Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Quality of Life Community Collaborative Demographic Profiles

  Demographic profiles have been created for at the regional and community levels for San Diego County. There is an individual demographic profile for each of 10 Community Collaboratives in San Diego County ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Quality of Life Community Collaborative Demographic Profiles Author: Proehl, Risa, Sharkova, Irina V., TELESIS Corporation, San Diego, CA Year: 2002 Demographic profiles have been created for at the regional and community levels for San Diego County. There is an individual demographic profile for each of 10 Community Collaboratives in San Diego County as a whole. The demographic profiles all have the same structure and consist of the same variables to provide consistency so that comparisons can be made between communities. The profiles were created to provide background information for a larger project, the development of Quality of Life Indices for the San Diego County Alcohol and Drug Services Agency. Title: Quality of Life Community Collaborative Demographic Profiles Author: Proehl, Risa, Sharkova, Irina V., TELESIS Corporation, San Diego, CA Year: 2002 Demographic profiles have been created for at the regional and community levels for San Diego County. There is an individual demographic profile for each of 10 Community Collaboratives in San Diego County as a whole. The demographic profiles all have the same structure and consist of the same variables to provide consistency so that comparisons can be made between communities. The profiles were created to provide background information for a larger project, the development of Quality of Life Indices for the San Diego County Alcohol and Drug Services Agency. Close

• 2. [Article] Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010-2030

  This report presents the results of a study conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) to address long-range planning needs of Marion County and to produce population forecasts at the county and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010-2030 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Rynerson, Charles, Radin, Kenneth, Smith-Buani, Joseph Year: 2008 This report presents the results of a study conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) to address long-range planning needs of Marion County and to produce population forecasts at the county and sub-county level. This report considers recent and historical demographic changes experienced within the County and provides forecasts from 2010 to 2030 in 5-year intervals. Expected future populations that result from the most-likely demographic trends throughout Marion County are presented in this report for all cities in the County. Title: Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010-2030 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Rynerson, Charles, Radin, Kenneth, Smith-Buani, Joseph Year: 2008 This report presents the results of a study conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) to address long-range planning needs of Marion County and to produce population forecasts at the county and sub-county level. This report considers recent and historical demographic changes experienced within the County and provides forecasts from 2010 to 2030 in 5-year intervals. Expected future populations that result from the most-likely demographic trends throughout Marion County are presented in this report for all cities in the County. Close

• 3. [Article] The Path Ahead: Future Enrollments in Portland Public Schools, 2000-2010, Based on October 2000 Enrollments

  This report provides a school Enrollment Forecast, including demographic information, for Portland Public Schools. The report considers several factors that are likely to affect the school district's enrollments ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Path Ahead: Future Enrollments in Portland Public Schools, 2000-2010, Based on October 2000 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Edmonston, Barry, Lycan, Richard, Proehl, Risa Year: 2000 This report provides a school Enrollment Forecast, including demographic information, for Portland Public Schools. The report considers several factors that are likely to affect the school district's enrollments between the present and 2010, including the future number of births, net migrants, and the proportion of school-age children and youth enrolled in the public schools. This is the second report that forecasts future enrollments for the Portland Public Schools. The first report (dated July 2000) was based on October 1999 enrollments; this report relies on October 2000 enrollments. To take into account a variety of demographic and enrollment possibilities, this report describes five different scenarios of housing, population, and enrollment changes for the ten years between 2000 to 2010. Title: The Path Ahead: Future Enrollments in Portland Public Schools, 2000-2010, Based on October 2000 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Edmonston, Barry, Lycan, Richard, Proehl, Risa Year: 2000 This report provides a school Enrollment Forecast, including demographic information, for Portland Public Schools. The report considers several factors that are likely to affect the school district's enrollments between the present and 2010, including the future number of births, net migrants, and the proportion of school-age children and youth enrolled in the public schools. This is the second report that forecasts future enrollments for the Portland Public Schools. The first report (dated July 2000) was based on October 1999 enrollments; this report relies on October 2000 enrollments. To take into account a variety of demographic and enrollment possibilities, this report describes five different scenarios of housing, population, and enrollment changes for the ten years between 2000 to 2010. Close

• 4. [Article] 2008 Oregon Population Report

  This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2008. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2008 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr., McGovern, Kathryn Year: 2009 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2008. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Title: 2008 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr., McGovern, Kathryn Year: 2009 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2008. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Close

• 5. [Article] 2010 Oregon Revised Population Estimates

  This item contains Oregon population estimates, revised and newly certified to incorporate Census 2010, as of March 31, 2011. This file includes the Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Annexations Supplement to the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2010 Oregon Revised Population Estimates Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2011 This item contains Oregon population estimates, revised and newly certified to incorporate Census 2010, as of March 31, 2011. This file includes the Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Annexations Supplement to the revised 2010 Estimates. Title: 2010 Oregon Revised Population Estimates Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2011 This item contains Oregon population estimates, revised and newly certified to incorporate Census 2010, as of March 31, 2011. This file includes the Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Annexations Supplement to the revised 2010 Estimates. Close

• 6. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2014

  Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2014 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2015 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2014 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2015 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Close

• 7. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2011

  Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2011 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2012 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2011 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2012 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Close

• 8. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2010

  Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2010 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2010 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2010 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2010 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Close

