population pyramids of new hampshire 2000...

pulation Pyramids of New Hampshire with Row Headers in Column b and Column Headers in Rows 23 to 25

2000

Projection 2030Percent Percent

Total Male Female Total Total Male Female Total Number PercentTotal 1,235,786 607,687 628,099 100.0 1,646,471 809,490 836,981 100.0 410,685 33.2 0 - 4 75,685 39,006 36,679 6.1 93,781 48,074 45,707 5.7 18,096 23.9 5 - 9 88,537 45,344 43,193 7.2 100,132 51,516 48,616 6.1 11,595 13.110 - 14 93,255 47,510 45,745 7.5 103,275 52,991 50,284 6.3 10,020 10.715 - 19 86,688 44,064 42,624 7.0 93,981 47,120 46,861 5.7 7,293 8.420 - 24 68,766 34,353 34,413 5.6 82,543 40,960 41,583 5.0 13,777 20.025 - 29 71,355 35,427 35,928 5.8 86,859 43,526 43,333 5.3 15,504 21.730 - 34 88,706 44,002 44,704 7.2 99,009 50,915 48,094 6.0 10,303 11.635 - 39 109,654 53,947 55,707 8.9 113,621 58,472 55,149 6.9 3,967 3.640 - 44 111,525 55,707 55,818 9.0 120,273 61,485 58,788 7.3 8,748 7.845 - 49 98,117 48,901 49,216 7.9 118,678 61,248 57,430 7.2 20,561 21.050 - 54 85,869 42,892 42,977 6.9 100,498 51,070 49,428 6.1 14,629 17.055 - 59 62,664 31,380 31,284 5.1 88,464 44,203 44,261 5.4 25,800 41.260 - 64 46,995 23,020 23,975 3.8 92,571 45,162 47,409 5.6 45,576 97.065 - 69 41,143 19,841 21,302 3.3 98,813 46,207 52,606 6.0 57,670 140.270 - 74 37,184 16,724 20,460 3.0 90,388 41,421 48,967 5.5 53,204 143.175 - 79 30,593 12,758 17,835 2.5 69,396 30,335 39,061 4.2 38,803 126.880 - 84 20,819 7,762 13,057 1.7 49,315 19,928 29,387 3.0 28,496 136.9 85+ 18,231 5,049 13,182 1.5 44,874 14,857 30,017 2.7 26,643 146.1

Under 18 309,562 158,653 150,909 25.0 355,531 181,997 173,534 21.6 45,969 14.85-17 233,877 119,647 114,230 18.9 261,750 133,923 127,827 15.9 27,873 11.918-24 103,369 51,624 51,745 8.4 118,181 58,664 59,517 7.2 14,812 14.325-44 381,240 189,083 192,157 30.9 419,762 214,398 205,364 25.5 38,522 10.145-64 293,645 146,193 147,452 23.8 400,211 201,683 198,528 24.3 106,566 36.365+ 147,970 62,134 85,836 12.0 352,786 152,748 200,038 21.4 204,816 138.4

2000 2030 Change 2000 2030 ChangeMedian Age 37.1 42.1 5.0 Child-Women Ratio (4) 28.1 31.9 3.8 Male 36.4 40.9 4.5 Sex Ratio (5) 96.8 96.7 0.0 Female 37.8 43.3 5.5 Under 18 105.1 104.9 -0.3Dependency Ratio (1) 66.2 82.4 16.3 18-64 98.9 102.4 3.6 Youth (2) 46.3 43.3 -2.9 65-84 78.6 81.1 2.5 Old Age (3) 19.9 39.1 19.2 85+ 38.3 49.5 11.2

(1) Dependency Ratio = (Age under 20 + Age 65 and over) / (Age 20-64) X 100 (4) Child-Women ratio = Age under 5 / Female 15 - 44 X 100(2) Youth dependency ratio = Age under 20 / Age 20- 64 X 100 (5) Sex Ratio = Male / Female X 100(3) Old age dependency ratio = Age 65 and over / Age 20 - 64 X100

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005Internet Release Date: April 21, 2005

www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html

Population Pyramids of New Hampshire

Age Group TotalCensus 2000 2000 - 2030 Change

2030Percent of Total Population

Number Number

Demographic Indicator Demographic Indicator

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 55 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 - 4 5 - 910 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 6970 - 7475 - 7980 - 84 85+

Male FemaleMale Female

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 2005. 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 2006. 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 share1. 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.

1Actually only half of the change is applied because the historic trend is based on 10 years while the projected period is 5 years.

2005Municipality Est. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 05-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30

-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Alton 4,990 5,630 6,030 6,420 6,810 7,120 640 400 390 390 310Barnstead 4,510 4,910 5,160 5,400 5,650 5,850 400 250 250 250 200Belmont 7,210 7,880 8,310 8,720 9,130 9,460 680 420 410 410 330Ctr Harbor 1,080 1,180 1,230 1,290 1,340 1,380 100 60 50 50 40Gilford 7,290 7,970 8,400 8,810 9,230 9,560 690 430 410 420 330Gilmanton 3,430 3,740 3,940 4,130 4,320 4,480 310 200 190 190 150Laconia 17,100 17,240 17,310 17,390 17,460 17,520 140 70 80 80 50Meredith 6,350 6,990 7,360 7,720 8,070 8,340 640 380 350 350 270New Hampton 2,130 2,330 2,440 2,560 2,680 2,770 190 120 110 120 90Sanbornton 2,830 3,090 3,250 3,400 3,550 3,680 260 160 150 150 120Tilton 3,640 3,880 4,020 4,140 4,260 4,360 250 140 120 120 100Belknap Co. 60,560 64,840 67,450 69,980 72,500 74,520 4,300 2,630 2,510 2,530 1,990


-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Albany 690 740 800 850 900 930 50 50 50 50 30Bartlett 2,930 3,160 3,380 3,600 3,790 3,920 230 220 220 190 130Brookfield 670 730 800 860 910 950 60 60 60 50 40Chatham 270 290 310 340 350 370 20 20 20 20 10Conway 9,190 9,520 9,840 10,150 10,420 10,600 330 320 310 270 180Eaton 420 450 480 510 540 560 30 30 30 30 20Effingham 1,430 1,540 1,660 1,780 1,890 1,960 110 120 120 110 70Freedom 1,430 1,540 1,660 1,780 1,880 1,940 110 110 120 100 70Harts Loc 30 40 40 40 40 50 0 0 0 0 0Jackson 870 940 1,010 1,080 1,140 1,180 70 70 70 60 40Madison 2,240 2,410 2,570 2,740 2,880 2,970 170 160 160 140 90Moultonboro 4,880 5,270 5,680 6,120 6,480 6,730 400 410 430 370 250Ossipee 4,560 4,920 5,280 5,650 5,960 6,180 360 360 370 310 210Sandwich 1,360 1,460 1,560 1,650 1,730 1,790 100 100 100 80 50Tamworth 2,520 2,730 2,930 3,140 3,320 3,440 210 210 210 180 120Tuftonboro 2,310 2,490 2,660 2,820 2,970 3,060 180 170 170 140 100Wakefield 4,780 5,150 5,540 5,930 6,270 6,490 370 380 400 340 230Wolfeboro 6,480 6,980 7,480 7,990 8,420 8,710 510 500 510 430 290Carroll Co. 47,060 50,370 53,680 57,040 59,890 61,820 3,310 3,310 3,360 2,850 1,930

