New Geography

Author: Ron McChesney and Greg Overberg

  • Is Negative Population Growth Upon Us? Deaths Exceed Births in One Third of U.S. Counties

    Population change has short run and long run effects. Short run effects include changes in fertility rates that can result from economic fluctuations. For example, during a recession, couples may delay having children until economic conditions improve.  Once job growth has begun and expectations rise, birthrates can increase The correlation is not perfect and other demographic factors could come into play.   

    Yet it seems increasingly true that for a rapidly increasing portion of the American landscape, deaths will routinely exceed births. Indeed, total births in the USA peaked at 4,316,000 in 2007, before dropping in the last four years. Recently released provisional birth data by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) show that births in 2011 are preliminarily estimated to be 3,961,000, the lowest figure since 1999. Reviewing the data month by month, we seem to be experiencing continued downward momentum this year. With deaths hitting an all time high of 2,507,000 in 2011, the natural rate of increase for 2011 looks to have dropped to .0047 percent (slightly less than half a percent per year).

    With the expectation that the world’s population will stabilize mid-century, eventually every country’s population – with few exceptions in Africa and elsewhere – will stop increasing. Deaths will exceed births in most countries, and future growth may become more a function of shifting migration patterns. 

    This reality can already be seen in parts of the United States. In one third of the 3,141 counties deaths now exceed births. In the next nine years, the number of counties in this category will expand, which could result in a markedly lower population count in the 2020 census. In contrast, a number of counties continue to experience significant natural rate of increase, and a handful of places experience the triad of dynamic change: births exceeding deaths, immigration, and positive net migration from other parts of the USA.

    The Census recently released population estimates for America’s 3,141 counties.  We can compare the estimates of July 1, 2011 with those of July 1, 2010, by visualizing a series of maps.

    Map Figure One: Estimated Population by County as of July 1, 2011

    The first map shows the distribution of population by county: revealing concentrations in the coastal areas, and lower population in the central regions. Los Angeles County, California had the most persons:9,889,056 persons; Kalawao County, Hawaii had the fewest: 90 persons.

    Map Figure Two: Estimated Absolute Change in Population from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The second map shows the pattern of population change during one year.  A total of 1,494 counties lost population, or about 47% of America’s 3,143 counties. This number is an increase from the change from 2000-2010, where 1,103 counties lost population. As one third of counties are experiencing greater deaths than births, another twelve percent are experiencing losses due to net migration. The county that gained the most people from 2010 to 2011 was Harris County, Texas (Houston), which added 71,532 persons.  The county that lost the most people was Wayne County, Michigan (Detroit), with a decline of 13,150 persons.

    Map Figure Three: Estimated Relative Change in Population from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The third map shows relative population change in the United States. This reveals  quite a varied landscape. Western North Dakota, experiencing rapid growth of its energy sector, is experiencing fast population growth, along with metropolitan counties in Texas, Colorado, North Carolina and Florida. The county with the fastest population growth is Loving County, Texas, in the rural and isolated West Texas panhandle,  with a 13.25% growth rate resulting from the population increasing from 83 to 94 persons.  The county with the fastest shrinking population is Roberts County, Texas, in the equally rural and isolated North Texas panhandle with a decline of -11.69%.  Counties with very small populations can be subject to rapid change due to the effects of migration.

    Map Figure Four: Estimated Relative Births minus Deaths (Natural Rate of Absolute Population Change) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The fourth map shows the landscape of births minus deaths, or natural change, without the effects of migration. In 2011, one third of counties, or 1,041 out of 3,143 have deaths exceeding births. At the same time, counties with positive natural change, or births exceeding deaths, are concentrated, with half of all net natural change occurring in only 61 counties. The county with the highest level of natural change is Los Angeles County, with a 74,813 natural increase. The county with the highest negative level is Pinellas, Florida (Tampa- St. Petersburg area), with a decrease of 3,037 persons.

    Map Figure Five: Estimated Relative Births minus Deaths (Natural Rate of Relative Population Growth) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The fifth map show relative natural rate of population change, and the extensive area of slow and negative natural population decrease.  Most of the Appalachian counties have deaths exceeding births, along with extensive areas in the Great Plains states and at least parts of all 48 lower states. Only Alaska and Hawaii have positive natural increase across all of their respective counties. The fastest growing natural population is in Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska, growing at a rapid 2.53% per year.

    Despite this expansive landscape of 1,041 counties that now have deaths exceeding births, and hundreds of counties approaching this status, there are 162 counties that exceed 1% growth per year, or are growing at about the global average rate. On the other hand, only 11 counties are declining faster than 1% a year, indicating that most of the impact is gradual.

