• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Population and income
 Housing adequacy and quality of...
 The 1985 housing scenario
 Reference
 Tables














Group Title: Economics report - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 68
Title: Rural housing in north central Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027509/00001
 Material Information
Title: Rural housing in north central Florida shortage or surplus?
Series Title: Economics report
Physical Description: iii, 23 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Coppedge, Robert O
Davis, C. G ( Carlton George ), 1936-
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Housing, Rural -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Robert O. Coppedge, Carlton G. Davis.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027509
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000303329
oclc - 02647786
notis - ABS9870
lccn - 76623471

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Population and income
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Housing adequacy and quality of life
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    The 1985 housing scenario
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Reference
        Page 15
    Tables
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
Full Text

WMay
May 1975


Economics Report 68


Rural Housing in North Central



Florida: Shortage or Surplus?


3,,



S'I


t


~Jj


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations and
Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611


Robert O. Coppedge


Carlton G. Davis
















ABSTRACT


The most recent U. S. Census of Housing indicated a large portion
of housing units in Florida were substandard and inadequate. This
deficiency was particularly acute in rural North-Central Florida.
Projections by state agencies had indicated an adequate supply of
housing units in 1985. This report questions the adequacy of housing
in the future, and discusses some of the factors that should be
considered when projecting future housing needs. Policy implications
of a potential lack of adequate housing facilities are discussed briefly.


Key words:


Housing, rural housing, substandard housing, Florida,
housing needs, housing projections.













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for
suggestions on an earlier draft of this report: James A. Brown and
Virgil L. Elkins of the Food and Resource Economics Department and Faye
T. Plowman, Extension Housing Specialist. The authors are wholly
responsible for any errors.













TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .... . . . 1

LIST OF TABLES . . .... .. .......... ii

LIST OF FIGURES . ... . . . .. iii

INTRODUCTION . ... . . . ... 1

POPULATION AND INCOME. . . . ... .. .. 2

Population. . ... .. . . ..... 2

Income. ... .. . . . . .. 2

HOUSING ADEQUACY AND QUALITY OF LIFE . . . 6

THE 1985 HOUSING SCENARIO. . . ... .. .. 9

Factors Likely to Affect Demand and Supply. . 9

Population Growth. . . ... . 11

Rising Income Levels . . .. . 11

Replacement of Old and/or Substandard Homes. ... 11

Conclusions and Policy Implications . ... . 11

REFERENCES. ... . ....... . ... 15

APPENDIX TABLES . . . . . .


LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Selected population, income and housing characteristics for
1970, with projections to 1985, thirty-county study area of
North-Central Florida ... . . .. . 10







LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)


Appendix
Tables Page

1 Population distribution of multi-county study area by
residence, location and race, 1960 and 1970 .. . 17

2 Rural population, by planning disi r.it:cs and counties, in
multi-county study area, 1960 and 1970 . . 18

3 Population projections for 1970-1985 in multi-county study
area . . . . . . 20

4 Personal income per capital, by planning districts and
counties, in multi-county study area, 1959 and 1970. 22


LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

1 Thirty-county study area. . . . 3

2 Residence classification of study area, 1970 . 4

3 Poverty status of population of study area, 1970 7

4 Substandard housing in study area, 1970. . 8













RURAL HOUSING IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA: SHORTAGE OR SURPLUS?


Robert 0. Coppedge and Carlton G. Davis


INTRODUCTION


Housing needs have recently been a subject of much discussion and
concern in Florida and other states. In Florida, growing recognition
of the magnitude of the housing problem is evidenced by the activities
and housing studies prepared by the Office of the Governor, the Governor's
Task Force on Housing and Community Development and the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs [2, 3]. The most recent U. S. Census of
Housing indicated a large protion of housing units in Florida were
substandard and inadequate. The need to upgrade present housing, a
rapidly growing population, and higher incomes justify the need to survey
the current and future housing situation in the state.
Housing deficiencies are particularly acute in North Central Florida,
a predominantly rural area where the prevalence of substandard housing
units is significantly greater than the state average. This report
highlights the findings of a research report: Rural Housing Quality and
Income Poverty in North Central Florida, by Carlton G. Davis [1]. Much
useful detailed information may be had by referring to the original
report. This paper summarizes only a portion of that report, and gleans
summary tables of useful statistics about relevant population and
housing conditions in a 30-county area of North Central Florida.



