[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
50 Yers of;"�~w�~j~~i'i ~ r .A615~~~~~~~~~~~~~" 1 Population9Cha0ge I% ~Flz along�~ th ato' cat 1960-2010~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�(.�(:P K:�I IIp i 1990~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i -I -i�dSs1 Publication of a coastal trends report series is a new and evolving activity of the Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The series will investigate and illustrate the effects of current and projected development in the Nation's coastal areas. The series was initiated in 1989 as part of NOAA's program of strategic assessments of the Nation's coastal and ocean resources. The series presents information on current and future development patterns and their direct and indirect effects upon our national coastal resource base. The reports are a basis for identifying patterns of resource use and environmental quality concerns about the Nation's coastal areas. The mission of NOAA's Strategic Assessment Program is to organize and synthe- size existing information and knowledge of important characteristics of the Nation's coastal and ocean regions, and to communicate this information clearly to decision- makers and their institutions, both in the public and private sectors. The assess- ments are characterized as "strategic" because they develop information of a nature, and at spatial and temnporal scales, appropriate for: (1) setting and modifying national or regional objectives for coastal resource management; (2) identifying various means to achieve these objectives; and (3) evaluating the effects of their im- plementation. They are intended to complement, not replace, the detailed "tactical" analyses required to make local decisions. Some of the data used in these reports have been presented in other NOAA publications, particularly its series of regional strategic assessment data atlases. These large-format thematic atlases present information on important features and activities in the Nation's coastal areas. Each atlas contains sections on the physical and biotic -environments,. living marine resources, economic activities, environ- mental quality, and jurisdictions of each region. An East Coast Data Atlas was published in 1980.i an extensive revision and expansion of this atlas will begin in 1990. A Gulf of Mexico Data Atlas was published in 1985; a Bering Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas Data Atlas in 1989. A West Coast of North America Data Atlas is scheduled for completion in 1990. .X Additional information on coastal population and NOAA'" coastal trends. report series is available from: Thomas J. Culliton, Strategic Assessrnmet Banch, Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. The Second Report of a Coastal Trends Series 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960-2010 Property of CSC Library Thomas J. Culliton, Maureen A. Warren, Timothy R. Goodspeed, Davida G. Remer, Carol M. Blackwell, and John J. McDonough, III US Department of Commrerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Librazy 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 LIBRARY E MOs NOAA/CCEH1 1990 HOBSON AVE. AR 1 4 � CHAS, SC 29408-23 28 Q1-~ ~ % Strategic Assessment Branch ' K Office Ocean Assessments Division Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ,,J~~ ~ Rockville, Maryland 20852 At ) and cultural features to delineate coastal The NPA and Woods and Poole state- boundaries. Most recognize that activi- level projections for 2000 were corn- ties miles inland can have a significant pared with BEAprojectionsfortheseven impact on the environmental quality of southeastern and Gulf states and with the coast, and have included these areas Bureau of the Census projections. The in their management programs. N PA projections, on average, were about two percent greater than the BEA pro- The coastal U.S. has been divided into jections, and about two percent less five regionsto examine spatial variations than those developed by the Bureau of of population. Four of the five regions the Census. NPA underestimated the are used by NOAA in its coastal assess- Woods and Poole projections by about ment activities, including the National four percent. Because the NPA projec- Estuarine Inventory (NEI) program. The tions were closest to the Bureau of the Great Lakes region currently is not in- Census projections, and were more cluded in the NEI series, but is included conservative than the Woods and Poole in this report because it is heavily popu- projections, the NPA population projec- lated and represents a large portion of tions were chosen for this report. the Nation's coastal lands and waters, as defined under the Coastal Zone Population projections were not obtained Management Act of 1972. from individual states because of incon- sistencies among state projection tech- Six maps in the appendix show the niques. Each state may use different coastal counties and major population assumptions (e.g., economic scenar- centers in each region. ios, fertility, and mortality) and methods in making their projections. For these 3�_ _ . . � , - reasons, NOAA chose to use a consis- tent set of population projections devel- Source. Two Federal agencies, both oped for all states. located in the U.S. Department of Commerce, develop population projec- How the Projections are Made. NPA tions periodically. However, county- used a three-step process to generate level population projections are not its population projections. First, na- available nationwide from either the tional economic projections were made Bureau of the Census or the Bureau of for employment and earnings using Economic Analysis (BEA). Although historical economic data from the BEA. BEA county-level projections are avail- Regional economic projections were able for seven coastal states in the then madefor 183 EconomicAreas (EAs) Southeast and Gulf of Mexico, no pro- defined by the BEA. The EAs are aggre- jections have been made for other gates of contiguous counties and repre- coastal states. Consequently, two sent cohesive economic regions of the economic forecasting firms were identi- U.S. National projections were allo- fied as data sources, National Planning cated to the EAs and then to counties to Association Data Services, Inc. (NPA) determine the population projection for and Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., each county. County population projec- both located in Washington, DC. tions were developed using area-spe- 2 cific ratios of employment to population. Figure 1. Regional Distribution of the These ratios reflect the long-term struc- Nation's Coastal Population tural differences among areas in age composition, employment rates, labor P(2ac) (26%) Northeast force participation, age structure of (35%) migration flows, and inter-area commuter flows (Terleckyj and Coleman, 1989). Explanation of the Data. All of the Gulf of Mexico population data for years prior to 1990 (13%) are from the Bureau of the Census. Population data for 1990, 2000, and Southeast Great Lakes 2010 are NPA projections. Because the (8%) (17%) most recent county-level population estimates of the Bureau of the Census arefor1988, and are morevalidthanthe The Northeast and the Pacific regions NPA's 1990projections, maps and charts have the largest coastal populations in shown in this report that examine the U.S. today. Together they account changes over the next two decades are for about 28 percent of the entire U.S. for the time period 1988-2010, and not population. Figure 1 shows the distribu- 1990-2010. For the same reason, 1988 tion, by region, of the Nation's coastal is used as the "base year" instead of population. 1990. ..~ The 451 coastal counties account for 20 The population projections in this paper percent of the Nation's total land area. However, if the land area of Alaska is only address changes in total popula- However, the land area tion They do not account for the in- excluded, the coastal county land area tion. They do not account for the in- creased demand placed on coastal tour- comprises only 11 percent of the re maining national total. Continued popu- ism or recreational resources by visitors main ing national total. Continued popu- from counties outside of the immediate lation growth in coastal areas portends from counties outside of the immediate castalarea. Thisdemandmaytakethe increased crowding of this relatively coastal area. Th is demand may take the form of increased development of sea- sonal housing, construction of more 1960-2010 hotels and motels, or large and more nu- merous recreational facilities. The Nation's coastal areas include some of the most rapidly growing and densely populated counties in the U.S. From -, .1960-2010, the coastal population will . have grown from 80 million to more than 127 million people, an increase of al- Million Persons most 60 percent. *2.0to20 1.3tol.9 0.5tol.2 D-.1 to0.4 3 Table 1. Leading Coastal States in Coastal County Population Change. Population Change, 1960- The decade of maximum coastal popu- 2010 lation growth during the study period State Absolute* State Percent (1960-2010) was the 1960s, when California 19.2 Florida 226 coastal population increased by more Texas 11.6 Alaska 208 than 13 million persons, with California, Florida 11.2 New Hampshire 129 Florida, and New York accounting for Georgia 3.5 California 122 Georgina 3.5 Texal i fon 122 approximately58percentoftheincrease. Mirgioni 3.0 Texas 121 Coastal growth slowed during the 1970s, W illion persons but rebounded in the 1980s. An