U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change:

2000 to 2010

2010 Census Special Reports

By Steven G. Wilson, David A. Plane, Paul J. Mackun, Thomas R. Fischetti, 

and Justyna Goworowska (with Darryl T. Cohen, 

Marc J. Perry, and Geoffrey W. Hatchard)

Issued September 2012

C2010SR-01
Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Steven G. Wilson, Paul J. Mackun, Thomas R. Fischetti, and 

Justyna Goworowska with Marc J. Perry, Darryl T. Cohen, and Geoffrey W. Hatchard

of the U.S. Census Bureau, and David A. Plane of the University of Arizona. General direction 

was provided by James D. Fitzsimmons, Assistant Division Chief for Geographic Studies and 

Information Resources, Population Division. Enrique J. Lamas, Associate Director for

Demographic Programs provided overall direction. 

The authors give special thanks to Rachel S. Franklin who helped draft an early version of 

the report following Census 2000; Peter D. Johnson, with the Census Bureau’s International 

Programs Center for Demographic and Economic Studies, for help with population pyramids 

and distance profiles; and Mike Van Atta for providing data assistance in the early stages of 

the report.

Many thanks to Arvella C. Johnson who conducted census tract data processing under the 

direction of Brian P. Barenbaum, Chief, Computer Applications and Processing Staff. Marie 

Pees, Chief, Census Activities and Tabulation Staff, provided custom tabulations and assistance 

with Census 2000 data.

The authors thank Karen R. Humes, Assistant Division Chief for Special Population

Statistics, Population Division, for subject-matter guidance. Topic area expertise was provided 

by Roberto R. Ramirez, Chief, Ethnicity and Ancestry Branch; Nicholas A. Jones, Chief, 

Racial Statistics Branch; and Carrie A. Werner under the direction of Amy Symens Smith, 

Chief, Age and Special Populations Branch.

We are especially grateful for the thoughtful review of the report by Bashiruddin Ahmed and 

Frank Hobbs from the Census Bureau’s Population Division; Marjorie Hanson in the Office 

of the Associate Director of Demographic Programs; James L. Dinwiddie with the Decennial 

Management Division; and Richard A. Griffin with the Decennial Statistical Studies Division. 

We received support for the publication from Louisa F. Miller and Julie A. VanEerden with 

the Population Division’s Census Programs.

The authors appreciate the significant contributions of Christine E. Geter, Omya Alston, 

Janet S. Sweeney, and Corey T. Beasley of the Census Bureau’s Administrative and

Customer Services Division, who provided publication and printing management, graphics 

design and composition, and editorial review for electronic media under the direction

of Francis Grailand Hall, Division Chief. General direction and production management

were provided by Claudette E. Bennett, Assistant Division Chief, Administrative and

Customer Services Division.
Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Population Change: 2000 to 2010 Issued September 2012

2010 Census Special Reports C2010SR-01

U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca M. Blank,

Acting Secretary

Rebecca M. Blank,

Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Vacant,

Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Thomas L. Mesenbourg,

Acting Director
ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

SUGGESTED CITATION

U.S. Census Bureau,

2010 Census Special Reports,

Patterns of Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Population Change: 

2000 to 2010,

C2010SR-01,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC,

2012

Economics 

and Statistics

Administration

Vacant,

Under Secretary for 

Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Thomas L. Mesenbourg,

Acting Director

Nancy A. Potok,

Deputy Director and 

Chief Operating Officer

Enrique J. Lamas,

Associate Director

for Demographic Programs

Enrique J. Lamas,

Acting Chief, Population Division
FOREWORD

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this new Census Bureau report examining population change in the nation’s metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas between 2000 and 2010.

Metropolitan statistical areas are an enduring statistical success story of more than 60 years. During the 1940s, it became evident that the value of 

metropolitan data produced by federal agencies would be greatly enhanced if agencies used a single set of geographic definitions for the nation’s 

largest centers of population and economic activity. The predecessor of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Bureau of the Budget, led 

the effort to develop what were then called “standard metropolitan areas” in time for their use in 1950 Census reports. 

While the terminology has changed modestly over time, the general concept of a metro area has remained constant since 1950—namely, an

area containing a large population nucleus together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of social and economic integration with 

that nucleus. In 2003, in conjunction with a multi-year project to review the standards for defining metro areas, OMB introduced a companion

statistical area, the micropolitan statistical area, to identify centers of population based upon smaller population cores and better portray contemporary patterns of population distribution. Roughly one in ten people lives in a micro area, joining the more than eight in ten who live in a metro 

area. Many micro areas serve as important regional centers of population and employment. Some, such as Branson, MO, are prominent nationally. 

We now have 10 years of data for micro areas, helping us to understand the population dynamics at play in these smaller statistical areas.

“Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010” examines change between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census and 

uses the set of metro and micro areas in existence on January 1, 2010 (the December 2009 OMB definitions used for 2010 Census publications). 

With the publication of the 2010 standards, and data from the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey, metro and micro areas are being 

updated and a new set of areas will be announced in 2013. 

This 2010 Census Special Report serves as a good reminder of the fundamental purpose of the metropolitan area standards, unchanged since 

1950, to provide nationally consistent definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. Indeed, 

OMB establishes and maintains these areas solely for statistical purposes.

I invite you to explore this report’s maps, tables, and graphics to glean new insights from the 2010 Census, learn about population change and 

population density, and discover how the populace has evolved over a decade and diversified in terms of race, Hispanic origin, and age. 

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express profound appreciation to my colleagues at the Census Bureau and other federal statistical 

agencies who work closely with OMB on the statistical area classification program. Special thanks are due to James Fitzsimmons, Marc Perry, and 

Paul Mackun. Absent their unfailing dedication to these efforts, the program and products such as this simply would not exist. 

Katherine K. Wallman

Chief Statistician

Office of Management and Budget

U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • v

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Understanding the Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapters

1. Overview of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Population Growth and Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. Race and Hispanic Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. Age and Sex Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

About the 2010 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Methodology and Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figures

1.1. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States and

 Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

1.2. Proportions of U.S. Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and

 Size Category: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3. Population Distribution by Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area: 2010 . . 9

1.4. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1. Shares of U.S. Population Growth by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status:

 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2. Percentage Change in U.S. Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status

 and Population Size Category: 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3. Percentage Change in Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010 . . . 16

2.4a. Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4b. Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5. Numeric Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1. Population-Weighted Density by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2a. Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall: 2010

 Population by Distance From City Hall: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2b. Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall: 2010

 Population by Distance From City Hall: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3. Population Density by Census Tract: 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vi • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

4.1. Numeric Change in Population by Race and Hispanic Origin and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Size Category:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.2. Percentage Change in Population by Race and Hispanic Origin and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Size Category:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.3. Percentage-Point Change in Race and Hispanic Origin Share of Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Size Category:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.4. Race and Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.5. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Race and Hispanic Origin Groups by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.6. Race and Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.7. Percentage-Point Change in Race and Hispanic Origin Share of Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.8. Race and Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population Gain or Loss by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.9. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Black or African American Alone Population by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage-Point Change in Black or African American Alone Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.10. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Hispanic Population by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage-Point Change in Hispanic Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.11. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Non-Hispanic White Alone Population by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage-Point Change in Non-Hispanic White Alone Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.12. Race or Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population by Census Tract: 2010

 Race or Hispanic Origin Group (Excluding Non-Hispanic White Alone) With the Largest Population by Census Tract: 2010. . . . . . . . . . 66

5.1. Age and Sex Distribution by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.2. Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.3. Change in Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.4. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Age Groups by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.5. Age and Sex Structure for College and Retirement Metro and Micro Areas: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.6. Sex Ratio by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.7. Age and Sex Structure for Metro and Micro Areas With Highest and Lowest Sex Ratios: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.8. Median Age by Census Tract: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.9. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Under 18 by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage Change in Population Under 18 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.10. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Aged 25 to 34 by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage Change in Population Aged 25 to 34 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.11. Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Aged 65 to 74 by Census Tract: 2010

 Percentage Change in Population Aged 65 to 74 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Tables

1.1. Population and Land Area by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2. Most and Least Populous Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs): 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1. Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2. Population Change by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Population Size Category: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • vii

2.3. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Fastest Growth and Decline in Total Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1. Population Density by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Population Size Category: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Overall Population Density: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Population-Weighted Density: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4. Population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size Category: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.5. Population-Weighted Density in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size Category: 2010. . . . . . . . . 27

3.6. Percentage Change in Population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size Category:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.7. Metropolitan Statistical Areas With the Largest Numeric Increase and Decline in Population Less Than 2 Miles From City Hall:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Size Category: 2000 and 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.2. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Non-Hispanic White Alone Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.3. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Hispanic Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.4. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Black or African American Alone Population: 2010. . . . . . . 51

4.5. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Asian Alone Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.6. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native Alone

 Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.7. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone

 Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.8. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages of Two or More Races Population: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.9. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Non-Hispanic White Alone Share of Population:

 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.10. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Hispanic Share of Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.11. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Black or African American Alone Share of

 Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.12. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Asian Alone Share of Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.13. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Alone Share of

 Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.14. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) Alone

 Share of Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.15. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Two or More Races Share of Population: 2000 to 2010. . . . . 62

5.1. Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.2. Population by Age Group, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Population Size Category: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.3. Population Change by Age Group, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Population Size Category: 2000 to 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.4. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Median Age: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.5. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest Percentage of Population in Each Age Group: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.6. Population by Sex and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.7. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Sex Ratios: 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 1

INTRODUCTION

Results of the 2010 Census show that the 

U.S. population is larger, older, and more 

racially and ethnically diverse than ever before. 

While the overall growth for the decade slowed 

to 9.7 percent, this value for the United States 

reflected substantial geographic variation, with 

rapid growth in some areas of the country and 

sizable population declines in others. Indeed, 

all major demographic measures exhibited 

variation within the country. In this 2010 

Census Special Report, we examine contemporary geographic patterns for the following 

demographic topics: population distribution 

and density, race, Hispanic origin, and age 

and sex structure. We also examine how these 

patterns have changed between 2000 and 

2010. Providing both geographic and historical 

context can assist users in better understanding the often complex demographic processes 

at play in the nation.

This report examines subnational demographic 

variation through the lens of metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas. Metro areas and 

micro areas, as they are colloquially known, 

are useful geographic units for analyzing the 

U.S. population. States are sometimes too large 

a unit to provide meaningful subnational analysis, obscuring patterns worthy of attention 

from regional or even national perspective. 

