One way to dig deeper into the population dynamics at play in the Adirondack Park is to examine short-term population changes. The last article in this series looked long-term at total population rates where from 1970 to 2010 Adirondack communities grew at 10.6%, a rate that exceeded the 6.2% rate of New York State in these years.

In our report The Adirondack Park and Rural America: Economic and Population Trends 1970-2010 we examined population trends in a number of ways. One of the most interesting was our analysis of short-term changes in total population of Adirondack communities from 2000 to 2010 because it revealed the points at which the area lost and gained population.

In this report we aggregated the data of the 61 Adirondack Park Towns that are 100% within the Blue Line in order to compare Adirondack communities with other areas in the U.S. The purpose was to see if Adirondack communities stood out in any way from other places by studying trends of leading economic and population indicators from 1970 to 2010. In 2010, the 61 Park Towns had just over 100,000 residents, 77.4% of the Park’s estimated population of 130,000.

From 2000 to 2010, the 61 Park Towns experienced a loss of 1,218 people, dropping from a population of 101,824 in 2000 to 100,606 in 2010, a -1.2% population drop for the decade. What explains this drop in population? A breakdown of exactly where the -1.2% drop occurred in the 61 Park Towns is provided in the table below, which shows the changes in 5-year age groups from 2000 to 2010. This analysis shows losses due to the exodus of college age young people and mortality of older residents.

A total of 12,822 people arrived in Adirondack communities from 2000 to 2010 through births (9,694), by being brought here by their parents as young children (687), as young adults after age 25 (476), as career-age adults after age 30 (1,095), or as retirees after age 55 (870). These gains were offset by a loss of 14,040 people. These losses were seen in the departure of college age young people (4,587) and in the loss of older residents who moved away or died (9,453). Births and recruitment of new residents to Adirondacks from 2000 to 2010 was not high enough to replace these losses.

When we dig into the 61 Park Towns’ short-term population dynamics, there are three important points to focus on. The first is the loss of college-age young people. From 2000 to 2010, 4,587 young people in their late teens or early twenties left the Adirondacks. Most left for college, some for the military, and some for other reasons. In general, Adirondack secondary schools have high levels of graduates who choose to pursue a college degree. While, over 4,500 college-age young people moved away, it’s important to note that in this decade over 15,000 college-age young people either chose to stay in the Adirondacks after high school or decided to move here.

Second, the largest population loss in Adirondack communities from 2000 to 2010 was among older residents, where over 9,400 residents either moved away or died. The Adirondacks, like all rural areas in the U.S. in the first decades of the 21^stCentury, has a high percentage of older residents. The population expansion during the famed “Baby Boom” generation after World War II saw significant gains in rural areas. The Baby Boom generation is now aging into a generation of senior citizens. As a result while rural areas in the U.S. today have just 15% of the country’s total population, rural areas have over 25% of seniors over 65 years old. The population in the Adirondacks, like that of other rural areas, skews older, but this is exacerbated by the fact that Adirondack communities recruit people of retirement age, while many other regions export their retirees.

The third point is that Adirondack communities recruited over 3,100 people who chose to move into the area from 2000 to 2010. Who were these people? In this decade, 687 arrived as young children after age 4. Presumably they did not come on their own, but were brought here by their parents. This fact runs counter to the claim that families with young children are leaving the Adirondacks as this group saw a net gain. Another point of population recruitment was with young adults after age 25 where 476 people chose either to return to the Adirondacks after college or to move here. Another 1,095 people made the same choice at ages 30-50 as career-age adults. That over 1,500 adults made the choice to move to the Adirondacks from 2000 to 2010 also runs counter to the conventional wisdom. When compared with other rural areas, the Adirondacks saw stronger rates of recruitment of working age adults than that of many other rural areas.

