WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL OUTLOOK REPORT TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
1 Kathleen M. Brennan Associate Professor of Sociology
Christopher A. Cooper Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inhyuck “Steve” Ha Executive Summary...... 4 Associate Professor of Economics Chapter 1. Introduction...... 8
Chapter 2. Public Opinion in WNC ����������������������������18 The authors are listed alphabetically. All three contributed equally to this report. For more information or to request additional copies of this report, please contact the Millennial Initiative Executive Director at 828.227.2596 or by email at [email protected]. Chapter 3. Economic Outlook in WNC �������������������� 30
The authors would like to thank Western Carolina University’s Office of the Chancellor, Office of the Provost, and Public Policy Institute for their support of this project. Appendix. Additional Tables...... 48
About the Authors...... 51
WCU is a University of North Carolina campus and an Equal Opportunity Institution. 1,000 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $3,621.59 or $3.62 each. Office of Creative Services | Feb. 2014 | 14-074 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
»» The population of Western North Carolina (WNC) continues to grow, but the growth since 2000 has slowed compared to the growth during the previous ten-year period. Much of the population increase since 1990 is the result of migration from other parts of the country to WNC, particularly from 1990-2000.
»» Since 1990, the population in WNC has grown at a slower rate than the state of North Carolina, but at a faster rate than the U.S. as a whole. Every county in WNC is estimated to continue growing through 2030.
»» There are more women than men in WNC at any given point in time. This follows the distribution of sex typical at the state and national levels of analysis.
»» Since 1990, the race and ethnicity minority populations in WNC have increased. This trend is particularly evident between 1990 and 2000 when both the Hispanic/Latino and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations grew significantly. As of 2010, Hispanics/Latinos are the largest minority in WNC, followed by blacks.
»» From 1990-2010 the growth in the number of people 65 years of age and older is at least partially due to retirement in-migration. Although almost all counties in WNC will experience an increase of at least double their 65 years and older age group by 2030, the rate of growth is likely to slow.
»» Since 1990, the growth rate in the unmarried population has remained relatively consistent in WNC, the state, and the country. During the 2000-2010 time period, growth of the married population in WNC decreased to a rate closer to that in the nation.
PUBLIC OPINION
»» Compared to five years ago, the percentage of respondents who report working full or part time has increased and is roughly equivalent to the percentage reported in our poll ten years ago. However, a higher percentage of respondents report they are unemployed, laid off, or looking for work compared to previous regional outlook polls.
»» The majority of working respondents said they worry about the possibility of losing their jobs, indicating a trend of increased perceived job instability since 2003. However, level of job satisfaction continues to be high; at roughly the same level as five years ago and somewhat higher than ten years ago.
»» The median household income category in our sample is close to the median household incomes in the state and the nation; however, the median household income at both the state and national level has decreased in recent years to reflect the recent economic recession.
»» Compared to five years ago, fewer respondents report they own their place of residence and more respondents report they are living with family or friends without contributing to rent or mortgage payments.
»» About half of respondents view their household financial circumstances as unchanged over the past year, but slightly more respondents view their household finances as worse off compared to respondents five years ago. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4 5 »» When asked to compare their household financial circumstances with other households in WNC, the state, and the nation, many respondents report their financial circumstances as “about the same.” However, respondents are more likely to see themselves as “better off” compared to other households in WNC and “worse off” compared to other households in the nation.
»» Roughly the same percentage of respondents report having some type of health care coverage as in 2003 and 2008. Compared to five years ago, notably more respondents report they are paying for health care out of pocket (i.e., using their own or household income).
»» Most respondents report they are satisfied with health care in WNC; level of satisfaction with regional health care is roughly the same as it was five years ago and has increased since 2003. In the area where they live, respondents view health care services as available, high quality, and offered with a variety of options. However, more than half the sample disagree that health care is affordable.
»» The average level of stress reported by our respondents was higher than that reported just five years ago. In spite of this, most respondents report having at least good, if not excellent, physical and mental health; better than that of most people their age.
»» The plurality of respondents report being at least satisfied with their life at the present time; »» Per capita personal income in North Carolina was $25,256, which was 90.5 percent of the just slightly less satisfied than five years ago. national average during 2007-2011. Comparatively, the regional per capita personal income »» When presented with a series of regional issues, respondents consider education to be the in the AdvantageWest region was $21,430, which was lower than the statewide average and most important issue facing WNC. only 76.8 percent of the national average.
»» Respondents are fairly satisfied with education in the region. They express the highest levels »» Median household income in the state of North Carolina was $46,291. In the AdvantageWest of support for higher education, followed by primary education and then secondary education. region, median household income during 2007-2011 was $38,149, which was 82.5 percent Only around a third of respondents agree or strongly agree that higher education in the region of the statewide average. It was the lowest median household income in the seven regions is affordable for people like them. of the state.
»» The majority of respondents support land use planning; policies restricting ridge top and steep »» Income disparities across the state persist as poverty increases. In 2010, the average U.S. slope development are supported by more than half of respondents. and state poverty rates were 15.1 percent. During 2007-2011, the percentage of people in the region living below the poverty level was 17.3 percent, slightly higher than the statewide »» Political partisanship and political ideology do not line up as neatly in WNC as they do in the rest average of 16.1 percent. of the nation. The plurality of respondents self-identify as conservative and Democrat. »» Since 1970, the percentage increase in total employment over each ten-year period declined »» Respondents reported low levels of trust in government institutions, with the national from 29.8 percent growth to -0.2 percent growth in 2010. government receiving the lowest marks, followed by the state legislature, local government, and finally, the governor. »» In the private, nonfarm sector, the manufacturing industry lost a significant number of jobs between 1990 and 2010. Approximately 50.6 percent of the jobs in the manufacturing industry were lost between 2000 and 2010. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND FORECAST »» Between 2000 and 2010, most new job creation occurred in the real estate and education sectors. The real estate sector experienced about a 58.8 percent increase in new jobs, while »» The economy of North Carolina grew faster than the U.S. economy in 2012. Nationally, North the education sector experienced about a 66.6 percent increase. Carolina ranked ninth in gross domestic product and eleventh in gross state product growth rate in 2012. »» In terms of location quotient (LQ) in WNC, the top five employment-share industries are mining (LQ = 1.44), utilities (LQ = 1.39), construction (LQ = 1.33), real estate and rental (LQ = 1.23), and Western North Carolina’s economy was estimated to grow by 1.08 percent in 2011 and 1.26 »» health and social services (LQ = 1.22). percent in 2012, which is higher than the -0.73 percent growth that occurred in 2010. »» The information industry (whose employment multiplier is 2.24) has the largest indirect effects In 2012, the top three industries in WNC were manufacturing (28 percent), finance/insurance/ »» on the economy, followed by utilities (2.18) and the finance and insurance industry (2.15). real estate (16 percent), and services (15 percent). Manufacturing accounted for more than one-quarter of total production. »» Over a 40-year span, the number of housing units in both the state and the region steadily increased.
6 7 INTRODUCTION
This report provides a comprehensive overview of Western North Carolina’s (WNC) major demographic, economic, social, and political issues and trends. It is intended to help decision-makers and residents make informed choices about the region based on analysis of up-to-date data in a variety of forms. Although all of the data are new, this third installment of Western Carolina University’s Regional Outlook Report follows the basic structure of our earlier regional outlook reports published in 2004 and 2008. The information provided in these reports is one example of the enactment of WCU’s vision to embrace its responsibilities as a regionally engaged university.1
The data in this report are taken from three sources: (1) existing federal and state data, (2) aggregate county and regional data, and (3) a public opinion poll of randomly selected respondents in the state’s twenty-three westernmost counties.
DEFINING WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
For the purposes of this study, we define Western North Carolina as the twenty-three westernmost counties in the state. This definition mirrors the AdvantageWest economic development region (see Figure 1-1 below) and includes Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey counties. Located in the Blue Ridge/Appalachian Mountains, the western part of the state makes up a distinct topographical region of North Carolina, which is reflected in its unique culture and heritage.
FIGURE 1-1. Twenty-three Westernmost Counties of North Carolina
ALLEGHANY ASHE
WATAUGA WILKES
MITCHELL AVERY
YANCEY CALDWELL MADISON
BURKE BUNCOMBE MCDOWELL HAYWOOD SWAIN
RUTHERFORD GRAHAM JACKSON HENDERSON POLK MACON TRANSYLVANIA CHEROKEE CHAPTER 1: CLAY
INTRODUCTION 1 See strategicplan.wcu.edu for more information about WCU’s 2020 Strategic Vision: Focusing on the Future.
8 9 TABLE 1-1. TOTAL POPULATION
Western North Carolina NC US
Year Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
1990 859,120 --- 6,664,016 --- 249,622,800 ---
2000 1,003,023 16.75% 8,081,614 21.27% 282,162,400 13.04%
2010 1,110,671 10.73% 9,560,234 18.30% 309,330,200 9.63%
2020 1,204,236 8.42% 10,980,840 14.86% 340,554,300 10.09%
2030 1,310,910 8.86% 12,483,290 13.68% 373,751,000 9.75%
2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012
TABLE 1-2. TOTAL POPULATION BY SEX
Western North Carolina NC US
Year Sex Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Male 415,195 --- 3,232,161 --- 121,713,800 --- 1990 Female 443,925 --- 3,431,855 --- 127,909,100 ---
Male 490,058 18.03% 3,962,580 22.60% 138,443,400 13.75% 2000 Female 512,965 15.55% 4,119,034 20.02% 143,719,000 12.36%
Male 544,178 11.04% 4,660,293 17.61% 152,096,300 9.86% 2010 Female 566,493 10.44% 4,899,941 18.96% 157,233,900 9.40% WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA’S CHANGING POPULATION Male 589,784 8.38% 5,351,924 14.84% 167,717,400 10.27% 2020 As shown in Table 1-1, the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 population count for the twenty-three Female 614,452 8.47% 5,628,918 14.88% 172,836,900 9.92%
westernmost counties is 1,110,671. The 2010 Census found that the population for the twenty- Male 641,380 8.75% 6,090,973 13.81% 183,903,100 9.65% three counties had grown by more than 107,000 people since 2000, an increase of roughly 11 2030 Female 669,530 8.96% 6,392,320 13.56% 189,847,900 9.84% percent in ten years. While this growth is notable, it reflects a decrease in growth compared to the
previous ten-year period, which saw a population increase of roughly 17 percent from 1990-2000. 2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012 Almost all counties in WNC experienced population growth over the twenty-year period, although Mitchell County experienced a slight loss of population from 2000 to 2010. Much of the population increase in the twenty-three counties over the twenty-year period was the result of migration from other parts of the country to WNC, particularly from 1990-2000. Sex
Over the past twenty years, WNC’s population has grown as a slower rate than the rest of the state As a region, the distribution of sex follows the distribution typical at the state and national levels of North Carolina, but at a faster rate than the U.S. as a whole. Population estimates through the next of analysis; there are more women than men at any given point in time (see Table 1-2). This trend twenty years indicate growth in the state will continue to occur at a faster rate than the western part is demonstrated across the individual counties in WNC, with the exception of Avery County, where of the state and the country, although the rate of growth in the country will slightly surpass growth population data reflect more men than women with an increase in this gap over time. However, the in WNC. However, every county in WNC is estimated to continue growing through 2030. degree of difference between the number of women and men in the region as a whole depends on the year of data collection; the data indicate a decrease in the difference over time from roughly 7 Overall aggregate statistics provide a valuable general view of the changing nature of the region, but percent more women in 1990 to around 4 percent more women in 2010. Population estimates over the trends of key demographic characteristics can provide a more comprehensive understanding the next twenty years indicate this difference will continue to stabilize around a difference of 4 percent of the changing economic, social, and political needs in the region that further aid in effective policy more women than men through 2030. The distribution of sex at the state and national levels follow decision-making. Regional demographic characteristics of interest include sex, race and ethnicity, age, the same general trend in which the gap between the number of women and men in the population and marital status. Using census data over a forty-year period starting in 1990 and ending in 2030, decreases over time, stabilizing by the year 2030. However, the decrease at the state and national we were able to identify several notable changes in the demographic structure of WNC as a whole. levels is not as pronounced as that at the regional level.
