western north carolina regional … north carolina regional outlook report ... » the population of...

27
1 WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL OUTLOOK REPORT TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

Upload: trinhnguyet

Post on 13-Mar-2018

227 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL OUTLOOK REPORT TWO THOUSANDAND FOURTEEN

Kathleen M. BrennanAssociate Professor of Sociology

Christopher A. CooperAssociate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs

Inhyuck “Steve” HaAssociate Professor of Economics

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].

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.

Executive Summary ............................................................4

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................... 8

Chapter 2. Public Opinion in WNC ............................18

Chapter 3. Economic Outlook in WNC .................... 30

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 5

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

6 7

» 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;

just slightly less satisfied than five years ago.

» When presented with a series of regional issues, respondents consider education to be the

most important issue facing WNC.

» Respondents are fairly satisfied with education in the region. They express the highest levels

of support for higher education, followed by primary education and then secondary education.

Only around a third of respondents agree or strongly agree that higher education in the region

is affordable for people like them.

» The majority of respondents support land use planning; policies restricting ridge top and steep

slope development are supported by more than half of respondents.

» Political partisanship and political ideology do not line up as neatly in WNC as they do in the rest

of the nation. The plurality of respondents self-identify as conservative and Democrat.

» Respondents reported low levels of trust in government institutions, with the national

government receiving the lowest marks, followed by the state legislature, local government,

and finally, the governor.

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AND FORECAST

» 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.

» 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.

» 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.

» Per capita personal income in North Carolina was $25,256, which was 90.5 percent of the

national average during 2007-2011. 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 percent of the national average.

» Median household income in the state of North Carolina was $46,291. In the AdvantageWest

region, median household income during 2007-2011 was $38,149, which was 82.5 percent

of the statewide average. It was the lowest median household income in the seven regions

of the state.

» Income disparities across the state persist as poverty increases. In 2010, the average U.S.

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

average of 16.1 percent.

» Since 1970, the percentage increase in total employment over each ten-year period declined

from 29.8 percent growth to -0.2 percent growth in 2010.

» 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.

» 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.

» 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

health and social services (LQ = 1.22).

» The information industry (whose employment multiplier is 2.24) has the largest indirect effects

on the economy, followed by utilities (2.18) and the finance and insurance industry (2.15).

» Over a 40-year span, the number of housing units in both the state and the region steadily increased.

8 9

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.

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION 1 See strategicplan.wcu.edu for more information about WCU’s 2020 Strategic Vision: Focusing on the Future.

FIGURE 1-1. Twenty-three Westernmost Counties of North Carolina

ASHE

ALLEGHANY

WATAUGAWILKES

AVERYMITCHELL

YANCEY

BURKE

MADISON

BUNCOMBEMCDOWELL

RUTHERFORD

POLK

HENDERSON

TRANSYLVANIA

JACKSON

SWAINHAYWOOD

MACON

CLAY

GRAHAM

CHEROKEE

CALDWELL

10 11

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA’S CHANGING POPULATION

As shown in Table 1-1, the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 population count for the twenty-three

westernmost counties is 1,110,671. The 2010 Census found that the population for the twenty-

three counties had grown by more than 107,000 people since 2000, an increase of roughly 11

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.

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.

Over the past twenty years, WNC’s population has grown as a slower rate than the rest of the state

of North Carolina, but at a faster rate than the U.S. as a whole. Population estimates through the next

twenty years indicate growth in the state will continue to occur at a faster rate than the western part

of the state and the country, although the rate of growth in the country will slightly surpass growth

in WNC. However, every county in WNC is estimated to continue growing through 2030.

Overall aggregate statistics provide a valuable general view of the changing nature of the region, but

the trends of key demographic characteristics can provide a more comprehensive understanding

of the changing economic, social, and political needs in the region that further aid in effective policy

decision-making. Regional demographic characteristics of interest include sex, race and ethnicity, age,

and marital status. Using census data over a forty-year period starting in 1990 and ending in 2030,

we were able to identify several notable changes in the demographic structure of WNC as a whole.

Sex

As a region, the distribution of sex follows the distribution typical at the state and national levels

of analysis; there are more women than men at any given point in time (see Table 1-2). This trend

is demonstrated across the individual counties in WNC, with the exception of Avery County, where

population data reflect more men than women with an increase in this gap over time. However, the

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

percent more women in 1990 to around 4 percent more women in 2010. Population estimates over

the next twenty years indicate this difference will continue to stabilize around a difference of 4 percent

more women than men through 2030. The distribution of sex at the state and national levels follow

the same general trend in which the gap between the number of women and men in the population

decreases over time, stabilizing by the year 2030. However, the decrease at the state and national

levels is not as pronounced as that at the regional level.

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

1990Male 415,195 --- 3,232,161 --- 121,713,800 ---

Female 443,925 --- 3,431,855 --- 127,909,100 ---

2000Male 490,058 18.03% 3,962,580 22.60% 138,443,400 13.75%

Female 512,965 15.55% 4,119,034 20.02% 143,719,000 12.36%

2010Male 544,178 11.04% 4,660,293 17.61% 152,096,300 9.86%

Female 566,493 10.44% 4,899,941 18.96% 157,233,900 9.40%

2020Male 589,784 8.38% 5,351,924 14.84% 167,717,400 10.27%

Female 614,452 8.47% 5,628,918 14.88% 172,836,900 9.92%

2030Male 641,380 8.75% 6,090,973 13.81% 183,903,100 9.65%

Female 669,530 8.96% 6,392,320 13.56% 189,847,900 9.84%

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

12 13

Race and Ethnicity

Since 1990, the size of all race and ethnicity minority populations in WNC has grown (see Table 1-3). This

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.

The estimated growth in these groups is expected to continue at an accelerated rate compared to other

minority groups in WNC, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than during the 1990-2000 time period.

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,

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

to surpass the Native American population by roughly 65 percent over the next twenty years.

The growth of the Hispanic/Latino population in WNC reflects roughly the same rate of growth as

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

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

Islander population slows to a similar rate as the nation and continues that trend through 2030.

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,

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,

and nation is roughly the same from 1990-2010 but after that time the growth rate in the region

decreases at a larger rate compared to the state and the nation.

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,

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

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

group. They are estimated to remain the largest minority group in those counties through 2030.