NH Office of Energy & Planning January 2007I--------------------- Projections ------------------------I Differences

numbers rounded to nearest 10



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Alstead 2,000 2,040 2,140 2,250 2,330 2,410 50 100 100 80 80Chesterfield 3,770 3,860 4,050 4,240 4,390 4,530 90 190 190 150 150Dublin 1,550 1,580 1,650 1,720 1,780 1,840 40 70 70 60 60Fitzwilliam 2,280 2,330 2,430 2,530 2,620 2,700 50 110 100 80 80Gilsum 810 830 870 900 930 960 20 40 40 30 30Harrisville 1,110 1,130 1,190 1,250 1,290 1,330 30 60 60 40 40Hinsdale 4,270 4,360 4,560 4,750 4,900 5,040 100 190 190 150 150Jaffrey 5,760 5,890 6,160 6,420 6,630 6,830 130 270 260 210 210Keene 23,020 23,160 23,610 24,080 24,640 25,220 140 450 460 570 570Marlborough 2,100 2,150 2,240 2,320 2,390 2,460 50 90 80 70 70Marlow 780 800 840 880 910 940 20 40 40 30 30Nelson 660 660 690 720 740 770 10 20 30 20 30Richmond 1,150 1,170 1,240 1,310 1,360 1,410 30 60 70 50 50Rindge 6,130 6,270 6,590 6,910 7,170 7,420 140 310 320 250 250Roxbury 240 250 260 270 280 290 10 10 10 10 10Stoddard 990 1,000 1,040 1,090 1,130 1,170 10 40 40 40 40Sullivan 790 800 840 880 900 930 20 40 40 30 30Surry 740 750 780 810 840 860 20 30 30 20 20Swanzey 7,230 7,400 7,750 8,090 8,370 8,640 170 350 350 270 270Troy 2,020 2,060 2,150 2,220 2,280 2,340 40 80 80 60 60Walpole 3,700 3,790 3,970 4,140 4,270 4,410 90 180 170 140 140Westmoreland 1,870 1,910 1,990 2,080 2,140 2,210 40 90 80 70 70Winchester 4,310 4,410 4,620 4,820 4,970 5,130 100 200 200 160 160Cheshire Co. 77,250 78,620 81,650 84,670 87,250 89,830 1,370 3,030 3,020 2,580 2,580



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Berlin 10,500 10,190 10,200 10,230 10,580 10,910 -320 10 30 350 330Carroll 750 730 730 730 760 780 -20 0 0 30 20Clarksville 330 320 320 330 340 350 -10 0 0 10 10Colebrook 2,430 2,360 2,360 2,370 2,460 2,550 -80 0 10 90 80Columbia 830 810 810 810 840 870 -20 0 0 30 30Dalton 1,010 970 980 980 1,030 1,070 -30 0 10 40 40Dummer 330 320 320 320 330 340 -10 0 0 10 10Errol 350 340 340 340 350 360 -10 0 0 10 10Gorham 2,960 2,870 2,870 2,890 3,000 3,100 -90 10 10 110 100Jefferson 1,070 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,090 1,130 -30 0 10 50 40Lancaster 3,420 3,310 3,320 3,330 3,460 3,580 -110 10 20 130 120Milan 1,370 1,320 1,330 1,330 1,400 1,450 -50 0 10 60 60Northumberland 2,480 2,400 2,400 2,410 2,510 2,600 -80 10 10 100 90Pittsburg 930 900 910 910 950 980 -30 0 0 40 40Randolph 420 410 410 410 420 440 -10 0 0 10 10Shelburne 390 370 370 380 390 400 -10 0 0 20 10Stark 530 510 510 520 540 560 -20 0 0 20 20Stewartstown 1,020 980 990 990 1,040 1,080 -30 0 10 40 40Stratford 1,000 970 970 980 1,010 1,050 -30 0 0 40 30Whitefield 2,120 2,050 2,060 2,070 2,160 2,240 -70 0 10 90 80Coos Co. 34,240 33,170 33,230 33,370 34,660 35,840 -1,070 60 140 1,290 1,180



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Alexandria 1,470 1,510 1,590 1,640 1,700 1,760 40 80 60 60 60Ashland 2,030 2,080 2,170 2,240 2,300 2,370 50 90 60 60 70Bath 940 970 1,010 1,040 1,080 1,110 20 50 30 30 40Benton 330 340 350 360 370 380 10 10 10 10 10Bethlehem 2,410 2,470 2,580 2,650 2,730 2,820 60 110 80 80 90Bridgewater 1,030 1,060 1,110 1,150 1,190 1,240 30 60 40 40 40Bristol 3,190 3,270 3,410 3,530 3,650 3,780 80 140 130 120 130Campton 3,040 3,120 3,270 3,380 3,490 3,620 80 150 110 110 120Canaan 3,520 3,600 3,710 3,800 3,890 3,990 80 120 90 90 100Dorchester 380 390 410 420 430 450 10 20 10 10 10Easton 290 300 310 320 330 340 10 10 10 10 10Ellsworth 90 90 100 100 100 110 0 10 0 0 0Enfield 4,860 4,980 5,240 5,420 5,600 5,800 130 250 180 180 200Franconia 1,020 1,040 1,090 1,120 1,150 1,190 20 50 30 30 40Grafton 1,200 1,230 1,300 1,340 1,390 1,440 30 60 50 50 50Groton 500 510 540 560 580 600 10 30 20 20 20Hanover 11,040 11,320 11,810 12,250 12,640 13,070 290 480 440 390 430Haverhill 4,680 4,790 5,020 5,170 5,330 5,510 120 220 160 160 170Hebron 540 550 570 590 610 620 10 20 20 20 20Holderness 2,030 2,080 2,180 2,250 2,310 2,390 50 100 70 70 80Landaff 390 400 420 430 450 460 10 20 10 10 10Lebanon 13,420 13,530 13,710 13,860 14,010 14,180 110 180 150 150 160Lincoln 1,310 1,340 1,400 1,430 1,470 1,510 30 50 40 40 40Lisbon 1,700 1,740 1,810 1,850 1,900 1,950 40 70 40 50 50Littleton 6,280 6,430 6,690 6,870 7,050 7,240 150 260 180 180 200Lyman 550 560 590 610 630 650 10 30 20 20 20Lyme 1,720 1,770 1,860 1,920 1,980 2,050 40 90 60 60 70Monroe 810 830 860 890 920 950 20 40 30 30 30Orange 310 320 340 350 360 380 10 20 10 10 10Orford 1,180 1,210 1,260 1,300 1,330 1,370 30 50 40 40 40Piermont 730 740 780 810 840 870 20 40 30 30 30Plymouth 6,390 6,540 6,840 7,050 7,260 7,490 160 300 210 210 230Rumney 1,570 1,610 1,680 1,740 1,790 1,850 40 70 50 50 60Sugar Hill 640 650 680 710 730 750 20 30 20 20 20Thornton 2,080 2,140 2,240 2,320 2,400 2,480 50 110 80 80 90Warren 930 960 1,000 1,030 1,060 1,100 20 40 30 30 30Waterville 280 280 300 310 320 330 10 10 10 10 10Wentworth 870 890 940 970 1,000 1,040 20 40 30 30 40Woodstock 1,200 1,230 1,290 1,330 1,370 1,410 30 60 40 40 40Grafton Co. 86,920 88,860 92,440 95,110 97,740 100,630 1,940 3,580 2,670 2,630 2,890



