Male

Transcription

1 pulation Pyramids of New Hampshire with Row Headers in Column b and Column Headers in Rows 23 to 25 Population Pyramids of New Hampshire Percent of Total Population Male Female Male Female Census 2000 Projection Change Age Group Number Percent Number Percent Total Total Male Female Total Total Male Female Total Number Percent Total 1,235, , , ,646, , , , ,685 39,006 36, ,781 48,074 45, , ,537 45,344 43, ,132 51,516 48, , ,255 47,510 45, ,275 52,991 50, , ,688 44,064 42, ,981 47,120 46, , ,766 34,353 34, ,543 40,960 41, , ,355 35,427 35, ,859 43,526 43, , ,706 44,002 44, ,009 50,915 48, , ,654 53,947 55, ,621 58,472 55, , ,525 55,707 55, ,273 61,485 58, , ,117 48,901 49, ,678 61,248 57, , ,869 42,892 42, ,498 51,070 49, , ,664 31,380 31, ,464 44,203 44, , ,995 23,020 23, ,571 45,162 47, , ,143 19,841 21, ,813 46,207 52, , ,184 16,724 20, ,388 41,421 48, , ,593 12,758 17, ,396 30,335 39, , ,819 7,762 13, ,315 19,928 29, , ,231 5,049 13, ,874 14,857 30, , Under , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,369 51,624 51, ,181 58,664 59, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,970 62,134 85, , , , , Demographic Indicator Change Demographic Indicator Change Median Age Child-Women Ratio (4) Male Sex Ratio (5) Female Under Dependency Ratio (1) Youth (2) Old Age (3) (1) Dependency Ratio = (Age under 20 + Age 65 and over) / (Age 20-64) X 100 (4) Child-Women ratio = Age under 5 / Female X 100 (2) Youth dependency ratio = Age under 20 / Age X 100 (5) Sex Ratio = Male / Female X 100 (3) Old age dependency ratio = Age 65 and over / Age X100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005 Internet Release Date: April 21,

2 MUNICIPAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2010 TO 2030 Prepared by the NH Office of Energy & Planning (OEP) January 2007 INTRODUCTION This is the third iteration of municipal projections since the 2000 US Census. Prior, 2000 census based, efforts were published in March 2003 and January The projections here use 2005 population estimates as a beginning point. The municipal population projections contained in this report are controlled to county projections also developed by the Office of Energy and Planning. See the publication, N.H. Population Projections for State and Counties, 2010 to 2030, Update: November This publication explains the underlying assumptions of the projections, down to the county level. Controlling, respective municipalities to county totals strongly links the county assumptions to the municipal level projections here. The projections should be viewed as baseline data. The OEP encourages the use of these projections as a point of departure for users to establish their own projections and/or for evaluating other projection efforts. This report attempts to present a set of future population levels which reflect past and emerging trends. Because they are controlled to county and state projections, these projections are considered to be reasonable in the aggregate as well as at the local level. METHODOLOGY Any projection scheme is dependent on assumptions. This is true, regardless of the complexity or sophistication of the process employed. Basic assumptions include: that there will be no major war, civil strife or major natural catastrophe and that there will be adequate supplies of energy at reasonable prices. The local projections are based on a community's historical share of its' respective county's growth. The principal assumption with this projection method is that trends of a community's population change, relative to the parent county will remain about the same in the future. However there are important limits and exceptions to this assumption. The basic trends in shares of county population change were established using 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 population totals. The municipal share of total county population was calculated for each of these years. Then a test was applied. Towns that gained or lost shares in all decades or since 1980 were typed, "consistent." For consistent places, the numeric change in percent of county population was calculated. This change was applied to the 2010 county share 1. This rendered a 2010 projected share for each community with consistent status. Thus the 2010 projected county shares are the result of trends established by the forty (since '60) or twenty (since '80) year trends. However, for the 2015 county shares the rate of historic change is diminished by one third (33%). This 2015 county share was then held constant and used for the remaining three projection periods. The resulting sets of shares, for consistent places, are necessarily subject to further alteration. This is because shares for inconsistent places must be entered and then all shares must be forced to sum to 100% (of projected county totals). Municipalities could be classified, inconsistent for one of two reasons. A municipality could have exhibited an inconsistent trend in the 1960 to 2000 period. Second, a municipality may have exhibited a consistent trend but, based on judgment supplied by OEP or a regional planning commission, were treated as inconsistent places. In most cases a regional planning commission supplied an updated rational for modifying the consistent trend. In other cases it was obvious that the consistent trend was unreasonable to continue into the future. Some old population centers, consistently lost county share in the past. Had these declines been applied, unreasonably low populations would result. INPUT FROM REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS Reasons for holding many of the communities from the established trend were provided by some of the state's nine regional planning commissions. The OEP solicited input from these agencies. The attempt was to combine the strengths of OEP and the planning commissions. The RPC's have greater in-depth knowledge of potential local population change, while OEP had already examined the most likely scenario for the state and its counties. Preliminary projections were sent to each RPC for review and comment. Seven RPC responded. Most responding agencies provided guidance as to whether the OEP numbers were high or low. One gave detailed guidance for their large communities and where it was believed that the OEP numbers required significant changes. Insofar as possible, all suggestions were included in these projections. It was not possible to adopt suggested numbers outright. This is because all local numbers were always subjected to the county controls. It was possible to reflect the structure of projections suggested by the regional planning commissions. Finally, users of these projections are cautioned about placing unwarranted confidence in very small projected changes of population. Small changes, up or down, essentially mean that a community is expected to be "stable" for the involved time period. Small changes in population may simply be the result of controlling to county totals, or rounding to the nearest ten people. 1 Actually only half of the change is applied because the historic trend is based on 10 years while the projected period is 5 years.