• 9. [Article] Estimates for Population Ages 4-20 Years for Oregon and Its Counties

  Estimates for population ages 4-20 years for Oregon and its counties.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates for Population Ages 4-20 Years for Oregon and Its Counties Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2010 Estimates for population ages 4-20 years for Oregon and its counties. Title: Estimates for Population Ages 4-20 Years for Oregon and Its Counties Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2010 Estimates for population ages 4-20 years for Oregon and its counties. Close

• 10. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012

  Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2013 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2013 Estimates of population age groups for Oregon and its counties. Close

• 11. [Article] Findings from the Preliminary 2016 Population Estimates

  A narrative summary of the most important data from the preliminary estimates.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Findings from the Preliminary 2016 Population Estimates Author: Proehl, Risa, Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2016 A narrative summary of the most important data from the preliminary estimates. Title: Findings from the Preliminary 2016 Population Estimates Author: Proehl, Risa, Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2016 A narrative summary of the most important data from the preliminary estimates. Close

• 12. [Article] Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2008-09, Based on October 2007 Enrollments

  The Enrollment Forecasts in this report were prepared in Spring 2008, based on historic enrollment data from Fall 2007 and previous years. However, the entire report was not ready for publication until ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2008-09, Based on October 2007 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Siu, Vivian, Proehl, Risa, Lycan, Richard, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2009 The Enrollment Forecasts in this report were prepared in Spring 2008, based on historic enrollment data from Fall 2007 and previous years. However, the entire report was not ready for publication until after the Fall 2008 enrollment data became available. This preface briefly addresses the district-wide trends observed in Fall 2008 and evaluates the forecasts in the short term. The next report will include more analysis of enrollment trends with respect to area demographics and trends within sub-areas such as high school clusters. In Fall 2008, Portland Public Schools (PPS) enrolled 45,024 students in grades K-12, only 59 fewer students than in Fall 2007. This small loss (one tenth of one percent) extends the string of enrollment losses to 12 years, but is unlike the much larger losses of the previous 11 years. This year’s K-12 enrollment should be characterized as essentially stable compared with last year’s. Title: Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2008-09, Based on October 2007 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Siu, Vivian, Proehl, Risa, Lycan, Richard, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2009 The Enrollment Forecasts in this report were prepared in Spring 2008, based on historic enrollment data from Fall 2007 and previous years. However, the entire report was not ready for publication until after the Fall 2008 enrollment data became available. This preface briefly addresses the district-wide trends observed in Fall 2008 and evaluates the forecasts in the short term. The next report will include more analysis of enrollment trends with respect to area demographics and trends within sub-areas such as high school clusters. In Fall 2008, Portland Public Schools (PPS) enrolled 45,024 students in grades K-12, only 59 fewer students than in Fall 2007. This small loss (one tenth of one percent) extends the string of enrollment losses to 12 years, but is unlike the much larger losses of the previous 11 years. This year’s K-12 enrollment should be characterized as essentially stable compared with last year’s. Close

• 13. [Article] Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2007-08, Based on October 2006 Enrollments

  The Portland Public School District (PPS) enrolled 45,446 K-12 students in Fall 2006, a decrease of 676 students (1.5 percent) from Fall 2005. This was the second consecutive year that PPS lost about 700 ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2007-08, Based on October 2006 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Proehl, Risa, Siu, Vivian, Lycan, Richard, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2007 The Portland Public School District (PPS) enrolled 45,446 K-12 students in Fall 2006, a decrease of 676 students (1.5 percent) from Fall 2005. This was the second consecutive year that PPS lost about 700 students, following three years of much steeper losses averaging over 1,500 annually between 2001-02 and 2004-05. Enrollment has fallen in each of the past 10 years, and the 2006-07 K-12 enrollment was 17 percent below its 1996-97 peak of 54,697. About half of the 10 year decline occurred during the 2001-02 to 2004-05 period, when the recession slowed regional employment growth but housing prices continued to rise. This report presents the results of a demographic study conducted by the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC). The study includes analysis of population, housing and enrollment trends affecting the District in recent years, estimates of the impacts of new housing development on PPS enrollment, forecasts of district-wide enrollment for the 2007-08 to 2020-21 school years and forecasts by area of residence (high school clusters, school attendance areas) and by individual school for the years 2007-08 to 2015-16. Title: Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2007-08, Based on October 2006 Enrollments Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Rynerson, Charles, Proehl, Risa, Siu, Vivian, Lycan, Richard, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2007 The Portland Public School District (PPS) enrolled 45,446 K-12 students in Fall 2006, a decrease of 676 students (1.5 percent) from Fall 2005. This was the second consecutive year that PPS lost about 700 students, following three years of much steeper losses averaging over 1,500 annually between 2001-02 and 2004-05. Enrollment has fallen in each of the past 10 years, and the 2006-07 K-12 enrollment was 17 percent below its 1996-97 peak of 54,697. About half of the 10 year decline occurred during the 2001-02 to 2004-05 period, when the recession slowed regional employment growth but housing prices continued to rise. This report presents the results of a demographic study conducted by the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC). The study includes analysis of population, housing and enrollment trends affecting the District in recent years, estimates of the impacts of new housing development on PPS enrollment, forecasts of district-wide enrollment for the 2007-08 to 2020-21 school years and forecasts by area of residence (high school clusters, school attendance areas) and by individual school for the years 2007-08 to 2015-16. Close

