WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA REGIONAL
OUTLOOK REPORT
TWO THOUSAND
AND FOURTEEN
1
Kathleen M. Brennan
Associate Professor of Sociology
Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Inhyuck “Steve” Ha
Executive Summary.............................................................4
Christopher A. Cooper
Associate Professor of Economics
Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................... 8
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 tonyjohnson@wcu.edu.
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.
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
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
»»
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.
5
»»
When asked to compare their household financial circumstances with other households in WNC,
the state, and the nation, many respondents report their financial circumstances as “about the
same.” However, respondents are more likely to see themselves as “better off” compared to other
households in WNC and “worse off” compared to other households in the nation.
»»
Roughly the same percentage of respondents report having some type of health care coverage
as in 2003 and 2008. Compared to five years ago, notably more respondents report they are
paying for health care out of pocket (i.e., using their own or household income).
»»
Most respondents report they are satisfied with health care in WNC; level of satisfaction with
regional health care is roughly the same as it was five years ago and has increased since 2003.
In the area where they live, respondents view health care services as available, high quality,
and offered with a variety of options. However, more than half the sample disagree that health
care is affordable.
»»
The average level of stress reported by our respondents was higher than that reported just
five years ago. In spite of this, most respondents report having at least good, if not excellent,
physical and mental health; better than that of most people their age.
»»
The plurality of respondents report being at least satisfied with their life at the present time;
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
»»
6
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.
7
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a comprehensive overview of Western North Carolina’s (WNC) major demographic,
economic, social, and political issues and trends. It is intended to help decision-makers and residents
make informed choices about the region based on analysis of up-to-date data in a variety of forms.
Although all of the data are new, this third installment of Western Carolina University’s Regional
Outlook Report follows the basic structure of our earlier regional outlook reports published in 2004
and 2008. The information provided in these reports is one example of the enactment of WCU’s
vision to embrace its responsibilities as a regionally engaged university.1
The data in this report are taken from three sources: (1) existing federal and state data, (2) aggregate
county and regional data, and (3) a public opinion poll of randomly selected respondents in the
state’s twenty-three westernmost counties.
DEFINING WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
For the purposes of this study, we define Western North Carolina as the twenty-three westernmost
counties in the state. This definition mirrors the AdvantageWest economic development region (see
Figure 1-1 below) and includes Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay,
Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey counties. Located in the Blue Ridge/Appalachian
Mountains, the western part of the state makes up a distinct topographical region of North Carolina,
which is reflected in its unique culture and heritage.
FIGURE 1-1.
Twenty-three Westernmost Counties of North Carolina
ALLEGHANY
ASHE
WATAUGA
MITCHELL
WILKES
AVERY
CALDWELL
YANCEY
MADISON
BURKE
BUNCOMBE
MCDOWELL
HAYWOOD
SWAIN
RUTHERFORD
GRAHAM
JACKSON
HENDERSON
POLK
MACON
CHEROKEE
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
8
TRANSYLVANIA
CLAY
1
See strategicplan.wcu.edu for more information about WCU’s 2020 Strategic Vision: Focusing on the Future.
9
TABLE 1-1. TOTAL POPULATION
Western North Carolina
NC
US
Year
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
1990
859,120
---
6,664,016
---
249,622,800
---
2000
1,003,023
16.75%
8,081,614
21.27%
282,162,400
13.04%
2010
1,110,671
10.73%
9,560,234
18.30%
309,330,200
9.63%
2020
1,204,236
8.42%
10,980,840
14.86%
340,554,300
10.09%
2030
1,310,910
8.86%
12,483,290
13.68%
373,751,000
9.75%
2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012
TABLE 1-2. TOTAL POPULATION BY SEX
Western North Carolina
Year
NC
US
Sex
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Male
415,195
---
3,232,161
---
121,713,800
---
Female
443,925
---
3,431,855
---
127,909,100
---
Male
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%
Male
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%
Male
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%
Male
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%
1990
2000
2010
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 twentythree 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.
10
2020
2030
2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012
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.