3 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Alton 4,990 5,630 6,030 6,420 6,810 7, Barnstead 4,510 4,910 5,160 5,400 5,650 5, Belmont 7,210 7,880 8,310 8,720 9,130 9, Ctr Harbor 1,080 1,180 1,230 1,290 1,340 1, Gilford 7,290 7,970 8,400 8,810 9,230 9, Gilmanton 3,430 3,740 3,940 4,130 4,320 4, Laconia 17,100 17,240 17,310 17,390 17,460 17, Meredith 6,350 6,990 7,360 7,720 8,070 8, New Hampton 2,130 2,330 2,440 2,560 2,680 2, Sanbornton 2,830 3,090 3,250 3,400 3,550 3, Tilton 3,640 3,880 4,020 4,140 4,260 4, Belknap Co. 60,560 64,840 67,450 69,980 72,500 74,520 4,300 2,630 2,510 2,530 1,990 numbers rounded to nearest 10 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Albany Bartlett 2,930 3,160 3,380 3,600 3,790 3, Brookfield Chatham Conway 9,190 9,520 9,840 10,150 10,420 10, Eaton Effingham 1,430 1,540 1,660 1,780 1,890 1, Freedom 1,430 1,540 1,660 1,780 1,880 1, Harts Loc Jackson ,010 1,080 1,140 1, Madison 2,240 2,410 2,570 2,740 2,880 2, Moultonboro 4,880 5,270 5,680 6,120 6,480 6, Ossipee 4,560 4,920 5,280 5,650 5,960 6, Sandwich 1,360 1,460 1,560 1,650 1,730 1, Tamworth 2,520 2,730 2,930 3,140 3,320 3, Tuftonboro 2,310 2,490 2,660 2,820 2,970 3, Wakefield 4,780 5,150 5,540 5,930 6,270 6, Wolfeboro 6,480 6,980 7,480 7,990 8,420 8, Carroll Co. 47,060 50,370 53,680 57,040 59,890 61,820 3,310 3,310 3,360 2,850 1,930

4 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Alstead 2,000 2,040 2,140 2,250 2,330 2, Chesterfield 3,770 3,860 4,050 4,240 4,390 4, Dublin 1,550 1,580 1,650 1,720 1,780 1, Fitzwilliam 2,280 2,330 2,430 2,530 2,620 2, Gilsum Harrisville 1,110 1,130 1,190 1,250 1,290 1, Hinsdale 4,270 4,360 4,560 4,750 4,900 5, Jaffrey 5,760 5,890 6,160 6,420 6,630 6, Keene 23,020 23,160 23,610 24,080 24,640 25, Marlborough 2,100 2,150 2,240 2,320 2,390 2, Marlow Nelson Richmond 1,150 1,170 1,240 1,310 1,360 1, Rindge 6,130 6,270 6,590 6,910 7,170 7, Roxbury Stoddard 990 1,000 1,040 1,090 1,130 1, Sullivan Surry Swanzey 7,230 7,400 7,750 8,090 8,370 8, Troy 2,020 2,060 2,150 2,220 2,280 2, Walpole 3,700 3,790 3,970 4,140 4,270 4, Westmoreland 1,870 1,910 1,990 2,080 2,140 2, Winchester 4,310 4,410 4,620 4,820 4,970 5, Cheshire Co. 77,250 78,620 81,650 84,670 87,250 89,830 1,370 3,030 3,020 2,580 2,580

5 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Berlin 10,500 10,190 10,200 10,230 10,580 10, Carroll Clarksville Colebrook 2,430 2,360 2,360 2,370 2,460 2, Columbia Dalton 1, ,030 1, Dummer Errol Gorham 2,960 2,870 2,870 2,890 3,000 3, Jefferson 1,070 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,090 1, Lancaster 3,420 3,310 3,320 3,330 3,460 3, Milan 1,370 1,320 1,330 1,330 1,400 1, Northumberland 2,480 2,400 2,400 2,410 2,510 2, Pittsburg Randolph Shelburne Stark Stewartstown 1, ,040 1, Stratford 1, ,010 1, Whitefield 2,120 2,050 2,060 2,070 2,160 2, Coos Co. 34,240 33,170 33,230 33,370 34,660 35,840-1, ,290 1,180

6 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Alexandria 1,470 1,510 1,590 1,640 1,700 1, Ashland 2,030 2,080 2,170 2,240 2,300 2, Bath ,010 1,040 1,080 1, Benton Bethlehem 2,410 2,470 2,580 2,650 2,730 2, Bridgewater 1,030 1,060 1,110 1,150 1,190 1, Bristol 3,190 3,270 3,410 3,530 3,650 3, Campton 3,040 3,120 3,270 3,380 3,490 3, Canaan 3,520 3,600 3,710 3,800 3,890 3, Dorchester Easton Ellsworth Enfield 4,860 4,980 5,240 5,420 5,600 5, Franconia 1,020 1,040 1,090 1,120 1,150 1, Grafton 1,200 1,230 1,300 1,340 1,390 1, Groton Hanover 11,040 11,320 11,810 12,250 12,640 13, Haverhill 4,680 4,790 5,020 5,170 5,330 5, Hebron Holderness 2,030 2,080 2,180 2,250 2,310 2, Landaff Lebanon 13,420 13,530 13,710 13,860 14,010 14, Lincoln 1,310 1,340 1,400 1,430 1,470 1, Lisbon 1,700 1,740 1,810 1,850 1,900 1, Littleton 6,280 6,430 6,690 6,870 7,050 7, Lyman Lyme 1,720 1,770 1,860 1,920 1,980 2, Monroe Orange Orford 1,180 1,210 1,260 1,300 1,330 1, Piermont Plymouth 6,390 6,540 6,840 7,050 7,260 7, Rumney 1,570 1,610 1,680 1,740 1,790 1, Sugar Hill Thornton 2,080 2,140 2,240 2,320 2,400 2, Warren ,000 1,030 1,060 1, Waterville Wentworth ,000 1, Woodstock 1,200 1,230 1,290 1,330 1,370 1, Grafton Co. 86,920 88,860 92,440 95,110 97, ,630 1,940 3,580 2,670 2,630 2,890

7 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Amherst 11,530 12,020 12,560 13,030 13,500 13, Antrim 2,600 2,680 2,750 2,810 2,880 2, Bedford 20,740 21,810 23,080 23,940 24,810 25,400 1,080 1, Bennington 1,500 1,560 1,640 1,700 1,760 1, Brookline 4,760 5,010 5,330 5,610 5,890 6, Deering 2,050 2,130 2,230 2,310 2,390 2, Francestown 1,580 1,660 1,750 1,830 1,920 2, Goffstown 17,800 18,600 19,480 20,260 21,030 21, Greenfield 1,770 1,850 1,930 2,010 2,080 2, Greenville 2,270 2,350 2,420 2,490 2,560 2, Hancock 1,820 1,840 1,920 1,990 2,050 2, Hillsborough 5,670 5,900 6,150 6,360 6,570 6, Hollis 7,630 8,000 8,430 8,820 9,210 9, Hudson 24,560 25,670 26,950 28,090 29,240 30,380 1,110 1,280 1,140 1,150 1,140 Litchfield 8,120 8,850 9,480 10,100 10,670 11, Lyndeborough 1,790 1,860 1,950 2,020 2,100 2, Manchester 109, , , , , ,700 2,440 2,830 2,390 2,430 1,650 Mason 1,310 1,360 1,420 1,470 1,520 1, Merrimack 26,610 27,870 29,220 30,440 31,670 33,020 1,260 1,350 1,220 1,230 1,360 Milford 14,860 15,500 16,220 16,850 17,480 18, Mont Vernon 2,360 2,450 2,550 2,640 2,730 2, Nashua 87,990 89,530 91,000 92,430 93,880 95,670 1,540 1,470 1,430 1,450 1,790 New Boston 4,970 5,190 5,450 5,690 5,930 6, New Ipswich 4,950 5,140 5,330 5,500 5,660 5, Pelham 12,490 13,990 15,230 16,530 17,870 19,460 1,500 1,250 1,300 1,340 1,590 Peterborough 6,130 6,390 6,670 6,890 7,120 7, Sharon Temple 1,520 1,580 1,640 1,700 1,750 1, Weare 8,850 9,280 9,790 10,240 10,700 11, Wilton 4,000 4,170 4,350 4,520 4,680 4, Windsor Hillsborough Co 402, , , , , ,040 14,490 15,540 13,770 13,820 13,630

