Japan’s latest population census, released on 29 May 2026, does not tell one simple story.

That would have been convenient, naturally, so we were never going to get it.

The easy headline is that Japan is shrinking. Between the readjusted 2020 census figure and the preliminary 2025 count, Japan’s population fell from 126,146,099 to 123,049,524. That is a loss of 3,096,575 people in five years, or a decline of about 2.45%.

That is the national story.

But it is not the useful story.

The more useful story is that Japan is shrinking, concentrating, aging, fragmenting into smaller households, and growing selectively in very specific places. Some urban wards are adding people quickly. Some suburbs are growing faster than famous core cities. Some prefectures that still feel economically strong are no longer growing overall. Some resort towns are losing full-time residents but gaining households. And many rural or regional municipalities are continuing to decline at a speed that should make vague investment plans sweat through their shirts.

The real question is not “Is Japan growing or shrinking?”

The real question is: which Japan?

The national picture: fewer people, more households

The national numbers are clear enough.

Japan’s population dropped by just over 3.09 million people between 2020 and 2025, from 126.15 million to 123.05 million. That is a decline of 2.45%.

But over the same period, the number of households increased.

Japan had 55,830,154 households in 2020. By 2025, that number had risen to 57,124,507. That is an increase of 1,294,353 households, or about 2.32%.

This is one of the most important points in the entire census.

A country can lose population and still create housing demand.

That sounds contradictory, but it makes sense when we look at household structure. Japan is seeing more single-person households, more elderly households, smaller families, delayed marriage, divorce, students and workers living separately, and foreign residents forming households of their own.

For property, business, and relocation decisions – our forte at Nippon Tradings International (NTI) and Nippon Bridge – total population is not enough. Household growth often matters more. A city losing people but gaining households may still need apartments, services, clinics, supermarkets, renovation, cleaning, delivery, and rental housing. A city losing both people and households is a very different creature.

Prefectures: growth has narrowed sharply

At the prefecture level, the story has become much more selective.

Only two prefectures grew between 2020 and 2025: Tokyo and Okinawa.

Tokyo increased from 14,047,598 to 14,246,219, adding 198,621 people. That is growth of 1.41%.

Okinawa barely grew, but technically stayed positive: from 1,467,480 to 1,468,220, an increase of just 740 people, or 0.05%.

That is it.

Every other prefecture declined.

This is where the post-COVID census becomes especially interesting. Several prefectures that still look strong economically no longer grew overall. Chiba declined by 25,968 people. Kanagawa declined by 43,676. Saitama declined by 57,596. Osaka declined by 73,107. Fukuoka declined by 53,335. Aichi declined by 93,012.

None of these places should be casually dismissed. That would be a lazy conclusion. But the numbers show that growth is no longer broad enough to lift whole prefectures.

Instead, it is concentrating inside them.

This is especially clear when we compare population and household figures.

Osaka Prefecture lost 73,107 people, yet gained 171,879 households. Saitama lost 57,596 people, yet gained 123,135 households. Chiba lost 25,968 people, yet gained 102,083 households. Fukuoka lost 53,335 people, yet gained 77,728 households. Aichi lost 93,012 people, yet gained 111,889 households.

So the useful question is not whether a prefecture is growing.

It is where inside that prefecture people are forming households, moving into apartments, raising families, working, studying, retiring, or living alone with a degree of peace that apparently remains attractive.

Tokyo: still central, but not evenly

Tokyo remains the strongest demographic engine in Japan.

Tokyo Prefecture added 198,621 people between 2020 and 2025. The 23-ward area alone grew from 9,733,276 to 9,953,160, an increase of 219,884 people, or 2.26%.

That means the 23 wards added more people than Tokyo Prefecture overall, while other parts of Tokyo balanced some of that growth in the opposite direction.

Within the wards, the growth was not evenly spread.

Koto Ward added 29,048 people, growing 5.54%. Taito Ward added 16,946 people, growing 8.01%. Chuo Ward added 12,739 people, growing 7.53%. Sumida Ward added 13,118 people, growing 4.82%. Minato Ward added 12,176 people, growing 4.67%.

These are not tiny movements. They show strong continued demand for central and inner-urban Tokyo, especially in areas with redevelopment, transport access, apartment supply, and proximity to jobs and services.

But Tokyo is not simply “growing everywhere.” Some areas are stronger than others, and household growth is often even more dramatic than population growth. Koto Ward’s population rose 5.54%, but its households rose 12.48%. Taito Ward’s population rose 8.01%, while households rose 15.49%.

That tells us something important: central urban demand is not only about families or total headcount. It is also about smaller households, singles, couples, workers, students, and people living closer to employment and services.

Tokyo is not dead after COVID.

Very inconsiderate of all the “urban exodus” headlines, but there we are.

Major cities: winners, losers, and awkward surprises

The census also shows that Japan’s major cities are moving in different directions.

Osaka City grew from 2,752,412 to 2,808,624, adding 56,212 people, or 2.04%. Its households grew even faster, rising by 116,296, or 7.91%.

Fukuoka City grew from 1,612,392 to 1,663,892, adding 51,500 people, or 3.19%. Its households rose by 52,250, or 6.29%.

Nagoya City grew more modestly, from 2,332,176 to 2,345,892, adding 13,716 people, or 0.59%. But households increased by 59,568, or 5.31%.

