the fast ageing of its population during this period (see Figure 1d)), followed by Clusters 2 and 3, which change over time in parallel but at different rhythms.
23As a result of these two opposite forces, natural increase rates are rather diverse in the insular Greece (Figures 2C). The national population of Greece, along with Kerkyra (EL622), Evvoia (EL642) and Lassithi (EL432), constantly decreased over time (Cluster 1), despite the fact that the relevant rates increased towards zero until the end of the first decade of the 21st century and became more and more negative afterwards. In the worst position lies Cluster 2, where the rhythms of population decrease are more intense than Cluster 1, even though they change in parallel with that. Conversely, Irakleio (EL431) and Dodecanese (EL421) constantly increase their population because of the balance of vital events. However, in recent years, this trend has moderated. Rethymni (EL433; Cluster 5) constantly increases over time but at different rhythms. More specifically, it exhibits increasing positive trends until 2009 and decreasing positive trends afterwards. Finally, Zakynthos (EL621), Chania (EL434) and Cyclades (EL422) bear a more distinct position as they increase in the period 2003-2010 (an inverted U-tube form of trends of CDRs). In the other years, the rhythm of population change is close to zero.
24As a result of the peculiarities existing among the insular population of Greece, and despite their shared fate and partial convergences, the variability remains high, as revealed by the discriminant analysis (Figures 3D). According to the centroids of the analysis, the NUTS3 areas of Crete are more closely related. Besides that, once again, the picture of distant populations having more affinities than their neighbouring ones is confirmed.
Figures 3. Crude Birth Rate (CBR), Crude Death Rate (CDR) and Natural Increase Rate (NIR)
25For the analysis of fertility, 3-years moving averages were used to avoid chance fluctuation of the variables used due to the limited population sizes. These averages were used for the period Total Fertility Rates and the Mean age at Childbearing, as portrayed in Figures 4.
Figures 4. Total Fertility Rates and Mean Age at Childbearing. 3-years moving averages.
26The temporal trends of fertility (Figures 4A) in the national population of Greece have a unique scheme of change over time: a decrease up to the late 1990s, an increase until 2008 and a U-tube form afterwards. The country reached the lowest low fertility level [see Piotrowski et al., 2021] sometime in the 1990s, when fertility was nearly 1.3 children per woman. Many suggestions can be made for the increasing trend until 2008, like the birth recuperation or the contribution of immigrants to overall fertility; however, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Afterwards, fertility developments occurred in an economic crisis environment (starting in 2008), plausibly affecting the trends. A causal analysis may give more insights into the study of these developments; however, it is impossible to do so in this paper. Thus, it remains an open question for further research. In any case, Greece remains below the low fertility trap [See Lutz et al., 2006] for all the years studied in this paper, a fact that poses questions about any future fertility recovery.
27Figures 4A reveals that several departures of this scheme exist among the insular populations of the country, although the national temporal trends, even if relatively differentiated, are followed by all populations. Cluster 3 is the most differentiated, comprising Zakynthos (EL621) and Lasithi (EL432). Fertility there is much higher for most of the time. This cluster converges with Cluster 4 (Irakleio EL431 and Rethymni EL433) for many years after 2009 but diverges again by the study’s end. Cluster 4 had higher fertility than the country’s national population at the beginning of the study. Still, since 1999, fertility increased rapidly until 2009 and followed the national trends but at higher levels afterwards. Chania (EL434), Ithaki, Kefallinia (EL623) and Lefkada (EL624), forming Cluster 5, had fertility similar to that of the national population of Greece until 2000. Afterwards, they converged with Cluster 4. Lesvos, Limnos (EL411) and Rodos and surrounding islands (EL421) start from higher fertility levels at the beginning (Cluster 1). Still, afterwards, their differences with the national population are more moderated except for the last years when they had the second highest fertility in the country. All the other populations follow the national trends and levels.