in- small, but densely populated, portion of crease of more than 10 million persons the Nation. Coastal population will grow is projected between 1980 and 1990. In by about 15 percent over the next two the 1980s, California, Florida, and Texas decades. will account for 73 percent of the growth in coastal areas. Coastal population Coastal vs. Non-coastal States. U.S. growth will slow over the next two dec- population during the 50-year period, ades, but growth rates throughout the 1960-2010, has, and is projected to, Nation will also decrease. Table 2 lists increase the most in coastal states the change in coastal, non-coastal, and (Figure 2). Seventeen of the 20 states total U.S. populations between 1960 with the largest statewide population and 2010. increases are coastal. In Florida, which is defined as entirely coastal, the popu- Eight coastal counties in California and lation will increase from five million in Florida will be in the top 10 counties in 1960 to more than 16 million by 2010, a absolute population change between 226 percent increase. By2010, Florida's 1988 and 2010. The Southern Califor- population will rank fourth in the Nation, nia counties of Los Angeles, Orange, up from tenth in 1960. California and and San Diego will grow by 2.6 million Texas have and are projected to expe- persons during this period. The Miami rience dramatic growth between 1960 area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach and 2010. These states, which are counties) will also increase rapidly, with projected to rank first and second re- about 1.2 million additional persons spectively in total population in 2010, projected by 2010. Only five percent of will increase by 30 million people (state- coastal counties will decline in popula- wide) during this 50-year period. Table tion over the next 20 years. The largest 1 shows the leading coastal states in ab- declines will occur in the Northeast and solute and percent population change Great Lakes regions. Figure 3 shows between 1960 and 2010. Table 2. U.S. Coastal and Non-coastal Population Change, 1960-20 10 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Change Change Change Change Change Counties 1960 1960-1970 1970 1970-1980 1980 1980-1990 1990 1990-2000 2000 2000-2010 2010 Coastal 80 17 93 9 101 11 112 8 120 6 127 Non-coastal 101 11 112 13 127 9 138 7 148 5 156 Total 181 14 205 11 228 10 249 7 268 6 283 Million Persons 4 Figure 3. Popula/Arn Chal~ge //? Coastal Covntle5 1.988-20/0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DENorth A l E/ast H~~~~~~~~I~ D L U N0ortheaste Paci~~~~~~~~~uf o eico5o9 NCto. SC~E 72o Figure 4. Population Density, 1960- in the U.S. was 61 persons per square 2010 mile in 1960, population density in coastal states was 100 persons per square mile, and 248 persons per square mile in '~E 400, <_r g | | | E | 1 S i R coastal counties. By 1988, population ,CL~~~5 400 ~density in coastal counties reached 341 2O 200 persons per square mile, more than four o-0 ~~980 times the U.S. average. Population 1960 density in coastal areas is expected to Coastal [-7- Coastal United increase as more people continue to Counties L States - States move into this limited space. About 68 Note: Does not include Alaska. percent of all coastal counties will have a population density increase of more the projected change in population be- than 10 percent between 1988and2010. tween 1988 and 2010 in U.S. coastal counties. In 1988, 101 counties had a population density greater than 500 persons per Coastal County Population Density. square mile. The most densely popu- Coastal areas include some of the most lated counties, those in which popula- densely populated counties in the Na- tion densities exceed 10,000 persons tion. Population densityincoastal coun- per square mile, include and/or sur- ties (excluding Alaska, since its huge round the cities of New York, San Fran- coastal area dilutes the national picture) cisco, Boston, and Philadelphia. The has increased dramatically since 1960 largest percent change in population (Figure 4). While the population density density over the next two decades is Figure 5. United States and Coastal Population Density, 1988 1 OOOOj ' 9'72. 954 4,093 _g 4 0- i ic * *ii i i ii l ' ' : US ME NH MA RI CT NYNJPA DE'MD'DCVA'NC SC GA FL' FL' AL'MSLA TX CA OR WAAK' HI NY PA OH Ml IN IL WI MN * United States . Northeast * Southeast E Gulf of Mexico Pacific Great Lakes 6 expected in Florida, primarily along the along the Nation's coastline. These state's Gulf coast. Declines in popula- figures were developed by dividing the tion density during this same period are coastal population of each state by tidal projected in 23 counties. The largest shoreline mileage (NOAA, 1975). declines are expected in the major ur- Coastal areas had a national average of ban centers of the Great Lakes and 1,177 persons pershoreline mile in1988, Northeast. and a projected ratio of 1,358 in 2010. The coastal states with the highest popu- The most densely populated portion of lation-to-shoreline ratios (due primarily the Nation's coastal zone is the North- to their relatively small shorelines) in- east, where four states and the District clude: Illinois, 91,740; eastern Pennsyl- of Columbia have densities exceeding vania, 30,871; Indiana, 15,951; and the 1,000 persons per square mile. The District of Columbia, 15,049. Great Lakes region is the second most densely populated area, with Illinois and - Ohio having the highest population con- centrations in this region. The South- The Northeast is the most populated of east region follows, because of the high the five regions, accounting for more population density of the Miami metro- than one-third of the Nation's coastal politan area. The least densely popu- population. Itcontains 18ofthe25most lated region is the Pacific, largely a densely populated counties in the entire result of the diluting effect of Alaska's U.S. In 1988, the 134 coastal counties vast stretches of uninhabited coastline. in this region, stretching from the north- Otherwise, the Gulf of Mexico has the ern coast of Maine to the Tidewater lowest population density. Figure 5 region of Virginia, were home to more shows the distribution of coastal county than 39 million people, about 16 percent population density by state. of the Nation's total population. The Northeast coastal population is projected Coastal County Population byShore- to increase by 10 percent over the next line Mile. Coastal areas are often val- two decades, to almost 43 million in ued for their aesthetic appeal and are 2010. This increase is almost equiva- increasingly attractive for commercial lent to the combined current populations and residential development. Water- of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The front sites are highly prized for housing. major population centers of the region These same sites are also sought for a include New York City, Philadelphia, wide variety of recreational activities Baltimore, Washington, and Boston. and tourist attractions. However, the appeal and attractiveness of these areas Population Trends. The coastal popu- are being diminished by the pressures lation in the Northeast will increase by of population growth and the require- 30 percent between 1960 and 2010. As ments of development (New York Water a region, the greatest change in popula- Pollution Control Association, Inc., tion occurred during the 1960s, when 1989). the Northeast coastal population in- creased by 13 percent. The Northeast Population per shoreline mile serves as region will experience lower than aver- one indicator of "environmental stress" 7 Table 3. Northeast Population, 1960-2010 POPULATION 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 STATE LasdAroa 0 I , (Sq. Mi.)/ MAINE 30,995 969 31 994 32 1,125 36 1,220 39 1,313 42 1,387 45 Coastal 12129 655 54 686 57 795 66 879 72 953 79 , Placid, Ilil* I101010 _83,-01 .4o RhrItj9 i ;B9 -MEi f t,690A 21 I 12. IN RN) ".M. NEW HAMPSHIRE 8,993 607 67 738 82 921 102 1,126 125 1,287 143 1.392 155 Coastal 1069 159 149 209 196 276 258 353 331 414 399 452 423 p46s1dI~o~ooo iSI ~la99{sl~iE) gii AN 112' Ila, SM 7i Z MASSACHUSETTS 7,824 9,149 658 5,689 727 5,737 733 5,978 764 6,344 811 6.687 855 Coastal 3535 3836 1805 4,260 1 295 4 121 449 i 2 14 353 54 121428 RHODE ISLAND 1.055 859 815 950 901 947 898 1,002 950 1,055 1,001 1,106 1,048 CoastaI ~ 1905 909 9.5 0~0 981 9412 600 tEO9 92 ~. 1~Q0,9 1t59 1040 Z~~~~~~~~ N CONNECTICUT 4,872 2,535 520 3,032 622 3,108 638 3,262 670 3.443 707 3,623 744 Coastal 2284 1,589 695 1 883 825 1 936 4 2025 887 2 13 34 2,244 982 i~~l II 1~~~11 ~~l~~~~t~l i~~lillO$ 1!1~~~~11~~~11~~ ~11~~111111~~~ li~~i~~ll~~ 11~~1 18~PI -11 10,0011111 NEWYORK 47,377 16,782 354 18,241 385 17,558 371 17,771 375 18,220 385 18,976 401 Coastal 7,70 11699 I,49 12742 1I683 12?082 14596 12330 1629 12I638 1669 13 191 11743 570o MPt 61 'I 96% I 9, NEW JERSEY 7,468 6,067 812 7,171 960 7,365 986 7,686 1,029 8,027 1,075 8,433 1,129 Coastal 5686 8 639 992 ,566 14155 6669 1173 6934 1219 7213 1269 7567 1331 PENNSYLVANIA 44,888 11,319 252 11,801 263 11,864 264 11,944 266 12,289 274 12,805 285 Coastal 930 2864 3080 2970 3,194 2,72 2 927 2,717 921 27769 2 978 2881 36098 11 ,lt 1(? I 1,11JI (, Iy)l R N OAj 17tA WW I Fd'M 9 DELAWARE 1,932 446 231 548 284 94 307 654 338 691 357 728 377 Coastal 932 446 231 548 294 594 307 654 338 691 357 728 377 MARYLAND 9,837 3,101 315 3,924 399 4,217 429 4,631 471 4,943 502 5,239 533 iiasta w-;-P 6444 1 37 2079 490 2 : 0M 9 2. 9 i 4 I7303 6 DIST. OFCOLUMBIA 63 764 12,126 757 12.011 638 10,127 621 9,864 636 10,091 665 10,550 Coastal 6 . 