    Map Figure Six: Estimated Domestic Migration from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The sixth map shows domestic migration, or net moves from one county to another. The top 159 counties received a net of 1,000 domestic migrants or more, and these areas include Florida, the Front Range Counties of Colorado, and the major metropolitan counties of Texas.  Overall, 1,229 counties had positive domestic migration, while 1,914 counties had negative domestic migration. Hillsborough, Florida (Tampa area), had the highest positive migration with 22,963 net movers, while Los Angeles County, California had the greatest number of net leavers with a total of 55,146 net departing residents.

    Map Figure Seven: Estimated International Migration from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The seventh map shows the coastal pattern of international migration.  International migration is most visible in California, Arizona and Nevada, and in a number of metropolitan areas including the Northeast and the Chicago area.  One-hundred and thirty- two counties experienced more than 1,000 immigrant arrivals, and these counties received 74 percent of immigrants, indicating that immigration is concentrated. On the other hand, immigration is also widespread, as all but 520 counties received one or more immigrants during the year.

    The top county for international immigration was Los Angeles, California, with a total of 42,413 immigrants.  The next four counties were Miami-Dade, Florida, with 19,996; Harris, Texas (Houston), with 19,558, Cook, Illinois (Chicago) with 17,208 and Queens, New York with 15,949 immigrants.

    Map Figure Eight: Estimated Net Migration (Combined International and Domestic) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The eighth and final map shows the combined effect of domestic and international migration.  Net migration is positive in areas of the Southwest, Texas metropolitan areas and most of Florida. A total of 1,403 counties had positive net migration, while 1,740 counties experienced negative net migration. The top county in America for positive net migration was Miami-Dade county in Florida, with a net migration of 38,382 persons. The county with the highest negative net migration was Wayne County, Michigan, with a net migration rate of -19,580 persons.

    Today one third of United States Counties appear to have entered the stage of zero population and perhaps even negative population growth, but only 31.4 million people or ten percent of the American population lives in these mostly rural counties. Given our concentration in metropolitan areas, the expansion to an ever larger group of counties might continue all the way up to about eightly percent of our land area, before the momentum of this effect manifests into the major population clusters. Fertility rates by race and Hispanic origin of the mother may play a role, but it should be noted that the Hispanic fertility rate has dropped from 2.53 in 2009 to 2.35 in 2010, and may have further declined in 2011. The impact of reduced immigration might also play a role in depressing population growth.

    The first estimate of county population change, the period from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011, shows a mixed picture of dynamic activity; there are a set of counties still experiencing robust population growth, but a third and perhaps increasing number of counties undergoing negative natural population growth.  These changes can be compared with 2012 county estimates in a year from now, and we can look for the diffusion process associated with population slowdown to continue. We will update our maps as further information becomes available.

    Ron McChesney is a Geographer with Three Scale Strategy and Research in Columbus, Ohio. Ron received a PhD in Geography at The Ohio State University in 2008.

    Greg Overberg is a City and Regional Planner with Three Scale Strategy and Research in Columbus Ohio.  Greg received a MA in City and Regional Planning at The Ohio State University in 2011.

    Sources:

    Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 2012: Provisional monthly and 12-month ending number of live
    births, deaths, and infant deaths and rates: United States, January 2010 – December 2011. Provisional
    data from the National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics.

    Statistical Abstact of the United States, 2011. Table 78. Live Births, Deaths, Marriages and Divorces.

     US Census Bureau, 2011 County Total Population Estimates:
    Web Site:  http://www.census.gov/popest/
    Accessed April 30, 2012

    US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census by County:
    Web  Site: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/county/county2010.html
    Accessed April 30, 2012

  • Is The United States Population Heading to Long-term Deceleration?

    It’s been clear since the census 2011 estimates were released on December 21, 2011, that we are experiencing something of a demographic change, at least in the short run. Clearly growth is slowing down in part, many believe, due to economic reasons, as was the case during the 1930s as well as the 1970s.

    But there may be a series of other of causes of recent population change which suggest it is quite possible the United States population is simply heading towards zero population growth far quicker than the Census had previously estimated. One key reason may be the slowdown in immigration. Whatever the cause, if these patterns are not reversed, we could start observing European like slow rates of population growth spreading in the next couple of decades.

    The 2011 numbers estimated 4,008,000 total births in the United States, while a just released report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows a provisional estimate of 3,978,000 births from June, 2010 to June, 2011—the first time this number has been under four million since 1999. This   certainly may be attributed to the effects of the economic recession, but may be part of much larger demographic trends — such as falling fertility rates of Hispanic women — that eclipse economic fluctuations.

    Here is a series of maps that highlight recent population changes for the 50 states. The District of Columbia is too small to be seen at this scale, but DC did have the fastest population growth rate from 2010 to 2011, at 2.16%.  There are a variety of ways to present the same data, classifying and color coding, but it is always good to look at total numbers, and both absolute and relative change.

