Others

67865_1950-1954

Description
Page 4 Monthly Business Review August 1, 1952 Population Growth in Fourth District T he final tabulation of the 1950 Census of Popu­ lation1establishes the following population facts with respect to the Fourth District: First, the 1940-1950 population increase was small­ er in the Fourth District than in the country as a whole. The population of Ohio alone, however, grew as rapidly as that of the rest of the country. (See Table I.) Second, the average square mile in the District now
Categories
Published
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Page 4  Monthly Business Review August 1, 1952 Population Growth in Fourth District T he final tabulation of the 1950 Census of Population1 establishes the following population facts with respect to the Fourth District:First, the 1940-1950 population increase was smaller in the Fourth District than in the country as a whole. The population of Ohio alone, however, grew as rapidly as that of the rest of the country. (See Table I.)Second, the average square mile in the District now contains 176 persons as against 160 in 1940, or an increase of 10 percent in density, whereas, in the United States as a whole, density increased from 44 to 51 persons per square mile, or nearly 15 percent. (See Table II.)Third, the percentage of the population described as urban was 64.7 percent or approximately the same as the rest of the country. The ratio of urban to rural is now the highest on record, both in the Fourth District and in the nation. (See Table III.) Slower Growth The population of the Fourth in Fourth District District is not increasing so rapidly as that of the continental United States. In fact, in the present century the District’s rate of growth has exceeded that of the country as a whole in only one intercensal period — the 1910-20 decade. During the 1940-50 period, the  population of the 48 states and the District of Colum bia increased by 19 million persons, the largest numerical increase recorded in any intercensal period. The absolute gain in the District’s population over the same ten years was the second smallest for any decade since the turn of the century, exceeding only the 1930-40 increase.The rate of growth of the whole country between 1940 and 1950 was 14.5 percent, nearly double the 1930-40 rate and roughly equivalent to the 1910-20 and 1920-30 rates suggesting that the severe slacken- ing-off during the 1930’s was not, as then feared, a sharp alteration of trend, but a deviation from it. In the District, however, the 1940-50 rate of growth was well below the rate prevailing earlier in the century even though it was more than double the 1930-40 rate. This was largely due to a net migration out of Eastern Kentucky, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia’s panhandle. The population increase in the state of Ohio paralleled the rise experienced nationally with the 1940-50 numerical gain exceeding that of any previous intercensal period. 1 1950 Census of Population, Preprint of Volume I,  Number of In-habitants:  Report PAl7, Kentucky;  Report PA35, Ohio;  Report PA38,   Pennsylvania;  and Report PA48, West Virginia. In recent years the natural increase, or the excess of births over deaths, has accounted for most of the nation’s population increase with immigration playing a minor role. But large regional shifts in the  population—interregional and interstate migration — do take place. In fact, they were intensified during the past Census period by the second World War. The most conspicuous result of this population upheaval was the 53 percent gain in California’s population, moving it up from the fifth most populous state in 1940 to second place in 1950. The effects were also felt by the Fourth District. Ohio was the only District state experiencing a net inflow of migrants between 1940 and 1950. However, this gain was more than offset by a net outflow from the rest of the District resulting in a net loss of about 170,000 migrants from the Fourth District. But even if no migration had occurred, the District’s population would have experienced a natural increase of only about 12 percent over 1940 as compared with the actual increase of 10.4 percent. As shown in Table I, the rates of growth varied widely between the different parts of the District due to the migratory outflow. Table I   POPULATION GROWTHArea Percent increase over preceding census1950194019301920 Eastern Kentucky ....................... Ohio ............................................... Western Pennsylvania................West Virginia Panhandle .........0.315.05.6 —2.310.43.93.32.514.915.411.07.511.520.817.012.4 F  o u r t h  D  i s t r i c t  ................................ 10.44.414.118.5 C ontinental  U nited  S tates . . 14.57.216.114.9 Source: Bureau of the Census Population The Fourth District contains only 2.5 Density  percent of the country’s land area but held about 8.6 percent of the nation’s  population in 1950. As a result, the District’s population density was about 176 persons per square mile, nearly 2^> times the United States’ average density of 51 persons to each square mile of land area.Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was the most densely  populated county in the District with 3,047 persons  per square mile and Forest County, Pennsylvania, was the most sparsely settled with 12 people per square   August 1952  August 1, 1952  Monthly Business Review Page 5 population. Nearly 40 percent resides in cities of 25,000 or more.   August 1952  Page 6  Monthly Business Review August 1, 1952 mile. Three other counties in the District had more than 1,000 persons per square mile in 1950: Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2,076; Hamilton County, Ohio, 1,749; and Lucas County, Ohio, 1,153. All states or parts of states in the District had more people per square mile than the national average which is held down by the large tracts of public lands and large farms and ranches in the West. Due to the heavy concentration of people around Pitts burgh, Western Pennsylvania was the most densely  populated of the District’s four major areas, as Table II shows. Table II   POPULATION DENSITYPopulation per Square   , Mile of Land Area1950194019301920 Eastern Kentucky ....................... Ohio................................................Western Pennsylvania ................ West Virginia Panhandle ......... 78194251167781682381717116323216662141209141 F ourth  D istrict ................................. 176160152135 C ontinental  U nited  S tates . . 51444136 Source: Bureau of the Census . -  .. Nearly two-thirds of the District’s Urban Growth population in 1950  resided in urban areas — places of 2,500 or more and specific fringe areas around urbanized areas. Just about half of the residents lived in cities of 10,000 or more containing 1.3 percent of the District’s land area, or an average of about 6,900 persons  per square mile. The rest of the District had a population density of about 90 persons per square mile — still well above the national average.According to the urban-rural definition used by the Bureau of the Census for the 1950 Census, the urban  population of the Fourth District . . comprises all  persons living in (a) places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, boroughs, towns, and villages; (b) the densely settled urban fringe, including both incorporated and unincorporated areas, around cities of 50,000 or more; and (c) unincorporated places of 2,500 or more outside urban fringe areas.” Under the urban definition employed in previous censuses, the urban population comprised only the persons living in incorporated places of 2,500 or more plus seven townships in Western Pennsylvania classified as urban under special rules. Under both definitions, the remaining population was classified as rural.In both the old and new definitions, the most im portant component of the urban population is the inhabitants of incorporated places of 2,500 or more.But, even, with special rules classifying other minor civil divisions as urban, the old definition excluded many large closely built-up places from the urban territory. In order to improve this situation, the Bureau of the Census set up boundaries for urban fringe areas around cities with 50,000 inhabitants or more in 1940 and for unincorporated places outside urban fringe areas.Under the new urban definition there are thirteen urbanized areas wholly in the Fourth District2and one, the Huntington, W. Va.,—Ashland, Ky., urbanized area, with about four-tenths of its population in the District. In 1950, nearly three-fourths of the District’s urban population resided within the boundaries of these urbanized areas—about the same percentage as in the country as a whole. In fact, the urban-rural composition of the District’s population in 1950 was very similar to that of the continental United States (see Table VI). Nevertheless, Table III shows that the urban population of the Fourth District has been growing less rapidly than that of the urban population of the United States as a whole. In fact, the rural population of Ohio increased at a faster rate between 1940 and Table III   URBAN POPULATIONPercent UrbanAreaNew Urban   DefinitionOld Urban   Definition1950195019401930 Eastern Kentucky.............31.027.523.825.270.266.466.867.8Western Pennsylvania. . .65.660.160.761.8West Virginia Panhandle.63.862.553.554.5 F ourth  D istrict ................... 