Search

Search Results

• 21. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly two percent, while Ontario and the area outside UGBs saw more modest growth rates. Even so the population loss recorded by Vale, Nyssa, and Jordan Valley totaled nearly 600, leading the countywide population to decrease. Malheur County’s population decline in the 2000s was the combined result of a diminishing natural increase and periods of substantial net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. Net out-migration slowed toward the end of the last decade (2000-2010) combining with a relatively steady natural increase for moderate population increase in four out of the five years since 2010. Malheur County’s total population is forecast to grow by a little more than 400 persons (1.3 percent) from 2016 to 2066, which translates into a total countywide population of nearly 32,000 in 2066 (Figure 1). Population growth is forecast to be modest, becoming increasingly so as time progresses through the forecast period. Forecasting modest population growth is driven by both an aging population—contributing to a steady increase in deaths over the entire forecast period—as well as diminishing net out-migration. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Malheur County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 During the 2000s, Malheur County, as a whole, experienced population decline (Figure 1); however three of its sub-areas recorded a slight population increase. Adrian grew at an average annual rate of nearly two percent, while Ontario and the area outside UGBs saw more modest growth rates. Even so the population loss recorded by Vale, Nyssa, and Jordan Valley totaled nearly 600, leading the countywide population to decrease. Malheur County’s population decline in the 2000s was the combined result of a diminishing natural increase and periods of substantial net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. Net out-migration slowed toward the end of the last decade (2000-2010) combining with a relatively steady natural increase for moderate population increase in four out of the five years since 2010. Malheur County’s total population is forecast to grow by a little more than 400 persons (1.3 percent) from 2016 to 2066, which translates into a total countywide population of nearly 32,000 in 2066 (Figure 1). Population growth is forecast to be modest, becoming increasingly so as time progresses through the forecast period. Forecasting modest population growth is driven by both an aging population—contributing to a steady increase in deaths over the entire forecast period—as well as diminishing net out-migration. Close

• 22. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small UGBs, every sub-area recorded population loss during the 2000s. Prairie City and the area outside UGBs posted the largest losses, losing on average about 17 and 19 persons per year, respectively. Grant County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a consistent natural decrease as well as relatively steady net out-migration (Figure 12). The smaller number of births relative to deaths led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in nearly every year from 2000 to 2015. While net out-migration was common during the last decade (2000-2010), in recent years (2010-2015) net in-migration has occurred. Even so, natural decrease has persisted and generally exceeded net in-migration, leading to continued population decline. Grant County is expected to experience population decline over the 50-year forecast period. This population loss will likely occur at a relatively uniform rate among the county’s sub-areas, with losses occurring at an increasing rate as time progresses. For Grant County as a whole, increasing natural decrease and relatively steady net in-migration are expected to lead to population decline. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net in-migration is expected to persist throughout the entire forecast period, but will not fully offset the natural decrease, leading to population decline. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Grant County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Grant County’s total population has declined since 2000, losing an average of about 50 persons per year between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). With the exception of minimal population increase among three small UGBs, every sub-area recorded population loss during the 2000s. Prairie City and the area outside UGBs posted the largest losses, losing on average about 17 and 19 persons per year, respectively. Grant County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a consistent natural decrease as well as relatively steady net out-migration (Figure 12). The smaller number of births relative to deaths led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in nearly every year from 2000 to 2015. While net out-migration was common during the last decade (2000-2010), in recent years (2010-2015) net in-migration has occurred. Even so, natural decrease has persisted and generally exceeded net in-migration, leading to continued population decline. Grant County is expected to experience population decline over the 50-year forecast period. This population loss will likely occur at a relatively uniform rate among the county’s sub-areas, with losses occurring at an increasing rate as time progresses. For Grant County as a whole, increasing natural decrease and relatively steady net in-migration are expected to lead to population decline. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net in-migration is expected to persist throughout the entire forecast period, but will not fully offset the natural decrease, leading to population decline. Close

• 23. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Wallowa County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Wallowa County’s total population has declined since 2000 at an average annual rate of about threetenths of one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Enterprise and Joseph experienced population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wallowa County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Wallowa County’s total population has declined since 2000 at an average annual rate of about threetenths of one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Enterprise and Joseph experienced population growth during the 2000s. In spite of population increases in the two most populous UGBs, the area outside UGBs declined by nearly one percent per year between 2000 and 2010, losing nearly 200 persons and effectively driving countywide population decline. Even so, Wallowa County’s population has slightly increased in recent years, growing by roughly 100 people between 2010 and 2015 (Figure 2). Wallowa County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a natural decrease and periods of net out-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net migration fluctuated dramatically during the last decade, net in-migration has been consistent during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wallowa County as a whole will likely increase in the near-term (2015 to 2035), driven by population growth in Enterprise, Joseph, and the area outside UGBs (Figure 1). However, in the remaining 31-year period, the county is forecast to see population decline. A rise in the magnitude of natural decrease and slow growth of net in-migration are expected to cause population growth to reach its peak in 2025, turning to population decline through the remainder of the forecast period. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net migration is expected to remain relatively steady throughout the forecast period, but will not offset natural decrease after 2025. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wallowa County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Wallowa County’s total population has declined since 2000 at an average annual rate of about threetenths of one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Enterprise and Joseph experienced population growth during the 2000s. In spite of population increases in the two most populous UGBs, the area outside UGBs declined by nearly one percent per year between 2000 and 2010, losing nearly 200 persons and effectively driving countywide population decline. Even so, Wallowa County’s population has slightly increased in recent years, growing by roughly 100 people between 2010 and 2015 (Figure 2). Wallowa County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a natural decrease and periods of net out-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net migration fluctuated dramatically during the last decade, net in-migration has been consistent during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wallowa County as a whole will likely increase in the near-term (2015 to 2035), driven by population growth in Enterprise, Joseph, and the area outside UGBs (Figure 1). However, in the remaining 31-year period, the county is forecast to see population decline. A rise in the magnitude of natural decrease and slow growth of net in-migration are expected to cause population growth to reach its peak in 2025, turning to population decline through the remainder of the forecast period. An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years will likely result in a long-term decline in births. Net migration is expected to remain relatively steady throughout the forecast period, but will not offset natural decrease after 2025. Close