764 12 126 757 2011 638 0)27 62 9664 636 10,091 665 1050 VIRGINIA 39,704 3,967 100 4,651 117 8,347 135 6,088 153 6,591 166 6,988 176 Coastal 6,914 2 ,203 247 2776 311 374 356 3772 423 433 464 4409 495 TOTAL 205,008 52.566 256 58,496 285 59,421 290 61,984 302 64,838 316 68,029 332 Coasta 51,610 33,116 642 37.323 723 37,221 721 39,053 757 40 855 792 421922 832 -1 1199MO86Itt' (29O141H (90 110(0 I (64(04 I. 1 1 j 92II4s99oI 94 MAINE A0 1291 716EVEN al9 'Thouand per-- "Prsons per square mile age growth over the next two decades tant when one considers that coastal when comparedtotheentire U.S. Given counties account for only one-fourth of the relatively degraded environmental the total land area in the region. While quality conditions that already exist in almost four million people are expected this region, any growth is likely to make to be added to the region's coastal these problems more severe. Figure 6 population by 2010, the ratio of coastal shows the percent change in population to non-coastal population should remain in Northeast coastal counties between roughly the same. 1988 and 2010. Population Density. Because of the As shown in Table 3, all but two of the large population and small amount of states, Pennsylvania and New Hamp- land area in these coastal counties, this shire, in the Northeast region have most region is the most densely populated in of their population in coastal counties. the U.S., with more than 750 persons About 63 percent of the region's popula- per square mile. The population density tion resides in the narrow bandof coastal should rise to over 30 persons per should rise to over 830 persons per counties that border the ocean and es- tuaries in these states. This relatively square mile by 2010. At that point, the tuares n tesestaes.This relatively high proportion of coastal versus non- coastal population density will be more high proportion of coastal versus nn coastal population is even more impor- than five times that of the region's non- 8 Figure B. Poplatmbn Change 7N Ao,/hgast Coasta/Counties, IggB-20 10 Percent Change 2~% 5orGreater I 15to 24 5 StoI4 ] -10to5 Figure 7. Populat2bn Deris7D yn Ivy beast2CoastlC0rn~es, 2010 Persons per Square Mile liz~~~~~~~ 2185 or Greater ~ 470toP2184 E 145to469 L Otol44 Figure 8. Northeast Coastal Population Density, 1960-2010 (a) Maine-New York (b) New Jersey-Virginia 5,000 13,000 C 4,000- 4,000- ( 3,000- 3,000- n o-r 2,000 o 2,000 1,000 1,000' 0 0 2010 00 2010 1960 1670 1680 1690 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Year 3 New York l Rhode Island I-E New Hampshire E District of Columbia E- New Jersey [_ Virginia Massachusetts Connecticut ~ Maine i [1Pennsylvania 7- ~Maryland 3 Delaware coastal counties. Figure 7 shows the delphia) comprising a large portion of population density of coastal counties in the state's coastal zone. In other North- the Northeast region in 2010. east states with large coastal population centers, such as Boston, New York City, Figures 8a and 8b show the trend in and Baltimore, there is a greater length population density for the coastal por- of shoreline reaching less populated tions of states in the Northeast. The portions of the state, consequently low- overall trend forthe region is one of slow ering the overall population per shore- growth, with each state's ranking re- line mile. maining constant, except for New Hampshire, which is projected to sur- "Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 5 lists pass Delaware by 2010. Pennsylvania the top 15 coastal counties in the region has a higher density than other states in for three categories: the counties ex- the region, excluding the District of pected to increase by the most people; Columbia, because its counties are al- the counties projected to increase at the most exclusively urban. Six of the fastest rate; and the counties projected Nation's seven leading states in coastal to have the highest population density. countypopulation density are located in The counties with the largest projected the Northeast. increases in population are primarily suburbs of the large cities in the region. Population byShoreline Mile. Table4 Suffolk County, NY, for example, is lo- lists the coastal population per shoreline cated on the eastern end of Long Island, mile for each of the Northeast states. and will grow largely due to its proximity The high value for Pennsylvania is the to New York City. Queens County, NY, result of a major population center (Phila- is one of the boroughs of New York City. 10 Table 4. Northeast Coastal Population cially since the end of World War II. The per Shoreline Mile percent change map (Figure 6) shows Year the pattern of more rapid growth at the State 1960 1988 2010 fringes of current metropolitan regions. Maine 188 250 290 New Hampshire 1,212 2,553 3,453 Massachusetts 2,525 2,907 3,324 A second pattern emerges due to the Rhode Island 2,238 2,585 2,881 influence of an aging population. At Connecticut 2,570 3,235 3,631 New York 6,324 6,738 7,130 least four of the counties with rapid New Jersey 3,147 3,898 4,223 projected growth currently have a large Pennsylvania 32,182 30,871 32,375 Delaware 1,171 1,733 1,910 elderly population. These counties (Vir- Maryland 753 1,027 1,135 ginia Beach, VA; Worcester, MD;Ocean, District of Columbia 18,633 15,049 16,212 NJ; and Barnstable, MA) are popular re- Virginia 665 1,133 1,330 Northeast 1,973 2,330 2,557 tirement and resort areas for people who want to settle on or visit the Atlan- Fairfax County, VA, is located across tic coast. the Potomac River from Washington, DC. Middlesex County, MA, is west and The Northeast is the most densely popu- north of Boston. lated region in the entire U.S. The 15 northeastern counties listed in Table 5 A slightly different pattern emerges for nor theastern counties listed in Table 5 counties with large increases in their for population density are also nation- wide leaders in population density. rate of growth. These counties are lo- Except for San Francisco County, cated at the edges of the existing areas nine of the 10 most densely populated nine of the 10 most densely populated of urban influence. Instead of being counties in the U.S. in 1988 were in the directly adjacent to a major city, they are Northeast In 2010, 56 of the region's usually one county beyond the recog- counties, or42 percent, are projected to nized suburban area. This "suburban have a population density larger than sprawl" from the central city outward to 800 persons per square mile, or 10 the surrounding counties has been times the projected national average. occurring throughout the U.S., espe- Table 5. Northeast Leading Counties in Population Change Population Percent Population per Change, Population Square Mile, 1988-2010 Change, 2010 County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County (1,000 Persons) Suffolk, NY 225 Spotsylvania, VA 49 New York, NY 71 Fairfax, VA 210 Barnstable, MA 48 Kings, NY 33 Middlesex, MA 144 Charles, MD 43 Bronx, NY 27 Ocean, NJ 124 Dukes, MA 43 Queens, NY 19 Queens, NY 118 Calvert, MD 42 Suffolk, MA 12 Plymouth, MA 114 Falls Church, VA 40 Philadelphia, PA 12 Virginia Beach, VA 105 Rockingham, NH 39 Hudson, NJ 12 Anne Arundel, MD 93 Fredericksburg, VA 34 District of Columbia 11 Rockingham, NH 92 Nantucket, MA 33 Baltimore City, MD 9 Fairfield, CT 91 Gloucester, VA 33 Richmond, NY 8 New Haven, CT 89 Prince William, VA 33 Alexandria, VA 8 Bristol, MA 88 Stafford, VA 33 Essex, NJ 7 Barnstable, MA 86 King George, VA 31 Falls Church, VA 7 Bucks, PA 85 Ocean, NJ 30 Arlington, VA 7 Essex, MA 82 Chesterfield, VA 30 Norfolk, VA 6 11 Table 6. Great Lakes Population, 1960-2010 |J~~~~~~ ~~POPULATION | 1960 1970 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 PENNSYLVANIA 44,888 11,319 252 11,601 253 11,984 264 11.944 268 12,289 274 -2,805 885 STATE ,aOd~rea � / /. / � / , / // ,~ / (Sq. MO/ NEW YORK 47,377 16,782 354 18,241 385 17,558 371 17,771 375 18,220 385 18,976 401 Coastal 9,945 2,500 251 2,704 272 2,611 263 2,551 257 2,596 261 2,685 270 PENNSYLVANIA 44,888 11,319 252 11,601 263 11,864 264 11,944 266 12,289 274 12.805 280 Coastal 804 251 312 264 328 280 348 279 347 285 354 295 367 OHIFO 41,004 9,706 237 10,65 7 260 10,798 263 10,761 262 11,002 268 11.411 278 Coastal 3 774 2 ,796 74 1 3 020 800 2,802 756 2,736 725 2,733 724 2,810 745 MICHIGAN 56,954 7,823 137 8,8682 156 9.262 163 9,216 162 9.505 167 9,865 173 Coastal 931477 4694 140 5099 16 5034 160 4832 154 40 97 156 9054 161 INDIANA 35,932 4,662 130 5,195 145 5,490 153 5,550 154 5,711 159 5,925 16l Coastal 1,519 669 440 739 486 751 495 713 469 722 475 749 493 ILLINOIS 55,645 10,081 181 11,110 200 11,427 205 11,560 208 11,846 213 12,331 222 Coastal I4 12 5423 3 841 50876 4,162 694 4,033 5704 440 0716 4070 0 93 4 2161 3 WISCONSIN 54,426 3,952 73 4,418 81 4,706 86 4,886 90 5,148 95 5,378 99 Coastal 10,510 1,785 170 1,915 182 1,882 179 1,864 177 1,916 182 1,986 189 MINNESOTA 79,548 3,414 43 3,806 48 4,076 51 4,363 55 4,690 59 4,950 62 Coastal 959 0 249 26 237 25 239 32 5 2 12 22 216 23 224 23 TOTAL 415,774 67,741 163 74.111 178 75,181 181 768,052 183 78,409 189 81,641 196 Coastal 69036 10367 266 1955 26 19,34492 2 74 18892,109 2747 19,55 277 *Thousand persons "Penso per square mile E-. . - Population Trends. The Great Lakes coastal population is expected to in- The Great Lakes region, the third most crease by eight percent between 1960 populous coastal region, contains 85 of and 2010. The decade of maximum the Nation's coastal counties. The re- coastalpopulationgrowthwasthe1960s. gion includes the coastal portions of However,populationdeclinedduringthe eight states surrounding the five Great 1970s and 1980s and offset the earlier Lakes along the U.S.