Implications of Census 2000 Results for the Environment
Prepared for the Surdna Foundation by Martha Farnsworth Riche, Ph.D.
June 2001
Summary
Census 2000 contains two important messages for Americans concerned about the
environment. One message is numerical, the other political.
The important numerical implication of Census 2000 for environmental issues is: More—
more people, more households, and more diversity across each demographic
characteristic the census measures, even such fundamental characteristics as age and
families. This kind of diversity heightens the impact of what people traditionally think of
as diversity—race and ethnic origin—as well as ongoing socioeconomic diversity. And
these factors are interwoven with patterns of resource consumption, and the distribution
of their costs—both direct and indirect.
The important political implication of Census 2000 is two-fold. First, population is
growing rapidly in some places and declining in others, at the same time as it becomes
more urban across the nation. These changes tend to pit locations against one another
when resources are scarce and accountability for their use is limited. Second, population
groups that used to be dominant are losing ground to groups that used to be small. This
fragmenting of the nation’s population into more groups, but with different political
skills, is turning up the volume on virtually all transactions between citizen and
organization, or citizen and citizen at the same time as it increases the demand on the
nation’s natural and man-made resources.
1. The US Population is Growing Faster than We Thought
Census 2000 found 281 million people in the United States. (The census evaluation
survey found 3 million more, once people counted more than once were subtracted from
the people who had not been counted at all.) This was well above the 275 million people
that experts had estimated on the basis of birth, death, and tax records. Consequently, the
population grew well more than 1 percent a year during the 1990s, not less than 1 percent
a year as experts had assumed.
Viewed as a percentage, these annual rates of growth may seem low but the base on
which they are calculated is very large. A longer period offers a better perspective: the
13.2 percent increase during the 1990s is the largest percentage gain since the Baby
Boom ended in the early 1960s. In absolute numbers, the increase of 32.7 million people
in the United States between 1990 and 2000 is the largest 10-year population growth in
U.S. history.
All three of the demographic sources of population change contributed to population
growth in the 1990s: births, deaths, and net migration.
• Americans continued to act on their preferences for the two-child family, and more
children were born each year than the year before.
• Americans’ life expectancy grew throughout the decade, thanks to both better health
care and better health practices, so there were fewer deaths.
• And immigration contributed to population growth, although its impact was lessened
compared to the previous two decades.
Such rapid growth in numbers will obviously intensify Americans’ demands on natural
resources:
•
More demand for almost everything heightens already pressing issues of
resource depletion, air and water pollution, waste disposal, and environmental
quality. The simple fact of more people will call for more development of
space that is currently green. Put together, these two trends suggest that
“conservation-based development” will become increasingly salient. This
suggests two kind of funding, one for research into efficient, cost-effective,
and attractive ways to undertake such development, and one to educate
Americans about its potential value.
•
More rapid population growth enhances existing issues of population density
and infrastructure. Congestion in cities and suburbs is already a concern, and
long commutes between home and work now characterize metropolitan areas
across the country, not just Los Angeles. These trends give Americans a direct
experience of the effects of population growth, and may offer a window of
opportunity for “smart growth” strategies, IF they are surfaced strategically
and effectively. For example, funding for environmental or “smart growth”
budget analysis can help make existing incentives and disincentives
transparent. Funding for broad-based and inclusive exploration of “smart
growth” strategies can help communities reject the status quo, as can funding
to disseminate community success stories.
2
NOTE: Each census is designed to improve on the experience of its predecessors, and
this cycle continues because each census finds something new and unexpected about the
population. Census 2000 was no exception: it confounded the experts by its larger than
expected numbers. Most observers are attributing this result to improved accuracy in the
census process. That is obviously gratifying to this writer, who oversaw the census
design. However, informed experience with this and previous censuses suggests that a
familiar characteristic that has been small in recent decades was unusually large in the
2000 population: “circular migration.”
That is, the foreign-born population tends to fluctuate as the business cycle sucks in/spits
out people who are here to work but not to “settle.” Indeed, evidence from the nation as a
whole, and from California in particular, suggests that in-migration is the primary cause
of the unexpectedly high population count in 2000, a banner year for U.S. employment.
The “additional” people not foreseen by administrative records were largely Hispanic;
and nearly two-thirds were aged 25 to 34 or 5 to 14 (presumably parents and children).
On the one hand, this makes supporting efforts to bring prosperity to all countries more
relevant. On the other hand, to the extent that boom or bust times bring population booms
or busts, “conservation-based” and “smart growth” strategies need to make allowance for
them.
2. Population Change is Uneven
Population shifts magnify these overall changes, either positively or negatively, in
particular regions or places. All four U.S. regions gained population during the 1990s.
