Select Demographic, Economic, and Social Trends impacting the future of Crawford County

1. Select Demographic, Economic, and Social Trends impacting the future of Crawford County Presentation to Crawford County Planning October 27, 2004 Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp

2. Purpose of Presentation Examine recent government collected data organized in such a way to help you understand some important trends impacting Crawford County Get you to thinking about some of the challenges to your community and encourage you to think about how you might respond.

3. Outline of Presentation Population Change/Redistribution in Ohio Trends at the Rural-Urban Interface Trends in Crawford County Select Economic Characteristics/Trends in Crawford County Examples of Community Responses

4. Population Change & Redistribution

5. Ohio and National Population Change, 1970-2000

6. Three Regional Population Trends Despite modest statewide population change from 1970 to 2000, several discernable regional trends exist: Urban decline and ongoing suburbanization in Ohio’s metropolitan areas Growth and Development at the Rural-Urban Interface Regions of rural population decline

8. Population Growth at the Rural-Urban Interface

9. Ohio Metro/Nonmetro Counties, 2003

10. Ohio 2000 Population by Township, Village, and Cities There are 1309 townships in the state of Ohio. More than 3.86 million people or 34% of Ohio’s total population live in townships. There are 698 incorporated places in the state classified as villages, with .86 million total residents. There are 226 cities with less than 50,000 but more than 5,000 residents, totaling 3.64 million residents. There are 19 cities with 50,000 or more residents, or 2.99 million total residents. There is substantial variation of population in Ohio townships. The average size of Ohio’s 1,309 townships is 2,947 residents. Jefferson Township in Guernsey County has 94 residents. There are 25 townships with 348 or few residents (Table 2). Colerain Township in Hamilton County has 60,144 residents, the most of any township in the state. There are 21 townships in the state with more than 20,000. There are 1309 townships in the state of Ohio. More than 3.86 million people or 34% of Ohio’s total population live in townships. There are 698 incorporated places in the state classified as villages, with .86 million total residents. There are 226 cities with less than 50,000 but more than 5,000 residents, totaling 3.64 million residents. There are 19 cities with 50,000 or more residents, or 2.99 million total residents. There is substantial variation of population in Ohio townships. The average size of Ohio’s 1,309 townships is 2,947 residents. Jefferson Township in Guernsey County has 94 residents. There are 25 townships with 348 or few residents (Table 2). Colerain Township in Hamilton County has 60,144 residents, the most of any township in the state. There are 21 townships in the state with more than 20,000.

11. Population of Ohio Townships, Villages and Cities, 1960-2000

12. One result of consistent township population growth in many parts of Ohio is steadily increasing population densities of Ohio townships throughout the state. In the 1960s, most Ohio townships (884 of 1330 townships) had population densities of less than 50 persons per square miles. In the 1960s, medium and higher density townships, with more than 50 people per square miles, were primarily located in the Cleveland-Akron region and the Cincinnati to Dayton area.   By 1980, population growth had increased the number of townships with high density, in 1960 there were 209 townships with density greater than 100 persons per square mile and in 1980 there were 297. There was an increase in higher density townships in both the northeast and southwest areas of the state, but also an increase in township density in central Ohio. By 2000, there were 348 Ohio townships with population density greater than 100 residents and a continuation of the trend of higher density townships around the major urban areas and along the transportation corridors emanating from them. SOURCE: Population Census One result of consistent township population growth in many parts of Ohio is steadily increasing population densities of Ohio townships throughout the state. In the 1960s, most Ohio townships (884 of 1330 townships) had population densities of less than 50 persons per square miles. In the 1960s, medium and higher density townships, with more than 50 people per square miles, were primarily located in the Cleveland-Akron region and the Cincinnati to Dayton area.   By 1980, population growth had increased the number of townships with high density, in 1960 there were 209 townships with density greater than 100 persons per square mile and in 1980 there were 297. There was an increase in higher density townships in both the northeast and southwest areas of the state, but also an increase in township density in central Ohio. By 2000, there were 348 Ohio townships with population density greater than 100 residents and a continuation of the trend of higher density townships around the major urban areas and along the transportation corridors emanating from them. SOURCE: Population Census