10 11 TABLE 1-3. TOTAL POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY
Western North Carolina NC US
Year Race/Ethnicity Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
White 799,933 --- 4996,262 --- 188,712,100 ---
Black 42,556 --- 1459,080 --- 29,422,680 ---
1990 Native Am. 8,278 --- 79,533 --- 1,804,565 ---
As.Am./Pac.Is. 3,041 --- 51,638 --- 7,096,290 ---
Hispanic/Latino 5,312 --- 77,503 --- 22,587,210 ---
White 909,371 13.68% 5,710,371 14.29% 197,421,700 4.62%
Black 47,636 11.94% 1,759,120 20.56% 35,204,980 19.65%
Race and Ethnicity 2000 Native Am. 10,792 30.37% 99,853 25.55% 2,336,232 29.46%
Since 1990, the size of all race and ethnicity minority populations in WNC has grown (see Table 1-3). This As.Am./Pac.Is. 8,160 168.33% 127,061 146.06% 11,541,140 62.64% trend is particularly evident during the time period between 1990 and 2000 when the Hispanic/Latino and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations grew by roughly 410 percent and 169 percent, respectively. Hispanic/Latino 27,064 409.49% 385,209 397.02% 35,658,330 57.87% The estimated growth in these groups is expected to continue at an accelerated rate compared to other White 978,191 7.57% 6,319,064 10.66% 200,135,200 1.37% minority groups in WNC, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than during the 1990-2000 time period. Black 50,597 6.22% 2,090,361 18.83% 39,547,880 12.34% Prior to 2010, blacks were the largest minority group in WNC and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders
were the smallest minority group. As of 2010, Hispanics/Latinos are the largest minority in WNC, 2010 Native Am. 11,775 9.11% 115,855 16.03% 2,573,394 10.15% followed by blacks. The Native American and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations in WNC are currently about the same size. However, the Asian American/Pacific Islander population is estimated As.Am./Pac.Is. 11,511 41.07% 229,160 80.35% 16,287,540 41.13% to surpass the Native American population by roughly 65 percent over the next twenty years. Hispanic/Latino 58,597 116.51% 805,794 109.18% 50,786,230 42.43% The growth of the Hispanic/Latino population in WNC reflects roughly the same rate of growth as White 1,034,547 5.76% 6,857,671 8.52% 205,458,300 2.66% that in the state. However, the rate of growth of the Hispanic/Latino population in WNC and the
state is markedly larger compared to the nation, particularly during the time period between 1990 Black 56,253 11.18% 2,445,990 17.01% 43,772,950 10.68% and 2010. Between 1990 and 2000, a similar growth trend for WNC and the state is found for Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, but in 2000 the rate of growth in the WNC Asian American/Pacific 2020 Native Am. 12,707 7.92% 133.564 15.29% 2,902,449 12.79% Islander population slows to a similar rate as the nation and continues that trend through 2030. As.Am./Pac.Is. 15,708 36.46% 347,338 51.57% 21,070,020 29.36% Of additional note is the slow rate of growth in the black population in WNC during the 1990-2010
time period compared to the growth of the black population in the state and country. After 2010, Hispanic/Latino 85,021 45.09% 1,196,279 48.46% 67,350,610 32.62% the growth of the black population in the state and particularly the nation slows to a similar rate as that in WNC. Alternately, the rate of growth of the Native American population in the region, state, White 1,091,415 5.50% 7,242,444 5.61% 208,813,900 1.63% and nation is roughly the same from 1990-2010 but after that time the growth rate in the region Black 61,879 10.00% 2,784,145 13.82% 47,932,500 9.50% decreases at a larger rate compared to the state and the nation.
2030 Native Am. 13,498 6.22% 147,386 10.35% 3,190,989 9.94% By 2010, Hispanics/Latinos were the largest minority group in all counties in WNC except Buncombe,
Burke, Caldwell, Jackson, Rutherford, Swain, and Transylvania counties. In Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, As.Am./Pac.Is. 20,890 32.99% 510,944 47.10% 26,625,470 26.37% Rutherford, and Transylvania counties, blacks were the largest minority group. While blacks are estimated to remain the largest minority group in Rutherford and Transylvania counties through 2030, by 2020 Hispanic/Latino 123,228 44.94% 1,798,374 50.33% 87,188,190 29.45% blacks are estimated to become the second largest minority group after Hispanics/Latinos in Buncombe, Burke, and Caldwell counties. In Jackson and Swain counties, Native Americans are the largest minority White, Black, Native American, and Asian American / Pacific Islander categories are composed of non-Hispanic individuals only. The Hispanic / Latino category includes individuals of any race. | 2020 and 2030 values are estimates. | Sources: U.S. group. They are estimated to remain the largest minority group in those counties through 2030. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012
12 13 TABLE 1-4. TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE
Western North Carolina NC US
Year Age Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
< 20 years 220.216 --- 1854.691 --- 71917.67 ---
20-29 years 124.55 --- 1131.896 --- 40427.43 ---
30-39 years 128.105 --- 1102.462 --- 41929.07 --- 1990 40-49 years 115.596 --- 864.867 --- 31621.96 ---
50-64 years 133.021 --- 903.683 --- 32479.4 ---
65 + years 137.632 --- 806.417 --- 31247.28 ---
< 20 years 243.558 10.60% 2196.52 18.43% 80574.8 12.04%
20-29 years 125.811 1.01% 1185.135 4.70% 38396.93 -5.02%
30-39 years 139.115 8.59% 1267.841 15.00% 43175.09 2.97% 2000 40-49 years 147.692 27.77% 1209.514 39.85% 42737.52 35.15%
50-64 years 182.17 36.95% 1250.117 38.34% 42208.51 29.96%
65 + years 164.677 19.65% 972.487 20.59% 35069.57 12.23%
< 20 years 256.991 5.52% 2555.337 16.34% 83185.59 3.24%
20-29 years 131.628 4.62% 1297.656 9.49% 42849.18 11.60%
30-39 years 129.967 -6.58% 1280.686 1.01% 40147.7 -7.01% 2010 40-49 years 150.57 1.95% 1364.059 12.78% 43538.25 1.87% Age 50-64 years 239.436 31.44% 1820.001 45.59% 59132.2 40.10%
65 + years 202.079 22.71% 1242.495 27.76% 40477.3 15.42% From 1990 to 2000, the WNC population for all groups 40 years of age or older exhibited a significantly larger increase than that in the population under 40 years of age, a trend that is also < 20 years 271.457 5.63% 2911.222 13.93% 89111.49 7.12% demonstrated at state and national levels (see Table 1-4). The sustained rate of growth in these 20-29 years 136.873 3.98% 1448.129 11.60% 44979.53 4.97% age groups at the state level through 2020 indicates that the growth rate has increased net of the natural increase in the aging population, suggesting the increase in older age groups is at least 30-39 years 135.18 4.01% 1407.803 9.93% 44864.83 11.75% 2020 partially due to the in-migration of persons from these age groups into the state for employment or 40-49 years 140.294 -6.82% 1359.816 -0.31% 41501.21 -4.68% retirement reasons. Compared to the national level, the regional pattern of growth in the 65 years and older population demonstrated during the 1990-2010 time period suggests that the increase 50-64 years 247.229 3.25% 2085.601 14.59% 64815.68 9.61% in this age group in WNC is at least partially due to retirement in-migration. However, estimated data 65 + years 273.203 35.20% 1768.271 42.32% 55281.59 36.57% through 2030 indicates that the significant influx of retirees to the region could slow somewhat,
< 20 years 292.714 7.83% 3241.018 11.33% 96242.75 8.00% although the regional decrease in the 65-years-and-older age group represented at the 2030 data point is certainly influenced by the decrease in the birth rate of the 1970-1980 birth cohort, which 20-29 years 150.273 9.79% 1735.679 19.86% 48725.25 8.33% is represented across time at all levels of data collection. Nonetheless, almost all counties in WNC 30-39 years 143.883 6.44% 1581.901 12.37% 46812.4 4.34% will see an increase of around double in the 65-years-and-older age group over the forty-year 2030 time period in consideration. Exceptions include Henderson, Transylvania, and Watauga counties, 40-49 years 150.3 7.13% 1500.537 10.35% 46828.84 12.84% whose 65-years-and-older age groups are estimated to roughly triple since 1990. Moreover, in all 50-64 years 235.559 -4.72% 2090.123 0.22% 62333.83 -3.83% counties but Burke, Jackson, Swain, and Watauga, the 65-years-and-older age group will become the largest age group in the county by 2030. In these counties, those aged 19 years and younger 65 + years 338.181 23.78% 2334.035 32.00% 72807.97 31.70% (Burke, Jackson, and Swain counties) or those aged 20-29 (Watauga County) will become the largest
Values in thousands | 2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012 age group in the county by 2030.
14 15 Marital Status
Since 1990, the growth rate in the unmarried category has remained relatively consistent in WNC, of age of first marriage, in the decision to never marry, and in the decision to divorce. Nonetheless, the state, and the country (see Table 1-5). During the 1990-2000 time period, the growth rate in all counties demonstrate an increase in the married population over the time period in question the married population in WNC and the state was notably higher compared to the nation, but the except Burke and Swain counties, which each demonstrate decreases in the size of the married following ten-year time period indicates a decrease in the growth of the married population in WNC population between 2000 and 2010. to a rate closer to that in the nation. These findings undoubtedly reflect increasing trends in the delay
SUMMARY TABLE 1-5. POPULATION BY MARITAL STATUS The changing nature of WNC’s population calls for policies that address the unique demographic Western North Carolina NC US trends in the region and suggests that policies that work at the state and national levels may not
Year Marital Status Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change be appropriate to apply at the regional level. Taken into consideration with the public opinion data and economic data presented in the following chapters, we hope that the information presented in Married 422,529 --- 3,014,116 --- 111,499,000 --- 1990 this report is useful to policymakers and interested citizens in the region. Unmarried 278,643 --- 8,151,234 --- 83,643,000 --- Married 490,747 16.15% 3,596,838 19.33% 120,083,729 7.70% In subsequent chapters, we discuss our findings regarding social, political, and economic issues 2000 Unmarried 329,740 18.34% 9,938,782 21.93% 101,064,942 20.83% in WNC. The following two chapters will review the first major social and political findings of the Married 521,388 6.24% 4,044,880 12.46% 124,183,000 3.41% regional outlook poll that was conducted during the summer of 2013 and then provide an economic 2010 Unmarried 404,259 22.60% 11,934,790 20.08% 117,864,000 16.62% analysis of the region.
