Search

Search Results

• 11. [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

• 12. [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

• 13. [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

• 14. [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

• 15. [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

• 16. [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

• 17. [Article] Beyond the Fringe

  Reviews the book: Lincoln Bramwell. Wilderburbs: Communities on Nature’s Edge. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014. Andrew Needham. Power Lines: Phoenix and the Making of the Modern Southwest. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Beyond the Fringe Author: Abbott, Carl Year: 2016 Reviews the book: Lincoln Bramwell. Wilderburbs: Communities on Nature’s Edge. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014. Andrew Needham. Power Lines: Phoenix and the Making of the Modern Southwest. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2014. Title: Beyond the Fringe Author: Abbott, Carl Year: 2016 Reviews the book: Lincoln Bramwell. Wilderburbs: Communities on Nature’s Edge. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014. Andrew Needham. Power Lines: Phoenix and the Making of the Modern Southwest. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2014. Close

• 18. [Article] Destination Portland: Post-Great Recession Migration Trends in the Rose City Region

  This report explores how individuals decide to move to Portland, why they stay and how the region’s growth challenges might introduce costs that disproportionately burden people of color and young people ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Destination Portland: Post-Great Recession Migration Trends in the Rose City Region Author: Jurjevich, Jason R., Schrock, Greg, Kang, Jihye Year: 2017 This report explores how individuals decide to move to Portland, why they stay and how the region’s growth challenges might introduce costs that disproportionately burden people of color and young people of lower socioeconomic status. Title: Destination Portland: Post-Great Recession Migration Trends in the Rose City Region Author: Jurjevich, Jason R., Schrock, Greg, Kang, Jihye Year: 2017 This report explores how individuals decide to move to Portland, why they stay and how the region’s growth challenges might introduce costs that disproportionately burden people of color and young people of lower socioeconomic status. Close

• 19. [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

• 20. [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