-Canada border. increase. Although the region is not These lakes, in order of greatest surface projected to experience rapid growth water area, are Lake Superior, Lake over the next two decades, it will remain Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and an important center for industry and Lake Ontario. The coastal counties in commerce. The region contains four of this region contain about 19 million the Nation's 20 most populous counties. people, or roughly 17 percent of the Nation's coastal population. The region's Unlike the Northeast, the Great Lakes share of the U.S. coastal population is region has a relatively small proportion expected to drop over the next two dec- (25 percent) of its population in coastal ades because of relatively slow growth counties. With only 17 percent of the in most of its counties. Between 1980 region's land area in coastal counties, and 1986, eight of the Nation's 20 lead- the population density of 275 persons ing counties in population loss were per square mile is much lower than the located in this region, density in the Northeast. It is, however, much higher than the overall U.S. figure of about 70 persons per square mile. 12 Figure 9. PouainCagf ra~ksCatlCute~1988-2010 Percent Change F i gure 1 0. Populaton Denslvity/ Gloat Lakes CoastalCounties, 2010 Persons per Square Mile U295 or Greater 13 Figure 11. Great Lakes Coastal Popu- Table 7. Great Lakes Coastal Popula- lation Density, 1960-2010 tion per Shoreline Mile 5,000 Year State 1960 1988 2010 New York 6,127 6,273 6,581 4,000 Pennsylvania 4,915 5,431 5,785 Ohio 8,963 8,892 9,006 Michigan 1,523 1,579 1,639 800- Indiana 14,859 15,951 16,646 Illinois 86,085 91,740 94,485 Wisconsin 2,176 2,285 2,422 C 600- Minnesota 1,316 1,135 1,186 Great Lakes 3,695 3,835 3,974 a. 400. Figure 10 shows the population density 200.... O--A .,FX :: A - for the region in 2010. The counties containing the major metropolitan areas 0 in the region (Chicago, Detroit, Cleve- 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year land, Milwaukee, and Buffalo) appear in ,111inois FPennsylvania PMichigan red. In general, population densities are 9EOhio E NewYork F:Minnesota higher along the southern shores of Z1lndiana EW-isconsin Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie. Table6summarizesthechangeinpopu- Population by Shoreline Mile. The lation and population density for each coastal population per shoreline mile coastal state between 1960 and 2010. (Table 7) confirms the high degree of development of the two coastal counties Figure 9 shows the percent change in of Illinois. Its population of over 91,000 population between 1988 and 2010. persons per mile of shoreline is the Most of the counties expected to expe- highest in the Nation. The shoreline rience rapid growth in the region have mile population of Indiana is also high, relatively small populations. Unlike the 15,951, making it the fourth highest in Northeast, most of these higher growth the U.S. The regionalratio of3,835per- counties are not found near metropoli- sonspershoreline mile makes the Great tan areas. The region has 12 coastal Lakes the highest of the five coastal counties expected to lose population regions. between 1988 and 2010, more than any other coastal region in the Nation. "Hot Spots" of Growth. The slow growth trend expected for this region is Population Density. The population evident after comparing the leading densities of the coastal portions of these growth counties in this region to those in states through time are shown in Figure the four other coastal regions. The 1 1. Because both Cook and Lake coun- absolute and percent population change ties are so highly developed, the coastal growth figures in Table 8 are lower than population density of Illinois is much the leading counties in the other re- higher than any other state in the region gions. Most of the counties with large and, excluding the District of Columbia, projected population increases between the Nation. 14 Table 8. Great Lakes Leading Counties in Population Change Population Percent Change, Population Population per 1988-2010 Change, Square Mile, County (100 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010 Cook, IL 992 Porter, IN 26 Cook, IL 5,620 Macomb, MI 765 Cook, MN 23 Milwaukee, WI 3,960 Lake, IL 737 Leelanau, Ml 21 Wayne, MI 3,397 Monroe, NY 566 Grand Traverse, Ml 20 Cuyahoga, OH 3,073 Porter, IN 329 Bayfield, WI 19 Macomb, Ml 1,625 Ottawa, MI 299 Benzie, MI 18 Lucas, OH 1,361 Brown, WI 255 Door, WI 18 Lake, IL 1,253 Milwaukee, WI 242 Ozaukee, WI 17 Monroe, NY 1,142 Erie, PA 180 Ottawa, MI 17 Lake, OH 998 Lorain, OH 175 Antrim, MI 17 Lake, IN 961 Lake, OH 158 Emmet, MI 16 Erie, NY 927 St. Clair, MI 151 Allegan, MI 16 Lorain, OH 582 Allegan, Ml 143 Lake, IL 15 Racine, WI 554 Oswego, NY 136 Houghton, MI 15 Kenosha, WI 458 Grand Traverse, MI 129 Alcona, MI 15 Niagara, NY 427 1988 and 2010 contain, or are near, coastal population. In 1988, the 56 major cities. Some of these same coun- counties in this region were home to ties experienced significant declines in more than nine million persons. Four population between 1980 and 1988. out of five people living in the coastal Southeast were located in eastern Flor- The counties expected to grow at the ida. The Southeast coastal population fastest rate are found almost exclusively is projected to increase by 27 percent on the shores of Lakes Michigan and over the next two decades, to 11 million Superior. Porter County, IN, is in the persons in 2010. The major population eastern half of the Gary-Hammond met- centers of the region include Miami, ropolitan area. It is expected to experi- Jacksonville, Savannah, and Charleston. ence continued rapid growth, even though the metropolitan area as awhole Population Trends. The coastal popu- has been losing population over the last lation of the Southeast region is pro- decade. This pattern also holds true for jected to increase by 181 percent (the Ozaukee County, WI, part of the Mil- highest of the five regions) between waukee-Racine metropolitan area. 1960 and 2010. The largest growth occurred between 1970 and 1980, when The listof high-densitycountiesfor201 0 the Southeast coastal population in- is not very different from a list that would creased by 36 percent. Table 9 summa- be compiled today. High-density coun- rizes the change in population and ties are found in every Great Lakes state population density for each coastal state except Minnesota. between 1960 and 2010. Eastern Florida has and will dominate population trends in this region. This The Southeast has the smallest popula- area has experienced extremely rapid tion of the five regions shown, account- growth; its population increased by 152 ing for only eight percent of the U.S. percent between 1960 and 1988. Its 15 Table 9. Southeast Population, 1960-2010 POPULATION 190 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 STATE L-rrd ra / 0 0 / , 0Al NORTH CAROLINA 48,843 4,5586 3 5,084 104 5,882 120 6,597 135 7,056 145 7,400 152 Coastal 91378 474 50 510 54 5886 64 699 75 752 80 789 84 SOUTH CAROLINA 30,203 2,383 79 2,591 86 3,122 103 3,534 117 3,812 126 4,010 133 Coastal 7806 507 65 565 72 724 93 889 114 984 126 1049 134 GEORGIA 55,056 3,943 68 4,588 79 5.463 94 6,458 ill 7,053 121 7,472 129 Coastal 2,887 267 93 281 97 326 113 374 130 399 138 418 145 FLORIDA 54,153 4,952 91 6,791 125 9,746 180 12,837 237 14,811 273 18.143 298 Coastal 17,210 2,744 159 3 01 227 5513 320 7169 417 8230 476 6967 520 TOTAL 191,255 15,833 83 1 8,054 100 24,213 127 29,425 154 32,742 171 35 ,025 183 Coastal 37,281 3,92 107 5,257 141 7,19 182 9,131 245 10, 278 11,214 301 'Thousand persons "Persons per square mile population is projected to increase by U.S. average of 70 persons per square 226 percent for the entire 50-year pe- mile. Population density in the South- riod. Population increases in eastern east is expected to increase to an aver- Florida have been, and are projected to age of 301 persons per square mile by be, the largest in the counties contain- 2010. Figure 14 shows that Florida will ing, or adjacent to Jacksonville, Miami, continue to lead the region in population Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and density, with an increase from 159 per- Orlando. Rapid growth also is projected sons per square mile in 1960 to slightly to occur around Savannah and Char- more than 520 persons per square mile leston. by 2010, a change of about 227 percent. Although coastal counties comprise only Seasonal variations in population den- 19 percent of the land area in the four sityoccureveninsuchlow-densityareas Southeastern states, they contain more as coastal North Carolina. Southeast than 31 percent of the population in coastal areas attract visitors from major these states. Between 1988 and 2010, metropolitan centers in the southern almost one-third (16 of 56) of the coastal U.S., bringing increased seasonal envi- counties are projected to have popula- ronmental stress in the form of housing, tion increases of 35-75 percent. Figures hotels and motels, recreation, and sup- 12 and 13 show, by coastal county, the porting infrastructure. percent change in population between 1988 and 2010, and the projected popu- Population by Shoreline Mile. Table lation density in 2010. 