The net loss for this decade was 1,218 people. The challenge for Adirondack communities is that it appears that we’ve reached a point where births now roughly equal deaths among older residents. Recruitment of young families and working age adults does not recoup the loss from the departure of college age young people. Many questions face Adirondack communities. With such a small population, it’s important to  bear in mind that the decisions of a few hundred individuals and families can positively or negatively affect the population trajectories of Adirondack communities. This creates opportunities for Adirondack leaders to develop intentional recruitment programs that may be able to move the needle.

From 2000 to 2010, Adirondack communities experienced a slight -1.2% population drop. It’s important to note that this drop occurred at a time of significant population changes across the U.S. and Rural America. From 2000 to 2010, 44% towns, cities, boroughs, etc. in New York State experienced population losses, communities with 17% of the state’s population. Across the U.S., 35% of counties saw population losses, areas home to 14% of the U.S. population.

Losses were much greater in Rural America. From 2000 to 2010, 47% of the counties in Rural America experienced population losses, areas with 33% of the population of Rural America. Closer to home, 44% of the counties in the Rural Northeast U.S. lost population, areas with 47% of the population. Declining population is a major trend in nearly half of Rural America. Two trends dominate population loss in Rural America and these are the loss of college age young people and the mortality of older residents. These are inescapable rules throughout Rural America.

An analysis of short-term population trends from 2000 to 2010 showed that the experiences of Adirondack communities were consistent with trends across Rural America. The question for Adirondack leaders is how will Adirondack communities meet the challenge of slow population loss. If the Park’s losses continue at a rate of -1.2% per decade, which is questionable, the population of the 61 Adirondack Park communities would be around 95,000 by 2050.

In 2010, Adirondack communities were part of a vast Rural American landscape that is losing population. Because population decline is a major part of the Rural America experience, a number of strategies have been developed in various places to try and reverse these trends or even to embrace them. Rural academics in Iowa, for instance, have developed the “shrink smart” concept whereby rural communities proactively plan to grow more vibrant, build stronger community institutions, and build a stronger economy, even as they lose population. Another aspect of population trends in the U.S. in the first decades of the 21^stCentury is that Americans are moving far less than they once did and that economic opportunity is but one factor among many that people consider when they choose to relocate. Many other factors, such as community amenities in the form of restaurants, cultural institutions, scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, social and racial diversity, the politics of an area, among many other factors, are major considerations when one makes the choice of where to live.

Adirondack leaders have been largely reactive to population trends, often pointing towards environmental controls as the culprit. This is a fundamental misdiagnosis of a challenge that is widespread across rural areas, which leads Adirondack leaders to chase false solutions. The silver lining in the population debate is that we’re talking about small numbers where the decisions of 100 people per year can change the population trajectory of Adirondack communities. One effort to investigate is a coordinated regional recruitment program where incentives are provided for people to move to the Adirondack Park. One part of this could be the creation of some form of clearinghouse for careers in the Adirondacks that identifies career options in the Park for people who dream of moving here and lists employment openings. Many employers in the Park talk about the challenges of finding long-term employees.

There’s not much that we can do in the Adirondacks to prevent the mortality of older residents. And while Baby Boomers as a generation saw enormous changes throughout their lives, and as a generation forged many of those changes, the reality is that over the next 20 years most of these folks will die or move away to assisted living or memory care centers. The question of changing the trend of major population loss of college age young people is more difficult. College options are limited within the Blue Line. And while we should all support goals of doubling the enrollment at Paul Smith’s College and North Country Community College, there’s a big world beyond the Blue Line and I know plenty of Adirondack parents who want their kids to get out and experience something different. I often hear from local leaders that the definition of a healthy community is that it’s a place where there is a job for a young person when they graduate from high school. And while that argument has merit, I’d supplement their definition with one that says a healthy community is a place that grows young people who possess a solid conception of who they are so that they can be whoever they want to be wherever they choose to live.

The next four articles in this series will go deeper into population trends by looking at  population changes by comparing age cohorts, median age, and the changes in the ratio of children to adults of child-bearing age.