Kawasaki grew by 22,870 people, or 1.49%. Saitama City grew by 20,991, or 1.59%. Chiba City grew by 20,019, or 2.05%.

These cities remain important because they are not just population centers. They are employment centers, transport centers, education centers, healthcare centers, and service markets.

But then the data becomes less flattering.

Yokohama, Japan’s largest municipality by population, declined from 3,777,491 to 3,754,840, losing 22,651 people. Yet its households still increased by 39,648.

Kobe lost 27,522 people, a decline of 1.80%, while households rose by 31,429. Kyoto City lost 32,010 people, a decline of 2.19%, while households rose by 24,908.

Kitakyushu is a sharper warning sign. It lost 34,740 people, declining 3.70%, and households rose by only 1,591, or 0.36%. That is a very different profile from a city like Fukuoka, where both population and households grew strongly.

This is the point investors, business owners, and relocation clients need to absorb: famous city names are not enough.

“Yokohama” is not a strategy. “Kyoto” is not a strategy. “Fukuoka” is not a strategy. Even “Tokyo” is not a strategy (though Tokyo will pretend otherwise because Tokyo has always had that attitude).

The numbers need to be read locally.

Osaka, Nagoya, and Fukuoka: the ward-level story

The most useful detail is often inside the city, at ward level.

Osaka City grew overall, but some wards grew dramatically. Naniwa Ward grew by 15.77%, adding 11,905 people. Chuo Ward grew by 15.06%, adding 15,624 people. Nishi Ward grew by 9.06%. Kita Ward grew by 7.35%. Tennoji Ward grew by 6.86%.

That points to strong central apartment demand, redevelopment, single-person households, and urban convenience.

But Osaka’s Hirano Ward declined by 9,493 people, or 4.94%. So even inside a growing city, not all districts are participating equally.

Nagoya shows the same pattern. The city overall grew only 0.59%, but Naka Ward grew by 15.59%, adding 14,514 people. Higashi Ward grew by 7.35%. Nakamura Ward grew by 5.23%. Meanwhile, Minato Ward declined by 10,960 people, or 7.63%.

So Nagoya is not simply “flat.” Its center is growing, while some outer or more industrial areas are losing people.

Fukuoka City is another strong example of internal growth. Higashi Ward added 17,232 people, growing 5.34%. Hakata Ward added 12,186, growing 4.84%. Chuo Ward added 10,867, growing 5.29%.

At the same time, nearby Kitakyushu is declining, and some of its wards are weakening significantly. Moji Ward lost 6,493 people, declining 6.92%. Yahatanishi Ward lost 7,483 people, declining 2.99%.

Same prefecture. Very different stories.

This is why “Fukuoka Prefecture” is too broad a category to be useful. Fukuoka City and Kitakyushu are not moving the same way.

Suburbs and specialist cities: the quiet winners

Some of the most important growth is not in the most famous places.

Tsukuba City in Ibaraki grew from 241,656 to 268,991. That is an increase of 27,335 people, or 11.31%. Its households rose 13.21%.

Nagareyama City in Chiba grew by 15,281 people, or 7.65%, while households rose 9.28%. Inzai City grew by 7,791 people, or 7.59%, while households rose 9.37%.

These are not random accidents. They reflect the practical side of post-COVID life: space, access, family housing, schools, parks, research or employment bases, and transport links to larger urban economies.

Other examples show similar patterns.

Asaka City in Saitama grew 4.27%, with households up 8.69%. Ebina City in Kanagawa grew 3.77%, with households up 5.93%. Yamato City grew 2.97%, with households up 6.36%.

Around Nagoya, Nagakute grew 5.36%, and Nisshin grew 3.52%. In Shiga, Kusatsu grew 3.35%. In Kumamoto, Koshi grew 4.16%.

Kumamoto’s Ozu Town is especially interesting: population rose 4.98%, while households jumped 16.69%. That kind of gap often points to employment-linked movement, new housing formation, or development pressure. It deserves closer local analysis rather than a lazy “regional Japan is dying” label.

These places are not all the same, but they share one lesson: the post-COVID map rewards specific local demand.

Some demand is family-driven. Some is job-driven. Some is research- or industry-linked. Some is suburban lifestyle demand. Some is connected to new infrastructure or corporate investment.

The point is that people are not randomly scattering across Japan – they are moving toward places with reasons to live.

Resort and lifestyle areas: resident population is only part of the picture

Resort and lifestyle areas need a slightly different reading.

Resident population matters, but it is not the whole story. A place can lose full-time residents while gaining households, second-home owners, seasonal users, remote workers, or tourism-linked demand.

Niseko Town in Hokkaido grew from 5,074 to 5,370, an increase of 296 people, or 5.83%. Its households increased by 15.27%.

Nearby Kutchan declined by 366 people, or 2.42%, but households increased by 5.07%.

Hakuba Village in Nagano declined by 184 people, or 2.15%, but households rose by 6.98%.

Fujikawaguchiko grew by 415 people, or 1.59%, while households rose by 9.33%.

Miyota Town in Nagano grew by 1,000 people, or 6.43%, with households up 14.62%. Nearby Karuizawa, however, declined by 723 people, or 3.77%, and households also fell slightly.

This is exactly why resort analysis needs more than one number.

A ski town, hot spring town, lake town, or holiday-home market may not behave like a normal residential rental market. Full-time population, household count, second-home demand,