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

  Wasco 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). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wasco 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 Wasco 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). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates, both at about 0.6 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wasco County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a substantial net in-migration and periods of small natural increases and decreases (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been more stable during second half of the decade and the recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wasco County as a whole as well as within some of 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 well as a decline in net in-migration toward the end of the forecast. Even so, Wasco County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 4,400 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 10,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). The Dalles, Mosier, and the area outside UGBs are expected to grow the most of all of Wasco County’s sub-areas. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wasco 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 Wasco 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). The Dalles UGB and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates, both at about 0.6 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wasco County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a substantial net in-migration and periods of small natural increases and decreases (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been more stable during second half of the decade and the recent years, contributing to a population increase. Total population in Wasco County as a whole as well as within some of 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 well as a decline in net in-migration toward the end of the forecast. Even so, Wasco County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 4,400 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by more than 10,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). The Dalles, Mosier, and the area outside UGBs are expected to grow the most of all of Wasco County’s sub-areas. Close

• 15. [Article] San Diego Quality of Life Indices: Calculating the Social Indicators of Risk and Protective Factors

  A system of measurements, the San Diego Quality of Life Indices (SDCQOLI), is being developed and reported in response to the need of successful prevention of the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: San Diego Quality of Life Indices: Calculating the Social Indicators of Risk and Protective Factors Author: Proehl, Risa, Sharkova, Irina V., TELESIS Corporation, San Diego, CA Year: 2002 A system of measurements, the San Diego Quality of Life Indices (SDCQOLI), is being developed and reported in response to the need of successful prevention of the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs (ATOD) and ATOD service delivery. The purpose of the SDCQOLI is to serve as a utility for public policy applications (ATOD prevention and others), both community-sponsored and initiated by the San Diego County and local governments, in order to achieve the mission of the County of San Diego "...to improve the region's Quality of Life" (County of San Diego...). Title: San Diego Quality of Life Indices: Calculating the Social Indicators of Risk and Protective Factors Author: Proehl, Risa, Sharkova, Irina V., TELESIS Corporation, San Diego, CA Year: 2002 A system of measurements, the San Diego Quality of Life Indices (SDCQOLI), is being developed and reported in response to the need of successful prevention of the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs (ATOD) and ATOD service delivery. The purpose of the SDCQOLI is to serve as a utility for public policy applications (ATOD prevention and others), both community-sponsored and initiated by the San Diego County and local governments, in order to achieve the mission of the County of San Diego "...to improve the region's Quality of Life" (County of San Diego...). Close

• 16. [Article] 2006 Oregon Population Report

  This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2006. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2006 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2007 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2006. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Supplements to the 2006 Population Report are included. Title: 2006 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2007 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2006. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Supplements to the 2006 Population Report are included. Close

• 17. [Article] 2007 Oregon Population Report

  This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities and towns, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2007. Included are estimates that are summarized by ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2007 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2008 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities and towns, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2007. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as by metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. At the end of this report there are 6 maps showing county-level population estimates for 2007 or population change from 2000 to 2007. There is also a county reference map that shows locations of cities throughout Oregon. Title: 2007 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Hough, George C., Jr. Year: 2008 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities and towns, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2007. Included are estimates that are summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the State level, as well as by metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. At the end of this report there are 6 maps showing county-level population estimates for 2007 or population change from 2000 to 2007. There is also a county reference map that shows locations of cities throughout Oregon. Close

• 18. [Article] 2009 Oregon Population Report

  This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2009. Included in ten tables are the estimates summarized by ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: 2009 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Crain, Julia Year: 2010 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2009. Included in ten tables are the estimates summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the state level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Some tables include historical estimates and Census populations. Title: 2009 Oregon Population Report Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa, Crain, Julia Year: 2010 This report contains the annual population estimates for Oregon, and its counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated areas for July 1, 2009. Included in ten tables are the estimates summarized by unincorporated and incorporated areas at the state level, as well as metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. Some tables include historical estimates and Census populations. Close

• 19. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2013

  The dataset also includes: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012 (prepared January 2013) Estimates of Population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2013 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2014 The dataset also includes: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012 (prepared January 2013) Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2011 (prepared January 2011) Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2013 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Proehl, Risa Year: 2014 The dataset also includes: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2012 (prepared January 2013) Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2011 (prepared January 2011) Close

• 20. [Article] Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015

  Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015. Prepared by Population Research Center, Portland State University, January ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015 Author: Proehl, Risa, Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2016 Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015. Prepared by Population Research Center, Portland State University, January 2016. Title: Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015 Author: Proehl, Risa, Portland State University. Population Research Center Year: 2016 Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2015. Prepared by Population Research Center, Portland State University, January 2016. Close