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Amherst 11,530 12,020 12,560 13,030 13,500 13,960 490 540 470 470 470Antrim 2,600 2,680 2,750 2,810 2,880 2,940 70 80 60 60 60Bedford 20,740 21,810 23,080 23,940 24,810 25,400 1,080 1,260 870 860 590Bennington 1,500 1,560 1,640 1,700 1,760 1,820 60 70 60 60 60Brookline 4,760 5,010 5,330 5,610 5,890 6,170 260 310 280 280 280Deering 2,050 2,130 2,230 2,310 2,390 2,470 90 90 80 80 80Francestown 1,580 1,660 1,750 1,830 1,920 2,000 80 90 80 80 80Goffstown 17,800 18,600 19,480 20,260 21,030 21,800 790 890 770 780 770Greenfield 1,770 1,850 1,930 2,010 2,080 2,150 80 80 70 70 70Greenville 2,270 2,350 2,420 2,490 2,560 2,630 80 70 70 70 70Hancock 1,820 1,840 1,920 1,990 2,050 2,120 30 80 70 60 60Hillsborough 5,670 5,900 6,150 6,360 6,570 6,780 220 250 210 210 210Hollis 7,630 8,000 8,430 8,820 9,210 9,590 370 430 390 390 390Hudson 24,560 25,670 26,950 28,090 29,240 30,380 1,110 1,280 1,140 1,150 1,140Litchfield 8,120 8,850 9,480 10,100 10,670 11,410 730 620 620 560 740Lyndeborough 1,790 1,860 1,950 2,020 2,100 2,180 70 90 80 80 80Manchester 109,970 112,400 115,230 117,620 120,050 121,700 2,440 2,830 2,390 2,430 1,650Mason 1,310 1,360 1,420 1,470 1,520 1,570 50 60 50 50 50Merrimack 26,610 27,870 29,220 30,440 31,670 33,020 1,260 1,350 1,220 1,230 1,360Milford 14,860 15,500 16,220 16,850 17,480 18,110 640 720 630 630 630Mont Vernon 2,360 2,450 2,550 2,640 2,730 2,810 90 100 90 90 90Nashua 87,990 89,530 91,000 92,430 93,880 95,670 1,540 1,470 1,430 1,450 1,790New Boston 4,970 5,190 5,450 5,690 5,930 6,160 220 260 240 240 240New Ipswich 4,950 5,140 5,330 5,500 5,660 5,820 200 190 160 160 160Pelham 12,490 13,990 15,230 16,530 17,870 19,460 1,500 1,250 1,300 1,340 1,590Peterborough 6,130 6,390 6,670 6,890 7,120 7,350 260 270 230 230 230Sharon 380 400 420 430 450 460 20 20 10 10 10Temple 1,520 1,580 1,640 1,700 1,750 1,810 60 70 60 60 60Weare 8,850 9,280 9,790 10,240 10,700 11,150 430 500 450 460 450Wilton 4,000 4,170 4,350 4,520 4,680 4,840 170 190 160 160 160Windsor 240 250 260 270 270 280 10 10 10 10 10Hillsborough Co 402,790 417,280 432,820 446,590 460,410 474,040 14,490 15,540 13,770 13,820 13,630



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Allenstown 5,030 5,260 5,480 5,690 5,910 6,070 220 220 210 220 160Andover 2,220 2,320 2,430 2,540 2,650 2,730 100 110 110 110 80Boscawen 3,850 4,220 4,580 4,800 4,970 5,060 370 360 220 170 90Bow 7,810 8,500 9,140 9,830 10,540 11,030 700 640 690 710 490Bradford 1,570 1,750 1,860 1,950 2,020 2,070 180 110 80 70 50Canterbury 2,240 2,330 2,430 2,540 2,650 2,730 100 100 110 110 80Chichester 2,480 2,600 2,720 2,850 2,980 3,080 110 120 130 130 100Concord 42,220 44,120 46,000 47,860 49,770 51,020 1,900 1,880 1,860 1,910 1,260Danbury 1,180 1,230 1,290 1,360 1,420 1,470 50 60 60 60 50Dunbarton 2,520 2,640 2,760 2,900 3,040 3,140 120 130 140 140 100Epsom 4,510 4,710 4,920 5,130 5,350 5,510 200 210 210 220 160Franklin 8,690 8,790 8,890 8,990 9,110 9,200 110 90 110 120 90Henniker 4,960 5,170 5,400 5,640 5,880 6,060 220 230 240 240 180Hill 1,080 1,130 1,180 1,240 1,290 1,330 50 50 50 50 40Hooksett 13,240 14,330 15,330 16,360 17,420 18,100 1,090 1,000 1,030 1,060 680Hopkinton 5,630 5,900 6,180 6,460 6,760 6,970 270 280 290 300 220Loudon 5,050 5,270 5,500 5,740 5,990 6,170 220 230 240 250 180Newbury 2,020 2,110 2,210 2,320 2,430 2,510 90 100 110 110 80New London 4,440 4,640 4,850 5,070 5,300 5,460 200 210 220 230 160Northfield 4,910 5,140 5,370 5,610 5,860 6,050 220 240 240 250 180Pembroke 7,350 7,690 8,050 8,420 8,790 9,070 340 360 370 380 280Pittsfield 4,360 4,560 4,760 4,970 5,190 5,340 190 200 210 220 160Salisbury 1,260 1,410 1,490 1,560 1,610 1,650 150 80 70 50 40Sutton 1,770 1,860 1,960 2,070 2,170 2,250 90 100 100 110 80Warner 2,950 3,130 3,320 3,520 3,720 3,870 180 190 200 200 150Webster 1,760 1,960 2,080 2,160 2,250 2,320 200 110 80 90 60Wilmot 1,280 1,330 1,400 1,470 1,540 1,590 60 60 70 70 50Merrimack Co 146,360 154,110 161,600 169,050 176,620 181,850 7,750 7,490 7,450 7,570 5,230



