| Literature DB >> 30973941 |
Yigang Wei1, Zhichao Wang1, Huiwen Wang1, Yan Li2, Zhenyu Jiang3.
Abstract
The changing population age structure has a significant influence on the economy, society, and numerous other aspects of a country. This paper has innovatively applied the method of compositional data forecasting for the prediction of population age changes of the young (aged 0-14), the middle-aged (aged 15-64), and the elderly (aged older than 65) in China, India, and Vietnam by 2030 based on data from 1960 to 2016. To select the best-suited forecasting model, an array of data transformation approaches and forecasting models have been extensively employed, and a large number of comparisons have been made between the aforementioned methods. The best-suited model for each country is identified considering the root mean squared error and mean absolute percent error values from the compositional data. As noted in this study, first and foremost, it is predicted that by the year 2030, China will witness the disappearance of population dividend and get mired in an aging problem far more severe than that of India or Vietnam. Second, Vietnam's trend of change in population age structure resembles that of China, but the country will sustain its good health as a whole. Finally, the working population of India demonstrates a strong rising trend, indicating that the age structure of the Indian population still remains relatively "young". Meanwhile, the continuous rise in the proportion of elderly population and the gradual leveling off growth of the young population have nevertheless become serious problems in the world. The present paper attempts to offer crucial insights into the Asian population size, labor market and urbanization, and, moreover, provides suggestions for a sustainable global demographic development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30973941 PMCID: PMC6459537 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Historical changes of population age structures in China, India and Vietnam from 1960 to 2016.
Fig 2Natural population growth rates of China, India and Vietnam from 1960 to 2015.
Data Source: World Bank (2018).
Fig 3Birth rates of China, India and Vietnam from 1960 to 2015.
Data Source: World Bank (2018).
Fig 4Human development index (HDI) of China, India & Vietnam from 1960 to 2015.
Data source: Human Development Report of United Nations Human Development Program and World Bank, http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI.
Comparisons of prediction models based on statistical principles.
| Model | Statistical Principle | Factors of Consideration | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malthus Model | Exponential Function | Base annual population and growth rate | Being simple and easily calculating | The factors of consideration were oversimplified |
| Logistic Population Growth Model | Exponential function | Base annual population, population growth rate, environmental carrying capacity | The environmental carrying capacity of population is taken into consideration | The factors of consideration were insufficient |
| Markov Chain Model | Probability theory | The previous one of the current transition (regardless of the historical data) | Historical data are not needed to deal with the probability of random events | Ineffective when dealing with predictions related to the past |
| Keyfitz Matrix Model | Matrix multiplication | Gender, age, fertility rate and survival rate | A large number of factors is taken in to consideration and the age structure is predictable. | The influence of population migration is not taken into consideration |
| Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Model | Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average Function | Historical population data | Being simple, practical, and suitable for short-term prediction | Big deviation in long-term prediction |
| Leslie Matrix | Matrix multiplication | Gender, age, fertility rate, survival rate and population migration | Consideration of migrations | High demand on data precision |
| Bayesian Model | Improved Bayesian method | Region, age, gender, time, fertility rate, mortality rate and net migration | The effect of empirical knowledge is taken into account. | No consideration of changing behavior as time lapses |
Comparisons and analysis of the four prediction models.