• 21. [Article] Lower Columbia College Enrollment Forecast, 2000 – 2010

  This report provides a student enrollment forecast, including background demographic information and analysis, for Lower Columbia College (LCC). The report considers several factors that are likely to ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Lower Columbia College Enrollment Forecast, 2000 – 2010 Author: Edmonston, Barry, Proehl, Risa Year: 2000 This report provides a student enrollment forecast, including background demographic information and analysis, for Lower Columbia College (LCC). The report considers several factors that are likely to affect the College’s enrollment between 2000 and 2010, including and the geographical areas within and surrounding the service district (Cowlitz and Wahkiakum Counties, the cities of Longview, Kelso, Woodland and others in the vicinity). Five different scenarios of population, housing, and enrollment participation changes were developed to demonstrate their effects on enrollments. Three scenarios rely on different rates of housing and population growth, and two depend on changes of enrollment participation in the Service Area. For each scenario, a forecast was made for total enrollment, by student type, for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. Title: Lower Columbia College Enrollment Forecast, 2000 – 2010 Author: Edmonston, Barry, Proehl, Risa Year: 2000 This report provides a student enrollment forecast, including background demographic information and analysis, for Lower Columbia College (LCC). The report considers several factors that are likely to affect the College’s enrollment between 2000 and 2010, including and the geographical areas within and surrounding the service district (Cowlitz and Wahkiakum Counties, the cities of Longview, Kelso, Woodland and others in the vicinity). Five different scenarios of population, housing, and enrollment participation changes were developed to demonstrate their effects on enrollments. Three scenarios rely on different rates of housing and population growth, and two depend on changes of enrollment participation in the Service Area. For each scenario, a forecast was made for total enrollment, by student type, for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. Close

• 22. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Josephine County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Josephine ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Josephine County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Josephine County’s total population as a whole has grown slowly since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Grants Pass and Cave Junction posted average annual growth rates at 2.1 and 1.6 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Josephine County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net inmigration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slow growth in the number of births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to natural decrease—more deaths than births—in every year from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years— bringing population decline in 2012. Since 2012 net in-migration has increased, driving population increase for 2013 and 2014. Total population in Josephine County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs over time population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Josephine County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 16,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 38,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Subareas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Josephine County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Josephine County’s total population as a whole has grown slowly since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Grants Pass and Cave Junction posted average annual growth rates at 2.1 and 1.6 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Josephine County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net inmigration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slow growth in the number of births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to natural decrease—more deaths than births—in every year from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years— bringing population decline in 2012. Since 2012 net in-migration has increased, driving population increase for 2013 and 2014. Total population in Josephine County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs over time population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Josephine County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 16,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 38,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Subareas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 23. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Coos County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Coos ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Coos County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Coos County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000; with average annual growth rates of nearly zero between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more population growth during the 2000s. Lakeside and Bandon, for example, posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.2 and 0.6 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Coos County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of sporadic net in-migration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While periods of net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population decline from 2009 to 2013. Total population in Coos County as a whole, as well as within its sub-areas, will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period, and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend already yielding natural decrease (births minus deaths). As natural decrease persists and becomes more pronounced over time, population growth in Coos County is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Coos County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 1,200 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 2,500 over the entire 50 year forecast period. Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s will likely experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population gains throughout the forecast period, although these gains will likely be small. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Coos County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Coos County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000; with average annual growth rates of nearly zero between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more population growth during the 2000s. Lakeside and Bandon, for example, posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.2 and 0.6 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Coos County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of sporadic net in-migration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While periods of net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population decline from 2009 to 2013. Total population in Coos County as a whole, as well as within its sub-areas, will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period, and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend already yielding natural decrease (births minus deaths). As natural decrease persists and becomes more pronounced over time, population growth in Coos County is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Coos County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 1,200 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 2,500 over the entire 50 year forecast period. Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s will likely experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population gains throughout the forecast period, although these gains will likely be small. Close

• 24. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Crook County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the Prineville UGB and the area outside the UGB collectively influence population growth rates for the county ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Crook County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the Prineville UGB and the area outside the UGB collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Crook 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); however the area outside the Prineville UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Prineville, the only UGB, posted an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent, while the area outside the UGB grew at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Crook County experienced substantial swings in net migration throughout the last decade (2000 to 2010), as a result the countywide population growth rate also fluctuated. At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to a decline in the number of births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to natural decrease—more deaths than births—beginning in 2011. While net inmigration and natural increase contributed to substantial population growth from 2005 to 2008, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—leading to population decline between 2009 and 2012. Total population in Crook County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an expected aging population—a demographic trend which will lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Crook County’s total population is expected to increase by more than 2,700 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 4,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Prineville UGB is forecast to show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s— in the initial 20-year forecast period, but is expected to slow down substantially during the last 30 years. The area outside the UGB will likely grow at a steadier rate than Prineville throughout the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Crook County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the Prineville UGB and the area outside the UGB collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Crook 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); however the area outside the Prineville UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Prineville, the only UGB, posted an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent, while the area outside the UGB grew at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Crook County experienced substantial swings in net migration throughout the last decade (2000 to 2010), as a result the countywide population growth rate also fluctuated. At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to a decline in the number of births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to natural decrease—more deaths than births—beginning in 2011. While net inmigration and natural increase contributed to substantial population growth from 2005 to 2008, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—leading to population decline between 2009 and 2012. Total population in Crook County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an expected aging population—a demographic trend which will lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Crook County’s total population is expected to increase by more than 2,700 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 4,500 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Prineville UGB is forecast to show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s— in the initial 20-year forecast period, but is expected to slow down substantially during the last 30 years. The area outside the UGB will likely grow at a steadier rate than Prineville throughout the forecast period. Close