Data represents population aged 15 years and older | Married category includes persons with spouse present and spouse absent | Unmarried category includes widowed, divorced, and never married | Estimates for 2020 and 2030 were not available at the time of data analysis | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Log Into North Carolina (LINC)
16 17 INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
CHAPTER 2: To learn more about the attitudes and opinions of residents of Western North Carolina, we contracted with a third-party vendor2 to conduct a scientific telephone survey of Western North Carolina A SNAPSHOT OF PUBLIC OPINION residents during summer of 2013. The survey, designed by Drs. Brennan and Cooper, asked a variety IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA of questions about the economic, social, and political opinions of WNC residents. Given that more than a third of the U.S. population has a cell phone, but not a land-line, and considering that “cell-phone only” households are demographically distinct from those with land-lines3, both wireless and landline numbers were called. The wireless sample included only households that did not have a land-line (so we would not include the sample household twice). All households selected for the survey were dialed up to five times to attempt to reach a respondent. Every attempt was made to randomize respondents within a household.
Once the data were collected, we weighted the sample by age, sex, and race (using data from the 2011 American Community Surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau) to improve our survey estimates. After weighting and all sampling considerations, we are 95% confident that our results accurately represent the population of WNC within approximately +/-3.5 percent. This is comparable to other major population surveys in the field.
After weighting, the sample characteristics appear close to observable characteristics of the population in WNC. For example, the average respondent in our sample is 45 years old, 94 percent4 of our respondents are year-round residents, and the average respondent has lived in WNC 69 percent of his/her life. Tables 2-1 through 2-5 review the demographic characteristics of the sample by county, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, and income.
TABLE 2-1. COUNTIES REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE
County Weighted % of Sample County Weighted % of Sample
Alleghany 1% McDowell 4%
Ashe 2% Macon 4%
Avery 2% Madison 2%
Buncombe 24% Mitchell 1%
Burke 8% Polk 3%
Caldwell 6% Rutherford 5%
Cherokee 3% Swain 1%
Clay 1% Transylvania 3%
Graham 0% Watauga 3%
Haywood 5% Wilkes 6%
Henderson 12% Yancey 2%
Jackson 4% SAMPLE...... 894
2 After putting the contract out for bid, we selected Winthrop University’s Social and Behavioral Research Lab (SBRL) to conduct the calling and implement the survey. The SBRL is a recognized leader in telephone surveys and has over a decade of experience conducting similar surveys. The sample was purchased from Survey Sampling International. 3 http://www.people-press.org/methodology/sampling/cell-phones/. 4 We round all percentages to the nearest whole number.
18 19 TABLE 2-2. RACE AND ETHNICITY OF THE SAMPLE
Race/Ethnicity Weighted % Race/Ethnicity Weighted %
African-American/Black 4% Native-American or Indian 1%
Anglo-American/White/Caucasian 88% Other 2%
Asian or Asian-American 1% Multiple Races 1%
Chicana/Chicano or Mexican American 3%
TABLE 2-3. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE SAMPLE
Educational Attainment Weighted % Educational Attainment Weighted %
8th Grade or Less 1% Some College 25%
Some High School 6% College Graduate 21%
High School Graduate or GED 20% Graduate Degree 14%
Trade School/Community College 13% growth to be “mostly positive” and “mostly negative” with the plurality of respondents placing their TABLE 2-4. MARITAL STATUS OF THE SAMPLE attitudes in the middle. In the previous version of our survey, slightly more respondents fell on the positive side of the scale (32 percent), while the numbers who fell in the middle were virtually identical. Marital status Weighted % Marital status Weighted % Residents of Buncombe County, people who have lived in WNC a smaller proportion of their lives, Married 49% Divorced 10% and people with more income generally see growth in more positive terms. Living in a Marriage-Type Relationship 6% Separated 2% Next, we asked respondents to rate their agreement with three specific land-use policies using a Widowed 10% Never Married 23% five-point scale ranging from strongly favor to strongly oppose: land-use planning, restricting steep- slope development, and restricting ridge-top development. As Figure 2-2 indicates, respondents TABLE 2-5. INCOME OF THE SAMPLE feel most positively toward land-use planning followed by restricting steep-slope development and restricting ridge-top development, respectively. The land-use planning results are almost identical Income Weighted % Income Weighted % to the 2008 survey, while the other questions were asked in a slightly different fashion in 2008 and Under $20,000 20% $60,000-$79,999 17% cannot be compared. $20,000-$39,999 25% $80,000-$99,999 9% When we examine which types of people tend to fall on each end of the land-use planning opinion $40,000-$59,999 19% $100,000 or More 11% scale, we find that people with more education, Democrats, and people who have lived in WNC a smaller proportion of their lives are more supportive of restricting land-use planning. The patterns for opinions of ridge-top development differ slightly such that residents of Buncombe County, younger ISSUE AREAS people, and ideological liberals are more supportive of restrictions. Finally, older people and people of higher incomes are more likely to support restricting steep-slope development. We began the survey with a series of questions about various policy issues in the region. To determine relative issue importance, we asked respondents to rate on a scale of 1-100 how important the Respondents were then asked to assess air and water quality in WNC (see Figure 2-3). Overall, the following issues are to WNC: the economy, employment and industry, the environment, land-use responses indicate that residents of WNC assess the environmental conditions in the region quite planning, education, and health care. Higher ratings on these questions indicate the respondent positively. For air quality, approximately 20 percent of respondents answered excellent, 54 percent believes the issue is more important. As demonstrated in Figure 2-1, our respondents do not good, 21 percent fair, and 5 percent poor. For water quality, the results were almost identical (21, differentiate between these issues with one notable exception—land-use planning, which falls 52, 20 and 7 percent, respectively). considerably below the other issue areas in importance. Education is considered the most important issue, but we caution the reader not to infer too much from the ordering of these issue areas as Despite these similarities, the types of people who positively assess each of these areas do vary. For most lie closely together and are within the margin of error. example, while Republicans are more likely than Democrats or Independents to perceive air quality in the region as positive, they are less likely to perceive water quality in the region as positive. The Next, we asked our respondents more about specific issues related to growth and land management percentage of a person’s life they have lived in WNC also affects their view of air quality; the larger to learn more about the valence of their opinions. The first question in this series asked respondents a proportion of a person’s life they have lived in WNC, the lower they perceive the air quality to be to indicate whether they believe growth in the western region of the state is mostly negative, mostly in the region. These findings demonstrate that, despite similar overall sample assessments of air positive, or equally negative and positive. Equal percentages (26 percent) of respondents believe and water quality in WNC, different types of people view these areas differently.
20 21 FIGURE 2-1. FIGURE 2-2. To find out more about their personal economic and life situation, we also asked respondents questions Importance of Various Issue Areas Agreement with Land-Use Policies about their perceived job stability and satisfaction, when applicable, and about their income, home ownership status, and financial circumstances. These results are presented in Figures 2-4 through 2-8. The majority (59 percent) of the working respondents in our sample said they worry about the possibility of losing their jobs at least a little (30 percent), to some extent (17 percent), or a great deal (12 percent). Since 2003, the decline in working respondents who report they do not worry at all about the possibility of losing their job indicates an increasing trend of perceived job instability.7
Percent Percent Specifically, compared to the previous two regional outlook surveys, more respondents are “a little” worried about losing their job. Bivariate analysis indicates that income is significantly associated with perceived job instability, such that worry about the possibility of losing one’s job increases as income decreases, although the association is relatively weak. Interestingly, level of job satisfaction Land-Use Planning Land-Use The Environment Care Health & Industry Employment The Economy Education Planning Land-Use Steep- Restricting Development Slope Ridge- Restricting Development Top continues to be high; at roughly the same level as five years ago and somewhat higher than ten years ago. The majority (90 percent) of working respondents report they are satisfied (49 percent) or very THE PERSONAL AND PUBLIC ECONOMY satisfied (41 percent) with the work they do. Figure 2-5 presents the distribution of total household income reported by respondents. The median We asked respondents a series of questions about their personal economic situation and their opinions household income category in our sample is $40,000-$59,000, which suggests that the current of the economy in the region, state, and nation. The majority of the respondents in our sample reported household income of the respondent in the middle of our sample’s distribution of household income is they work for pay either full time (41 percent) or part time (11 percent). Compared to five years ago, near to the median household incomes in the state and the nation.8 While this may appear to be good the number of respondents who report working full or part time has increased and is roughly the same news, it is important to note that the median household income at both the state and national level has percentage of working respondents reflected in our poll sample ten years ago. However, 7 percent decreased in recent years to reflect the most recent economic recession. The most frequently reported of our respondents reported that they are unemployed, laid off, or looking for work, which reflects a category of household income reported by respondents in our sample is between $20,000 and $39,999 higher percentage than in previous regional outlook polls.5 Compared to respondents who are working (25 percent), the same as five years ago. Moreover, compared to five years ago, more respondents or who are unemployed, substantially fewer respondents in the current sample reported they are report household incomes of less than $20,000.9 This indicates that, although household income in keeping house, in school, with a job but not at work, or some other category. Roughly 23 percent of WNC may be closer to that in the state and nation than it was previously, the region’s economic situation the sample reported that they are retired, which is not surprising, as it has been well-documented has probably not improved over time with respect to household income and may have even slightly that a large number of retirees reside in the region, and survey research consistently shows that older declined. This finding is replicated in the data regarding residence status (see Figure 2-6). Compared people are more likely to respond to surveys than younger people. to five years ago, fewer respondents report they own their place of residence; 66 percent in 2013 compared to 86 percent in 2008. Furthermore, almost 10 percent of respondents in the 2013 sample Because social science literature has identified hours worked per week and work commute reported they were living with family or friends without contributing to rent or mortgage payments. time as significant predictors of important individual wellness factors such as stress, health, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, we asked working respondents to indicate how many total FIGURE 2-3. FIGURE 2-4. hours per week they work at all paid jobs and how many minutes on average they spend each day Assessment of WNC Water and Air Quality Extent of Worry About Losing Job commuting one way to work. Respondents in our sample worked an average of about 41 hours per week (s=13.65) with a minimum of 6 hours worked per week and a maximum of 90 hours worked Water Quality per week reported. On average, respondents in our sample reported about a 20-minute, one-way commute to work (s=17.22) with a minimum commute of 0 minutes and a maximum commute of 90 Air Quality minutes. This is less than the state and national average daily one-way commute time of 23 minutes and 25 minutes, respectively.6 We do not find that number of hours worked is significantly related
to stress, health, and satisfaction in our sample, however, bivariate analysis indicates that work Percent Percent commute is significantly associated with all three outcomes; as commute time increases, level of stress increases, work satisfaction decreases, and life satisfaction decreases. While these relationships are statistically significant, it should be noted that the relative strength of each Poor Fair Good Excellent Not At All A Little To Some A Great Deal relationship is weak. Extent
7 In 2003 and 2008, 49 percent and 62 percent of working respondents said they did not worry at all about the 5 In 2003 and 2008, 3 and 5 percent of respondents reported being unemployed, laid off, or looking for work. possibility of losing their jobs. 8 6 See http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/north-carolina/average-commute-time#map for Median household income in North Carolina and the U.S. in 2011 were $46,291 and $52,762, respectively. more information on the North Carolina average commute time by county. See http://project.wnyc.org/commute- See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html for more information. times-us/embed.html#5.00/42.000/-89.500 for more information on average commute time in the U.S. with additional 9 The percentage of respondents who reported a total household income of less than $20,000 in 2008 and information about commute time by area. 2013 was 16 and 20 percent, respectively.