• 24. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Umatilla County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Umatilla County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates near one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Umatilla County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Umatilla County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates near one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Hermiston, the most populous UGB, and Umatilla UGB posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.1 and 2.8 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Umatilla County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-migration. A larger number of births relative to deaths led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Even so the natural increase continues to account for most of the population growth. Total population in Umatilla County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (2035-2066) (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to an increase in deaths. Even so, natural increase is expected to persist, combining with steady in-migration for continued strong population growth. Umatilla County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 13,300 over the next 19 years (2016- 2035) and by close to 36,800 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). All sub-areas are expected to experience population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Umatilla County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Umatilla County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates near one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Hermiston, the most populous UGB, and Umatilla UGB posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.1 and 2.8 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Umatilla County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-migration. A larger number of births relative to deaths led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Even so the natural increase continues to account for most of the population growth. Total population in Umatilla County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (2035-2066) (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to an increase in deaths. Even so, natural increase is expected to persist, combining with steady in-migration for continued strong population growth. Umatilla County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 13,300 over the next 19 years (2016- 2035) and by close to 36,800 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). All sub-areas are expected to experience population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 25. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Sherman County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Sherman County’s total population has declined since 2000, at an average annual rate of nearly one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Wasco UGB, one of its sub-areas, experienced population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Sherman County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Sherman County’s total population has declined since 2000, at an average annual rate of nearly one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Wasco UGB, one of its sub-areas, experienced population growth during the 2000s. Wasco, the most populous UGB, posted an average annual growth rate of a little less than one percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. This translated into a population increase of about 30 persons. Sherman County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of consistent net out-migration and periods of natural decreases (more deaths than births, Figure 12). The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, which combined with a relatively steady number of births has resulted in a natural decrease for nine out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015. While net out-migration and natural decrease were common during the last decade, in more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has occurred, bringing with it some population growth. Total population in Sherman County is forecast to increase in the near-term (2016 to 2035), a trend that is driven by growth in the two sub-areas of Rufus and Wasco (Figure 1); however population decline is expected for the county over the remaining 31 years of the forecast period. This population decrease is the result of a growing natural decrease, which is expected to exceed net in-migration around 2030. Sherman County’s total population is forecast to increase by about 50 persons over the next 19 years (2016-2035), but will likely see population decline of more than 80 persons during the last 31 years of the forecast period (2035-2066). Sub-areas are expected to generally follow their historical patterns of population increase or decrease over the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Sherman County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Sherman County’s total population has declined since 2000, at an average annual rate of nearly one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, Wasco UGB, one of its sub-areas, experienced population growth during the 2000s. Wasco, the most populous UGB, posted an average annual growth rate of a little less than one percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. This translated into a population increase of about 30 persons. Sherman County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of consistent net out-migration and periods of natural decreases (more deaths than births, Figure 12). The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, which combined with a relatively steady number of births has resulted in a natural decrease for nine out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015. While net out-migration and natural decrease were common during the last decade, in more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has occurred, bringing with it some population growth. Total population in Sherman County is forecast to increase in the near-term (2016 to 2035), a trend that is driven by growth in the two sub-areas of Rufus and Wasco (Figure 1); however population decline is expected for the county over the remaining 31 years of the forecast period. This population decrease is the result of a growing natural decrease, which is expected to exceed net in-migration around 2030. Sherman County’s total population is forecast to increase by about 50 persons over the next 19 years (2016-2035), but will likely see population decline of more than 80 persons during the last 31 years of the forecast period (2035-2066). Sub-areas are expected to generally follow their historical patterns of population increase or decrease over the forecast period. Close

• 26. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Lake County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Lake County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). While the county, as a whole, experienced a population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Lake County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Lake County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). While the county, as a whole, experienced a population increase, the two UGB areas both recorded population decline. At the same time the area outside UGBs posted substantial population growth during the 2000s, adding an average of nearly 90 new persons per year. Lake County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of periods of substantial net in-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, continuing to account for all of Lake County’s population increase. Total population in Lake County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Lake County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 600 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 1,400 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed some population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience slower rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Lake County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Lake County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). While the county, as a whole, experienced a population increase, the two UGB areas both recorded population decline. At the same time the area outside UGBs posted substantial population growth during the 2000s, adding an average of nearly 90 new persons per year. Lake County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of periods of substantial net in-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, continuing to account for all of Lake County’s population increase. Total population in Lake County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Lake County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 600 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 1,400 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed some population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience slower rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close