11
TABLE 1-3. TOTAL POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY
Western North Carolina
Year
1990
Race and Ethnicity
2000
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. 12
2010
2020
2030
NC
US
Race/Ethnicity
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
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
---
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%
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%
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%
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
13
TABLE 1-4. TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE
Western North Carolina
Year
NC
US
Age
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
< 20 years
220.216
---
1854.691
---
71917.67
---
20-29 years
124.55
---
1131.896
---
40427.43
---
30-39 years
128.105
---
1102.462
---
41929.07
---
40-49 years
115.596
---
864.867
---
31621.96
---
50-64 years
133.021
---
903.683
---
32479.4
---
65 + years
137.632
---
806.417
---
31247.28
---
< 20 years
243.558
10.60%
2196.52
18.43%
80574.8
12.04%
20-29 years
125.811
1.01%
1185.135
4.70%
38396.93
-5.02%
30-39 years
139.115
8.59%
1267.841
15.00%
43175.09
2.97%
40-49 years
147.692
27.77%
1209.514
39.85%
42737.52
35.15%
50-64 years
182.17
36.95%
1250.117
38.34%
42208.51
29.96%
65 + years
164.677
19.65%
972.487
20.59%
35069.57
12.23%
< 20 years
256.991
5.52%
2555.337
16.34%
83185.59
3.24%
20-29 years
131.628
4.62%
1297.656
9.49%
42849.18
11.60%
30-39 years
129.967
-6.58%
1280.686
1.01%
40147.7
-7.01%
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%
< 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%
< 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%
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Values in thousands | 2020 and 2030 values are estimates | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Woods and Poole 2012
14
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.
15
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
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
TABLE 1-5. POPULATION BY MARITAL STATUS
Western North Carolina
Year
1990
2000
2010
NC
US
Marital Status
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Value
% Change
Married
422,529
---
3,014,116
---
111,499,000
---
Unmarried
278,643
---
8,151,234
---
83,643,000
---
Married
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%
Married
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%
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.
Data represents population aged 15 years and older | Married category includes persons with spouse present and spouse
absent | Unmarried category includes widowed, divorced, and never married | Estimates for 2020 and 2030 were not
available at the time of data analysis | Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Log Into North Carolina (LINC)
16
17
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.
TABLE 2-1. COUNTIES REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE
County
Weighted % of Sample
County
Weighted % of Sample
Alleghany
1%
McDowell
4%
Ashe
2%
Macon
4%
Avery
2%
Madison
2%
Buncombe
24%
Mitchell
1%
Burke
8%
Polk
3%
Caldwell
6%
Rutherford
5%
Cherokee
3%
Swain
1%
Clay
1%
Transylvania
3%
Graham
0%
Watauga
3%
Haywood
5%
Wilkes
6%
Henderson
12%
Yancey
2%
Jackson
4%
SAMPLE.....................................................................................................894
2
After putting the contract out for bid, we selected Winthrop University’s Social and Behavioral Research Lab (SBRL)
to conduct the calling and implement the survey. The SBRL is a recognized leader in telephone surveys and has over a
decade of experience conducting similar surveys. The sample was purchased from Survey Sampling International.
18
3
http://www.people-press.org/methodology/sampling/cell-phones/.
4
We round all percentages to the nearest whole number.
19
TABLE 2-2. RACE AND ETHNICITY OF THE SAMPLE
Race/Ethnicity
Weighted %
Race/Ethnicity
Weighted %
African-American/Black
4%
Native-American or Indian
1%
Anglo-American/White/Caucasian
88%
Other
2%
Asian or Asian-American
1%
Multiple Races
1%
Chicana/Chicano or Mexican American
3%
TABLE 2-3. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE SAMPLE
Educational Attainment
Weighted %
Educational Attainment
Weighted %
8th Grade or Less
1%
Some College
25%
Some High School
6%
College Graduate
21%
High School Graduate or GED
20%
Graduate Degree
14%
Trade School/Community College
13%
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%
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%
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
20
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 steepslope 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.
21
Restricting RidgeTop Development
Restricting SteepSlope Development
Land-Use Planning
Percent
Education
The Economy
Employment & Industry
Health Care
The Environment
Agreement with Land-Use Policies
Land-Use Planning
FIGURE 2-2.
Importance of Various Issue Areas
Percent
FIGURE 2-1.
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
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.
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
FIGURE 2-3.
FIGURE 2-4.