22 23 When asked to consider housing close to where they live now that they could afford (see Figure 2-7), most respondents perceived affordable housing near them to be “good” (40 percent), followed by “fair” (22 percent) or “very good” (21 percent). This indicates that the quality of housing in the region is not the primary reason non-home owning respondents do not own a home. Bivariate analysis of the relationship between home ownership and perception of quality of affordable housing somewhat supports this for respondents who rent their place of residence. Renters are more likely to report that the quality of housing near them is “good,” while respondents who live with family and friends are more likely to report that the quality of housing near them is just “fair,” indicating that housing quality may only be an issue for groups who cannot afford to pay a mortgage or rent. The strength of this relationship is moderately strong. In our sample, respondents who are younger and fall into lower income groups are significantly less likely to own their place of residence.
Most (49 percent) respondents view the financial circumstances in their household as unchanged over the past year (see Figure 2-8), while 27 percent perceive that their household financial circumstances are worse off and 23 percent perceive their household financial circumstances are better than a year ago. Continuing to lend support to a trend of slight economic decline in the region, slightly more respondents view their household finances as worse off compared to respondents five years ago. In order to get an idea of respondents’ perceived economic relative deprivation, we also asked them to compare their household financial circumstances with other households in WNC, the state, and the nation. For each of the three comparison groups, roughly 40 percent of respondents report their financial circumstances are “about the same.” However, they are more likely to see themselves as “better off” compared to other households in WNC (40 percent) versus the state (27 percent) or the nation (24 percent). Furthermore, they are more likely HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE to see themselves as “worse off” compared to other households in the nation (31 percent) versus the state (23 percent) or the region (13 percent). Health care is important at the individual, community, and regional levels. In addition to being an important economic stimulator, health care plays a key role in an area’s quality of life. As Chapter 1 FIGURE 2-5. FIGURE 2-6. of this report makes clear, almost all counties in WNC will see a significant increase in their 65 years Total Household Income Home Ownership and older population because of the aging baby boomer generation and WNC’s retiree population, making individual health care and public health issues increasingly important to the region. For these reasons, we asked respondents a number of questions about their perceptions of health care in the region and their personal health situation.
Around 82 percent of the sample reported having some type of health care coverage; roughly the same percentage who reported having some type of coverage in 2003 and 2008. Bivariate
Percent Percent analysis indicates that the odds of having health care coverage are greater for women, whites,
older respondents, respondents with higher educational attainment, and respondents who report higher household incomes. As Figure 2-9 suggests, more respondents (65 percent) reported that
<$20,000 $40,000-$59,000 $60,000-$79,999 $80,000- $99,999 their health care is paid for by their individual or household income than any other source. Other $20,000-$39,999 $100,000 more or
Own Rent Something Else sources of payment for health care reported by respondents include place of employment (42 percent), Medicare (28 percent), Medicaid (12 percent), or some other source of payment (18 FIGURE 2-7. FIGURE 2-8. percent). Respondents most frequently cited health insurance plans as other sources of payment Quality of Nearby, Affordable Housing Household Financial Situation Compared to Last Year for health care. Compared to five years ago, notably more respondents reported they are paying for health care out of pocket (i.e., using their own or household income).10
Most respondents reported they were satisfied (52 percent) or very satisfied (11 percent) with health care in WNC, while the rest of the sample reported they were unsatisfied (22 percent) or very unsatisfied (12 percent). While level of satisfaction with regional health care is roughly the same as it was five years ago, satisfaction has increased by nearly 10 percent since 2003. Bivariate analysis Percent Percent indicates that the odds of being satisfied with health care coverage are greater for men, whites, and respondents in higher income categories.
10 Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Worse Off About The Same Better Off In 2008, only 25 percent of the sample reported using their own or household income to pay for health care.
24 25 Most (53 percent) respondents in our sample report a higher level of stress (as indicated by a score of 6 or higher) than that experienced by the average person. The average level of stress in the sample was indicated by a score of 7 out of 10 (s=2.577), with more than 10 percent of the sample reporting they experienced “really high stress” (as indicated by a score of 10 out of 10) in the last six months. Compared to 2008, there was a 6 percent increase in the percentage of the 2013 sample who reported experiencing more stress than the average person. Likewise, the average amount of stress reported has increased by roughly one point on the scale (from a 6 to a 7) since 2008. In spite of this, most respondents reported having good (50 percent) or excellent (25 percent) physical health and good (40 percent) or excellent (46 percent) mental health. In fact, the majority (52 percent) of respondents viewed their physical health as better than most people their age, whereas only 12 percent viewed their health as worse than most people their age. Reported social comparisons of mental health are even better, with the majority of respondents viewing their mental health as better (48 percent) or about the same (46 percent) as most people their age. Moreover, respondents predominantly reported being satisfied (49 percent) or very satisfied (36 percent) with their life at the present time; just slightly less satisfied than in 2008. Bivariate analysis indicates the odds of being satisfied with one’s life are greater for respondents with higher education and higher income. FIGURE 2-9. FIGURE 2-10. Payment Sources for Health Care Area Health Care Services THE COMPLICATED DANCE OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND PARTISANSHIP IN WNC
In most parts of the United States, political ideology (typically measured on a scale ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative) and political partisanship (typically measured on a scale
Percent ranging from strong Democrat to strong Republican) are strongly correlated—meaning that strong liberals are likely to be strong Democrats, strong conservatives are likely to be strong Republicans, and Percent in Agreement Percent moderates are likely to be political independents. As seen in Figure 2-12, however, this trend does not seem to apply to WNC. Whereas 21 percent of our sample self-identify as strong Democrats, fewer than half of that number (8 percent) self-identify as extremely liberal. Interestingly, this trend is not Personal Employment Medicare Medicaid Other Source Available Variety Of High Quality Affordable Income Options true on the other end of the spectrum, as 15 percent of the sample identify as strong Republicans while 15 percent also consider themselves extremely conservative. In fact, more than 20 percent of To get a better idea regarding the sources of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with health care in WNC, respondents who identify as “extremely conservative” also identify as a strong Democrat, whereas we asked respondents their level of agreement with statements about the availability, affordability, quality, only 6 percent of “extremely liberal” respondents identify as a strong Republican. The lesson here is and variety of health care services in the area where they live (see Figure 2-10). Most respondents clear: In WNC, political ideology and partisanship should not be considered as the same concept. agree (64 percent) or strongly agree (21 percent) that health care services are available in the area Partisanship in WNC is best considered a “lagging indicator” of a person’s attitudes about politics where they live. Likewise, most respondents agree (66 percent) or strongly agree (13 percent) that and government. there are a variety of health care service options in the area where they live (18 percent disagree). Furthermore, most respondents agree (60 percent) or strongly agree (14 percent) that health care FIGURE 2-11. FIGURE 2-12. services are high quality in the area where they live (19 percent disagree). However, when it comes Level of Stress Partisanship vs. Ideology to level of agreement with regard to the affordability of health care services in the area where they
live, there was a clear split in the sample: Almost half of the sample agree (42 percent) or strongly 0 ���������������������� No Stress 5 ������������� Average Stress agree (5 percent) that health care is affordable, but the remaining respondents disagree (37 percent) 10 ����Really High Stress or strongly disagree (11 percent) with this statement. Given the significant increase (from 25 to 65 percent) in the percentage of respondents who are paying for health care expenses out-of-pocket since the previous regional outlook poll was conducted five years ago, it is not surprising that more respondents disagree that health care in the area where they live is affordable. Percent
Affordability of health care becomes a prominent issue when individuals experience high levels of in Agreement Percent stress that affect their physical, mental, and/or emotional health. Figure 2-11 presents the distribution of responses to a question asking respondents to indicate their level of stress over the last six months Strong Democrat Extremely Liberal using a scale of 0 to 10 where 5 represents the amount of stress the average person experiences. Strong Republican Extremely Conservative
26 27 FIGURE 2-13. FIGURE 2-14. Assessment of Education in Western North Carolina Trust in Government Officials The pattern for opinions of elected officials is considerably less positive. As Figure 2-14 suggests, residents of WNC do not hold their elected officials in very high regard. We asked respondents to indicate the degree to which they trust the national government, the state legislature, the governor, and the local government. The governor emerged as the most trusted, followed by the local government, the state legislature, and finally the national government—an institution that less than 15 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that they trust.
Interestingly, the longer a person lives in WNC, the less likely they are to trust each of the institutions
Most Of The Time Most and political actors previously discussed. Given the partisan make-up of the White House and Percent In Agreement In Percent the governor’s mansion, it is not surprising that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to
Percent Who Trust The Institution The Institution Who Trust Percent approve of the governor and the state legislature and less likely to approve of the national and local
Secondary Primary Higher National State Local Governor government. Other factors such as age, county of residence, and income have no influence on trust Education Education Education Government Legislature Government in government institutions.
OPINIONS OF INSTITUTIONS SUMMARY For the next series of questions, we asked respondents about education in the region beginning with three questions asking them to rate their satisfaction with primary education, secondary education, In all, the survey data paint a picture of a region that is representative of the country in many ways, but and primary education on a scale from extremely satisfied to extremely unsatisfied. also has a number of unique issues and challenges. Further, two of the most consistent important predictors of many attitudes and opinions are county of residence (with Buncombe County residents As Figure 2-13 indicates, respondents believe that education in WNC generally meets the needs of the often demonstrating unique patterns from the rest of the region) and the percentage of life a person region, although opinions about higher education tend to be more positive than opinions of primary has lived in WNC (with natives showing distinct patterns from more recent in-migrants). While we or higher education. This pattern is similar to what we found in the 2008 study. Unfortunately, although believe these data are important inputs into the policy-making process, they are not ends to themselves. satisfaction is high, education in the region is not without its perceived problems—only 37 percent of our Instead, policymakers must use the patterns identified within these data to identify problems that respondents agree or strongly agree that higher education in the region is affordable for people like them. warrant their attention and work with a diverse set of constituencies to find the appropriate solutions.
28 29 INTRODUCTION
The effects of the Great Recession on the local economy were massive. Most counties in Western North Carolina have a long way to go to fully recover, even if the recession officially ended in 2009. Western North Carolina is in a state of change because of the slowed growth of its regional economy. This chapter focuses on this change and its possible implications. A comprehensive examination of the region’s economy in comparison with the nation and state’s economies has been conducted.
As shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 (see page 36), the national economy has been growing slowly since 2009. The economy of North Carolina grew faster than the U.S. economy in 2012. Nationally, North Carolina ranked ninth in gross domestic product and eleventh in gross state product growth rate in 2012 (See Appendix Table A-1 for details).
Western North Carolina’s economy was estimated to grow by 1.08 percent in 2011 and 1.26 percent in 2012, which is higher than the -0.73 percent growth that occurred in 2010. The WNC economy started expanding from a low point in 2010. Most key economic indicators predict a slow rebound after the recession.
STRUCTURE OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMY
The 2012 economic output of WNC, by industry, is shown in Table 3-2. In 2012, the top three industries in WNC were manufacturing (28 percent), finance/insurance/real estate (16 percent), and services (15 percent). Manufacturing accounted for more than one-quarter of total production. In contrast, mining and agriculture made a very small contribution to the regional economy, accounting for only 4 percent of total production in 2012.