And, for the only time in the 20th century, all the states gained population. However,
these gains ranged widely, from 0.5 percent in North Dakota to 66 percent in Nevada. As
a result, gaps between state populations widened as Americans continued their long-time
movement South and West.
The map (Figure 2, page 4, from the Census 2000 brief, “Population Change and
Distribution,” available at http://www.census.gov/) shows county-level change in
population between 1990 and 2000. Two changes stand out:
•
A band of population decline runs from Canada to Mexico just east of the
Rocky Mountains, tapering to stagnation or below-average growth as it
approaches the Mississippi. Another one runs inland from Eastern Kentucky
north to Maine. What will it mean for the environment to have less growth
and even population decline in parts of the Mid-west/Northeast?
Issues of community revitalization will be called for in some places; of
community-building in others, as communities adjust to smaller, perhaps more
viable dimensions. The broad assumption that population growth is necessary
for economic growth can be tested, and perhaps disproved in these regions.
3
•
Although the West was once again the fastest growing region, the pale colors
along the Pacific Coast and the bright colors inland are the first signs of
“enough.” Most domestic migrants left congested coastal areas in general and
California in particular. They moved into sparsely populated Western states
like Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. (A study based on 1999 data found that
over 2 million people had left California since 1990 for other states in the
region.) Reasons cited include the high cost of housing and lengthening
commutes—results of earlier population growth—as well as the difficult
adjustment to a surge in immigrants. (Despite the loss of so many
Californians, the state still had the largest numerical population increase.)
Community-building issues again become important, including the interface
between newcomers and long-time residents. (The controversy over reintroduced wolves is probably the poster boy for this kind of predictable
conflict in what is being called the “New Sun Belt.”) Environmental issues
may take longer to surface, but since much if not most of this migration was
into water-scarce regions, they are also predictable, as Americans tend to find
this landscape inhospitable until they transform it.
Overall, a yearning for better jobs, improved quality of life, and attractive retirement
settings were major factors in the latest shifts of Americans around the country,
demonstrating that Americans are attuned to environmental factors. Meanwhile,
immigrants tended to prefer states that had large populations of fellow countrymen,
although some dispersion took place to other states. The New Sun Belt states gained
population from other states, not from other countries.
Despite Americans’ interest in the environment, Census 2000 did not uncover a new set
of preferences for nonmetropolitan living, like the “Rural Renaissance” that seemed to be
emerging only a few censuses ago. The reason we can make two seemingly different
statements about the central part of the country—that most counties are losing population
but each state gained it—is also seen in the map.
That is, the census found continued concentration of population growth both within and
adjacent to metropolitan areas. (Indeed, the official boundaries of these statistical areas
will be enlarged in a few years as a result of census findings on residential and
commuting patterns.) Texas is a good example, as many of the state’s counties
experienced population stagnation or decline while the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San
Antonio metropolitan areas experienced rapid growth. Minneapolis-St. Paul is another
good example, as fast growth in the area contrasts with population decline throughout
most counties in the upper Midwest.
Minneapolis-St. Paul is also a good example of Census 2000 findings about the nation’s
urban areas. The map shows a doughnut, with the central county showing no population
change, and the surrounding counties showing rapid growth. Atlanta displays the same
pattern, which characterizes the country as a whole albeit less visually. The proportion of
4
the nation’s population that lives in metropolitan areas (using 1990s definitions) now
exceeds 80 percent, and fully 50 percent of the population lives in suburbs.
This ongoing change in where Americans live affects not just human systems, like
economies, but also natural systems, like air and water. The nation’s urban areas were
simply not designed to accommodate such large numbers of people, with predictable but
generally unacknowledged results. City dwellers’ energy consumption tends to create
urban heat islands, which affect local and regional weather patterns and add to air
pollution. Cities also tend to alter the natural flow of water, via nonporous paved surfaces
that can increase the size and frequency of floods. Perhaps more obvious is the increased
use of energy resources and consumption of durable goods by urban residents.
These findings suggest:
•
City-suburb relations are likely to be problematic across the country. It will be
important to find common areas of concern, such as simple livability, to
address them effectively. At the same time, nonmetropolitan areas will face
demands from metropolitan populations. If the nation is going to build a new
power plant a week for 20 years, presumably they will be sited in places
where people will be willing to receive them—how will that process work?
•
The census results underscore the renewed interest in addressing broad issues
of urban sprawl. (Watch for the new map of metropolitan areas incorporating
Census 2000 reports of residential and commuting patterns; it will show
where sprawl is taking place.) Siting issues in general will call for attention—
waste disposal is perhaps the most obvious.