Assessment of WNC Water and Air Quality
Extent of Worry About Losing Job
commuting one way to work. Respondents in our sample worked an average of about 41 hours per
week (s=13.65) with a minimum of 6 hours worked per week and a maximum of 90 hours worked
Water Quality
per week reported. On average, respondents in our sample reported about a 20-minute, one-way
Air Quality
commute to work (s=17.22) with a minimum commute of 0 minutes and a maximum commute of 90
to stress, health, and satisfaction in our sample, however, bivariate analysis indicates that work
Percent
and 25 minutes, respectively.6 We do not find that number of hours worked is significantly related
Percent
minutes. This is less than the state and national average daily one-way commute time of 23 minutes
commute is significantly associated with all three outcomes; as commute time increases, level of
stress increases, work satisfaction decreases, and life satisfaction decreases. While these
relationships are statistically significant, it should be noted that the relative strength of each
Poor
relationship is weak.
22
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/commutetimes-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.
Fair
Good
Excellent
Not At All
A Little
To Some
Extent
A Great Deal
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.
23
When asked to consider housing close to where they live now that they could afford (see Figure 2-7), most
respondents perceived affordable housing near them to be “good” (40 percent), followed by “fair” (22 percent)
or “very good” (21 percent). This indicates that the quality of housing in the region is not the primary reason
non-home owning respondents do not own a home. Bivariate analysis of the relationship between home
ownership and perception of quality of affordable housing somewhat supports this for respondents who
rent their place of residence. Renters are more likely to report that the quality of housing near them is “good,”
while respondents who live with family and friends are more likely to report that the quality of housing near
them is just “fair,” indicating that housing quality may only be an issue for groups who cannot afford to pay
a mortgage or rent. The strength of this relationship is moderately strong. In our sample, respondents who
are younger and fall into lower income groups are significantly less likely to own their place of residence.
Most (49 percent) respondents view the financial circumstances in their household as unchanged over
the past year (see Figure 2-8), while 27 percent perceive that their household financial circumstances are
worse off and 23 percent perceive their household financial circumstances are better than a year ago.
Continuing to lend support to a trend of slight economic decline in the region, slightly more respondents
view their household finances as worse off compared to respondents five years ago. In order to get an idea
of respondents’ perceived economic relative deprivation, we also asked them to compare their household
financial circumstances with other households in WNC, the state, and the nation. For each of the three
comparison groups, roughly 40 percent of respondents report their financial circumstances are “about the
same.” However, they are more likely to see themselves as “better off” compared to other households in
WNC (40 percent) versus the state (27 percent) or the nation (24 percent). Furthermore, they are more likely
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).
Percent
$100,000
or more
$80,000$99,999
$60,000-$79,999
<$20,000
$40,000-$59,000
Home Ownership
$20,000-$39,999
FIGURE 2-6.
Total Household Income
Percent
FIGURE 2-5.
Own
Something Else
FIGURE 2-8.
Quality of Nearby, Affordable Housing
Household Financial Situation Compared to Last Year
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
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.
Percent
Percent
FIGURE 2-7.
Poor
24
Rent
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
Worse Off
About The Same
Better Off
10
In 2008, only 25 percent of the sample reported using their own or household income to pay for health care.
25
Most (53 percent) respondents in our sample report a higher level of stress (as indicated by a score
of 6 or higher) than that experienced by the average person. The average level of stress in the sample
was indicated by a score of 7 out of 10 (s=2.577), with more than 10 percent of the sample reporting
they experienced “really high stress” (as indicated by a score of 10 out of 10) in the last six months.
Compared to 2008, there was a 6 percent increase in the percentage of the 2013 sample who reported
experiencing more stress than the average person. Likewise, the average amount of stress reported
has increased by roughly one point on the scale (from a 6 to a 7) since 2008. In spite of this, most
respondents reported having good (50 percent) or excellent (25 percent) physical health and good
(40 percent) or excellent (46 percent) mental health. In fact, the majority (52 percent) of respondents
viewed their physical health as better than most people their age, whereas only 12 percent viewed
their health as worse than most people their age. Reported social comparisons of mental health are
even better, with the majority of respondents viewing their mental health as better (48 percent) or
about the same (46 percent) as most people their age. Moreover, respondents predominantly reported
being satisfied (49 percent) or very satisfied (36 percent) with their life at the present time; just slightly
less satisfied than in 2008. Bivariate analysis indicates the odds of being satisfied with one’s life are
greater for respondents with higher education and higher income.