TABLE 3-1. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
Western North Carolina* NC US
Year Value Growth Rate Value Growth Rate Value Growth Rate
2000 $28,874.2 - $316,598.0 - $11,225,406.0 -
2001 $28,895.4 0.1% $320,421.0 1.2% $11,365,110.0 1.2%
2002 $29,001.7 0.4% $324,302.0 1.2% $11,559,801.0 1.7%
2003 $29,159.8 0.5% $328,019.0 1.1% $11,809,034.0 2.2%
2004 $29,773.8 2.1% $335,831.0 2.4% $12,199,532.0 3.3%
2005 $30,780.5 3.4% $354,664.0 5.6% $12,539,116.0 2.8%
2006 $31,429.1 2.1% $369,556.0 4.2% $12,875,816.0 2.7%
2007 $31,359.9 -0.2% $378,814.0 2.5% $13,103,341.0 1.8%
2008 $30,658.8 -2.2% $377,869.0 -0.2% $13,016,791.0 -0.7%
2009 $30,413.3 -0.8% $372,219.0 -1.5% $12,592,668.0 -3.3% CHAPTER 3: 2010 $30,191.7 -0.7% $380,693.0 2.3% $12,897,088.0 2.4% 2011 $30,518.1 1.1% $382,655.0 0.5% $13,108,318.0 1.6% THE STATE OF WESTERN NORTH 2012 $30,903.1 1.3% $392,905.0 2.7% $13,430,576.0 2.5%
In millions of 2005 dollars | * 2011 and 2012 values are estimates from Woods & Poole | Sources: Bureau of Economic CAROLINA’S REGIONAL ECONOMY Analysis, US Department of Commerce, and Woods and Poole 2013
30 31 TABLE 3-2. INDUSTRY OUTPUT IN WNC IN 2012
Industry Output Percent
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1,104,384,081.48 1.79%
Mining 308,477,794.17 0.50%
Utilities 1,027,913,946.15 1.67%
Construction 4,574,199,150.09 7.41%
Manufacturing 17,286,539,913.76 28.01%
Wholesale Trade 1,896,348,510.74 3.07%
Retail Trade 3,598,976,058.96 5.83%
Transportation & Warehousing 1,242,203,150.75 2.01%
Information 1,468,695,955.75 2.38%
Finance & Insurance 3,619,510,890.96 5.86%
Real Estate & Rental 6,064,034,353.26 9.83%
Professional - Scientific & Tech Services 1,900,572,269.44 3.08% NORTH CAROLINA’S SEVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS Management Of Companies 530,970,336.91 0.86% Administrative & Waste Services 1,297,161,273.96 2.10%
North Carolina has designated seven regional development partnerships that capture all 100 of Educational Services 405,145,904.54 0.66% the state’s counties (see Map 3-1). The twenty-three westernmost counties are known as the Health & Social Services 5,314,936,882.02 8.61% AdvantageWest region, which covers approximately 10,000 square miles. This study focuses on the economy of this region. Arts - Entertainment & Recreation 552,990,961.07 0.90% Accommodation & Food Services 2,218,902,595.52 3.60% As shown in Table 3-3, the population growth rate of the AdvantageWest region is declining. This trend is further demonstrated by longer-term data. In 1980, 13.7 percent of the state’s population Other Services 2,062,066,913.60 3.34% resided in the western twenty-three counties. By 1990, this figure fell to 12.9 percent. Then, in 2000 Government & Non NAICs 5,241,136,605.74 8.49% and 2010, the population fell to 12.4 percent and 11.5 percent respectively. Total 61,715,167,548.88 100.00%
Other demographic shifts have accompanied the region’s change in population. For example, the Source: IMPLAN Data 2012 median age of the regional population was 44.3 years in 2010, which was the highest among the state’s seven economic development regions. In 2010, the white population in the region was 90.4 percent, again the highest in the state. MAP 3-1. Seven Economic Development Regions in North Carolina During 2007-2011, the per capita personal income in North Carolina was $25,256, which was 90.5 percent of the national average. Comparatively, the regional per capita personal income in the AdvantageWest region was $21,430, which was lower than the statewide average and only 76.8 North Carolina’s Northeast Commission percent of the national average. Piedmont Triad Partnership Research During 2007-2011, median household income in the state of North Carolina was $46,291. In the Triangle Regional AdvantageWest region, median household income during 2007-2011 was $38,149, which was 82.5 Partnership AdvantageWest Economic percent of the statewide average. It was the lowest in the seven regions of the state. Development Group Charlotte Regional Partnership North Carolina’s Income disparities across the state persist as poverty increases. In 2010, the average U.S. Eastern Region North Carolina’s and state poverty rates were 15.1 percent. During 2007-2011, the percentage of people in Southeast Commission the region living below the poverty level was 17.3 percent, slightly higher than the statewide average of 16.1 percent (See Appendix Table A-2 for details). Table 3-3 demonstrates these key indicators and economic variables to show the AdvantageWest region’s ranking in relation to the rest of the state. Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce
32 33 7.9% 2.2% 1.7% 2.8% 2.1% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 2.6% 3.6% 8.9% 7.2% 7.2% 2.1% 3.1% 6.2% 4.7% 1.9% 0.6% 10-12 -5.5% -1.3% -2.1% -2.2% -2.0% 13
8.3% 38.25 19.0% 25.6% 62.0% 12.4% 10.3% 11.4% 63.7% 27.7% 103.20 Eastern 978,250 $40,932.9 $53,180.4 $21,507.8 1,033,458 7.8% 9.6% 00-10 -1.3% -0.2% -8.7% -6.3% -4.3% -5.0% -1.0% 37.6% 38.4% 58.8% 29.2% 10.3% 25.0% 66.6% 28.0% 27.4% 15.9% 15.2% -20.9% -12.7% -50.6% -17.4% 11 7.8% 38.40 93.00 19.8% 23.4% 63.5% 13.1% 11.6% 12.0% 59.0% 26.5% $38,656.6 $51,832.6 $20,633.8 1,154,732 1,101,381 Southeast 1.0% 5.1% 90-00 22.2% 21.8% 11.3% 42.6% 37.5% 21.0% 26.7% 25.0% 30.6% 44.3% 51.9% 62.2% 83.6% 73.7% 61.1% 63.4% 32.6% 26.4% 23.8% -50.3% -11.1% -14.0% Growth Rate Growth 0.0% 4.3% 8.0% 2.7% -0.2% 80-90 99.1% 22.4% 43.2% 41.3% 36.1% 49.5% 29.8% 21.6% 55.0% 51.5% 51.9% 59.5% 53.3% 54.0% 53.3% 55.5% 15.7% 20.7% -23.8% 16 4.4% 4.3% 3.6% 42.00 19.7% 34.0% 52.2% 13.8% 56.0% 39.4% 128.00 427,953 423,553 $40,648.3 $52,544.8 $20,921.9 Northeast 8.8% -2.3% 70-80 82.0% 29.8% 13.5% 35.1% 31.3% 42.0% 14.7% 47.2% 29.6% 17.4% 57.4% 55.5% 33.6% 40.8% 31.5% 32.8% 32.2% 37.8% 38.6% 35.0% 56.8% -22.5% 13 38.60 93.70 13.6% 24.4% 64.8% 10.7% 21.2% 19.2% 65.0% 23.0% 10.3% $47,687.1 $62,755.2 $24,635.5 2012 2,177,876 2,021,948 2.643 1.599 1.483 5.761 3.745 8.556 6.301 2.792 12.328 40.564 52.161 14.213 65.307 12.936 17.135 27.738 24.072 30.861 68.691 14.055 45.613 36.032 71.166 565.752 Research Triangle Research 2010 3.44 7.98 2.449 1.573 1.442 5.885 6.186 2.776 13.048 41.114 51.074 13.712 62.916 12.478 17.524 27.028 23.234 28.789 67.276 13.633 42.968 34.402 72.622 553.549 12 8.7% 40.75 89.20 16.4% 22.2% 63.7% 14.1% 17.2% 18.2% 69.9% 20.7% $41,872.7 $55,246.0 $22,268.3 1,705,301 1,640,717 Piedmont Triad Piedmont 2.48 3.12 5.74 2000 1.143 1.652 65.75 7.124 17.98 4.789 2.804 16.492 45.015 14.638 13.136 12.665 17.021 23.025 52.545 10.698 37.076 29.856 66.261 554.429 103.419 ** Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars), 2007-2011 dollars), (in 2011 inflation-adjusted in the past 12 months income capita | ** Per 2007-2011 dollars), (in 2011 inflation-adjusted in the past 12 months income capita | ** Per INCOME 12 9.3% 39.30 89.70 13.8% 23.1% 65.3% 11.6% 23.7% 22.5% 69.3% 20.6% POPULATION 3.26 1990 Charlotte $46,958.7 $62,014.8 $23,803.0 2,372,382 2,258,314 2.029 1.027 3.323 5.697 9.699 1.924 12.54 2.757 6.548 5.463 455.23 16.336 31.566 10.649 54.332 10.371 11.799 11.833 32.624 27.957 23.613 53.515 116.368 POPULATION BY AGE, 2010 (APRIL 1) 2010 (APRIL AGE, BY POPULATION 7.99 1.27 1980 1.019 1.029 2.321 7.825 4.685 9.301 7.635 8.255 1.729 4.252 5.321 2.817 21.438 22.337 36.339 10.926 21.276 18.236 15.181 44.326 371.917 116.409 23 4.3% 5.3% 44.30 98.60 17.3% 21.4% 60.7% 17.9% 11.5% 12.4% 90.4% $38,148.8 $50,486.2 $21,430.3 1,147,042 1,099,165 *** Access NC, North Carolina Department of Commerce Commerce of Department Carolina North NC, *** Access Commerce of Department Carolina North NC, *** Access TABLE 3-3. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT DOMESTIC 3-3. GROSS TABLE Advantage West Advantage 0.56 3.99 1970 4.89 0.907 1.768 8.007 6.166 5.909 7.026 5.715 0.902 6.277 1.302 3.086 3.634 286.64 15.872 15.728 24.686 16.089 13.154 11.242 28.262 101.468 NC 100 in each region counties of | * Average in each region counties of | * Average 8.4% 37.40 94.90 100% 100% 16.1% 23.9% 63.1% 12.9% 68.5% 21.5% $46,291.0 $54,863.5 $25,256.0 9,535,483 10,018,744 TABLE 3-4. TRENDS IN EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA 1970-2012 CAROLINA NORTH IN WESTERN SECTOR BY IN EMPLOYMENT 3-4. TRENDS TABLE Sector Indicator Source: US Census and Woods & Poole 2013 & Poole US Census and Woods Source: 2013 & Poole US Census and Woods Source: Under 17 Total Employment Total and Other Employment Activities Fishing, Related Forestry, Number of Counties Number of 2007-2011 Median Household Income, 2011 Household Income, Average 2007-2011 Capita Income**, Per 2011*** (%), Level Below Poverty Persons 2013 Estimate 18 to 64 18 to 2010 Census 65 and Up Distribution by Region (%) 2010 (%) Region Distribution by Median Age in Years* in Median Age Distribution by Region (%) 2000 (%) Region Distribution by Mining Employment Males per 100 Females* Farm Employment Farm Percent of White Population 2010 Population White of Percent Percent of Black Population 2010 Black Population of Percent Percent of Hispanic Population 2010 Hispanic Population of Percent Utilities Employment Construction Employment Construction Manufacturing Employment Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Employment Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Employment Trade Retail Transportation and Warehousing Employment and Warehousing Transportation Information Employment Information Finance and Insurance Employment and Insurance Finance Real Estate and Rental and Lease Employment and Lease and Rental Estate Real Professional and Technical Services Employment Technical and Professional Management of Companies and Enterprises Employment and Enterprises Companies Management of Administrative and Waste Services Employment and Waste Administrative Educational ServicesEducational Employment Health Care and Social Assistance Employment and Social Assistance Health Care Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Employment Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services and Food Employment Accommodation Other Services, Except Public Admin Employment Admin Public Other Services, Except Federal Civilian Government Employment Civilian Government Federal Federal Military Employment Federal State and Local Government Employment Government and Local State
34 35 employment sectors experienced a decline in the number of jobs between 2000 and 2010. Affected industries include construction, wholesale trade, retail trade, and transportation. The utilities industry lost 12.7 percent of its employment between 2000 and 2010, while the information industry lost about 17.4 percent of its employment.