28The second characteristic of the fertility regime in Greece is the postponement of Childbearing at higher ages (Figures 4B), which is a widespread attitude in all the populations studied. However, the postponement level is somewhat different among them. Lasithi (EL432; Cluster 4) diverges clearly, having consistently the lowest mean childbearing age. Zakynthos (EL621), Limnos, Lesvos (EL411) and Rodos and surrounding islands (EL421), forming Cluster 1, follow at somewhat higher ages. The mean age at Childbearing in Cluster 2 is higher, while the situation is more diversified in Zakynthos (EL623) and Rethimni (EL433). However, in all populations, regardless of their clustering, women give birth to their children at a younger age than the national population. This fact aggravates the differentiation of reproductive behaviours in a significant part of Peripheral Greece compared to the total population due to various factors such as the marriage system, the particular cultural characteristics of each region, socio-economic development, etc.
29These differentiations portray themselves in the discriminant analysis results (Figures 4C). Centroids reveal the existence of three population clusters on the image’s left, centre and right-hand side. Once again, distant populations may be closer than neighbouring ones.
30Similarly to fertility, 3-year moving averages were used to study life expectancy at birth (Figures 5) to avoid chance fluctuations due to the small population sizes.
31Mortality transition in Greece is an ongoing phenomenon with different rhythms and timetables between genders [see Zafeiris, 2023]. The overall trend is the increase in the mean duration of life as expressed by the life expectancy at birth, despite some halts or minor drawbacks occurring mainly after the onset of the economic crisis.
32Cluster analysis revealed the high differentiation of men and women, an expected situation as the mortality gender gap favours women [see Zafeiris, 2020]. In their turn, in males, the national population of the country clusters with Kekryra (EL622), Evvoia (EL642), the Northern Aegean (EL413, i.e. Chios and EL411, i.e. Lesvos, Limnos) and two departments in Crete (EL434: Chania and EL433: Rethymni). The country’s other insular populations have a higher life expectancy at birth. The most advanced mean duration of life is in Cluster 2, that is, in Ithaki, Kefallinia (EL623) and Cyclades (EL422). In the rest of the insular populations (Cluster 2), life expectancy at birth is between Clusters 1 and 2.
33In females, Lefkada (EL624), Ithaki, Kefallinia (EL623), Ikaria, Samos (EL412), Cyclades (EL422) and three of the four NUTS3 areas of Crete (EL431, EL432, EL433), i.e. all of the Cretan departments with the exception of Chania, have the highest e0, forming cluster 6. Zakynthos (EL621; Cluster 5) holds a more diversified position in this course of mortality transition. The results of the analysis of the department and island of Zakynthos exhibit the problem of small population sizes (even though we aimed at alleviating this problem using moving averages). The female life expectancies vary significantly in the 1991-2018 period. More specifically, they increase greatly in the mid and late 1990s and they decrease remarkably in the early 2000s. In 1991-1994 one or two deaths were recorded in the ages 0-4 in Zakynthos, but in 1995-1996 and 1998 no deaths occured in these ages. Moreover, two deaths occurred in females aged 20-24 and three deaths in women aged 25-29 in 1991 but on1y one or no deaths were recorded in the mid or late 1990s in the same ages. In other words, in areas with small population sizes, like Zakynthos, in which very few deaths occur every year (151-204 female deaths per year in the 1990s), very few deaths (one or two or three) in some young ages (that may be the result of a road accident happening in one year but not in other years) may alter notably the life expectancy calculated in a year compared with those of other years. Thus, results calculated in such small populations shall be interpreted with caution.
Figures 5. Life expectancy at birth (e0). 3-years moving averages.
34It seems evident that the prevailing tendency in Greece’s insular populations is for lower mortality. That is an expected situation as Ikaria island belongs to the “blue zones” populations with better health, as can be said, for example [see Buettner, 2023]. The factors that determine the excellent health of these populations should be sought, including nutrition and lifestyle issues, economic and social development, and others. Of course, natural selection may have played a role and should not be ignored, considering living conditions on the islands in the past, which were extremely difficult. This issue requires a thorough study, noting that phenomena of very low mortality have also been observed in other insular populations of the planet, which form the so-called “blue zone” mentioned earlier.