TABLE 1-3. TOTAL POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY

Western North Carolina NC US

Year Race/Ethnicity Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change

1990

White 799,933 --- 4996,262 --- 188,712,100 ---

Black 42,556 --- 1459,080 --- 29,422,680 ---

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 ---

2000

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%

Native Am. 10,792 30.37% 99,853 25.55% 2,336,232 29.46%

As.Am./Pac.Is. 8,160 168.33% 127,061 146.06% 11,541,140 62.64%

Hispanic/Latino 27,064 409.49% 385,209 397.02% 35,658,330 57.87%

2010

White 978,191 7.57% 6,319,064 10.66% 200,135,200 1.37%

Black 50,597 6.22% 2,090,361 18.83% 39,547,880 12.34%

Native Am. 11,775 9.11% 115,855 16.03% 2,573,394 10.15%

As.Am./Pac.Is. 11,511 41.07% 229,160 80.35% 16,287,540 41.13%

Hispanic/Latino 58,597 116.51% 805,794 109.18% 50,786,230 42.43%

2020

White 1,034,547 5.76% 6,857,671 8.52% 205,458,300 2.66%

Black 56,253 11.18% 2,445,990 17.01% 43,772,950 10.68%

Native Am. 12,707 7.92% 133.564 15.29% 2,902,449 12.79%

As.Am./Pac.Is. 15,708 36.46% 347,338 51.57% 21,070,020 29.36%

Hispanic/Latino 85,021 45.09% 1,196,279 48.46% 67,350,610 32.62%

2030

White 1,091,415 5.50% 7,242,444 5.61% 208,813,900 1.63%

Black 61,879 10.00% 2,784,145 13.82% 47,932,500 9.50%

Native Am. 13,498 6.22% 147,386 10.35% 3,190,989 9.94%

As.Am./Pac.Is. 20,890 32.99% 510,944 47.10% 26,625,470 26.37%

Hispanic/Latino 123,228 44.94% 1,798,374 50.33% 87,188,190 29.45%

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.

Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012

14 15

Age

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

demonstrated at state and national levels (see Table 1-4). The sustained rate of growth in these

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

partially due to the in-migration of persons from these age groups into the state for employment or

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

in this age group in WNC is at least partially due to retirement in-migration. However, estimated data

through 2030 indicates that the significant influx of retirees to the region could slow somewhat,

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

is represented across time at all levels of data collection. Nonetheless, almost all counties in WNC

will see an increase of around double in the 65-years-and-older age group over the forty-year

time period in consideration. Exceptions include Henderson, Transylvania, and Watauga counties,

whose 65-years-and-older age groups are estimated to roughly triple since 1990. Moreover, in all

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

(Burke, Jackson, and Swain counties) or those aged 20-29 (Watauga County) will become the largest

age group in the county by 2030.

TABLE 1-4. TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE

Western North Carolina NC US

Year Age Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change

1990

< 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 ---

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 ---

2000

< 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%

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%

2010

< 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%

40-49 years 150.57 1.95% 1364.059 12.78% 43538.25 1.87%

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%

2020

< 20 years 271.457 5.63% 2911.222 13.93% 89111.49 7.12%

20-29 years 136.873 3.98% 1448.129 11.60% 44979.53 4.97%

30-39 years 135.18 4.01% 1407.803 9.93% 44864.83 11.75%

40-49 years 140.294 -6.82% 1359.816 -0.31% 41501.21 -4.68%

50-64 years 247.229 3.25% 2085.601 14.59% 64815.68 9.61%

65 + years 273.203 35.20% 1768.271 42.32% 55281.59 36.57%

2030

< 20 years 292.714 7.83% 3241.018 11.33% 96242.75 8.00%

20-29 years 150.273 9.79% 1735.679 19.86% 48725.25 8.33%

30-39 years 143.883 6.44% 1581.901 12.37% 46812.4 4.34%

40-49 years 150.3 7.13% 1500.537 10.35% 46828.84 12.84%

50-64 years 235.559 -4.72% 2090.123 0.22% 62333.83 -3.83%

65 + years 338.181 23.78% 2334.035 32.00% 72807.97 31.70%

Values in thousands | 2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012

16 17

Marital Status

Since 1990, the growth rate in the unmarried category has remained relatively consistent in WNC,

the state, and the country (see Table 1-5). During the 1990-2000 time period, the growth rate in

the married population in WNC and the state was notably higher compared to the nation, but the

following ten-year time period indicates a decrease in the growth of the married population in WNC

to a rate closer to that in the nation. These findings undoubtedly reflect increasing trends in the delay

TABLE 1-5. POPULATION BY MARITAL STATUS

Western North Carolina NC US

Year Marital Status Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change

1990Married 422,529 --- 3,014,116 --- 111,499,000 ---

Unmarried 278,643 --- 8,151,234 --- 83,643,000 ---

2000Married 490,747 16.15% 3,596,838 19.33% 120,083,729 7.70%

Unmarried 329,740 18.34% 9,938,782 21.93% 101,064,942 20.83%

2010Married 521,388 6.24% 4,044,880 12.46% 124,183,000 3.41%

Unmarried 404,259 22.60% 11,934,790 20.08% 117,864,000 16.62%

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)

of age of first marriage, in the decision to never marry, and in the decision to divorce. Nonetheless,

all counties demonstrate an increase in the married population over the time period in question

except Burke and Swain counties, which each demonstrate decreases in the size of the married

population between 2000 and 2010.

SUMMARY

The changing nature of WNC’s population calls for policies that address the unique demographic

trends in the region and suggests that policies that work at the state and national levels may not

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

this report is useful to policymakers and interested citizens in the region.

In subsequent chapters, we discuss our findings regarding social, political, and economic issues

in WNC. The following two chapters will review the first major social and political findings of the

regional outlook poll that was conducted during the summer of 2013 and then provide an economic

analysis of the region.

18 19

CHAPTER 2:A SNAPSHOT OF PUBLIC OPINION IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

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

residents during summer of 2013. The survey, designed by Drs. Brennan and Cooper, asked a variety

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.

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.

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

20 21

ISSUE AREAS

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

following issues are to WNC: the economy, employment and industry, the environment, land-use

planning, education, and health care. Higher ratings on these questions indicate the respondent

believes the issue is more important. As demonstrated in Figure 2-1, our respondents do not

differentiate between these issues with one notable exception—land-use planning, which falls

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

most lie closely together and are within the margin of error.

Next, we asked our respondents more about specific issues related to growth and land management

to learn more about the valence of their opinions. The first question in this series asked respondents

to indicate whether they believe growth in the western region of the state is mostly negative, mostly

positive, or equally negative and positive. Equal percentages (26 percent) of respondents believe

growth to be “mostly positive” and “mostly negative” with the plurality of respondents placing their

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.

Residents of Buncombe County, people who have lived in WNC a smaller proportion of their lives,

and people with more income generally see growth in more positive terms.

Next, we asked respondents to rate their agreement with three specific land-use policies using a

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

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

to the 2008 survey, while the other questions were asked in a slightly different fashion in 2008 and

cannot be compared.

When we examine which types of people tend to fall on each end of the land-use planning opinion

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

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.

Respondents were then asked to assess air and water quality in WNC (see Figure 2-3). Overall, the

responses indicate that residents of WNC assess the environmental conditions in the region quite

positively. For air quality, approximately 20 percent of respondents answered excellent, 54 percent

good, 21 percent fair, and 5 percent poor. For water quality, the results were almost identical (21,

52, 20 and 7 percent, respectively).

Despite these similarities, the types of people who positively assess each of these areas do vary. For

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

percentage of a person’s life they have lived in WNC also affects their view of air quality; the larger

a proportion of a person’s life they have lived in WNC, the lower they perceive the air quality to be

in the region. These findings demonstrate that, despite similar overall sample assessments of air

and water quality in WNC, different types of people view these areas differently.