8 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Allenstown 5,030 5,260 5,480 5,690 5,910 6, Andover 2,220 2,320 2,430 2,540 2,650 2, Boscawen 3,850 4,220 4,580 4,800 4,970 5, Bow 7,810 8,500 9,140 9,830 10,540 11, Bradford 1,570 1,750 1,860 1,950 2,020 2, Canterbury 2,240 2,330 2,430 2,540 2,650 2, Chichester 2,480 2,600 2,720 2,850 2,980 3, Concord 42,220 44,120 46,000 47,860 49,770 51,020 1,900 1,880 1,860 1,910 1,260 Danbury 1,180 1,230 1,290 1,360 1,420 1, Dunbarton 2,520 2,640 2,760 2,900 3,040 3, Epsom 4,510 4,710 4,920 5,130 5,350 5, Franklin 8,690 8,790 8,890 8,990 9,110 9, Henniker 4,960 5,170 5,400 5,640 5,880 6, Hill 1,080 1,130 1,180 1,240 1,290 1, Hooksett 13,240 14,330 15,330 16,360 17,420 18,100 1,090 1,000 1,030 1, Hopkinton 5,630 5,900 6,180 6,460 6,760 6, Loudon 5,050 5,270 5,500 5,740 5,990 6, Newbury 2,020 2,110 2,210 2,320 2,430 2, New London 4,440 4,640 4,850 5,070 5,300 5, Northfield 4,910 5,140 5,370 5,610 5,860 6, Pembroke 7,350 7,690 8,050 8,420 8,790 9, Pittsfield 4,360 4,560 4,760 4,970 5,190 5, Salisbury 1,260 1,410 1,490 1,560 1,610 1, Sutton 1,770 1,860 1,960 2,070 2,170 2, Warner 2,950 3,130 3,320 3,520 3,720 3, Webster 1,760 1,960 2,080 2,160 2,250 2, Wilmot 1,280 1,330 1,400 1,470 1,540 1, Merrimack Co 146, , , , , ,850 7,750 7,490 7,450 7,570 5,230

9 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Atkinson 6,560 6,800 7,090 7,330 7,570 7, Auburn 5,180 5,360 5,600 5,790 5,980 6, Brentwood 4,110 4,230 4,380 4,500 4,620 4, Candia 4,110 4,250 4,430 4,570 4,710 4, Chester 4,620 4,790 5,020 5,220 5,410 5, Danville 4,490 4,660 4,870 5,060 5,240 5, Deerfield 4,270 4,420 4,620 4,780 4,940 5, Derry 34,660 36,560 37,860 38,980 39,730 40,430 1,910 1,300 1, East Kingston 2,110 2,200 2,300 2,380 2,480 2, Epping 5,980 6,150 6,350 6,520 6,690 6, Exeter 14,560 15,070 15,580 16,040 16,500 16, Fremont 4,080 4,220 4,430 4,600 4,780 4, Greenland 3,390 3,560 3,720 3,880 4,080 4, Hampstead 8,640 8,980 9,430 9,810 10,190 10, Hampton 15,390 15,960 16,670 17,240 17,820 18, Hampton Falls 2,040 2,150 2,240 2,330 2,450 2, Kensington 2,070 2,200 2,280 2,370 2,500 2, Kingston 6,190 6,410 6,690 6,910 7,140 7, Londonderry 24,670 26,210 27,340 28,440 29,540 30,580 1,540 1,130 1,100 1,110 1,040 New Castle 1,040 1,070 1,120 1,160 1,200 1, Newfields 1,630 1,690 1,770 1,830 1,890 1, Newington Newmarket 9,310 9,530 9,820 10,050 10,280 10, Newton 4,480 4,650 4,850 5,020 5,180 5, North Hampton 4,510 4,670 4,870 5,040 5,200 5, Northwood 3,980 4,120 4,300 4,450 4,600 4, Nottingham 4,370 4,560 4,810 5,010 5,220 5, Plaistow 7,820 8,110 8,480 8,770 9,070 9, Portsmouth 21,000 21,320 21,990 22,730 23,610 24, Raymond 10,640 11,010 11,470 11,840 12,210 12, Rye 5,260 5,440 5,640 5,790 5,940 6, Salem 29,940 30,940 31,880 32,770 33,680 34,440 1, Sandown 5,850 6,070 6,360 6,610 6,860 7, Seabrook 8,400 8,700 9,080 9,380 9,690 9, South Hampton ,030 1, Stratham 7,130 7,390 7,730 8,020 8,310 8, Windham 12,570 13,000 13,600 14,090 14,600 15, Rockingham Co. 296, , , , , ,660 11,480 12,280 10,700 10,660 9,810

10 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Barrington 8,180 8,510 8,990 9,450 9,900 10, Dover 28,730 29,310 29,970 30,450 30,900 31, Durham 13,440 13,840 14,480 15,070 15,630 16, Farmington 6,710 6,930 7,280 7,610 7,930 8, Lee 4,440 4,580 4,830 5,080 5,310 5, Madbury 1,750 1,800 1,880 1,950 2,020 2, Middleton 1,710 1,770 1,880 1,990 2,090 2, Milton 4,370 4,530 4,790 5,040 5,270 5, New Durham 2,490 2,640 2,920 3,180 3,440 3, Rochester 30,680 31,560 32,930 34,290 35,560 36, ,360 1,360 1,280 1,080 Rollinsford 2,660 2,740 2,870 2,990 3,100 3, Somersworth 11,880 12,080 12,290 12,480 12,950 13, Strafford 3,990 4,180 4,400 4,620 4,830 5, Strafford Co. 121, , , , , ,890 3,470 5,020 4,710 4,720 3,960 NH Office of Energy & Planning January I--- Projections I Differences Municipality -- Est Acworth ,050 1,100 1,150 1, Charlestown 4,940 5,360 5,610 5,810 6,030 6, Claremont 13,120 13,400 13,620 13,880 14,230 14, Cornish 1,720 1,900 2,030 2,120 2,200 2, Croydon Goshen ,020 1, Grantham 2,440 2,750 2,970 3,140 3,290 3, Langdon Lempster 1,080 1,180 1,260 1,310 1,360 1, Newport 6,400 6,670 6,860 7,040 7,240 7, Plainfield 2,420 2,710 2,800 2,880 2,960 3, Springfield 1,060 1,170 1,260 1,320 1,380 1, Sunapee 3,230 3,590 3,850 4,040 4,210 4, Unity 1,650 1,830 1,960 2,060 2,140 2, Washington 960 1,240 1,340 1,420 1,500 1, Sullivan Co. 42,060 45,180 47,140 48,800 50,460 51,960 3,120 1,960 1,660 1,660 1,490 N.H. 1,315,000 1,365,140 1,420,000 1,470,010 1,520,310 1,565,040 50,160 54,900 49,990 50,310 44,690 All numbers rounded to nearest ten rounding may impact differences