Counties, on the other hand, number more 

than 3,000 and can be too small and numerous 

for some purposes. Metro and micro areas, as 

socially and economically integrated groupings 

of one or more counties, provide appropriately 

detailed geographic analysis as well as good 

mapping units for a national overview. Furthermore, in several chapters we also examine 

census tract data to provide a neighborhoodlevel perspective on demographic patterns 

within individual metro areas.

Concluding this introduction is a section—

Understanding the Maps—with examples and 

descriptions of the types and styles of maps 

used in the report. From national metro and 

micro area maps to detailed tract-level maps, 

the guide presents examples to assist readers as they explore each chapter. The maps 

provide location and context for the findings in 

each section.

The report’s five chapters then follow. Chapter 

1—Overview of Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas—discusses metro and micro 

areas, how they are delineated, the number of 

areas, and the distribution of the population 

among them. Chapter 2—Population Growth 

and Decline—examines overall metro and 

micro area population change, the most rapidly 

changing areas, and population change within 

some of the largest metro areas. Chapter 3—

Population Density—looks at population concentration in two different ways by examining 

overall population density as well as density by 

distance from the historic cores of the larger 

metro areas. Chapter 4—Race and Hispanic 

Origin—explores the increasing diversity in 

the spatial distribution of selected race and 

Hispanic origin groups. Chapter 5—Age and 

Sex Composition—looks at the age and sex 

structure of metro and micro area populations 

and how it has changed since 2000. 

The topics highlighted in the report offer a 

cross section of much of the population content found in the 2010 Census. These variables 

also provide a basic demographic context for 

any other variables of interest to the reader, 

such as income or poverty.

This report includes several innovative aspects 

worth mentioning here. First, to assist in our 

analysis of population change from 2000 to 

2010 at the subcounty level, we retabulated 

Census 2000 in updated 2010 Census geographic boundaries. By doing so, we were able 

to calculate decennial population change at the 

census tract level. This would not otherwise 

have been possible, given the instability of 

some census tract boundaries between the two 

censuses. Second, we examined the spatial 

context of population change within metro 

areas. For instance, was population growth this 

past decade higher in neighborhoods inside 

large cities or in outlying suburbs? To operationalize these concepts, we determined the 

location of city hall for the largest city in each 

metro area and used that as a proxy for the 

area’s original downtown or central business 

district. We then constructed distance bands 

radiating out from the city hall and were able 

to present results in a broad spatial context.

Due to space limitations, the report itself often 

includes only an example map or graphic for a 

particular metro or micro area. The accompanying online content includes a mapping interface, data tables for all metro and micro areas, 

and many additional population pyramids and 

distance profiles. The online content is available at <www.census.gov/population/metro

/data/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.
2 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

UNDERSTANDING THE MAPS

Map Types and Styles

National Map

Below is a typical choropleth map from the report. In these maps Alaska is shown at half the 

scale of the main U.S. map, Hawaii is shown at the same scale as the U.S. map, and Puerto Rico is 

shown at twice the scale of the U.S. map.

Note: Core based statistical areas 

(metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000. 0 100 Miles

Figure 2.3.

Percentage Change in Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Percent change

30.0 or more

20.0 to 29.9

10.0 to 19.9

0.0 to 9.9

–10.0 to –0.1

Less than –10.0

U.S. change: 9.7

Locator Map

These maps show the locations of the top five 

(purple dots) and bottom five (orange dots) 

metro and micro areas from tables within

the report.

Metro Areas Micro Areas

Most and Least Populous Core Based Statistical Areas: 2010.

Dot Density 

Map

Each dot 

represents 25 

people. The 

dots are spread 

randomly 

across each 

census tract. 

The distribution 

of dots 

provides a 

visual sense 

of population 

density. Dots 

coalesce where 

population is 

densest and 

form areas

of color. 

On numeric change maps, green dots represent 

population gain, whereas purple dots represent 

population decline.

Numeric Change in Population by 

Census Tract: 2000 to 2010.

Note: The design for “Understanding the Maps” was adapted from Trudy A. Suchan, Marc J. Perry, James D. 

Fitzsimmons, Anika E. Juhn, Alexander M. Tait, and Cynthia A. Brewer, 2007, “Census Atlas of the United 

States,” Washington, DC, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-29, U.S. Census Bureau, available on the

Census Bureau’s Internet site at <www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/>.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 3

Quantitative 

Choropleth Map

Choropleth maps 

show derived 

values such as 

percentages and 

medians. Colors 

fill geographic 

areas to represent 

data values.

Areas are shaded 

so 

that as the 

data values 

increase—or 

on some maps 

decrease—the 

color becomes 

darker and more 

intense. 

Qualitative 

Choropleth 

Map

Colors fill geographic areas 

to show data 

organized into 

categories. 

The colors of 

areas indicate 

which race or 

Hispanic-origin 

group had the 

largest population or population change.

Different hues 

are used, rather 

than shades of 

one color, 

to avoid the impression of higher and lower 

values for the categories. 

Census Tract Map

Selected census tract 

maps are used to 

portray patterns 

within the ten most 

populous U.S. metropolitan statistical 

areas.

The maps are presented in choropleth and dot density 

design. Boundaries for 

tracts are not shown, 

which allows for patterns to emerge more 

easily. Boundaries of counties and the

first-named principal city (Detroit in the 

example shown here) are shown to provide 

locational context.

Proportional 

Symbol Map

Proportional 

symbol maps 

show numbers of 

people or other 

quantities. 

Symbol size is 

larger for higher 

data values. 

Symbols show 

geographic area 

totals and are 

placed at the 

centers of

those areas. 

In areas of high 

symbol density, 

smaller diamonds are placed on top of larger diamonds, 

but some diamonds may be hidden.

Dot Map

Dot maps use 

dots (squares 

in this case) in 

place of full 

geographic 

areas to show 

populationweighted density. Colors fill 

the squares to 

represent data 

values.

Similar to 

choropleth 

maps, areas are 

shaded so that 

as the data value 

increases—or on 

some maps decreases—the color becomes 

darker and more intense. 

Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 

2000 to 2010.

Race or Hispanic Origin Group 

(excluding Non-Hispanic White Alone) 

With the Largest Population by Core 

Based Statistical Area: 2010.

Population Distribution by 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Area: 2010.

Percent change

0 5 Miles

Figure 2.4b.

Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

40.0 to 49.9

30.0 to 39.9

20.0 to 29.9

10.0 to 19.9

0.0 to 9.9

–10.0 to –0.0

Less than –10.0

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Detroit metro area

change: –3.5

U.S. change: 9.7

C A NADA

0 10 Miles

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area

St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area

IL

MO

TN

IN

AR

KY

C A N A D A

MI

IL IN OH

WI

St. Louis metro area

change: 4.2

Change in Median Age by 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010.

Population-Weighted Density by 

Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 5

CHAPTER 1.

OVERVIEW OF METROPOLITAN AND 

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS

What are metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas? 

Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical

areas (also referred to as metro and micro 

areas) are delineated by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and are composed of whole counties or county equivalents, such as parishes or municipios. Collectively, metro and micro areas are known 

as core based statistical areas (CBSAs). OMB 

or its predecessor has been responsible for 

the definition of metro areas since before the 

1950 Census and delineates such areas for 

the production and dissemination of federal 

statistical data. The most recent definitions 

were announced by OMB in December 2009 

and are based on the application of 2000 OMB 

standards to Census Bureau data.1 

Each metro or micro area consists of one

or more whole counties and includes the

counties containing a core urban area (either

a Census Bureau defined urbanized area or 

urban cluster), as well as any adjacent counties 

that have a high degree of social and economic 

integration (as measured by commuting to 

work) with the urban core. Metro areas contain 

at least one urbanized area of 50,000 population or more, while micro areas contain at least 

1 The 2000 OMB “Standards for Defining Metropolitan 

and Micropolitan Statistical Areas” is available at 

<www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg

/metroareas122700.pdf>. The category of micropolitan statistical areas was first created in the 2000 OMB standards, 

with the first such units delineated in 2003. OMB will be 

redelineating the areas in 2013, based upon an application 

of 2010 standards to Census Bureau data.

one urban cluster of less than 50,000, but at 

least 10,000.2

The largest city in each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is designated a “principal city.” Additional cities qualify if specified 

requirements are met concerning population 

size and employment. The title of each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area consists 

of the names of up to three of its principal cities and the name of each state into which the 

statistical area extends.

Number of areas and share of U.S. 

population and territory by CBSA status.

As of the December 2009 definition—the 

definition used for the 2010 Census—there 

were 366 metro areas and 576 micro areas 

in the United States, as well as 8 metro areas 

and 5 micro areas in Puerto Rico (Figure 1.1).3

2 The Census Bureau’s urban and rural classification is 

fundamentally a delineation of geographical areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural areas of the 

nation. The Census Bureau’s urban areas represent densely 

developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. The Census 

Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census 

by applying specified criteria to decennial census and other 

data. The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: 

(1) urbanized areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people, and (2) 

urban clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 

people. “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and 

territory not included within an urban area. More information on the Census Bureau’s urban and rural classification is 

available at <www.census.gov/geo/www/ua

/urbanruralclass.html>. 3 More information on metro and micro areas is available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/>. Based upon 

minimum commuting thresholds, metro and/or micro areas 

can be joined to form combined statistical areas. Combined 

statistical areas have social and economic ties as measured 

by commuting, but at lower levels than are found among 

counties within metro and micro areas. In addition, metro 

areas containing urbanized areas of 2.5 million or more 

people can be subdivided to form metropolitan divisions. 

While a metropolitan division is a subdivision of a larger 

metro area, it often functions as a distinct social, economic, 

and cultural area within the larger region.

Metro and micro areas are unevenly distributed 

across the country. Every state contained at 

least one metro area (or part thereof), and 47 

states contained at least one micro area. Only 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey—

along with the District of Columbia—did not 

contain any micro areas.4

The vast majority of the U.S. population was 

metropolitan. Metro areas comprised approximately 84 percent of the population (Table 

1.1), while micro areas comprised 10 percent 

and areas outside CBSAs the remainder (about 

6 percent). This metropolitan population was 

concentrated. While home to more than 8 out 

of every 10 people in the United States, metro 

areas covered only a little over one-quarter of 

the U.S. land area, with micro areas accounting for somewhat more than one-fifth of the 

total. Over one-half of the U.S. land area was 

territory outside CBSAs. In Puerto Rico, on the 

other hand, most of the population and land 

area were metropolitan. Almost 95 percent of 

Puerto Rico’s population lived in metro areas, 

which cover about 84 percent of the island. 

Over 4 percent lived in micro areas, which 

take up nearly 12 percent of the island. The 

less than 1 percent of the population that lived 

outside of CBSAs occupied just over 4 percent 

of Puerto Rico’s land.

