Southwestern Utah Population and Economy: A Five County View

Transcription

1 Southwestern Population and Economy: A Five County View Southern Planning Authorities Council Cedar City, June 5, 28 Pamela S. Perlich, Ph.D. Senior Research Economist Bureau of Economic & Business Research University of 1

2 Funding Partners of the Southwestern Economic Consortium Dixie State College of Southern University Washington County Economic Development Council Washington County School District Dixie Applied Technology College Five-County Association of Governments School and Institutional Lands and Administration Science Technology and Research Initiative State Board of Regents, System of Higher Education Governor s Office of Economic Development Perlich, BEBR, U of U BEBR Research Team Report prepared under the general direction of Jan E. Crispin and James A. Wood Executive Summary Jan E. Crispin Demographics Pamela S. Perlich Economics (Employment, Income, Occupation, etc.), Agriculture, Higher Education, Retail Sales, Tourism, Broader Regional Ties, Government Finances, Projections John C. Downen Real Estate and Construction James A. Wood Editing, Original Cartography, Document Production John C. Downen Perlich, BEBR, U of U 2

3 Today s Presentation Growth in national context Components of population change Gross migration flows Age and sex composition Contextualize county characteristics with each county s economic context General discussion of future(s) Perlich, BEBR, U of U U.S. Population by Region: About 2/3 of the national growth from 19 to 2 occurred in the South and West. Nearly 9% of the national growth from 2 to 23 is projected to occur in the South and West. Millions of Persons South West Midwest Northeast Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2; 25. 3

4 Population in the Intermountain West: Millions of Persons Arizona and Colorado generated over half (53%) of of growth of the Mountain Division in the 2 th century. Between 2 and 23, the populations of Arizona and Nevada are projected to double. Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Idaho Montana Wyoming Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2; 25. Population in Southwestern Counties: , 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington 3, 2, 1, Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2. 4

5 Population in Southwestern Counties: , 25, 2, 15, Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington 1, 5, Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2; and GOPB 28 baseline. Population in Smallest Southwestern Counties: , 6, Beaver Garfield Kane 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2. 5

6 Population in Smallest Southwestern Counties: , 9, 8, 7, Beaver Garfield Kane 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995; 2; and 28 GOPB Baseline. Washington County Population: Since 199: 14,98 14, Average Growth Rate = 6.3% 5.2% 6% 12, Added 92, 1/1 of state growth. 5% 1, 4% Population 8, 6, 4, 1.7% County Share of the State Population 3% 2% Share of State 2, 9,2 1% % Source: BEBR analysis of data from the Population Estimates Committee. 6

7 Iron County Population: , 45, 4, Since 199: Average Growth Rate = 4.5% 44,813 2.% 1.9% 1.8% 35, Added 23,93 1.7% Population 3, 25, 2, 1.5% County Share of the State Population 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% Share of State 15, 1.3% 1, 1.2% 5, 8, % 1.% Source: BEBR analysis of data from the Population Estimates Committee. Beaver County Population: , 6,.9% Since 199: Average Growth Rate = 1.7% Added 1,684 6,466 1.%.9%.8% 5,.7% Population 4, 3, 4,9.6%.5%.4% Share of State 2, County Share of the State 1, Population %.3%.2%.1%.% Source: BEBR analysis of data from the Population Estimates Committee. 7

8 Garfield County Population: , 1.% Since 199: 1.% 5, 5,3 Average Growth Rate = 1.1% Added 92 4,872.9%.8% Population 4, 3, 2,.7%.6%.5%.4%.3% Share of State 1, County Share of the State Population %.2%.1%.% Source: BEBR analysis of data from the Population Estimates Committee. Kane County Population: , 6,.5% Since 199: Average Growth Rate = 1.2% Added 1,29 6,44.6%.5% 5,.4% Population 4, 3, 2, 2,6.2%.3%.2% Share of State 1, County Share of the State Population.1% % Source: BEBR analysis of data from the Population Estimates Committee. 8

9 : Components of Population Change , Baby Boom Peak: 1962 Echo Peak: , 25, 15, 5, -5, -15, -25, Net In-Migration Natural Increase Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Washington County: Components of Population Change: , 8, 7, 6, 5, Since 197: Net In-Migration is nearly 1, or 78% of growth Census 2: 1/3 of population moved in since 1995 (½ from in-state, ½ out-of-state). 4, 3, 2, 1, Net In-Migration Natural Increase (1,) Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Note: 2 data = Share of population at least 5 years old, living in county in 2, and moved to the county since