11 Reports on New England The Changing Faces of New Hampshire Recent Demographic Trends in the Granite State Kenneth M. Johnson

12 Building Knowledge for Families and Communities Reports on NEW ENGLAND Volume 1, Number 1 Support provided by the Durum and Pilot Funds of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, and by the Carsey Institute s endowment. Copyright 2007 Carsey Institute University of New Hampshire Huddleston Hall 73 Main Street Durham, New Hampshire Director: Cynthia M. Duncan Coordinator of Programs: Curt Grimm Senior Fellow and Director of Evaluation Program: Sally Ward Communications Director: Amy Sterndale Executive Committee members: Ross Gittell, Ph.D. James R. Carter Professor and Professor of Management Whittemore School of Business & Economics Lawrence Hamilton, Ph.D. Professor Sociology David Pillemer, Ed.D. Dr. Samuel E. Paul Professor of Developmental Psychology Psychology Jan A. Nisbet, Ph.D. Director, Institute on Disability Robert J. Woodward, Ph.D. Forrest D. McKerley Chair Health Economics

13 The Changing Faces of New Hampshire Recent Demographic Trends in the Granite State Kenneth M. Johnson i Senior Demographer The Carsey Institute University of New Hampshire A Carsey Institute Report on New England

14

15 Summary 3 An Overview of Demographic Change New Hampshire gained 79,000 residents (6.4 percent) between 2000 and 2006 according to the latest Census Bureau estimates reaching a population of 1,315,000 in July of New Hampshire s gain matches the national average and exceeds the New England average by a significant margin. Most of this growth came from migration. Families with children and seniors were most likely to move to New Hampshire, but the state is now also gaining young adults. Migration Produced Population and Income Gains in New Hampshire n Migration accounted for most of New Hampshire s population gain of 79,000 between 2000 and n The state gained nearly 51,000 residents from migration between 2000 and n New Hampshire gained at least $1.4 billion in income from migration between 2001 and n The Boston metropolitan area was the largest source of migrants. Nearly 80,000 people moved from Boston to New Hampshire between 2001 and Demographic Trends within New Hampshire n Modest increases have been made to diversity recently, but New Hampshire remained 93.7 percent non-hispanic white in n Minorities represented only 4.7 percent of the 2000 population, but accounted for 30 percent of the growth between 2000 and n The number of older adults in New Hampshire will increase rapidly during the next two decades because of aging in place and a migration gain of older adults. n Growth rates were greatest in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire, where older domestic migrants were attracted to recreation and amenity areas. n Metropolitan gains were largest for family age households and were fueled by the peripheral growth of the proximate Boston metropolitan area. n New Hampshire gained migrants in exchanges with the rest of New England, but lost migrants to Maine. n The state lost migrants to other regions of the country with losses to the South being particularly pronounced. n New Hampshire is gaining migrants at every age. Gains are greatest for family age households. The older population is also growing from migration and the state is even gaining young adults. n New Hampshire s young adult population remains smaller now than in 1990, but is growing again. n The young adult decline occurred because few babies were born 25 to 35 years ago, not because of a substantial net migration loss of young adults. n Most migrants to New Hampshire came from elsewhere in the United States. n Natural increase also accounts for a significant share of the population gain and immigration contributed a modest amount.

16 4 Introduction New Hampshire reflects a surprising degree of demographic, geographic, and economic diversity for its size. This diversity combined with its long history and the strong tradition of independent local governments has produced a complex tapestry of demographic change across the states. New Hampshire spans a broad spectrum of landscapes from the ever expanding periphery of the Boston metropolitan area to the south; through mill towns that ushered in the Industrial Revolution and have since transformed themselves into diversified economic centers; to picturesque villages that look much as they did centuries ago; past sparkling lakes, ski slopes, and beautiful vistas that have attracted vacationers and second homeowners for generations; to the working forests and rugged mountains of the north. Demographic trends in New Hampshire play out against the backdrop of this diverse landscape through a complex interaction between fertility, mortality, and migration. With only 1.3 million people, New Hampshire is hardly a major player on the nation s demographic stage. But, with sprawling suburbs, struggling industrial towns, fast growing amenity areas and isolated rural villages, New Hampshire includes many of the diverse strands that together compose the changing demographic fabric of the nation. The future of New Hampshire depends in part on the size, composition, and distribution of its population. This report provides insights into the patterns of demographic change underway in the state using the latest data available. My goals here are threefold: Summarize current population redistribution trends in New Hampshire Show how natural increase (the balance of births and deaths), domestic migration and immigration each contributed to these population trends Document how these demographic trends vary by age, race and Hispanic origin and geography.