Co-authors ROBERT 0. COPPEDGE and CARLTON G. DAVIS are assistant
professorsof food and resource economics.







POPULATION AND INCOME


Population



The study area included several metropolitan areas, including
Daytona Beach, Gainesville, Orlando and Jacksonville. The area
coincides with state planning districts 3, 4, 5 and 6 and includes six
designated growth node areas (i.e., areas with 25,000 population and
over) (Figure 1). In 1960 the area's population was approximately
1.5 million people, representing 30 percent of the state's total
population. By 1970 the region's population had increased to over
1.9 million, constituting 29 percent of the state's population.
However, the rural population experienced a decline from 551,196 to
541,457. More statistical data on this and related subjects are
included in the Appendix.
The land area and the related population of the study region was
decidedly rural in nature (Figure 2). In fact, nine of the 30
counties were completely rural, having no cities meeting the urban
criteria of the 1970 U. S. Census of Population. Another 12 counties
had rural residents outnumbering the urban. Thus, 21 of the 30
counties were comprised mainly of rural people. However, the effect
of the high population concentrations in the urban centers was
enough to bring the percent of the overall population classified
as urban to 72 percent.


Income


Personal income per capital is a rough measure of the degree of
disparity in economic opportunity between regions. From this point
of view, the figures suggest, among other things, disparities in
economic opportunities among counties, planning districts and the
rest of the state.













GEORGIA


Jacksonville


Doytono


Study area


"mml"1 State planning district
boundaries


S Growth nodes
(25,000 population


and over)


ro onR.E COONTIY


Figure l.--Thirty-courtty study area


































I, II
V '
',

I 2 All rural \



More than half rural


Figure 2.--Residence classification in study area, 1970


ecF ~"






According to the data (see Appendix), there has been virtually no
change in per capital income in the four planning districts in the study
area relative to that of the state over the 1959-1970 period. The only
exception was in District 6. Specifically, in 1959, Districts 3 and
5 had per capital incomes well below the state figure of $1,929. At
that time Districts 4 and 6 had per capital incomes slightly above that
of the state. By 1970, however, three of the four districts (3, 5 and 6)
in the study area had per capital incomes below the state's figures.
The net increase in 1970 occurred as a result of the reversal of the
relative position of District 6 over the two time periods.
On a county basis, the relative per capital income situation for
1959 was such that all counties in Districts 3 and 5 registered per
capital incomes below the state's average. Six of seven counties in
District 4, and four of seven counties in District 6 exhibited this
characteristic. The counties of Districts 3, 4 and 5 remained unchanged
in their relative income position in 1970. However, District 6
experienced a reversal of relative income position, which was largely
attributable to a net increase in the number of counties falling below
the state average income of 1970.
The most rapid rate of increase in per capital income occurred in
the counties of Districts 3 and 5 over the 1959-1970 period. Specifi-
cally, Districts 3 and 5 experienced rates of change in per capital
income of 119 percent and 100 percent, respectively. In comparison,
the state experienced a rate of change of almost 90 percent. Districts
4 and 6 experienced rates of change below that of the state (86 and 77
percent, respectively) over a comparable period.
The differential rates of growth in per capital income among the
four planning districts are reflected in the net gain or loss in
district per capital income as a proportion of the state's per capital
income over the period. Specifically, the per capital income of District
3 rose from 70 percent of the state's per capital income in 1959 to 81
percent in 1970. District 5 also registered an increase from 60 percent
to almost 70 percent over the period. In contrast, per capital income
of District 4 experienced a decline from almost 103 percent to 101
percent of the state's per capital income in 1959 and 95 percent in 1970.






All but three of the counties had poverty rates in excess of the
state rate of 16.4 percent. Twelve counties had more than a fourth
of all residents classified below the poverty level (Figure 3 and
Appendix). The existence of poverty suggested social needs and
problems. In addition, it indicated limited economic opportunity
in many of the more rural areas.