10 Iron County: Components of Population Change : , 1,5 1, Since 197: Net In-Migration is nearly 16,763 or 52% of growth Census 2: 35% of population moved in since 1995 (49% from in-state). 5 (5) (1,) Net In-Migration Natural Increase Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Note: 2 data = Share of population at least 5 years old, living in county in 2, and moved to the county since Beaver County: Components of Population Change : Since 197: Net In-Migration is nearly 597 or 23% of growth Census 2: 1/4 of population moved in since 1995 (53% from in-state) Net In-Migration Natural Increase Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Note: 2 data = Share of population at least 5 years old, living in county in 2, and moved to the county since

11 Garfield County: Components of Population Change : Since 197: Net In-Migration is nearly 179 or 1% of growth Census 2: 23% of population moved in since 1995 (54% from in-state). (1) (2) Net In-Migration Natural Increase (3) Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Note: 2 data = Share of population at least 5 years old, living in county in 2, and moved to the county since Kane County: Components of Population Change : Since 197: Net In-Migration is nearly 2,27 or 55% of growth Census 2: 31% of population moved in since 1995 (38% from in-state). 2 1 (1) (2) (3) Net In-Migration Natural Increase Sources: Population Estimates Committee, revised 12/27. Note: 2 data = Share of population at least 5 years old, living in county in 2, and moved to the county since

12 Washington County Migration: State to/from County Flows 15, 1, Net Migration about zero from these two states: AZ, NV 5, (5,) (1,) Gross In California Nevada Arizona Idaho Nevada Arizona California Idaho Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. California Washington Wyoming Montana Net Washington County Migration: County to/from County Flows 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, (1,) (2,) (3,) Gross In Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Salt Lake Davis Iron Weber Salt Lake Iron Davis Cache Salt Lake Davis Weber Sevier Gross Out No significant net out-migration flows to any county in Net 12

13 Iron County Migration: State to/from County Flows 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, (1,) (2,) (3,) (4,) Persons who left Iron county between 1995 and 2 went elsewhere in, California, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, and Oregon Only Oregon and Missouri had NET out Gross In California Nevada Arizona Idaho California Nevada Arizona Missouri Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Nevada California Arizona Idaho Net Iron County Migration: County to/from County Flows 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 (5) (1,) (1,5) Gross In Salt Lake Washington Davis Millard Washington Salt Lake Cache Beaver Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Net Out to Washington County Salt Lake Davis Millard Sevier Net 13

14 Beaver County Migration: State to/from County Flows Net In: UT, CA Net Out: Nevada (2) (4) (6) Gross In California Nevada Texas Washington Nevada California Arizona Iowa Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. California Texas Idaho Colorado Net Beaver County Migration: County to/from County Flows (5) (1) (15) Salt Lake Iron Millard Cache Gross In Iron Salt Lake Tooele Washington Sevier Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Net Out: Washington County Salt Lake Millard Cache Weber Net 14

15 Garfield County Migration: State to/from County Flows Net In from other states Net = zero in (2) (4) (6) Nevada Colorado Montana Arizona Gross In California Nevada Idaho New York Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Colorado Nevada Montana Wyoming Net Texas Garfield County Migration: County to/from County Flows (5) (1) (15) (2) Salt Lake Iron Washington Grand Gross In Iron Salt Lake Washington Sevier Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Grand Wasatch Uintah Emery Net 15

16 (2) (4) (6) (8) (1,) Kane County Migration: State to/from County Flows Arizona California Colorado In 2, About 1/3 of residents had moved in since 1995, a proportion more similar to Washington and Iron Counties. Net Out to elsewhere in Net In from outside of Nevada Arizona Nevada California Montana Gross In Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. California Arizona Colorado New Mexico Pennsylvania Net Kane County Migration: County to/from County Flows (5) (1) (15) (2) (25) (3) Salt Lake Washington Iron Cache Davis Gross In Washington Iron Salt Lake Cache Gross Out Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, County-to-County Migration File. Net Out to Iron, Washington, and Counties Salt Lake Wasatch Duchesne Davis Cache Net 16

17 Age Composition - Summary Beaver and Garfield: Classic Rural Iron: College Age Population Washington: Post WWII Baby Boom and Retirement Age Kane: Combination of Classic Rural and Retirees Perlich, BEBR, U of U Washington County: Age & Sex (2) <5 Male Female Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2. 5, 2,5 2,5 5, 17

18 State of : Age & Sex (2) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Male Female <5 15, 5, 5, 15, Iron County: Age & Sex (2) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Male Female <5 2,5 1,25 1,25 2,5 18

19 Beaver County: Age & Sex (2) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Male Female < Garfield County: Age & Sex (2) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2, Male Female <

20 Kane County: Age & Sex (2) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2, Male Female < Age & Sex Distributions x Ethnicity (2) Hispanic Not Hispanic <5 15, 5, 5, 15, Male Female <5 12, 6, 6, 12, Male Female Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2, 5% PUMS. 2

