2014 County and Economic Development Regions Population Estimates

Transcription

1 214 County and Economic Development Regions Population Estimates Analysis of the US Census Bureau Vintage 214 Total County Population Estimates Jan K. Vink Program on Applied Demographics Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics

2 Introduction On March 26 th, 215 the U.S. Census Bureau released the County total population estimates for July 1, 214. This document highlights some of these estimates and results when aggregating into the Economic Development Regions. The change in population is split in change due to natural increase and due to net-migration. Natural increase is the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths, net-migration the result of people moving in- and out of a region. State and Economic Development Regions Total population Table 1: Vintage 214 Population Estimates and by Economic Region, change since 21 Decennial Census and change in most recent year Change between 21 and 214 Change between 213 and 214 Difference Difference Census 21 Estimate 214 Count % Estimate 213 Estimate 214 Count % New York State 19,378,112 19,746, , % 19,695,68 19,746,227 5,547.3% Capital Region 1,79,21 1,86,35 6,825.6% 1,85,176 1,86, % Central New York 791,96 789,325-2, % 791, ,325-2,2 -.3% Finger Lakes 1,217,129 1,218,627 1,498.1% 1,22,23 1,218,627-1,63 -.1% Long Island 2,833,56 2,861,595 28,539 1.% 2,858,52 2,861,595 3,543.1% Mid-Hudson 2,29,851 2,325,53 34,22 1.5% 2,319,758 2,325,53 5,295.2% Mohawk Valley 5, ,193-6, % 495, ,193-2,75 -.5% New York City 8,174,959 8,491,79 316,12 3.9% 8,438,379 8,491,79 52,7.6% North Country 433, , % 435, ,11-1, % Southern Tier 657,95 652,56-5,39 -.8% 655,53 652,56-2, % Western New York 1,399,79 1,394,749-4,96 -.4% 1,396,324 1,394,749-1, % Highlights: Late December 214, the Census Bureau released State estimates which showed that New York State gained 5,547 residents between July 1 st 213 and July 1 st 214. This modest growth of.3% was lower than the nation average of.7%. Florida grew with 1.5% in the same period and surpassed New York as the third most populous state. 1 Six economic regions gained population since April 1, 21, New York City the most in number (316,12) and in percentage (3.9%). Four economic regions lost population since the latest Decennial Census; the Mohawk Valley lost the most in number (-6,956) and in percentage (-1.4%). Between 213 and 214 six Economic Regions lost population and four gained population. The Finger Lakes and the North Country gained population since 21, but lost population in the last estimates year. Please note that all the estimates are subject to change as more data becomes available. Total population: Annual change in population Every year the Census Bureau revises their estimates, starting with the base population for April 1, 21. The revisions are due to changes in methodology, boundary changes, and the availability of newer data. One has to be cautious 1 See also:

3 reading too much in a single year of change for a single region as that single number can be different in next series of estimate. Table 2: Annual change in population by Economic Region April 21 - July 21 Annual Population Change (change in count and as annualized percent) July 21 - July 211 July July 212 July July 213 July Jul 214 Total change Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Total % New York State 22,755.5% 12,878.6% 85,395.4% 88,54.5% 5,547.3% 368, % Capital Region 199.1% 1,337.1% 2,162.2% 2,268.2% 859.1% 6,825.6% Central New York 153.1% % -1, % 1,269.2% -2,2 -.3% -2, % Finger Lakes 329.1% 2,116.2% 52.% 154.% -1,63 -.1% 1,498.1% Long Island 3,188.5% 11,393.5% 3,78.1% 6,77.2% 3,543.1% 28,539 1.% Mid-Hudson 2,849.5% 11,514.6% 4,52.2% 1,492.5% 5,295.2% 34,22 1.5% Mohawk Valley % -1, % -1, % -1, % -2,75 -.5% -6, % New York City 16,894.8% 95, % 78,665.9% 72,476.9% 52,7.6% 316,12 3.9% North Country 55.1% 2,169.5% 2,716.6% -2, % -1, % 818.2% Southern Tier % % % % -2, % -5,39 -.8% Western New York % % -2, % 168.% -1, % -4,96 -.4% Highlights: New York State s.3% growth in the last year is lower than the annual growth in the previous years. In almost all regions the change in the last year was less than the changes in the previous years. Please note that all the estimates are subject to change as more data becomes available. The Mohawk Valley and the Southern Tier saw a decrease in the estimated population in all years. New York City grew fastest in all years. Appendix C and D adds data from the estimated population from This enables to look at somewhat longer trends. Especially the last years of change in the Mohawk Valley and the Southern Tier draw attention as the decline is larger than any decline in the last decade. The decline in Western New York is less than the Components of change: Natural Increase Natural increase is the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths in a given period. Charts in Appendix C and D visualize trends in natural increase, births and deaths since 2. Table 3: Estimated Natural Increase by Economic Region Annual Natural Increase Change between 21 and 214 Due to natural increase Total Change April 21 - July 21 July 21 - July 211 July July 212 July July 213 July Jul 214 Total % Count % New York State 24,51 93,359 93,32 88,431 86, ,685 2.% 368, % Capital Region 465 1,222 1,282 1,371 1,146 5,486.5% 6,825.6% Central New York 617 1,594 1,819 1,759 1,842 7,631 1.% -2, % Finger Lakes 69 2,53 2,149 2,18 2,265 9,733.8% 1,498.1% Long Island 2,218 8,293 8,36 6,415 6,517 31, % 28,539 1.% Mid-Hudson 2,855 9,783 9,453 9,3 9,52 4, % 34,22 1.5% Mohawk Valley % -6, %