35Foreigners (see population puramids by nationality on 1/1/2019; figure 6) have contributed to a slowdown of the ageing process of the population of Greece, as they mainly consist of young people entering the country in search of work, better quality of life and undoubtedly, a more secure future for them and their children, away from war and conflict. Additionally, they created larger families than the Greeks, contributing to the increase of the fertility rates.
36Greece was a sending country before the early 1990s. However, it became a receiving counry after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989. Thus, immigrants massively entered Greece since the early 1990s mainly from Albania but also from other Balkan countries and countries in the Eastern Europe.
37Inflows have changed significantly in Greece during the post 2010 period. Kotzamanis & Karkanis [2018] underlined that since 2011 the number of illegal inflows from Syria, Iraq and Afganistan increased tremendously. Particularly, Iranians and Pakistanis are almost exclusively men. Furthermore, these authors emphasized that in the post 2014 period the entry points in Greece changed in comparison with the past and more specifically, refugees and immigrants started massively arriving by sea eversince. This was due to a fall of illegal migration from Albania, and the construction of the ‘fence’ in the northeastern borders of the country which significantly limited the possibilities of entering through land [Kotzamanis & Karkanis, op. cit.]. Therefore, the old (1991-2010) and new (2011-2018) immigration (legal and illegal) schemes have influenced Greece’s population dynamics and more specifically, the islands’ population structures, fertility levels but also sex ratios.
Figure 6. Population pyramids-Greeks and foreigners on 1/1/2019 (percentages)
38The example of the department (islands) of Ikaria and Samos, that is located in the Aegean near the sea borders with Turkey, is representative of the impact of migration flows on demographic developments. The natural balance in this department is negative since 1991 (sees Figure 7: middle graph), even though it’s values change constantly during this period. Concerning the department’s population size (see Figures 7: upper graph), it increased tremendously in the recent years mainly due to the significant immigration and refugee flows in the post 2014 period. It shall be underlined that the number of births remained at fairly high levels and even increased in this post-2014 period mainly due to these positive flows. Finally, the sex ratio (women per 100 men) was always favourable to men with the exception of a few years in the 2000s during which it’s values fluctuated around 99-101 women per 100 men (see Figures 7: lower graph). Nevertheless, its values are below 95 women per 100 men in the 1990s and the 2010s and reached some of the lowest levels in the more recent years (post-2014 period) due to the male incomers in the department during the recent important refugee inflows.
39Finally, the population pyramids of Ikaria, Samos (see Figures 8) show the important proportions of young males (soldiers) aged 15-19 in 1991 and 2001 and 20-24 in 2011. The age of young males entering the army has probably increased from 1991, 2001 (15-19) to 2011, 2019 (20-24) as significant proportions of young men enroll in university studies and prefer serving the army after their studies in 2011, i.e. in their early 20s and not before. The 2019 pyramid exhibits significant surpluses of males aged 20-34. These young males are obviously young soldiers but also immigrants and refugees that entered the island in the post-2014 period. Undoubtedly, many young inhabitants (aged 18-25) in islands like Samos, but also Lesvos- Limnos, Chios, Rhodes, Samos and Syros (whose capital, Ermoupolis, is also the capital of Cyclades), are students of the University of the Aegean.
Figures 7. Samos: population size, migratory balance, births, deaths, natural balance, women per 100 men, median age, 1991-2019
Figures 8. Ikaria, Samos: population pyramids, 1/1/1991, 1/1/2001, 1/1/2011, 1/1/2019 (percentages)
40The example of the department (islands) of Lesvos-Limnos, also reveals the impact of migration and refugee flows on the islands’ population size and the ratio of women per 100 men (see Figures 9). More specifically, the significant numbers of incomers led to an important increase in the population size in recent years (despite the constantly negative natural balances) and a significant fall of the ratio of women per 100 men.