HOUSING ADEQUACY AND QUALITY OF LIFE


Substandard housing units in North Central Florida in 1970 were
much more prevalent than in the rest of the state. Only seven of the
30 counties in the study area had a lower percentage than the state
average of total housing units classified as substandard (Figure 4).
In other words, North Central Florida counties were enduring more than
their relative share of housing inadequacies.
The situation appeared more intense in rural areas. The 13
counties with the greatest percentage of substandard housing units were
all predominantly rural. Other rural counties also possessed high
percentages of substandard housing units.
The fact was further evident that counties with high poverty rates
also had the greater incidences of substandard homes. The need for
improved housing is perhaps in many cases indicative of the underlying
lack of economic opportunity in rural areas.
Many factors are involved in what has been termed "quality of life."
Among other things, experts have included in various definitions of the
quality of life such concepts as money income, physical and mental
health, environmental considerations, recreational opportunity, family
and community stability and numerous other factors.
The quality of one's home may be considered one factor in the
overall quality of life experienced. Measuring housing quality is
difficult. A substandard housing unit is often defined as one that
lacked some or all plumbing facilities. However, this measure of
housing quality may fail to delineate fully the gap between current
housing and housing needs. Thus, in the report being summarized here
[1], five other measures were considered as approximations for housing














K,..



S >

















Poverty rate exceeds
state rate of 16.4



More than a fourth of
population below poverty


Figure 3.--Poverty status of population in study area, 1970


,- a-tS


-i

















fr-71 1


-- -
I- -, -




I--7 -- -
-:7_- -


LIZ


More than 14 percent
of housing units
substandard


Substandard rate exceeds
state rate of 6.8


Figure 4.--Substandard housing in study area, 1970


K-IlK)-
Xi-s


~~ "~







adequacy. This was done to evaluate the extent of the gap between
adequate and inadequate housing when using different measures of
housing adequacy. These different measures were:
1. Water supply facilities
2. Toilet facilities
3. Bath facilities
4. Average number of rooms
5. Plumbing facilities
For each of these measures, the available data indicated a
substantial gap in the availability of adequate housing for rural
residents.
The gap appeared to be large for rural nonfarm residents, compared
with farm residents, suggesting that relatively lower housing quality
was the general case rather than the exception for these residents.
Despite evidence of a relatively higher quality level for owners of
rural farm housing units, the information at hand suggested that a
considerable number of owned farm units also lacked many essential
housing amenities associated with acceptable levels of living.


THE 1985 HOUSING SCENARIO


Factors Likely to Affect Demand and Supply


Comparing 1985 population and housing projections made by separate
agencies in Florida indicated that anticipated increases in study area
population are countered by similar increases in housing units [2, 3].
Florida's 1985 population was forecasted to be 57 percent above the
1970 level, and housing units were expected to be up 54 percent (Table 1).
Housing projections were based primarily on the expected population
increase. If more than one person per house is assumed, this increase
in housing capacity appears quite adequate. However, there are other
considerations.
Consider three factors that tend to influence the level of housing
units needed in the future (others may be ignored);
1. A growing population
2. Rising income levels












O
Table l.--Slected population, income and housing characteristics for 1970, vich projecciois to 1935, thirty-councy study area
of North-Cenrral Florida

Pouiation, 1970 Per capital Occugp ouSacing 16970 Projectior.s to 195 Per capitZ
Persons income, To.al Sub- ?opul- iouiing .n e
b c action unit increase
County and District Riural 'rban Total bpl 1970 ulits standard increase incransa 1959-1!70
------- Number ------- % of total Dollars Nbcr ------ ----------- Percent---------------
------u.b ---- ----Nbe -- S of totcI Lo~llrs 0;~~b' ---------O an----- ------


Dis=ri3ct 3:



Columbia
D'ixie

E7-irton.
Lafye.tte

5 wanree
Ty..lo:

Otal. Di-tri>t 3



3layr
Duva!

:assau

St. Johns
Zaker
Toal., Ditriz 4



Cirrus
Hernando

:-aricr.