-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Atkinson 6,560 6,800 7,090 7,330 7,570 7,790 230 290 240 240 220Auburn 5,180 5,360 5,600 5,790 5,980 6,170 180 240 190 190 180Brentwood 4,110 4,230 4,380 4,500 4,620 4,740 120 150 120 120 120Candia 4,110 4,250 4,430 4,570 4,710 4,840 140 180 140 140 130Chester 4,620 4,790 5,020 5,220 5,410 5,590 180 230 190 190 180Danville 4,490 4,660 4,870 5,060 5,240 5,420 160 220 180 180 170Deerfield 4,270 4,420 4,620 4,780 4,940 5,100 150 200 160 160 150Derry 34,660 36,560 37,860 38,980 39,730 40,430 1,910 1,300 1,110 750 700East Kingston 2,110 2,200 2,300 2,380 2,480 2,580 90 100 80 100 100Epping 5,980 6,150 6,350 6,520 6,690 6,850 170 210 170 170 160Exeter 14,560 15,070 15,580 16,040 16,500 16,930 500 510 460 460 430Fremont 4,080 4,220 4,430 4,600 4,780 4,950 150 200 180 180 170Greenland 3,390 3,560 3,720 3,880 4,080 4,240 170 160 150 200 150Hampstead 8,640 8,980 9,430 9,810 10,190 10,550 340 450 380 380 360Hampton 15,390 15,960 16,670 17,240 17,820 18,360 570 710 570 580 540Hampton Falls 2,040 2,150 2,240 2,330 2,450 2,550 120 90 90 120 110Kensington 2,070 2,200 2,280 2,370 2,500 2,580 120 80 90 120 80Kingston 6,190 6,410 6,690 6,910 7,140 7,350 220 280 220 230 210Londonderry 24,670 26,210 27,340 28,440 29,540 30,580 1,540 1,130 1,100 1,110 1,040New Castle 1,040 1,070 1,120 1,160 1,200 1,230 40 50 40 40 40Newfields 1,630 1,690 1,770 1,830 1,890 1,940 60 70 60 60 60Newington 800 830 870 900 930 960 30 40 30 30 30Newmarket 9,310 9,530 9,820 10,050 10,280 10,500 230 290 230 230 220Newton 4,480 4,650 4,850 5,020 5,180 5,340 160 200 160 170 160North Hampton 4,510 4,670 4,870 5,040 5,200 5,360 160 200 160 160 150Northwood 3,980 4,120 4,300 4,450 4,600 4,740 140 180 150 150 140Nottingham 4,370 4,560 4,810 5,010 5,220 5,420 190 250 210 210 200Plaistow 7,820 8,110 8,480 8,770 9,070 9,350 290 370 300 300 280Portsmouth 21,000 21,320 21,990 22,730 23,610 24,390 320 670 740 870 790Raymond 10,640 11,010 11,470 11,840 12,210 12,560 370 460 370 370 350Rye 5,260 5,440 5,640 5,790 5,940 6,080 180 200 150 150 140Salem 29,940 30,940 31,880 32,770 33,680 34,440 1,000 930 900 900 760Sandown 5,850 6,070 6,360 6,610 6,860 7,090 210 290 250 250 230Seabrook 8,400 8,700 9,080 9,380 9,690 9,980 300 380 300 310 290South Hampton 890 920 960 990 1,030 1,060 30 40 30 30 30Stratham 7,130 7,390 7,730 8,020 8,310 8,580 260 340 290 290 270Windham 12,570 13,000 13,600 14,090 14,600 15,070 440 590 500 500 470Rockingham Co. 296,740 308,220 320,490 331,190 341,850 351,660 11,480 12,280 10,700 10,660 9,810

I--------------------- Projections ------------------------I DifferencesNH Office of Energy & Planning January 2007


-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Barrington 8,180 8,510 8,990 9,450 9,900 10,270 340 470 470 440 370Dover 28,730 29,310 29,970 30,450 30,900 31,250 590 660 480 450 350Durham 13,440 13,840 14,480 15,070 15,630 16,100 400 640 590 560 470Farmington 6,710 6,930 7,280 7,610 7,930 8,190 220 350 330 310 260Lee 4,440 4,580 4,830 5,080 5,310 5,510 140 250 250 230 200Madbury 1,750 1,800 1,880 1,950 2,020 2,080 50 80 80 70 60Middleton 1,710 1,770 1,880 1,990 2,090 2,170 60 110 110 100 80Milton 4,370 4,530 4,790 5,040 5,270 5,460 160 260 250 230 200New Durham 2,490 2,640 2,920 3,180 3,440 3,650 160 270 270 250 210Rochester 30,680 31,560 32,930 34,290 35,560 36,650 880 1,360 1,360 1,280 1,080Rollinsford 2,660 2,740 2,870 2,990 3,100 3,190 80 130 120 110 90Somersworth 11,880 12,080 12,290 12,480 12,950 13,350 200 210 190 470 400Strafford 3,990 4,180 4,400 4,620 4,830 5,010 190 220 220 210 180Strafford Co. 121,020 124,490 129,500 134,210 138,930 142,890 3,470 5,020 4,710 4,720 3,960


-------------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------Acworth 880 980 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,180 100 70 50 40 40Charlestown 4,940 5,360 5,610 5,810 6,030 6,210 420 250 200 220 180Claremont 13,120 13,400 13,620 13,880 14,230 14,600 280 220 260 350 370Cornish 1,720 1,900 2,030 2,120 2,200 2,270 190 130 90 80 70Croydon 750 830 880 930 960 990 80 60 40 40 30Goshen 810 890 950 990 1,020 1,050 80 60 40 40 30Grantham 2,440 2,750 2,970 3,140 3,290 3,410 310 220 170 150 120Langdon 620 680 730 760 790 810 70 40 30 30 20Lempster 1,080 1,180 1,260 1,310 1,360 1,400 110 70 50 50 40Newport 6,400 6,670 6,860 7,040 7,240 7,430 270 190 180 210 190Plainfield 2,420 2,710 2,800 2,880 2,960 3,030 290 90 80 80 70Springfield 1,060 1,170 1,260 1,320 1,380 1,430 120 90 70 60 50Sunapee 3,230 3,590 3,850 4,040 4,210 4,370 360 260 200 170 150Unity 1,650 1,830 1,960 2,060 2,140 2,210 180 130 100 80 70Washington 960 1,240 1,340 1,420 1,500 1,570 280 100 80 80 70Sullivan 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

I--------------------- Projections ------------------------I Differences

I--------------------- Projections ------------------------I Differences

NH Office of Energy & Planning January 2007

rounding may impact differences

NH Office of Energy & Planning January 2007

The Changing Faces of New Hampshire

Recent Demographic Trends in the Granite State

K e N N e T H M . J o H N S o N

RepoRT S oN New eNGl aND

Building Knowledge for Families and Communities

RepoRT S oN New eNGl aNDVolume 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 Hall73 Main StreetDurham, New Hampshire 03824-3563