17 Population Redistribution Trends in New Hampshire 5 New Hampshire gained 79,000 residents (6.4 percent) between 2000 and 2006 according to Census Bureau estimates. The state s population in July 2006 was 1,315,000. New Hampshire s current annual growth rate is slightly lower than it was during the 1990s, but it matches that of the United States and exceeds the growth rate in the rest of New England by a significant margin (Figure 1). Demographic trends in New Hampshire are best understood when compared to those of neighboring states. In the northern tier of New England (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont), the rates of population growth are higher with domestic migration accounting for much of the growth. This trend is more pronounced in New Hampshire, which is growing much faster than any other state in the region, but is evident in Maine and Vermont as well. Natural increase is the second largest contributor to population growth in the northern tier, with immigration contributing only modestly. In southern New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island), the situation is quite different. Rates of population gains were modest there and each state experienced net domestic out-migration, a significant point of contrast with the northern tier. The domestic migration loss was greatest in Massachusetts, both in percentage and absolute terms. Immigration provided the bulk of the population gain in southern New England though it was supplemented by natural increase. Many of the fastest growing places in New England are concentrated in southern and central New Hampshire (Figure 2). Rapid gains there contrast sharply with areas of widespread Figure 1: Components of Demographic Change New England States, % 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% Connecticut Rhode Island Massachusetts New Hampshire Maine Vermont Population Change Natural Increase Domestic Migration Immigration Source: Census FSCPE 2006 (Federal State Cooperative Population Estimates)

18 6 population losses in the losses in the Boston metropolitan core. The rapid gains in New Hampshire are stimulated by two distinct, but related trends. The first is the peripheral sprawl of the Boston metropolitan area. Population growth rates are highest in a broad band around the outer edge of the Boston metropol- itan area including much of southern New Hampshire. These trends reflect the continued peripheral spread of metropolitan Boston that in some areas is spilling over the urban edge into surrounding rural areas. A second growth cluster centers on the recreational areas in central New Hampshire where lakes, Figure 2: Population Change Loss of more than 4% Loss of 2 to 4% Loss of 0 to 2% Gain of 0 to 2% Gain of 2 to 4% Gain of 4 to 8% Gain of more than 8%

19 7 mountains, and beautiful vistas have attracted vacationers and second homeowners for generations (Figure 3). In contrast, slow growth or population loss is occurring in the north and scattered pockets of west central New Hampshire. This selective deconcentration of the population is consistent with national trends that document high growth in recreational areas and along the urban edge coupled with population stagnation or loss in remote areas dependent on extractive industries (i.e. forest products, farming, and mining). Figure 3: Population Change Loss of more than 4% Loss of 2 to 4% Loss of 0 to 2% Gain of 0 to 2% Gain of 2 to 4% Gain of 4 to 8% Gain of more than 8%

20 8 Demographic Components of Population Change Population change in New Hampshire is the result of a complex interaction between several demographic factors. Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) contributes to population increase in most areas of the state. Natural increase has diminished in New Hampshire recently as the population ages and birth rates fall. Increasingly, population growth depends on migration. However, net migration (the difference between the number of individuals moving into and out of an area) has a far more differential effect; increasing the population of some areas and decreasing it elsewhere. It is useful to disaggregate overall migration change into two separate components. The first is domestic migration, which includes the movement of a person between locations in the United States. The second type is net immigration, which is the difference between the number of people coming into an area from outside the country and the number of people leaving the country. Most of New Hampshire s population (62 percent) resides in its three metropolitan counties (Hillsborough, Rockingham, and Strafford) that contain 819,000 residents and have grown 6.3 percent since 2000 (Figure 4). Compared to national figures, New Hampshire has a much larger share of its population (38 percent) residing in nonmetropolitan (rural) areas. Nonmetropolitan counties that are proximate to metropolitan areas are growing the fastest (7.9 percent). In contrast, nonmetropolitan counties that are not near metropolitan areas are growing the slowest (3.9 percent). Such rapid growth in nonmetropolitan areas is consistent with trends elsewhere in New England, though metropolitan growth rates generally exceed those in nonmetropolitan areas elsewhere in the country. Recent population growth in New Hampshire has been stimulated by all three of the demographic components. The largest contributor has been domestic migration, which accounted for nearly 47 percent of the overall population gain. Natural increase contributed an additional 36 percent of the growth with immigration responsible for the remaining 17 percent. New Hampshire and Maine are the only states in New England to receive a significant volume of domestic migration. In New Hampshire s three metropolitan counties, natural increase was the most important source of population increase. Between 2000 and 2006, there were 60,400 births in metropolitan New Hampshire compared to 34,700 deaths, producing a natural increase of roughly 25,700 (3.3 percent) (Figure 4). This natural increase was supplemented by a net migration gain of 3.0 percent. In all, 23,000 more people moved into metropolitan areas than moved out. This migration gain was fairly evenly balanced between domestic migration (12,000) and immigration (11,000). This is consistent with trends elsewhere in the eastern and midwestern United States; however, the prominence of domestic migration in the growth of metropolitan New Hampshire is unusual in New England. Population growth in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire actually exceeds the metropolitan gains. Though unusual nationally, this is common in New England. An important difference between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan New Hampshire is how the demographic components of change interact to produce this population increase. Domestic migration accounted for over 81 percent of the population increase in rural New Hampshire, but for only 25 percent of the metropolitan population increase. In contrast, natural increase was important in metropolitan areas, but contributed little to nonmetropolitan population gains. Gains from natural increase were minimal in nonadjacent counties; here domestic migration was the only source of significant population increase. In adjacent counties, the substantial domestic migration gain produced the highest rates of population increase in the state.