4 April 21 - July 21 July 21 - July 211 Annual Natural Increase Change between 21 and 214 July July 212 July July 213 July Jul 214 Due to natural increase Total Change Total % Count % New York City 17,77 68,22 67,68 64,852 63,38 28, % 316,12 3.9% North Country 392 1,691 1,626 1,757 1,584 7,5 1.6% 818.2% Southern Tier ,852.3% -5,39 -.8% Western New York ,43.1% -4,96 -.4% Highlights: Natural Increase alone added 2% to the New York State s population since April 21. When comparing between Economic Regions, New York City saw the largest change due to natural increase, the Mohawk Valley the smallest. There are a few years where 1 or 2 regions saw a natural decrease more deaths than births New York State s natural increase at the end of the period was smaller than at the beginning of the period. The same can clearly be said for New York City and Long Island. Components of change: Net Migration Net Migration is the difference between the number of people moving into an area and the number of people moving out. The people either move between the area and another place in the United States (Domestic Migration) or another place abroad (International Migration). Relative small difference in one of the flows in or out of an area is magnified when we look at the net numbers, because of the net being close to zero. This makes it hard to extract trends out of the net numbers. Even if there seems to be a trend in the net migration, it is impossible to know if this is due to more or less people moving in or due to a change in the number of people moving out. Table 4: Estimated New Migration by Economic Region April 21 - July 21 July 21 - July 211 Annual Net Migration Change between 21 and 214 July July 212 July July 213 July Jul 214 Due to net migration Total Change Total % Count % New York State ,82-6,241 11,199-35,122-1,626 -.% 368, % Capital Region ,97.2% 6,825.6% Central New York -4-1,578-3, ,55-9, % -2, % Finger Lakes ,695-2,156-3,535-7, % 1,498.1% Long Island 1,139 4,35-4,4 1,249-1, % 28,539 1.% Mid-Hudson 146 2,417-5,453 2,279-3,422-4,33 -.2% 34,22 1.5% Mohawk Valley -23-1,193-1,459-1,219-2,472-6, % -6, % New York City ,65 12,562 16,436-13,954 41,455.5% 316,12 3.9% North Country ,98-4,586-2,899-6, % 818.2% Southern Tier ,465-1,315-2,743-6,811-1.% -5,39 -.8% Western New York , ,47 -.3% -4,96 -.4%