| Type of Model | Theoretical Basis | Structure Stability | Factors of Consideration | Data requirement | Data Processing Method | Prediction Accuracy | Operation Difficulty | Time Span Covered by Prediction | Maturity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Models | Statistical analysis theories | Stable relationship between variables | Relatively less | High accuracy | Observed data are used in formula for calculation. | Fine accuracy in short-term prediction, certain deviation in long-term prediction | Operation is relatively simple. | Applicable for both short-term and long-term predictions, but better outcomes in short-term predictions. | Long history and mature |
| Neural Network | Artificial neural network theory, intelligent technology | Changing structure model | Various factors can be taken into consideration, including statistical and textual factors. | Statistics and textual data with lower accuracy requirement are usable. | Iterative observations of sample data, self-learning, establishing models | High accuracy in short-term prediction, certain deviations in mid-term and long-term prediction, but better than statistical models. | Operation is difficult and complex. | Extrapolation is good, and it is suitable for short-term, mid-term, and long-term predictions. | Developing |
| Grey Model | Grey Theory | Alterable Structure | Mainly based on statistical factors | Complete data are not required | New sequences are created by adding original data. New sequences are analyzed and figured out the laws. | High accuracy in short-term prediction, and big deviation in long-term prediction. | Relatively easy, mainly through adding layer by layer. | Suitable for short-term prediction | Developing |
| SVM model | Machine learning | Comparatively stable structure | Selection and optimization of data penalty term and kernel function mainly | Small sample | When linearly separable, it is converted to convex quadratic programming solution. When linearly inseparable, the appropriate kernel function is selected to map the training data to an eigenspace. | High accuracy in short-term and medium-term prediction | It is more difficult and suitable kernel function needs to be found. | Suitable for short-term and medium-term prediction | Developing |
Fig 5Procedures for conducting forecasting models for compositional data.
Description of the data transformation methods for compositional data and forecasting models.
| LCC method regarding the proportion of young people as the linear combination | |
| LCC method regarding the proportion of middle-aged people as the linear combination | |
| LCC method regarding the proportion of old people as the linear combination | |
| Isometric logratio transformation | |
| Dimension-Reduction approach through a Hyperspherical Transformation | |
| Autoregressive integrated moving average model | |
| Exponential smoothing model | |
| Vector autoregressive model | |
| Best neural network model for time series for the corresponding country | |
CoDa-RMSE and CoDa-MAPE (in brackets) values of NNETTS combined with different data transformation methods in the test set.