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%

TABLE 2-5. INCOME OF THE SAMPLE

Income Weighted % Income Weighted %

Under $20,000 20% $60,000-$79,999 17%

$20,000-$39,999 25% $80,000-$99,999 9%

$40,000-$59,999 19% $100,000 or More 11%

TABLE 2-4. MARITAL STATUS OF THE SAMPLE

Marital status Weighted % Marital status Weighted %

Married 49% Divorced 10%

Living in a Marriage-Type Relationship 6% Separated 2%

Widowed 10% Never Married 23%

22 23

Fair Good ExcellentPoor A Little To Some Extent

A Great DealNot At All

Water Quality

Air Quality

THE PERSONAL AND PUBLIC ECONOMY

We asked respondents a series of questions about their personal economic situation and their opinions

of the economy in the region, state, and nation. The majority of the respondents in our sample reported

they work for pay either full time (41 percent) or part time (11 percent). Compared to five years ago,

the number of respondents who report working full or part time has increased and is roughly the same

percentage of working respondents reflected in our poll sample ten years ago. However, 7 percent

of our respondents reported that they are unemployed, laid off, or looking for work, which reflects a

higher percentage than in previous regional outlook polls.5 Compared to respondents who are working

or who are unemployed, substantially fewer respondents in the current sample reported they are

keeping house, in school, with a job but not at work, or some other category. Roughly 23 percent of

the sample reported that they are retired, which is not surprising, as it has been well-documented

that a large number of retirees reside in the region, and survey research consistently shows that older

people are more likely to respond to surveys than younger people.

Because social science literature has identified hours worked per week and work commute

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

hours per week they work at all paid jobs and how many minutes on average they spend each day

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

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

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

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

relationship is weak.

To find out more about their personal economic and life situation, we also asked respondents questions

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

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

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

satisfied (41 percent) with the work they do.

Figure 2-5 presents the distribution of total household income reported by respondents. The median

household income category in our sample is $40,000-$59,000, which suggests that the current

household income of the respondent in the middle of our sample’s distribution of household income is

near to the median household incomes in the state and the nation.8 While this may appear to be good

news, it is important to note that the median household income at both the state and national level has

decreased in recent years to reflect the most recent economic recession. The most frequently reported

category of household income reported by respondents in our sample is between $20,000 and $39,999

(25 percent), the same as five years ago. Moreover, compared to five years ago, more respondents

report household incomes of less than $20,000.9 This indicates that, although household income in

WNC may be closer to that in the state and nation than it was previously, the region’s economic situation

has probably not improved over time with respect to household income and may have even slightly

declined. This finding is replicated in the data regarding residence status (see Figure 2-6). Compared

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

reported they were living with family or friends without contributing to rent or mortgage payments.

FIGURE 2-1. Importance of Various Issue Areas

FIGURE 2-2. Agreement with Land-Use Policies

FIGURE 2-3. Assessment of WNC Water and Air Quality

FIGURE 2-4. Extent of Worry About Losing Job

Re

stri

cti

ng

Ste

ep

-S

lop

e D

ev

elo

pm

en

t

Re

stri

cti

ng

Rid

ge

-T

op

De

ve

lop

me

nt

La

nd

-Use

Pla

nn

ing

La

nd

-Use

Pla

nn

ing

Th

e E

nv

iro

nm

en

t

He

alt

h C

are

Em

plo

ym

ent

& I

nd

ust

ry

Th

e E

con

om

y

Ed

uca

tio

n

5 In 2003 and 2008, 3 and 5 percent of respondents reported being unemployed, laid off, or looking for work.6 See http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/north-carolina/average-commute-time#map for

more information on the North Carolina average commute time by county. See http://project.wnyc.org/commute-

times-us/embed.html#5.00/42.000/-89.500 for more information on average commute time in the U.S. with additional

information about commute time by area.

7 In 2003 and 2008, 49 percent and 62 percent of working respondents said they did not worry at all about the

possibility of losing their jobs.8 Median household income in North Carolina and the U.S. in 2011 were $46,291 and $52,762, respectively.

See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html for more information. 9 The percentage of respondents who reported a total household income of less than $20,000 in 2008 and

2013 was 16 and 20 percent, respectively.

Per

cen

t

Per

cen

t

Per

cen

t

Per

cen

t

24 25

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

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).

FIGURE 2-5. Total Household Income

FIGURE 2-7. Quality of Nearby, Affordable Housing

FIGURE 2-6. Home Ownership

FIGURE 2-8. Household Financial Situation Compared to Last Year

<$2

0,0

00

$20

,00

0-$

39,9

99

$40

,00

0-$

59,0

00

$60

,00

0-$

79,9

99

$80

,00

0-

$99

,99

9

$10

0,0

00

o

r m

ore

Own

Poor Worse Off

Rent

Fair About The Same

Something Else

Good Better OffVery Good Excellent10 In 2008, only 25 percent of the sample reported using their own or household income to pay for health care.

HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

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

of this report makes clear, almost all counties in WNC will see a significant increase in their 65 years

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

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

their health care is paid for by their individual or household income than any other source. Other

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

percent). Respondents most frequently cited health insurance plans as other sources of payment

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

indicates that the odds of being satisfied with health care coverage are greater for men, whites, and

respondents in higher income categories.

Per

cen

tP

erce

nt

Per

cen

tP

erce

nt

26 27

To get a better idea regarding the sources of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with health care in WNC,

we asked respondents their level of agreement with statements about the availability, affordability, quality,

and variety of health care services in the area where they live (see Figure 2-10). Most respondents

agree (64 percent) or strongly agree (21 percent) that health care services are available in the area

where they live. Likewise, most respondents agree (66 percent) or strongly agree (13 percent) that

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

services are high quality in the area where they live (19 percent disagree). However, when it comes

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

agree (5 percent) that health care is affordable, but the remaining respondents disagree (37 percent)

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.

Affordability of health care becomes a prominent issue when individuals experience high levels of

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

using a scale of 0 to 10 where 5 represents the amount of stress the average person experiences.

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.

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

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

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

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

respondents who identify as “extremely conservative” also identify as a strong Democrat, whereas

only 6 percent of “extremely liberal” respondents identify as a strong Republican. The lesson here is

clear: In WNC, political ideology and partisanship should not be considered as the same concept.

Partisanship in WNC is best considered a “lagging indicator” of a person’s attitudes about politics

and government.

FIGURE 2-9. Payment Sources for Health Care

FIGURE 2-10. Area Health Care Services

Personal Income

AvailableEmployment Variety Of Options

Medicare High QualityMedicaid AffordableOther Source

FIGURE 2-11. Level of Stress

FIGURE 2-12. Partisanship vs. Ideology

Strong Democrat Extremely LiberalStrong Republican Extremely Conservative

0....................... No Stress

5 ............. Average Stress

10.....Really High Stress

Per

cen

t

Per

cen

t in

Ag

reem

ent

Per

cen

t

Per

cen

t in

Ag

reem

ent

28 29

OPINIONS OF INSTITUTIONS

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,

and primary education on a scale from extremely satisfied to extremely unsatisfied.

As Figure 2-13 indicates, respondents believe that education in WNC generally meets the needs of the

region, although opinions about higher education tend to be more positive than opinions of primary

or higher education. This pattern is similar to what we found in the 2008 study. Unfortunately, although

satisfaction is high, education in the region is not without its perceived problems—only 37 percent of our

respondents agree or strongly agree that higher education in the region is affordable for people like them.

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

and political actors previously discussed. Given the partisan make-up of the White House and

the governor’s mansion, it is not surprising that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to

approve of the governor and the state legislature and less likely to approve of the national and local

government. Other factors such as age, county of residence, and income have no influence on trust

in government institutions.

SUMMARY

In all, the survey data paint a picture of a region that is representative of the country in many ways, but

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

often demonstrating unique patterns from the rest of the region) and the percentage of life a person

has lived in WNC (with natives showing distinct patterns from more recent in-migrants). While we

believe these data are important inputs into the policy-making process, they are not ends to themselves.

Instead, policymakers must use the patterns identified within these data to identify problems that

warrant their attention and work with a diverse set of constituencies to find the appropriate solutions.

FIGURE 2-13. Assessment of Education in Western North Carolina

FIGURE 2-14. Trust in Government Officials

Secondary Education

National Government

Primary Education

State Legislature

Higher Education

Local Government

Governor

Per

cen

t In

Ag

reem

ent

Per

cen

t W

ho

Tru

st T

he

Inst

itu

tio

n

Mo

st O

f T

he

Tim

e

30 31

CHAPTER 3:THE STATE OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA’S REGIONAL ECONOMY

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%

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%

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

Analysis, US Department of Commerce, and Woods and Poole 2013

32 33

NORTH CAROLINA’S SEVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS

North Carolina has designated seven regional development partnerships that capture all 100 of

the state’s counties (see Map 3-1). The twenty-three westernmost counties are known as the

AdvantageWest region, which covers approximately 10,000 square miles. This study focuses on

the economy of this region.

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

resided in the western twenty-three counties. By 1990, this figure fell to 12.9 percent. Then, in 2000

and 2010, the population fell to 12.4 percent and 11.5 percent respectively.

Other demographic shifts have accompanied the region’s change in population. For example, the

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.

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

percent of the national average.

During 2007-2011, median household income in the state of North Carolina was $46,291. In the

AdvantageWest region, median household income during 2007-2011 was $38,149, which was 82.5

percent of the statewide average. It was the lowest in the seven regions of the state.

Income disparities across the state persist as poverty increases. In 2010, the average U.S.

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

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.

Charlotte RegionalPartnership

AdvantageWest EconomicDevelopment Group

Piedmont TriadPartnership

ResearchTriangleRegionalPartnership

North Carolina’sSoutheast Commission

North Carolina’sEastern Region

North Carolina’sNortheast Commission

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%

Management Of Companies 530,970,336.91 0.86%

Administrative & Waste Services 1,297,161,273.96 2.10%

Educational Services 405,145,904.54 0.66%

Health & Social Services 5,314,936,882.02 8.61%

Arts - Entertainment & Recreation 552,990,961.07 0.90%

Accommodation & Food Services 2,218,902,595.52 3.60%

Other Services 2,062,066,913.60 3.34%

Government & Non NAICs 5,241,136,605.74 8.49%

Total 61,715,167,548.88 100.00%

Source: IMPLAN Data 2012

MAP 3-1. Seven Economic Development Regions in North Carolina

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce

34 35

TA

BL

E 3

-3. G

RO

SS

DO

ME

ST

IC P

RO

DU

CT

Ind

icat

or

NC

Ad

van

tag

e W

est

Ch

arlo

tte

Pie

dm

on

t Tri

adR

esea

rch

Tri

angl

eN

ort

hea

stSo

uth

east

Eas

tern

Num

ber

of C

oun

ties

10

02

31

21

21

31

61

11

3

PO

PU

LA

TIO

N

20

13

Est

imat

e1

0,0

18

,74

41

,14

7,0

42

2,3

72

,38

21

,70

5,3

01

2,1

77

,87

64

27

,95

31

,15

4,7

32

1,0

33

,45

8

20

10

Cen

sus

9,5

35

,48

31

,09

9,1

65

2,2

58

,31

41

,64

0,7

17

2,0

21

,94

84

23

,55

31

,10

1,3

81

97

8,2

50

Dis

trib

utio

n b

y R

egio

n (%

) 20

10

10

0%

11

.5%

23

.7%

17

.2%

21

.2%

4.4

%1

1.6

%1

0.3

%

Dis

trib

utio

n b

y R

egio

n (%

) 20

00

10

0%

12

.4%

22

.5%

18

.2%

19

.2%

4.3

%1

2.0

%1

1.4

%

Per

cent

of W

hite

Po

pul

atio

n 2

01

06

8.5

%9

0.4

%6

9.3

%6

9.9

%6

5.0

%5

6.0

%5

9.0

%6

3.7

%

Per

cent

of B

lack

Po

pul

atio

n 2

01

02

1.5

%4

.3%

20

.6%

20

.7%

23

.0%

39

.4%

26

.5%

27

.7%

Per

cent

of H

isp

anic

Po

pul

atio

n 2

01

08

.4%

5.3

%9

.3%

8.7

%1

0.3

%3

.6%

7.8

%8

.3%

PO

PU

LA

TIO

N B

Y A

GE

, 20

10 (

AP

RIL

1)

Und

er 1

72

3.9

%2

1.4

%2

3.1

%2

2.2

%2

4.4

%3

4.0

%2

3.4

%2

5.6

%

18

to 6

46

3.1

%6

0.7

%6

5.3

%6

3.7

%6

4.8

%5

2.2

%6

3.5

%6

2.0

%

65

and

Up

12

.9%

17

.9%

11

.6%

14

.1%

10

.7%

13

.8%

13

.1%

12

.4%

Med

ian

Ag

e in

Yea

rs*

37

.40

44

.30

39

.30

40

.75

38

.60

42

.00

38

.40

38

.25

Mal

es p

er 1

00

Fem

ales

*9

4.9

09

8.6

08

9.7

08

9.2

09

3.7

01

28

.00

93

.00

10

3.2

0

INC

OM

E

Med

ian

Ho

useh

old

Inco

me,

200

7-2

011

$46,

291.

0$3

8,14

8.8

$46,

958.

7$4

1,87

2.7

$47,

687.

1$4

0,64

8.3

$38,

656.

6$4

0,93

2.9

Ave

rage

Ho

useh

old

Inco

me,

20

11$5

4,86

3.5

$50,

486.

2$6

2,01

4.8

$55,

246.

0$6

2,75

5.2

$52,

544.

8$5

1,83

2.6

$53,

180.

4

Per C

apita

Inco

me*

*, 20

07-

201

1$2

5,25

6.0

$21,

430.

3$2

3,80

3.0

$22,

268.

3$2

4,63

5.5

$20,

921.

9$2

0,63

3.8

$21,

507.

8

Pers

ons

Bel

ow

Pov

erty

Lev

el (%

), 20

11**

*16

.1%

17.3

%13

.8%

16.4

%13

.6%

19.7

%19

.8%

19.0

%

TA

BL

E 3

-4. T

RE

ND

S I

N E

MP

LO

YM

EN

T B

Y S

EC

TO

R I

N W

ES

TE

RN

NO

RT

H C

AR

OL

INA

19

70-2

012

Sec

tor

1970

198

019

90

200

020

1020

12G

row

th R

ate

70-8

08

0-9

09

0-0

00

0-1

010

-12

Tota

l Em

plo

ymen

t2

86

.64

37

1.9

17

45

5.2

35

54

.42

95

53

.54

95

65

.75

22

9.8

%2

2.4

%2

1.8

%-0

.2%

2.2

%

Farm

Em

plo

ymen

t1

5.8

72

21

.43

81

6.3

36

16

.49

21

3.0

48

12

.32

83

5.1

%-2

3.8

%1

.0%

-20

.9%

-5.5

%

Fore

stry

, Fis

hing

, Rel

ated

Act

iviti

es a

nd O

ther

Em

ploy

men

t0

.56

1.0

19

2.0

29

2.4

82

.44

92

.64

38

2.0

%9

9.1

%2

2.2

%-1

.3%

7.9

%

Min

ing

Em

plo

ymen

t0

.90

71

.02

91

.02

71

.14

31

.57

31

.59

91

3.5

%-0

.2%

11

.3%

37

.6%

1.7

%

Util

ities

Em

plo

ymen

t1

.76

82

.32

13

.32

31

.65

21

.44

21

.48

33

1.3

%4

3.2

%-5

0.3

%-1

2.7

%2

.8%

Co

nstr

uctio

n E

mp

loym

ent

15

.72

82

2.3

37

31

.56

64

5.0

15

41

.11

44

0.5

64

42

.0%

41

.3%

42

.6%

-8.7

%-1

.3%

Man

ufac

turin

g E

mp

loym

ent

10

1.4

68

11

6.4

09

11

6.3

68

10

3.4

19

51

.07

45

2.1

61

14

.7%

0.0

%-1

1.1

%-5

0.6

%2

.1%

Who

lesa

le T

rad

e E

mp

loym

ent

8.0

07

7.8

25

10

.64

91

4.6

38

13

.71

21

4.2

13

-2.3

%3

6.1

%3

7.5

%-6

.3%

3.7

%

Ret

ail T

rad

e E

mp

loym

ent

24

.68

63

6.3

39

54

.33

26

5.7

56

2.9

16

65

.30

74

7.2

%4

9.5

%2

1.0

%-4

.3%

3.8

%

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

and

War

eho

usin

g E

mp

loym

ent

6.1

66

7.9

91

0.3

71

13

.13

61

2.4

78

12

.93

62

9.6

%2

9.8

%2

6.7

%-5

.0%

3.7

%

Info

rmat

ion

Em

plo

ymen

t3

.99

4.6

85

5.6

97

7.1

24

5.8

85

5.7

61

17

.4%

21

.6%

25

.0%

-17

.4%

-2.1

%

Fina

nce

and

Insu

ranc

e E

mp

loym

ent

5.9

09

9.3

01

9.6

99

12

.66

51

7.5

24

17

.13

55

7.4

%4

.3%

30

.6%

38

.4%

-2.2

%

Rea

l Est

ate

and

Ren

tal a

nd L

ease

Em

plo

ymen

t7

.02

61

0.9

26

11

.79

91

7.0

21

27

.02

82

7.7

38

55

.5%

8.0

%4

4.3

%5

8.8

%2

.6%

Pro

fess

iona

l and

Tec

hnic

al S

ervi

ces

Em

plo

ymen

t5

.71

57

.63

51

1.8

33

17

.98

23

.23

42

4.0

72

33

.6%

55

.0%

51

.9%

29

.2%

3.6

%

Man

agem

ent o

f Co

mp

anie

s an

d E

nter

pris

es E

mp

loym

ent

0.9

02

1.2

71

.92

43

.12

3.4

43

.74

54

0.8

%5

1.5

%6

2.2

%1

0.3

%8

.9%

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e an

d W

aste

Ser

vice

s E

mp

loym

ent

6.2

77

8.2

55

12

.54

23

.02

52

8.7

89

30

.86

13

1.5

%5

1.9

%8

3.6

%2

5.0

%7

.2%

Ed

ucat

iona

l Ser

vice

s E

mp

loym

ent

1.3

02

1.7

29

2.7

57

4.7

89

7.9

88

.55

63

2.8

%5

9.5

%7

3.7

%6

6.6

%7

.2%

Hea

lth C

are

and

So

cial

Ass

ista

nce

Em

plo

ymen

t1

6.0

89

21

.27

63

2.6

24

52

.54

56

7.2

76

68

.69

13

2.2

%5

3.3

%6

1.1

%2

8.0

%2

.1%

Art

s, E

nter

tain

men

t, an

d R

ecre

atio

n E

mp

loym

ent

3.0

86

4.2

52

6.5

48

10

.69

81

3.6

33

14

.05

53

7.8

%5

4.0

%6

3.4

%2

7.4

%3

.1%

Acc

om

mo

dat

ion

and

Fo

od

Ser

vice

s E

mp

loym

ent

13

.15

41

8.2

36

27

.95

73

7.0

76

42

.96

84

5.6

13

38

.6%

53

.3%

32

.6%

15

.9%

6.2

%

Oth

er S

ervi

ces,

Exc

ept P

ublic

Ad

min

Em

plo

ymen

t1

1.2

42

15

.18

12

3.6

13

29

.85

63

4.4

02

36

.03

23

5.0

%5

5.5

%2

6.4

%1

5.2

%4

.7%

Fed

eral

Civ

ilian

Go

vern

men

t Em

plo

ymen

t4

.89

5.3

21

5.4

63

5.7

46

.18

66

.30

18

.8%

2.7

%5

.1%

7.8

%1

.9%

Fed

eral

Mili

tary

Em

plo

ymen

t3

.63

42

.81

73

.26

2.8

04

2.7

76

2.7

92

-22

.5%

15

.7%

-14

.0%

-1.0

%0

.6%

Sta

te a

nd L

oca

l Go

vern

men

t Em

plo

ymen

t2

8.2

62

44

.32

65

3.5

15

66

.26

17

2.6

22

71

.16

65

6.8

%2

0.7

%2

3.8

%9

.6%

-2.0

%

So

urc

e:

US

Ce

nsu

s a

nd

Wo

od

s &

Po

ole

20

13 |

* A

ve

rag

e o

f c

ou

nti

es

in e

ac

h r

eg

ion

| *

* P

er

ca

pit

a i

nc

om

e i

n t

he

pa

st 1

2 m

on

ths

(in

20

11 i

nfl

ati

on

-ad

just

ed

do

lla

rs),

20

07-

20

11

***

Ac

ce

ss N

C, N

ort

h C

aro

lin

a D

ep

art

me

nt

of

Co

mm

erc

e

So

urc

e:

US

Ce

nsu

s a

nd

Wo

od

s &

Po

ole

20

13 |

* A

ve

rag

e o

f c

ou

nti

es

in e

ac

h r

eg

ion

| *

* P

er

ca

pit

a i

nc

om

e i

n t

he

pa

st 1

2 m

on

ths

(in

20

11 i

nfl

ati

on

-ad

just

ed

do

lla

rs),

20

07-

20

11

***

Ac

ce

ss N

C, N

ort

h C

aro

lin

a D

ep

art

me

nt

of

Co

mm

erc

e

36 37

EMPLOYMENT

The industrial structure of WNC has changed since the 1970s. Table 3-4 shows employment trends

by sector over the past forty-two years. Since 1970, the percentage increase in total employment

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

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

percent between 1990 and 2000. Nonfarm employment has not been able to fully absorb this shift,

particularly in light of declines in other employment sectors.

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. The loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry is attributed to numerous

factors, but is primarily the result of outsourcing goods overseas. Many layoffs occurred, leading

to a tremendous loss of jobs in the furniture and textile industries. Then, several industries in other

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

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

2007. During this economic recession, the unemployment rate of WNC was more than 11 percent

but decreased to 9.6 percent in 2012.

LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS

In examining the local, regional, state, or national economy, it is important to identify the unique

characteristics of an economy’s industrial structure because these characteristics provide an

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

shrinking for several years and could have a negative effect on an economic forecast.

In 2012, the top five employment industries in North Carolina were government and non-NAICs

(that is, unclassified in by the North American Industry Classification System), health and social

services, retail trade, manufacturing, and construction. In comparison, WNC’s top five industries

FIGURE 3-1. Growth Rates of Gross Domestic Product

FIGURE 3-2. Total Employment: WNC and NC

FIGURE 3-3. Unemployment Rates(%): WNC and NC

20

01

20

01

200

1

20

02

20

02

200

2

199

0

520,000 4,400,000

500,000 4,200,000

480,0004,000,000

460,0003,800,000

440,000

3,600,000

420,000

3,400,000

400,000

3,200,000

NC

US

WNCNC

WNC

3,000,000

199

0

20

03

20

03

200

3

199

1

199

1

20

04

20

04

200

4

199

2

199

2

20

05

20

05

200

5

199

3

199

3

20

06

20

06

200

6

199

4

199

4

20

07

20

07

200

7

199

5

199

5

20

08

20

08

200

8

199

6

199

6

20

09

20

09

200

9

199

7

199

7

20

10

20

10

2010

199

8

199

8

20

11

20

11

2011

199

9

199

9

20

12

20

12

2012

200

0

200

0

US

NC

WNC

Source: Local Area Unemployment StatisticsSource: Local Area Unemployment StatisticsSource: Woods and Poole 2013

38 39

in terms of employment are government and non-NAICs, health and social services, retail trade,

manufacturing, and accommodation and food services. The government and non-NAICs account

for 14.6 percent of employment in WNC.

Location quotients are frequently used when performing an economic analysis. They indicate the

employment density of an economy by industry based on the overall state economy. In other words,

location quotients are one way to measure an industry’s labor concentration in a specific region

relative to the rest of the state by simply taking an industry’s share of regional employment and

dividing it by the industry’s share of state employment. If the location quotient of an industry is 1,

then the industry’s share of regional employment is the same as the industry’s share of employment

in the state. For example, in Table 3-5, the employment shares for arts and recreation services in

WNC and in North Carolina as a whole are 2.1 percent and 1.9 percent respectively, which equals

a location quotient of 1.13 (the result of the regional percentage divided by the state percentage).

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

in an industry if the location quotient is greater than 1 because the region produces more goods or

services than would be consumed regionally. In contrast, if the location quotient of an industry is

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

of less than 1 as opportunities to develop businesses in the local area.

A statistical confidence interval defines a range with a specified probability by creating an upper

and lower limit for the mean. For location quotient analysis, the rule of thumb to understand the

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.

As shown in Table 3-5, 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 health and social

services (LQ = 1.22).

In the service industry, WNC has relatively large employment shares in tourism and health services.

Service industry employment includes all nonfarm, private industry employment. The location

quotients are 1.08 for accommodations and food services, 1.13 for arts – entertainment and

recreation, and 1.22 for health and social services. However, for finance and insurance (LQ = 0.67),

professional – scientific and tech services (LQ = 0.76), and management of companies (LQ = 0.48),

the region employs a lower percentage of the work force than the state employment percentage

despite the positive employment outlook discussed in the previous section. A location quotient less

than 0.75 may indicate the region is not self-sufficient in that industry. However, for location quotients

greater than 0.75, there may be evidence that the local economy is self-sufficient in that industry.

TABLE 3-5. LOCATION QUOTIENT

NAICS* SectorWestern North Carolina North Carolina Location

QuotientEmployment Percent Employment Percent

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

62 Health & Social Services 67,410.50 12.32% 522,638.02 10.06% 1.22

71 Arts-Entertainment & Recreation 11,759.66 2.15% 98,887.35 1.90% 1.13

72 Accommodation & Food Services 41,032.86 7.50% 361,238.84 6.95% 1.08

81 Other Services 33,987.81 6.21% 281,129.89 5.41% 1.15

92 Government & Non NAICs 80,003.13 14.62% 871,577.73 16.78% 0.87

Total 547,065.04 100.00% 5,194,352.68 100.00%

Source: IMPLAN Data 2012 | * NAICs stands for North American Industry Classification System

40 41

ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS

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

to provide ingredients and materials to produce more food. These effects can be captured by

economic impact analysis using multipliers. The impact from a change in economic activity can

be expressed in a concise form by examining a multiplier. The secondary impact of a dollar spent

on primary activities varies from industry to industry. In general, manufacturing industries show

larger secondary impacts than service industries. In terms of economic development issues, it is

important to understand the difference in multiplier effects by industry.

An economic impact analysis normally differentiates three effects: the direct, the indirect, and the

induced effects. Understanding all three levels of effects is essential because they represent and

display how the initial expenditures create economic activity that goes beyond the initial investment.

The direct effect is the original impact of new spending on the first tier of suppliers. For example,

$20 spent by a visitor at a local restaurant (first tier) counts as a direct effect of $20. However, this

share of spending indicates only a portion of the total economic activity that takes place.

In order to produce the $20 meal, the local restaurant has to purchase inputs from second-tier suppliers.

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

third-tier supplier). To the extent that these transactions occur locally, these purchases represent

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.

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

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)

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.

The multiplier effect also can be estimated in the number of jobs created by an external shock or

extra spending, such as new company or visitor spending. Table 3-6 shows employment and output

multipliers by industry. Note that induced effects are not included in the estimation because no

transactions have actually yet occurred. As a result, the total effects will change significantly when

we consider real impacts. However, it still can provide baseline information on the magnitude of

indirect effects of each industry.

As shown in Table 3-6, the information industry (whose employment multiplier – direct + indirect – is

2.24) has the largest indirect effects on the economy, followed by utilities (2.18) and the finance and

insurance industry (2.15). For the information industry, there will be 2.24 jobs created or maintained

in WNC for every one job resulting from the initial spending.

TABLE 3-6. EMPLOYMENT AND OUTPUT MULTIPLIERS

NAICS SectorWestern North Carolina

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

55 Management of companies 2.03 1.70

56 Administrative & Waste Services 1.33 1.64

61 Educational Services 1.40 1.82

62 Health & Social Services 1.57 1.71

71 Arts-Entertainment & Recreation 1.33 1.64

72 Accommodation & Food Services 1.30 1.55

81 Other Services 1.45 1.73

92 Government & Non NAICs 1.42 1.61

Source: IMPLAN Data 2012

42 43

TABLE 3-7A. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA

Expenditures $(millions)

Payroll $(millions)Employment (thousands)

State Tax Receipts $(millions)

Local Tax Receipts $(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%

2007 2,410.7 6.2% 508.3 2.7% 27.9 0.9% 119.0 1.3% 99.7 5.6%

2008 2,387.6 -1.0% 508.7 0.1% 27.1 -2.9% 119.3 0.3% 99.7 0.0%

2009 2,245.3 -6.0% 479.4 -5.8% 26.2 -3.5% 121.0 1.4% 94.8 -5.0%

2010 2,413.5 7.5% 484.7 1.1% 26.2 0.0% 134.4 11.1% 99.5 5.0%

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%

Sources: Travel Economic Impact Model (TEIM), North Carolina Department of Commerce

TABLE 3-7B. YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGES IN TOURISTS AT WELCOME CENTERS

Location 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

I-26 EastVisitors 73,691 61,448 55,350 53,665 54,635 54,205 54,749 52,278

%Chg - -16.6% -9.9% -3.0% 1.8% -0.8% 1.0% -4.5%

I-26 WestVisitors 31,514 29,841 27,940 31,825 29,021 23,261 24,008 22,121

%Chg - -5.3% -6.4% 13.9% -8.8% -19.8% 3.2% -7.9%

I-40 WestVisitors 85,215 86,939 77,385 60,832 61,821 79,439 80,645 75,435

%Chg - 2.0% -11.0% -21.4% 1.6% 28.5% 1.5% -6.5%

I-77 NorthVisitors 97,600 96,168 85,183 87,614 84,655 80,484 82,703 75,474

%Chg - -1.5% -11.4% 2.9% -3.4% -4.9% 2.8% -8.7%

I-77 SouthVisitors 33,189 29,030 25,811 24,159 25,922 24,403 26,967 28,323

%Chg - -12.5% -11.1% -6.4% 7.3% -5.9% 10.5% 5.0%

I-85 NorthVisitors 57,880 57,746 52,764 60,924 56,385 52,263 52,509 49,877

%Chg - -0.2% -8.6% 15.5% -7.4% -7.3% 0.5% -5.0%

I-85 SouthVisitors 75,621 55,688 47,898 45,889 47,737 52,620 58,690 57,686

%Chg - -26.4% -14.0% -4.2% 4.0% 10.2% 11.5% -1.7%

I-95 NorthVisitors 154,419 147,276 135,699 134,364 136,506 130,839 133,163 124,089

%Chg - -4.6% -7.9% -1.0% 1.6% -4.2% 1.8% -6.8%

I-95 SouthVisitors 108,877 107,861 95,688 73,113 95,408 94,397 95,181 90,667

%Chg - -0.9% -11.3% -23.6% 30.5% -1.1% 0.8% -4.7%

TotalVisitors 718,005 671,997 603,717 572,384 592,090 591,912 608,614 565,173

%Chg - -6.4% -10.2% -5.2% 3.4% 0.0% 2.8% -7.1%

Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce | * January through July only

TOURISM

County-specific data are very rare in the tourism sector. However, the Research Department of the U.S.

Travel Association prepares county-by-county travel economic impact statistics for the N.C. Department

of Commerce’s Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development, using the Travel Economic Impact

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.

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

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

increase, then a decrease between 2010 and 2012. The tendency for all five indicators to follow

the same pattern changes between 2009 and 2012 when payroll and employment experienced

an increase in percentage.

Overall, the biggest change in percentage was between 2001 and 2003. During these years, payroll

decreased from 16.1 percent to -0.8 percent, employment decreased from 10.9 percent, and state

tax receipts decreased from 12.5 percent to 0.6 percent. Exceptions were expenditures and local

tax receipts, which had the biggest change in percentage between 2006 and 2009. During these

years, expenditures decreased from 9.0 percent to -6.0 percent, while local tax receipts decreased

from 8.1 percent to -5.0 percent. If we compare this information with the increase in percentage in

payroll and employment between 2009 and 2012, we can infer that the spike in expenditures and

local tax receipts in 2010 led to an increase in the workforce.

Year-to-year changes in tourists at welcome centers on North Carolina’s interstates are depicted

in Table 3-7b. Welcome centers are located on all major interstates and focus on providing visitors

with in-depth information. Between 2006 and 2013, there was a negative change in tourists at visitor

centers located on many interstates, including I-26 West, I-26 East, I-40 West, I-85 North, I-95

North, and I-77 North. In 2010, I-85 South, I-95 South, and I-77 South experienced an increase in

the percentage of visitors traveling interstates. Interstate 95 South experienced the largest increase

with an approximate change of 30.5 percent. In WNC, Interstate 40 West attracts the most tourists;

approximately 75,435 as of 2013. On the other hand, I-85 North experienced the largest decrease

in travelers in 2013, an approximate drop of 8.7 percent. Furthermore, there are few tourists who

visit welcome centers on I-26 West. Overall, it appears that tourism in WNC is declining slightly.

44 45

HOUSING

Table 3-8 displays housing data for the WNC region as a whole, including data on total housing

units, median gross rent, median value of owner-occupied residential properties, number of

owner occupied units, and number of seasonal housing units. The largest percentage of change

in housing units for North Carolina and WNC specifically was between 1970 and 1980. In 1970,

the total number of housing units in the state and the western region was 1,641,222 and 242,881

respectively. In 1980, the total number of housing units was 2,274,737 in the state and 342,504 in

the region. Between 1970 and 1980, the percentage change in housing units for the state and the

region was 38.6 percent and 41 percent, respectively.

Gross rent is estimated to be contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (to

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

to WNC’s gross monthly rent payment. Between 2000 and 2010, approximately $170 was added

to North Carolina’s monthly gross rent payment. Thus, during this time, the state increase in terms

of dollars was greater but the percentage increase was virtually equal.

The median value owner refers to the total dollar value of a residential property. The median value of property

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.

Between 1980 and 2000, the median value of property in WNC remained fairly stable at approximately

71 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the median value of property in WNC dropped 55.2 percent.

Owner-occupied housing units are those in which the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if the

unit is mortgaged or not fully paid. In 1970, the number of owner occupied units in North Carolina

was 987,079 but steadily increased to 2,497,900 in 2010. In the western region, the number of

owner-occupied housing units was 159,450 in 1970 and 329,664 in 2010. Between 1990 and 2000,

WNC experienced a 21 percent increase in owner occupied units. Between 2000 and 2010, owner

occupied units in WNC increased 6.9 percent.

Housing units that are occupied only during certain seasons are referred to as seasonal housing

units and include winter cabins or beach cottages. The percentage change in seasonal housing

units in WNC from 1990 to 2000 was approximately 28 percent, approximately the same as the

percentage change for North Carolina during the same time period. In 2010, the number of seasonal

housing units in WNC was 74,453, an approximate increase of 60 percent since 2000. In 2010, the

number of seasonal housing units in the state was 191,508, an increase of 42 percent since 2000.

Overall, the largest percentage change for all the housing data previously discussed occurred

between 1970 and 1980. The in-depth economic analysis revealed that over a forty-year span, the

number of housing units for both the state and the region steadily increased.

TABLE 3-8. HOUSING IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA: YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGES

Year Housing Units Med Gross Rent Med Value OwnerOwner

Occupied UnitsSeasonal

Housing Units

WNC

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%

1990 405,590 18.4% $299 73.1% $56,604 72.0% 254,813 16.2% 36,244 95.3%

2000 491,650 21.2% $428 43.3% $96,896 71.2% 308,257 21.0% 46,453 28.2%

2010 592,230 20.5% $569 33.0% $150,350 55.2% 329,664 6.9% 74,453 60.3%

North Carolina

1970 1,641,222 - $86 - $12,800 - 987,079 - 23,119 -

1980 2,274,737 38.6% $205 138.4% $36,000 181.3% 1,397,426 41.6% 50,541 118.6%

1990 2,818,193 23.9% $382 86.3% $65,300 81.4% 1,711,882 22.5% 98,534 95.0%

2000 3,523,944 25.0% $548 43.5% $108,300 65.8% 2,172,355 26.9% 134,870 36.9%

2010 4,327,528 22.8% $718 31.0% $149,100 37.7% 2,497,900 15.0% 191,508 42.0%

Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC)

46 47

TABLE 3-9. HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA IN 2009

(A) General Hospital

Discharge

(B) Nursing Facility Beds

(C) Beds in General Hospital

(A) per 1000 persons

(B) per 1000 persons

(C) per 1000 persons

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

Cherokee 2,649 210 57 97.5 7.7 2.1

Clay 878 90 0 83.7 8.6 0.0

Graham 994 80 0 113.3 9.1 0.0

Haywood 7,717 475 153 131.5 8.1 2.6

Henderson 11,737 912 263 111.4 8.7 2.5

Jackson 3,349 200 86 84.8 5.1 2.2

McDowell 4,665 250 65 104.0 5.6 1.4

Macon 3,266 284 83 96.5 8.4 2.5

Madison 1,996 180 0 96.6 8.7 0.0

Mitchell 2,014 127 46 129.1 8.1 2.9

Polk 1,671 221 45 82.4 10.9 2.2

Rutherford 7,289 420 129 108.4 6.2 1.9

Swain 2,312 120 48 166.8 8.7 3.5

Transylvania 3,315 267 42 101.1 8.1 1.3

Watauga 3,579 196 145 71.4 3.9 2.9

Wilkes 9,047 417 120 130.9 6.0 1.7

Yancey 2,155 140 0 120.6 7.8 0.0

WNC 117,497 7,641 2,505 106.7 6.9 2.3

North Carolina 967,560 44,315 20,647 102.7 4.7 2.2

HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

Healthcare facilities in WNC strive to meet patient needs by providing an array of services. Table 3-9

displays health care data on hospital discharges and hospital and nursing facility beds for the twenty-

three westernmost counties in North Carolina.

General hospital discharge refers to the “discharge of residents of the county in all short stay, acute

care general hospitals in the state during the federal fiscal year.”11 General hospital discharges do not

include federal and state hospitals and psychiatric and rehabilitation care facilities. In 2009, patients

released from health care facilities in WNC totaled 117,497. Buncombe County alone discharged

23,472 patients, which was more than any of the other twenty-two counties. At the other extreme,

Clay County, with a population of 10,370 people, discharged approximately 878 patients, which is

0.79 percent of total regional patients.

Nursing facilities in the region provide less care than that offered by acute care hospitals. Thus, the

above figures include only beds that are licensed as nursing facility beds. Approximately 17.24 percent

of nursing facility beds statewide are located in WNC. According to a Log Into North Carolina report, this

figure also includes “licensed long-term nursing care beds in non-federal, non-state general hospital.”12

Log Into North Carolina is a valuable database for gathering statistical data for North Carolina, as it

provides both historical data and future projections.

As the most populous county in the western region, Buncombe County houses the most people in nursing

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,

Clay, Graham, and Swain – have the fewest number of beds, each with approximately 1 percent of WNC’s

beds. Graham County houses the fewest people in WNC, approximately 80 out of the 7,641 total.

Beds in general hospitals are limited to beds that are for short-stay use only, “as licensed at the end of

the third calendar quarter of the year.”13 As with general hospital discharges, figures for beds in general

hospitals exclude those used for psychiatry, hospice, and rehabilitation care. Clay, Graham, and Madison

counties’ health care facilities do not provide acute care (in other words, they do not offer beds for

short-stay use). In contrast, Buncombe, Burke and Henderson counties have many general hospital

beds. Buncombe County alone houses approximately 27 percent of acute care patients in the region,

while Burke and Henderson counties house approximately 11.7 percent and 10.5 percent of acute care

patients respectively. Further, WNC provides approximately 12.13 percent of all acute care in the state.

SUMMARY

Overall, the WNC’s economy has been recovering since 2009. One of the most difficult challenges

that the region has been facing is the slow growth of the population. The share of population of the

AdvantageWest region in the state declined from 13.7 percent in 1980 to 11.5 percent in 2010. The

median age of the regional population was 44.3 years in 2010, which was the highest among the

state’s seven economic development regions. The share of population of the region aged between

18 and 64 was 60.7 percent, which was the lowest in the state except the Northeast region. It is

still a controversial issue whether or not population growth has a positive impact on economic

development. However, along with the slow growth of the population and the aging population,

most economic indicators show that the region faces additional challenges compared to the rest

of the state, including low workforce, low income, and high poverty rates.

Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC)

13 Ibid.11 Log Into North Carolina, NC State Data Center.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.

48 49

APPENDIX TABLE A-1. REAL GDP BY STATE (MILLIONS OF CHAINED 2005 DOLLARS)

State 2009 2010 2011 2012Percent Change

2011-2012

Rank of Percent Change

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

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

APPENDIX:ADDITIONAL TABLES FROM CHAPTER THREE

50 51

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. POVERTY RATES BY COUNTY IN WNC

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

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

37023 Burke County 31.5 12.8 10.1 10.1 10.7 18.7

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

37043 Clay County 68.3 33.7 22.8 17.9 11.4 18.8

37075 Graham County 56.2 25.4 19.6 24.9 19.5 22.5

37087 Haywood County 31.6 17.9 15.6 12.7 11.5 14.6

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

37111 McDowell County 40.3 16.8 11.8 11.4 11.6 19.9

37113 Macon County 57.2 27.3 17.2 16.5 12.6 19.3

37115 Madison County 58.4 34.2 25.8 20.4 15.4 19.7

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

About the Authors

Kathleen M. Brennan (Ph.D., Kent State University) is associate professor of sociology at Western Carolina University. She studies social structural and psychological variations in health, as well as issues related to health care and medicine.

Christopher A. Cooper (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is department head and associate professor of political science and public affairs at Western Carolina University. He has published widely on state politics, political psychology, Southern politics, and political communication.

Inhyuck “Steve” Ha (Ph.D., University of Minnesota-Twin Cities) is associate professor of economics at Western Carolina University. His areas of interest are spatial econometrics, community economic development and economic impact analysis, and economics of discrimination.

52

FOR MORE INFORMATION

828.227.2596 [email protected] WWW.WCU.EDU