4 Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia 

are entirely metropolitan, while Massachusetts contains 

some outside CBSA territory.
6 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Note: Metropolitan and micropolitan

statistical areas defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009.

0 100 Miles Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Figure 1.1.

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States and 

Puerto Rico

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Metro area

Micro area

County or equivalent
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 7

The U.S. population is concentrated in 

large metro areas.

The 9 U.S. metro areas with populations of 5.0 

million or more accounted for almost onequarter of the U.S. population. In fact, over one 

out of every ten people in the United States 

lived in the 2 largest metro areas—New York 

and Los Angeles.5 Almost 30 percent of the 

5 For readability, statistical area titles often are

abbreviated in the text. Full statistical area titles are

shown in the tables.

U.S. population resided in the 42 metro areas 

with populations between 1.0 and 5.0 million, 

and the same percentage resided in the other 

315 metro areas with populations below 1.0 

million (Figure 1.2). 

The spatial distribution of metro areas by size 

shows a disproportionate share of metro areas 

with populations of 1.0 million or more located 

in the Northeast; upper Midwest; Florida

and Texas in the South; and California and 

Washington in the West (Figure 1.3, Table 1.2).6

The 5 most populous metro areas (New York, 

Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, and 

Philadelphia) were located partially or completely in at least some of these parts of the 

United States. By comparison, the Mountain 

Division (consisting of Arizona, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming) contained only 4 metro areas 

(out of a total of 51) with populations of 

1.0 million or greater—Phoenix, Denver, Las 

Vegas, and Salt Lake City. The 3 least populous 

metro areas in the United States (Carson City, 

NV; Lewiston, ID-WA; and Casper, WY) were

all located partially or entirely in the

Mountain Division. 

The five most populous micro areas were 

found in three of the four regions: the South 

(Seaford, DE; Hilton Head Island-Beaufort,

SC; and Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL); the 

Northeast (Torrington, CT); and the West (Hilo, 

HI). The five least populous micro areas were 

located in two neighboring states in the South,

Louisiana (Tallulah) and Texas (Vernon and 

Pecos), and in one state in the West, Alaska 

(Ketchikan and Kodiak).

6 States are grouped into four census regions and nine 

divisions (Figure 1.4).

Table 1.1.

Population and Land Area by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status

Population Land area in square miles

Number

Percent

of total Number

Percent

of total

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,745,538 100.0 3,531,905.4 100.0

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 289,261,315 93.7 1,649,928.4 46.7

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,317,763 83.7 912,992.1 25.8

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,943,552 10.0 736,936.3 20.9

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . 19,484,223 6.3 1,881,977.0 53.3

 Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,725,789 100.0 3,423.8 100.0

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,698,513 99.3 3,278.4 95.8

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,534,375 94.9 2,872.2 83.9

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164,138 4.4 406.2 11.9

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . 27,276 0.7 145.4 4.2

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
8 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 1.2.

Proportions of U.S. Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and Size Category: 2010

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Outside 

CBSA (6.3%)

576

micro areas 

(10.0%)

315 metro areas of

less than 1.0 million 

(29.5%)

42 metro areas of

1.0 to 4.9 million 

(29.5%)

9 metro areas of

 5.0 million or more 

(24.6%)

All 366 metro areas (83.7%)

(The size of each symbol represents a share of the total U.S. population. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

New York 

metro area

(6.1%)

Los 

Angeles

metro area

(4.2%)
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 9

Note: Metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. 0 100 Miles

Figure 1.3.

Population Distribution by Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area: 2010

(The area of each diamond symbol is proportioned to the number of people in a metro or micro area. The legend

presents example symbol sizes from the many symbols shown on the map. For information on confidentiality 

protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Number of people

1,000,000

5,000,000

10,000,000

Metro area

Micro area

100,000
10 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 1.2.

Most and Least Populous Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs): 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Population CBSA1 Population

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Most Populous Most Populous

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,897,109 Seaford, DE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,145

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,828,837 Torrington, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,927

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,461,105 Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187,010

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,371,773 Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,079

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,965,343 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,265

Least Populous Least Populous

Carson City, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,274 Tallulah, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,093

Lewiston, ID-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,888 Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,477

Casper, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,450 Vernon, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,535

Columbus, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,794 Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,592

Sandusky, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,079 Pecos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,783

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Most populous areas .

• Least populous areas .

1 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 11

AK

HI

Figure 1.4.

Census Regions and Divisions of the United States

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

TX

FL

OK

AL

GA

LA

AR

NC

MS

TN

VA

KY

SC

WV

MD DE

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

NM

CO

OR

UT

WY

WA

IL

KS

IA

NE

SD

MN

ND

WI

MO

MI

IN

OH

PA

NY

ME

VT

NH

NJ

MA

CT

RI

West Midwest Northeast

South

Pacific

Mountain

West

North

Central

West

South

Central

South

Atlantic

Middle

Atlantic

New

England

East

North

Central

East

South

Central

DC

U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 13

CHAPTER 2.

POPULATION GROWTH AND DECLINE

Most growth took place in

metropolitan counties.

The U.S. population grew by 27.3 million 

between 2000 and 2010, an increase of 9.7 

percent. Nearly all population growth occurred 

in metro areas (25.2 million) or micro areas 

(1.7 million). Roughly 1 percent (350,000) 

of the nation’s population growth occurred 

outside CBSAs (Table 2.1, Figure 2.1). Metro 

areas grew the most over the 10-year period, 

increasing by 10.8 percent. Micro areas grew at 

slightly more than half that rate, increasing by 

5.9 percent, and outside CBSA counties grew 

by less than 2 percent. 

As a result of their higher growth rate, metro 

areas accounted for a slightly higher percentage of the U.S. population in 2010 (83.7 percent) than in 2000 (82.8 percent). Conversely, 

both the proportions of the U.S. population 

in micro areas and outside CBSA counties 

decreased over the decade, from 10.4 percent 

to 10.0 percent, and from 6.8 percent to 6.3 

percent, respectively.

Larger metro areas—though not 

necessarily the very largest—grew 

faster than smaller metro areas.7

Growth rates for metro areas varied by population size, with the fastest growth (13.6 

percent) experienced by those with Census 

2000 populations of 2.5 million to 5.0 million. The six largest metros in 2000—those 

having 5.0 million or more residents—grew at 

just under half that rate (6.2 percent). Metro 

areas of 1.0 million to 2.5 million experienced 

a rate of growth above 12 percent, whereas 

those with populations of 500,000 to 1.0 

million and 250,000 to 500,000 had virtually 

identical rates of just under 12 percent. The 

smallest size category of metros—those with 

fewer than 250,000 residents—registered, on 

average, 10.7 percent population gains (Table 

2.2, Figure 2.2). 

7 The largest metros—metro areas with Census 2000 

populations of 5,000,000 or more—grew slower (6.2 percent) than any other metro area category.

Table 2.1.

Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status

Population Share of U.S. population

Census 2000 2010 Census

Change, 2000 to 2010

Census 2000 2010 Census

Change,

Number Percent Share 2000 to 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 308,745,538 27,323,632 9.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Inside core based statistical area . . . 262,290,227 289,261,315 26,971,088 10.3 98.7 93.2 93.7 0.5

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . 233,069,827 258,317,763 25,247,936 10.8 92.4 82.8 83.7 0.8

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . 29,220,400 30,943,552 1,723,152 5.9 6.3 10.4 10.0 –0.4

Outside core based statistical area . . 19,131,679 19,484,223 352,544 1.8 1.3 6.8 6.3 –0.5

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Figure 2.1.

Shares of U.S. Population Growth 

by Core Based Statistical Area 

(CBSA) Status: 2000 to 2010

(In percent. For information on confidentiality 

protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management and 

Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 

Census 2000.

0

20

40

60

80

100

In metro area In micro area Outside CBSA

92.4

6.3

1.3
14 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

The growth rate of micro areas was also 

directly related to population size. Micro areas 

with Census 2000 populations of 100,000 or 

more grew by 10.4 percent, almost twice the 

rate of micro areas with populations between 

50,000 and 100,000 (5.6 percent). Micro areas 

with populations of fewer than 50,000 were 

the slowest-growing, at less than 5 percent.

National patterns of metropolitan and 

micropolitan growth and decline were 

spatially complex.

The fastest-growing metro areas were located 

in either the South or the West (Figure 2.3), 

with the list of fastest population gainers led 

by Palm Coast, FL, and followed by St. George, 

UT; Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; Raleigh-Cary, NC; 

and Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL (Table 2.3). 

The fastest-declining metro areas were split 

between two different areas of the country: 

two metro areas in the southern states of 

Louisiana and Arkansas (New Orleans and Pine 

Bluff, respectively) and three areas located 

partially or entirely in the states of Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (YoungstownWarren-Boardman, OH-PA; Johnstown, PA; and 

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV). 

Generally, many of the faster-growing

micro areas were located near faster-growing 

metro areas. At the same time, many of the 

slow-growing or declining micro areas were 

situated near slow-growing or declining metro 

areas.8 Four of the five fastest-growing micro 

areas were in the Mountain Division (Heber,

UT; Fernley, NV; Gillette, WY; and Cedar City, 

UT). The Villages, which is located in central

Florida, was the exception. On the other

hand, the five fastest-declining micro areas 

(Greenville, MS; Helena-West Helena, AR;

Cleveland, MS; Clarksdale, MS; and Indianola, 

MS) were tightly clustered along the lower

Mississippi River. 

Higher growth occurred in outlying 

census tracts of metro areas.

Two fast-growing large metro areas,

Dallas-Fort Worth and Phoenix, provide illustrations of areas’ differential internal growth 

(Figure 2.4a).9 In Dallas-Fort Worth, population declines are visible for many tracts in the 

southern and northern regions of the largest 

principal city (Dallas). Some tracts surrounding 

Dallas and Fort Worth (the group of tracts

to the west of Dallas) displayed rapid growth, 

with the exception of tracts to the Southeast. 

A similar pattern of changing populations is 

visible in declining principal city tracts and 

8 Paul Mackun and Steven Wilson, 2011, “Population 

Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010,” Washington,

DC, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-01, U.S. Census

Bureau, available on the Census Bureau’s Internet site at

<www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf>. 9 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.

Table 2.2.