10 shows that the population-to-shore- line mile ratio in the Southeast will al- Population Density. Coastal popula- most triple in size between 1960 and tion densities across the region in 1988 2010. Florida's ratio of 2,075 raises the ranged from a low of 73 persons per regional average because it is much squaremileinNorthCarolinatoahighof higher than any other Southeastern 402 persons per square mile in Florida. state. The remaining states are more The average for the region was 237 rural and have a greater number of persons per square mile, well above the shoreline miles because of large estuar- 16 Figure 12. Pplto hnai o~atCatlonis 9921 Percenyt Change El -iotog, Figure 13. PpltbDssvkSotesCosaCun 2010 Persons per Square Mile 25*rGrae 0105 to 254 l 0to 44 17 Figure 14. Southeast Coastal Popula- Table 10. Southeast Coastal Popula- tion Density, 1960-2010 tion per Shoreline Mile 800 Year State 1960 1988 2010 North Carolina 140 202 234 South Carolina 176 303 365 600- Georgia 114 158 179 . Florida 824 2,075 2,689 Southeast 335 741 940 8,,- /to increase by the most people; the 400 counties projected to increase at the fastest rate; and the counties projected to have the highest population density. This is a reflection of the state's large and rapidly growing population. Partly because they already contain large urban 80 1990 areas (Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Holly- Year wood, Hialeah, and West Palm Beach), PFIorida ISouthCarolina Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach coun- t-Gresoraia I- INorth Carolina ties in Florida are projected to be the three leading counties in population ine and barrier island systems. Many of change between 1988 and 2010. these natural systems, especially Berkeley and Dorchester counties in throughout the Carolinas, are contained South Carolina also appear on the list within a large network of state and na- becauseoftheirproximitytoCharleston. tional parks, which limit coastal devel- opment opportunities. Coastal counties projected to increase at the fastest rate are led by Osceola, "Hot Spots" of Growth. As shown in Martin, and Flagler counties in Florida. Table 11, eastern Florida dominates all These are "retirement-oriented" coun- three categories: the counties expected ties, but will also grow as a result of their Table 11. Southeast Leading Counties in Population Change Population Percent Change, Population Population per 1988-2010 Change, Square Mile, County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010 Broward, FL 436 Osceola, FL 72 Seminole, FL 1,391 Dade, FL 366 Martin, FL 61 Broward, FL 1,340 Palm Beach, FL 362 Flagler, FL 59 Dade, FL 1,115 Seminole, FL 145 Seminole, FL 54 Duval, FL 915 Orange, FL 131 Indian River, FL 50 Orange, FL 816 Volusia, FL 103 Berkeley, SC 50 New Hanover, NC 704 Brevard, FL 77 St. Johns, FL 48 Palm Beach, FL 592 Osceola, FL 65 St. Lucie, FL 47 Chatham, GA 546 St. Lucie,,FL 64 Okeechobee, FL 47 Brevard, FL 468 Berkeley, SC 63 Clay, FL 46 Volusia, FL 405 Martin, FL 59 Dorchester, SC 45 St. Lucie, FL 345 Clay, FL 46 Palm Beach, FL 44 Charleston, SC 323 Indian River, FL 43 Liberty, GA 42 Martin, FL 279 St. Johns, FL 38 Broward, FL 37 Indian River, FL 262 Dorchester, SC 37 Baker, FL 36 Clay, FL 247 18 proximity to large urban centers. The gions, accounting for 13 percent of the only Georgia county on the leading total U.S. coastal population. In 1988, growth list, Liberty, is projected to in- the 99 counties in this region were home crease by 42 percent over the next two to more than 14 million persons. The decades. This is due primarily to its Gulf coastal population is projected to proximity to Savannah, as well as to the increase by 22 percent, to almost 18 effect of Fort Stewart, a large military million by 2010. The major population reservation located almostentirelywithin centers in the Gulf region include Hous- the county. ton, New Orleans, Tampa, and St. Pe- tersburg. Seminole, Broward, and Dade counties in Florida are projected to be the most Population Trends. The coastal popu- denselypopulatedcountiesintheSouth- lation in the Gulf of Mexico is projected east by 2010. Broward and Dade coun- to increase by 144 percent between ties have large land areas, but contain 1960 and 2010, the second highest of the entire Miami-Fort Lauderdale met- the five regions. As a region, the great- ropolitan area. Seminole County has a est change in population occurred be- high density because of its small land tween 1970 and 1980, when the Gulf area and proximity to Orlando. New coastal population increased by 33 Hanover County, NC, also has a small percent. Western Florida has been and land area and contains numerous beach will continue to be the most rapidly grow- resorts as well as the city of Wilmington. ing area in the Gulf; its population is Chatham County, GA, contains Savan- expected to increase by more than 1.5 nah, the fifth largest city in the region. million overthe nexttwo decades. Texas is the next most rapidly growing state; ~_~'rni~llvo its coastal population is expected to in- crease by over 1.1 million persons dur- The Gulf of Mexico ranks fourth in total ing this same period. Both western population among the five coastal re- Florida and Texas will have the highest Table 12. Gulf of Mexico Population, 1960-2010 |I~~~~~~ ~ ~POPULATION 1960 1970 19 80 1990 2000 2010 STATE Lnre Lar ne / (Sq. Mi. / 0 e 0 e l e FLORIDA 54,153 4,952 91 6,791 125 9,746 180 12,837 237 14,811 273 16,143 298 Coastal 36,943 2,207 60 2,890 78 4,234 115 5,668 153 6,80 178 7,187 195 ALABAMA 50,767 3,267 64 3,444 68 3.894 77 4,139 82 4,339 85 4,515 69 Coastal 26827 363 129 377 133 444 157 464 171 514 182 538 190 MISSISSIPPI 47,233 2,178 46 2,217 47 2,521 53 '2,650 56 2,770 59 2.882 61 Coastal 1,790 189 106 240 134 300 166 344 192 373 209 396 221 LOUISIANA 44,521 3,257 73 3,645 82 4,206 94 4,548 102 4,86680 110 5,160 116 Coastal 16535 1 912 116 2211 134 2092 157 262 17 3003 165 3240 196 TEXAS 262017 9,580 37 11,199 43 14,229 54 17,625 67 19,727 75 21,182 81 Coastal 20,784 2681 129 3289 106 41421 213 0409 260 ,690 293 6,72 316 TOTAL 458,691 20,293 44 27,296 60 34,596 75 41,800 91 46,527 101 49.882 109 Coasta 78,679 7,303 9 114 11J991 152 14,7262 1 16 615 211 17932 22 7 alo sa1l: NORrenl, MiST2 H, WNM -IR, n9, Em ABilly )36%eW il 3 6135%'-' -,R ORN 'Thousand persons *Persons per square mile 19 Figure 15. PouaNnCag ' uff~xc osaCute,18&8700 J15 to 24 1] -5 to 14 Figure 16 oua5nDn.~ '/ofaioCatlCut421 40to94 E3 0)to 39 20 Figure 17. Gulf of Mexico Coastal mile by 2010. As Figure 17 shows, Population Density, population density in coastal Texas (316 1960-2010 persons per square mile) has and should 500 continue to be the highest in the region. Western Florida, however, is projected to have the most rapid growth in popula- 400- tion density, increasing to 195 persons per square mile in 2010, up from 60 300- persons per square mile in 1960, a 226 vr - /percent increase. Alabama, which 200- W -Ad shared the highest average population density with Texas in 1960, is projected E. to have the lowest density by 2010 (190 100-~- /persons per square mile). Louisiana and Mississippi will continue to experi- ence steady increases into 2010. 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Population by Shoreline Mile. Table pTexas E Louisiana EFlorida 13 shows that population per shoreline 'Alabama .FMississippi mile in the Gulf of Mexico will more than double between 1960 and 2010. Texas rates of growth in the Gulf, 27 and 22 will have the highest ratio, followed by percent respectively. Table 12 summa- Florida. Florida's ratio will increase at a rizes the change in population and faster rate than any other Gulf state population densityforeach coastal state during this 50-year period. The 17,141 between 1960 and 2010. miles of shoreline in the Gulf region are highly valued for residential and sea- Although the Gulf of Mexico region is not sonal housing, especially in Florida as as densely settled as other regions, it is its population increases into the next expected to have the second fastest century. rate of growth. Almost one-third of all Gulf counties will increase in population "Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 14 lists by more than 30 percent over the next the region's top 15 coastal counties in two decades. Figures 15 and 16 show, three categories: the counties projected by coastal county, the percent change in population between 1988 and 201 0, and Table 13. Gulf of Mexico Coastal the projected population density in 2010. Population per Shoreline Mile Population Density. Excluding the Year Pacific (because of Alaska's enormous state 1960 1988 2010 size), the Gulf of Mexico is currently the Florida 433 1,064 1,411 Alabama 599 800 886 least densely populated of the five Mississippi 527 928 1,102 coastal regions. Population density Louisiana 248 352 420 across the region averages about 187 Tulf of Mexico 4798 1,517 1.9546 Gulf of Mexico 429 820 1,046 persons per square mile and is expected to increase to 227 persons per square 21 Table 14. Gulf of Mexico Leading Counties in Population Change Population Percent Change, Population Population per 1988-2010 Change, Square Mile, County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010 Harris, TX 909 Citrus, FL 81 Pinellas, FL 3,619 Pinellas, FL 192 Hernando, FL 73 Orleans, LA 2,707 Pasco, FL 182 Pasco, FL 69 Harris, TX 2,132 Lee, FL 161 Collier, FL 63 Jefferson, LA 1,654 Hillaborough, FL 158 Charlotte, FL 62 East Baton Rouge, LA 1,082 Fort Bend, TX 113 Fort Bend, TX 55 Hillaborough, FL 924 East Baton Rouge, LA ill Lee, FL 52 Sarasota, FL 633 Jefferson, LA 104 Chambers, TX 45 Galveston, TX 615 Sarasota, FL 102 Marion, FL 44 Pasco, FL 606 Hidalgo, TX 102 Brazoria, TX 41 Lee, FL 585 Polk, FL 91 Glades, FL 41 Eacambia, FL 495 Collier, FL 87 Livingston, LA 40 Nuecea, TX 410 Marion, FL 84 Hendry, FL 40 Fort Bend, TX 363 Brazoria, TX 76 St. John the Baptist, LA 39 Cameron, TX 361 Citrus, FL 75 Sarasota, FL 39 Leon, FL 356 to increase by the most people; the area. The counties surrounding Hous- counties projected to increase at the ton (Brazoria, Chambers, and Fort Bend) fastest rate; and the counties projected will also have high growth rates during to have the highest population density. this period. The areas of lowest growth The counties with the largest projected are in the northwestern corner of Flor- increases in absolute population are lo- ida, including several inland counties, cated primarily in Florida, from the Flor- the Louisiana-Texas border area, and ida Keys to north of the Tampa area. parts of southeastern Texas. Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, which include Tampa and St. Peters- Although coastal populations are in- burg, are already heavily populated and creasing rapidly throughout the region, large population increases areexpected. Gulf coastal counties will not be as Counties with large elderly populations densely settled in the near f utu re as the such as Collier, Lee, and Pasco are also major urban areas in the Northeast, projected to have major increases over Great Lakes, or Pacific regions. Only the next two decades. Projections indi- two of the 50 most densely populated cate that these populations will increase counties in the U.S. coastal zone in by at least one-half in each county. In 201 0 will be in the Gulf of Mexico. Harris County, TX, the projected popu- However, 38 Gulf counties are projected lation increase of over 900,000 repre- to have a population density greater sents about one-third of the county's than 160 persons per square mile, or current population. twice the national average in 201 0. While Gulf counties do not have densities Coastal counties in southwestern Flor- comparable to the most densely settled ida will also have the largest percent counties in the U.S., they do have some increases in population over the next of the most rapidly increasing densities two decades. Ten of the 15 most rapidly anywhere in the Nation. growing counties in the coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico are located in this 22 �. - . , , *The greatest changes in coastal county population occurred during the 1960s. The Pacific region, the second most From 1960 to the present, and projected populated U.S. coastal region, contains to 2010, Alaska had the largest popula- 77 coastal countietion growth rate. Between 1960 and 77 coastal counti es and such major 1970, Alaska's population almost population centers as Los Angeles, Sanlaskas population almost Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Honolulu, doubled, while other Pacific states saw Portland, and Anchorage. In 1988, the increases of only 17-28 percent. Cali- coastal population of this region was fornia had the second largest rate of over 29 million, with 77 percent of the population increase, followed closely by population living in California. By 2010, Washington. the population will have increased by 22 percent to over 35 million persons. Growth in the region slowed considera- bly between 1970 and 1980. Although Alaska's population grew by over one- Population Trends. The coastal popu- third, California had the smallest popu- lation in the Pacific region is expected to lation growth rate (15 percent). Average more than double between 1960 and growth across the region was approxi- 2010, thethird highestgrowth rateamong mately 17 percent. Estimates of popu- the five regions. By 2010, the coastal lation growth forthe 1980s are similarto population is expected to increase by the growth that occurred during the over six million persons, the largest of 1960s. Growth in Alaska will exceed 40 any coastal region. Table 15 shows that percent. California follows with over 20 by2010, allstates exceptforOregon will percent growth. The smallest growth have at least doubled their coastal rate is anticipated in Oregon. population. Alaska's coastalpopulation is expected to increase by 380 percent. ulation projections for the next two decades reflect a slower rate of growth. Alaska's rate will be the largest, fol- lowed by Washington, California, Ha- Table 15. Pacific Population, 1960-2010 POPULATION 1960 1970 | 1980 1990 2000 2010 STATE LandArea4 (Sq.Mi) e CALIFORNIA 156,299 15,717 101 19,971 12 23,668 151 29.,040 186 32,482 208 34,901 223 Coaslal 38,188 13,073 342 16,682 436 19,238 504 23,091 605 25,605 671 27,429 716 OREGON 96,184 1,769 1a 2,092 22 2,633 27 2,B08 29 3,042 32 3,222 34 Coastal 1669 1107 00 6 1200 96 I 52 0i 79 S M 1,612 02 I721 101 101 IN2 WASHINGTON 66,511 2,853 43 3,413 51 4,132 62 4,733 71 5,235 79 5,593 64 2645 1992, 97 2523 122 3-045 148 3548 172 3962 192 4,253 20 ALASKA 570,033 226 0 303 1 402 1 555 1 641 1 698 1 HAWAII 6,425 633 98 770 120 965 150 1,118 174 1,222 190 1,307 203 Coastal 6.425 633 98 770 120 965 150 1,118 174 1.222 10 1,307 203 TOTAL 896.252 21,198 24 26,548 30 31,800 35 38,284 43 42,623 48 45,721 51 Coastal 465 088 16,930, 39 2 1500 46 25,13 4 54 2978,40 643 3 3061 71 35404 76 'Thousand persons "Persons per square mile 23 F ig ure 18S. Populatio Change 17 Paciic Coqastal Counties, 1988&2010 Pe rce nt C ha nge 30 orGreater U-20 to 14 Figure 19. Pplto estk aii osa onis21 W Persons per Square M ile 0575 or Greater 145 to 574 24 Figure 20. Pacific Coastal Popula- Table 16. Pacific Coastal Population tion Density, 1960-2010 per Shoreline Mile 800 Year State 1960 1988 2010 Calfornia 3,815 6,551 8,004 Oregon 785 1,140 1,287 600 - /Washington 658 1,163 1,405 Alaska 4 13 18 Hawaii 601 1,044 1,242 la / Pacific 395 680 827 40- projections for the next two decades *, show smaller increases in density. By 2010, population density is projected to 200- = - increase to 76 persons per square mile, just above the national average. The - - -.- - total increase is only 40 persons per �960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 square mile over the 50-year period. 1970 1970 1990 2000 2010 Year F 0California F Washington 7AIaska Excluding Alaska, the population den- - -Hawaii --3Oregon sity for the Pacific region is dramatically different. The Pacific would rank third in waii, and Oregon (Figure 18). Overall, population density in 1960 (148 persons the rate of growth in the Pacific region is, per square mile), after the Northeast and will continue to be, higherthan in the and Great Lakes, and second only after Northeast and Great Lakes, but lower the Northeast in 2010. than for the Southeast and the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal Califomiapopulation density will more than double, from 342personsper Population Density. The Pacific (in- square mile in 1960 to an estimated 718 cluding Alaska) is the least densely persons per square mile in 2010. populated coastal region. Population Washington and Hawaii follow, with density in the Pacific region averages increases of 109 persons per square 36 persons per square mile, well below mile and 104 persons per square mile, the nationalaverage. However, popula- respectively, over the same 50 year tion density across the region is highly period. variable, ranging from the sparsely populated state of Alaska to the densely Population by Shoreline Mile. Popu- populated coastal areas of California lation-to-shorelineratiosshown in Table (particularly southern California), aswell 16 indicate that the Pacific currently has as Hawaii. Between 1960-2010, popu- the lowest ratio of all the regions. Cali- lation densities in California are consis- fornia currently has the highest ratio, tently the highest of all the states in the and projections suggest that it will more region, followed by Hawaii, Washing- than doublefrom 1960to 2010. Alaska's ton, Oregon, and Alaska (Figure 20). In- population-to-shoreline ratio is so low creases in population density since the that it distorts the regional perspective. 1960s have been relatively consistent; The average regional ratio will not in- crease as dramatically as in the Gulf of 25 Table 17. Pacific Leading Counties in Population Change Population Percent Change, Population Population per 1988-2010 Change, Square Mile, County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010 Los Angeles, CA 1,271 Kenai Peninsula, AK 65 San Francisco, CA 18,913 Orange, CA 704 Matanuska-Susitna, AK 57 Orange, CA 3,710 San Diego, CA 620 San Juan, WA 51 Los Angeles, CA 2,422 Santa Clara, CA 428 Santa Cruz, CA 50 Alameda, CA 1,998 Alameda, CA 229 Thurston, WA 47 San Mateo, CA 1,657 Ventura, CA 222 San Luis Obispo, CA 46 Honolulu, HI 1,627 Sacramento, CA 202 Anchorage, AK 45 Santa Clara, CA 1,439 Contra Costa, CA 199 Jefferson, WA 44 Multnomah, OR 1,359 King, WA 186 Mason, WA 43 Contra Costa, CA 1,320 Sonoma, CA 153 Sonoma, CA 42 Sacramento, CA 1,214 San Francisco, CA 138 Solano, CA 40 King, WA 764 Honolulu, HI 131 Mendocino, CA 39 Santa Cruz, CA 760 Solano, CA 124 Island, WA 39 San Diego, CA 710 Pierce, WA 117 Kitsap, WA 36 Kitsap, WA 627 San Mateo, CA 112 Maui, HI 35 Solano, CA 526 Mexico, Southeast, or Northeast. The Los Angeles, and San Diego. In 1960, very high concentration of population almost one-half of California's total along the shoreline, particularly in Cali- population, and almost 60 percentof the fornia, reflects the desirability of shore- state's coastal population, were con- line property for residential housing. centrated in the three southernmost counties. By 