• 25. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Curry County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Curry ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Curry County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Curry County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Gold Beach posted the highest average annual growth rate at one percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Curry County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of sporadic net in-migration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While periods of net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population decline from 2009 to 2012. Total population in Curry County as a whole will likely grow at a faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to exacerbate natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. For the area outside UGBs this will likely lead to population decline during the last 30 years of the forecast period. The remaining sub-areas are expected to see population increase over this same time period. Even so, Curry County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 3,900 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 4,700 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Curry County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Curry County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of less than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Gold Beach posted the highest average annual growth rate at one percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Curry County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of sporadic net in-migration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While periods of net in-migration outweighed natural decrease during the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population decline from 2009 to 2012. Total population in Curry County as a whole will likely grow at a faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to exacerbate natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. For the area outside UGBs this will likely lead to population decline during the last 30 years of the forecast period. The remaining sub-areas are expected to see population increase over this same time period. Even so, Curry County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 3,900 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 4,700 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 26. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Deschutes ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Deschutes County’s total population has grown rapidly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of more than three percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); in addition, most of its sub-areas experienced even more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Sisters and La Pine posted the highest average annual growth rates at 7.8 and 6.3 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Deschutes County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration and steady natural increase (i.e., more births than deaths). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to shrink between 2007 and 2014. While net in-migration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, it is clear that in more recent years (i.e., 2010 to 2014) net inmigration played the most prominent role in population growth. Total population in Deschutes County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas is forecast to grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Deschutes County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 78,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 186,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Deschutes County’s total population has grown rapidly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of more than three percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); in addition, most of its sub-areas experienced even more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Sisters and La Pine posted the highest average annual growth rates at 7.8 and 6.3 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Deschutes County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration and steady natural increase (i.e., more births than deaths). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to shrink between 2007 and 2014. While net in-migration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, it is clear that in more recent years (i.e., 2010 to 2014) net inmigration played the most prominent role in population growth. Total population in Deschutes County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas is forecast to grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Deschutes County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 78,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 186,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 27. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Douglas County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Douglas ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Douglas County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Douglas 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); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Sutherlin, the second most populous UGB, and Canyonville posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.7 and 3.0 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Douglas County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration outweighed declining natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population growth nearly to a halt by 2010. In more recent years (2010 to 2014) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population growth Total population in Douglas County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2015 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 natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration Even so, Douglas County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 20,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 43,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Subareas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Douglas County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Douglas 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); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Sutherlin, the second most populous UGB, and Canyonville posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.7 and 3.0 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Douglas County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration outweighed declining natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—bringing population growth nearly to a halt by 2010. In more recent years (2010 to 2014) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population growth Total population in Douglas County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2015 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 natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration Even so, Douglas County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 20,000 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by more than 43,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Subareas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 28. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jackson ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jackson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of above one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Eagle Point and Central Point UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 5.6 and 2.9 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jackson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net in-migration and natural increase. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline to almost nothing by 2014. While net in-migration outweighed declining natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—slowing population growth by 2010. Since 2010 net in-migration has driven rising population growth rates, while natural increase continues to shrink. Total population in Jackson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jackson County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 44,600 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 95,600 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jackson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of above one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Eagle Point and Central Point UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 5.6 and 2.9 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jackson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net in-migration and natural increase. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline to almost nothing by 2014. While net in-migration outweighed declining natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two numbers shrank during the later years—slowing population growth by 2010. Since 2010 net in-migration has driven rising population growth rates, while natural increase continues to shrink. Total population in Jackson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jackson County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 44,600 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 95,600 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 29. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates of a little more than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Culver posted the highest average annual growth rate 5.4 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jefferson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of steady natural increase— the difference between births and deaths—and substantial net in-migration from 2006 to 2008. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to declining natural increase. While net inmigration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—slowing population growth from 2010 to 2013. Total population in Jefferson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jefferson County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 11,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Madras UGB will likely show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20 year forecast period, but population growth is expected to slow during the last 30 years. Population within the Culver UGB is expected to grow at a much slower rate—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20-year forecast period. Population growth in Culver is also expected to taper throughout the last 30 years of the forecast period. The area outside UGBs is forecast to grow at a steadier, although lower rate than the UGBs throughout the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Jefferson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jefferson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates of a little more than one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Culver posted the highest average annual growth rate 5.4 percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Jefferson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of steady natural increase— the difference between births and deaths—and substantial net in-migration from 2006 to 2008. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led to declining natural increase. While net inmigration and steady natural increase contributed to population growth during the early and middle years of the last decade, both of these numbers shrank during more recent years—slowing population growth from 2010 to 2013. Total population in Jefferson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035) relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Jefferson County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 11,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). The Madras UGB will likely show slightly stronger population growth—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20 year forecast period, but population growth is expected to slow during the last 30 years. Population within the Culver UGB is expected to grow at a much slower rate—relative to the 2000s—in the initial 20-year forecast period. Population growth in Culver is also expected to taper throughout the last 30 years of the forecast period. The area outside UGBs is forecast to grow at a steadier, although lower rate than the UGBs throughout the forecast period. Close