| Lagged | Method | Number of hidden units | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | ||||||
| LCC.Y | 0.19 (12.71%) | 0.11 (7.41%) | 0.09 (5.84%) | 0.12 (7.75%) | 0.19 (12.72%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.13 (8.47%) | 0.18 (12.14%) | 0.23 (15.67%) | 0.1 (6.89%) | 0.13 (8.39%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.09 (6.04%) | 0.23 (15.13%) | 0.33 (21.88%) | 0.1 (6.72%) | 0.09 (6.19%) | |
| ILR | 0.09 (6.26%) | 0.12 (8.1%) | 0.11 (7.31%) | 0.13 (8.58%) | 0.12 (7.83%) | |
| DRHT | 0.19 (12.53%) | 0.12 (8.12%) | 0.2 (13.55%) | 0.11 (7.72%) | 0.19 (12.63%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.22 (14.87%) | 0.08 (5.09%) | 0.1 (6.74%) | 0.14 (9.4%) | 0.09 (6.03%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.1 (6.43%) | 0.08 (5.49%) | 0.11 (7.15%) | 0.21 (14.2%) | 0.26 (17.06%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.17 (11.24%) | 0.06 (4.2%) | 0.07 (4.48%) | 0.3 (20.31%) | 0.41 (26.9%) | |
| ILR | 0.13 (8.72%) | 0.11 (7.46%) | 0.08 (5.43%) | 0.09 (6.2%) | 0.11 (7.56%) | |
| DRHT | 0.07 (4.81%) | 0.08 (5.32%) | 0.1 (6.94%) | 0.09 (5.97%) | 0.14 (9.36%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.47 (30.93%) | 0.14 (9.73%) | 0.07 (4.59%) | 0.13 (8.91%) | 0.06 (4.3%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.43 (28.47%) | 0.06 (3.94%) | 0.08 (5.52%) | 0.09 (6.17%) | 0.1 (6.96%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.13 (8.49%) | 0.13 (8.67%) | 0.11 (7.04%) | 0.24 (16.3%) | 0.17 (11.66%) | |
| ILR | 0.12 (8.21%) | 0.08 (5.5%) | 0.12 (7.98%) | 0.08 (5.59%) | 0.1 (6.63%) | |
| DRHT | 0.08 (5.61%) | 0.06 (4.21%) | 0.09 (6.33%) | 0.1 (6.45%) | 0.13 (8.61%) | |
| India | ||||||
| LCC.Y | 0.51 (28.57%) | 0.21 (11.87%) | 0.21 (11.91%) | 0.16 (9.15%) | 0.19 (10.35%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.45 (25.39%) | 0.2 (11.18%) | 0.25 (13.83%) | 0.18 (9.93%) | 0.17 (9.73%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.04 (2.47%) | 0.32 (17.87%) | 0.53 (29.63%) | 0.47 (26.14%) | 0.28 (15.97%) | |
| ILR | 0.02 (0.98%) | 0.33 (18.43%) | 0.04 (2.01%) | 0.03 (1.74%) | 0.05 (2.9%) | |
| DRHT | 0.09 (5.3%) | 0.09 (5.15%) | 0.19 (10.7%) | 0.12 (6.48%) | 0.09 (4.87%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.14 (7.94%) | 0.14 (7.96%) | 0.19 (10.45%) | 0.1 (5.68%) | 0.2 (10.95%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.15 (8.14%) | 0.16 (8.98%) | 0.17 (9.76%) | 0.12 (6.64%) | 0.18 (10.21%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.24 (13.46%) | 0.32 (17.89%) | 0.09 (5.06%) | 0.27 (14.86%) | 0.16 (9.07%) | |
| ILR | 0.04 (2.44%) | 0.02 (1.27%) | 0.02 (1.24%) | 0.04 (2.16%) | 0.03 (1.41%) | |
| DRHT | 0.03 (1.65%) | 0.1 (5.42%) | 0.19 (9.35%) | 0.08 (4.33%) | 0.12 (6.58%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.15 (8.53%) | 0.05 (2.76%) | 0.07 (4.06%) | 0.13 (7.13%) | 0.14 (7.8%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.17 (9.38%) | 0.03 (1.74%) | 0.1 (5.64%) | 0.11 (6.33%) | 0.11 (6.09%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.24 (13.51%) | 0.24 (13.51%) | 0.26 (14.78%) | 0.13 (7.05%) | 0.12 (6.55%) | |
| ILR | 0.03 (1.51%) | 0.03 (1.52%) | 0.02 (0.93%) | 0.16 (8.97%) | 0.05 (2.74%) | |