2010,15.8 million persons "Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 17 lists will reside in these counties. Although the top 15 coastal counties for three thesecountiesarealreadydenselypopu- categories: the counties projected to lated, significant growth is still expected increase by the most people; the coun- into the next century. King and Kitsap ties projected to increase at the fastest counties (located around Puget Sound), rate; and the counties projected to have Honolulu, and Multnomah (where Port- the highest population density. With land is located) are also densely popu respect to increasing population sizes lated. between 1988 and 2010, 12 of the coun- ties are located in California. Not sur- prisingly, Los Angeles, Orange, and San The top 10 counties on the list all have Diego counties top the list, with Los population densities greater than 1,000 Angeles County expecting an increase persons per square mile. San Fran- of 1.3 million persons. The other Califor- cisco is the most densely populated, nia counties in this ranking are part of with over 18,900 persons per square the Southern California and San Fran- mile. Orange County is second, with cisco Bay metropolitan areas. King and over 3,700 persons per square mile, Pierce counties, WA, and Honolulu also and Los Angeles County third, with over make this list. 2,400 persons per square mile. The ranking changes dramatically in terms Population density projections for 2010 ranking chang es dramatically in terms of percent population change during this show a similar pattern. Eleven of the same period Growth of the leading leading coastal counties are in Califor- counties ranges from 35-75 percent. nia, concentrated around San Francisco, Two of the top three counties are lo- 26 cated in south-central Alaska and reflect . the growth anticipated out from Anchor- age. Two of the top five are in Washing- We would like to thank Charles N. Ehier, ton. As expected, the greatest growth Director, Office of Oceanography and will occur in less densely populated MarineAssessment, and DanielJ. Basta, places, where there is more capability Chief, Strategic Assessment Branch, forexpansionof a smallpopulationbase for their guidance and support of this (Figure 19). report and the coastal trends series. Kevin D. McMahon and Mitchell J. Katz provided editorial support. The Bureau of the Census provided all pre-1990 Population projections are inherently population data. imprecise and do not provide the "final picture" because of unforeseen eco- nomic or social changes. In addition, projections are much less certain as the geography becomes smaller, e.g., at the county level, and with increases in the time horizon. The summary data presented in this paper should be inter- preted cautiously, but not to the extent thatthey diminish the existing and grow- ing importance of coastal areas. As coastal populations increase across the U.S., the management of this growth and its direct and indirect effects from this growth will be even more important than today. The Nation's large and growing coastal population already has indirectly resulted in significant losses of habitat and living resources, increased demands on water, energy, and waste treatment and disposal, and diminished environmental quality in many areas. Although population increases are an indicator of economic development, the concomitant side-effects of this growth create new environmental challenges to both public and private interests. 27 ..... Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986f. County-level projections of economic activityandpopulation: South Carolina, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986a. 1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S. County-level projections of economic Departmentof Comerce. Prepared as activityandpopulation: Alabama, 1990- part of interagency agreements with the 2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- part of interagency agreements with the 2035 WashingtonDC: U.S.Depart- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of Tennessee Valley Authority. 108 p. interagency agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten- Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986g. nessee Valley Authority. 153 p. County-level projections of economic activity and population: Virginia, 1990- Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986b. 2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- County-level projections of economic ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of activity and population: Florida, 1990- interagency agreements with the U.S. 2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten- ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of nessee Valley Authority. 291 p. interagency agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten- Bureau of the Census. 1988. County nessee Valley Authority. 153 p. and city data book, 1988. U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986c. U.S. Government Printing Office. 797 p. County-level projections of economic + appendices. activityandpopulation: Georgia, 1990- 2035. Washington, DC US. Depart- Bureau of the Census. 1989a. Current population reports, population estimates ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of population reports, population estimates and projections. Series p-26, No. 88-a. County population estimates: July 1, Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten- 1988, 1987, and 1986. U.S. Depart- nessee Valley Authority. 337 p. ment of Commerce. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 45 p. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986d. County-level projections of economic Bureau of the Census. 1989. Statistical activity and population: Mississippi, abstractofthe UnitedStates, 1989. U.S. 1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Washing- DepartmentofCommerce. Preparedas ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing part of interagency agreements with the Office. 956 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority. 183 p. Edwards, S. F. 1989. Estimates of future demographic changes in the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986e. coastal zone. Coastal Management. County-level projections of economic activity and population: North Carolina, 1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Prepared as part of interagency agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority. 218 p. 28 GESAMP (Group of Experts on the Terleckyj, N.E. and C.D. Coleman. 1989. Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution). Data and methods. In: Regional eco- 1990. The state of the marine environ- nomic growth in the United States: ment. UNEP Regional Seas Reports Projections for 1989-2010, summary and Studies No. 115. Nairobi, Kenya: volume I. Washington, DC: National United Nations Environment Pro- PlanningAssociation DataServices, Inc. gramme. 111p. West, N. 1987. Population changes in Lewis, J. 1989. Trouble in paradise. coastaljurisdictionswithbarrierbeaches: EPA Journal. 15(5): 3-7. 1960-1980. In: Cities on the beach: Management issues of developed National Oceanic and Atmospheric coastal barriers, R. H. Platt, S. G. Administration. 1975. The coastlines of Pelczarski, and B. K. R. Burbank (eds.). the United States. US Department of Department of Geography Research Commerce. Washington, DC: US Paper No. 224. Chicago, IL: University Government Printing Office. 2 p. of Chicago Press. pp. 55-63. National Planning Association Data Wetrogan, S. I. 1988. Currentpopula- Services, Inc. 1988. Key indicators of tion reports, population estimates and county growth 1970-2010 (data base). projections. Series p-25, No. 1017. Washington, DC: National Planning Projections of population of states, by Association Data Services, Inc. age, sex, and race: 1988 to 2000. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department NewYork Water Pollution Control Asso- of Commerce. Washington, DC: U.S. ciation, Inc. 1989. Who's minding the Government Printing Office. 124 p. shore? Clearwaters 19(3): 6-9. Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 1987. O'Connor, Thomas P. and Charles N. CEDDS 1987. The complete economic Ehler. 1990. Results from the NOAA and demographic data source (vols. 1- National Status and Trends Program on 3). Washington, DC: Woods and Poole distributions and effects of chemical Economics, Inc. 1,447 p. contamination in the coastal and estuar- ine United States. EnvironmentalMoni- -I * toring and Assessment. (in press). C. Harrington, National Ocean Service, Slater Hall Information Products, Inc. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 1987. County statistics (data base). Administration, Rockville, MD. Washington, DC: Slater Hall Informa- tion Products, Inc. Slater Hall Information Products, Inc. 1988. Population statistics (data base). Washington, DC: Slater Hall Informa- tion Products, Inc. 29 w 0 6 a .... 21 26 27 32 22 A, 38 RHODE ISLAND 43 36 41 Coastal Counties Maine New Hampshire Rhode Island New York 42 Rensselaer 1 Cumberland 11 Rockingham 22 Bristol 31 Albany 43 Richmond 2 Hancock 12 Strafford 23 Kent 32 Bronx 44 Rockland 3 Kennebec 24 Newport 33 Columbia 45 Suffolk 4 Knox Massachusetts 25 Providence 34 Dutchess 46 Ulster 5 Lincoln 13 Bamrnstable 26 Washington 35 Greene 47 Westchester 6 Penobscot 14 Bristol 36 Kings 7 Sagadahoc 15 Dukes Conneticut 37 Nassau 8 Waldo 16 Essex 27 Fairfield 38 NewYork 17 ~~~~~~~~~~39 Orange 9 Washington 17 Middlesex 28 Middlesex 39 Orange 10 York 18 Nantucket 29 New Haven 40 Putnam 19 Norfolk 30 New London 41 Queens 20 Plymouth 21 Suffolk CA) ............ ~~~~~NEW JERSEY 76~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 11 a13 2 Coastai Counties Nuew aersy Delaware 88 Distrct of Columbia 107 New Kent 128 Petersburg 48 Atlantic 68 Kent 108 Northampton 129 Poquoson 49 Bergen 69 New Castle Virginia 109 Northumberland 130 Portsmouth 50 Burlington 70 Sussex 89 Accomack 110 Prince George 131 Richmond 51 Camden 90 Arlington 111 Prince William 132 Suffolk 52 Cape May Maryland 91 Caroline 112 Richmond 133 Virginia Beach 53 Cumberland 71 Anne Arundel 92 Charles City 113 Spotsylvania 134 Williamsburg 54 Essex 72 Baltimore 93 Chesterfield 114 Stafford 55 Gloucester 73 Calvert 94 Essex 115 Surry 56 Hudson 74 Caroline 95 Fairfax 116 Westmoreland 57 Mercer 75 Cecil 96 Gloucester 117 York 58 Middlesex 76 Charles 97 Hanover 118 Alexandria 59 Monmouth 77 Dorchester 98 Henrico 119 Chesapeake 60 Ocean 78 Harford 99 Isle of Wight 120 Colonial Heights 61 Passaic 79 Kent 100 James City 121 Fairfax 62 Salem 80 Prince George's 101 King and Queen 122 Fails Church 63 Somerset 81 Queen Anne's 102 King George 123 Fredericksburg 64 Union 82 St Mary's 103 King William 124 Hampton 83 Somerset 104 Lancaster 125 Hopewell Pennsylvania 84 Talbot 105 Mathews 126 Newport News 65 Bucks 85 Wicomico 106 Middlesex 127 Norfolk 66 Delaware 86 Worcester 67 Philadelphia 87 Baltimore City .. ......... 41 .................. ...... ...... as ... .. ... ... ... .............. ............... ............. ..................... .......................... ....................... ...................... .................... ............. .... .............. . .......... ........... -...... 44 ..................... ....................... .... .... ...... .................. ............ .............. ...... .................... ........... ... ....................... . ................. .. ... .... . ........... ............ ........... .. .......... . .... . ........... I....... ........... ....... .... . ................ .......... ............... .... ... .......... ....................... ........................ .... .... . ..................... ..... ...... .... ........ ............................. 28 .................. ..... ............ ........... ........... so Buffalo .... ....... ....... loveland .................. ........ .... ........... ............ .......... ................ . .......... .......................... ............... .......... . . ; .. . . ......... .............................. . 14 Y.5 t .............. ................... .... . .......... :l:-:...::..::::: ....................... ................ ...... ..... .......................... ............. .............. ..... . . ..... .... - ::::: ............. .................... ........ ........... ...... ..................... ..... ........ ................. ........ .. ........... ................. .. .... ....................... ............................ ... ..... ................... .................... ...... . ............................. ..... ...... ................ ......................... .. .............. ......................... .. ........................ . .......... .......................... .. ............................................................ .............. . .. ... ................................................... .. ... .. .. .... ...... ......................... .... .................... . .......................... ........ ...... Coastal Counties New York 19 Sandusky 38 Houghton 60 Tuscola 74 Kenosha 1 Cayuga 20 Wood 39 Huron 61 Van Buren 75 Kewaunee 2 Chautauqua 40 losco 62 Wayne 76 Manitowoc 3 Erie Michigan 41 Keweenaw 77 Marinette 4 Jefferson 21 Alcona 42 Leelanau Indiana 78 Milwaukee 5 Monroe 22 Alger 43 Luce 63 Lake 79 Oconto 6 Niagara 23 Allgan 44 Mackinac 64 La Porte 80 Ozaukee 7 Orleans 24 Alpena 45 Macomb 65 Porter 81 Racine 8 Oswego 25 Antrim 46 Manistee 82 Sheboygan 9 St Lawrence 26 Arenac 47 Marquette inois 10 Wayne 27 Baraga48 Mason 66 Cook Minnesota 28 Bay 49 Menominee 67 Lake 83 Cook Pennsylvania 29 Benzie 50 Monroe 84 Lake 11 Erie 30 Berrien 51 Muskegon Wisconsin 85 St Louis 31 Charlevoix 52 Oceans 68 Ashland Ohio 32 Cheboygan 53 Ontonagon 69 Bayfield 54 Ottawa 12 Ashtabula 33 Chippewa wa 70 Brown 13 Cuyahoga 34 Delta 55 Presque ile 71 Door 14 Erie 35 Emmet 57 72 Douglas 15 Lake 36 Gogebic 58 Sanilac 73 Iron 16 Lorain 37 Grand Traverse 59 Schoolcraft 17 Lucas 18 Ottawa CA CT' 36 Coastal Counties North Carolina 15 Pamlico Georgia 44 Indian River 1 Beaufort 16 Pasquotank 30 Bryan 45 Martin 2 Bertie 17 Pender 31 Camden 46 Nassau 3 Brunswick 18 Perquimans 32 Chatham 47 Okeechobee 4 Camden 19 Tyrrell 33 Glynn 48 Orange 5 Carteret 20 Washington 34 Liberty 49 Osceola 6 Chowan ou Carolina 35 Mcintosh 50 Palm Beach 7 Craven 51 Putnam Curriuck 21 Beaufort Florida 52 St Johns 9 Dare 22 Berkeley 36 Baker 53 St Lucie 10 Gates 23 Charleston 37 Bradford 54 Seminole 11 Hertford 24 Colleton 38 Brevard 55 Union 12 Hyde 25 Dorchester 39 Broward 56 Volusia 13 New Hanover 26 Georgetown 40 Clay 14 Onslow 27 Horry 41 Dade 28 Jasper 42 Duval 29 Williamsburg 43 Flagler 37 w 00 .......... . ..... .. ........ .. ...... ....... ............ .. .......... . .. ....... ........... ... ..... ... LORIDA 25 .... Orleans la 41 54 Tampa 37 P.t.rsbur 2 40 34 Coastal Counties Florida 25 Lafayette Alabama 66 St. Bernard 87 Jackson 1 Alachua 26 Lake 47 Baldwin 67 St. Charles 88 Jefferson 2 Bay 27 Lee 48 Mobile 68 St James 89 Kenedy 3 Calhoun 28 Leon 69 St. John the Baptist 90 Kleberg 4 Charlotte 29 Levy Mississippi 70 St. Martin 91 Liberty 5 Citrus 30 Liberty 49 Hancock 71 St. Mary 92 Matagorda 6 Collier 31 Madison 50 Harrison 72 St Tammany 93 Nueces 7 Columbia 32 Manatee 51 Jackson 73 Tangipahoa 94 Orange 8 De Soto 33 Marion 74 Terrebonne 95 Refugio 9 Dixie 34 Monroe Louisiana 75 Vermilion 96 San Patricio 10 Escambia 35 Okaloosa 52 Acadia 76 West Baton Rouge 97 Victoria 11 Franklin 36 Pasco 53 Ascension 98 Wharton 12 Gadsden 37 Pinellas 54 Assumption Texas 99 Willacy 13 Gilchrist 38 Polk 55 Calcasieu 77 Aransas 14 Glades 39 Santa Rosa 56 Cameron 78 Brazoria 15 Gulf 40 Sarasota 57 East Baton Rouge 79 Calhoun 16 Hamilton 41 Sumter 58 Iberia 80 Cameron 17 Hardee 42 Suwannee 59 Iberville 81 Chambers 18 Hendry 43 Taylor 60 Jefferson 82 Fort Band 19 Hernando 44 Wakulla 61 Jefferson Davis 83 Galveston 20 Highlands 45 Walton 62 Lafourche 84 Hardin 21 Hillsborough 46 Washington 63 Livingston 85 Harris 22 Holmes 64 Orleans 86 Hidalgo 23 Jackson 65 Plaquemines 24 Jefferson 76 6 5~~~~~~~~~~3 Coastal Counties California 20 Solano Washington Alaska 67 Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan 1 Alameda 21 Sonoma 36 Clallam 53 Aleutian Islands 68 Sitka 2 Contra Costa 22 Ventura 37 Clark 54 Anchorage 69 Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon 3 Del Norte 38 Cowlitz 55 Bethel 70 Valdez-Cordova 4 Humboldt Oregon 39 Grays Harbor 56 Bristol Bay 71 Wade Hampton 5 Los Angeles 23 Benton 40 Island 57 Dillingham 72 Wrangell-Petersburg 6 Marin 24 Clatsop 41 Jefferson 58 Haines 7 Mendocino 25 Columbia 42 King 59 Juneau Hawaii 8 Monterey 26 Coos 43 Kitsap 60 Kenai Peninsula 73 Hawaii 9 Napa 27 Curry 44 Mason 61 Ketchikan Gateway 74 Honolulu 10 Orange 28 Douglas 45 Pacfic 62 Kobuk 75 Kalawao 11 Sacramento 29 Lane 46 Pierce 63 Kodiak Island 76 Kauai 12 San Diego 30 ULincoln 47 San Juan 64 Matenuska-Susitna 77 Maui 13 San Francisco 31 Multnomah 48 Skagit 65 Nome 14 San Joaquin 32 Polk 49 Snohomish 66 North Slope 15 San Luis Obispo 33 Tillamook 50 Thurston 16 San Mateo 34 Washington 51 Wahkiakum 17 Santa Barbara 35 Yamhill 52 Whatcom 18 Santa Clara 19 Santa Cruz DATE DUE GAYLORD N5- o. 2333 GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A. pKK 4 KKK4 jKK1 44 44 4 }K4 K44 KK4K <K K4K1K 4 V 41 44, <1 44K 4K KI I 4 K4 44 t1 iK414 I 4K1 44144 444K11 L4( 4 4K 44 444 4K44 4 4 44441 4441K 4444 Ki 4444 K K'K 'KA1 I 4j4K 44 44K4K 44 K? 4 < nij Kj4;1 44 KI I 4.KK;K4 4[K4KiKH14 14 KK1444K4ij 4 4K> 44 4441 444 444 K4 KK 44 4? 44 4K KK4,44 < 4KK i.K1414 4K'K i414<41K14 1141KK4K14 K4 K 4 ;44 1 41 1 144K1 4?4KK IIKI 41K4 K K44ll1 1< 44 K4 44 44 4,4 2 P 4K 1 1 114 1I KK,K 444K4 4 44' Kl 4 44 4 4 4K444 K4 4 442 441 K4 1 4 44 K4 K 441 4444 4KI;14K 4K44444K411KK41144444I411 444 K44, 444 111 4 1'144 K ii 4KKKP lK41I41Y441114 44414 44 4 < 444 1441? 44444 '4144>4 '44 44444 44 41414 4141K44K14 41 4JK 4144 4 < 4 K }K K 44K4 444 1 1 KI4 '4K4 44 4, K 1 1K1 4K44K 4,444 41 44 4j 14 1K414K 44 4 11 4 K4K 4 K 4111' 44K4 14 44 l,4 KK4,1 4iK 4 <K 1 4 414 4, 4 444 4 4K411 4K1441K4 4 44 1 KKK 1 K41li'4 44 4i<1,4, 14441K44444<4 K14< <4441111 441 41 '44 '4444 444 KK 1 4 14 414 41K 14 4< K I411' 44444 444444 K 444 I I44 444 1 1 <1 4 Kj K I 4444 1K44 44< 4 44 :4 4K 4K 4 '4 4 "4 4 4 1 44 4 4 44 4444 K 44 K4 I Kj 4 K 4444, 1 4 4 44 4 4 44444141 '4K4 44444 44K K K4 4444 4 K14 4K 44 K 44 4444 4 K4 4K4 <4 44 4K 44 4 K4 444 41 4 44 4 4< Kl '4K 44 4K K 4 4l14KK4 4444 44 K K 4 4 44K 44 44 KK 1444 KK4iIIK4l4K44K4144K4 4 4 444 1 444K44K41K4 4 K 4, 44 114 44 K K 4 4 4 1 K 4 K 4 44 4 4 4 1 4 14 K 44 4 44 4 K K K 44 14 K <K 1 4 K 41 41 44 4I 44 K 44 K K4 44 44 4 4 44 11 444 44 4K f K4 4 I 44 K 1 K44 K] K 444 K44 4 4414 K K 44 44 l44 44 KK4 44444 44 K K 444 4'1 K 4< 41 1K 1114 KK 4 I44 1K 444 4 ii 1K KK 1K 4 K j K ___ 44 44 44K 4444 App1KQ,: 4 aStttljTIeflds """" K 414 . I The Second a K 44 50 Years of Population Change along' thNat1osKCastIl1602d10i 1' K4 K. ..'4.444.4.]4K '14 414<4 44IK'K'j 444 4 K 4K 14 K K 44 4 4 4'K 444< 4'''4.K'. 44' 4'44 '14ikKKKK1K,44.442.,, 44K K 144K 44 441 K 4 Il.K..1P4!.;KK;i 1 KK4