Population Change by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and 

Population Size Category: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status and

CBSA population size category1 Number

of areas

Population Change, 2000 to 2010

Census

2000

2010

Census Number Percent

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 281,421,906 308,745,538 27,323,632 9.7

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . 942 262,290,227 289,261,315 26,971,088 10.3

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . 366 233,069,827 258,317,763 25,247,936 10.8

 5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55,643,200 59,088,802 3,445,602 6.2

 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 47,312,107 53,737,951 6,425,844 13.6

 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 46,290,244 52,005,975 5,715,731 12.3

 500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 26,992,438 30,209,731 3,217,293 11.9

 250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 28,798,731 32,230,382 3,431,651 11.9

 Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 28,033,107 31,044,922 3,011,815 10.7

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . 576 29,220,400 30,943,552 1,723,152 5.9

 100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4,678,812 5,166,296 487,484 10.4

 50,000 to 99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 12,464,776 13,168,561 703,785 5.6

 Less than 50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 12,076,812 12,608,695 531,883 4.4

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . (X) 19,131,679 19,484,223 352,544 1.8

(X) Not applicable.

1

 Size categories based on Census 2000 population data.

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 15

growing suburban tracts in the Phoenix

metro area.10

10 For the purposes of metro area analysis in this report, 

we will differentiate between the largest principal city and 

the remainder of the metro area; the remainder will be 

referred to as “suburban.”

Census tract-level maps of two other areas

that either grew more slowly (St. Louis) or 

declined (Detroit) illustrate population growth 

in outlying tracts at a greater distance from

the largest principal city and widespread

population decline within the principal

cities (Figure 2.4b). In the principal city of 

Detroit, nearly all tracts had population 

declines of 10 percent or more, with only a 

handful of tracts situated near a major northsouth corridor (Woodward Avenue) showing 

growth. In the St. Louis metro area, a similar 

pattern of population decline occurred, except 

for a cluster of tracts along an east-west corridor perpendicular to the Mississippi River. 

Generally, in each metro area, the farther away 

from the largest principal city, the more likely 

it was that tract populations increased (often 

rapidly, as in the case of Phoenix).

Census tract-level population change can also 

be viewed in numeric terms. The Chicago 

metro area experienced large growth near its 

center, decline in many of its inner suburbs, 

and large growth on the periphery (Figure 

2.5). The New York metro area experienced a 

related, though somewhat different pattern of 

change, with pockets of growth and decline 

inside New York City as well as in some outlying suburban locations.

In summary, metro areas grew faster than 

micro areas or territory outside CBSAs. Larger 

metro areas (though not the largest) tended 

to grow faster than smaller metro areas. 

Furthermore, larger micro areas grew faster 

than smaller micro areas. The fastest-growing 

metro areas were located in the South or West, 

while four of the five fastest-growing micro 

areas were located in the Mountain Division. 

Within larger metro areas—both faster-growing 

areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Phoenix, 

and slower-growing or declining areas such as 

St. Louis or Detroit—outlying tracts tended to 

experience faster growth.

Figure 2.2.

Percentage Change in U.S. Population by Core Based Statistical Area

(CBSA) Status and Population Size Category: 2000 to 2010

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget

as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

02468 10 12 14

Less than 50,000

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 or more

In micropolitan statistical area

Less than 250,000

250,000 to 499,999

500,000 to 999,999

1,000,000 to 2,499,999

2,500,000 to 4,999,999

5,000,000 or more

In metropolitan statistical area

U.S. change: 9.7

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Percent
16 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Note: Core based statistical areas 

(metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000. 0 100 Miles

Figure 2.3.

Percentage Change in Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Percent change

30.0 or more

20.0 to 29.9

10.0 to 19.9

0.0 to 9.9

–10.0 to –0.1

Less than –10.0

U.S. change: 9.7
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 17

Table 2.3.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Fastest Growth and Decline in 

Total Population: 2000 to 2010

(For information and confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Population Change, 2000 to 2010

Census 2000 2010 Census Number Percent 

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Fastest Growth

Palm Coast, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,832 95,696 45,864 92 .0

St . George, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,354 138,115 47,761 52 .9

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,375,765 1,951,269 575,504 41 .8

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797,071 1,130,490 333,419 41 .8

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fastest Decline

440,888 618,754 177,866 40 .3

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,316,510 1,167,764 –148,746 –11 .3

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,341 100,258 –7,083 –6 .6

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602,964 565,773 –37,191 –6 .2

Johnstown, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,598 143,679 –8,919 –5 .8

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Fastest Growth

132,008 124,454 –7,554 –5 .7

The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,345 93,420 40,075 75 .1

Heber, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,215 23,530 8,315 54 .7

Fernley, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,501 51,980 17,479 50 .7

Gillette, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,698 46,133 12,435 36 .9

Cedar City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fastest Decline

33,779 46,163 12,384 36 .7

Greenville, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,977 51,137 –11,840 –18 .8

Helena-West Helena, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,445 21,757 –4,688 –17 .7

Cleveland, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,633 34,145 –6,488 –16 .0

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,622 26,151 –4,471 –14 .6

Indianola, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,369 29,450 –4,919 –14 .3

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with fastest growth .

• Areas with fastest decline .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 

Census 2000 .
18 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 2.4a.

Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 10 Miles

Dallas metro area

change: 23.4

U.S. change: 9.7

Phoenix metro area

change: 28.9

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

0 10 Miles

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area

TX

OK

AR

LA

MO

AZ

UT

NV

Percent change

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

40.0 to 49.9

30.0 to 39.9

20.0 to 29.9

10.0 to 19.9

0.0 to 9.9

–10.0 to –0.0

Less than –10.0

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 19

Percent change

0 5 Miles

Figure 2.4b.

Percentage Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

40.0 to 49.9

30.0 to 39.9

20.0 to 29.9

10.0 to 19.9

0.0 to 9.9

–10.0 to –0.0

Less than –10.0

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Detroit metro area

change: –3.5

U.S. change: 9.7

C A NADA

0 10 Miles

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area

St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area

IL

MO

TN

IN

AR

KY

C A N A D A

MI

IL IN OH

WI

St. Louis metro area

change: 4.2

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
20 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 2.5.

Numeric Change in Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Numeric change

0 10 Miles

0 10 Miles

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area

IL IN

WI

IA

MI

MO

NY

PA

NJ

CT

MA

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

Decrease

Increase

1 Dot = 25 people

Chicago metro area 

change: 362,789

U.S. change: 27,323,632

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

New York metro area

change: 574,107

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 21

CHAPTER 3.

POPULATION DENSITY

Population density, commonly expressed as 

population per square unit of land area, is 

a valuable concept for examining patterns 

of population concentration. With populations unevenly distributed across the country, 

population density allows a detailed look at 

how closely people are grouped within an 

area—the intensity of their residential concentration. Population density in the United States 

varies a great deal, from densities of more 

than 100,000 people per square mile in some 

neighborhoods of the largest cities to densities 

at or near zero per square mile across parts of 

Alaska and the interior West.

Population density varied by CBSA 

population size and region.

In 2010, the overall population density of the 

United States was 87 people per square mile. 

Territory within the borders of U.S. metro 

areas was populated at a much higher overall density (283 people per square mile) than 

lands lying either inside micro areas (42 people 

per square mile) or outside CBSAs (10 people 

per square mile) (Table 3.1). As was previously 

noted, more than half (about 1.9 million square 

miles) of the nation’s land area was outside 

CBSAs. While the land area of the territory outside CBSAs was more than twice that of metro 

areas, the population living in metro areas was 

more than 13 times the outside CBSA population. Metro areas of 5 million or more had the 

highest density among metros, while micro 

areas of 100,000 or more had the highest 

density among micros. In general, population 

density decreased with decreasing CBSA size, 

dropping to 28 people per square mile for 

micro areas with populations less than 50,000.

The two most populous metro areas (New 

York and Los Angeles), along with a third large 

metro area (San Francisco), contained the 

highest overall densities in the country (Table 

3.2). New York and Los Angeles each contained 

more than 2,500 people per square mile when 

averaged over their total land areas, followed 

by San Francisco with a density over 1,700 

people per square mile. Trenton, NJ, and 

Honolulu, HI, while smaller in total population 

than the other three just listed, each contained 

more than 1,500 people per square mile.11

There was a strong regional orientation to 

metro and micro areas with the lowest overall 

densities. All five metro areas with the lowest 

densities were located in the West, where counties are typically larger in land area. Flagstaff, 

AZ, was the only metro area with fewer than 

10 people per square mile. The two Alaska 

metro areas, Fairbanks and Anchorage, along 

with Casper, WY, had fewer than 15 people per 

square mile. Flagstaff’s neighbor to the west, 

11 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.

Table 3.1.

Population Density by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status and 

Population Size Category: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status and

CBSA population size category1

Population

Land area

in square

miles

Population density2

Overall

Populationweighted

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,745,538 3,531,905.4 87.4 5,369.0

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 289,261,315 1,649,928.4 175.3 5,720.4

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,317,763 912,992.1 282.9 6,320.8

 5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,886,632 60,103.4 1,262.6 13,328.3

 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,266,846 89,888.9 470.2 5,549.9

 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,933,937 128,131.3 381.9 3,489.4

 500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,655,887 146,113.5 244.0 2,985.5

 250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,724,493 180,814.0 158.9 2,321.4

 Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,849,968 307,973.7 87.2 1,597.0

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,943,552 736,936.3 42.0 708.0

 100,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,003,660 72,775.3 82.5 723.5

 50,000 to 99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,572,401 259,472.7 52.3 777.7

 Less than 50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,367,491 404,688.3 28.1 616.5

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . 19,484,223 1,881,977.0 10.4 152.1

1

 Size categories based on 2010 Census population data.

2

 Population density expressed as average number of people per square mile. Population-weighted density is an average density of all 

census tracts in each area.

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
22 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, was the fifth

least-dense metro area in the country, with 

a density of 15 people per square mile. Like 

metro areas, all five micro areas with the lowest densities were located in the West: one 

in California (Bishop), along with two each in 

Alaska (Kodiak and Ketchikan) and Nevada 

(Elko and Pahrump). All five of the lowestdensity micro areas had less than 3 people

per square mile.

The highest-density micro areas were all 

located adjacent to large metro areas. Two of 

these were in North Carolina (ThomasvilleLexington and Statesville-Mooresville) and 

adjacent to Winston-Salem and Charlotte, 

respectively. The others were Oak Harbor, WA 

(adjacent to Seattle): Lexington Park, MD (adjacent to Washington); and East Stroudsburg, PA 

(adjacent to New York). Oak Harbor had over 

375 people per square mile, while the overall 

density of the other four fell between 275 and 

300 people per square mile.