5 Highlights: Counties At the State level the number of people moving in and out since 21 was about equal with only 1,626 more people moving out than moving in. In three regions the net migration was positive over the estimation period; the relative biggest change was in New York City where net migration added.5% to the City s population. The North Country lost relative most people due to migration (-1.5%). The Mohawk Valley, Central New York and the Southern Tier also lost 1% or more due to more people moving out than moving in. For most Regions there is no visible trend in the net numbers and it helps to look at the charts in Appendix C and D as that adds 1 more years of net migration estimates. Appendix C and D show that most trend lines for international net-migration show something of a jump from 21 to 211. Most of this is probably due to the availability of Census 21 data for the estimation. That availability has an indirect effect on the estimation of the number of people that moved into the area. Appendix A shows a map of the percentage population growth since 21 in each county and a map of last year s differences. Appendix B has a table with the estimates, the change between 21 and 214, the change in the last year and the total size of the components of change. Highlights: 4 counties lost population between 21 and 214, 22 counties gained population. Kings County [Brooklyn] was the county with the largest increases since 21. With the addition of 117,84 in population it grew with the most people and the 4.7% growth percentage was also relative the largest. Queens (4.1%), Rockland (3.9%), and Bronx (3.8%) follow Kings as relative the fastest growing counties. Numerically the top 4 growing counties since Census 21 were all in New York City; Following Kings are Queens (91,41), Bronx (53,51) and New York County [Manhattan] (5,395). Schoharie was the county that relatively lost the most population (-3.6%), followed by Delaware (-2.9%) and Fulton (-2.6%). Numerically Broome county lost the most residents ( -3,251). Broome is followed by Niagara (-2,952) and Chautauqua (-2,852). The change in the last year should be handled with care as revisions might change the conclusions. One can also not extrapolate trends from just one year of data. These estimates show a population loss in 43 counties. The biggest numeric gain in Kings [Brooklyn] (19,42), the biggest numeric drop in Chautauqua (-1,62) and Sullivan (-1,56). Sullivan also had the biggest percentage drop (--1.4%). Rockland County showed the biggest percentage gain (.9%) Most of the counties saw a change in population in the last year that was smaller or about the same as the change in the previous years. Especially Seneca and Sullivan saw drops larger than in the average in previous years. The change in Chenango and Yates was relatively most above the change of previous years. It is too early to tell whether these are the first signs of changing trends, temporary changes or caused by the preliminary nature of the last years estimates. In 17 counties the number of deaths between April 1, 21 and July 1, 214 exceeded the number of births; they have a negative natural increase. Hamilton lost almost 2% of their population due to this negative natural increase.

6 Jefferson and Kings [Brooklyn] gained just over 4.5% of their population because of their number of births exceeding the number of deaths. For only 13 counties it is estimated that there were more people moving in than moving out between 21 and 214. The relative largest surplus was in Tompkins (1.9%), Saratoga (1.5%), and Ontario (1.4%). The relative largest negative net migrations were in Schoharie (-3.5%), Sullivan (-2.9%) and Tioga (-2.8%).