603-862-2821

www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu

Director: Cynthia M. DuncanCoordinator of programs: Curt GrimmSenior Fellow and Director of evaluation program: Sally wardCommunications Director: amy Sterndale

executive Committee members:Ross Gittell, ph.D. James R. Carter professor and professor of Management whittemore School of Business & economicslawrence Hamilton, ph.D. professor SociologyDavid pillemer, ed.D. Dr. Samuel e. paul professor of Developmental psychology psychologyJan a. Nisbet, ph.D. Director, Institute on DisabilityRobert J. woodward, ph.D. Forrest D. McKerley Chair Health economics

The Changing Faces of New Hampshire

Recent Demographic Trends in the Granite State

Kenneth M. Johnsoni

Senior Demographer

The Carsey Institute

University of New Hampshire

A Carsey Institute Report on New England

3

Summary

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 2006. 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 2006.

n The state gained nearly 51,000 residents from migration between 2000 and 2006.

n New Hampshire gained at least $1.4 billion in income from migration between 2001 and 2005.

n The Boston metropolitan area was the largest source of migrants. Nearly 80,000 people moved from Boston to New Hampshire between 2001 and 2005.

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.

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 2006.

n Minorities represented only 4.7 percent of the 2000 population, but accounted for 30 percent of the growth between 2000 and 2006.

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.

4

Introduction

New Hampshire reflects a surprising degree of demo-graphic, 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 Indus-trial 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 Hamp-shire 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 grow-ing 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 un-derway in the state using the latest data available. My goals here are threefold:

• Summarizecurrentpopulationredistributiontrends in New Hampshire

• Showhownaturalincrease(thebalanceofbirthsanddeaths), domestic migration and immigration each contributed to these population trends

• Documenthowthesedemographictrendsvarybyage, race and Hispanic origin and geography.

5

Connecticut Rhode Island Massachusetts New Hampshire Maine Vermont

Population Change Natural Increase Domestic Migration Immigration

Source: Census FSCPE 2006 (Federal State Cooperative Population Estimates)

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

-6%

Figure 1: Components of Demographic Change New england States, 2000-2006

NewHampshiregained79,000residents(6.4percent)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 NewEnglandbyasignificantmargin(Figure 1). Demographic trends in New Hampshire are best understood when compared to those of neighboring states. In the northern tier of New eng-land(Maine,NewHampshire,andVermont),theratesofpop-ulation growth are higher with domestic migration account-ing 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 popula-tion growth in the northern tier, with immigration contribut-ingonlymodestly.InsouthernNewEngland(Massachusetts,Connecticut, and Rhode Island), the situation is quite differ-ent. 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 abso-lute 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 con-centratedinsouthernandcentralNewHampshire(Figure 2). Rapid gains there contrast sharply with areas of widespread

population Redistribution Trends in New Hampshire

6

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%

population losses in the losses in the Boston metropolitan core. The rapid gains in New Hampshire are stimulated by two dis-tinct, 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-

Figure 2: population Change 2000-2005

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,

7

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%

Figure 3: population Change 2000-2005

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 selec-tive deconcentration of the population is consistent with na-

tional trends that document high growth in recreational areas and along the urban edge coupled with population stagnation orlossinremoteareasdependentonextractiveindustries(i.e.forest products, farming, and mining).

8

population change in New Hampshire is the result of a complex interaction between several demographic fac-tors.Naturalincrease(theexcessofbirthsoverdeaths)

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, popu-lation growth depends on migration. However, net migration (thedifferencebetweenthenumberofindividualsmovingintoand out of an area) has a far more differential effect; increas-ing 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.

MostofNewHampshire’spopulation (62percent) residesinitsthreemetropolitancounties(Hillsborough,Rockingham,and Strafford) that contain 819,000 residents and have grown 6.3percentsince2000(Figure 4). Compared to national figures, NewHampshirehasamuchlargershareofitspopulation(38percent)residinginnonmetropolitan(rural)areas.Nonmetro-politan counties that are proximate to metropolitan areas are growing the fastest (7.9 percent). In contrast, nonmetropoli-tan counties that are not near metropolitan areas are growing theslowest(3.9percent).Suchrapidgrowthinnonmetropoli-tan 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 stim-ulated 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 in-crease 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 metropoli-tan New Hampshire compared to 34,700 deaths, producing a naturalincreaseofroughly25,700(3.3percent)(Figure 4). This natural increase was supplemented by a net migration gain of 3.0 percent. In all, 23,000 more people moved into metropoli-tan areas than moved out. This migration gain was fairly evenly balancedbetweendomesticmigration(12,000)andimmigra-tion (11,000).This is consistentwith trendselsewhere in theeastern and midwestern United States; however, the promi-nence of domestic migration in the growth of metropolitan New Hampshire is unusual in New england.

population growth in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire ac-tually exceeds the metropolitan gains. Though unusual nation-ally, this is common in New england. an important difference between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan New Hampshire is how the demographic components of change interact to pro-duce 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 popu-lation 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.

Demographic Components of population Change

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

Population Change Natural Increase Domestic Migration Immigration

Source: Census 2006 FSCPE

Metro Nonmetro Adjacent Nonmetro Non-adjacent

Figure 4: Components of Demographic Change New Hampshire, 2000-2006

9

10

New Hampshire was 93.7 percent non-Hispanic white in 2006, making it one of the least diverse states in the Unit-

edStates(Figure 5). Hispanics, the largest minority, numbered justunder30,000 (2.3percent) andwere followedcloselybyAsiansat24,000 (1.8percent).Blacks represent .9percentofthe population with all other groups representing the remain-ing 1.3 percent. Metropolitan areas are 92.4 percent non-His-panic white compared to 96.1 percent in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire.Hispanicsarethelargestminority(3.0percent)inmetropolitan counties, while in nonmetropolitan areas asians arethelargestminority(1.1percent)followedcloselybyHis-panics.

There were modest changes in the racial and Hispanic com-positionofNewHampshirebetween2000and2006(Figure 6). Though minorities represented only 4.7 percent of New Hamp-

shire’s population in 2000, they produced over 30 percent of the population gain between 2000 and 2006. The minority popu-lationgrewby24,000(41.3percent)to82,000duringthepe-riod.Thewhitepopulationgrewbyonly55,000(4.7percent)to 1,233,000. percentage gains among asians, Hispanic and african americans all exceeded 40 percent. Minority popula-tion gains were greater in metropolitan New Hampshire, where nearly 40 percent of the total population gain was from minori-ties though they made up only 5.6 percent of the metropoli-tan population in 2000. In nonmetropolitan areas, minority population gains were 16 percent of the total. Thus, while the numerical gains for whites continue to exceed those for mi-norities, 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 2006.

population Change by Race and Hispanic origin

Nonmetro Non-adjacentNonmetro AdjacentMetropolitan

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

NonmetropolitanNon-adjacent161,334

NonmetropolitanAdjacent334,515

Metropolitan819,046

Race and Hispanic Origin

Metropolitan or Nonmetropolitan Status

Figure 5: New Hampshire Metropolitan or Nonmetropolitan Status

11

White Black Hispanic Asian Other

Source: Census 2006 FSCPE

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

NonmetroMetro

Figure 6: New Hampshire population Change by Race and Hispanic origin, 2000 to 2006

12

Migration produced most of the recent growth in New Hampshireii. 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

groupbetween1990and2000(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 chil-dren 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 en-tirely consistent with such an influx of families to New Hamp-

age-Specific Migration patterns

shire. prior research suggests that much of the age-specific migration gain on the urban periphery is family householdsiii. The inflow of parent-child households to New Hampshire has significant implications because such households bring consid-erable social and financial capital. The large number of migrant children also has significant implications for local communi-ties because they put additional demands on local schools.

