ExploreUK is getting a new design. Try the beta site!


ExploreUK home

0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

5 > Image 5 of Kentucky farm and home science, vol. 5 No. 1 winter 1959

Part of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station

Cracken) in 1957 contained 38 percent of the states also had a sizeable natural increase, since there were *7* population compared to only 32 percent in 1950. 77,999 more births than deaths. But this gain, great V. Cllanggs in 1]Ou-]T]tl0pO1itan economic areas HS. \V1ElS, \VHS less thai] half tl'lC loss tllfnllgh Iil't . (see map) also show that the shift to urban areas is iiiigmiicii _ 1 nggctiug all parts Of the Stat_ Urban groyvth is the fx I]TOI` careful look Ht th data lTli.lkCS clear hO\V _ i`v primary reason for population increase in nearly every tistoiiisliiiig these (iam Oii iititiiiiil ii``tiS um- 1,* one of the five economic areas which gained (Area 1- li" i94$ i" *Y had i$6 hitihw 52i8i The Purchase- Area 2Owensboro-Henderson Area d"' In 1940-50, Economic Area 9 had l76,364 births, 36,360 `*v 3bEastern Pennyroyal and Knobs; Area 4-The Pen- de,",,_ _ nyroyal; and Area 7The Inner Bluegrass). On the ih 1950-$7. J" tY hid i7$U6 birth!. NJN _ other hand, the five economic areas which lost in In "1?g;; Economic Ama 9 had WL"] Mmm 23.442 *** population were areas dominated by agriculture or de,|,,_ _ Tri coal mining and were without large urban areas (Area Note that jgfigeysou County vvhich had 7(),68() fgwgr 3Tii \V$ti`ii Coal Fields; Aiea 5Tii Smith Cii births than Economic Area 9 in the earlier period had **` tml Knobs; Aitfii 6Tli Oiiiei Bi\igTi$$9 Area 8-The 6,145 more births than Area 9 in the 7% years follow- . Y} v Cumberland Plateau Margin; Area 9-The Cumb1 ing, Note also that there were nearly 2,000 more births liiiid Pltitaiil in ]efferson county in the 7% years from 1950 to 1957 7 * than in the 10 years from 1940 to 1950. The animal R, Most lmP'Tni' Changes rate of reproductive increase in ]efferson county in- The two most important changes, both in numbers creased from 1.23 in the earlier period to 1.77 from f" and rates, were in ]e{ferson countys continued in- 1950-57. On the other hand, the animal rate of repro- JV crease, and the tremendous decrease in Economic ductive increase of Economic Area 9 dccrerlscd from A Area 9. 2.75 in the 1940`s to 2.:28 in the 1950's. , "" In 1950 ]efferson county had about 27,000 fewer The migration to ]efferson county because of the gs; persons than Economic Area 9. Only 7% years later, job opportunities there in industry and commerce is . _ in 1957, the county had about 158,000 more people an old, readily understood phenomenon. The move- ***5 than Area 9. This is a startling change. Although ment away from Economic Area 9 is also an old pat- ,5-. - ]efi`erson county has steadily gained in population, in tern of movement from subsistence farming and coal no decade from 1860 to 1950 had the Cumberland mining, with its decreasing need for manpower, to Plateau failed to gain population. But there is no better employment opportunities elsewhere. doubt that the census of 1960 will show a sizeable The changes in natural increase are, however, new loss of population in this area. and different. Apparently young persons have mi- "T How can we account for these spectacular changes grated in such numbers from Eastern Kentucky that wr in the two areas? the number of births has fallen precipitously. On the Fundamentally, population change is a result of the other hand, ]efferson county has held the young people (Ti number of births, the number of deaths, and the it already had and has attracted young persons of 1;,,, migration into and out of the areas during the period childbearing ages so that the number of births has T_ being studied. increased rapidly. T7 As expected, from 1950 to 1957 jefferson county s gained through net migration (i.e., the number of The Future migrants coming into jefferson county exceeded the \Vhat of the future? The rate of emigration from VT number leaving the county), with an estimated gain E11$i<1`ii K1ilil<) WHS Coiiiiiiiiiiiil iii li< l<\) iis .L;. of On thc other hand, Economic Area 9 lost recently as _Inly 1, 1957. and in spite of the economic h(xu\,vily_ tho net loss bgiug (StiI]]at(d at hl I`(C(SSl()ll (illfillg ilIl(1 llIIlll*((l}` I'tltl M {hg 7fA..)r(;u P(li()(i E()]]0I]]ic _,\l;_;]_ lost th]()ugh (l(CI`(*1lS(*(i ll gI`(ilt (l(ill. 1)l`(}i)tll)ly IllOI`( 1lll(l I\l()I`l . *- migration 31 percent of its total population in 1950. Yiiiiiiii Dtl liiii