FIGURE 2-9.
FIGURE 2-10.
Payment Sources for Health Care
Area Health Care Services
Employment
Medicare
Medicaid
Other Source
Available
Variety Of
Options
High Quality
Affordable
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.
26
FIGURE 2-11.
FIGURE 2-12.
Level of Stress
Partisanship vs. Ideology
0���������������������� No Stress
5������������� Average Stress
10����Really High Stress
Percent in Agreement
Personal
Income
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.
Percent
Percent
Percent in Agreement
THE COMPLICATED DANCE OF
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND PARTISANSHIP IN WNC
Strong Democrat
Strong Republican
Extremely Liberal
Extremely Conservative
27
FIGURE 2-13.
FIGURE 2-14.
Assessment of Education in Western North Carolina
Trust in Government Officials
Percent In Agreement
Percent Who Trust The Institution
Most Of The Time
Secondary
Education
Primary
Education
Higher
Education
National
Government
State
Legislature
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.
Local
Government
Governor
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.
28
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.
29
INTRODUCTION
The effects of the Great Recession on the local economy were massive. Most counties in Western
North Carolina have a long way to go to fully recover, even if the recession officially ended in 2009.
Western North Carolina is in a state of change because of the slowed growth of its regional economy.
This chapter focuses on this change and its possible implications. A comprehensive examination of the
region’s economy in comparison with the nation and state’s economies has been conducted.
As shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 (see page 36), the national economy has been growing slowly
since 2009. The economy of North Carolina grew faster than the U.S. economy in 2012. Nationally, North
Carolina ranked ninth in gross domestic product and eleventh in gross state product growth rate in 2012
(See Appendix Table A-1 for details).
Western North Carolina’s economy was estimated to grow by 1.08 percent in 2011 and 1.26 percent in 2012,
which is higher than the -0.73 percent growth that occurred in 2010. The WNC economy started expanding
from a low point in 2010. Most key economic indicators predict a slow rebound after the recession.
STRUCTURE OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMY
The 2012 economic output of WNC, by industry, is shown in Table 3-2. In 2012, the top three industries
in WNC were manufacturing (28 percent), finance/insurance/real estate (16 percent), and services
(15 percent). Manufacturing accounted for more than one-quarter of total production. In contrast,
mining and agriculture made a very small contribution to the regional economy, accounting for only
4 percent of total production in 2012.
TABLE 3-1. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
Western North Carolina*
CHAPTER 3:
THE STATE OF WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA’S REGIONAL ECONOMY
30
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
31
TABLE 3-2. INDUSTRY OUTPUT IN WNC IN 2012
Industry
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.
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
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.
32
North Carolina’s
Northeast Commission
Piedmont Triad
Partnership
Research
Triangle
Regional
Partnership
AdvantageWest Economic
Development Group
Charlotte Regional
Partnership
North Carolina’s
Southeast
Commission
North Carolina’s
Eastern Region
Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce
33
34
35
63.1%
12.9%
37.40
94.90
18 to 64
65 and Up
Median Age in Years*
Males per 100 Females*
16.1%
9.3%
20.6%
69.3%
22.5%
23.7%
2,258,314
2,372,382
8.7%
20.7%
69.9%
18.2%
17.2%
1,640,717
1,705,301
12
17.3%
$21,430.3
$50,486.2
$38,148.8
98.60
44.30
17.9%
60.7%
21.4%
13.8%
$23,803.0
$62,014.8
$46,958.7
INCOME
89.70
39.30
11.6%
65.3%
23.1%
16.4%
$22,268.3
$55,246.0
$41,872.7
89.20
40.75
14.1%
63.7%
22.2%
13.6%
$24,635.5
$62,755.2
$47,687.1
93.70
38.60
10.7%
64.8%
24.4%
10.3%
23.0%
65.0%
19.2%
21.2%
2,021,948
2,177,876
13
Piedmont Triad Research Triangle