| DRHT | 0.2 (11.34%) | 0.07 (4.03%) | 0.28 (15.33%) | 0.1 (5.44%) | 0.08 (4.69%) | |
| Vietnam | ||||||
| LCC.Y | 0.18 (11.15%) | 0.19 (11.21%) | 0.06 (3.72%) | 0.09 (5.48%) | 0.09 (5.28%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.12 (7.49%) | 0.12 (7.3%) | 0.5 (30.33%) | 0.22 (13.01%) | 0.15 (9.3%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.28 (16.88%) | 0.2 (12.24%) | 0.94 (56.55%) | 0.38 (22.89%) | 0.39 (23.2%) | |
| ILR | 0.11 (6.75%) | 0.07 (4.5%) | 0.11 (6.32%) | 0.11 (6.85%) | 0.08 (4.65%) | |
| DRHT | 0.3 (17.9%) | 0.15 (8.85%) | 0.52 (31.26%) | 0.17 (10.13%) | 0.14 (8.58%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.14 (8.55%) | 0.06 (3.69%) | 0.2 (11.89%) | 0.19 (11.36%) | 0.14 (8.24%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.06 (3.7%) | 0.16 (9.84%) | 0.08 (4.69%) | 0.13 (8.12%) | 0.15 (9.2%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.27 (16.51%) | 0.38 (22.86%) | 0.14 (8.65%) | 0.24 (14.7%) | 0.56 (33.35%) | |
| ILR | 0.24 (14.39%) | 0.12 (7.09%) | 0.07 (4.22%) | 0.24 (14.39%) | 0.07 (3.93%) | |
| DRHT | 0.17 (9.99%) | 0.22 (13.35%) | 0.3 (18.05%) | 0.16 (9.44%) | 0.41 (24.46%) | |
| LCC.Y | 0.13 (8.05%) | 0.2 (12.03%) | 0.08 (4.88%) | 0.07 (4.39%) | 0.41 (24.74%) | |
| LCC.M | 0.13 (7.95%) | 0.23 (13.62%) | 0.09 (5.27%) | 0.24 (14.56%) | 0.19 (11.47%) | |
| LCC.O | 0.11 (6.68%) | 0.25 (14.84%) | 0.14 (8.44%) | 0.44 (26.47%) | 0.4 (23.81%) | |
| ILR | 0.24 (14.2%) | 0.1 (6.14%) | 0.1 (5.78%) | 0.11 (6.76%) | 0.24 (14.14%) | |
| DRHT | 0.08 (4.61%) | 0.31 (18.92%) | 0.15 (8.94%) | 0.23 (13.93%) | 0.22 (13.54%) | |
CoDa-RMSE and CoDa-MAPE comparisons of alternative forecasting models using compositional data.
| ARIMA | ETS | VAR | NNETTS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoDa-RMSE | CoDa-MAPE | CoDa-RMSE | CoDa-MAPE | CoDa-RMSE | CoDa-MAPE | CoDa-RMSE | CoDa-MAPE | |
| 0.09 | 6.1% | 0.09 | 6.1% | 0.17 | 11.48% | 0.14 | 9.73% | |
| 0.07 | 4.87% | 0.09 | 6.17% | 0.17 | 11.48% | 0.06 | 3.94% | |
| 0.09 | 6.24% | 0.09 | 6.17% | 0.17 | 11.48% | 0.13 | 8.67% | |
| 0.06 | 3.94% | 0.08 | 5.38% | 0.1 | 6.61% | 0.08 | 5.5% | |
| 0.08 | 5.67% | 0.08 | 5.67% | 0.1 | 6.91% | 0.06 | 4.21% | |
| 0.08 | 5.1% | 0.09 | 6.09% | 0.17 | 11.48% | 0.15 | 10.22% | |
| 0.02 | 1.06% | 0.01 | 0.83% | 0.02 | 1.11% | 0.07 | 4.06% | |
| 0.02 | 1.09% | 0.01 | 0.83% | 0.02 | 1.11% | 0.1 | 5.64% | |
| 0.02 | 1.28% | 0.01 | 0.84% | 0.02 | 1.11% | 0.26 | 14.78% | |
| 0.02 | 1.09% | 0.01 | 0.81% | 0.03 | 1.61% | 0.02 | 0.93% | |
| 0.02 | 1.07% | 0.01 | 0.81% | 0.02 | 1.11% | 0.28 | 15.33% | |
| 0.02 | 1.09% | 0.02 | 0.9% | 0.02 | 1.11% | 0.08 | 4.81% | |
| 0.1 | 6.16% | 0.08 | 5% | 0.07 | 4.35% | 0.06 | 3.43% | |
| 0.1 | 6.11% | 0.08 | 5% | 0.07 | 4.35% | 0.17 | 10.22% | |
| 0.1 | 6.05% | 0.08 | 4.99% | 0.07 | 4.35% | 0.62 | 37.12% | |
| 0.08 | 4.64% | 0.07 | 4.14% | 0.07 | 4.41% | 0.24 | 14.33% | |
| 0.09 | 5.69% | 0.07 | 4.49% | 0.07 | 4.27% | 0.44 | 26.37% | |
| 0.1 | 6.12% | 0.07 | 4.1% | 0.07 | 4.35% | 0.07 | 4.51% | |
Rows “Base” indicate the results obtaining by the related conventional forecasting model for time series.