7 Appendix A: Maps Map 1: Map of estimated % population change between April 21 and July 214

8 Map 2: Map of estimated % population change between July 213 and July 214

9 Appendix B: Vintage 214 Population Estimates and components of change by County Estimates Change between Change between 213 and 214 Census Estimate Estimate Count % Rank Count % Rank New York 19,378,112 19,695,68 19,746, , % 5,547.3% Albany 34,28 37,418 38,171 3, % % 12 Allegany 48,946 48,6 47,736-1,21-2.5% % 51 Bronx 1,385,18 1,427,317 1,438,159 53,51 3.8% 4 1,842.8% 3 Broome 2,6 198,23 197,349-3, % % 39 Cattaraugus 8,317 78,996 78,6-1, % % 43 Cayuga 8,25 79,335 78,823-1,22-1.5% % 49 Chautauqua 134,95 133, ,53-2, % 53-1,62 -.8% 54 Chemung 88,83 88,485 87,77-1,6-1.2% % 55 Chenango 5,479 49,518 49,426-1,53-2.1% % 28 Clinton 82,128 81,773 81, % % 27 Columbia 63,96 62,289 62, % % 33 Cortland 49,33 49,149 49, % % 32 Delaware 47,989 46,885 46,581-1,48-2.9% % 5 Dutchess 297, ,63 296, % % 26 Erie 919,64 921, ,835 3,771.4% % 17 Essex 39,372 38,857 38, % % 41 Franklin 51,597 51,335 51, % % 24 Fulton 55,531 54,528 54,15-1, % % 52 Genesee 6,5 59,422 59, % % 4 Greene 49,22 48,359 47,967-1, % % 56 Hamilton 4,836 4,759 4, % % 59 Herkimer 64,53 64,246 63, % % 53 Jefferson 116, , ,13 2, % % 36 Kings 2,54,79 2,62,373 2,621, ,84 4.7% 1 19,42.7% 4 Lewis 27,87 27,186 27, % % 15 Livingston 65,25 64,731 64, % % 31 Madison 73,44 72,521 72,369-1,71-1.5% % 29 Monroe 744,34 75,71 749,857 5,517.7% % 21 Montgomery 5,236 49,83 49, % % 22 Nassau 1,339,71 1,355,99 1,358,627 18, % 11 3,528.3% 11 New York 1,585,873 1,632,5 1,636,268 5, % 5 4,263.3% 1 Niagara 216, ,27 213,525-2, % % 35 Oneida 234, ,81 232,871-2,8 -.9% % 38 Onondaga 467,31 468, ,196 1,165.2% % 23 Ontario 18,15 19,351 19,77 1,62 1.5% % 7 Orange 372, , ,99 3,286.9% 14 1,173.3% 8 Orleans 42,883 42,384 41, % % 6 Oswego 122,17 121,497 12,913-1,194-1.% % 42 Otsego 62,253 61,644 61,128-1, % % 57 Putnam 99,75 99,643 99, % % 25 Queens 2,23,539 2,33,993 2,321,58 91,41 4.1% 2 17,587.8% 2 Rensselaer 159, , , % % 18 Richmond 468,73 472, ,279 4,549 1.% % 16 Rockland 311,687 32, ,866 12, % 3 2,883.9% 1 St. Lawrence 111, ,19 111, % % 44 Saratoga 219, , ,921 5,38 2.4% % 5 Schenectady 154, ,44 155,735 1,1.7% % 13 Schoharie 32,747 31,849 31,566-1, % % 58 Schuyler 18,344 18,484 18, % % 2 Seneca 35,244 35,273 34, % % 61 Steuben 98,988 98,951 98, % % 46 Suffolk 1,493,346 1,52,953 1,52,968 9,622.6% % 19 Sullivan 77,545 76,999 75,943-1,62-2.1% 5-1,56-1.4% 62 Tioga 51,125 5,159 49,87-1, % % 47 Tompkins 11,595 14,368 14,691 3,96 3.% % 9 Ulster 182,494 18,848 18,445-2,49-1.1% % 3 Warren 65,75 65,175 64, % % 34 Washington 63,216 62,723 62, % % 45 Wayne 93,762 92,388 92,51-1, % % 37 Westchester 949, , ,634 23,52 2.5% 7 3,338.3% 6 Wyoming 42,143 41,441 41, % % 48 Yates 25,352 25,169 25, % % 14