Overall densities of CBSAs can be heavily 

affected by the size of the geographic units 

for which they are calculated. Metropolitan 

and micropolitan statistical areas are delimited 

using counties as their basic building blocks, 

and counties vary greatly across the country 

in terms of their geographic size. With this in 

mind, one way of measuring actual residential 

density is to examine the ratio of population 

to land area at the scale of the census tract, 

which—of all the geographic units for which 

decennial census data are tabulated—is typically the closest in scale to urban and suburban neighborhoods. To gain perspective on 

the densities at which people live, in addition 

to overall density, the population-weighted 

density for 2010 was computed for the United 

Table 3.2.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Overall 

Population Density: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Population

Land area in 

square miles

Population 

density2

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Density

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,897,109 6,686 .9 2,826 .0

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,828,837 4,848 .5 2,646 .0

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,335,391 2,470 .5 1,754 .8

Trenton-Ewing, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366,513 224 .6 1,632 .2

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Density

953,207 600 .7 1,586 .7

Flagstaff, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,421 18,618 .9 7 .2

Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,581 7,338 .2 13 .3

Casper, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,450 5,340 .4 14 .1

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,821 26,312 .6 14 .5

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Density

200,186 13,311 .1 15 .0

Oak Harbor, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,506 208 .4 376 .6

Thomasville-Lexington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,878 552 .7 294 .7

Lexington Park, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,151 357 .2 294 .4

East Stroudsburg, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169,842 608 .3 279 .2

Statesville-Mooresville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Density

159,437 573 .8 277 .8

Bishop, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,546 10,180 .9 1 .8

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,592 6,549 .6 2 .1

Elko, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,805 21,345 .5 2 .4

Pahrump, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,946 18,181 .9 2 .4

Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,477 4,858 .4 2 .8

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest density .

• Areas with lowest density .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

2

 Population density expressed as average 

number of people per square mile .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 23

States, inside and outside CBSAs, and CBSA 

size categories. Details on how these measures 

were calculated are presented in the 

“Population-Weighted Density” text box.

Table 3.1 shows how overall and populationweighted density measures varied by the

population size of CBSAs in 2010. The densities at which most people reside are revealed 

as much higher when the population-weighted 

density measure is used. While the overall

U.S. density stood at 87 people per square 

mile, population-weighted density shows that 

people actually lived at an average of 5,369 

people per square mile. Density was more 

intense and the difference between the two 

density measures was even larger when looking inside CBSAs, in metro areas, and in metro 

areas of 5.0 million or more, where people 

were living at an average of over 13,000 

people per square mile. Like overall density, 

population-weighted density decreased with 

decreasing CBSA size but only dropped to an 

average of 617 people per square mile for 

micro areas with populations less than 50,000.

The population-weighted density approach 

reveals that the areas with people living at

the highest density levels—metro areas with 

5,000 or more people per square mile—were 

clustered mainly in California and along

the corridor stretching from Boston to 

Washington. Other very dense metro areas 

included Chicago, Honolulu, Laredo, Las Vegas, 

Miami, Milwaukee, and San Juan. Low-density 

metro areas, on the other hand—those with 

fewer than 1,000 people per square mile—

were generally clustered in the South 

(Figure 3.1).

Four of the top five metro areas were the same 

according to both measures, although in a 

different order and with much higher values 

using the population-weighted measure (New 

York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and 

Honolulu). Each of these four metro areas 

had a population-weighted density of 11,000 

people per square mile or greater (Table 3.3). 

While the West contained the areas with the 

lowest overall densities, as shown in Table 

3.2, the metro areas with the lowest densities 

using the population-weighted approach were 

located in the Midwest (Jefferson City, MO) and 

the South (Rocky Mount, NC; Brunswick, GA; 

Morristown, TN; and Anniston-Oxford, AL). 

The West also had four micro areas with the 

lowest population-weighted densities

(Prineville, OR; Evanston, WY; Silverthorne, CO; 

and Mountain Home, ID), but these are a different set of areas than the micro areas that had 

the lowest overall densities.

People in larger metro areas often lived 

farther from “City Hall.”

An important dimension of population distribution within metro areas is the extent to 

which residents are found in “central” versus 

“suburban” or outlying areas. To examine this 

aspect, we geocoded the address of the city 

hall (or similar principal municipal building) in 

the largest principal city of each metro area. 

For most cities, city hall is located in or near 

the city’s original central business district 

and can serve as a useful proxy for the area’s 

original “downtown.” We then calculated the 

percentage of the population that resided in 

different distance categories from the city hall 

(or similar building). For 2010, the percentage 

of the population living close to city hall varied 

inversely with total population size. Metro 

areas with populations of 5.0 million or more 

had smaller percentages of their populations 

within 2 miles and 2–4 miles from city hall 

than did smaller metros (Table 3.4). The share 

of the population within these two distance 

categories increased as metro area population size decreased. For metros as a group, 

the largest percentage of the population lived 

between 5 and 9 miles of city hall (22.6 percent). Metro areas of 5.0 million or more had 

Population-Weighted Density

Population-weighted density is derived from the densities of all the census tracts included 

within the boundary of the CBSA. A metro or micro area’s population-weighted density can be 

thought of as the average of every inhabitant’s census tract density. It was calculated using the 

formula D=∑(Pidi)/∑Pi, where D is the population-weighted density of a metro or micro area, 

and Pi and di are the population and density of the ith census tract, respectively.

To facilitate examining change over the decade on the basis of consistent geographic units, 

population-weighted densities for both 2000 and 2010 were calculated using census tract 

boundaries and CBSAs as defined at the time of the 2010 Census. Note that the figures used in 

this report may not be identical to census tract densities available on American Factfinder for 

Census 2000 that were tabulated on the basis of census tracts and CBSAs at that time.
24 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Average number of 

people per square mile

5,000 or more

4,000 to 4,999

3,000 to 3,999

2,000 to 2,999

1,000 to 1,999

Less than 1,000

U.S. density: 5,369

Figure 3.1.

Population-Weighted Density by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2010

(Population density expressed as average number of people per square mile of land area. Densities 

calculated on a population-weighted basis across all census tracts included in the metro areas.

For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas 

defined by the Office of Management

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. 0 100 Miles
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 25

a larger percentage of their population living 

in areas 20–29 miles from city hall than metro 

areas in any other size category.12

Larger metro areas were typically more 

dense across distance categories.

The pattern for population-weighted density also showed a clear relationship with 

population size categories. For all distance 

categories, the most populous size category 

possessed the highest population-weighted 

density, with the density generally decreasing 

with each successively lower size category

(Table 3.5). Furthermore, population-weighted 

density generally dropped as distance from 

city hall increased. The most precipitous 

drop-offs in population-weighted density by 

distance are visible in areas with fewer than 

250,000 people.

The largest metro areas grew both in 

areas close to city hall and in outlying 

areas.

On average, the largest metro areas—those 

with 5.0 million or more population—experienced double-digit percentage growth within 

2 miles of their largest city’s city hall, as well 

as for every distance category 30 miles and 

farther from city hall (Table 3.6). The secondlargest metro area size category—those with 

populations of at least 2.5 million but less 

than 5.0 million—also experienced significant 

growth, on average, within 2 miles of city hall, 

although at about half the rate of those in the 

largest size category. This second size category also experienced double-digit growth in 

12 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.

Table 3.3.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest PopulationWeighted Density: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Population

Land area in 

square miles

Populationweighted 

density2

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Density

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,897,109 6,686 .9 31,251 .4

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,335,391 2,470 .5 12,144 .9

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,828,837 4,848 .5 12,113 .9

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,207 600 .7 11,548 .2

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Density

9,461,105 7,196 .8 8,613 .4

Jefferson City, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149,807 2,247 .7 522 .7

Rocky Mount, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,392 1,045 .7 525 .7

Brunswick, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,370 1,286 .4 539 .0

Morristown, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136,608 715 .9 554 .2

Anniston-Oxford, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Density

118,572 605 .9 566 .6

Athens, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,757 503 .6 2,950 .8

Key West, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,090 983 .3 2,614 .9

Laramie, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,299 4,273 .8 2,499 .3

Rexburg, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,778 2,332 .7 2,470 .5

Sunbury, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Density

94,528 458 .4 2,423 .6

Prineville, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,978 2,979 .1 19 .6

Evanston, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,118 2,081 .3 48 .5

Silverthorne, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,994 608 .4 54 .7

Mountain Home, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,038 3,074 .7 56 .7

Weatherford, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,469 988 .8 70 .2

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest density .

• Areas with lowest density .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

2

 Population-weighted density is an average 

density of all census tracts in each area .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
26 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

every distance range 15 miles or farther from 

city hall. 

In terms of individual areas, the Chicago 

metro area experienced the largest numeric 

gain in the “close to city hall” (less than 2 

miles) distance category, gaining over 48,000 

“downtown” residents. Four other large metro 

areas—New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, 

and Washington—also posted large increases 

in population within 2 miles of their respective 

largest principal cities’ city halls (Table 3.7). 

The greatest population declines within 2 miles 

of city hall occurred in two metro areas with 

populations over 1.0 million: New Orleans, 

which declined by over 35,000, and Baltimore, which declined by just over 10,000.13

Two smaller metro areas in Ohio—Dayton and 

Toledo—also saw declines of over 10,000 

within this distance category over the decade. 

13 Decennial census data for the New Orleans, LA, metro 

area show a decline in population over the 2000 to 2010 

period. However, annual population estimates from the 

Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program show that 

after Hurricane Katrina struck the area in 2005, the population declined to its lowest level in 2006. Since that time, the 

metro area population has steadily grown. For more information on the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, 

go to <www.census.gov/popest/index.html>.

Population density and size varied in 

and around the largest principal cities.

Figures 3.2a and 3.2b display both populationweighted density and total population for two 

pairings of metro areas. Figure 3.2a shows the 

most populous metro areas (New York and Los 

Angeles), while Figure 3.2b shows two large 

metro areas in the South (Miami and DallasFort Worth) with very similar total populations. 

New York exhibited higher tract densities than 

Los Angeles within 15 miles of their respective largest principal cities’ city halls. However, 

beyond that threshold, the areas displayed 

similar densities, with tracts in Los Angeles 

Table 3.4.

Population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size Category: 2010 

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population size category1

Distance from city hall (in miles)2

All

distances Less than 2 2 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 or more

Population

 All U.S. metro areas . 258,317,763 16,120,811 37,928,493 58,389,979 45,904,728 31,555,598 38,933,437 17,669,335 6,727,520 3,026,190 2,061,672 

5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . 75,886,632 1,455,904 5,666,173 13,962,092 13,177,887 10,038,657 15,670,119 8,548,884 4,193,075 1,851,926 1,321,915 

2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . 42,266,846 1,324,513 3,763,669 8,172,749 8,418,510 6,463,182 8,256,766 3,645,292 1,125,542 606,586 490,037 

1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . 48,933,937 1,785,156 6,827,398 13,618,365 10,322,213 6,041,524 6,493,069 2,768,571 766,869 224,148 86,624 

500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . 35,655,887 2,696,414 6,797,045 9,656,005 6,199,680 4,066,333 4,117,291 1,652,975 343,796 54,325 72,023 

250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . 28,724,493 3,219,650 7,162,639 7,343,592 4,364,444 2,978,364 2,631,087 652,418 135,338 199,786 37,175 

Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . 26,849,968 5,639,174 7,711,569 5,637,176 3,421,994 1,967,538 1,765,105 401,195 162,900 89,419 53,898 

Percentage of Population

 All U.S. metro areas . 100.0 6.2 14.7 22.6 17.8 12.2 15.1 6.8 2.6 1.2 0.8

5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . 100.0 1.9 7.5 18.4 17.4 13.2 20.6 11.3 5.5 2.4 1.7

2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . 100.0 3.1 8.9 19.3 19.9 15.3 19.5 8.6 2.7 1.4 1.2

1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . 100.0 3.6 14.0 27.8 21.1 12.3 13.3 5.7 1.6 0.5 0.2

500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . 100.0 7.6 19.1 27.1 17.4 11.4 11.5 4.6 1.0 0.2 0.2

250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . 100.0 11.2 24.9 25.6 15.2 10.4 9.2 2.3 0.5 0.7 0.1

Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . 100.0 21.0 28.7 21.0 12.7 7.3 6.6 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.2

1

 Size categories based on 2010 Census population data.

2

 Based on spherical (“straight-line” or “crow-fly”) distances between the city hall or similar main municipal building of each metropolitan statistical area’s first-named principal city and the 2010 population 

centroids of the metro area’s census tracts.

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 27

Table 3.5.

Population-Weighted Density1 in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size 

Category: 2010 

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population size category2

Distance from city hall (in miles)3

All

distances Less than 2 2 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 or more

 All U.S. metro areas . 6,320.8 5,485.6 3,272.1 1,860.8 1,245.1 915.4 614.8 334.5 156.9 98.3 41.1 

5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . 13,328.3 25,358.8 20,329.4 15,426.7 9,735.4 5,898.3 4,161.7 3,119.9 2,019.6 1,684.7 665.0 

2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . 5,549.9 15,086.5 9,820.7 6,590.4 4,821.5 3,519.1 2,902.6 1,791.0 698.9 559.2 342.6 

1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . 3,489.4 7,429.2 5,673.7 3,865.9 2,781.5 2,032.2 1,253.1 650.9 354.3 48.4 97.0 

500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . 2,985.5 6,687.6 3,904.8 2,347.2 1,819.3 1,313.7 1,036.0 437.5 179.4 45.3 24.7 

250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . 2,321.4 4,969.9 2,969.7 1,604.3 937.1 821.6 430.8 241.4 107.4 108.8 6.7 

Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . 1,597.0 3,444.9 1,559.9 527.0 314.1 243.9 148.3 61.6 12.6 7.9 1.2 

1

 Population-weighted density is an average density of all census tracts in each area. Population density is expressed as average number of people per square mile.

2

 Size categories based on 2010 Census population data.

3

 Based on spherical (“straight-line” or “crow-fly”) distances between the city hall or similar main municipal building of each metropolitan statistical area’s first-named principal city and the 2010 population 

centroids of the metro area’s census tracts.

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Table 3.6.

Percentage Change in Population in Metropolitan Statistical Areas by Distance From City Hall and Population Size 

Category: 2000 to 2010 

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population size category1

Total

Distance from city hall (in miles)2

Less than 2 2 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 or more

 All U.S. metro areas . 10.8 1.7 4.0 7.7 13.6 15.3 16.2 17.9 15.0 13.7 16.4

5,000,000 or more . . . . . . . . . 6.2 13.3 –0.5 –0.3 2.8 5.6 9.0 15.8 15.8 13.0 17.2

2,500,000 to 4,999,999 . . . . . 13.6 6.5 –0.9 1.9 9.0 15.0 28.1 31.0 21.2 16.0 19.2

1,000,000 to 2,499,999 . . . . . 12.3 –1.2 –3.3 6.4 24.8 26.4 18.8 11.9 7.4 11.6 7.3

500,000 to 999,999 . . . . . . . . 11.9 0.2 4.3 12.7 21.9 21.0 11.1 9.8 –0.1 7.2 5.1

250,000 to 499,999 . . . . . . . . 11.9 –0.8 7.3 16.6 18.6 17.0 12.5 8.1 4.6 10.6 2.7

Less than 250,000 . . . . . . . . . 10.7 1.4 13.1 19.0 11.5 10.0 6.7 7.8 11.9 16.2 13.9

1

 Size categories based on Census 2000 population data.

2

 Based on spherical (“straight-line” or “crow-fly”) distances between the city hall or similar main municipal building of each metropolitan statistical area’s first-named principal city and the 2010 population 

centroids of the metro area’s census tracts.

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
28 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

generally somewhat denser than those at a 

comparable distance in New York. Miami generally showed higher densities than Dallas-Fort 

Worth at all distance categories. Development 

in Miami is contained within a relatively narrow 

strip of land between the ocean on the east 

and wetlands to the west, whereas DallasFort Worth has been built outward in all directions from the two historical central business 

districts. This difference in development is 

reflected in the total population at distances 

between 15 and 35 miles of city hall (Figure 

3.2b, lower panel), where Dallas’ population 

at those distances was much larger. However, 

Miami’s density was still generally higher in 

this distance range.

Population density in and around principal cities varied among the most populous 

metro areas. For example, the principal city 

of Philadelphia was very dense, with a number of tracts containing more than 25,000 

people per square mile in 2010 (Figure 3.3). 

The core areas of Camden and Wilmington are 

clearly visible along with a number of other 

high-density tracts scattered throughout the 

metro area. Conversely, the principal city of 

Dallas was less dense, with only a handful of 

tracts containing more than 25,000 people 

per square mile. The densities of the principal 

cities of Fort Worth and Arlington are mostly 

indistinguishable from the principal city of 

Dallas. A number of low-density tracts surrounded each of these principal cities.

Population density varied across CBSAs 

and within individual CBSAs.

The data shown in this chapter illustrate the 

varied nature of settlement intensity across 

metro and micro areas in different parts of 

the country, as well as across neighborhoods 

within metro and micro areas. While larger 

CBSAs tended to be denser than smaller ones, 

metro areas in the Northeast and on the 

California coast also tended to be denser than 

metro areas in the Southeast, Midwest, and 

Northwest. Larger metro areas also tended 

to have higher proportions of their population living farther away from the city center, 

or “downtown” area. Density levels, however, 

remained high in principal city neighborhoods, 

particularly in older metro areas in the 

Northeast and Midwest.

Largest Numeric Increase Largest Numeric Decline • Areas with largest numeric increase .

• Areas with largest numeric decline .

1

 Among metropolitan statistical areas in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia .

2

 Based on spherical (“straight-line” or “crow-fly”) 

distances between the city hall or similar main 

municipal building of each metropolitan statistical 

area’s first-named principal city and the 2010 

population centroids of the metro area’s census tracts .

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by 

the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 

Census 2000 .

Table 3.7.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas With the Largest Numeric Increase and 

Decline in Population Less Than 2 Miles From City Hall: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area1

Population less than 

2 miles from city hall2 Change, 2000 to 2010

Census 

2000

2010 

Census Number Percent 

Largest Numeric Increase

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,426 181,714 48,288 36 .2

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,355 437,777 37,422 9 .3

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214,760 235,529 20,769 9 .7

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,092 355,804 19,712 5 .9

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,064 156,566 19,502 14 .2

Largest Numeric Decline

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,193 80,880 –35,313 –30 .4

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,970 155,776 –10,194 –6 .1

Dayton, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,218 41,053 –10,165 –19 .8

Toledo, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,857 55,739 –10,118 –15 .4

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,678 40,004 –9,674 –19 .5
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 29

Figure 3.2a.

Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: Population density expressed as the average number of people per square mile of land area. Distances are 

measured to the city hall or similar municipal building of the metro area's first-named principal city. Metropolitan

statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60+

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area

Distance from city hall (in miles)

People per square mile (in thousands)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60+

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area

Distance from city hall (in miles)

Population (in thousands)

Population by Distance From City Hall: 2010

Metropolitan statistical area

Population Population-weighted density1

Total

Percent

change: 

2000–2010

All census 

tracts

Numeric

change: 

2000–2010

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area. . . . . 18,897,109 3.1 31,251.4 –432.2

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area................ 12,828,837 3.7 12,113.9 –328.1

1

 Population density calculated on a population-weighted basis across all census tracts (using 2010 boundaries) included in the 

metropolitan statistical area.
30 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 3.2b.

Population-Weighted Density by Distance From City Hall: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: Population density expressed as the average number of people per square mile of land area. Distances are 

measured to the city hall or similar municipal building of the metro area's first-named principal city. Metropolitan

statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60+

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Distance from city hall (in miles)

People per square mile (in thousands)

Distance from city hall (in miles)

Population (In thousands)

Population by Distance From City Hall: 2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60+

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Metropolitan statistical area

Population Population-weighted density1

Total

Percent

change:

2000–2010

All census 

tracts

Numeric

change:

2000–2010

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area ..................... . . 6,371,773 23.4 3,909.3 –385.9

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area ............ . 5,564,635 11.1 7,395.3 158.7

1

 Population density calculated on a population-weighted basis across all census tracts (using 2010 boundaries) included in the 

metropolitan statistical area.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 31

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Population density

25,000 or more

12,500 to 24,999

7,500 to 12,499

5,000 to 7,499

3,500 to 4,999

2,000 to 3,499

1,000 to 1,999

500 to 999

250 to 499

Less than 250

0 10 Miles

0 10 Miles

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area

M E X I C O

TX

OK

NY

PA NJ

VA

CT

DE

MD

Dallas metro area 

density: 3,909

U.S. density: 5,369

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Philadelphia metro area

density: 7,773

Note: Population density

expressed as average number

of people per square mile of

land area. U.S. and metro

area densities calculated

on a population-weighted

basis across all census tracts.

Figure 3.3.

Population Density by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 33

CHAPTER 4.