T-cal, District 5


Srevard
inldian 2iver
Lake

Os-ceola
Setaim a


Tornl -:ucy aria, .rar.-


32,643 72,116 104,764 22.1 3,193
^,777 4,848 14,625 23.8 2,34,
11,051 14,199- 25,250 24.3 3,0,8
5,4," 0 5,4F0 2S.1 2,555
3,55 0 3,551 24.4 1,933
7,787 0 7,7B7 38.8 3,01,
2,892 0 2,892 30.5 3,'.01
9,744 3,737 13,481 39.3 2,293
8,729 6,830 15,559 34.0 3,035
5,940 7,701 13,641 27.8 3,045
3,112 0 8,112 23.2 1.830
105,711 109,431 215,142 25.9 2,956


16,748 15,311 32,059 16.5 1,845
10,734 5!3,131 528,865 17.6 3,950
4,454 0 4,454 29.5 2,311
13,671 5,955 20,625 1i.9 3,502
265830 9,310 36,290 26.1 2,199
13,375 12,352 30,727 27.3 3,199
6,503 2,735 9,242 22.4 1,859
97,471 564,792 6'2,'63 18.7 3,692


19,191916 9,196 24,2 2,116
12,944 4,060 17,004 25.3 2,2,5
12,756 0 12,756 23.4 2, 05
41,153 27,872 69,030 24.7 2,773
14,339 0 14,-39 31.0 2,249
100,83 31,932. 132,8:5 25.7 2,5 0


34,492 195,614 230,006 9.8 3,893
10.982 25,010 35,932 19.1 3,503
39,249 30,056 69,305 22.5 2,845
57,592 286,619 344,311 14.4 3,761
13,107 12,162 25,269 21.0 2,985
31,739 51,933 83,692 15.2 2,295
30,251 119,236 169,487 18.2 3,168
2 2?T 720,680 953.062 14.8 3,.63


31,115 10.i
4,053 14.S
7,6,3 12.9
1,70S 23.6
1,146 18.8
2,353 20.0
935 16.5
4,000 25.9
4,855 20.1
4,227 13.7
1.639 18.4
63,705 17.7


9,396 5.7
161,666 7.5
1,483 15.3
6,018 12.2
11,494 i9.4
10,004 10.7
2,229 14.8
202,295 13.7


7,358 4.2
6,0S4 7.2
4,175 18.0
22,317 11.5
4,627 15.5
44.561 11.3


68,560
12,325
?4,621
108,545
S,092
23,757
._,747
31: 747


central Fori.a 541,457 1,426,333 1,9.8,290 622,308
S.or-iia :-i c .i 9- 12*l77 5, .99216 6,789 5-4-3 16.4 3,659 _o, 7?

State Planning Di.sriccs,
biDl: b-l-o pow-rty cvel, 196').
SuSitEadrd: dreali-.5 -I.kint complete p1.rbLr. facillcics.

Source: [1I.


62.1 63.9 105.9
22.4 33.1 66.1
33.1 70.6 1S0.2
25.9 ,6.4 90.0
29.5 -4.3 122.8
2.7 27.5 165.1
7.1 15.2 139.3
12.0 17.5 137.4
8.0. 29.8 151.0
7.8 25.4 124.7
31.9 34.2 117.9
40.0 37.5 1lj6.


69.4 98.0 13.3
36.8 44.2 S7.4
45.9 66.0 99.3
32.4 61.2 121.6
30.6 36.6 72.3
53.9 52.9 137.1
28.5 66.0 S0.1
38.8 61.0 3,.1


175.6 52.1 65.6
117.0 87.4 74.6
33.3 55.7 320z.
62.0 56.4 1.2
5S.4 57.5 132..
82.3 67.9 103,3


43.3 42.4 77.4
66.1 553.8 4.7
44.9 33.2 33.1
74.9 118.1 71.7
158.0 134.6 107.4
129.2 130.6 93.5
4~.7 39.6 1o.3
Ao.7 7-.9 77.!

55.5 55.5 1J1.9
57.2 54.2 89.7






3. Replacement of old and/or substandard homes


Population Growth


As the number of families rise, more housing units are needed.
This need is basic and generally well recognized. Population may
increase naturally or through in-migration.


Rising Income Levels


As consumers become more affluent, their desire for better homes
tends to grow. If the per capital or family income rises, the average
home buyer is going to be seeking a better home, creating a need for
more housing construction. In many instances, rising incomes mean a
decline in demand for multiple family housing units and increased
demand for single family units.