21 9 Figure 4: Components of Demographic Change New Hampshire, % 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Metro Nonmetro Adjacent Nonmetro Non-adjacent Population Change Natural Increase Domestic Migration Immigration Source: Census 2006 FSCPE

22 10 Population Change by Race and Hispanic Origin New Hampshire was 93.7 percent non-hispanic white in 2006, making it one of the least diverse states in the United States (Figure 5). Hispanics, the largest minority, numbered just under 30,000 (2.3 percent) and were followed closely by Asians at 24,000 (1.8 percent). Blacks represent.9 percent of the population with all other groups representing the remaining 1.3 percent. Metropolitan areas are 92.4 percent non-hispanic white compared to 96.1 percent in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire. Hispanics are the largest minority (3.0 percent) in metropolitan counties, while in nonmetropolitan areas Asians are the largest minority (1.1 percent) followed closely by Hispanics. There were modest changes in the racial and Hispanic composition of New Hampshire between 2000 and 2006 (Figure 6). Though minorities represented only 4.7 percent of New Hampshire s population in 2000, they produced over 30 percent of the population gain between 2000 and The minority population grew by 24,000 (41.3 percent) to 82,000 during the period. The white population grew by only 55,000 (4.7 percent) to 1,233,000. Percentage gains among Asians, Hispanic and African Americans all exceeded 40 percent. Minority population gains were greater in metropolitan New Hampshire, where nearly 40 percent of the total population gain was from minorities though they made up only 5.6 percent of the metropolitan population in In nonmetropolitan areas, minority population gains were 16 percent of the total. Thus, while the numerical gains for whites continue to exceed those for minorities, minority growth rates are significantly higher. The net result is that the proportion of New Hampshire s population that is minority increased slightly between 2000 and Figure 5: New Hampshire Metropolitan or Nonmetropolitan Status Metropolitan or Nonmetropolitan Status Nonmetro Non-adjacent Nonmetro Adjacent Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Non-adjacent 161,334 Race and Hispanic Origin White Black Hispanic Asian Other Nonmetropolitan Adjacent 334,515 Metropolitan 819,046

23 11 Figure 6: New Hampshire Population Change by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2000 to ,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 White Black Hispanic Asian Other Source: Census 2006 FSCPE Metro Nonmetro

24 12 Age-Specific Migration Patterns Migration produced most of the recent growth in New Hampshire ii. Examining net migration by age, race, and location provides additional insights into the demographic change underway in the state. New Hampshire gained migrants in virtually every age group between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 7). Numerical gains were greatest among those in their 30s and 40s and among children and adolescents. Adults between the ages of 30 and 49 are in the family-rearing period of the life cycle, so the influx of children and teens evident in the data suggest a significant inflow of families into New Hampshire. The evidence of the outward sprawl from the Boston metropolitan area noted earlier is entirely consistent with such an influx of families to New Hamp- shire. Prior research suggests that much of the age-specific migration gain on the urban periphery is family households iii. The inflow of parent-child households to New Hampshire has significant implications because such households bring considerable social and financial capital. The large number of migrant children also has significant implications for local communities because they put additional demands on local schools. New Hampshire also experienced modest gains among migrants over the age of 50. Research suggests that such migrants are attracted to the high amenity and scenic areas that are abundant in New Hampshire. Data presented earlier identified several areas in central New Hampshire with such recreational concentrations that experienced high growth rates. The influx Figure 7: New Hampshire Age Specific Net Migration, 1990 to ,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, ,000-10,000 0 to 9 10 to to to to to to Source: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4): Age at End of Period