21 Washington County: Age & Sex Distributions x Ethnicity (2) Hispanic White, Not Hispanic < Male Female <5 5, 5, Male Female Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2, 5% PUMS. Share of Households with Individuals at Least 65 Years Old (2) 35% 3% 25% 28.5% 28.6% 31.2% 32.6% 2% 18.6% 18.6% 15% 1% 5% % Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington State Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, DP-1. 21

22 Share of Households with Retirement Income (2) 3% 25% 21.5% 23.2% 25.1% 2% 15% 15.3% 15.9% 15.7% 1% 5% % Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington State Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, DP-3. Share of Households with Social Security Income (2) 4% 35% 3% 31.7% 32.4% 34.% 35.9% 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% 21.3% 2.6% % Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington State Sources: Bureau of the Census, Census 2, DP-3. 22

23 Employment Shares: Beaver County 1982 and 2 25% 24.% % 15% 17.6% 18.1% 19.3% 16.6% 17.8% 14.3% 18.5% 1% 5%.7% 1.6% 2.8% 5.% 2.3% 3.6% 1.4% 6.3% 1.2% 3.1% 4.2% 1.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.% 2.% 1.2% % Farm Employment Ag. Services Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Wholesale trade Retail trade FIRE Services Federal, civilian Military State government Local government Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 11. Location Quotients Top 6 Beaver County Employment: Agriculture Local government TCPU State and local Retail trade Mining Mining Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 23

24 Location Quotients Top 5 Excl. Agriculture Beaver County Employment: Local government TCPU State and local Retail trade Mining Mining Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. Employment Shares: Garfield County 1982 and 2 4% 37.1% % 3% 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% % Farm Employment 13.9% 11.8% Ag. Services 11.8% 3.5% 4.% 12.% Mining Construction Manufacturing 5.3% 3.% 5.1% TCPU Wholesale trade 11.4% Retail trade 11.9% 2.9% 3.4% 19.1% 5.5% 5.5% 1.3%.8% 2.9% 2.1% 12.2% FIRE Services Federal, civilian Military State government Local government 1.6% Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 24

25 Location Quotients Top 5 Garfield County Employment: Agriculture Federal, civilian Local government State and local Services Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. Employment Shares: Iron County 1982 and 2 3% 28.1% % 23.8% 2% 17.9% 18.4% 15% 1% 5% 7.3% 3.1% 1.4% 2.5% 5.9% 6.9% 5.6% 9.1% 4.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 7.5% 8.7% 3.% 1.6% 1.5%.9% 8.4% 9.3% 8.1% 8.4% % Farm Employment Ag. Services Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Wholesale trade Retail trade FIRE Services Federal, civilian Military State government Local government Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 25

26 Location Quotients Top 6 Iron County Employment: State government Agriculture 3.5 Construction Retail trade Local government 3. Federal, civilian Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. Employment Shares: Kane County 1982 and 2 3% 25% 24.6% 21.% 25.6% 26.9% % 15% 13.6% 1% 5% 9.8% 4.7% 2.8% 4.1% 4.7% 6.7% 2.8% 1.6% 1.1% 3.4% 7.2% 1.9% 2.9% 1.7%.8% 3.3% 1.6% 9.5% % Farm Employment Ag. Services Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Wholesale trade Retail trade FIRE Services Federal, civilian Military State government Local government Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 26

27 Location Quotients Top 7 Kane County Employment: Agriculture Local government Retail trade Services Federal, civilian Construction Ag. Services 3. Ag. Services Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. Employment Shares: Washington County 1982 and 2 35% 3% 25% 23.4% 23.1% 23.9% 28.9% % 15% 1% 5% % Farm Employment 4.5% 1.1% 1.8% Ag. Services 1.2%.7%.5% 6.2% 11.4% 6.8% Mining Construction Manufacturing 5.6% 3.7% 4.3% 3.2% 2.5% TCPU Wholesale trade Retail trade 9.6% 1.7% 1.8% FIRE Services Federal, civilian 1.1% 1.9% 1.% 3.5% 1.6% 9.1% Military State government Local government 7.1% Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. 27

28 Location Quotients Top 5 Washington County Employment: Construction 3. Retail trade FIRE Ag. Services 2.5 Local government Source: BEBR computation from BEA data. Economic Summary Beaver agriculture, government Iron SUU, culture, tourism, trade center Garfield agriculture and tourism Kane retirees, tourism, agriculture Washington retirees and trade center Perlich, BEBR, U of U 28

29 Thank You The Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of appreciates the opportunity to have done this research for you. Perlich, BEBR, U of U Contact Information Pamela S. Perlich, Ph.D. Senior Research Economist Pam.Perlich@utah.edu Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of 1645 East Campus Center Drive, Room 41 Salt Lake City, Perlich, BEBR, U of U 29