    Map Figure One: Estimated Population by State as of July 1, 2011

    The United States now has a population of about 311 million persons, and four states (California, Texas, New York and Florida) exceed fifteen million persons.  Combined, these top four states combined have 101.9 million people.

    Map Figure Two: Estimated Absolute Change in Population from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The second map shows the absolute change in population from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 in six categories. Only one state, Michigan, lost population, but fourteen states added less than ten thousand persons. A total of twenty seven states added fewer than 25,000 persons. Four states added over 100,000 persons; Florida added 218,929 persons, while Georgia added 103,053 persons.  California, although its population growth is slowing down, added 353,714 persons. Texas grew by the most people—421,215 persons—a rate that, if maintained, might result in the state surpassing 30 million people in the 2020 census.  It still has a long way to go to catch up with California, which in 2011 has an estimated population of 37,691,912.

    Map Figure Three: Estimated Relative Change in Population from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The third map shows relative percentage change. Although Michigan remains the only state to shrink, thirteen states are now growing less than a third of a percent a year, similar to many European Countries with very slow population growth. Overall, the United States population increased by 0.73 percent—a noticeable difference from 1970 through the 2000s, when population was consistently growing at about one percent per year. The highest rate of growth was Texas at 1.67 percent. Texas in 2011 is similar to Arizona and Nevada a few years back—states with both high absolute and relative population growth, and both positive domestic migration from other states and international migration from around the world. Texas is, for now, the most dynamic place for demographic change.

    Map Figure Four: Estimated Relative Births minus Deaths (Natural Rate of Absolute Population Change) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The natural rate of population growth (births minus deaths), was estimated at 1,557,874 persons from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. A third of this growth occurred in two states, California and Texas, and Texas had the highest natural rate of absolute growth at 274,024 persons compared with 230,798 for California.

    West Virginia is the first state to record more deaths than births, but a number of states are only a few years away from attaining this status that occurs at the end of the demographic transition process. In Ohio   the natural rate of population growth is higher than the total rate, due to negative net migration, suggesting it is one of a number of states that could have modest population increase if it could cease losing people to other places.

    Map Figure Five: Estimated Relative Births minus Deaths (Natural Rate of Relative Population Growth) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The fifth map shows what appears to be an East-West split.  In the eastern thirty-one states, with the exception of Georgia, states have a natural rate of growth that is similar to other parts of the world with slowing or negative populations, including most of Europe, Russia, and East Asia. On the other hand, twelve out of nineteen western states have a natural rate of population growth exceeding 0.6 percent.

    The highest rate of natural growth is in Utah, with an annual change of 1.36 percent, similar to the current population growth rate of India. Alaska also has a natural rate of increase above one percent, at 1.1 percent, and Texas, at 0.91 percent, has a similar rate of natural increase as the United States had for total population growth rate only a few years ago.  The overall natural rate of increase for the United State is 0.5 percent per year, similar to China and France.

    Map Figure Six: Estimated International Migration from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The sixth map shows that every state had international migration during 2010-2011.  Most states number in the thousands, but five states, California, Texas, Florida, New York and New Jersey, have over thirty thousand migrants arriving.

    Map Figure Seven: Estimated Domestic Migration from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    In contrast to the map of international migration, the seventh map shows domestic migration; the net effect of millions of Americans moving to different states during the course of a year.  Twenty-four states show negative domestic migration, including all of the Midwest states except North and South Dakota.  Texas and Florida experience both strong international and domestic migration, while California, New York and New Jersey have negative domestic migration and positive international migration.

    Map Figure Eight: Estimated Net Migration (Combined International and Domestic) from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011

    The eighth and final map shows the effects of net migration. States along the West Coast, the State of Texas, and the South Atlantic Region have all experienced net positive migration.  A band of states mostly in the Midwest and Northeast have negative net migration, as their residents leave for other places.  Migration patterns have been occurring for a long time, but what will be new is how migration occurs in the face of slowing overall natural rates of population change.

    These numbers are, of course, just one year and it is entirely possible that growth will rise as the economy improves and as the current large millennial generation enters their prime child bearing years. But if the current one-year trend becomes a longer term phenomena, we could see a possible leveling off of population much sooner and at a lower rate than forecasted, say around 360 million by mid-century instead of 478 million by the year 2100 as forecast by the United Nations Population Division. These, will have implications for government fiscal policy, and will generate debate about government policy in encouraging births as we observe in Europe, Russia and Japan.  Population growth has been a relative advantage for the United States and remains so, but we may have to consider whether this trend is inexorable.

    Ron McChesney is a Geographer with Three Scale Strategy and Research in Columbus, Ohio. Ron received a PhD in Geography at The Ohio State University in 2008.

    Greg Overberg is a City and Regional Planner with Three Scale Strategy and Research in Columbus Ohio.  Greg received a MA in City and Regional Planning at The Ohio State University in 2011.