Population growth is often a key indicator of economic
and social well-being. Population loss, on the other hand, often
signals
weak economic conditions in the community. Hundreds of towns throughout
a wide swath of America’s Heartland face an entrenched form
of population loss, often covering several decades. The root cause
of this pattern is technological change, which has led to increased
agricultural production with less labor. Such changes have resulted
in long-term declines in farming-related jobs and increases in off-farm
jobs. As rural businesses, schools, and hospitals have closed in
response to waves of outmigration, compounded
by rising costs for providing critical
services, rural communities face cycles of
outmigration that are difficult to break. To
highlight the fiscal and policy choices stemming
from such conditions, ERS added
Population Loss Counties to its recently
updated county typology. Population loss
counties are those that lost population in
both the 1980s and 1990s.
Of the 2,052 nonmetro counties in the U.S., more than
25 percent are classified as population loss counties, with an average
population size half that of other nonmetro counties. In 2003, only
15 percent of nonmetro
residents (7.6 million of 49.8 million
people) lived in these counties. They are
most heavily concentrated in the Great
Plains and extend eastward into the Corn
Belt. North Dakota experienced the most
widespread pattern of outmigration of any
State, with declines in all but three of its
nonmetro counties. Other clusters of population
loss counties are found in the lower
Mississippi Valley and central Appalachia.
Only 6 percent of metro counties lost population
in both of these decades. (Western
Pennsylvania includes the only significant
cluster of metro counties losing population.)
Renewed population growth in many rural and small town
settings is thwarted by remoteness from urban centers and lack of
natural amenities, such as temperate climates and landscapes with
open vistas. Population loss counties are far more likely than other
nonmetro counties to be classified as farming dependent and are
far less likely to have developed an alternative economic base.
The same geographic characteristics that are ideal for agriculture—relatively
flat topography, long, hot summers, and isolation from urban encroachment—are
not conducive to economic development from recreation, tourism,
or retirement. Less than 4 percent of nonmetro population loss counties
are also classified as recreation counties in ERS’s typology
(compared with about 18 percent of all other nonmetro counties),
and less than 1 percent are typed as retirement destinations. In
addition, population loss counties are half as likely to be adjacent
to metro counties than other nonmetro counties.
Lack of natural amenities, rather than the presence
of agriculture per se, creates barriers to renewed population growth
in many rural and small town settings. Indeed, population loss is
noticeably absent in the intermountain West and coastal settings,
where recreation and retirement economies prevail. Solutions to
stem population loss are varied and yield mixed results in areas
with few employment prospects. For example, one strategy—to
locate less desirable facilities, such as prisons and waste disposal
plants, in such areas—has had some success. Another approach
to attract residents to rural areas is to use tax breaks and credit
incentives (as in the proposed New Homestead Act) in counties experiencing
long-term outmigration.
Download PDF version