Between 2000 and 2010, most new job creation occurred in the real estate and education sectors. The real estate sector experienced about a 58.8 percent increase in new jobs, while the education sector experienced about a 66.6 percent increase. Business and health services are also growing rapidly in WNC. The growth in this category will bring additional jobs to the regional economy. Currently, the business management industry has experienced significant growth and presents a promising outlook for the future job market.
As depicted in Figure 3-2, total employment in WNC has fluctuated over the last two decades, even when controlling for seasonality, which more accurately reflects employment behavior.
Figure 3-3 shows unemployment rates for WNC and North Carolina since 1990. Historical data indicates that the unemployment rate decreased between 1991 and 2000 in both WNC and North EMPLOYMENT Carolina. During this same period, total employment fluctuated significantly. In 2002, the state entered an expansion period. Total employment increased drastically while the unemployment rate decreased. The unemployment rate started to decrease in 2002 until the Great Recession started in The industrial structure of WNC has changed since the 1970s. Table 3-4 shows employment trends 2007. During this economic recession, the unemployment rate of WNC was more than 11 percent by sector over the past forty-two years. Since 1970, the percentage increase in total employment but decreased to 9.6 percent in 2012. over each ten-year period has declined from 29.8 percent growth to -0.2 percent growth by 2010. Total employment then increased 11.0 percent between 2010 and 2012.
A decline in farm employment since 1980 has had a significant negative effect on total regional LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS employment. Between 1980 and 1990, farm employment declined 23.8 percent, followed by a decline of 20.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. The only exception was a small increase of 1.0 In examining the local, regional, state, or national economy, it is important to identify the unique percent between 1990 and 2000. Nonfarm employment has not been able to fully absorb this shift, characteristics of an economy’s industrial structure because these characteristics provide an particularly in light of declines in other employment sectors. indication of each industry’s likely contribution to the overall economy. In North Carolina, for example, traditional manufacturing industries such as apparel, furniture, textiles, and tobacco have been In the private, nonfarm sector, the manufacturing industry lost a significant number of jobs between shrinking for several years and could have a negative effect on an economic forecast. 1990 and 2010. Approximately 50.6 percent of the jobs in the manufacturing industry were lost between 2000 and 2010. The loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry is attributed to numerous In 2012, the top five employment industries in North Carolina were government and non-NAICs factors, but is primarily the result of outsourcing goods overseas. Many layoffs occurred, leading (that is, unclassified in by the North American Industry Classification System), health and social to a tremendous loss of jobs in the furniture and textile industries. Then, several industries in other services, retail trade, manufacturing, and construction. In comparison, WNC’s top five industries
FIGURE 3-1. FIGURE 3-2. FIGURE 3-3. Growth Rates of Gross Domestic Product Total Employment: WNC and NC Unemployment Rates(%): WNC and NC
520,000 4,400,000
US 500,000 4,200,000
4,000,000 NC 480,000 3,800,000 460,000 WNC 3,600,000 440,000 US 3,400,000 NC NC 420,000 WNC 3,200,000 WNC 400,000 3,000,000 1991 2011 1997 1995 1993 1992 1994 1996 1999 1998 2012 1990 2001 2010 2007 2005 2003 2002 2004 2006 2009 2008 2000 2001 2003 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2001 1991 2003 1990 2002 1992 2004 1993 2005 1994 2006 1995 2007 1996 2008 1997 2009 1998 2010 1999 2011 2000 2012
Source: Woods and Poole 2013 Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics
36 37 TABLE 3-5. LOCATION QUOTIENT
Western North Carolina North Carolina Location NAICS* Sector Employment Percent Employment Percent Quotient
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 9,633.50 1.76% 83,576.38 1.61% 1.09
21 Mining 1,241.47 0.23% 8,207.19 0.16% 1.44
22 Utilities 1,915.17 0.35% 13,104.11 0.25% 1.39
23 Construction 42,571.57 7.78% 304,980.06 5.87% 1.33
31-33 Manufacturing 49,647.08 9.08% 439,058.19 8.45% 1.07
42 Wholesale Trade 13,487.59 2.47% 177,807.02 3.42% 0.72
44-45 Retail Trade 62,381.09 11.40% 521,942.75 10.05% 1.13
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 14,753.65 2.70% 133,340.97 2.57% 1.05
51 Information 5,735.03 1.05% 79,685.07 1.53% 0.68
52 Finance & Insurance 20,021.15 3.66% 282,428.86 5.44% 0.67
53 Real Estate & Rental 27,877.83 5.10% 216,023.60 4.16% 1.23
54 Professional-Scientific & Tech Services 24,040.86 4.39% 299,952.93 5.77% 0.76
55 Management of companies 3,689.79 0.67% 73,124.76 1.41% 0.48
56 Administrative & Waste Services 28,089.10 5.13% 323,402.24 6.23% 0.82
61 Educational Services 7,786.20 1.42% 102,246.73 1.97% 0.72 If the location quotient of an industry is greater than 1, it means the industry employs a larger share of the work force regionally than on a statewide basis. It is more likely that the region is a net exporter 62 Health & Social Services 67,410.50 12.32% 522,638.02 10.06% 1.22 in an industry if the location quotient is greater than 1 because the region produces more goods or 71 Arts-Entertainment & Recreation 11,759.66 2.15% 98,887.35 1.90% 1.13 services than would be consumed regionally. In contrast, if the location quotient of an industry is 72 Accommodation & Food Services 41,032.86 7.50% 361,238.84 6.95% 1.08 less than 1, the region produces less than enough goods or services to meet area demand, and thus is typically an import industry. Investors and entrepreneurs may view areas with location quotients 81 Other Services 33,987.81 6.21% 281,129.89 5.41% 1.15 of less than 1 as opportunities to develop businesses in the local area. 92 Government & Non NAICs 80,003.13 14.62% 871,577.73 16.78% 0.87 A statistical confidence interval defines a range with a specified probability by creating an upper Total 547,065.04 100.00% 5,194,352.68 100.00% and lower limit for the mean. For location quotient analysis, the rule of thumb to understand the
Source: IMPLAN Data 2012 | * NAICs stands for North American Industry Classification System statistical confidence interval is ±0.15. This means that a location quotient between 0.85 and 1.15 is likely to be considered 1, which indicates that the difference between regional and statewide employment shares is not significant.
in terms of employment are government and non-NAICs, health and social services, retail trade, As shown in Table 3-5, in WNC, the top five employment-share industries are mining (LQ = 1.44), manufacturing, and accommodation and food services. The government and non-NAICs account utilities (LQ = 1.39), construction (LQ = 1.33), real estate and rental (LQ = 1.23), and health and social for 14.6 percent of employment in WNC. services (LQ = 1.22).
Location quotients are frequently used when performing an economic analysis. They indicate the In the service industry, WNC has relatively large employment shares in tourism and health services. employment density of an economy by industry based on the overall state economy. In other words, Service industry employment includes all nonfarm, private industry employment. The location location quotients are one way to measure an industry’s labor concentration in a specific region quotients are 1.08 for accommodations and food services, 1.13 for arts – entertainment and relative to the rest of the state by simply taking an industry’s share of regional employment and recreation, and 1.22 for health and social services. However, for finance and insurance (LQ = 0.67), dividing it by the industry’s share of state employment. If the location quotient of an industry is 1, professional – scientific and tech services (LQ = 0.76), and management of companies (LQ = 0.48), then the industry’s share of regional employment is the same as the industry’s share of employment the region employs a lower percentage of the work force than the state employment percentage in the state. For example, in Table 3-5, the employment shares for arts and recreation services in despite the positive employment outlook discussed in the previous section. A location quotient less WNC and in North Carolina as a whole are 2.1 percent and 1.9 percent respectively, which equals than 0.75 may indicate the region is not self-sufficient in that industry. However, for location quotients a location quotient of 1.13 (the result of the regional percentage divided by the state percentage). greater than 0.75, there may be evidence that the local economy is self-sufficient in that industry.
38 39 TABLE 3-6. EMPLOYMENT AND OUTPUT MULTIPLIERS
Western North Carolina NAICS Sector Employment Percent
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1.66 1.62
21 Mining 1.85 1.38
22 Utilities 2.18 1.21
23 Construction 1.58 1.51
31-33 Manufacturing 2.13 1.34
42 Wholesale Trade 1.69 1.47
44-45 Retail Trade 1.36 1.62
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 1.54 1.60
51 Information 2.24 1.49
52 Finance & Insurance 2.15 1.68
53 Real Estate & Rental 1.38 1.19
54 Professional-Scientific & Tech Services 1.55 1.66 The direct effect is the original impact of new spending on the first tier of suppliers. For example, 55 Management of companies 2.03 1.70 $20 spent by a visitor at a local restaurant (first tier) counts as a direct effect of $20. However, this 56 Administrative & Waste Services 1.33 1.64 share of spending indicates only a portion of the total economic activity that takes place.
61 Educational Services 1.40 1.82 In order to produce the $20 meal, the local restaurant has to purchase inputs from second-tier suppliers.
62 Health & Social Services 1.57 1.71 Suppose the restaurant purchases $7 worth of agricultural products from a wholesale dealer (the second-tier supplier). The wholesale dealer then buys $4 worth of products from local farmers (the 71 Arts-Entertainment & Recreation 1.33 1.64 third-tier supplier). To the extent that these transactions occur locally, these purchases represent 72 Accommodation & Food Services 1.30 1.55 additional local spending, which are called indirect effects. In this example, the indirect effects would be $11. Various sectors of the economy are highly affected by an increase in visitor spending. 81 Other Services 1.45 1.73
92 Government & Non NAICs 1.42 1.61 The third type of effect, induced, can be derived from wages paid by employers involved directly and indirectly in producing the meal. The part of the wages spent locally by households that received Source: IMPLAN Data 2012 wage income associated with this meal from either the first, second, or third-tier suppliers would be induced effects. Suppose the household of a restaurant worker spends $6 in the local grocery and department store. The total effects – the sum of direct ($20), indirect ($11), and induced ($6) ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS effects – would be $37. In this case, the multiplier will be 1.85. This means that every dollar spent on a certain industry eventually has a total impact of $1.85 on the local economy. Any initial spending has a ripple effect through the economy as successive rounds of re-spending enlarge its impact. For instance, a tourist spending at a restaurant stimulates related suppliers The multiplier effect also can be estimated in the number of jobs created by an external shock or to provide ingredients and materials to produce more food. These effects can be captured by extra spending, such as new company or visitor spending. Table 3-6 shows employment and output economic impact analysis using multipliers. The impact from a change in economic activity can multipliers by industry. Note that induced effects are not included in the estimation because no be expressed in a concise form by examining a multiplier. The secondary impact of a dollar spent transactions have actually yet occurred. As a result, the total effects will change significantly when on primary activities varies from industry to industry. In general, manufacturing industries show we consider real impacts. However, it still can provide baseline information on the magnitude of larger secondary impacts than service industries. In terms of economic development issues, it is indirect effects of each industry. important to understand the difference in multiplier effects by industry. As shown in Table 3-6, the information industry (whose employment multiplier – direct + indirect – is An economic impact analysis normally differentiates three effects: the direct, the indirect, and the 2.24) has the largest indirect effects on the economy, followed by utilities (2.18) and the finance and induced effects. Understanding all three levels of effects is essential because they represent and insurance industry (2.15). For the information industry, there will be 2.24 jobs created or maintained display how the initial expenditures create economic activity that goes beyond the initial investment. in WNC for every one job resulting from the initial spending.