• 30. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath 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); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Malin and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.4 and 0.7 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Klamath County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was due to the combination of net inmigration and natural increase (births minus deaths). At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration and natural increase both contributed to population growth from 2000 to 2010, in recent years (i.e., 2011-2014) these two numbers shrank—slowing population growth. Total population in Klamath County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase. As natural increase declines and becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Klamath County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035), but the county as whole is expected to see population decline over the last 30 years of the forecast period. With the exception of the area outside UGBs most sub-areas that saw population growth in the 2000s are forecast to have growth throughout the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population increase throughout the forecast period, but these gains will likely be small. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Klamath County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county, and the local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Klamath 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); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Malin and the area outside UGBs posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.4 and 0.7 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Klamath County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was due to the combination of net inmigration and natural increase (births minus deaths). At the same time an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years and a consequent decline in births. The growing number of deaths and shrinking number of births led natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to decline from 2000 to 2014. While net in-migration and natural increase both contributed to population growth from 2000 to 2010, in recent years (i.e., 2011-2014) these two numbers shrank—slowing population growth. Total population in Klamath County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), and more slowly in the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase. As natural increase declines and becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Klamath County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 5,100 over the next 20 years (2015-2035), but the county as whole is expected to see population decline over the last 30 years of the forecast period. With the exception of the area outside UGBs most sub-areas that saw population growth in the 2000s are forecast to have growth throughout the forecast period. Some sub-areas that experienced population loss in the 2000s are expected to show population increase throughout the forecast period, but these gains will likely be small. Close

• 31. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Lane County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Lane ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Lane County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Lane County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of just under one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Veneta and Creswell posted the highest average annual growth rates at 5.2 and 3.1 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Lane County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration and in the early years, natural increase. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to shrink between 2007 and 2012. Since 2012, net in-migration has outpaced natural increase, driving rising population growth rates. Total population in Lane County as a whole as well as within many of its sub-areas is forecast to grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines and eventually becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Lane County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 67,300 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 152,400 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Lane County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2015-2065 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Gorecki, Carson, Tetrick, David Year: 2015 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Lane County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000; with an average annual growth rate of just under one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Veneta and Creswell posted the highest average annual growth rates at 5.2 and 3.1 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Lane County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of substantial net inmigration and in the early years, natural increase. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—to shrink between 2007 and 2012. Since 2012, net in-migration has outpaced natural increase, driving rising population growth rates. Total population in Lane County as a whole as well as within many of its sub-areas is forecast to grow at a slightly faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to lead to declining natural increase (births minus deaths). As natural increase declines and eventually becomes natural decrease, population growth is expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Lane County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 67,300 over the next 20 years (2015-2035) and by nearly 152,400 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

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

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Wheeler ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wheeler 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Wheeler County’s total population has declined slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of just above negative one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced some population growth during the 2000s. Fossil, the most populous UGB, experienced small growth and Spray posted the highest average annual growth rate at 0.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wheeler County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of an aging population. The aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This, along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages, has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration and natural decrease compounded to create a substantial population decrease during the early and middle years of the last decade, migration into the county increased in the later part of the decade and helped to offset the natural decrease. Net out-migration was still substantial for populations between the ages of 20 and 29 years from 2000 to 2010, but there has been net in-migration for a slightly older population from 30 to 39 years of age. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it some slight population growth. Total population in Wheeler County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely decline at a slightly slower pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The declining of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a steady natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Wheeler County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 90 over the next 19 years (2016- 2035) and by more than 300 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). All sub-areas are expected to experience similar rates of population decline during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Wheeler 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Wheeler County’s total population has declined slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of just above negative one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced some population growth during the 2000s. Fossil, the most populous UGB, experienced small growth and Spray posted the highest average annual growth rate at 0.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wheeler County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of an aging population. The aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This, along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages, has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of deaths relative to births caused a natural decrease (more deaths than births) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration and natural decrease compounded to create a substantial population decrease during the early and middle years of the last decade, migration into the county increased in the later part of the decade and helped to offset the natural decrease. Net out-migration was still substantial for populations between the ages of 20 and 29 years from 2000 to 2010, but there has been net in-migration for a slightly older population from 30 to 39 years of age. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it some slight population growth. Total population in Wheeler County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely decline at a slightly slower pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The declining of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to a steady natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Wheeler County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 90 over the next 19 years (2016- 2035) and by more than 300 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). All sub-areas are expected to experience similar rates of population decline during the forecast period. Close

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

  Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Union 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 Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Summerville posted the highest average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent, and Imbler and Union were close behind with average annual growth rates of about 1.2 percent each. Union County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the combined result of a consistent natural increase and a net in-migration. 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 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, accounting for the majority of Union County’s population increase. Total population in Union County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the nearer-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the longer-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Steady increase in net in-migration is expected to offset the growing natural decrease, leading to relatively steady population growth over the forecast period. However, 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 stabilization in the number of births. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Union 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 Union County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). However, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Summerville posted the highest average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent, and Imbler and Union were close behind with average annual growth rates of about 1.2 percent each. Union County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the combined result of a consistent natural increase and a net in-migration. 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 (Figure 12). While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, accounting for the majority of Union County’s population increase. Total population in Union County as a whole as well as within some of its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the nearer-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the longer-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to contribute to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Steady increase in net in-migration is expected to offset the growing natural decrease, leading to relatively steady population growth over the forecast period. However, 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 stabilization in the number of births. Close