25 Age Range 13 Figure 8: Age Pyramid New Hampshire, Born Born ,000 50,000 25, ,000 50,000 75,000 Population Count Women Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Population = 1,108,258 Men of older migrants to New Hampshire is of particular interest to policy makers because it foreshadows an even greater influx as the large baby boomer cohorts enter this age group. Young adults are also of concern to policy makers in New Hampshire with much recent discussion about the diminishing number of young adults in the state. Thus, it is important to recognize that New Hampshire has not suffered a significant loss of young adults through outmigration. There was a net outflow of 20 to 29 year olds between 1990 and 2000, but the loss represents only four percent of the age group. Thus, the substantial young adult population decline in New Hampshire was not caused by a massive outflow of young adults from the state. Age Structure Shifts Because the policy implications of the diminished number of young adults is of considerable importance to the future of New Hampshire, we need to understand the demographic process that has produced these losses. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people 25 to 34 in New Hampshire declined by 23 percent. Yet, Figure 7 suggests a net inflow of 2, to 34-year-olds during the period. If young adult outmigration did not cause this, then what did? The explanation is demographic. The decline occurred because relatively few children were born during the 1970s due to the delayed childbearing and fewer births to baby boomers. More babies were born in New Hampshire during the 1960s as the baby boom waned and again during the 1980s, when the baby boomers finally had children. For example, 26 percent fewer children were born in New Hampshire in the 1970s than during the 1980s. This birth dearth caused the number of young adults to decline during the 1990s. To illustrate the differential impact of cohort size on the age structure, consider the series of population pyramids (Figures 8 to 10) that trace two important cohorts of young New Hampshirites. The first cohort, born during the low fertility period between 1976 and 1980, would have been 25 to 29 by the end of The second cohort, born during a high fertility period ten years later, was 15 to 19 at the end of The relative size of these two cohorts is evident in Figure 8. Note that the cohort born 1976 to 1980 is considerably smaller than the cohorts ten years older or ten years younger. Also note that the cohorts who were 25 to 34 in 1990 were even larger because they were born during the baby boom.

26 Age Range 14 Figure 9: Age Pyramid New Hampshire, Born Born ,000 50,000 25, ,000 50,000 75,000 Population Count Women Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Population = 1,235,786 Men By 2000, the older cohort was 20 to 24 and because it was much smaller than the cohort 10 years older, the number of young adults diminished sharply (Figure 9). Meanwhile, the larger cohort born 1986 to 1990 was now in their early teen causing this age group to increase in size compared to ten years earlier. By 2006, the small cohort born 1976 to 1980 reached their late 20s or early 30s and together with the small cohort born just before it were 25 to 34 (Figure 10). The large percentage decline in those 25 to 34 that has been widely reported is the result of these two cohorts. Looking to the future, Figure 10 clearly demonstrates that the cohorts reaching young adulthood over the next ten years are already larger than those currently 25 to 34. In fact, the population 25 to 34 is already growing and based on sheer cohort replacement should be 5 percent larger in 2011 and 16 percent larger in Given the influx of parents and children to New Hampshire, the gain will likely be larger. Thus, the diminished numbers of young adults in New Hampshire is an empirical reality. However, it is imperative that policy makers recognize that the widely publicized drop in the number of 25- to 34-year-olds is not due to young adult outmigration; this young adult loss is now over. The number of young adults in New Hampshire is already growing and will likely continue to do so in the future.

27 Age Range 15 Figure 10: Age Pyramid New Hampshire, Born Born ,000 50,000 25, ,000 50,000 75,000 Population Count Women Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Population = 1,314,895 Men The age structure data illustrates another major policy concern for New Hampshire. The number of older adults in the state will increase rapidly in the next two decades because of two distinct demographic processes: current residents will age in place and older migrants will continue to settle in New Hampshire. There are currently 82, to 74-year-olds in New Hampshire who were born during the low fertility years of the late 1930s (Figure 10). In contrast, there are 156, to 64-year-olds and 217, to 54-year-olds born during the baby boom. Although mortality will modestly diminish these cohorts, the vast majority will reach their 65th birthday. Thus, the older population of New Hampshire will grow through this aging in place. In addition, New Hampshire has a net gain of older migrants and that stream is likely to swell as the large baby boom cohorts continue to reach their late 50s and 60s. Figure 7 reflects the beginning of this trend and, as we shall see, the trend is accelerating. Thus, within 20 years the 65- to 74-yearold population will more than double. The demographic implications of this are already evident in the steady increase in the number of deaths in the state. This coupled with the stable or slightly diminishing number of births has the net effect of reducing the rate of natural increase. As a result, New Hampshire will be even more dependent on migration for future growth.

28 Net Migration 16 Migration by Place, Race and Hispanic Origin Most of the net migration gain in New Hampshire is due to an influx of white migrants. Minority migration gains are smaller in magnitude, but consistent in trend with those of whites with one significant exception (Figure 11). During the 1990s, New Hampshire received a net inflow of minority migrants 20 to 29, but lost a modest number of whites of that age group. In essence, the inflow of young minority adults partially offset the outflow of young whites. The inflow of minority children echoes the pattern for whites, thought it appears that minority migrants had their children at younger ages than their white counterparts. There are notable differences in the age specific migration trends to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Most of the net loss of young adults is from nonmetropolitan areas (Figure 12). The absolute loss is greater from adjacent nonmetropolitan Figure 11: Age Specific Net Migration for White and Minority Populations in New Hampshire, 1990 to ,000 10,000 5, ,000-10,000-15,000 0 to 9 10 to to to to to to Source: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4): White Minority