Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Demographic Estimates and Projections Task Order 2 - Employment Prepared by the Arizona Rural Policy Institute, W. A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University For the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, the city of Flagstaff, and Coconino County September 2011 1 | P a g e Acknowledgements Funding for this report is made available through the Arizona Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or any other State or Federal Agency. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. This report was prepared by the Arizona Rural Policy Institute, Northern Arizona University, partially funded under an award from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Arizona Rural Policy Institute also receives support from the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, and the Office of the President, Northern Arizona University 2 | P a g e Historical Employment Trends in the Study Area Employment by decade for the United States, Arizona, Coconino County, and Flagstaff between 1980 and 2009 is shown in Table 11. Estimated employment for 2020, 2030, and 2050 is also shown. The estimates were created by applying average employment ratios (total population to employment) from the 1998-2010 censuses to future population estimates. Between 1980 and 1990 employment in Arizona grew by 48 percent, followed by 42 percent between 1990 and 2000. This rate decreased to 19 percent between 2000 and 2010. Coconino County employment grew 27 percent between 1980 and 1990, 34 percent between 1990 and 2000, and 18 percent between 2000 and 2010. Flagstaff’s employment growth was less dramatic, with the periods 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 experiencing 15 percent and 22 percent employment growth respectively. This rate slowed significantly to 5.7 percent between 2000 and 2010. Table 1: Historical and Projected Employment 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2050 US 99,303,000 111,575,080 143,248,000 164,841,975 161,853,428 175,341,214 201,835,078 Arizona 1,146,639 1,694,080 2,404,916 2,859,967 3,198,539 3,694,087 4,640,134 Coconino County 35,165 44,567 59,739 70,529 79,478 88,419 107,791 Flagstaff 22,541 25,843 31,617 33,431 45,845 51,465 62,704 Source: US Census Bureau and Arizona Rural Policy Institute According to these projections, employment is expected to slow in the future for all geographies except for Flagstaff. Table 2 lists the average annual growth in employment both historically and projected. These rates indicate growth in total jobs and do not indicate employment rates. Table 2: Employment – Average Annual Growth Rate 1980-2010 2010-2050 Historical Projected United States 1.70% 0.51% Arizona 3.09% 1.22% Coconino County 2.35% 1.07% Flagstaff 1.32% 1.58% 1 In this section, the word “employment” is equal to employed residents. 3 | P a g e Source: US Census Bureau and Arizona Rural Policy Institute Population-to-Employment Ratios The population to employment ratio is a more tangible measure of employment than employment numbers alone. Table 3 lists this ratio historically for the nation, state, county, and city. A smaller ratio indicates that more jobs are available in relation to the population. Nationally and in Coconino County the ratio has dropped steadily in the decades 1980-2010. According to Arizona and Flagstaff numbers, the ratio rose between 2000 and 2010, indicating a decrease in jobs per person during this time. This ratio is more appropriate for comparison over time than for comparison between geographies because a larger non-working-age population will lead to a higher ratio. Flagstaff’s lower ratio is likely due to a relatively small amount of young people. The high cost of living coupled with the university means more people are likely to be of working age. Table 3: Population to Employment Ratios 1980 1990 2000 2010 Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment United States 226,545,805 99,303,000 248,709,873 111,575,080 281,421,906 143,248,000 308,745,538 164,841,975 Ratio 2.28 2.23 1.96 1.87 Arizona 2,718,215 1,146,639 3,665,228 1,694,080 5,130,632 2,404,916 6,392,017 2,859,967 Ratio 2.37 2.16 2.13 2.23 Coconino County 75,008 35,165 96,591 44,567 116,320 59,739 134,421 70,529 Ratio 2.13 2.17 1.95 1.91 Flagstaff 34,743 22,541 45,857 25,843 52,894 31,617 65,870 33,431 Ratio 1.54 1.77 1.67 1.97 Source: US Census Bureau 4 | P a g e Below, Table 4 indicates estimated population to employment ratios. These estimates are based on population projections from Task 1 compared with the employment estimates listed above. The ratios are essentially fixed at the average rates from the previous three decades. For the United States, the ratio is 2.08, for Arizona it is 2.22, for Coconino County it is 2.01, and for Flagstaff, the ratio is 1.69. Table 4: Projected Population to Employment Ratios 2020 2030 2050 Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment United States 336,000,000 161,853,428 364,000,001 175,341,214 419,000,000 201,835,078 Ratio 2.08 2.08 2.08 Arizona 7,100,000 3,198,539 8,200,000 3,694,087 10,300,000 4,640,134 Ratio 2.22 2.22 2.22 Coconino County 160,000 79,478 178,000 88,419 217,000 107,791 Ratio 2.01 2.01 2.01 Flagstaff 77,500 45,845 87,000 51,465 106,000 62,704 Ratio 1.69 1.69 1.69 Source: US Census Bureau and Arizona Rural Policy Institute The overall population to employment ratio in the Flagstaff region may be affected by increased population growth, specifically in the under 16 age group, which will have the effect of lowering the employment base. This, however, does not seem to be likely as family size is decreasing and birth rates are not climbing for most of the population. Increased employment opportunities along with reductions in the unemployment rate may well move the population to employment ratio lower. If, within Flagstaff and the FMPO, the under 16 age group continues to drop, the ratio will lower. Similarly, increased employment opportunities may also shrink this ratio. Conversely, if a major employer, such as Southwest Windpower or W.L. Gore, were to move its operations elsewhere, the ratio would increase. 5 | P a g e Table 5 lists a ratio of population to employment for the census tracts that make up the FMPO during 1990, 2000, and 2010. Table 5: Population to Employment Ratios in the FMPO Region 1990 2000 2010 Population Employment Population Employment Population Employment Census Tract 1 3,919 1,885 3,705 2,009 3,804 2,012 Ratio 2.08 1.84 1.89 Census Tract 2 2,831 1,779 3,417 2,109 3,788 2,298 Ratio 1.59 1.62 1.65 Census Tract 3 5,837 2,749 6,763 3,125 7,175 3,931 Ratio 2.12 2.16 1.83 Census Tract 4 5,191 2,528 5,416 2,861 5,373 2,814 Ratio 2.05 1.89 1.91 Census Tract 5 4,273 2,152 3,826 1,835 4,396 2,431 Ratio 1.99 2.09 1.81 Census Tract 6 3,753 1,979 5,258 2,968 5,461 3,562 Ratio 1.90 1.77 1.53 Census Tract 7 1,949 1,066 3,315 1,983 3,647 2,427 Ratio 1.83 1.67 1.50 Census Tract 8 2,489 1,169 2,998 1,721 4,122 2,463 Ratio 2.13 1.74 1.67 Census Tract 9 2,106 1,262 2,984 1,708 6,905 3,981 Ratio 1.67 1.75 1.73 Census Tract 10 6,338 2,323 4,495 2,593 8,156 2,866 Ratio 2.73 1.73 2.85 Census Tract 11* 4,973 2,968 8,669 4,918 11,447 6,966 Ratio 1.68 1.76 1.64 Census Tract 12 3,401 1,837 3,015 1,874 2,864 1,776 Ratio 1.85 1.61 1.61 Census Tract 13* 5,504 2,370 8,960 5,024 10,638 6,515 Ratio 2.32 1.78 1.63 Census Tract 14* 2,968 1,766 4,744 2,470 5,625 3,471 Ratio 1.68 1.92 1.62 Census Tract 15 2,159 998 3,640 1,736 3,186 1,826 Ratio 2.16 2.10 1.74 Total FMPO 57,691 28,831 71,205 38,934 86,587 49,339 Ratio 2.00 1.83 1.75 Changes in census tract boundaries between the 2000 and 2010 censuses were adjusted for by combining Census 2010 Tracts 11.01 and 11.02 into the equivalency of Census 2000 Tract 11, and combining Census 2010 Tracts 13.01 and 13.02 into the equivalency of Census 2000 Tract 13.