Less obvious is the way population-induced urban sprawl is increasing the
impact of natural disasters. For example, as suburbia spreads into formerly
rural areas, more homes are at risk to forest fires. Indeed, many who blame
climate change for disastrous floods, fires, and earthquakes forget that
population growth and urban sprawl are putting more people into more
vulnerable locations. Perhaps Americans might be more resistant to sprawl if
they understood how it increases such risks.
•
Current retirement preferences suggest potential population growth for some
nonmetropolitan areas, if the forthcoming large numbers of people aged 55+
share these preferences. A proportionately larger share of people aged 65 and
older currently live in nonmetropolitan areas, compared to younger age
groups.
This is partly due to aging in place, as younger people have left for
opportunities in urban areas. But it also represents retirement residences, often
in attractive outdoorsy regions like the Ozarks or the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, but most often within a few hours drive of former homes and adult
5
children. The preferences of this large new generation of retirees will have an
important impact on environmental issues.
•
Although the Census Bureau has not yet released new figures on population
density, increased density is clearly an issue on both coasts, especially for the
poor, including people of color. Issues of access to outdoor recreation will
continue to be salient, as well as issues of pollution, congestion, and
transportation. (A later data release will report on changes in journeys to work
and other transportation characteristics.)
3. Households and Families are Getting Smaller, and More Diverse
The U.S. population is the midst of a historic shift from a population dominated by the
young to one in which there are roughly equal numbers at every age except the oldest old.
This transformation is having an effect on the nation’s households in ways that have
subtle implications for the environment.
Census 2000 found a significant increase in the nation’s median age, from 32.9 in 1990 to
35.3 in 2000. This is the oldest Americans have ever been, and the country will not be
this young ever again. Households naturally become smaller as the proportion of older
people increases. That’s a logical outcome when a smaller share of the population is
engaged in raising children at any given time. With only two children, on average,
Americans who live to age 70 spend only 35 percent of their adult lives in parenting.
Census 2000 found an average household size of 2.59, only slightly smaller than in 1990.
But it also found a significant decline in the proportion of households with children in
them (now less than a third of the nation’s households), and a rise in the share of those
households that have only one parent in them. That said, it’s important to note that all of
our household and family types grew larger in the 1990s, though some grew more than
others.
Overall, these changes suggest several directions for people concerned about the
environment. In particular:
•
As households become increasingly smaller, it will be useful to focus attention
on demand that is inflected by per-capita growth. For example, two oneperson households generally use more electricity than one two-person
household. They also tend to demand more of the community’s common
space, as American homebuyers, single or no, continue to prefer detached
houses to compact residential arrangements. (The census found a twopercentage point increase in the population that lives in units they own, rather
than rent—from 64 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2000.)
•
At the same time, smaller, older households tend to have more disposable
income, and even if they contain more than one person, there is a clear
6
tendency for each individual to have one of many resource-consuming
possessions: notably cars, electronic items, and personal space.
•
Due to the substantial differences in the average age of the nation’s racial and
ethnic populations, due to immigration as well as to different fertility rates,
people of color tend to have larger, poorer, younger households. The census
demonstrates that the nation’s traditional majority has an increasingly
nontraditional household profile, while the nation’s traditional household (a
family with children) is increasingly minority. In that broad sense, minorities
are offering economies of scale for resource consumption, while the majority
population is not. At a minimum, discussions of environmental impact must
be sensitive to these differences.
•
The nation’s growing minority population still tends to live in central cities
(although the census results show increasing suburbanization), while the
majority fills the suburbs. This contrast heightens the need to find
commonalties in dealing with environmental concerns. In particular, lowincome communities of color are vulnerable to the effects of climate change,
including higher energy costs, in contrast to the wealthier, smaller households
driving these cost increases. Certainly, non-English speaking people, or
people who are alienated from the political system, are likely to be less
resistant to siting of power plants, waste disposal, or other environmentally
unfriendly byproducts of unchecked consumption by more, wealthier
Americans, living somewhere else. Whether the issues are access to resources
or escape from costs, there is a clear call for efforts to make the poor and
minorities part of an effective citizenry, so they can be heard when citizens
come to grips with environmental concerns.
Finally, given the continuing regional realignment of the population, these changes are
more pronounced in some parts of the country than in others. The Northeast is the
nation’s oldest region—its median age, 37, is three years above the West’s 34 years. The
Northeast has the highest percentage of its population aged 65 and older, the West the
lowest. And the Northeast has the smallest average household size, the West the largest.
The smaller share of households in the Northeast that contain children may well influence
political solutions, as will the larger share of such families in the West. Flexible solutions
targeted to specific regional concerns may be one answer to this kind of diversity.
Copyright © 2001 Surdna Foundation
7