40 41 TABLE 3-7A. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
Expenditures Employment State Tax Receipts Local Tax Receipts Payroll $(millions) $(millions) (thousands) $(millions) $(millions)
Year Value %Chg Value %Chg Value %Chg Value %Chg Value %Chg
2000 1,632.8 - 400.8 - 24.9 - 87.8 - 74.1 -
2001 1,767.5 8.3% 465.4 16.1% 27.6 10.9% 98.7 12.5% 75.6 2.0%
2002 1,871.1 5.9% 474.0 1.9% 28.1 1.9% 101.6 3.0% 79.5 5.2%
2003 1,889.4 1.0% 470.1 -0.8% 27.5 -2.3% 102.2 0.6% 80.3 1.0%
2004 1,951.6 3.3% 466.1 -0.8% 27.0 -1.7% 104.6 2.3% 83.0 3.3%
2005 2,083.4 6.8% 477.0 2.3% 27.2 0.8% 109.5 4.7% 87.3 5.2%
2006 2,270.2 9.0% 494.7 3.7% 27.7 1.7% 117.5 7.3% 94.4 8.1% TOURISM 2007 2,410.7 6.2% 508.3 2.7% 27.9 0.9% 119.0 1.3% 99.7 5.6%
County-specific data are very rare in the tourism sector. However, the Research Department of the U.S. 2008 2,387.6 -1.0% 508.7 0.1% 27.1 -2.9% 119.3 0.3% 99.7 0.0% Travel Association prepares county-by-county travel economic impact statistics for the N.C. Department 2009 2,245.3 -6.0% 479.4 -5.8% 26.2 -3.5% 121.0 1.4% 94.8 -5.0% of Commerce’s Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development, using the Travel Economic Impact 2010 2,413.5 7.5% 484.7 1.1% 26.2 0.0% 134.4 11.1% 99.5 5.0% Model (TEIM). In addition to the direct visitor spending estimates for all 100 North Carolina counties, this research includes expenditures, payroll, employment, state tax receipts, and local tax receipts. 2011 2,574.5 6.7% 500.6 3.3% 26.5 1.0% 135.0 0.5% 101.5 2.0%
2012 2,711.5 5.3% 524.0 4.7% 27.1 2.4% 134.7 -0.2% 105.7 4.1% Table 3-7a shows the changes in these five indicators from 2000-2012. All five indicators show a
percentage decrease in WNC between 2001 and 2003, most likely the result of the 2001 terrorist Sources: Travel Economic Impact Model (TEIM), North Carolina Department of Commerce attacks and the impact on travel. From 2003 to 2006, there is an increase in percentage in all five indicators, with a decrease in percentage between 2006 and 2009. This directly coincides with the Great Recession that started in 2007. From 2009 to 2010, most indicators see a percentage TABLE 3-7B. YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGES IN TOURISTS AT WELCOME CENTERS increase, then a decrease between 2010 and 2012. The tendency for all five indicators to follow Location 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* the same pattern changes between 2009 and 2012 when payroll and employment experienced Visitors 73,691 61,448 55,350 53,665 54,635 54,205 54,749 52,278 an increase in percentage. I-26 East %Chg - -16.6% -9.9% -3.0% 1.8% -0.8% 1.0% -4.5% Overall, the biggest change in percentage was between 2001 and 2003. During these years, payroll Visitors 31,514 29,841 27,940 31,825 29,021 23,261 24,008 22,121 I-26 West decreased from 16.1 percent to -0.8 percent, employment decreased from 10.9 percent, and state %Chg - -5.3% -6.4% 13.9% -8.8% -19.8% 3.2% -7.9% tax receipts decreased from 12.5 percent to 0.6 percent. Exceptions were expenditures and local Visitors 85,215 86,939 77,385 60,832 61,821 79,439 80,645 75,435 I-40 West tax receipts, which had the biggest change in percentage between 2006 and 2009. During these %Chg - 2.0% -11.0% -21.4% 1.6% 28.5% 1.5% -6.5% years, expenditures decreased from 9.0 percent to -6.0 percent, while local tax receipts decreased Visitors 97,600 96,168 85,183 87,614 84,655 80,484 82,703 75,474 I-77 North from 8.1 percent to -5.0 percent. If we compare this information with the increase in percentage in %Chg - -1.5% -11.4% 2.9% -3.4% -4.9% 2.8% -8.7% payroll and employment between 2009 and 2012, we can infer that the spike in expenditures and Visitors 33,189 29,030 25,811 24,159 25,922 24,403 26,967 28,323 I-77 South local tax receipts in 2010 led to an increase in the workforce. %Chg - -12.5% -11.1% -6.4% 7.3% -5.9% 10.5% 5.0% Visitors 57,880 57,746 52,764 60,924 56,385 52,263 52,509 49,877 Year-to-year changes in tourists at welcome centers on North Carolina’s interstates are depicted I-85 North %Chg - -0.2% -8.6% 15.5% -7.4% -7.3% 0.5% -5.0% in Table 3-7b. Welcome centers are located on all major interstates and focus on providing visitors Visitors 75,621 55,688 47,898 45,889 47,737 52,620 58,690 57,686 with in-depth information. Between 2006 and 2013, there was a negative change in tourists at visitor I-85 South %Chg - -26.4% -14.0% -4.2% 4.0% 10.2% 11.5% -1.7% centers located on many interstates, including I-26 West, I-26 East, I-40 West, I-85 North, I-95 Visitors 154,419 147,276 135,699 134,364 136,506 130,839 133,163 124,089 North, and I-77 North. In 2010, I-85 South, I-95 South, and I-77 South experienced an increase in I-95 North %Chg - -4.6% -7.9% -1.0% 1.6% -4.2% 1.8% -6.8% the percentage of visitors traveling interstates. Interstate 95 South experienced the largest increase Visitors 108,877 107,861 95,688 73,113 95,408 94,397 95,181 90,667 with an approximate change of 30.5 percent. In WNC, Interstate 40 West attracts the most tourists; I-95 South %Chg - -0.9% -11.3% -23.6% 30.5% -1.1% 0.8% -4.7% approximately 75,435 as of 2013. On the other hand, I-85 North experienced the largest decrease Visitors 718,005 671,997 603,717 572,384 592,090 591,912 608,614 565,173 in travelers in 2013, an approximate drop of 8.7 percent. Furthermore, there are few tourists who Total %Chg - -6.4% -10.2% -5.2% 3.4% 0.0% 2.8% -7.1% visit welcome centers on I-26 West. Overall, it appears that tourism in WNC is declining slightly.
Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce | * January through July only
42 43 HOUSING
Table 3-8 displays housing data for the WNC region as a whole, including data on total housing Housing units that are occupied only during certain seasons are referred to as seasonal housing units, median gross rent, median value of owner-occupied residential properties, number of units and include winter cabins or beach cottages. The percentage change in seasonal housing owner occupied units, and number of seasonal housing units. The largest percentage of change units in WNC from 1990 to 2000 was approximately 28 percent, approximately the same as the in housing units for North Carolina and WNC specifically was between 1970 and 1980. In 1970, percentage change for North Carolina during the same time period. In 2010, the number of seasonal the total number of housing units in the state and the western region was 1,641,222 and 242,881 housing units in WNC was 74,453, an approximate increase of 60 percent since 2000. In 2010, the respectively. In 1980, the total number of housing units was 2,274,737 in the state and 342,504 in number of seasonal housing units in the state was 191,508, an increase of 42 percent since 2000. the region. Between 1970 and 1980, the percentage change in housing units for the state and the Overall, the largest percentage change for all the housing data previously discussed occurred region was 38.6 percent and 41 percent, respectively. between 1970 and 1980. The in-depth economic analysis revealed that over a forty-year span, the Gross rent is estimated to be contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (to number of housing units for both the state and the region steadily increased. the extent that the renter also pays these). WNC’s percentage change in median gross rent from 2000 to 2010 is about the same as the percentage change for the state during this same period, an approximate increase of 32 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, approximately $141 was added TABLE 3-8. HOUSING IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA: YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGES to WNC’s gross monthly rent payment. Between 2000 and 2010, approximately $170 was added Owner Seasonal Year Housing Units Med Gross Rent Med Value Owner to North Carolina’s monthly gross rent payment. Thus, during this time, the state increase in terms Occupied Units Housing Units of dollars was greater but the percentage increase was virtually equal. 1970 242,881 - $68 - $10,748 - 159,450 - 10,313 - 1980 342,504 41.0% $172 154.8% $32,917 206.3% 219,363 37.6% 18,556 79.9% The median value owner refers to the total dollar value of a residential property. The median value of property WNC 1990 405,590 18.4% $299 73.1% $56,604 72.0% 254,813 16.2% 36,244 95.3% in the western region was $10,748 in 1970 and $150,350 in 2010. Between 1970 and 1980, the average total value of a residential unit rose 206.3 percent in WNC and 181.3 percent in North Carolina as a whole. 2000 491,650 21.2% $428 43.3% $96,896 71.2% 308,257 21.0% 46,453 28.2% Between 1980 and 2000, the median value of property in WNC remained fairly stable at approximately 2010 592,230 20.5% $569 33.0% $150,350 55.2% 329,664 6.9% 74,453 60.3%
71 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the median value of property in WNC dropped 55.2 percent. 1970 1,641,222 - $86 - $12,800 - 987,079 - 23,119 -
Owner-occupied housing units are those in which the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if the 1980 2,274,737 38.6% $205 138.4% $36,000 181.3% 1,397,426 41.6% 50,541 118.6% North unit is mortgaged or not fully paid. In 1970, the number of owner occupied units in North Carolina 1990 2,818,193 23.9% $382 86.3% $65,300 81.4% 1,711,882 22.5% 98,534 95.0% Carolina was 987,079 but steadily increased to 2,497,900 in 2010. In the western region, the number of 2000 3,523,944 25.0% $548 43.5% $108,300 65.8% 2,172,355 26.9% 134,870 36.9% owner-occupied housing units was 159,450 in 1970 and 329,664 in 2010. Between 1990 and 2000, 2010 4,327,528 22.8% $718 31.0% $149,100 37.7% 2,497,900 15.0% 191,508 42.0% WNC experienced a 21 percent increase in owner occupied units. Between 2000 and 2010, owner occupied units in WNC increased 6.9 percent. Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC)
44 45 TABLE 3-9. HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA IN 2009
(A) General (C) Beds (B) Nursing (A) per 1000 (B) per 1000 (C) per 1000 Hospital in General Facility Beds persons persons persons Discharge Hospital