Figures 9. Lesvos-Limnos: population size, migratory balance, women per 100 men, 1991-2019
41Concerning the Greek insular departments, it shall be mentioned that there is a great diversity in their population sizes. Irakleion in Crete is inhabited by 313 thousands people in 2019 while Lefkada in the Ionian by only 24 thousands. Moreover, they are located in very different parts in the seas around mainland Greece. The four departments in the Ionian Archipelago are located between Greece and Italy, Cyclades are located near the country’s capital, Athens, while Ikaria-Samos, Limnos-Lesvos, Chios and the Dodecanese are in close distance with the borders with Turkey. Finally, four departments are in the same island (Crete). Nonetheless, they bear similarities but also differences.
42Very early in the present document we have underlined that in the insular departments with limited population sizes, minor changes in the number of births or deaths may lead to important changes in the indicators calculated, that may not signify significant modifications of demographic behaviours, but are simply related to random events. This was the case in the female life expectancies in Zakynthos, which exhibited great variability during the period of our study.
43The present paper has presented some results and findings about Greece and its insular space but has also provided with some ideas for future demographic research at country and departmental level. Demographic analysis at NUTS3 level shall be avoided before 1991 due to the fact that De Facto and not Resident population sizes are recorded. 2019-2022 is the era of COVID-19, which influenced marriage, fertility and mortality. Additionally, there are different sub-populations in the county with diverse fertility behaviours (most Greeks are having few children at elevated ages, while immigrants, refugees and other groups, e.g. Romani people are having many more children at lower ages). Finally, out-of wedlock fertility schemes are gradually changing since the mid-2000s but at a very fast pace in the 2010s and mainly in the 2019-2022 period. Finally, the population of Greece is ageing at a fast pace and shrinking since 2011. These tendencies will probably continue in the 2020s, the 2030s and the 2040s, unless significantly positive migration balances change these trends.
44Regarding demographic developments in the insular space, the examination of the percentage of inhabitants aged 65+ to the total population has led us to the conclusion that there are some insular departments that are characterized by extreme ageing during the whole period of our study (1991-2019) such as Lefkada and Kefalonia in the Ionian Archipelago and Samos and Lesvos in the Aegean. Nevertheless, refugee flows have led to a (probably temporary) decrease in this percentage in recent years (2017-2019) in Samos and Lesvos. Other departments, such as Kerkyra, Evvoia and Lasithi are ageing at a fast pace in the 2010s. To sum up, the most aged areas in the insular space are located in the northern part of the Ionian islands (Kerkyra , Lefkada and Kefalonia, but not Zakynthos), in the northern and eastern parts of the Aegean (Evvoia, Lesvos, Samos, Chios) and in Lasithi in the eastern part of Crete. Thus, we observed a ‘dividend’ between northern parts and southern parts of the insular space in Greece (with the exception of Lasithi in Crete). The analysis of the median age reinforces the aforementioned findings (that were based on the analysis of the % of inhabitants aged 65+ to the total population). More specifically, the southern Aegean (Cyclades, the Dodecanese, Rethymnon, Irakleio and Chania in Crete) and Zakynthos in the Ionian islands are characterized by the youngest populations.
45Policy-makers have to take seriously into account the high age dependency ratios in some departments in order to formulate their policies. Nonetheless, different policies are required for departments whose ‘dependents’ include numerous young adults and children from those whose ‘dependents’ are mostly older adults. Rethymni in Crete is characterized by the highest dependency ratio even though its ‘dependents’ are rather young. On the other hand, high dependency ratios characterize some islands with the most aged populations such as Lefkada and Kefalonia in the Ionian and Lesvos, Chios, Samos and Lasithi in the Aegean.
46Concerning the sex ratio (women per 100 men), Lesvos, Chios and Samos that are located in the eastern part of the Aegean, near the sea borders with Turkey, are characterized by similar trajectories: there are fewer women than men in the 1990s and the 2010s. This phenomenon is much more intense in Samos and immigration and refugee flows have played a significant role in the development of these phenomena.