Replacement of Old and/or Substandard Homes


Finally, substandard homes in some cases cannot be remodeled to
introduce the necessary features sufficiently to improve the quality.
Such units must be replaced.
These factors are discussed so that the extent of the housing
"shortage or surplus" question may be considered. It is not necessarily
adequate to plan only enough construction to house a growing population.
Without advance planning regarding housing needs of Florida's population
in relation to income or changes or other factors, the situation may
worsen rather than improve in the future.


Conclusions and Policy Implications


Existence of a relatively high incidence of substandard and
inadequate rural housing units in the study area raises certain key
questions that are likely to have major implications for both short
term and long term state housing policy and programs. First, to what
extent are the projected housing need of area residents likely to be






met by the interplay of normal market forces? The study suggests that
area residents are likely to experience, in the years ahead, in the
absence of concerted public assistance, shortages in both the quantity
and quality of rural housing.
State projections of changes in the study area stock of housing
between 1970 and 1985 is in the order of 56 percent. This projected
increase is likely to fall far short of meeting the housing needs of
area residents on the basis of certain shortcomings of the projection.
In the first place, area housing projections as prepared by state
housing agencies are primarily based on projected increases in popu-
lation up to 1985. The implicit assumption in such projections is that
population and housing stock changes must be roughly equal to avoid
disequilibrium in demand and supply of housing stocks. A major short-
coming of such an assumption is that it discounts the dynamic interaction
effects of income shifts on the demand for housing stock. A high pro-
portion of the study area counties experienced high rates of growth in
per capital income over the 1960-1970 period. Assuming that a similar
rate of growth is maintained over the 1970-1985 period, the net effect
is that the derived demand for housing, via income changes, could gene-
rate a demand for housing stocks in excess of population changes. Changes
in income increase the demand for housing indirectly through an increase
in the demand for single unit housing (as against multiple occupant
housing units), as well as through improved quality of housing. Thus,
to the extent that some rural residents' demand for housing is likely
to increase as a result of shifts in the income elasticity of demand
for housing, state projected housing changes up to the year 1985 are
likely to be inadequate to meet changes in demand. Further research
is needed on this aspect of housing demand as a basis for effective
long term programming to meet the state housing needs in the decades
ahead.
The second major policy question has to do with the extent to
which low income households with substandard and/or inadequate housing
are likely to improve their housing conditions. The competition for
personal or family income between consumption and investment are acute
at low levels of income. At such low levels of income the bulk of
incremental changes in income is likely to go into delayed satisfaction
of consumption needs, rather than into long term capital investments.







such as housing. The relatively large number of below-poverty level
rural households in the study area suggests that concerted public
assistance housing programs might be an essential requirement for
improving the quality of rural housing in the decades ahead. The
study indicated some need for increased public assistance in meeting
housing needs. It appears unrealistic to expect major improvement in
the quality of low income housing via improvement in area economic
activities. In addition to rapidly rising housing costs (resulting
from inflationary pressures), the high consumption propensity of low
income households precludes significant investment in housing. Some
optimum combination of public and private financing will be necessary
to bring about major improvements in low income rural housing in the
area.
It was not within the scope of the report to explore the socio-
economic characteristics of the state housing industry or to suggest
specific policies for meeting the housing needs of rural residents.
The study pointed out that the question of viable policy alternatives
would demand a more comprehensive analysis of the housing situation
than the one undertaken in the study. However, it pointed out that
special attention will have to be given to the housing needs of rural
residents within a rapidly urbanizing state. Analysis will have to be
made of the extent to which the housing needs of rural households can
be met through the private residential construction segment of the
state's housing industry. Assessment will also have to be made as to
the potential benefits and costs of utilizing conventional construction
(on site) methods versus non-conventional methods, as well as through
mobile home construction.
Concerted action will be required at the state and local levels to
foster and encourage the construction industry to be cognizant of and
responsive to the housing tastes and needs of area rural residents.
Rapid urbanization in Florida has resulted in the construction industry
broadening its production scope to include housing types which tend to
reflect the tastes of a more urban population. As a result of such,
there has been an increase in the state of apartment complexes. The
reversal of such a trend is extremely unlikely. What appears
practical, however, is concerted action on the part of federal, state




14

and local governmental agencies to offer economic incentives to private
construction enterprises to invest in subsidized low cost housing that
conforms to the needs and tastes of rural residents. Additional sup-
port for this type of activity could come in the form of selective
channeling of resources into agencies interested in and/or engaged in
research and development of technically sound as well as economically
and socially desirable low cost housing for area rural residents. An
integral part of such policies and programs would be the development
and enforcement of stricter housing codes and standards so as to avoid
massive influx of new substandard and inadequate housing facilities in
rural areas.











REFERENCES


[1] Davis, Carlton G. Rural Housing Quality and Income Poverty in
North Central Florida. Univ. of Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
776 (In press).

[2] Florida. Office of the Governor. The First Annual Report of
State Housing Goals: A Message from Reuben O'Donovan
Askew, Governor. Tallahassee: 1973.

[3] Florida. Office of the Governor. The Governor's Task Force on
Housing and Community Development, and the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs. Housing in Florida.
Vols. 1-5. Tallahassee: 1973.
































APPENDIX

TABLES




Table 1.--Population distribution of muti-county study are by residence, location and race, 1960
and 1970

Proportion of Proportion of urban Proportion of rural
Residence/race Population state population pop. in Florida pop. in Florida
1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
Study area ---Number--- ---Percent----- -----Percent---- ----Percent----
(30 counties) 1,490,458 1,968,290 30.1 29.0 25.7 26.1 42.7 41.0
Urban 939,262 1,426,833 19.0 21.0 25.7 26.1
Rural 551,196 541,457 11.1 8.0 -- 42.7 41.0
White 1,173,008 1,608,032 23.7 23.7
Black 315,521 352,860 6.4 5.2 --
Other 1,929 7,398 -- 0.1
Urban white 722,658 1,154,170 14.6 17.0 19.7 21.1 -- -
Urban black 215,359 266,724 4.3 3.9 5.9 4.9
Urban other 1,235 5,939 -- 0.1 -- 0.1
Rural white 450,350 453,862 9.1 6.7 -- 34.9 34.3
Rural black 100,152 86,136 2.0 1.3 -- 7.8 6.5
Rural other 694 1,459 -- -- 0.1 0.1


Source: [1].






Table 2.--Rural population, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
county study area, 1960 and 1970

Proportion rural of Change in rural
District/county Rural population total population pop.,1960-1970
1960 1970 1960 1970
-----Number---- -----Percent--- Percent

District 3: 104,064 105,711 60.2 49.1 1.6
Alachua 37,358 32,648 50.4 31.2 -12.6
Bradford 7,640 9,777 61.4 66.9 28.0
Columbia 10,612 11,051 52.9 43.8 4.1
Dixie 4,479 5,480 100.0 100.0 22.3
Gilchrist 2,868 3,551 100.0 100.0 23.8
Hamilton 7,705 7,787 100.0 100.0 1.1
Lafayette 2,889 2,892 100.0 100.0 0.1
Madison 10,915 9,744 77.1 72.3 -10.7
Suwannee 8,417 8,729 56.3 56.1 3.7
Taylor 5,138 5,940 34.0 43.6 15.6
Union 6,043 8,112 100.0 100.0 34.2
District 4: 135,757 97,471 24.0 14.7 -28.2
Clay 12,678 16,748 64.9 52.2 32.1
Duval 67,424 10,734 14.8 2.0 -84.0
Flagler 4,566 4,454 100.0 100.0 -2.5
Nassau 9,913 13,671 57.7 66.3 37.9
Putnam 21,184 26,980 65.8 74.3 27.4
St. Johns 15,300 18,375 50.9 59.8 20.1
Baker 4,692 6,509 63.7 70.4 38.7
District 5: 74,299 100,893 78.8 76.0 35.8
Citrus 9,268 19,196 100.0 100.0 107.1
Hernando 7,904 12,944 70.5 76.1 63.8
Levy 10,364 12,756 100.0 100.0 23.1
Marion 34,894 41,158 67.6 59.6 18.0
Sumter 11,869 14,839 100.0 100.0 25.0
District 6: 237,076 237,382 36.1 24.8 0.1
Brevard 51,156 34,392 45.9 15.0 -32.8
Indian River 12,951 10,982 51.2 30.5 -15.2
Lake 30,229 39,249 52.7 56.5 29.8

Continued





Table 2.--Rural population, by planning districts and counties, in multi-
county study area, 1960 and 1970-- Continued

Proportion rural of Change in
District/county Rural population total population rural pop.
1960-1970
1960 1970 1960 1970
---Number--- ----Percent---- Percent

Orange 58,606 57,692 22.2 16.8 -1.6
Osceola 7,831 13,107 41.2 51.9 67.4
Seminole 27,992 31,709 50.9 37.9 13.3
Volusia 48,311 50,251 38.6 29.6 4.0

3tudy area 551,196 541,457 37.0 27.5 -1.8

Florida 1,290,177 1,321,306 26.1 19.5 2.4


Source: [1].






Table 3.--Population projections for 1970-1985 in multi-county study area


District/county


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker
District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter
District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake
Orange


Population

Projected
1970 1985
------Number------

215,142 301,200
104,764 169,800
14,625 17,900
25,250 33,600
5,480 6,900
3,551 4,600
7,787 8,000
2,892 3,100
13,481 15,100
15,559 16,800
13,641 14,700
8,112 10,700
662,263 919,200
32,059 54,300
528,865 723,600
4,454 6,500
20,626 27,300
36,290 47,400
30,727 47,300
9,242 12,800
132,825 242,100
19,196 52,900
17,004 36,900
12,756 17,000
69,030 111,800
14,839 23,500
958,062 1,597,400
230,006 329,500
35,992 59,800
69,305 100,400
344,311 602,100


Projected change
1970-1985


Continued


Percent
40.0
62.1
22.4
33.1
25.9
29.5
2.7
7.1
12.0
8.0
7.8
31.9
38.8
69.4
36.8
45.9
32.4
30.6
53.9
38.5
82.3
175.6
117.0
33.3
62.0
58.4
66.7
43.3
66.1
44.9
74.9






Table 3.--Population projections for 1970-1985 in multi-county study
area-- Continued

Population Projected change
District/county Projected 1970-1985
1970 1985
----Number---- Percent

Osceola 25,269 65,200 158.0
Seminole 83,692 191,800 129.2
Volusia 169,487 248,600 46.7

Study area 1,968,290 3,059,800 55.5
Florida 6,789,443 10,669,700 57.2


Source: [1].






Table 4.--Personal income per capital,
in mulxircounty study area,


by planning districts and counties,
1959 and 1970


District/county


District 3:
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
District 4:
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Baker
District 5:
Citrus
Hernando
Levy
Marion
Sumter
District 6:
Brevard
Indian River
Lake


Year
1959 1970


----Dollars----
1,351 2,956
1,551 3,193
1,441 2,394
1,218 3,048
1,345 2,555
890 1,983
1,162 3,081
1,421 3,401
966 2,293
1,209 3,035
1,355 3,045
840 1,830
1,984 3,692
1,629 1,845
2,108 3,950
1,290 2,511
1,580 3,502
1,562 2,699
1,349 3,199
1,032 1,859
1,278 2,560
1,278 2,116
1,309 2,285
1,270 2,805
1,345 2,773
967 2,249
1,955 3,463
2,194 3,893
1,798 3,500
2,138 2,845


'~-~ ---


Continued


- -- --~-


~c~-c


Change in per capital
income
1959-1970
Percent
118.8
105.9
66.1
150.2
90.0
122.8
165.1
139.3
137.4
151.0
124.7
117.9
86.1
13.3
87.4
99.3
121.6
72.8
137.1
80.1
100.3
65.6
74.6
120.9
106.2
132.6
77.1
77.4
94.7
33.1





Table 4.--Personal income per capital,
in multi-county study area,


by planning districts and counties,
1959 and 1970-- Continued


Change in per capital
Year income.
Disricteonty 59 ,',70 1959-1970
--_-Dolrs_ Percent

Orange 2,190 3,761 71.7
Osceola 1,439 ;,985 107.4
Seminole 1,186 2,295 93.5
Volusia 1,614 3,168 96.3
Florida --,9 3,659 89.,7
Florida 1,929 3,659 89,7


Source: [1].




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs