U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

P25-1134

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Population Change in

Metropolitan and Micropolitan

Statistical Areas: 1990–2003

Population Estimates and Projections

Issued September 2005

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Paul J. Mackun

This report examines the populations of

metropolitan and micropolitan statistical

areas of the United States, focusing on

size, most populous areas, and fastestgrowing areas, first for metropolitan statistical areas and then for micropolitan

statistical areas. 

It uses U.S. Census Bureau population

estimates and estimates of the components of population change (see

Methodology and Sources of Data),

which can interact in different ways in

different areas. The population within

an area can change due to natural

increase (more births than deaths) or

natural decrease (more deaths than

births) or net migration, which is the

sum of net domestic migration and net

international migration.1 Rates for the

components of change are expressed as

annual rates per 1,000 population. 

METRO AND MICRO AREA

POPULATION

In 2003, 290.8 million people lived in the

United States: 241.4 million (83.0 percent)

in metro areas, 29.9 million (10.3 percent)

in micro areas, and 19.5 million 

1 Net migration and its two components, net

domestic migration and net international migration,

may be either positive or negative. For example, net

positive domestic migration indicates larger domestic in-migration than domestic out-migration, while

net negative domestic migration indicates the opposite. Domestic migration refers to migration within

the 50 states and the District of Columbia, while

migration from outside the United States, including

from Puerto Rico and U.S. Island Areas (American

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and by

the U.S. population abroad, is treated as international migration. 

(6.7 percent) in territory outside core

based statistical areas (CBSAs) (Table 1,

Figure 1). (For background on metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, see

the shaded box.) The distributions of the

population within the three CBSA categories—metro areas, micro areas, and outside CBSAs—differed by region and division. Of the four regions (Appendix B

lists the regions and divisions), the

Northeast contained the highest percentage of its population in metro areas, 

90.2 percent, while the Midwest had the

lowest percentage, 76.2 percent. Among

the nine divisions, the Pacific Division

(West Region) contained the largest percentage of its population in metro areas,

93.7 percent, and conversely, the smallest

percentages in micro areas, 4.7 percent,

and territory outside CBSAs, 1.7 percent.

In contrast, the East South Central (South

Region) and West North Central (Midwest

Region) Divisions contained the smallest

proportions of their population in metro

areas (63.4 percent and 64.9 percent,

respectively) and the highest percentages

in micro areas (20.6 percent and 17.3 percent, respectively) and in territory outside

CBSAs (16.0 percent and 17.8 percent,

respectively, Figure 1). 

Population Growth Patterns

Between 2000 and 2003, the U.S. population grew 3.3 percent (Table 2). The

population in metro areas grew by 

3.8 percent, and the micro-area population increased by 1.6 percent. The

outside-CBSA population experienced a

growth rate of 0.5 percent. 
At the regional level, the popula- domestic and net international rate of net migration was in the

tion of the West grew the fastest migration for the South and almost Northeast (Table 3). The Midwest,

between 2000 and 2003, followed entirely net international migration the region with the slowestby the South (Tables 2 and 3). for metro areas in the West, growing micro areas, experienced

Both natural increase and net Tables 2 and 3). Among metro negative net migration. 

migration were highest in the West areas, the rate of natural increase Population in territory outside and second highest in the South was highest in the West, while the CBSAs grew slower than metro or (Table 3). The Northeast and rate of net migration was highest micro-area populations (Tables 2 Midwest grew slower than the in the South. and 3). While the fastest rate of other two regions because of lower Micro area populations also grew growth for territory outside CBSAs natural increase as well as negative fastest in the West and the South was in the West, as was the case net domestic migration. (Tables 2 and 3). For micro areas, for metro areas and micro areas,

Metro area populations grew the rates of both natural increase the second fastest rate of growth

fastest in the West and the South and net migration were highest in was in the Northeast (Table 2), not

due to both relatively high rates of the West; the second highest rate the South as it was for metro areas

natural increase and relatively high of natural increase was in the and micro areas. Growth in the

rates of net migration (both net South, while the second highest Northeast’s population outside

2 U.S. Census Bureau

METROPOLITAN AND MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS

Definitions of Metropolitan and

Micropolitan Statistical Areas

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

defines metropolitan and micropolitan statistical

areas—collectively known as core based statistical

areas (CBSAs). Analysis in this report uses the

December 2003 OMB definitions of CBSAs. These

2003 definitions are based on the application of the

2000 OMB Standards for Defining Metropolitan and

Micropolitan Statistical Areas—which appeared in

the Federal Register on December 27, 2000—to

Census 2000 data as well as to July 1, 2001, and

July 1, 2002, population estimates. Definitions also

reflect local opinion in specified circumstances. 

This report refers to metropolitan statistical areas and

micropolitan statistical areas as “metro areas” and

“micro areas.” Both metro and micro areas are composed of one or more whole counties or equivalent

entities. Metro areas contain at least one Census

Bureau-defined urbanized area of 50,000 or more

people, and micro areas contain at least one urban

cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 people. (Urbanized areas

and urban clusters are discussed at 

<www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html>.)

Territory not included in either a metro or micro area

is referred to as “outside CBSAs.” The total population of a metro area or micro area may be much larger than the population of its urban cluster, and the

total population of a micro area may be larger than

the population of a metro area. 

As of December 2003, 361 metro areas composed

of 1,090 counties and county equivalents and 

573 micro areas encompassing 690 counties and

county equivalents were identified in the United

States. Counties that are outside CBSAs 

numbered 1,361. 

Analysis of Metropolitan and Micropolitan

Statistical Areas

Under OMB standards prior to December 2000, the

United States was divided into two categories: metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan territory (the

latter referring to all territory that did not qualify as

metropolitan). With the introduction of micropolitan

statistical areas under OMB’s December 2000 standards, data may be aggregated to show metro

areas, micro areas, and territory outside CBSAs.

When appropriate, the metro and micro areas may

be combined into a single CBSA category so that

data would be presented for two categories (CBSAs

and outside CBSAs). 

For those interested in approximating categories

used under older standards, data could be aggregated differently, combining the micro areas category

with territory outside CBSAs to represent the older

nonmetropolitan concept, leaving metro areas as

the other category. Appendix A presents population

data in a way that permits a “bridge” from the current approach to the previous one.
U.S. Census Bureau

3

Table 1.

Populations by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status for the United States, Regions, and Divisions:

1990, 2000, and 2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Numbers in thousands. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1, 2003)

Inside CBSAs

Total Outside CBSAs

Geographic area Metropolitan Micropolitan

1990 2000 2003 1990 2000 2003 1990 2000 2003 1990 2000 2003

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248,710 281,423 290,810 203,941 232,581 241,396 26,745 29,412 29,887 18,024 19,430 19,527

REGIONS AND DIVISIONS

Northeast Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,809 53,595 54,399 45,753 48,343 49,082 3,693 3,830 3,882 1,363 1,422 1,436

New England Division . . . . . . . . . . . 13,207 13,923 14,205 11,569 12,193 12,431 1,056 1,120 1,153 582 609 622

Middle Atlantic Division . . . . . . . . . . 37,602 39,672 40,194 34,184 36,150 36,651 2,637 2,710 2,729 781 812 814

Midwest Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,669 64,395 65,406 44,917 48,862 49,842 8,460 8,970 9,022 6,292 6,563 6,543

East North Central Division . . . . . . 42,009 45,155 45,837 33,896 36,509 37,133 5,295 5,608 5,646 2,819 3,038 3,058

West North Central Division . . . . . . 17,660 19,240 19,569 11,022 12,353 12,708 3,165 3,362 3,376 3,473 3,525 3,485

South Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,446 100,235 104,538 66,157 78,876 82,876 10,903 12,217 12,450 8,386 9,142 9,212

South Atlantic Division . . . . . . . . . . . 43,567 51,767 54,345 36,030 43,194 45,553 4,395 5,078 5,237 3,142 3,494 3,555

East South Central Division . . . . . . 15,176 17,023 17,342 9,436 10,723 10,990 3,172 3,533 3,580 2,568 2,767 2,772

West South Central Division. . . . . . 26,703 31,445 32,852 20,691 24,959 26,333 3,336 3,605 3,633 2,676 2,881 2,886

West Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,786 63,199 66,466 47,114 56,501 59,597 3,689 4,395 4,534 1,983 2,303 2,335

Mountain Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,659 18,173 19,384 10,515 14,376 15,500 1,832 2,260 2,327 1,312 1,538 1,557

Pacific Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,127 45,026 47,082 36,599 42,125 44,096 1,857 2,135 2,208 671 765 778

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
CBSAs was attributable entirely to

net migration—particularly net

domestic migration—because natural decrease (more deaths than

births) occurred. In fact, the

Northeast’s rate of net migration

for territory outside CBSAs was the

highest among the four regions.

With both natural decrease and

negative net migration, territory

outside CBSAs in the Midwest

decreased in population. 

METROPOLITAN

STATISTICAL AREAS

Growth in Metro Areas by 

Size Category 

In 2003, 53.7 percent of the 

U.S. population lived in the 50

metro areas with populations of

1,000,000 or more (Table 4, 

Figure 2). Almost one-quarter of

the U.S. population, 23.3 percent,

lived in 1 of the 8 metro areas with

a population of 5,000,000 or more.

An additional 14.4 percent resided

in the 12 metro areas with populations of 2,500,000 to 4,999,999,

while 16.0 percent lived in the 30

metro areas with populations of

1,000,000 to 2,499,999 (Table 4,

Figure 2). 

All seven size categories shown in

Table 4 experienced population

growth between 2000–2003 and

4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1.

Percent Distribution of the Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status

for the United States, Regions, and Divisions: July 1, 2003

Note: Some percentages do not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.

(See text for definitions of areas)

Metro area Micro area Outside CBSA

UNITED STATES

NORTHEAST REGION

New England Division

Middle Atlantic Division

MIDWEST REGION

East North Central Division

West North Central Division

SOUTH REGION

South Atlantic Division

East South Central Division

West South Central Division

WEST REGION

Mountain Division

Pacific Division

83.0 10.3 6.7

90.2 7.1 2.6

87.5 8.1 4.4

91.2 6.8 2.0

76.2 13.8 10.0

81.0 12.3 6.7

64.9 17.3 17.8

79.3 11.9 8.8

83.8 9.6 6.5

63.4 20.6 16.0

80.2 11.1 8.8

89.7 6.8 3.5

80.0 12.0 8.0

93.7 4.7 1.7
1990–2000. Metro areas with pop- among the size categories between migration. In the case of metro

ulations of 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 1990 and 2000. areas with populations of

grew the fastest (4.4 percent) 5,000,000 or more, international

between 2000 and 2003, followed The variations in population growth migration more than offset a negaby the metro areas with popula- by size category reflect the contri- tive rate of net domestic migration. 

tions of 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 butions of natural increase and net

Overall, rates of natural increase (4.0 percent). With a growth rate migration (Table 5). Growth in the

were higher than rates of net migra- of 16.2 percent, metro areas with most populous areas was aided by

populations between 2,500,000 to tion for metro areas with 5,000,000 relatively high rates of natural

4,999,999 also grew the fastest or more population and metro areas increase and international

U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Population Change by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status for the United States,

Regions, and Divisions: 1990–2000 and 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Numerical change in thousands. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1,

2003)

Geographic area

2000–2003 1990–2000

Total Metropolitan Micropolitan

Outside

CBSAs Total Metropolitan Micropolitan

Outside

CBSAs

NUMERICAL CHANGE

United States .................... 9,387 8,815 475 97 32,713 28,641 2,667 1,406

REGIONS AND DIVISIONS

Northeast Region ....................

New England Division ...............

Middle Atlantic Division . . . ...........

805

283

522

739

238

501

51

32

19

15

13

2

2,786

716

2,070

2,590

624

1,966

137

64

73

59

28

31

Midwest Region......................

East North Central Division. . .........

West North Central Division ..........

1,011

682

329

980

624

355

51

37

14

–20

20

–40

4,726

3,146

1,580

3,945

2,613

1,331

510

314

197

271

219

52

South Region........................

South Atlantic Division ...............

East South Central Division ..........

West South Central Division..........

4,304

2,578

318

1,407

4,000

2,359

267

1,375

233

158

46

28

71

61

5

5

14,789

8,200

1,847

4,742

12,719

7,165

1,287

4,268

1,314

683

361

269

756

352

198

205

West Region.........................

Mountain Division . ..................

Pacific Division . ....................

3,267

1,211

2,056

3,096

1,125

1,971

139

67

72

32

19

13

10,413

4,514

5,898

9,387

3,861

5,526

706

428

278

320

226

94

PERCENT CHANGE

United States .................... 3.3 3.8 1.6 0.5 13.2 14.0 10.0 7.8

REGIONS AND DIVISIONS

Northeast Region ....................

New England Division ...............

Middle Atlantic Division . . . ...........

1.5

2.0

1.3

1.5

2.0

1.4

1.3

2.9

0.7

1.0

2.1

0.2

5.5

5.4

5.5

5.7

5.4

5.8

3.7

6.1

2.8

4.3

4.8

4.0

Midwest Region......................

East North Central Division. . .........

West North Central Division ..........

1.6

1.5

1.7

2.0

1.7

2.9

0.6

0.7

0.4

–0.3

0.7

–1.1

7.9

7.5

8.9

8.8

7.7

12.1

6.0

5.9

6.2

4.3

7.8

1.5

South Region........................

South Atlantic Division ...............

East South Central Division ..........

West South Central Division..........

4.3

5.0

1.9

4.5

5.1

5.5

2.5

5.5

1.9

3.1

1.3

0.8

0.8

1.7

0.2

0.2

17.3

18.8

12.2

17.8

19.2

19.9

13.6

20.6

12.0

15.5

11.4

8.1

9.0

11.2

7.7

7.7

West Region.........................

Mountain Division . ..................

Pacific Division . ....................

5.2

6.7

4.6

5.5

7.8

4.7

3.2

3.0

3.4

1.4

1.3

1.6

19.7

33.1

15.1

19.9

36.7

15.1

19.1

23.3

15.0

16.2

17.2

14.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
6 U.S. Census Bureau . 3 elbaT ehtrof sutatS)ASBC(aerAlacitsitatSdesaBeroCybegnahCnoitalupoPfo stnenopmoC ehtfo setaRlaunnAegarevA 3002–0002: snoi siviDdna, snoigeR, setatSdetinU )3002,1yluJdnaesabsetamitse,0002, 1lirpAroferaat a D.noital upopegar eva000,1rep seta R.saer afosnoitinifedr oftxeteeS( aeracihpargoe G latoT noitargimteN esaercnilaruta N latoT noitargimteN esaercnilarutaN latoTshtaeDshtriBlatoT -retnI latoTshtaeDshtriBlatoT citsemoDlanoitan -retnI citsemoDlanoitan NATILOPORTEM LATOT .. set atS deti nU .......... 1. 0–2. 51.5 1. 84. 41 3. 64. 11 0.05. 4 5.4 5.8 1.41 6.51. 01 SNOISIVI DDNASNOI GER noigeRt saehtroN 6.3 6.4............ 7.4–5.58.09.89.210.47.40.4–1.50.10.97. 21 . noisivi DdnalgnEwe N 2. 32. 6...... 1.2–5.44.28.84.217.39.50.1–1.41. 39.81. 21 noisivi DcitnaltAel ddi M 8.30. 4 ...... 7.5–9.52.00.91.311.42.41.5–4.53.01.99. 21 noi geRtsewdi M 6. 48.4 . .... . ..... . .. 6.2–2. 35. 0 4. 8 1. 41 6. 5 1. 64. 2– 6. 22.00.9 6.31 5.3–3. 32. 0–6. 80. 414.52.58.2–8.2 0. 0 9. 8 7. 317.46.4 . . . noi sivi DlartneC htro NtsaE 2.0–8.26.29.71.412.67.83.1–2.2 9.00. 94.31 4. 42. 5 . .noi sivi DlartneC htroNtseW noige R htuoS . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 7.3 8.44.82.89.417.62.511.31.41.78.85.41 8.59.21 noi si viDcitnalt A htuoS ... . . . . 8.5 1.59.016.89.313.54.615.56.4 1. 01 0. 9 8.318. 4 0.51 1.1 7.18.22.91.419.46. 76.03.19.19.99.31 9. 37. 5..noisivi DlartneChtuoStsaE 2.1 5.56.60.78.618.95.614. 07.4 1. 5 8. 7 2. 614. 8 5. 31..noisiviDl art neCht uoStse W noi ge Rt se W .. ... ... ..... . .. . 8. 0 1. 79.78. 6 2. 51 4. 8 4. 61 9. 0 6. 65.7 0. 7 0.519. 7 5.51 noisi vi Dni at nuoM .......... . 1.8 5. 56. 319. 63. 61 4.92.32 4.68. 4 2. 113.7 8.51 5.88.91 noisivi DcificaP . ............ 7. 1–7.70. 68. 69. 41 1. 8 1.41 3. 1– 3. 7 0. 6 0. 7 7. 41 7. 7 7. 31 ASBCEDISTUO NATILOPORCIM ..setatSdetinU 8.29.4 ......... . 1.0–9.08.02.110.218.05.16.06.12.21.019.21 SNOISIVIDDNASNOIGER noige Rt saehtr oN 6.0 1.4....... ..... 0.3 6.06.34.011.013.0–1.36.27.03. 3 0. 016. 01 .noisiviDdnalgnE we N 9.08.8...... 3.6 8.01.72.016.96.0–3.60.70.19.74.93.01 noisivi Dcit naltAel ddi M 5.0 2.2.. .... 6. 0 5.00.15.014. 011.0–7. 08.06.03. 13. 018.01 noigeRtsewdiM 6.28.1.............. 2.1–5.07.0–6.115.111.0–9.0–9.1–2.17.0–9.95.21 3.1 4.07.10.116.116.00.20.1–9.01.0–9.92.214.20.2...noisiviDlartneChtroNtsaE 4.3–7.08.2–1.215.116.0–5.3–5.3–8.16.1–0.01 0.310.33.1..noisiviDlartneChtroNtseW noige R htuoS 2. 38.5................ 3.0 1.14.16.117.211.14.20.17.17. 2 6. 018.31 noisivi Dcit naltAhtuoS 6. 25. 9....... 2.3 3.15.43.113.219.03.57.42.2 9. 6 6. 012.31 3.1–5.09.0–4.111.316.16.04.00.14.18.016.31 8.20.4..noisiviDlartne Cht uoStsaE 7. 1– 4.1 2. 0–0. 219.21 8. 0 5. 0 7. 3– 9.18. 1–3.01 6.41 3. 44. 2..noisivi Dl art ne ChtuoStseW noi ge Rt se W 2. 46. 9.. .... .. .... .. ... 4.0–6.12.1 2.9 2.21 0.32. 49.25. 2 3. 5 9.8 1. 31 noisivi Dni atnuoM 1.6 0. 9 ...... ..... 1. 1–5.14.02.96.214.38.32.05.2 6. 2 2.8 3. 41 noisivi DcificaP . ............ 0.1 9.18.22.94.112.20.57.54.22.8 7.98.11 1. 2 3.01 . >l mth.setats/s mret/sci pot/tsepop/vog.susnec.www//: ptth<ees;l audisersedulcni egnahcnoital upopl at oT:etoN .margorPsetamitsEnoitalupoP 3002, uaeruBsusneC. S.U:ecruoS
U.S. Census Bureau

7

Table 4.

Population Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Size Category: 1990–2000 and 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1, 2003. Size categories are based on 2003 population)

Size category

Number of areas Population (thousands) Population change

Total

Gained population

1990 2000 2003

Numerical (thousands) Percent

1990–2000 2000–2003 1990–2000 2000–2003 1990–2000 2000–2003

Total for all metro areas . . . . . . . . . . .

1,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,500,000–4,999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,000,000–2,499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Less than 1,000,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

500,000–999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250,000–499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100,000–249,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50,000–99,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

361

50

8

1230

311

4575

168

23

336

48

8

1228

288

4273

153

20

303

46

8

1226

257

4265

134

16

203,941131,181

57,67334,59338,91572,76026,09622,68522,235

1,744

232,581

150,216

65,15640,19844,86382,36529,41325,90125,150

1,900

241,396

156,250

67,62141,96746,66285,14630,54626,77625,898

1,926

28,64119,035

7,4835,6055,9489,6053,3173,2172,916

156

8,8156,0342,4651,7701,7992,7811,132

875748

26

14.014.513.016.215.313.212.714.213.1

9.0

3.84.03.84.44.03.43.83.43.0

1.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
with 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 popu- 1,000,000 or more (Table 4). 100,000 to 249,999 and metro

lation, while the rate of net migra- Among the smaller metro areas, areas with populations of 250,000

tion was slightly higher than the three size categories—populations to 499,999 (Table 5). Net internarate of natural increase for metro of 100,000 to 249,999, those of tional migration contributed more

areas with 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 250,000 to 499,999, and popula- than net domestic migration to the

population. tions of 500,000 to 999,999—grew growth of metro area populations

between 3.0 percent and 3.8 per- in the three population size cate- Less populous metro areas grew by cent. Net migration contributed gories from 100,000 to 999,999. somewhat lower rates than the more than natural increase to the The relatively small growth that more populous ones: metro areas growth of metro areas in the cate- did occur in the least populous with fewer than 1,000,000 people gory 500,000 to 999,999, while metro areas—those of 50,000 to grew by 3.4 percent, compared the opposite was the case for 99,999—was entirely due to natu- with 4.0 percent for metro areas of metro areas with populations of ral increase because net migration

8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Percentage of the United States Population by Core Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA) Status and Population Size Category of Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas: July 1, 2003

Note: The percentages do not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.

(See text for definitions of areas)

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS

5,000,000 or more 23.3

2,500,000–4,999,999 14.4

1,000,000–2,499,999 16.0

500,000–999,999 10.5

250,000–499,999 9.2

100,000–249,999 8.9

50,000–99,999 0.7

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS

100,000–249,999 1.8

50,000–99,999 4.5

25,000–49,999 3.6

10,000–24,999 0.5

OUTSIDE CBSA 6.7
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 5.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in Metropolitan

Statistical Areas by Size Category: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003. Size categories are based on 2003 population)

Size category

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total International Domestic

Total for all metro areas . ......... 11.4 6.3 14.4 8.1 5.1 5.2 –0.1

5,000,000 or more .................... 11.4 7.8 15.1 7.4 3.6 8.8 –5.2

2,500,000–4,999,999 .................. 13.3 6.5 14.3 7.8 6.6 5.5 1.2

1,000,000–2,499,999 .................. 12.1 6.1 14.3 8.2 5.9 3.8 2.1

500,000–999,999 . . ................... 11.6 5.6 14.1 8.4 6.1 3.3 2.8

250,000–499,999 . . ................... 10.2 5.2 13.9 8.6 5.0 3.0 2.0

100,000–249,999 . . ................... 9.0 4.7 13.6 8.8 4.4 2.3 2.1

50,000–99,999. . ...................... 4.2 4.4 13.3 8.9 –0.1 1.7 –1.8

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.

Table 6.

Population Change in the Most Populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 1990–2000 and

2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1, 2003)

Rank in

population size

in 2003

Metropolitan statistical area title

Population (thousands)

Population change

Numerical

(thousands) Percent

1990 2000 2003 1990–2000 2000–2003 1990–2000 2000–2003

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA. . . ............................... 16,846 18,323 18,641 1,477 317 8.8 1.7

2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . ..... 11,274 12,366 12,829 1,092 464 9.7 3.7

3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI. ............ 8,182 9,099 9,334 916 235 11.2 2.6

4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJDE-MD .................................... 5,435 5,687 5,773 252 86 4.6 1.5

5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX ............... 3,989 5,162 5,590 1,172 428 29.4 8.3

6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL ....... 4,056 5,008 5,289 952 281 23.5 5.6

7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VAMD-WV ................................... 4,123 4,796 5,090 673 294 16.3 6.1

8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX............. 3,767 4,715 5,076 948 360 25.2 7.6

9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA ........... 3,069 4,248 4,610 1,179 362 38.4 8.5

10 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI .................... 4,249 4,453 4,484 204 31 4.8 0.7

11 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH ............ 4,134 4,392 4,440 258 48 6.3 1.1

12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . ......... 3,687 4,124 4,157 437 34 11.9 0.8

13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ......... 2,589 3,255 3,642 666 388 25.7 11.9

14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ ................. 2,238 3,252 3,593 1,013 342 45.3 10.5

15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . .............. 2,559 3,044 3,142 485 98 18.9 3.2

16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ...... 2,539 2,969 3,084 430 115 16.9 3.9

17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . ......... 2,498 2,814 2,931 316 117 12.6 4.2

18 St. Louis, MO-IL............................. 2,581 2,699 2,736 118 37 4.6 1.4

19 Baltimore-Towson, MD ....................... 2,382 2,553 2,616 171 63 7.2 2.5

20 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL .......... 2,068 2,396 2,532 328 136 15.9 5.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
was negative. Metro areas with Metropolitan Statistical Area, which largest metro areas between 2000

50,000 to 99,999 population were was 10th in 2000, dropped to 11th and 2003 (Table 7). In 13 of the

the only group to experience nega- in 2003. 20 most populous metro areas,

tive net migration. including 5 of the 8 metro areas Each of the 20 most populous with populations of 5,000,000 or

Most Populous Metro Areas areas grew between 2000–2003, more and 8 metro areas with ranging from highs of 11.9 percent The New York-Northern New 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 popula- and 10.5 percent for Riverside-San Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA tion, the rates of natural increase Bernardino-Ontario, CA and

Metropolitan Statistical Area was were higher than the rates of Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, the largest metro area in 2003, net migration. respectively, to lows of 0.7 percent with a population of 18.6 million and 0.8 percent for Detroit-Warren- For many of the largest metro people, followed by Los Angeles- Livonia, MI and San Francisco- areas, rates of net international Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA and Oakland-Fremont, CA, respectively migration were higher than net Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI, (Table 6). All 20 of these areas domestic migration, with many with populations of 12.8 million also grew between 1990 and large metro areas experiencing and 9.3 million, respectively 2000, led by the Phoenix-Mesa- negative net migration (Table 7). (Table 6). With the exception of Scottsdale, AZ and Atlanta-Sandy In 4 of the 20 most populous the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Springs-Marietta, GA metro areas, metro areas—Atlanta-Sandy GA metro area—which was 11th in which grew by 45.3 percent and Springs-Marietta, GA; Riverside-San 2000—each of the 10 largest 38.4 percent, respectively. Bernardino-Ontario, CA; Phoenix- metro areas in 2003 was also Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ; and Tampa-St. among the 10 largest in 2000; the Natural increase played an impor- Petersburg-Clearwater, FL—the rate Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH tant role in the growth of the

10 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in the Most Populous

Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank in

population size

in 2003

Metropolitan statistical area title

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total

International Domesti

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA. . . .................................. 5.3 6.3 14.3 8.0 –1.0 9.6 –10.

2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . ........ 11.3 9.7 15.7 6.1 1.7 10.5 –8.

3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI. ............... 7.8 7.8 15.6 7.8 –0.1 6.8 –6.

4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJDE-MD ....................................... 4.6 3.5 13.0 9.6 1.3 2.8 –1.

5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX .................. 24.5 11.8 17.7 5.9 12.4 8.9 3.

6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL .......... 16.8 4.4 13.7 9.3 12.4 13.2 –0.

7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VAMD-WV ...................................... 18.3 9.0 15.1 6.2 9.2 8.2 0.

8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX................ 22.6 11.4 17.2 5.9 11.3 8.8 2.

9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA .............. 25.1 10.4 16.6 6.3 14.5 6.7 7.

10 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI ....................... 2.2 4.8 13.7 8.9 –2.6 3.4 –6.

11 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH ............... 3.3 4.9 13.3 8.3 –1.6 6.2 –7.

12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . ............ 2.5 6.3 13.5 7.2 –3.9 9.8 –13.

13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ............ 34.6 8.8 15.7 7.0 25.4 4.7 20.

14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ .................... 30.7 9.7 17.1 7.3 20.8 8.0 12.

15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . ................. 9.7 6.2 12.9 6.8 3.7 5.7 –2.

16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ......... 11.7 8.2 14.5 6.3 3.3 4.0 –0.

17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . ............ 12.5 8.2 15.2 6.9 4.6 6.5 –1.

18 St. Louis, MO-IL................................ 4.2 3.8 13.3 9.5 0.5 1.7 –1.

19 Baltimore-Towson, MD .......................... 7.5 4.0 13.3 9.3 2.9 2.2 0.

20 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL ............. 17.0 0.0 11.9 11.9 16.8 3.9 12.

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.

c

6

8

9

5

5

8

9

5

8

0

8

7

6

8

1

6

8

2

7

8
of net domestic migration exceeded the rate of net international

migration. The four most populous metro areas and Miami-Fort

Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL, along

with seven other areas with

2,500,000 to 4,999,999 population, experienced negative net

domestic migration. 

Fastest-Growing Metro Areas

Seventeen of the 20 fastestgrowing metro areas had doubledigit percentage growth between

2000 and 2003 (Table 8). The

Greeley, CO Metropolitan Statistical

Area—adjacent to the DenverAurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical

Area—was the fastest-growing

metro area in the United States,

growing by 16.8 percent between

2000 and 2003. The second and

third fastest-growing metro areas—

St. George, UT (a new metro area)

and Las Vegas-Paradise, NV—grew

by 15.2 percent and 14.6 percent,

respectively. Fourteen metro areas

had growth rates between 10.0

and 14.0 percent. Twelve of the

20 fastest-growing metro areas

were located in the West, while 

the other eight were located in 

the South. 

In 18 of the 20 fastest-growing

areas, rates of net migration

exceeded rates of natural increase

(Table 9). The exceptions were

two metro areas located on the

United States-Mexico border:

McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX and

Laredo, TX. Both areas experienced a rate of natural increase

larger than 20.0, higher than that

of any of the other 20 fastestgrowing metro areas. 

While most of the fastest-growing

metro areas (18 out of 20) experienced natural increase, one metro

area—Prescott, AZ—had natural

decrease, and a second metro

area—Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL—

had equal rates of births and

deaths. Both areas had death rates

greater than 11.0 (higher than in

any of the other 20 fastestgrowing metro areas). However,

both areas were among the fastestgrowing areas because of high

rates of net domestic migration

that more than compensated for

the lack of natural increase. 

Where metro areas grew 6.6 percent or more between 2000 and

2003, at least two times the

national average, several patterns

were evident (Figure 3). Some of

the fastest-growing metro and

micro areas—discussed in the

following section—were located in

southern California, Nevada, Utah,

and Arizona, stretching from

Hanford-Corcoran, CA and

Bakersfield, CA on the west

through Riverside-San BernardinoOntario, CA, then northeast

through Pahrump, NV (a micro

area) and Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

to St. George, UT, and also extending through the Arizona areas of

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ

(another micro area) and Prescott,

AZ to Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

and Yuma, AZ. In addition, an area

of fast-growing metro areas was

located in northern Nevada and the

Central Valley of California, extending from Reno-Sparks, NV to

Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–

Roseville, CA (and including the

Clearlake, CA micro area) through

Stockton, CA, Modesto, CA, and

Merced, CA, to Madera, CA. In

Florida, a southwestern-Gulf Co

cluster of fast-growing metro ar

extends from Sarasota-Bradento

Venice, FL on the north through

Punta Gorda, FL and Cape CoralFort Myers, FL to Naples-Marco

Island, FL.

ast

eas

nMICROPOLITAN

STATISTICAL AREAS

Micro Area Size Categories

Areas encompassing 50,000 to

99,999 people contained the highest percentage of the U.S. population (4.5 percent) of the four micro

area size categories shown in

Figure 2. The three other size categories, 25,000 to 49,999,

100,000 to 249,999, and 10,000

to 24,999, accounted for 3.6 percent, 1.8 percent, and 0.5 percent

of the population, respectively. 

Between 2000 and 2003, the

largest size category of micro areas

experienced the largest percentage

change in population, 3.4 percent

(Table 10). Micro areas of 50,000

to 99,999 and those of 25,000 to

49,999 grew by 1.8 percent and 0.8

percent, respectively. Overall

growth for the two larger categories

(100,000 to 249,999 and 50,000 to

99,999) was due to both positive

net migration and natural increase,

while micro areas with 25,000 to

49,999 people grew because rates

of natural increase more than compensated for negative net migration

(Table 11). Among micro areas of

10,000–24,999, a relatively high

rate of negative net domestic

migration led to an overall decrease

in population of 0.7 percent.

U.S. Census Bureau 11
12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 8.

Population Change in the Fastest-Growing Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Ranked by percent change, 2000–2003. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank Metropolitan statistical area title

Population (thousands) Population change, 2000–2003

2000 2003

Numerical

(thousands) Percent

1 Greeley, CO ................................... 181 211 30 16.8

2 St. George, UT. . ............................... 90 104 14 15.2

3 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . ...................... 1,376 1,577 201 14.6

4 Naples-Marco Island, FL ........................ 251 287 35 14.0

5 Stockton, CA................................... 564 633 69 12.3

6 Bend, OR...................................... 115 129 14 12.2

7 Gainesville, GA................................. 139 156 17 12.1

8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ............ 3,255 3,642 388 11.9

9 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . .................... 441 492 51 11.6

10 McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX . .................... 569 636 66 11.6

11 Raleigh-Cary, NC ............................... 797 884 87 11.0

12 Laredo, TX .................................... 193 214 20 10.6

13 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ .................... 3,252 3,593 342 10.5

14 Austin-Round Rock, TX ......................... 1,250 1,378 128 10.2

15 Modesto, CA. . ................................. 447 492 45 10.1

16 Prescott, AZ ................................... 168 184 17 10.1

17 Merced, CA.................................... 211 232 21 10.0

18 Boise City-Nampa, ID ........................... 465 511 46 9.9

19 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA ......... 1,797 1,975 178 9.9

20 Orlando, FL.................................... 1,645 1,803 158 9.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.

Table 9.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in the Fastest-Growing

Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Ranked by percent change, 2000–2003. Data are for April 1, 2000,

estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank Metropolitan statistical area title

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total

International Domestic

1 Greeley, CO ................................... 47.7 10.1 16.1 6.0 36.5 5.2 31.4

2 St. George, UT. . ............................... 43.6 11.5 18.7 7.2 31.8 1.9 29.8

3 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . ...................... 41.9 7.9 15.5 7.6 33.3 7.4 25.9

4 Naples-Marco Island, FL ........................ 40.3 3.7 12.7 9.0 35.9 10.2 25.7

5 Stockton, CA................................... 35.6 8.9 16.3 7.4 26.2 5.8 20.4

6 Bend, OR...................................... 35.5 3.9 11.9 8.0 31.0 0.7 30.3

7 Gainesville, GA................................. 35.0 12.4 19.4 7.0 22.5 12.6 9.9

8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ............ 34.6 8.8 15.7 7.0 25.4 4.7 20.6

9 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . .................... 33.8 0.0 11.4 11.4 32.8 4.4 28.4

10 McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX . .................... 33.7 20.8 25.2 4.4 13.2 9.0 4.1

11 Raleigh-Cary, NC ............................... 32.0 10.1 15.8 5.7 21.7 6.6 15.0

12 Laredo, TX .................................... 31.0 25.0 29.2 4.3 6.4 9.2 –2.8

13 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ .................... 30.7 9.7 17.1 7.3 20.8 8.0 12.8

14 Austin-Round Rock, TX ......................... 29.9 12.2 17.0 4.7 17.2 7.3 9.9

15 Modesto, CA. . ................................. 29.6 8.4 15.9 7.5 20.9 5.0 15.9

16 Prescott, AZ ................................... 29.6 –1.4 9.9 11.3 30.2 2.2 28.1

17 Merced, CA.................................... 29.3 11.4 17.7 6.3 17.7 6.6 11.1

18 Boise City-Nampa, ID ........................... 29.0 9.8 16.2 6.4 19.0 2.8 16.3

19 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA ......... 29.0 6.4 13.6 7.3 22.4 5.5 16.9

20 Orlando, FL .................................... 28.3 6.1 13.9 7.8 21.5 5.9 15.6

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
Percent Change in Population for Metropolitan and

Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003 

. m ogra

, uare u

ates Pr

s B rce: U.S. Censu

lation Estim

u So

2003 Popu

100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0

Percent Change 

U.S.

percent

3.3

100 Miles 0

e Based

eas

tside Cor u O

Statistical Ar

 3.er

u Fig

o

eas

MicrAr

oMetr

easAr

5 3.3 to 6.

0.0 to 3.2

Less than 0.0

eor

m 6.6 or 

(See text for definitions of areas.)

U.S. Census Bureau 13
Most Populous Micro Areas Population growth for the largest areas, the net international migramicro areas was often due to high tion rate was above 3.0: Salisbury, The Torrington, CT Micropolitan rates of net migration—in particu- NC (3.1), Hilo, HI (3.4), Hilton Head Statistical Area—located in the

lar net domestic migration. Net Island-Beaufort, SC (4.3), and northwestern corner of

Connecticut—was the largest micro migration exceeded natural Kahului-Wailuku, HI (4.7). In two

area in 2003, with a population of increase for 16 of the 18 micro of the 18 micro areas in Table 13

approximately 188,000 (Table 12). areas shown in Table 13 that grew that grew—Ottawa-Streator, IL and

Eighteen of the 20 most populous between 2000 and 2003. Unlike Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA—net

micro areas grew between 2000 the largest metro areas, where net international migration was larger

and 2003; only Pottsville, PA and international migration was often than net domestic migration; in a

Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY larger than net domestic migration, third micro area, Salisbury, NC, the

experienced population decline. the largest micro areas had rela- rates were equal. 

Both areas also lost population tively little net international migrabetween 1990 and 2000. tion. In four of the largest micro

14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 10.

Population Change in Micropolitan Statistical Areas by Size Category: 1990–2000 and

2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1, 2003. Size categories are based on

2003 population)

Size category

Number of areas

Population (thousands)

Population change

Total

Gained population Numerical

(thousands) Percent

1990–

2000

2000–

2003 1990 2000 2003

1990–

2000

2000–

2003

1990–

2000

2000–

2003

Total for all micro areas. . . 573 480 356 26,745 29,412 29,887 2,667 475 10.0 1.6

100,000−249,999 ............ 40 35 32 4,429 5,042 5,212 613 170 13.8 3.4

50,000−99,999 .............. 189 164 135 11,566 12,731 12,961 1,165 230 10.1 1.8

25,000−49,999 .............. 276 237 165 9,417 10,258 10,342 841 84 8.9 0.8

10,000−24,999 .............. 68 44 24 1,334 1,382 1,372 49 –10 3.6 –0.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.

Table 11.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in Micropolitan Statistical Areas by Size Category: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003. Size categories are based on 2003 population)

Size category

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total International Domestic

Total for all micro areas ............ 4.9 2.8 12.9 10.1 2.2 1.6 0.6

100,000−249,999 . .................... 10.2 2.6 12.4 9.9 7.4 1.5 5.9

50,000−99,999. . ...................... 5.5 2.5 12.6 10.0 3.1 1.4 1.7

25,000−49,999. . ...................... 2.5 3.1 13.3 10.2 –0.5 1.7 –2.2

10,000−24,999. . ...................... –2.2 3.8 13.8 10.0 –6.0 2.0 –8.0

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

Table 12.

Population Change in the Most Populous Micropolitan Statistical Areas: 1990–2000 and

2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Data are for April 1, 1990; April 1, 2000, estimates base; and July 1, 2003)

Rank in

population size

in 2003

Micropolitan statistical area title

Population (thousands)

Population change

Numerical

(thousands) Percent

1990 2000 2003 1990–2000 2000–2003 1990–2000 2000–2003

1 Torrington, CT . ...................... 174 182 188 8 6 4.7 3.1

2 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ........ 93 155 171 62 16 65.8 10.5

3 Lebanon, NH-VT. . ................... 155 167 171 12 4 7.9 2.2

4 Seaford, DE......................... 113 157 168 43 11 38.3 7.3

5 Hilo, HI . . ........................... 120 149 158 28 10 23.6 6.6

6 East Stroudsburg, PA . . . ............. 96 139 154 43 16 44.9 11.4

7 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC ....... 102 142 154 40 12 39.0 8.7

8 Ottawa-Streator, IL ................... 148 153 153 5 0 3.2 0.2

9 Thomasville-Lexington, NC............ 127 147 152 21 5 16.2 3.3

10 Daphne-Fairhope, AL................. 98 140 152 42 11 42.9 8.1

11 Pottsville, PA ........................ 153 150 148 –2 –2 –1.5 –1.6

12 Concord, NH ........................ 120 136 144 16 7 13.5 5.4

13 Traverse City, MI . . . ................. 106 131 138 25 7 23.3 5.2

14 Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY. . .... 142 140 138 –2 –2 –1.5 –1.5

15 Kahului-Wailuku, HI .................. 100 128 136 28 8 27.6 5.9

16 Salisbury, NC........................ 111 130 134 20 4 17.8 2.8

17 Statesville-Mooresville, NC............ 93 123 133 30 11 32.0 8.7

18 Chambersburg, PA. .................. 121 129 133 8 4 6.8 3.0

19 Tupelo, MS . ........................ 108 125 128 17 3 16.2 2.4

20 Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA . .......... 119 127 128 7 1 6.2 1.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.

Table 13.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in the Most Populous Micropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank in

population size

in 2003

Micropolitan statistical area title

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total

International Domestic

1 Torrington, CT.................................. 9.3 1.4 10.5 9.1 8.0 1.1 6.9

2 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . ................ 30.8 –1.1 11.2 12.3 31.1 2.0 29.1

3 Lebanon, NH-VT ............................... 6.6 0.5 9.1 8.5 6.3 1.1 5.2

4 Seaford, DE ................................... 21.6 1.5 12.5 11.0 19.9 2.2 17.6

5 Hilo, HI ........................................ 19.5 6.0 14.1 8.1 13.4 3.4 10.1

6 East Stroudsburg, PA ........................... 33.2 2.5 10.5 8.0 29.7 1.0 28.7

7 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC. . ................ 25.6 7.1 14.8 7.7 18.3 4.3 14.0

8 Ottawa-Streator, IL.............................. 0.5 1.5 12.3 10.9 –0.7 0.8 –1.5

9 Thomasville-Lexington, NC . ..................... 10.1 3.4 12.6 9.2 6.9 2.8 4.1

10 Daphne-Fairhope, AL ........................... 24.0 2.7 12.6 9.9 21.2 1.2 20.0

11 Pottsville, PA................................... –4.9 –4.8 9.6 14.4 0.1 0.1 0.0

12 Concord, NH................................... 16.3 3.2 11.3 8.1 12.9 1.2 11.7

13 Traverse City, MI ............................... 15.5 2.7 11.1 8.4 12.7 0.7 11.9

14 Jamestown-Dunkirk-Fredonia, NY ................ –4.7 0.3 11.1 10.8 –4.7 0.5 –5.3

15 Kahului-Wailuku, HI ............................. 17.5 7.4 14.1 6.7 10.2 4.7 5.5

16 Salisbury, NC .................................. 8.4 2.4 12.6 10.3 6.2 3.1 3.1

17 Statesville-Mooresville, NC . . . ................... 25.8 5.9 14.6 8.6 19.6 2.8 16.8

18 Chambersburg, PA ............................. 9.0 2.5 12.2 9.7 6.9 1.1 5.7

19 Tupelo, MS .................................... 7.2 4.7 14.8 10.2 2.9 0.5 2.4

20 Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA ...................... 3.4 1.3 11.5 10.2 2.4 1.3 1.2

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
Fastest-Growing Micro Areas was in the Midwest (Fort Leonard Pahrump, NV; Granbury, TX; and

Wood, MO), and one was in the Clearlake, CA—experienced natural While 17 metro areas grew by at Northeast (East Stroudsburg, PA) decrease. In each of these six least 10 percent between 2000 and (Table 14). micro areas, growth was fueled by 2003, six micro areas had compara- high rates of positive net domestic ble rates of growth (Tables 8 As was generally the case with the migration, above 25.0 in each case. and 14). The Palm Coast, FL fastest-growing metro areas, rates

Micropolitan Statistical Area—locat- of net migration in the fastest-grow- Some micro areas with growth

ed south of the Jacksonville, FL ing micro areas tended to be higher rates that were at least twice the

Metropolitan Statistical Area—was than rates of natural increase (Table national average between 2000

the fastest-growing micro area in 15); only Rio Grande City, TX and and 2003 were part of larger

the United States between Edwards, CO—possessing the two bands of fast-growing metro and

2000–2003, experiencing 24.8 per- highest rates of natural increase micro areas (Figure 3). In addition

cent growth (Table 14). The next among the micro areas in Table to the Pahrump, NV, Lake Havasu

five fastest-growing micro areas 15—had higher rates of natural City-Kingman, AZ, and Clearlake,

were Heber, UT; East Stroudsburg, increase than net migration. The CA micro areas noted earlier, addiPA; Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ; influence of net migration is high- tional bands of growth involving

Kill Devil Hills, NC; and The lighted by the fact that 18 of the 20 fast-growing micro areas were

Villages, FL, with growth rates of fastest-growing micro areas had adjacent to fast-growing metro

15.1 percent, 11.4 percent, positive net domestic migration, areas. For example, one area of

10.5 percent, 10.5 percent, and and the two exceptions—Rio growth in northern Georgia cen10.4 percent, respectively. Grande City, TX and Edwards, CO— tered around the Atlanta-Sandy

experienced high rates of net inter- Springs-Marietta, GA Metropolitan Every region contained at least one national migration (9.7 and 14.7 Statistical Area and included the of the 20 fastest-growing micro per 1,000 or more, respectively). Calhoun, GA and Cornelia, GA areas. Eleven of the fastest-grow- Six of these fast-growing micro micro areas, as well as the ing areas were located in the areas—Palm Coast, FL; Lake Havasu Gainesville, GA Metropolitan South; seven were in the West, one City-Kingman, AZ; The Villages, FL; Statistical Area. Multiple clusters

16 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 14.

Population Change in the Fastest-Growing Micropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Ranked by percent change, 2000–2003. Data are for April 1, 2000, estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank Micropolitan statistical area title

Population (thousands) Population change, 2000–2003

2000 2003

Numerical

(thousands) Percent

1 Palm Coast, FL ................................ 50 62 12 24.8

2 Heber, UT ..................................... 15 18 2 15.1

3 East Stroudsburg, PA ........................... 139 154 16 11.4

4 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . ................ 155 171 16 10.5

5 Kill Devil Hills, NC .............................. 30 33 3 10.5

6 The Villages, FL ................................ 53 59 6 10.4

7 Fort Leonard Wood, MO......................... 41 45 4 9.9

8 Pahrump, NV .................................. 33 36 3 9.9

9 Granbury, TX. . . ................................ 48 52 4 9.3

10 Dunn, NC...................................... 91 99 8 9.2

11 Statesville-Mooresville, NC . . . ................... 123 133 11 8.7

12 Clearlake, CA .................................. 58 63 5 8.7

13 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC. . ................ 142 154 12 8.7

14 Edwards, CO . . . ............................... 49 54 4 8.7

15 Calhoun, GA ................................... 44 48 4 8.3

16 Daphne-Fairhope, AL ........................... 140 152 11 8.1

17 Bozeman, MT . . . ............................... 68 73 5 8.0

18 Montrose, CO . . . ............................... 33 36 3 7.6

19 Rio Grande City, TX ............................ 54 58 4 7.6

20 Lexington Park, MD............................. 86 93 7 7.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
of growth in Florida involved micro

areas, including a northeastern

cluster focused around the

Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan

Statistical Area and the adjacent

micro areas of Palm Coast, FL and

Lake City, FL. A second cluster in

the central part of the state

extended from the Ocala, FL metro

area and the Homosassa Springs,

FL and The Villages, FL micro areas

through the Orlando, FL metro area

to the Vero Beach, FL and Port St.

Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL metro areas. 

SUMMARY

From 2000 to 2003, metropolitan

and micropolitan statistical areas

experienced different rates of population change, with the effects on

the size of their populations ranging from rapid growth to

population decline. Of the 

290.8 million people in the United

States in 2003, more than 93 percent lived either in metro or micro

areas. Between 2000 and 2003,

growth in both metro and micro

areas was fastest in the West, followed by the South. The rate of

population growth outside CBSAs

also was fastest in the West, followed by the Northeast. Some of

the fastest-growing metro and

micro areas were located in several

bands in parts of the West and the

South, including parts of

California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona,

Georgia, and Florida.

In 2003, more than one-half of the

U.S. population lived in the 50

metro areas with populations of

1,000,000 or more, with almost

one-quarter of the U.S. population

residing in metro areas with populations of 5,000,000 or more. In

many of the most populous metro

areas—led by the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA metro area—natural

increase and net international

migration contributed to population growth. Net migration—led in

many cases by net domestic migration—usually made a larger contribution than natural increase to the

growth of many of the largest

micro areas, along with many of

the fastest-growing metro areas

and micro areas. 

METHODOLOGY AND

SOURCES OF DATA 

This report uses estimates of the

total population and components

of change for the period April 1,

2000—July 1, 2003, and population counts from the 1990 census

to analyze trends during the 1990

to 2003 period. The population

universe is the resident population

of the United States (50 states and

U.S. Census Bureau 17

Table 15.

Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change in the Fastest-Growing

Micropolitan Statistical Areas: 2000–2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Rates per 1,000 average population. Ranked by percent change, 2000–2003. Data are for April 1, 2000,

estimates base and July 1, 2003)

Rank Micropolitan statistical area title

Total

Natural increase Net migration

Total Births Deaths Total

International Domestic

1 Palm Coast, FL ................................ 68.0 –4.2 7.5 11.8 70.3 1.4 68.9

2 Heber, UT ..................................... 43.1 13.6 19.2 5.6 28.7 3.0 25.7

3 East Stroudsburg, PA ........................... 33.2 2.5 10.5 8.0 29.7 1.0 28.7

4 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . ................ 30.8 –1.1 11.2 12.3 31.1 2.0 29.1

5 Kill Devil Hills, NC .............................. 30.7 3.2 11.1 7.8 26.7 1.3 25.5

6 The Villages, FL ................................ 30.3 –4.7 7.8 12.5 34.3 1.4 32.9

7 Fort Leonard Wood, MO......................... 29.1 7.3 14.0 6.7 21.2 0.7 20.6

8 Pahrump, NV .................................. 28.9 –3.6 9.2 12.8 32.3 1.5 30.8

9 Granbury, TX. . . ................................ 27.4 –0.2 11.0 11.2 27.0 1.5 25.5

10 Dunn, NC...................................... 27.1 7.7 15.6 7.9 19.0 2.9 16.1

11 Statesville-Mooresville, NC . . . ................... 25.8 5.9 14.6 8.6 19.6 2.8 16.8

12 Clearlake, CA .................................. 25.6 –3.8 10.0 13.7 28.4 1.8 26.6

13 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC. . ................ 25.6 7.1 14.8 7.7 18.3 4.3 14.0

14 Edwards, CO . . . ............................... 25.5 15.4 17.9 2.5 10.3 14.7 –4.4

15 Calhoun, GA ................................... 24.6 8.1 17.2 9.1 16.4 4.9 11.5

16 Daphne-Fairhope, AL ........................... 24.0 2.7 12.6 9.9 21.2 1.2 20.0

17 Bozeman, MT . . . ............................... 23.6 6.3 11.5 5.2 17.1 1.3 15.8

18 Montrose, CO . . . ............................... 22.6 5.3 14.6 9.3 17.2 1.8 15.4

19 Rio Grande City, TX ............................ 22.6 22.0 26.1 4.1 0.7 9.7 –9.1

20 Lexington Park, MD............................. 22.5 7.9 14.2 6.4 14.5 0.6 13.9

Note: Total population change includes residual; see <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/terms/states.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
District of Columbia). Migration

from outside the United States,

including from Puerto Rico, U.S.

Island Areas (American Samoa, the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S

Virgin Islands), and by the U.S.

population abroad is treated as

international migration. 

The methodology used by the

Census Bureau’s Population

Estimates Program to produce

population estimates for counties

is available at <www.census.gov

/popest/topics/methodology

/2003_st_co_meth.html>. Each

component of population change is

estimated separately. Estimates

for counties are then aggregated to

create estimates for the set of

areas in the report, including the

metropolitan and micropolitan

statistical areas. 

This report uses average annual

rates of the components of population change expressed per 1,000

average population. 

CONTACTS

Information and Research 

Services Branch

pop@census.gov

301-763-2422

Paul J. Mackun

paul.j.mackun@census.gov

301-763-2419

USER COMMENTS

The Census Bureau welcomes the

comments and advice of users of

our data and reports. Please send

suggestions or comments to:

Chief, Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233

Or send e-mail to:

pop@census.gov

18 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix A.

Bridge Illustrating Current and Previous Approaches to Aggregating Populations of Statistical Areas: 2003

(See text for definitions of areas. Numbers in thousands. Data are for July 1, 2003)

Geographic area

Total

A

Current approach 1 Current approach 2 Approximation of

previous approach

Metro

B

Micro

C

Outside

CBSA

D

CBSA

B+C

Outside

CBSA

D

Metro

B

Nonmetro

C+D

United States. . ................. 290,810 241,396 29,887 19,527 271,283 19,527 241,396 49,414

REGIONS AND DIVISIONS

Northeast Region................. 54,399 49,082 3,882 1,436 52,963 1,436 49,082 5,318

New England Division . . . ......... 14,205 12,431 1,153 622 13,583 622 12,431 1,775

Middle Atlantic Division ........... 40,194 36,651 2,729 814 39,380 814 36,651 3,543

Midwest Region .................. 65,406 49,842 9,022 6,543 58,863 6,543 49,842 15,565

East North Central Division ....... 45,837 37,133 5,646 3,058 42,779 3,058 37,133 8,704

West North Central Division....... 19,569 12,708 3,376 3,485 16,084 3,485 12,708 6,861

South Region .................... 104,538 82,876 12,450 9,212 95,326 9,212 82,876 21,662

South Atlantic Division............ 54,345 45,553 5,237 3,555 50,790 3,555 45,553 8,792

East South Central Division . ...... 17,342 10,990 3,580 2,772 14,570 2,772 10,990 6,351

West South Central Division ...... 32,852 26,333 3,633 2,886 29,966 2,886 26,333 6,519

West Region ..................... 66,466 59,597 4,534 2,335 64,131 2,335 59,597 6,869

Mountain Division. . . ............. 19,384 15,500 2,327 1,557 17,827 1,557 15,500 3,884

Pacific Division .................. 47,082 44,096 2,208 778 46,304 778 44,096 2,986

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Population Estimates Program.
s

,

u

s

s

e

Appendix B.

h Map of t

United State

howing Cen

s and ion

s

s

SDiviRegion

epshir

setts u

ont

NH New Ham

m VT V

RI Rhode Island

t

re

MA Massach

Maine

CT Connecticu

NJ New Jersey

DE Delaware

THEAST

ME

MD Maryland

NewEngland

inia

th

lina 

orkNew Y

NOR

MiddleAtlantic

r

lina

o

g

u

NY

Pennsylvania

st Vi

inia

e

o North Car

SoCar

VA

g

 Florida

PA

ri

W

V

NC

SC

WV

gia

th

GA

Geor

u So

KY

cky

Atlantic

Michigan

OH

u

EastNorth Central

Ohio

Kent

TN

MI

IN

nnessee

Indiana

e

th

T

East

u So

Central

MIDWEST

Wisconsin

IL

WI

Illinois

uisiana

ri

AR

LALo

SOUTH

u

MO

Arkansas

Misso

a

estW

North Central

IA

MN

Minnesota

Iowa

m

OK

Oklaho

North Dakota

th Dakota

NE

Nebraska

KS

Kansas

TX

exasT

ND

SD

th

u

est

u

So

WSoCentral

ing

CO

WY

m

Colorado

Montana

NM

ntain

o

MT

Wy

New Mexico

u Mo

UT

Utah

WEST

Pacific

HI

AK

Hawaii

Alaska

uare u s B u ce: U.S. Cens r u So

AZ

Arizona

ID

Idaho

OR

egonOr

WA

Washington

CA

California

a m

AL

Alaba

MS

Mississippi

NV

Nevada

Washington, DC

FL

U.S. Census Bureau 19
U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58