* indicates the best-performing forecasting models with lowest CoDa-RMSE and CoDa-MAPE values for three countries.
Fig 6Comparisons of the forecasting performance of all the alternative models for China.
Fig 8Comparison of the forecasting performance of all the alternative models for Vietnam.
Fig 9Performance of the best-performed forecasting models for three countries.
Three columns indicate the estimated population age propositions of the young, middle-aged and old populations from left to right. Three rows indicate the related results for China, India and Vietnam from top to bottom. Detailed information refers to S1–S72 Figs.
Fig 7Comparisons of the forecasting performance of all the alternative models for India.
White noise tests for error series of three age periods for China, India and Vietnam.
| Period | Method | ARIMA | ETS | VAR | NNETTS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BP | LB | BP | LB | BP | LB | BP | LB | ||
| China | |||||||||
| Young | LCC.Y | 0.438 | 0.309 | 0.305 | 0.194 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| LCC.M | 0.461 | 0.251 | 0.407 | 0.279 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
| LCC.O | 0.461 | 0.251 | 0.407 | 0.279 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
| ILR | 0.633 | 0.427 | 0.401 | 0.274 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
| DRHT | 0.372 | 0.246 | 0.169 | 0.096 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| Middle | LCC.Y | 0.705 | 0.588 | 0.503 | 0.372 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| LCC.M | 0.655 | 0.455 | 0.643 | 0.517 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
| LCC.O | 0.705 | 0.588 | 0.503 | 0.372 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| ILR | 0.802 | 0.646 | 0.637 | 0.509 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| DRHT | 0.595 | 0.463 | 0.362 | 0.248 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| Old | LCC.Y | 0.623 | 0.511 | 0.597 | 0.482 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| LCC.M | 0.623 | 0.511 | 0.597 | 0.482 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.006 | 0.003 | |
| LCC.O | 0.208 | 0.114 | 0.968 | 0.95 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| ILR | 0.697 | 0.576 | 0.605 | 0.488 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| DRHT | 0.348 | 0.224 | 0.619 | 0.505 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| India | |||||||||
| Young | LCC.Y | 0.122 | 0.044 | 0.006 | 0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| LCC.M | 0.035 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| LCC.O | 0.035 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| ILR | 0.137 | 0.049 | 0.005 | 0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| DRHT | 0.198 | 0.085 | 0.012 | 0.002 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| Middle | LCC.Y | 0.043 | 0.011 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| LCC.M | 0.047 | 0.009 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.001 | |
| LCC.O | 0.043 | 0.011 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| ILR | 0.055 | 0.015 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| DRHT | 0.088 | 0.028 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.004 | 0.002 | |
| Old | LCC.Y | 0.05 | 0.023 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| LCC.M | 0.05 | 0.023 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| LCC.O | 0.546 | 0.383 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| ILR | 0.091 | 0.045 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| DRHT | 0.832 | 0.739 | <0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| Vietnam | |||||||||
| Young | LCC.Y | 0.89 | 0.817 | 0.048 | 0.021 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.295 | 0.246 |
| LCC.M | 0.977 | 0.957 | 0.102 | 0.046 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.266 | 0.219 | |
| LCC.O | 0.977 | 0.957 | 0.102 | 0.046 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.266 | 0.219 | |
| ILR | 0.986 | 0.974 | 0.053 | 0.023 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.279 | 0.231 | |
| DRHT | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.048 | 0.021 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.27 | 0.222 | |
| Middle | LCC.Y | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.1 | 0.05 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.292 | 0.244 |
| LCC.M | 0.998 | 0.996 | 0.236 | 0.132 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.273 | 0.225 | |
| LCC.O | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.1 | 0.05 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.292 | 0.244 | |
| ILR | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.155 | 0.086 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.294 | 0.245 | |
| DRHT | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.093 | 0.045 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.3 | 0.25 | |
| Old | LCC.Y | 0.91 | 0.858 | 0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.307 | 0.257 |
| LCC.M | 0.91 | 0.858 | 0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.307 | 0.257 | |
| LCC.O | 0.228 | 0.131 | 0.004 | 0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.281 | 0.233 | |
| ILR | 0.885 | 0.819 | 0.015 | 0.005 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.285 | 0.237 | |
| DRHT | 0.912 | 0.861 | 0.001 | <0.001 | >0.999 | >0.999 | 0.287 | 0.23 | |
The sub-columns “BP” and “LB” denote the p-values of Box-Pierce or Ljung-Box tests, respectively.