• 34. [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

• 35. [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

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

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Harney 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney County’s total population has slowly declined since 2000, with an average annual rate of negative 0.2 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). Burns is accountable for the county’s overall declining population. All other sub-areas experienced very slight population growths during the 2000 to 2010 period, increasing by a total of 32 persons. Harney County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of frequent net out-migration. The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, however, a larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase for 8 out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 (Figure 12). Even so, net out-migration outweighed these slight natural increases, causing a slow decrease in the Harney County’s population since 2000. Total population in Harney County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas are forecast to all decrease at a slightly faster rate 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. Harney County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 500 persons over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066), a loss in population mostly happening in areas outside the UGBs. Sub-areas are expected to generally follow historical patterns of population decrease over the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Harney 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Harney County’s total population has slowly declined since 2000, with an average annual rate of negative 0.2 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). Burns is accountable for the county’s overall declining population. All other sub-areas experienced very slight population growths during the 2000 to 2010 period, increasing by a total of 32 persons. Harney County’s population decline in the 2000s was the direct result of frequent net out-migration. The county’s aging population has contributed to an increase in deaths, however, a larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase for 8 out of the 15 years between 2000 and 2015 (Figure 12). Even so, net out-migration outweighed these slight natural increases, causing a slow decrease in the Harney County’s population since 2000. Total population in Harney County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas are forecast to all decrease at a slightly faster rate 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. Harney County’s total population is forecast to decrease by more than 500 persons over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066), a loss in population mostly happening in areas outside the UGBs. Sub-areas are expected to generally follow historical patterns of population decrease over the forecast period. Close

• 37. [Article] Housing Needs Study for the Portland Metropolitan Area Final Report

  The purpose of this report is to respond to the recommendations of the Regional Housing Choice Task Force by providing information to guide housing choice policy for the Metro Council. In particular, the ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Housing Needs Study for the Portland Metropolitan Area Final Report Author: Hough, George C., Jr., Martin, Sheila A., Mildner, Gerard C., Proehl, Risa Year: 2008 The purpose of this report is to respond to the recommendations of the Regional Housing Choice Task Force by providing information to guide housing choice policy for the Metro Council. In particular, the objectives of this project were to: Estimate current and future affordable housing need for the Metro region; Describe the distribution of households by income, age, and size across the metro region; Describe the tenure of these households and the type of housing they will choose; Identify and describe those household types that are most likely to struggle to meet the cost of housing based on their income; and Make recommendations for improving analysis of affordable housing need in the future. Our approach to this task was to use output from the Metroscope model, using the base case scenario, to forecast the housing consumption decisions of households from 2005 to 2035. We chose the Metroscope model after also considering the State of Oregon?s Housing/Land Needs model. We concluded from examining the assumptions and abilities of each model that Metroscope is better able to offer the Metro Council the insight into the housing market required to inform housing choice policy. The Metroscope model incorporates housing supply and demand for the entire four-county metropolitan region (Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, and Clark counties). The region comprises a single housing market; residents travel throughout the region to work, shop, and socialize. Thus, it makes little sense to examine any one county in isolation. Given the assumptions of the Metroscope model (described in Section 2), we address several questions, including: Where will household growth occur? What kinds of households will grow? What kinds of housing will these households live in? What percentage of their income will they pay for housing? What demographic groups are most cost-burdened and where do those households reside? Title: Housing Needs Study for the Portland Metropolitan Area Final Report Author: Hough, George C., Jr., Martin, Sheila A., Mildner, Gerard C., Proehl, Risa Year: 2008 The purpose of this report is to respond to the recommendations of the Regional Housing Choice Task Force by providing information to guide housing choice policy for the Metro Council. In particular, the objectives of this project were to: Estimate current and future affordable housing need for the Metro region; Describe the distribution of households by income, age, and size across the metro region; Describe the tenure of these households and the type of housing they will choose; Identify and describe those household types that are most likely to struggle to meet the cost of housing based on their income; and Make recommendations for improving analysis of affordable housing need in the future. Our approach to this task was to use output from the Metroscope model, using the base case scenario, to forecast the housing consumption decisions of households from 2005 to 2035. We chose the Metroscope model after also considering the State of Oregon?s Housing/Land Needs model. We concluded from examining the assumptions and abilities of each model that Metroscope is better able to offer the Metro Council the insight into the housing market required to inform housing choice policy. The Metroscope model incorporates housing supply and demand for the entire four-county metropolitan region (Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, and Clark counties). The region comprises a single housing market; residents travel throughout the region to work, shop, and socialize. Thus, it makes little sense to examine any one county in isolation. Given the assumptions of the Metroscope model (described in Section 2), we address several questions, including: Where will household growth occur? What kinds of households will grow? What kinds of housing will these households live in? What percentage of their income will they pay for housing? What demographic groups are most cost-burdened and where do those households reside? Close