New Hampshire also experienced modest gains among mi-grants 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

0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 +

Age at End of Period

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

-5,000

-10,000

Source: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4):791-812

Figure 7: New Hampshire age Specific Net Migration, 1990 to 2000

13

Women Men

Ag

e Ra

ng

e

75,000 50,000 25,000 0 25,000 50,000 75,000Population Count

Born 1986–90

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Population = 1,108,258

Born 1976–80

80–84

70–74

60–64

50–54

40–44

30–34

20–24

10–14

00–14

Figure 8: age pyramid New Hampshire, 1990

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 diminish-ing 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 out-flow of 20 to 29 year olds between 1990 and 2000, but the loss represents only four percent of the age group. Thus, the substan-tial 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 pro-cess 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 2,500 25- to 34-year-olds during the period. If young adult outmigration

did not cause this, then what did? The explanation is demo-graphic. 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,considertheseriesofpopulationpyramids(Figures 8 to 10) that trace two important cohorts of young New Hamp-shirites. The first cohort, born during the low fertility period between 1976 and 1980, would have been 25 to 29 by the end of 2005. The second cohort, born during a high fertility period ten years later, was 15 to 19 at the end of 2005. The relative size of these two cohorts is evident in Figure 8. Note that the co-hort 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.

14A

ge

Ran

ge

75,000 50,000 25,000 0 25,000 50,000 75,000

Women Men

Population Count


Born 1976–1980

Born 1986–1990

80–84

70–74

60–64

50–54

40–44

30–34

20–24

10–14

00–14


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 bornjustbeforeitwere25to34(Figure10).Thelargepercent-age 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 co-hort replacement should be 5 percent larger in 2011 and 16 percent larger in 2016. Given the influx of parents and chil-dren 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 mak-ers 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.

15A

ge

Ran

ge

75,000 50,000 25,000 0 25,000 50,000 75,000

Women Men

Population Count


Born 1976–1980

Born 1986–1990

80–84

70–74

60–64

50–54

40–44

30–34

20–24

10–14

00–14


The age structure data illustrates another major policy con-cern 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 82,000 65- to 74-year-olds in New Hampshire who were born during the low fertility years of thelate1930s(Figure 10). In contrast, there are 156,000 55- to 64-year-olds and 217,000 45- 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-year-old population will more than double. The demographic impli-cations 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 re-ducing the rate of natural increase. as a result, New Hampshire will be even more dependent on migration for future growth.

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 pat-tern 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 netlossofyoungadultsisfromnonmetropolitanareas(Figure 12). The absolute loss is greater from adjacent nonmetropolitan

0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 +

White Minority

Net

Mig

rati

on

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

-5,000

-10,000

-15,000

Source: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4):791-812

Figure 11: age Specific Net Migration for white and Minority populations in New Hampshire, 1990 to 2000

17

counties, but given the smaller population in nonadjacent coun-ties, the rate of loss is actually greater there. Both metropolitan and adjacent nonmetropolitan counties are receiving a net in-flux of parents and children, though the situation is less clear in nonadjacent counties. The inflow of those 50 to 69 is only oc-curring in nonmetropolitan counties. Given the concentration of amenity destinations there, this net inflow of older adults is to be expected. The net loss of those in their 50s and 60s from met-

ropolitan counties is consistent with national trends suggesting an outflow of older adults to retirement destinations.

Migration Case StudiesCareful examination of the age-specific migration patterns for three New Hampshire counties further clarifies the forces influ-encing migration. Hillsborough County is the most populous in the state with a population of 403,000 in 2006. It is metro-

0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 +

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000

Nonmet-Not AdjacentNonmet-AdjacentMetropolitanSource: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4):791-812

Figure 12: New Hampshire age Specific Net Migration 1990 to 2000 by Metropolitan Status

18

politan because it contains the city of Manchester, which trans-formed itself from a fading mill town to a diversified regional center over the past several decades. In addition, the proximity of the Boston metropolitan area has contributed to its growth. age specific net migration patterns in the county reflect this withanetinflowofthoseintheir30sandofchildren(Figure 13). The county is retaining most of its young adults, but is los-ing its retirement age population. This migration signature is consistent with national trends for similar metropolitan areas.

a very different migration signature is evident in the north-ernmost and least populated county in the state. Coos County has 33,700 residents, roughly the same population it had in 1970. This lack of growth coincides with the decline of the pa-per and pulp industry, a longtime mainstay of the local econ-omy. Coos County also has significant recreation resources as reflected in the 21 percent of its housing that is second homes. The differential influence of forest products and recreation is evident in local migration patterns. Coos County is losing many of its 20- to 39-year-olds, an outflow that has been go-

ingon fordecades(datanotshown).Cooshasseenamod-est influx of those 50 to 59. This protracted outflow of young adults together with the relative stability of the older popula-tion has produced natural decrease there because few young adults remain to produce the babies needed to offset the rising mortality of the large older population. The Coos migration signature is an amalgam of those common in resource-depen-dent counties, where outmigration of working age adults is common because employment opportunities are limited, and recreational counties, where an influx of amenity migrants in their 50s is typical.

Carroll County is representative of 300 nonmetropolitan recreational counties around the country that are major rural growth nodes. Situated in an amenity rich area accessible to lakes, mountains, and winter sports, its appeal as a recreational destination is reflected in the 43 percent of the housing that is second homes and in the near doubling of its population in the last 25 years. Migration produced almost all this growth. Carroll’s migration signature is dominated by an influx of those

0–4 5–9 10–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65–69 70–74 75+

Perc

ent

Di�

eren

ce f

rom

Exp

ecte

d

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

Carroll County Coos County Hillsborough CountySource: Johnson, et al., 2005 Demography 42(4):791-812

Hillsborough

Carroll

Coos


Figure 13: Net Migration for Selected New Hampshire Counties, 1990 to 2000

19

in their 50s and 60s, the hallmark of a recreational and retire-ment destination county. However, such amenity migration has also stimulated an influx of those in their 30s with accompany-ing children. Such working age populations are attracted by the same amenities that appeal to older migrants as well as by the economic opportunities that result from amenity migration. Carroll’s proximity to metropolitan New Hampshire and to the capital in Concord make it appealing to commuters. Despite its appeal, Carroll lost some of its young adults; consequently few babies are born to offset the high mortality of retirement migrants. If not for the inflow of migrants, it would have little, if any, population increase.