Alleghany 1,467 90 41 132.1 8.1 3.7 Ashe 3,196 210 76 118.4 7.8 2.8 Avery 2,268 128 30 127.1 7.2 1.7 Buncombe 23,472 1,668 673 99.5 7.1 2.9 Burke 9,725 556 293 107.4 6.1 3.2 Caldwell 8,736 400 110 105.9 4.8 1.3 HEALTHCARE FACILITIES Cherokee 2,649 210 57 97.5 7.7 2.1 Clay 878 90 0 83.7 8.6 0.0 Healthcare facilities in WNC strive to meet patient needs by providing an array of services. Table 3-9 Graham 994 80 0 113.3 9.1 0.0 displays health care data on hospital discharges and hospital and nursing facility beds for the twenty- Haywood 7,717 475 153 131.5 8.1 2.6 three westernmost counties in North Carolina. Henderson 11,737 912 263 111.4 8.7 2.5 Jackson 3,349 200 86 84.8 5.1 2.2 General hospital discharge refers to the “discharge of residents of the county in all short stay, acute McDowell 4,665 250 65 104.0 5.6 1.4 care general hospitals in the state during the federal fiscal year.”11 General hospital discharges do not Macon 3,266 284 83 96.5 8.4 2.5 include federal and state hospitals and psychiatric and rehabilitation care facilities. In 2009, patients Madison 1,996 180 0 96.6 8.7 0.0 released from health care facilities in WNC totaled 117,497. Buncombe County alone discharged Mitchell 2,014 127 46 129.1 8.1 2.9 23,472 patients, which was more than any of the other twenty-two counties. At the other extreme, Polk 1,671 221 45 82.4 10.9 2.2 Clay County, with a population of 10,370 people, discharged approximately 878 patients, which is Rutherford 7,289 420 129 108.4 6.2 1.9 0.79 percent of total regional patients. Swain 2,312 120 48 166.8 8.7 3.5 Nursing facilities in the region provide less care than that offered by acute care hospitals. Thus, the Transylvania 3,315 267 42 101.1 8.1 1.3 above figures include only beds that are licensed as nursing facility beds. Approximately 17.24 percent Watauga 3,579 196 145 71.4 3.9 2.9 of nursing facility beds statewide are located in WNC. According to a Log Into North Carolina report, this Wilkes 9,047 417 120 130.9 6.0 1.7 figure also includes “licensed long-term nursing care beds in non-federal, non-state general hospital.”12 Yancey 2,155 140 0 120.6 7.8 0.0 Log Into North Carolina is a valuable database for gathering statistical data for North Carolina, as it WNC 117,497 7,641 2,505 106.7 6.9 2.3 provides both historical data and future projections. North Carolina 967,560 44,315 20,647 102.7 4.7 2.2
As the most populous county in the western region, Buncombe County houses the most people in nursing Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC) facilities in WNC, approximately 22 percent, as shown in Table 3-9. Thus, Buncombe County nursing facilities have a large number of beds. Comparatively, Buncombe County nursing facilities house approximately 3.76 percent of all nursing patients in the state of North Carolina. The least populated counties – Alleghany, SUMMARY Clay, Graham, and Swain – have the fewest number of beds, each with approximately 1 percent of WNC’s Overall, the WNC’s economy has been recovering since 2009. One of the most difficult challenges beds. Graham County houses the fewest people in WNC, approximately 80 out of the 7,641 total. that the region has been facing is the slow growth of the population. The share of population of the Beds in general hospitals are limited to beds that are for short-stay use only, “as licensed at the end of AdvantageWest region in the state declined from 13.7 percent in 1980 to 11.5 percent in 2010. The the third calendar quarter of the year.”13 As with general hospital discharges, figures for beds in general median age of the regional population was 44.3 years in 2010, which was the highest among the hospitals exclude those used for psychiatry, hospice, and rehabilitation care. Clay, Graham, and Madison state’s seven economic development regions. The share of population of the region aged between counties’ health care facilities do not provide acute care (in other words, they do not offer beds for 18 and 64 was 60.7 percent, which was the lowest in the state except the Northeast region. It is short-stay use). In contrast, Buncombe, Burke and Henderson counties have many general hospital still a controversial issue whether or not population growth has a positive impact on economic beds. Buncombe County alone houses approximately 27 percent of acute care patients in the region, development. However, along with the slow growth of the population and the aging population, while Burke and Henderson counties house approximately 11.7 percent and 10.5 percent of acute care most economic indicators show that the region faces additional challenges compared to the rest patients respectively. Further, WNC provides approximately 12.13 percent of all acute care in the state. of the state, including low workforce, low income, and high poverty rates.
11 Log Into North Carolina, NC State Data Center. 13 Ibid. 12 State Agency Data: Department of Health and Human Services. LINC. (2007). Retrieved on August 12, 2007, from http://data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/dyn_linc_main.show.
46 47 APPENDIX TABLE A-1. REAL GDP BY STATE (MILLIONS OF CHAINED 2005 DOLLARS)
APPENDIX: Percent Rank of State 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change Percent 2011-2012 Change ADDITIONAL TABLES United States 12,592,668 12,897,088 13,108,318 13,430,576 2.5% - Alabama 149,843 153,839 155,390 157,272 1.2% 39 FROM CHAPTER THREE Alaska 44,215 43,472 44,232 44,732 1.1% 41 Arizona 221,405 221,016 224,787 230,641 2.6% 13 Arkansas 89,776 92,075 92,684 93,892 1.3% 38 California 1,667,152 1,672,473 1,692,301 1,751,002 3.5% 6 Colorado 225,984 230,976 234,929 239,884 2.1% 22 Connecticut 195,237 197,613 197,452 197,202 -0.1% 51 Delaware 55,352 55,496 56,004 56,110 0.2% 50 DC 87,172 89,968 91,442 92,106 0.7% 43 Florida 648,642 650,291 656,346 672,287 2.4% 14 Georgia 353,817 358,843 366,342 374,000 2.1% 24 Hawaii 57,902 59,673 60,899 61,877 1.6% 28 Idaho 49,949 50,734 50,759 50,976 0.4% 46 Illinois 561,154 571,228 583,055 594,201 1.9% 26 Indiana 227,383 241,927 247,222 255,380 3.3% 8 Iowa 121,742 124,011 126,792 129,799 2.4% 16 Kansas 110,420 113,324 116,907 118,523 1.4% 35 Kentucky 135,180 141,977 144,779 146,829 1.4% 33 Louisiana 189,853 200,944 195,640 198,548 1.5% 29 Maine 44,770 45,564 45,763 45,986 0.5% 45 Maryland 255,757 264,321 268,418 274,930 2.4% 15 Massachusetts 327,739 340,159 345,961 353,717 2.2% 19 Michigan 314,260 329,812 341,194 348,867 2.2% 18 Minnesota 233,758 240,418 244,305 252,971 3.5% 5 Mississippi 83,702 85,363 84,402 86,396 2.4% 17 Missouri 212,591 216,681 217,401 221,702 2.0% 25 Montana 31,271 31,918 32,683 33,374 2.1% 21 Nebraska 77,625 80,638 82,172 83,393 1.5% 30 Nevada 110,001 109,610 111,574 113,197 1.5% 31 New Hampshire 53,475 55,242 56,443 56,735 0.5% 44 New Jersey 424,871 431,409 432,415 438,173 1.3% 36 New Mexico 70,239 70,785 70,529 70,699 0.2% 48 New York 974,078 1,013,251 1,024,985 1,038,541 1.3% 37 North Carolina 372,219 380,693 382,655 392,905 2.7% 11 North Dakota 29,497 31,618 34,092 38,654 13.4% 1 Ohio 405,483 413,991 425,913 435,104 2.2% 20 Oklahoma 132,059 132,917 135,454 138,296 2.1% 23 Oregon 164,711 174,165 180,326 187,440 3.9% 3 Pennsylvania 482,665 493,530 502,769 511,345 1.7% 27 Rhode Island 42,741 43,153 43,168 43,774 1.4% 34 South Carolina 139,913 143,407 146,669 150,596 2.7% 12 South Dakota 34,354 34,371 35,898 35,985 0.2% 47 Tennessee 221,902 227,360 232,891 240,523 3.3% 9 Texas 1,071,959 1,116,268 1,156,013 1,211,692 4.8% 2 Utah 102,863 105,199 108,106 111,808 3.4% 7 Vermont 22,108 23,341 23,639 23,912 1.2% 40 Virginia 363,730 377,466 381,493 385,772 1.1% 42 Washington 300,785 307,685 313,783 325,165 3.6% 4 West Virginia 51,881 53,575 54,597 56,384 3.3% 10 Wisconsin 212,592 219,080 221,874 225,094 1.5% 32 Wyoming 32,439 32,004 31,231 31,302 0.2% 49
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce, and Woods and Poole 2013
48 49 APPENDIX TABLE A-2. POVERTY RATES BY COUNTY IN WNC About the Authors FIPS County 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
37005 Alleghany County 49.3 30.0 19.6 20.1 17.2 23.0 37009 Ashe County 55.8 31.1 22.8 18.4 13.5 20.0 Kathleen M. Brennan (Ph.D., Kent State University) is associate professor of sociology 37011 Avery County 57.2 29.6 18.0 14.6 15.3 23.5 37021 Buncombe County 31.5 16.1 12.9 11.4 11.4 17.1 at Western Carolina University. She studies social structural and psychological variations 37023 Burke County 31.5 12.8 10.1 10.1 10.7 18.7 in health, as well as issues related to health care and medicine. 37027 Caldwell County 35.6 14.4 10.4 10.8 10.7 18.4 37039 Cherokee County 58.7 26.7 22.2 20.4 15.3 18.1 Christopher A. Cooper (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is department head and 37043 Clay County 68.3 33.7 22.8 17.9 11.4 18.8 associate professor of political science and public affairs at Western Carolina University. 37075 Graham County 56.2 25.4 19.6 24.9 19.5 22.5 He has published widely on state politics, political psychology, Southern politics, and 37087 Haywood County 31.6 17.9 15.6 12.7 11.5 14.6 political communication. 37089 Henderson County 33.7 22.6 12.3 10.5 9.7 15.8 37099 Jackson County 51.2 28.8 19.3 16.7 15.1 19.3 Inhyuck “Steve” Ha (Ph.D., University of Minnesota-Twin Cities) is associate professor of 37111 McDowell County 40.3 16.8 11.8 11.4 11.6 19.9 economics at Western Carolina University. His areas of interest are spatial econometrics, 37113 Macon County 57.2 27.3 17.2 16.5 12.6 19.3 community economic development and economic impact analysis, and economics 37115 Madison County 58.4 34.2 25.8 20.4 15.4 19.7 of discrimination. 37121 Mitchell County 53.7 32.1 16.8 16.0 13.8 18.5 37149 Polk County 45.3 22.9 13.7 9.6 10.1 14.4 37161 Rutherford County 41.2 17.5 13.7 12.3 13.9 25.0 37173 Swain County 62.1 29.9 25.9 27.6 18.3 18.5 37175 Transylvania County 39.0 16.9 12.9 13.5 9.5 15.9 37189 Watauga County 55.5 27.8 22.7 21.5 17.9 24.8 37193 Wilkes County 50.3 22.2 13.8 13.3 11.9 19.9 37199 Yancey County 58.1 33.0 23.4 18.7 15.8 20.3
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 1960-2010
50 51 FOR MORE INFORMATION 828.227.2596 [email protected] WWW.WCU.EDU 52