• 38. [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

• 39. [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

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

  Gilliam County’s total population declined during the 2000s, with average annual growth rate of negative two-tenths of one percent (Figure 1); however, since 2010 the county has seen a slight increase ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Gilliam 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 Gilliam County’s total population declined during the 2000s, with average annual growth rate of negative two-tenths of one percent (Figure 1); however, since 2010 the county has seen a slight increase in population, growing by more than 100 persons between 2010 and 2015 (Figure 2). Gilliam County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural decrease and periods of net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease in nearly every year from 2000 to 2010. While net in-migration fluctuated during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been increased stably during recent years, contributing to population increase since 2009. Total population in Gilliam County as a whole is expected to increase over the forecast period, with the majority of this growth occurring within Arlington UGB (Figure 1). Increasing net in-migration is expected to offset the growth in the natural decrease throughout the entire 50-year forecast period. An aging population in the near-term 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 steady number of births. During the final 31 years of the forecast period, the population is expected to shift toward younger ages leading to more births and a steady number of deaths. This combined with steady net in-migration is expected to lead to continued steady population growth. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Gilliam 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 Gilliam County’s total population declined during the 2000s, with average annual growth rate of negative two-tenths of one percent (Figure 1); however, since 2010 the county has seen a slight increase in population, growing by more than 100 persons between 2010 and 2015 (Figure 2). Gilliam County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural decrease and periods of net out-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to a natural decrease in nearly every year from 2000 to 2010. While net in-migration fluctuated during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has been increased stably during recent years, contributing to population increase since 2009. Total population in Gilliam County as a whole is expected to increase over the forecast period, with the majority of this growth occurring within Arlington UGB (Figure 1). Increasing net in-migration is expected to offset the growth in the natural decrease throughout the entire 50-year forecast period. An aging population in the near-term 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 steady number of births. During the final 31 years of the forecast period, the population is expected to shift toward younger ages leading to more births and a steady number of deaths. This combined with steady net in-migration is expected to lead to continued steady population growth. Close

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

  Baker County’s population declined between 2000 and 2010, losing on average of just over 60 people per year (Figure 1); however in recent years this pattern has changed and population increase has occurred. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Baker 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 Baker County’s population declined between 2000 and 2010, losing on average of just over 60 people per year (Figure 1); however in recent years this pattern has changed and population increase has occurred. Between 2010 and 2015 the county added on average about 20 persons per year (Figure 2). Baker County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of natural decrease and periods of substantial net out-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to 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 (2010-2015), contributing to population increase. Total population in Baker County is forecast to increase in the near-term (2016 to 2035), a trend that is driven by growth in the three sub-areas of Baker City, Richland, and Sumpter (Figure 1); however population decline is expected for the county over the last 31 years of the forecast period. This population decrease is the result of growing natural decrease, which is expected to surpass net in-migration between 2030 and 2035. Overall the county is forecast to see nearly no net change in population over the entire 50-year period, beginning the forecast at around 16,400 in 2016 and ending at about 16,400 in 2066. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Baker 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 Baker County’s population declined between 2000 and 2010, losing on average of just over 60 people per year (Figure 1); however in recent years this pattern has changed and population increase has occurred. Between 2010 and 2015 the county added on average about 20 persons per year (Figure 2). Baker County’s population decline in the 2000s was the result of natural decrease and periods of substantial net out-migration. The larger number of deaths relative to births has led to 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 (2010-2015), contributing to population increase. Total population in Baker County is forecast to increase in the near-term (2016 to 2035), a trend that is driven by growth in the three sub-areas of Baker City, Richland, and Sumpter (Figure 1); however population decline is expected for the county over the last 31 years of the forecast period. This population decrease is the result of growing natural decrease, which is expected to surpass net in-migration between 2030 and 2035. Overall the county is forecast to see nearly no net change in population over the entire 50-year period, beginning the forecast at around 16,400 in 2016 and ending at about 16,400 in 2066. Close

• 42. [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

• 43. [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

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

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Morrow 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Boardman, the most populous UGB, and Irrigon posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.0 and 0.5 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Morrow County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of a substantial natural increase (Figure 12). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase in every year from 2000 to 2014. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population more growth. Total population in Morrow 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 a larger base population—the denominator to calculate growth rates. As baby boomers age into the mid-term of the future, natural increase will reach its low point around 2045 and then rebound. Even so, Morrow County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 1,900 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by almost 4,900 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Morrow 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 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Boardman, the most populous UGB, and Irrigon posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.0 and 0.5 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Morrow County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of a substantial natural increase (Figure 12). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase in every year from 2000 to 2014. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population more growth. Total population in Morrow 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 a larger base population—the denominator to calculate growth rates. As baby boomers age into the mid-term of the future, natural increase will reach its low point around 2045 and then rebound. Even so, Morrow County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 1,900 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by almost 4,900 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

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

  Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Hood River 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 Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s, averaging more than one percent per year during the 2000 to 2010 period. Hood River County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-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. While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has increased stably during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Overall, Hood River County’s population growth is becoming more reliant on net in-migration. Total population in Hood River 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 driven by a growing natural decrease, as well as a larger population base. As natural decrease occurs over the final 31-year period, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Hood River County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 6,000 during the initial 19-year period (2016-2035) and by more than 14,000 over the entire 50-year forecast (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Hood River 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 Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s, averaging more than one percent per year during the 2000 to 2010 period. Hood River County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-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. While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has increased stably during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Overall, Hood River County’s population growth is becoming more reliant on net in-migration. Total population in Hood River 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 driven by a growing natural decrease, as well as a larger population base. As natural decrease occurs over the final 31-year period, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Hood River County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 6,000 during the initial 19-year period (2016-2035) and by more than 14,000 over the entire 50-year forecast (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close