[ad_1]
MSA Chicago-Naperville-Elgin
The Greater Chicago Area lost more people, 22,068 people, than all other US metropolitan areas between 2017 and 2018, according to new census estimates. Among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, New York and Los Angeles also declined, while the other seven increased. This change for Chicago, New York and Los Angeles has been the inability to compensate people who have left or left the area. Nationally, most of the population gains in metropolitan areas were in the Pacific Northwest, Southeast, and Florida, while areas affected by population decline tended to concentrate in the Appalachian and Southern states.
Related story: The Chicago area is losing its population for the fourth year in a row, according to census data; The counties of Cook, DuPage and Lake also decrease
What is an MSA? The most recent estimates published by the Census Bureau relate to counties and metropolitan statistical regions, which must contain at least one urban area, but often contain more. They can cover several counties. The Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area includes the city and suburbs as well as parts of Wisconsin and Indiana. According to recent figures, nearly 9.5 million people live there.
Change in the 10 largest metropolitan areas
| Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population 2018 | Change from 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA | 19,979,477 | -19,474 |
| 2 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California | 13,291,486 | -7.223 |
| 3 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI | 9,498,716 | -22.068 |
| 4 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 7,539,711 | 131.767 |
| 5 | Houston-Woodland-Sugar Land, TX | 6,997,384 | +91 689 |
| 6 | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 6,249,950 | +49 949 |
| 7 | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Florida | 6198782 | 49.095 |
| 8 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 6,096,372 | +17 921 |
| 9 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA | 5,949,951 | +75 702 |
| ten | Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 4,875,390 | +30 793 |
Destroy the causes of demographic change
For the three largest metropolitan areas, the net loss of migration was the main factor of population decline – more people were moving away than settling. For the Los Angeles metropolitan area, this was a change from last year when the area had enough children. compensate for both deaths and migratory losses. Growth factors have varied in large metropolitan areas that have grown in population. For example, Dallas has progressed in each of the three categories listed below, while the Houston area has made good progress in terms of the number of deaths, as well as gains in international migration that have offset the loss of migration. internally on the American continent. Census counts on migration are expressed only in terms of net gain or loss; the number of people entering or leaving an area is not provided.
How to read these graphs
The graphs below show three key population indicators, expressed as rate of change per 1,000 population. The further the circle of dashes is, the greater the change in population. the natural increase in population is the difference between births and deaths. the internal migration rate is the difference between people entering and leaving the region of the American continent. A positive rate means that more people are moving to the metropolitan area than going out. the international migration rate is similar: the difference between people entering and leaving the outside of the American continent. This includes US residents moving to and from the continent.
Natural increase of the population
International
migration rate
Everything inside the dotted circle means descending rate.
Outside the dotted circle means a increasing rate.
Natural increase of the population
International
migration rate
Everything inside the dotted circle means descending rate.
Outside the dotted circle means a increasing rate.
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
Second largest net decrease due to lower internal migration
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California
The migration-induced population decline is different from last year when natural gains offset these losses.
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI
Highest rate of domestic migration loss among major metros
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Largest increase in percentage and number of major metros, generated by the three domains
Houston-Woodland-Sugar Land, TX
Increase caused by natural increase. International migration compensates for internal losses.
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
Natural population, international migration on the rise, domestic migration down
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Florida
Strong increase in international migration
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Nearly flat in the three indicators
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
Constant growth in all three areas
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH
The leap in international immigration offsets other losses
Areas that have won or lost the most
Percentage of change
None of the metropolitan areas with the highest percentage of gains or losses from 2017 to 2018 had a population greater than 1 million. These growing areas are clustered from the northwest Pacific to the southwest through Texas, Florida and South Carolina. Regions that have lost the largest percentage of their population have tended to spread to the Appalachians and some southern states.
Largest percentage increase
| Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population 2018 | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Midland, TX | 178,331 | + 4.30% |
| 2 | Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina | 480,891 | + 3.80% |
| 3 | St. George, UT | 171,700 | + 3.50% |
| 4 | Lakeland-Winter Haven, Florida | 708.009 | + 3.20% |
| 5 | Odessa, TX | 162.124 | + 3.20% |
| 6 | The villages, FL | 128,754 | + 3.10% |
| 7 | Greeley, CO | 314.305 | + 3.00% |
| 8 | Boise City, ID | 730.426 | + 2.90% |
| 9 | Bend-Redmond, OR | 191,996 | + 2.80% |
| ten | Provo-Orem, UT | 633.768 | + 2.60% |
Largest percentage decrease
| Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population 2018 | Decline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Charleston, WV | 211,037 | -1.57% |
| 2 | Pine Bluff, AR | 89,515 | -1.55% |
| 3 | Farmington, NM | 125,043 | -1.46% |
| 4 | Danville, IL | 76,806 | -1.25% |
| 5 | Watertown-Fort Drum, NY | 111,755 | -1.16% |
| 6 | Beckley, WV | 117,272 | -1.15% |
| 7 | Lawton, agree | 126198 | -1.09% |
| 8 | Johnstown, PA | 131 730 | -1.00% |
| 9 | Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH | 117,064 | -0.95% |
| ten | Enid, OK | 60,913 | -0.94% |
Gross change
If we look at the evolution of the total number of people gained or lost between 2017 and 2018, we see a similar geographic pattern, but the metropolitan areas on the lists are much larger. The Dallas metropolitan area is leading the total population earned, while Midland, Texas, was first for the percentage of population earned. In Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh is among the areas that have lost the most people and Johnstown is among those who have lost the most percentage. The Chicago area tops the list of lost people, with a decline of more than 22,000 people. Danville, Illinois, is among the areas that have lost the largest percentage of their population.
Largest digital increase
| Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population 2018 | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 7,539,711 | + 131,767 |
| 2 | Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ | 4,857,962 | + 96,268 |
| 3 | Houston-Woodland-Sugar Land, TX | 6,997,384 | + 91,689 |
| 4 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA | 5,949,951 | + 75 702 |
| 5 | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Florida | 2,572,962 | +60,045 |
| 6 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 3,939,363 | + 54 894 |
| 7 | Austin-Round Rock, TX | 2,168,316 | + 53,086 |
| 8 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California | 4,622,361 | + 51 934 |
| 9 | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida | 3,142,663 | + 51,438 |
| ten | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 6,249,950 | +49 949 |
Largest digital decrease
| Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Population 2018 | Decline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI | 9,498,716 | -22.068 |
| 2 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA | 19,979,477 | -19,474 |
| 3 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California | 13,291,486 | -7.223 |
| 4 | Urbain Honolulu, HI | 980 080 | -6,349 |
| 5 | Pittsburgh, PA | 2,324,743 | -5,540 |
| 6 | Peoria, IL | 368.373 | -3.437 |
| 7 | Charleston, WV | 211,037 | -3,361 |
| 8 | Santa Rosa, California | 499,942 | -3.304 |
| 9 | Shreveport-Bossier City, LA | 436341 | -3,290 |
| ten | Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX | 409.526 | -3,090 |
Source: Tribune Analysis of US Census Bureau Population Estimates.
Copyright © 2019, Chicago Tribune
[ad_2]
Source link