13. Population Density, 2000

14. Factors Associated with Population Growth at the R-U Interface Many factors contribute to change at R-U interface Transportation Proximity Others factors

15. The Transportation Connection Urbanization has always followed transportation routes (and vice versa). Road building increases accessibility to outer areas

19. But it’s not just people who follow the roads… Road building also spurs firms to move outward and leads to the development of “edge cities” around the central city. This allows people to move even further out and maintain the same commute time.

21. Roads are not the only reason growth is occurring in rural-urban areas… Quality of public services and schools Better services pull population outward Perception of “urban ills” pushes population outward. Desire for bigger house, bigger yard Land is cheaper in outer areas The rural ideal Open space, more privacy, better community, “sense of place,” less government.

22. Beyond the R-U Interface: Pockets of Decline Persistent population decline in some regions of the state has been ongoing for several decades Many challenges associated with declines How to maintain service levels, aging workforce, increasing dependency ratios, etc.

24. Percent Population Change, 1970-2000

25. Crawford County Population Trends, 1960 – 2030

26. Percent Population Change in Region, 1970-2000

27. Select Economic Characteristics/Trends in Crawford County

28. A Brief Review of Select Attributes Unemployment trends Employment and Prospects for growth in select industries Commuter Patterns Educational Attainment

29. Unemployment, 1982 - 2002

31. Crawford Workforce by Major Sectors, 2000 (compared to State)

36. Commuting Patterns Between 1990 and 2000, a growing proportion of Crawford County workers commuted to other counties for work. 28.2% of workers commuted out of Crawford County in 1990 34.0% of workers commuted out of Crawford County in 2000 Almost double the workers commute out of the county (7259) than into the county (4224)

37. Commuting Patterns – out commuting

38. Commuting Patterns – in commuting

39. Educational Attainment, 2000 Crawford County’s post-secondary educational attainment in 2000 lagged behind the state and the region Percent adults over 25 years old, education beyond a high school diploma, 2000 Crawford Co – 30.8% (bachelor degree – 6.6%) State of Ohio – 46.9% (bachelor degree – 13.7%)

40. What does this all mean for Crawford County? Population trends have some links to economic conditions Large proportion of current workforce not in a growth sector Proximity to nearby, more urban centers is important and must be appreciated May also have workforce limitations based on educational attainment

41. Adapting No easy solutions In an era of globalization and decentralization—many rural communities are recognizing the importance of self-development strategies (growing business from within) in addition to industrial recruitment (attracting businesses from outside).

42. Building Social Capacity for Self-Development Growing importance of social capital, particularly in limited resource contexts. Community Development programming in this areas seeks to improve local capacity for collective action. Leadership development Building social networks within and between social organizations For example, foster cooperation rather than competition among various county municipalities and townships Other strategies that Nancy can share with you

43. Tools to Support Self-Development Directly, 2 OSU Examples The Ohio Business Retention & Expansion (BR&E) Initiative provides the resources, training and tools that streamline and automate the BR&E process so local leaders and economic developers can focus on planning, action and results. BR&E can: Improve the business climate of the community Help to make local businesses remain competitive Increase employment Stabilize the local economy

44. Tools to Support Self-Development directly, 2 OSU Examples (cont.) Retail Market Analysis (RMA) seeks to answer questions about the relative supply of and demand for retail goods within a local market area. RMA helps a community to identify the extent to which consumers are spending their money locally.

45. http://aede.osu.edu/programs/exurbs/ email: exurban@osu.edu

47. explain sheets COMPOSITION – not whole #sexplain sheets COMPOSITION – not whole #s