New Hampshire’s Demographic Future

Given the importance of migration to New Hampshire’s future, what do current migration trends suggest? Recent Census es-timates suggest the inflow of migrants to New Hampshire is continuing, but may have slowed somewhat in the last year or

two. whether this represents new trends or minor year-to-year fluctuations remains to be seen.

without the detailed data available in the decennial Census, only an estimate of post-2000 age specific net migration is pos-sible. This estimate for 2000 to 2005 suggests a continuation of the inflow of those 30 to 49 and of children. There is also evidence of increased net gains among those 50 to 69, in part, because the larger baby boom cohorts are now entering this age group (Figure 14). New Hampshire also appears to be receiving a net influx of 20- to 29-year-olds. This differs from the trend of the 1990s, when there was modest outflow of this age group. It underscores the point that the declining number of young adults in New Hampshire is not due to outmigration, but to the differential size of the birth cohorts born decades ago. If anything, migration is now increasing the young adult popula-tion. However, these are estimates and need to be interpreted with caution.

0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 +

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

-5,000

Net

Mig

rati

on


Figure 14: estimated New Hampshire age Specific Net Migration, 2000 to 2005

20

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Out-migrants To In-migrants From

Other Northeast Midwest South West Foreign

Source: IRS County DataAggregate Change 2001-2005

Figure 15: Regional Migration to and from New Hampshire

Using Internal Revenue Service data to examine the flow of population and income to and from New Hampshire provides further insights into how migra-

tion is reshaping the state.iv Such data reveal that 21,000 more people moved into New Hampshire than left from 2001 to 2005. The sheer volume of migration that produced this net change is stunning. Some 210,000 people moved in to New Hampshire and 189,000 left. So, nearly 400,000 people moved in and out of the state to produce the net change of 21,000.

New Hampshire benefits from migration exchanges with other areas of the Northeast, such as the Mid-atlantic states.

Some 26,700 New Hampshire residents left for the Northeast, but nearly 28,200 migrated in, resulting in a net gain of 1,500 (Figure 15). New Hampshire also gained from migration ex-changes with foreign counties.v In contrast, it suffered sig-nificant losses in exchanges with the South and, smaller loses, to the west and Midwest. More than 56,600 people left New Hampshire for the South between 2001 and 2005, but only 32,600 southerners moved to New Hampshire; a net loss of 24,000. New Hampshire’s aggregate loss from exchanges with other regions was 25,000.

Migration and Income Flows in New Hampshire

21

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000


Boston Metro Remainder of Connecticut Maine Rhode Island Vermont Massachusetts

Source: IRS County DataAggregate Change 2001-2005

New Hampshire benefited the most from intra-regional flow of migrants within New england. The Boston metropolitan area is the biggest source of in-migrants to New Hampshire. over 78,000 people moved from Boston to New Hampshire, while only 34,000 moved in the opposite direction resulting in anetmigrationgainof44,000(Figure 16). The state also gains in migration exchanges with the remainder of Massachusetts and with all other New england states except Maine. The loss to Maine is nearly 4,300. New Hampshire gains a total of 46,000 migrants in exchanges with the rest of New england. This intra

regional gain exceeds interregional losses producing the over-all gain of 21,000 migrants during the five-year period.

Demographic trends during this period have implications that reach beyond population redistribution. Migration also redistributes income. New Hampshire migration gains are matched by a significant income gains. Households leaving New Hampshire had an aggregate income of roughly $5.31 bil-lion, whereas those moving in earned $6.73 billion. So, New Hampshire gained $1.42 billion dollars in migration exchanges as well as 21,000 residentsvi.

Figure 16: New england Migration to and from New Hampshire

22

New Hampshire loses income in migration exchanges with other regions of the country. The greatest loss is to the South where the incomes of those leaving exceed that of in-migrants by$622milliondollars(Figure 17). The average household in-comeforthoseleavingNewHampshirefortheSouth($50,800)is lower than the incomes of those moving from the South to NewHampshire($52,700),but,becausesomanymorepeopleleave for the South than come from it, the income loss is sub-stantial. a similar pattern exists in migration exchanges with the west, though the loss is a modest $53 million. In migration exchanges with the Midwest, New Hampshire loses migrants, but actually gains income because the households moving in havehigheraverageincomes($65,900)thanthoseforhouse-holds leaving ($44,383).NewHampshiregains anadditional$50 million in migration exchanges with the Mid-atlantic states of the Northeast.

Migration within New england produces a significant posi-tiveincomeflowforNewHampshire.Thelargestgain($1.64billion) comes from its migration exchange with metropolitan Boston(Figure 18). Most of the gain is because so many more people move from metropolitan Boston to New Hampshire than in the opposite direction. However, household incomes ofthosemovingfromBostontoNewHampshire($64,200)arealso considerably higher than those moving in the opposite direction($48,202).NewHampshiregainsanother$154mil-lion in income from its migration exchanges with the rest of Massachusetts and the other states in New england. only in migration exchanges with Maine does it lose income. So, New Hampshire gains both from the net inflow of migrants and fromtheconsiderableincomesdifferential($9,200)betweeninand out migrants.


Other Northeast Midwest South West Foreign

Source: IRS County DataAggregate Change 2001-2005Income in 2005 dollars

In M

illio

ns

$1,800

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0

Figure 17: Regional Migrant Income Flows to and from New Hampshire

23


Boston Metro Remainder of Connecticut Maine Rhode Island Vermont Massachusetts

Source: IRS County DataAggregate Change 2001-2005Income in 2005 dollars

In M

illio

ns

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0

Figure 18: New england Migrant Income Flows to and from New Hampshire

24

New Hampshire gained 79,000 residents between 2000 and 2006. This 6.4 percent gain matches the growth rate of the United States and is more than twice that

of the rest of New england. Most of this population gain is from domestic migration though it was supplemented by mod-est immigration and natural increase. New Hampshire gained more than $1.4 billion dollars from migration because of the significant surplus of in-migrants and because of the higher household incomes of those moving in. New Hampshire is and will likely remain a largely white non-Hispanic state, but mi-norities accounted for a disproportion share of the population increase between 2000 and 2006, which modestly increased the diversity of the state.

New Hampshire’s young adult population in 2006 is some 25 percent smaller than it was in 1990, but this decline was not the result of significant young adult outmigration. In fact, a mod-est loss of 20- to 29-year-olds loss during the 1990s has already been offset by a recent inflow of young adults. The precipitous decline in young adults occurred because relatively few babies were born during the 1970s. The cohorts born both before and after these “baby bust” cohorts were larger, so when they reached young adulthood in the 1990s the young adult popu-lation declined. That period is now over and the young adult population is growing both because the birth cohorts born in the 1980s were larger and because the state is enjoying a net inflow of young migrants.

population gains were slightly greater in nonmetropolitan New Hampshire because of higher rates of domestic migration. In contrast, immigration was modest and there were barely

enough births to offset deaths. Rural migration was caused by the attraction of the recreation and amenity areas and by urban sprawl. a large proportion of these nonmetropolitan migrants were in their 50s and 60s, though there was also a significant net inflow of 30- to 49-year-olds and their children. Nonmet-ropolitan areas did lose some young adults. In northern New Hampshire, the protracted out-migration of these young adults has produced natural decrease. whites accounted for the vast majority of the growth in nonmetropolitan areas, though mi-nority populations also grew.

In metropolitan New Hampshire growth was balanced be-tween natural increase, domestic in-migration and immigra-tion. These areas benefit from the outward sprawl of the Boston metropolitan areas as well as from regional economic gains. population gains were greatest among age groups likely to in-clude parent-child households. Metropolitan New Hampshire is also retaining most, if not all, of its young adults, but losing its retirement age population.

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. For New Hampshire to continue to grow and prosper, policy makers must be cognizant of these demographic trends as they consider the future needs of its people, institutions, and organizations.

Conclusion

25

The data for this project was assembled from a variety of sources. Most is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Data were obtained from the 1990 and 2000 Census and the

1990and2000ModifiedAge-Race-Sexfile(MARS)preparedby the U.S. Census Bureau. Detailed race-based birth and death data were obtained from the National Center for Health Statis-tics. additional data for 1990 to 2006 come from the Federal StateCooperativePopulationEstimatesseries(FSCPE).Suchestimates have proven quite reliable in the past, but results must be interpreted with caution. To produce a database con-sistent in time and structure, a number of additional estimates and adjustments were made using procedures widely accepted by demographers. although these estimation and adjustment procedures introduce some uncertainty into the results, con-clusions here accurately represent the overall demographic trends in New Hampshire.

The age-specific net migration estimates were produced us-ing a modified cohort-component method. Detailed birth and death data by age, race, and sex were obtained from the Na-tional Center for Health Statistics. The 1990 and 2000 Census populations were adjusted for the enumeration undercount prior to calculating age-specific net migration. a detailed de-scription of the methods and data employed for these calcula-tions is availablevii.

Data on migration and income flows between counties are from the Internal Revenue Service County-to-County Migra-tion Flow Data. The IRS measures migration by comparing the

county of residence in successive years of income tax returns. For each return indicating a change in county of residence, the county of origin, destination, number of dependents and in-come is reported. Coverage includes between 95 and 98 per-cent of all tax returns filed. However, the data series excludes persons thatdonotfile returns (due to low income, incomefrom non-taxed retirement plans, recent international immi-grants, some undocumented immigrants, etc.). although the coverage is not complete, the vast majority of the population is included and findings reported for the IRS data are likely to closely approximate overall migration trends.

The unit of analysis for this study is the county. Though coun-ties are not significant units of government in New Hampshire, they are important units for the collection of demographic data. They are also the basic building blocks for metropolitan areas. In many cases, the county level data are aggregated to other lev-els of geography. For purposes of this study, the Boston metro-politan area is defined as the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy Met-ropolitan Statistical area. Rockingham and Strafford counties in New Hampshire are omitted from the Boston metropolitan area for the IRS migration calculations.

Methods and Data

26

i Kenneth M. Johnson is the Senior Demographer at the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire and a Visiting pro-fessor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. allison Churilla of the Carsey Institute provided research assistance on this project and David Goldblatt of loyola University-Chicago produced the maps. Research for this project was funded by the Carsey Institute and by grants to Dr. Johnson from the Northern Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service as well as the economic Research Service and Cooperative States Research Service of the U.S. Department of agriculture.

ii Because the data and computational demands required to pro-duce such detailed age-specific migration estimates are substantial, they can only be produced with data from the decennial Census.

iii prior national level age-specific net migration research suggests very distinct migration signatures for counties based on their proximity to metropolitan areas. See Johnson, K.M., p.R. Voss, R.B. Hammer, G.V. Fuguitt and S. McNiven. 2005. “Temporal and Spatial Variation in age-Specific Net Migration in the United States.” Demography,42(4):791-812.

iv IRS data do not cover the entire population, but the coverage is quite comprehensive. Therefore, conclusions drawn from analysis of the IRS migration data are likely to be indicative of overall mi-gration and income streams to and from the region.

endnotes

v Migrants from foreign areas include U.S. residents returning from overseas assignments. vi The income gain resulting from migration only includes the in-come of the household in the year they enter the state. That is, for a household moving to New Hampshire in 2002, only the income earned in that tax year is included in our calculations. The addi-tional income they earn in 2003, 2004 and 2005 is not included. Thus, our estimate of the income gain garnered by migration is conservative.

vii See Johnson, K.M., p.R. Voss, R.B. Hammer, G.V. Fuguitt and S. McNiven. 2005. “Temporal and Spatial Variation in age-Specific Net Migration in the United States.” Demography,42(4):791-812.

27

about the author

Kenneth M. Johnson is Senior Demographer at the Carsey Institute and Visiting professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. He is a ph.D. demographer and sociologist specializing in U.S. demographic trends. Dr. Johnson is a nationally recognized expert on population redistribution and demographic trends in nonmetropoltian areas of the United States. He has done extensive research on changing demographic trends in rural and urban america, on recreational and high amenity areas, and on the environmental impact of demographic change. His research has been funded by grants from the U.S. Department of agriculture, economic Research Service, and U.S. Forest Service.

He has authored a book and more than 150 articles, reports and papers on U.S. demographic trends. His research has been published in academic journals including Demography, Social Forces, Ecological Applications, American Demographics, The Wilson Quarterly, and Rural Sociology. Dr. Johnson’s research has also been reported in articles appearing in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and USA Today, and he has been interviewed on aBC world News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, CNN, BBC and National public Radio.

Dr. Johnson completed his graduate training at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and received his undergraduate training at the University of Michigan. He teaches courses in demography, quantitative analysis, and research methods at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Dr. Johnson is also a professor of Sociology and Faculty Scholar at loyola University-Chicago.

Building Knowledge for rural america’s families and communities in the 21st century

About the Carsey InstituteThe Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire conducts research and analysis into the challenges facing rural families and communities in New Hampshire, New England, and the nation.

The Carsey Institute sponsors independent, interdisciplin-ary research that documents trends and conditions in rural America, providing valuable information and analysis to policymakers, practitioners, the media, and the general public.

Through this work, the Carsey Institute contributes to public dialogue on policies that encourage social mobility and sustain healthy, equitable communities and strengthens nonprofits working to improve family and community well-being.

The Carsey Institute was established in May 2002 from a generous gift from alumna and noted television producer Marcy Carsey.

Thisreportisprintedon30%recycledpaper(inside)and50%recycledpaper(cover)andprintedwithsoy-basedinks.

Building Knowledge for families and communities

Carsey Institute University of New Hampshire Huddleston Hall73 Main StreetDurham, New Hampshire 03824-3563

603-862-2821

www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu

population pyramids of new hampshire 2000...

Documents