64.760.559.861.2 C ontinental U nited  S tates  .................. 64.059.056.556.2 Source: Bureau of the Census. 1950 than did the urban population. On the other hand, the number of rural inhabitants decreased in Eastern Kentucky and the West Virginia Panhandle (see Table V).What the figures do not show is that the number of persons on farms in Ohio decreased   during the last intercensal period and that the growth of the rural nonfarm population was about \ l/i  times the rate for  2 The thirteen urbanized areas in the Fourth District, as listed in the 1950 Census, are: Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton, Springfield, Toledo, and Youngstown, all in Ohio; Erie and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania; and Wheeling, West Virginia. In addition to the Huntington-Ashland urbanized area, there are 33 inhabitants of the Johnstown, Pa., urbanized area residing in the District.   August 1952  August 1, 1952  Monthly Business Review Page 7 the total population of the state. However, because of changes in the definitions of the farm and nonfarm components of the rural population between the two Census periods, the data are not comparable and only very general observations may be made concerning them. Table IVPOPULATION AND LAND AREA OF   THE FOURTH DISTRICTJanuary 1, 1920 and April 1, 19301950 Subject1950194019301920Total Population Eastern Kentucky ................... 1,383,8161,379,4251,249,5171,087,525Ohio.............................................7,946,6276,907,6126,646,6975,759,394Western Pennsylvania.............3,501,4813,317,2013,210,7802,893,242West Virginia Panhandle ....... 200,546205,290200,201170,330 F ourth  D istbict  ........................... 13,032,47011,809,52811,307,1959,910,491 C ontinental  U nited  S tates . . 150,697,361131,669,275122,775,046105,710,620 Land Area1 in square milesEastern Kentucky ................... 17,71117,77217,61417,614Ohio.............................................41,00041,12240,74040,740Western Pennsylvania ............. 13,93113,93113,86413,864West Virginia Panhandle ....... 1,2021,2021,2061,206 F ourth  D istrict  ........................... 73,84474,02773,42473,424 C ontinental  U nited  S tates . . 2,974,7262,977,1282,977,1282,973,776Source: Bureau of the Census.1Excludes inland water area. The difference in land area estimates between Census years is largely due to the development of more accurate and detailed cartographic maps. However, these differences may also be influenced by changes in inland water areas. Table VIPOPULATION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT   AND THE UNITED STATES   According to new urbanrural definition: April 1, 1950 ClassificationFourthDistrictUnitedStatesAs percent   of totalFourthDistrictUnitedStates T otal  P opulation  ........................................ 13,032,470150,697,361100.0%100.0% U rban  P opulation ...................................... 8,430,45196,467,68664.764.0In urbanized areas ........................... 6,184,86569,249,14847.545.9In urban places outside urbanized areas ................................................ 2,245,586 27,218,538 17.2 18.1 R   u r a l  P  o p u l a t io n  ......................................  4,602,019 54,229,675 35.3 36.0Rural nonfarm1................................. 2,895,500 30,882,000 22.2 20.5Rural farm1....................................... 1,706,500 23,347,000 13.1 15.5Source: Bureau of the Census.1Partially estimated by the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland on the basis of preliminary Census reports on the population char-acteristics of states. Table VURBAN AND RURAL POPULATION OF   THE FOURTH DISTRICTApril 1, 1930-1950 NewUrban-RuralDefinition1950Old Urban-Rural DefinitionAreaPercentIncrease1950 1940 19301940to19501930to1940Urban Population Eastern Kentucky___  Ohio............................Western Pennsylvania. W. Virginia Panhandle428,8415,578,2742,295,338127,998380,5645,273,2062,104,307125,323328,7244,612,9862,014,117109,825315,3984,507,3711,983,660109,03615.814.34.514.14.22.3 1.5 0.7 F ourth  D istrict  .......... 8,430,4517,883,4007,065,6526,915,46511.62.2 C ontinental   U nited  S tates  ........... 96,467,68688,927,46474,423,70268,954,82319.57.9 Rural Population Eastern Kentucky  ___  954,9752,368,3531,206,14372,5481,003,2522,673,4211,397,17475,2231,050,7012,294,6261,303,08495,465934,1192,139,3261,227,12091,165 — 4.5 16.5 7.2  —21.212.57.36.24.7Western Pennsylvania. W. Virginia Panhandle F ourth  D istrict  .......... 4,602,0195,149,0704,743,8764,391,7308.58.0 C ontinental   U nited  S tates  ...........  54,229,675 61,769,897 57,245,573 53,820,223 7.9 6.4 Source: Bureau of the Census.   August 1952
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks