[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]


For those enviro-michers interested in the impact population dynamics across the country has on the environment:





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                
July 18, 2008


Yohannes Hailu

517.432.8800 Ext. 112


Catharine Hansford

517.432.8800 Ext. 111


Highlights Michigan’s Losses and Possible Need for
Population Attraction and Retention Strategies


The Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University released today an information bulletin featuring state-by-state analysis of population changes in the U.S. The bulletin provides a comparison with Michigan population changes and includes detailed information on trends in total population, specifically within the young (25-34) and the retiree (65+) age cohorts.


The analysis looked at the county level U.S. distribution of population and the young and retiree age cohorts that are particularly important in driving new economic growth. The purpose of the bulletin is to inform discussions on population trends in the U.S. and Michigan using 1990, 2000 and 2006 census data. 


Population trends for the 1990 to 2006 period indicate that:


  • Select regions and states within the U.S. have consistently experienced population booms and busts.


  • While the South, Mountain and Pacific Coast states did well, the Northeast and Midwest states experienced significant population losses.


  • Overall, population rapidly increased in Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Utah, but rapidly decreased in North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. Michigan’s population growth increased by 12 percent from 1990 to 2000, but the growth rate dropped to 1.8 percent for the 2000 to 2006 period. During the same period, the national average was 11 percent (1990 to 2000) and 2.95 percent (2000 to 2006).


  • The 25-34 age cohort grew fastest in Utah, Florida, Arizona and Georgia, but rapidly declined in North Dakota, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Kansas. From 1990 to 2000, Michigan lost 13.2 percent of the 25-34 age cohort, but gained 7.6 percent between 2000 and 2006. The nation, by comparison, experienced a 10.5 percent increase and 6.4 percent increase, respectively.


  • Retiree populations greatly increased in Nevada, Arizona, Alaska and Colorado, but declined in North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa. Michigan gained 23.6 percent in the 1990-2006 time period, compared to the national average of 5.35 percent.


The differences among population-attracting states and population-losing states beg two key policy questions: (1) What is the economic cost of population loss? and (2) What strategies are most effective in reversing the population losses from Michigan?


This bulletin is the first in a series to address these two policy questions and is part of the New Economy Initiative Series of the Land Policy Institute. The Series focuses on population attraction and retention and on New Economy growth strategies for Michigan. Additional New Economy Initiative Series reports, bulletins and factsheets will be released this summer and fall. For more information on this and other research, visit the Land Policy Institute at www.landpolicy.msu.edu.


The Land Policy Institute focuses on research and outreach related to land use and strategic growth in the New Economy. The Institute delivers innovative solutions, transitioning knowledge from land use experts to the community. The Land Policy Institute was founded in 2006.