POPULATION
12
Charlotte
POPULATION BY AGE, 2010 (APRIL 1)
5.3%
4.3%
90.4%
12.4%
11.5%
1,099,165
1,147,042
23
Advantage West
19.7%
$20,921.9
$52,544.8
$40,648.3
128.00
42.00
13.8%
52.2%
34.0%
3.6%
39.4%
56.0%
4.3%
4.4%
423,553
427,953
16
Northeast
19.8%
$20,633.8
$51,832.6
$38,656.6
93.00
38.40
13.1%
63.5%
23.4%
7.8%
26.5%
59.0%
12.0%
11.6%
1,101,381
1,154,732
11
Southeast
9.301
10.926
6.166
3.99
5.909
Transportation and Warehousing Employment
Information Employment
Finance and Insurance Employment
7.825
28.262
State and Local Government Employment
44.326
2.817
5.321
15.181
18.236
4.252
21.276
1.27
53.515
3.26
5.463
23.613
27.957
6.548
32.624
2.757
12.54
1.924
11.833
11.799
9.699
5.697
10.371
54.332
10.649
116.368
31.566
3.323
1.027
2.029
16.336
455.23
1990
66.261
2.804
5.74
29.856
37.076
10.698
52.545
4.789
23.025
3.12
17.98
17.021
12.665
7.124
13.136
65.75
14.638
103.419
45.015
1.652
1.143
2.48
16.492
554.429
2000
72.622
2.776
6.186
34.402
42.968
13.633
67.276
7.98
28.789
3.44
23.234
27.028
17.524
5.885
12.478
62.916
13.712
51.074
41.114
1.442
1.573
2.449
13.048
553.549
2010
71.166
2.792
6.301
36.032
45.613
14.055
68.691
8.556
30.861
3.745
24.072
27.738
17.135
5.761
12.936
65.307
14.213
52.161
40.564
1.483
1.599
2.643
12.328
565.752
2012
56.8%
-22.5%
8.8%
35.0%
38.6%
37.8%
32.2%
32.8%
31.5%
40.8%
33.6%
55.5%
57.4%
17.4%
29.6%
47.2%
-2.3%
14.7%
42.0%
31.3%
13.5%
82.0%
35.1%
29.8%
70-80
20.7%
15.7%
2.7%
55.5%
53.3%
54.0%
53.3%
59.5%
51.9%
51.5%
55.0%
8.0%
4.3%
21.6%
29.8%
49.5%
36.1%
0.0%
41.3%
43.2%
-0.2%
99.1%
-23.8%
22.4%
80-90
23.8%
-14.0%
5.1%
26.4%
32.6%
63.4%
61.1%
73.7%
83.6%
62.2%
51.9%
44.3%
30.6%
25.0%
26.7%
21.0%
37.5%
-11.1%
42.6%
-50.3%
11.3%
22.2%
1.0%
21.8%
Growth Rate
90-00
00-10
9.6%
-1.0%
7.8%
15.2%
15.9%
27.4%
28.0%
66.6%
25.0%
10.3%
29.2%
58.8%
38.4%
-17.4%
-5.0%
-4.3%
-6.3%
-50.6%
-8.7%
-12.7%
37.6%
-1.3%
-20.9%
-0.2%
Source: US Census and Woods & Poole 2013 | * Average of counties in each region | ** Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars), 2007-2011
*** Access NC, North Carolina Department of Commerce
4.89
3.634
11.242
Other Services, Except Public Admin Employment
Federal Civilian Government Employment
13.154
Accommodation and Food Services Employment
Federal Military Employment
3.086
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Employment
1.729
1.302
16.089
Educational Services Employment
6.277
Administrative and Waste Services Employment
Health Care and Social Assistance Employment
8.255
0.902
Management of Companies and Enterprises Employment
7.635
7.026
5.715
Real Estate and Rental and Lease Employment
Professional and Technical Services Employment
4.685
7.99
36.339
8.007
24.686
116.409
Wholesale Trade Employment
101.468
Manufacturing Employment
22.337
Retail Trade Employment
15.728
Construction Employment
2.321
1.029
0.907
1.768
Mining Employment
Utilities Employment
1.019
21.438
371.917
1980
0.56
15.872
Farm Employment
Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities and Other Employment
286.64
1970
Total Employment
Sector
TABLE 3-4. TRENDS IN EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA 1970-2012
-2.0%
0.6%
1.9%
4.7%
6.2%
3.1%
2.1%
7.2%
7.2%
8.9%
3.6%
2.6%
-2.2%
-2.1%
3.7%
3.8%
3.7%
2.1%
-1.3%
2.8%
1.7%
7.9%
-5.5%
2.2%
10-12
19.0%
$21,507.8
$53,180.4
$40,932.9
103.20
38.25
12.4%
62.0%
25.6%
8.3%
27.7%
63.7%
11.4%
10.3%
978,250
1,033,458
13
Eastern
Source: US Census and Woods & Poole 2013 | * Average of counties in each region | ** Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars), 2007-2011
*** Access NC, North Carolina Department of Commerce
Persons Below Poverty Level (%), 2011***
$25,256.0
23.9%
Under 17
Per Capita Income**, 2007-2011
8.4%
Percent of Hispanic Population 2010
$54,863.5
21.5%
Percent of Black Population 2010
Average Household Income, 2011
68.5%
Percent of White Population 2010
$46,291.0
100%
Distribution by Region (%) 2000
Median Household Income, 2007-2011
100%
9,535,483
2010 Census
Distribution by Region (%) 2010
10,018,744
100
NC
2013 Estimate
Number of Counties
Indicator
TABLE 3-3. GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
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.