10 Change between 21 and 214 Difference Due to Natural Increase Due to Net migration Census 21 Estimate 214 Count % Rank Count % Rank Count % Rank New York 19,378,112 19,746, , % 385,685 2.% -1,626 -.% Albany 34,28 38,171 3, % 12 1,967.6% 24 2,351.8% 8 Allegany 48,946 47,736-1,21-2.5% % 38-1,38-2.7% 59 Bronx 1,385,18 1,438,159 53,51 3.8% 4 52, % 3 1,194.1% 13 Broome 2,6 197,349-3, % 46 2.% 45-3,84-1.5% 42 Cattaraugus 8,317 78,6-1, % % 29-2,32-2.5% 57 Cayuga 8,25 78,823-1,22-1.5% % 36-1, % 47 Chautauqua 134,95 132,53-2, % % 5-2,638-2.% 49 Chemung 88,83 87,77-1,6-1.2% % 32-1, % 43 Chenango 5,479 49,426-1,53-2.1% % % 51 Clinton 82,128 81, % % % 33 Columbia 63,96 62, % % % 22 Cortland 49,33 49, % % % 25 Delaware 47,989 46,581-1,48-2.9% % % 44 Dutchess 297, , % 24 1,442.5% 3-2, % 21 Erie 919,64 922,835 3,771.4% 2 1,652.2% 4 3,82.4% 1 Essex 39,372 38, % % % 39 Franklin 51,597 51, % % % 36 Fulton 55,531 54,15-1, % % 56-1,134-2.% 53 Genesee 6,5 59, % % % 4 Greene 49,22 47,967-1, % % % 48 Hamilton 4,836 4, % % % 16 Herkimer 64,53 63, % % % 34 Jefferson 116, ,13 2, % 8 5, % 1-2, % 55 Kings 2,54,79 2,621, ,84 4.7% 1 111, % 2 6,688.3% 12 Lewis 27,87 27, % % % 3 Livingston 65,25 64, % % % 28 Madison 73,44 72,369-1,71-1.5% % 27-1,454-2.% 52 Monroe 744,34 749,857 5,517.7% 15 8, % 16-2, % 15 Montgomery 5,236 49, % % % 26 Nassau 1,339,71 1,358,627 18, % 11 13,586 1.% 18 7,268.5% 9 New York 1,585,873 1,636,268 5, % 5 39, % 7 12,272.8% 7 Niagara 216, ,525-2, % % 53-1, % 24 Oneida 234, ,871-2,8 -.9% % 39-2,361-1.% 29 Onondaga 467,31 468,196 1,165.2% 21 5, % 14-4,16 -.9% 23 Ontario 18,15 19,77 1,62 1.5% % 43 1, % 3 Orange 372, ,99 3,286.9% 14 1,54 2.7% 6-6, % 45 Orleans 42,883 41, % % % 54 Oswego 122,17 12,913-1,194-1.% 33 1, % 17-2,396-2.% 5 Otsego 62,253 61,128-1, % % % 31 Putnam 99,75 99, % % % 27 Queens 2,23,539 2,321,58 91,41 4.1% 2 68, % 5 24,55 1.1% 4 Rensselaer 159, , % % % 14 Richmond 468,73 473,279 4,549 1.% 13 8, % 8-3, % 19 Rockland 311, ,866 12, % 3 11, % 4 1,129.4% 11 St. Lawrence 111, , % % 21-1, % 37 Saratoga 219, ,921 5,38 2.4% 9 2,111 1.% 2 3, % 2 Schenectady 154, ,735 1,1.7% 17 1,82 1.2% % 18 Schoharie 32,747 31,566-1, % % 47-1, % 62 Schuyler 18,344 18, % % % 6 Seneca 35,244 34, % % % 41 Steuben 98,988 98, % % 25-1, % 35 Suffolk 1,493,346 1,52,968 9,622.6% 18 17, % 12-6,97 -.5% 17 Sullivan 77,545 75,943-1,62-2.1% % 19-2, % 61 Tioga 51,125 49,87-1, % % 33-1, % 6 Tompkins 11,595 14,691 3,96 3.% 6 1,2 1.2% 13 1, % 1 Ulster 182,494 18,445-2,49-1.1% % 42-2,3-1.1% 32 Warren 65,75 64, % % % 2 Washington 63,216 62, % % % 38 Wayne 93,762 92,51-1, % % 23-2, % 56 Westchester 949, ,634 23,52 2.5% 7 15, % 9 8,896.9% 5 Wyoming 42,143 41, % % 34-1,97-2.6% 58 Yates 25,352 25, % % % 46

11 Appendix C: New York State trends Population trends New York State 25,, 2,, 15,, 1,, 5,, Figure 1: Estimated population trend 2,, 19,8, 214 Estimate 19,746,227 19,6, 19,4, 19,2, Census 21 19,378,112 19,, 18,8, Census 2 18,977,26 18,6, 18,4, Figure 2: Population trend magnified

12 Change in population and components of change New York State 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration -15, -2, Figure 3: Change in population and components of change 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 4: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, -15, -2, -25, -3, Domestic International Figure 5: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

13 Appendix D: Economic Region trends Population trends Capital Region 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, Figure 6: Estimated population trend 1,1, 1,9, 214 Estimate 1,86,35 1,8, 1,7, 1,6, Census 21 1,79,21 1,5, 1,4, 1,3, 1,2, 1,1, Census 2 1,29,822 1,, Figure 7: Population trend magnified

14 Change in population and components of change Capital Region 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration , Figure 8: Change in population and components of change 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 9: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Domestic International -1, , -3, Figure 1: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

15 Population trends Central New York 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Figure 11: Estimated population trend 794, 792, 79, 788, 786, 784, 782, Census , Estimate 789,325 78, 778, Census 2 78, , 774, Figure 12: Population trend magnified

16 Change in population and components of change Central New York 4, 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration Figure 13: Change in population and components of change 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 14: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, Domestic International Figure 15: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

17 Population trends Finger Lakes 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, Figure 16: Estimated population trend 1,225, 1,22, 214 Estimate 1,218,627 1,215, 1,21, Census 21 1,217,129 1,25, 1,2, 1,195, Census 2 1,199,851 1,19, 1,185, Figure 17: Population trend magnified

18 Change in population and components of change Finger Lakes 6, 4, 2, -2, -4, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration -6, -8, Figure 18: Change in population and components of change 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 19: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 4, 2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -1, Domestic International Figure 2: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

19 Population trends Long Island 3,5, 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Figure 21: Estimated population trend 2,88, 2,86, 214 Estimate 2,861,595 2,84, 2,82, 2,8, Census 21 2,833,56 2,78, 2,76, 2,74, 2,72, Census 2 2,754,4 2,7, Figure 22: Population trend magnified

20 Change in population and components of change Long Island 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration -3, -4, Figure 23: Change in population and components of change 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 24: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, -15, -2, -25, -3, -35, -4, Domestic International Figure 25: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

21 Population trends Mid-Hudson 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, Figure 26: Estimated population trend 2,35, 214 Estimate 2,325,53 2,3, 2,25, Census 21 2,29,851 2,2, 2,15, Census 2 2,179,186 2,1, Figure 27: Population trend magnified

22 Change in population and components of change Mid-Hudson 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, -15, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration Figure 28: Change in population and components of change 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 29: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, Domestic International -15, -2, -25, Figure 3: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

23 Population trends Mohawk Valley 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Figure 31: Estimated population trend 52, 5, 498, 496, Census 2 497,888 Census 21 5, , 214 Estimate 493, , 49, 488, Figure 32: Population trend magnified

24 Change in population and components of change Mohawk Valley 2, 1,5 1, , -1,5-2, -2,5-3, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration Figure 33: Change in population and components of change 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 34: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 1,5 1, , -1,5-2, -2,5-3, -3,5-4, Domestic International Figure 35: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

25 Population trends New York City 9,, 8,, 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, Figure 36: Estimated population trend 8,6, 8,5, 214 Estimate 8,491,79 8,4, 8,3, 8,2, 8,1, 8,, 7,9, 7,8, Census 2 8,9,185 Census 21 8,174,959 7,7, Figure 37: Population trend magnified

26 Change in population and components of change New York City 15, 1, 5, -5, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration -1, -15, Figure 38: Change in population and components of change 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 39: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 15, 1, 5, -5, -1, -15, -2, Domestic International Figure 4: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

27 Population trends North Country 5, 45, 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Figure 41: Estimated population trend 44, 435, 214 Estimate 434,11 43, Census , , Census 2 425,845 42, 415, Figure 42: Population trend magnified

28 Change in population and components of change North Country 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration Figure 43: Change in population and components of change 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 44: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, Domestic International Figure 45: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

29 Population trends Southern Tier 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Figure 46: Estimated population trend 662, 66, 658, 656, Census 2 657,23 Census ,95 654, 214 Estimate 652,56 652, 65, 648, Figure 47: Population trend magnified

30 Change in population and components of change Southern Tier 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration -3, -4, Figure 48: Change in population and components of change 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 49: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, Domestic International -3, -4, -5, Figure 5: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

31 Population trends Western New York 1,6, 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, Figure 51: Estimated population trend 1,45, 1,44, 1,43, Census 2 1,443,475 1,42, 1,41, 1,4, 1,39, Census 21 1,399, Estimate 1,394,749 1,38, 1,37, Figure 52: Population trend magnified

32 Change in population and components of change Western New York 4, 2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -1, -12, Growth Decline Natural Increase Net-Migration Figure 53: Change in population and components of change 18, 16, 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Decrease Increase Births Deaths Figure 54: Births, Deaths and Natural increase/decrease 6, 4, 2, -2, -4, -6, -8, -1, -12, -14, Domestic International Figure 55: Net migration broken out by domestic and international net-migration

33 Appendix E: Sources Data Current Estimates data (Vintage 212, ) Intercensal Estimates (population totals, 2 21) Evaluation Estimates (components, 2-21) Methodology Vintage 214 State and County Population Estimates Methodology More analyses, other publications, projections and additional trends can be found at our web site: