WSPC02316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that have been discussed. However, it should be noted that there are also potentials for significant gains in em- ployment and population in Region 13, again assuming an increase in employment in the mineral extraction field. One important conclusion to derive from the num- bers presented here is that for most of the regions there is a distinct potential of at least a slowdown in the rate of growth in the region in terms of population, eVen though the number of jobs may continue to increase. This occurs because, in general, the number of people retiring each year is still much smaller than those entering, a lin- gering effect of the postwar baby boom. These people will be entering the job market throughout the rest of the decade and as they do so, a certain increase in employment will be necessary to absorb the additional members of the labor force. Consequently, it seems appropriate for the regions to consider the possibility that a continued growth in employment may be necessary to sustain the population at a particular level for at least some period of years in the future. ALLOCATION OF REGIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES The total allocated county population estimates for July 1 for tho yoars 1970 through 1980 are shown in Table 2. The rable is separated into the 13 planning re- gions. The total population for each county within the region is shown for each year. The estimated figures for the counties from 1970 through 1973 differ from official published figures from both the Colorado Division of Planning and the Bureau of the Census for several reasons. First, these estimates are allocations of regional totals rather than estimates de- rived at the county level. Second, rhe 1970 values shown in Table 2 were derived from allocations based on a series of equations which approximate, but do not necessarily equal, the assumed county proportions as shown in Colo- rado Population Trends. (For example, a county whose actual population proportion of a region was .21 in 1970 might, according to the derived equations, have an esti. mated total of .205. Thus, these numbers are not identical to the 1970 figures.) Third, these estimates are for July 1 and the 1970 Census estimates are for April 1. Fourth, the allocation mechanism is based on a simple time series regression rather than the equations used to estimate the county population by the Colorado Division of Planning. Those equations make use of various coun~y_parameters such as births, deaths, automobile registrations, school at- tendance, etc., and are satisfactory when estimating the current year's figures for which data of the independent variables is available. But this approach is not toO useful when attempting to estimate county populations for years in which the data for the independent variables are not available, i.e., the future. Although only one figure is presented for each of the years from 1970 to 1973, it should be understood that these estimates are not absolute in the sense that they are necessarily correct. All available information was utilized in making those estimates within the models; however, these allocations are subject to numerous potential sources of error. The estimates for 1974 through 1980, by compar- ison, are made under a variety of assumptions indicating the uncertainty with regard to future events. As indicated earlier, the uncertainty with regard to 1970 through 1973 is not with regard to the past in terms of what might have happened, but rather with respect to the data and the structure of the model. By contrast, the uncertainty with respect to the future includes uncertainties both with re- spect to the model and with respect to what may actually occur. The county estimates shown in Table 2 should be examined in terms of likely ranges for each county and, where appropriate, likely ranges of groups of counties if it is felt that certain counties would perhaps grow or de- cline together. However, there is no necessity that all of the counties within a region would follow anyone of the particular series of projections. In fact, it is virtually "im- possible that a county would literally follow one of these series in any case. For example, in Region 4, one ob- server might believe that El Paso County was trending towards the high series or that the high series of pro- jections for that county were the most appropriate. On the other hand, it might also be felt with equal justifi- cation that Park and Teller Counties were trending toward the low series of projections. This, of course, would affect the regional total, resulting in a figure for the region which was actually none of the regional estimates pre- sented earlier. In addition, it should be noted that a couney would not necessarily follow one series from 1974 through 1980, A county might tend to be patterned after the low series in 1974 and 1975 and then increase at a rapid rate such that it began to follow the medium series for some period of time and then progress to the point where it followed the high series. A decline might also take place. The conclusion is that the series of numbers pre- sented here represent plausible ranges of total population from year to year, but that simply because a county was near the bottom of that range for some period of time does not necessarily indicate that that county would remain in the bottom of that range indefinitely. SUMMARY The overall examination that should be given to these numbers is in terms of both their accual magnitude and the patterns that they represent. Certainly no one would expect that the figures are accurate for all digits, so that the pattern of variation through the years and the ranges between the low series and the high series should also be considered. Together, this information should be a useful input to the planning process. . , 0779 5