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
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.
FIGURE 3-2.
FIGURE 3-3.
Growth Rates of Gross Domestic Product
Total Employment: WNC and NC
Unemployment Rates(%): WNC and NC
520,000
4,400,000
500,000
4,200,000
US
4,000,000
480,000
NC
3,800,000
460,000
WNC
3,600,000
440,000
WNC
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2012
2011
2009
2010
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
36
Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics
1993
3,000,000
400,000
Source: Woods and Poole 2013
3,200,000
1992
420,000
WNC
3,400,000
NC
1991
NC
1990
US
Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics
37
TABLE 3-5. LOCATION QUOTIENT
NAICS*
Sector
Western North Carolina
North Carolina
Employment
Percent
Employment
Percent
Location
Quotient
11
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting
9,633.50
1.76%
83,576.38
1.61%
1.09
21
Mining
1,241.47
0.23%
8,207.19
0.16%
1.44
22
Utilities
1,915.17
0.35%
13,104.11
0.25%
1.39
23
Construction
42,571.57
7.78%
304,980.06
5.87%
1.33
31-33
Manufacturing
49,647.08
9.08%
439,058.19
8.45%
1.07
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%
42
Source: IMPLAN Data 2012 | * NAICs stands for North American Industry Classification System
38
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
39
TABLE 3-6. EMPLOYMENT AND OUTPUT MULTIPLIERS
NAICS
Western North Carolina
Sector
Employment
Percent
11
Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting
1.66
1.62
21
Mining
1.85
1.38
22
Utilities
2.18
1.21
23
Construction
1.58
1.51
31-33
Manufacturing
2.13
1.34
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
42
Source: IMPLAN Data 2012
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.
40
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.
41
TABLE 3-7A. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
Expenditures
$(millions)
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.
Employment
(thousands)
Payroll $(millions)
State Tax Receipts Local Tax Receipts
$(millions)
$(millions)
Year
Value
%Chg
Value
%Chg
Value
%Chg
Value
%Chg
Value
%Chg
2000
1,632.8
-
400.8
-
24.9
-
87.8
-
74.1
-
2001
1,767.5
8.3%
465.4
16.1%
27.6
10.9%
98.7
12.5%
75.6
2.0%
2002
1,871.1
5.9%
474.0
1.9%
28.1
1.9%
101.6
3.0%
79.5
5.2%
2003
1,889.4
1.0%
470.1
-0.8%
27.5
-2.3%
102.2
0.6%
80.3
1.0%
2004
1,951.6
3.3%
466.1
-0.8%
27.0
-1.7%
104.6
2.3%
83.0
3.3%
2005
2,083.4
6.8%
477.0
2.3%
27.2
0.8%
109.5
4.7%
87.3
5.2%
2006
2,270.2
9.0%
494.7
3.7%
27.7
1.7%
117.5
7.3%
94.4
8.1%
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
I-26 East
I-26 West
I-40 West
I-77 North
I-77 South
I-85 North
I-85 South
I-95 North
I-95 South
Total
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013*
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%
Visitors
31,514
29,841
27,940
31,825
29,021
23,261
24,008
22,121
Visitors
%Chg
-
-5.3%
-6.4%
13.9%
-8.8%
-19.8%
3.2%
-7.9%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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%
Visitors
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
42
43
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.
44
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
WNC
North
Carolina
Med Gross Rent Med Value Owner
Owner
Occupied Units
Seasonal
Housing Units
Year
Housing Units
1970
242,881
-
$68
-
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%
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%
$10,748
-
-
159,450
-
10,313
-
Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC)
45
TABLE 3-9. HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA IN 2009
Alleghany
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 twentythree 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.
46
(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
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
Source: Log Into North Carolina (LINC)
SUMMARY
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.
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.
11
Log Into North Carolina, NC State Data Center.
13
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.
Ibid.
47
APPENDIX:
ADDITIONAL TABLES
FROM CHAPTER THREE
APPENDIX TABLE A-1. REAL GDP BY STATE (MILLIONS OF CHAINED 2005 DOLLARS)
State
2009
2010
2011
2012
Percent
Change
2011-2012
Rank of
Percent
Change
United States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
12,592,668
149,843
44,215
221,405
89,776
1,667,152
225,984
195,237
55,352
87,172
648,642
353,817
57,902
49,949
561,154
227,383
121,742
110,420
135,180
189,853
44,770
255,757
327,739
314,260
233,758
83,702
212,591
31,271
77,625
110,001
53,475
424,871
70,239
974,078
372,219
29,497
405,483
132,059
164,711
482,665
42,741
139,913
34,354
221,902
1,071,959
102,863
22,108
363,730
300,785
51,881
212,592
32,439
12,897,088
153,839
43,472
221,016
92,075
1,672,473
230,976
197,613
55,496
89,968
650,291
358,843
59,673
50,734
571,228
241,927
124,011
113,324
141,977
200,944
45,564
264,321
340,159
329,812
240,418
85,363
216,681
31,918
80,638
109,610
55,242
431,409
70,785
1,013,251
380,693
31,618
413,991
132,917
174,165
493,530
43,153
143,407
34,371
227,360
1,116,268
105,199
23,341
377,466
307,685
53,575
219,080
32,004
13,108,318
155,390
44,232
224,787
92,684
1,692,301
234,929
197,452
56,004
91,442
656,346
366,342
60,899
50,759
583,055
247,222
126,792
116,907
144,779
195,640
45,763
268,418
345,961
341,194
244,305
84,402
217,401
32,683
82,172
111,574
56,443
432,415
70,529
1,024,985
382,655
34,092
425,913
135,454
180,326
502,769
43,168
146,669
35,898
232,891
1,156,013
108,106
23,639
381,493
313,783
54,597
221,874
31,231
13,430,576
157,272
44,732
230,641
93,892
1,751,002
239,884
197,202
56,110
92,106
672,287
374,000
61,877
50,976
594,201
255,380
129,799
118,523
146,829
198,548
45,986
274,930
353,717
348,867
252,971
86,396
221,702
33,374
83,393
113,197
56,735
438,173
70,699
1,038,541
392,905
38,654
435,104
138,296
187,440
511,345
43,774
150,596
35,985
240,523
1,211,692
111,808
23,912
385,772
325,165
56,384
225,094
31,302
2.5%
1.2%
1.1%
2.6%
1.3%
3.5%
2.1%
-0.1%
0.2%
0.7%
2.4%
2.1%
1.6%
0.4%
1.9%
3.3%
2.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
0.5%
2.4%
2.2%
2.2%
3.5%
2.4%
2.0%
2.1%
1.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.3%
0.2%
1.3%
2.7%
13.4%
2.2%
2.1%
3.9%
1.7%
1.4%
2.7%
0.2%
3.3%
4.8%
3.4%
1.2%
1.1%
3.6%
3.3%
1.5%
0.2%
39
41
13
38
6
22
51
50
43
14
24
28
46
26
8
16
35
33
29
45
15
19
18
5
17
25
21
30
31
44
36
48
37
11
1
20
23
3
27
34
12
47
9
2
7
40
42
4
10
32
49
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce, and Woods and Poole 2013
48
49
About the Authors
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
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.
Source: U.S. Decennial Census 1960-2010
50
51
FOR MORE INFORMATION
828.227.2596
TONYJOHNSON@WCU.EDU
WWW.WCU.EDU
52