Forecasting Results of the population structures for China, India, and Vietnam (Unit: %).
| Year | China | India | Vietnam | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young | Middle | Old | Young | Middle | Old | Young | Middle | Old | |
| 2017 | 17.69 | 71.72 | 10.58 | 27.74 | 66.29 | 5.97 | 23.06 | 69.84 | 7.1 |
| 2018 | 17.66 | 71.29 | 11.06 | 27.29 | 66.57 | 6.14 | 23.04 | 69.68 | 7.29 |
| 2019 | 17.6 | 70.85 | 11.55 | 26.84 | 66.85 | 6.31 | 23.01 | 69.51 | 7.48 |
| 2020 | 17.54 | 70.4 | 12.06 | 26.4 | 67.12 | 6.48 | 22.98 | 69.35 | 7.67 |
| 2021 | 17.46 | 69.96 | 12.58 | 25.96 | 67.38 | 6.66 | 22.95 | 69.18 | 7.87 |
| 2022 | 17.37 | 69.51 | 13.12 | 25.52 | 67.63 | 6.84 | 22.92 | 69.01 | 8.07 |
| 2023 | 17.28 | 69.04 | 13.68 | 25.09 | 67.88 | 7.03 | 22.88 | 68.84 | 8.28 |
| 2024 | 17.19 | 68.55 | 14.26 | 24.66 | 68.12 | 7.22 | 22.85 | 68.67 | 8.49 |
| 2025 | 17.09 | 68.05 | 14.86 | 24.24 | 68.35 | 7.41 | 22.81 | 68.49 | 8.7 |
| 2026 | 16.99 | 67.52 | 15.49 | 23.82 | 68.57 | 7.61 | 22.76 | 68.31 | 8.92 |
| 2027 | 16.9 | 66.97 | 16.14 | 23.41 | 68.78 | 7.82 | 22.72 | 68.13 | 9.15 |
| 2028 | 16.79 | 66.4 | 16.8 | 23 | 68.98 | 8.02 | 22.67 | 67.95 | 9.38 |
| 2029 | 16.69 | 65.82 | 17.5 | 22.59 | 69.18 | 8.24 | 22.62 | 67.76 | 9.61 |
| 2030 | 16.58 | 65.21 | 18.21 | 22.19 | 69.36 | 8.45 | 22.57 | 67.57 | 9.85 |
| 2031 | 16.47 | 64.59 | 18.95 | 21.79 | 69.54 | 8.67 | 22.52 | 67.38 | 10.1 |
| 2032 | 16.34 | 63.95 | 19.7 | 21.39 | 69.71 | 8.9 | 22.47 | 67.18 | 10.35 |
| 2033 | 16.22 | 63.3 | 20.49 | 21 | 69.87 | 9.13 | 22.41 | 66.98 | 10.61 |
| 2034 | 16.08 | 62.63 | 21.29 | 20.62 | 70.02 | 9.36 | 22.35 | 66.78 | 10.87 |
Detailed information refers to S217–S225 Figs.
Fig 10Proportions of middle-aged people (aged 15–64) and Future Trend of China, India, and Vietnam from 1960 to 2030.
Fig 12Proportion of Old People (aged older than 65) and Future Trend of China, India, and Vietnam from 1960 to 2030.
Fig 11Proportion of Young People (aged 0–14) and Future Trend of China, India, and Vietnam from 1960 to 2030.