47Fairly high Crude Birth Rates are observed in Zakynthos, the Dodecanese and two departments in Crete: Rethymni and Irakleio. High Crude Death Rates are recorded in the insular departments with aged populations, i.e. Kerkyra, Kefalonia and Lefkada in the Ionian Archipelago and Lesvos, Samos, Chios and Lasithi in the Aegean. Finally, Greece faces negative and decreasing Natural Increase Rates especially in the 2010s and this has played a crucial role in its shrinking population size since 2011. Similar patterns with Greece are recorded in departments like Kerkyra, Evvoia and Lasithi. Other islands in the Ionian Archipelago and the Northern and Eastern parts of the Aegean (Lefkada, Kerkyra, Lesvos, Chios, Samos) exhibit negative Natural Increase Rates in the whole period of our study. Thus, migration schemes will play an important role in the development of their population. More specifically, without positive migration balances, their population will decline at a fast pace in the following years. On the other hand, the islands with the youngest populations (Zakynthos, Cyclades, Dodecanese and all the departments of Crete except Lasithi) exhibit positive Natural Balances in the whole period of our study.
48The highest Total Fertility Rates are observed in Zakynthos and Lasithi (even though Lasithi has one of the oldest populations). Fairly high TFRs are also observed in the whole period of our study in Irakleio and Rethymni in Crete and rather high TFRs in Lesvos and Dodecanese especially during the recent period (2014+). Regarding the age at family formation in all the islands, women have their children earlier than those at country level (with the lowest ones being observed in Dodecanese, Lesvos and Zakynthos), even though the age at childbearing increases everywhere. This postponement will probably lead to smaller families as individuals and couples who delay family formation usually end up having less children than they wished or planned to have. Undoubtedly, country level indicators (such as Mean Age at Childbearing (MAC) in this case) are largely influenced by the evolution of the demographic phenomena (fertility’s calendar in this case) in Attica which is inhabited by a large part of Greece’s population (34.9% in 2019) and hosts the most populated city (Athens) in the country, being at the same time its capital and its most important economic centre. Attica’s MAC is 32.4 years in 2019, while MAC is 31.7 years at country level during the same year. Evidently, the very high age at childbearing in Attica significantly increase the country level MAC.
49Finally, men and women are living longer in Cyclades and Kefalonia than country level. Additionally, women are also living much longer in Lefkada, Samos and most of the departments in Crete. Concerning men they are also living longer than country level in Irakleio and Lasithi (in Crete), but also Zakynthos, Lefkada, Samos and the Dodecanese. Notnetheles, males’ LEs in this cluster (the 3rd one) are converging in the 2010s with the country level ones, i.e. there is a slow-down in the increase in LEs, a finding that shall be further explored and for which appropriate policies have to be formulated. Thus, overall, mortality is lower in many islands compared to the national population. This fact reflects the differences between the insular and the national populations regarding lifestyle, dietary habits, and other factors.
50Living in the Greek Islands, especially the smaller ones, bears many difficulties despite being an attraction during the tourist season. Before any economic development (because of the advent of the “heavy” tourism industry), most insular people were fishermen, sailors, and cultivators. Others emigrated permanently. Due to adverse weather conditions, many people were cut off from the Greek hinterland for several days during the winter, and (even today) many islands were virtually empty of people when the tourist season ended. Equally problematic was health care. On the tiny islands, there were also problems with the functioning of the schools due to the small numbers of students. Many of these problems are partially or totally solved today, but -besides the recent economic development- one has to mention the financial crisis which affected the insular population of Greece [see Papadakis & Kyvelou, 2017]. Therefore, the need to integrate developmental strategies for the Greek Islands is more than evident. On the other hand, numerous people have developed significantly economically and socially due to tourism, especially those from the southern Aegean, Ionian, and Crete. Such effects are more moderate in islands like Limnos and Kasos. Thus, this scheme of recent economic and social transformations shaped their current demographic profile. Finally, the present research has shown that the observed diversity is high, and more remote Islands bear more similarities than the neighbouring ones.