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

In 2010, nearly two-thirds (63.7 percent or 

196.8 million) of the U.S. population was 

non-Hispanic White alone, and approximately 

one-sixth of the population (16.3 percent or 

50.5 million) was of Hispanic origin (Table 

4.1).14 The Black alone population accounted 

for one-eighth (12.6 percent, or 38.9 million) 

of the U.S. population, while the Asian alone 

population constituted just under 5 percent 

(14.7 million).15 

Race and Hispanic origin groups differ 

in spatial distribution and population 

change.

Race and Hispanic origin groups are unevenly 

distributed across the United States and varied 

in terms of their shares of population residing 

within metro and micro areas and their growth 

between 2000 and 2010. Examining the 

2010 pattern, as one moves up the CBSA and 

population size hierarchy (from outside CBSA 

to micro areas to smaller, medium-sized, and 

larger metro areas) the result is lower shares 

of the population that are non-Hispanic White 

alone (ranging from 81.6 percent in territory 

outside CBSAs to 46.5 percent in metro areas 

with populations of 5.0 million or more) and 

increasing shares in most other race and Hispanic origin groups (including Hispanic, Black 

14 The terms “Hispanic or Latino” and “Hispanic” are used 

interchangeably in this report. 15 The terms “Black or African American” and “Black” are 

used interchangeably in this report.

alone, and Asian alone).16 The American

Indian and Alaska Native alone group

followed a pattern that paralleled that of

the non-Hispanic White alone group. It was

the territory outside CBSAs that had the highest percentage of American Indian and Alaska 

Natives, then micro areas, then metro areas of 

the different size categories. In 2010, the only 

group that did not display a progression was 

the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

alone population.

Population growth for race and Hispanic

origin groups also differed by CBSA status

and population size category. While the percentage growth rates of the Black alone and 

Asian alone were greater in metro areas than 

in micro areas (13.6 percent compared with 

5.2 percent for Black alone, and 43.6 percent 

compared with 30.1 percent for Asian alone), 

the non-Hispanic White alone and Hispanic 

populations displayed a somewhat different 

pattern: these groups grew slightly faster in 

micro areas than in metro areas (1.9 percent 

compared with 1.2 percent for non-Hispanic 

White alone, and 46.1 percent compared with 

42.8 percent for Hispanics). Given that metro 

areas account for a larger percentage of the 

U.S. population, it follows that the numerical 

growth for all groups was higher for metro 

16 As a matter of policy, the Census Bureau does not 

advocate the use of the alone population over the aloneor-in-combination population or vice versa. The use of the 

alone population in this report does not imply that it is a 

preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. Data on 

race from the 2010 Census can be presented and discussed 

in a variety of ways. Details on how these groups are classified are presented in the “Race and Hispanic Origin” text box 

on page 45 of this report.

areas than for micro areas or territory outside 

CBSAs.17

All groups increased in population between 

2000 and 2010 for all CBSA categories (the 

three metro area size categories, micro areas, 

and territory outside CBSAs), with only four 

exceptions: non-Hispanic White alone for metro 

areas of 5.0 million or more and for outside 

CBSA territory, Black alone for the outside CBSA 

territory, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander alone for metro areas of 5.0 million 

or more (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Some groups 

displayed a near-hierarchical progression. The 

Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native 

alone, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander alone groups displayed the greatest 

growth in the medium-sized metro areas, followed by small-sized metro areas, micro areas, 

and territory outside CBSAs.

Local-to-national ratios (LNRs) show the 

concentration of a group by comparing its 

percentage in a selected area with its national 

percentage. In 2010, the Asian alone group 

was mostly concentrated in metro areas and 

especially in metro areas of 5.0 million or 

more, with LNRs of 1.2 and 1.7, respectively. 

Groups that were less concentrated in CBSAs 

include non-Hispanic White alone and American Indian and Alaska Native alone, both at a 

lower percentage than their national percentage. The LNRs of these two groups increased 

as one moves down the CBSA hierarchy, while 

the opposite generally held true for the LNRs 

of Black alone, Asian alone, and Two or More 

Races groups.

17 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.
34 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.1.

Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Size Category:

2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status and

CBSA size category1

Total

population

Race Hispanic origin

One race

Two 

or More

Races2

Hipanic

or Latino

Not 

Hispanic

or Latino

NonHispanic

White

White alone

Black or

African

American

American

Indian

and

Alaska

Native Asian

Native

Hawaiian

and 

Other

Pacific 

Islander

Some

Other

Race

Population: 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,745,538 223,553,265 38,929,319 2,932,248 14,674,252 540,013 19,107,368 9,009,073 50,477,594 258,267,944 196,817,552

Inside core based statistical area . . 289,261,315 207,033,245 37,330,664 2,421,754 14,585,585 532,080 18,673,235 8,684,752 49,325,943 239,935,372 180,912,856

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 258,317,763 181,386,916 34,690,879 1,889,770 14,206,382 467,699 17,706,545 7,969,572 46,709,949 211,607,814 156,674,634

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 75,886,632 45,833,006 13,461,187 374,945 6,219,336 68,282 7,550,733 2,379,143 19,936,372 55,950,260 35,254,069

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,200,783 64,846,381 11,769,738 618,109 5,347,776 198,203 5,477,714 2,942,862 13,757,337 77,443,446 57,887,231

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 91,230,348 70,707,529 9,459,954 896,716 2,639,270 201,214 4,678,098 2,647,567 13,016,240 78,214,108 63,533,334

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 30,943,552 25,646,329 2,639,785 531,984 379,203 64,381 966,690 715,180 2,615,994 28,327,558 24,238,222

Outside core based statistical area . 19,484,223 16,520,020 1,598,655 510,494 88,667 7,933 434,133 324,321 1,151,651 18,332,572 15,904,696

Population: 2000

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 281,421,906 211,460,626 34,658,190 2,475,956 10,242,998 398,835 15,359,073 6,826,228 35,305,818 246,116,088 194,552,774

Inside core based statistical area . . 262,290,227 195,051,240 33,041,207 2,001,362 10,181,675 392,520 15,026,184 6,596,039 34,491,236 227,798,991 178,557,503

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 233,069,827 170,372,431 30,531,848 1,527,693 9,890,277 343,265 14,297,250 6,107,063 32,701,007 200,368,820 154,787,197

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 55,643,200 35,160,634 8,795,671 236,258 3,735,213 57,807 5,826,892 1,830,725 13,287,058 42,356,142 28,874,186

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,602,351 68,128,495 13,390,587 542,446 4,224,160 129,332 4,773,413 2,413,918 10,702,538 82,899,813 63,120,820

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 83,824,276 67,083,302 8,345,590 748,989 1,930,904 156,126 3,696,945 1,862,420 8,711,411 75,112,865 62,792,191

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 29,220,400 24,678,809 2,509,359 473,669 291,398 49,255 728,934 488,976 1,790,229 27,430,171 23,770,306

Outside core based statistical area . 19,131,679 16,409,386 1,616,983 474,594 61,323 6,315 332,889 230,189 814,582 18,317,097 15,995,271

Numeric Change: 2000 to 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,323,632 12,092,639 4,271,129 456,292 4,431,254 141,178 3,748,295 2,182,845 15,171,776 12,151,856 2,264,778

Inside core based statistical area . . 26,971,088 11,982,005 4,289,457 420,392 4,403,910 139,560 3,647,051 2,088,713 14,834,707 12,136,381 2,355,353

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 25,247,936 11,014,485 4,159,031 362,077 4,316,105 124,434 3,409,295 1,862,509 14,008,942 11,238,994 1,887,437

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 3,445,602 1,112,138 493,392 59,697 1,323,351 –42 419,761 37,305 3,231,707 213,895 –1,363,604

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,141,575 4,593,454 2,306,043 139,040 2,199,719 62,899 1,861,867 978,553 6,171,028 5,970,547 950,944

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 9,660,759 5,308,893 1,359,596 163,340 793,035 61,577 1,127,667 846,651 4,606,207 5,054,552 2,300,097

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 1,723,152 967,520 130,426 58,315 87,805 15,126 237,756 226,204 825,765 897,387 467,916

Outside core based statistical area . 352,544 110,634 –18,328 35,900 27,344 1,618 101,244 94,132 337,069 15,475 –90,575

See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 35

Table 4.1.

Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Size Category:

2000 and 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status and

CBSA size category1

Total

population

Race Hispanic origin

One race

Two 

or More

Races2

Hipanic

or Latino

Not 

Hispanic

or Latino

NonHispanic

White

White alone

Black or

African

American

American

Indian

and

Alaska

Native Asian

Native

Hawaiian

and 

Other

Pacific 

Islander

Some

Other

Race

Percentage Change: 2000 to 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.71 5.72 12.32 18.43 43.26 35.40 24.40 31.98 42.97 4.94 1.16

Inside core based statistical area . . 10.28 6.14 12.98 21.01 43.25 35.55 24.27 31.67 43.01 5.33 1.32

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 10.83 6.46 13.62 23.70 43.64 36.25 23.85 30.50 42.84 5.61 1.22

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 6.19 3.16 5.61 25.27 35.43 –0.07 7.20 2.04 24.32 0.50 –4.72

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.97 6.74 17.22 25.63 52.07 48.63 39.00 40.54 57.66 7.20 1.51

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 11.53 7.91 16.29 21.81 41.07 39.44 30.50 45.46 52.88 6.73 3.66

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 5.90 3.92 5.20 12.31 30.13 30.71 32.62 46.26 46.13 3.27 1.97

Outside core based statistical area . 1.84 0.67 –1.13 7.56 44.59 25.62 30.41 40.89 41.38 0.08 –0.57

Percentage Distribution: 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 72.41 12.61 0.95 4.75 0.17 6.19 2.92 16.35 83.65 63.75

Inside core based statistical area . . 100.00 71.57 12.91 0.84 5.04 0.18 6.46 3.00 17.05 82.95 62.54

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 100.00 70.22 13.43 0.73 5.50 0.18 6.85 3.09 18.08 81.92 60.65

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 60.40 17.74 0.49 8.20 0.09 9.95 3.14 26.27 73.73 46.46

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 71.10 12.91 0.68 5.86 0.22 6.01 3.23 15.08 84.92 63.47

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 100.00 77.50 10.37 0.98 2.89 0.22 5.13 2.90 14.27 85.73 69.64

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 100.00 82.88 8.53 1.72 1.23 0.21 3.12 2.31 8.45 91.55 78.33

Outside core based statistical area . 100.00 84.79 8.20 2.62 0.46 0.04 2.23 1.66 5.91 94.09 81.63

Percentage Distribution: 2000

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 75.14 12.32 0.88 3.64 0.14 5.46 2.43 12.55 87.45 69.13

Inside core based statistical area . . 100.00 74.36 12.60 0.76 3.88 0.15 5.73 2.51 13.15 86.85 68.08

In metropolitan statistical area . . . 100.00 73.10 13.10 0.66 4.24 0.15 6.13 2.62 14.03 85.97 66.41

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 63.19 15.81 0.42 6.71 0.10 10.47 3.29 23.88 76.12 51.89

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.00 72.79 14.31 0.58 4.51 0.14 5.10 2.58 11.43 88.57 67.44

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . 100.00 80.03 9.96 0.89 2.30 0.19 4.41 2.22 10.39 89.61 74.91

In micropolitan statistical area . . . 100.00 84.46 8.59 1.62 1.00 0.17 2.49 1.67 6.13 93.87 81.35

Outside core based statistical area . 100.00 85.77 8.45 2.48 0.32 0.03 1.74 1.20 4.26 95.74 83.61

See footnotes at end of table.
36 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.1.

Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Size Category:

2000 and 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status and

CBSA size category1

Total

population

Race Hispanic origin

One race

Two 

or More

Races2

Hipanic

or Latino

Not 

Hispanic

or Latino

NonHispanic

White

White alone

Black or

African

American

American

Indian

and

Alaska

Native Asian

Native

Hawaiian

and 

Other

Pacific 

Islander

Some

Other

Race

Local-to-National Ratio: 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Inside core based statistical area . . (X) 0.99 1.02 0.88 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.04 0.99 0.98

In metropolitan statistical area . . . (X) 0.97 1.07 0.77 1.16 1.04 1.11 1.06 1.11 0.98 0.95

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . (X) 0.83 1.41 0.52 1.72 0.51 1.61 1.07 1.61 0.88 0.73

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 0.98 1.02 0.71 1.23 1.24 0.97 1.11 0.92 1.02 1.00

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.07 0.82 1.03 0.61 1.26 0.83 0.99 0.87 1.02 1.09

In micropolitan statistical area . . . (X) 1.14 0.68 1.81 0.26 1.19 0.50 0.79 0.52 1.09 1.23

Outside core based statistical area . (X) 1.17 0.65 2.76 0.10 0.23 0.36 0.57 0.36 1.12 1.28

Local-to-National Ratio: 2000

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Inside core based statistical area . . (X) 0.99 1.02 0.87 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.05 0.99 0.98

In metropolitan statistical area . . . (X) 0.97 1.06 0.75 1.17 1.04 1.12 1.08 1.12 0.98 0.96

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . (X) 0.84 1.28 0.48 1.84 0.73 1.92 1.36 1.90 0.87 0.75

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 0.97 1.16 0.66 1.24 0.97 0.93 1.06 0.91 1.01 0.98

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.07 0.81 1.02 0.63 1.31 0.81 0.92 0.83 1.02 1.08

In micropolitan statistical area . . . (X) 1.12 0.70 1.84 0.27 1.19 0.46 0.69 0.49 1.07 1.18

Outside core based statistical area . (X) 1.14 0.69 2.82 0.09 0.23 0.32 0.50 0.34 1.09 1.21

(X) Not applicable.

1

 Population size categories for 2010 variables are based on 2010 population data. For 2000 variables, and variables that show change from 2000 to 2010, population size categories are based on 2000 

population data.

2

 In Census 2000, an error in data processing resulted in an overstatement of the Two or More Races population by about 1 million people (about 15 percent) nationally. Data users should assess observed 

changes in the Two or More Races population between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census with caution.

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a group’s percentage 

of an area’s total population by its percentage of the national population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 37

Figure 4.1.

Numeric Change in Population by Race and Hispanic

Origin and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status

and Size Category: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as 

of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Metro areas of 5.0 million or more

Metro areas of 1.0 to 4.9 million

Metro areas of less than 1.0 million

Micro areas

Outside CBSA

–2 –1 012345678

 Two or

More Races

 Native Hawaiian

and Other Pacific

Islander alone

 American Indian

and Alaska

Native alone

 Asian alone 

 Black or African

American alone

 Hispanic 

 Non-Hispanic

White alone

 Millions

The Location Quotient or Local-toNational Ratio

The location quotient facilitates the 

examination of a demographic group’s 

concentration in an area in relation to 

that group’s national average. Demographic location quotients are calculated by dividing a group’s share of an 

area’s total population by its share of 

the national population. For example, in 

2010, the Hispanic group’s share of the 

Los Angeles metro area’s total population was 44.4 percent. The Hispanic 

group’s share of the total U.S. population 

was 16.3 percent. Thus, the Los Angeles metro area’s location quotient for 

Hispanics was 2.72 (44.4/16.3=2.72), 

indicating that Hispanics were nearly 

three times more concentrated in the Los 

Angeles metro area than their national 

average. This report compares location quotients at different geographic 

levels—census tract, metro area, and 

micro area. For these comparisons, location quotients are referred to as ratios of 

local-to-national percentages or localto-national ratios (LNRs). For tract-level 

LNRs, “local” refers to census tract. For 

LNRs at the metro or micro area level, 

local refers to metro or micro area.
38 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Differential rates of growth led to changes in 

the share of the population by CBSA status and 

size category (Figure 4.3). The non-Hispanic 

White alone population declined as a share of 

the total population in every CBSA status and 

size category. The decline was more than five 

percentage points in the largest and smallest 

metro area size categories, and over three percentage points in medium-sized metro areas. 

At the same time, the Hispanic population 

increased between two and four percentage 

points in all three metro area size categories. 

Most of the other groups had increases of less 

than two percentage points.

Race and Hispanic origin diversity

in the spatial distribution of the

U.S. population increased.

A spatial approach reveals distinct national 

patterns of population composition by race 

and Hispanic origin. With respect to the

share of the total population, the majority

of U.S. CBSAs contained at least 50 percent 

non-Hispanic White alone population (Figure 

4.4). The pattern was quite different for the 

Hispanic group, with higher concentrations

in the West, as well as in Texas and Florida

(the use of consistent classing in Figure 4.4

for all race and Hispanic origin groups allows

for comparison across groups). The Black 

alone population was highly concentrated

in the South, particularly in Mississippi,

Alabama, and Georgia, where it accounted for 

over 50 percent of total population in many 

CBSAs. Broad geographic patterns were not as 

Figure 4.2.

Percentage Change in Population by Race and Hispanic 

Origin and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 

Status and Size Category: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

–5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

 Two or

More Races 

 Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific

Islander alone

 American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native alone 

 Asian alone

 Black or African

 American alone

 Hispanic 

 Non-Hispanic 

White alone

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as 

of December 2009.

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Metro areas of 5.0 million or more

Metro areas of 1.0 to 4.9 million

Metro areas of less than 1.0 million

Micro areas

Outside CBSA

 Percent
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 39

apparent for some of the smaller race groups. 

Hawaii and the San Francisco metro area were 

places of concentration for the Asian alone 

population, whereas the American Indian and 

Alaska Native alone population accounted for 

a higher share of the total population in parts 

of Arizona and New Mexico. 

Ratios of local-to-national percentages allow 

us to see variations in the spatial distribution 

of individual population groups, especially for 

groups that compose small shares of the total 

population (Figure 4.5). Regional concentration can be clearly distinguished for the Asian 

population. For both the American Indian and 

Alaska Native alone and the Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander alone groups, a pattern of local percentages that are twice as high 

as the U.S. percentage emerges mostly in the 

West, with a few other CBSAs scattered across 

the rest of the country. A cluster of CBSAs in 

Oklahoma reveals a concentration for the Two 

or More Races group, coincidental with that for 

the American Indian and Alaska Native alone 

population. Overall, a much higher share of 

the Hispanic population, compared with its 

national share, is seen in many metro areas 

from Texas to California, as well as in Florida, 

with many areas having ratios more than twice 

that of the United States. 

The non-Hispanic White alone population was 

the largest race or Hispanic origin group for 

a majority of U.S. CBSAs, with exceptions 

being found in south central California, New 

Mexico, southern Texas, and south Florida, 

Figure 4.3.

Percentage-Point Change in Race and Hispanic Origin

Share of Population by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 

Status and Size Category: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection,

nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and 

Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

–6 –4 –2 0 246

 Two or

More Races

 Native Hawaiian

and Other Pacific

Islander alone

 American Indian

and Alaska

Native alone

 Asian alone 

 Black or African

American alone 

 Hispanic 

 Non-Hispanic 

White alone 

Metro areas of 5.0 million or more

Metro areas of 1.0 to 4.9 million

Metro areas of less than 1.0 million

Micro areas

Outside CBSA

 Percentage-point change 
40 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 4.4.

Race and Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Non-Hispanic White alone

U.S. percent = 63.75

Black or African American alone

U.S. percent = 12.61

Hispanic or Latino

U.S. percent = 16.35

Asian alone

U.S. percent = 4.75

Percent of total

50.0 or more

25.0 to 49.9

20.0 to 24.9

15.0 to 19.9

10.0 to 14.9

5.0 to 9.9

Less than 5.0

See note at end of figure.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 41

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

U.S. percent = 0.95

U.S. percent = 2.92

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

U.S. percent = 0.17

Two or More Races

Figure 4.4.

Race and Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Percent of total

50.0 or more

25.0 to 49.9

20.0 to 24.9

15.0 to 19.9

10.0 to 14.9

5.0 to 9.9

Less than 5.0

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
42 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 4.5.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Race and Hispanic Origin Groups by Core Based 

Statistical Area: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Non-Hispanic White alone

U.S. percent = 63.75

Black or African American alone

U.S. percent = 12.61

Hispanic or Latino

U.S. percent = 16.35

Asian alone

U.S. percent = 4.75

Ratio

2.0 or more

1.5 to 1.9

1.0 to 1.4

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

See note at end of figure.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 43

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

U.S. percent = 0.95

U.S. percent = 2.92

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

U.S. percent = 0.17

Two or More Races

Figure 4.5.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Race and Hispanic Origin Groups by Core Based 

Statistical Area: 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Ratio

2.0 or more

1.5 to 1.9

1.0 to 1.4

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
44 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

where Hispanics were the largest group (Figure 

4.6). Upon exclusion of the non-Hispanic White 

alone group, a distinct pattern emerges, with 

the Hispanic population as the largest group 

in most areas of the western half of the United 

States, and the Black alone population the largest group in most areas of the eastern half.

Nearly all CBSAs saw a decline between 2000 

and 2010 in their non-Hispanic White alone 

population as a share of the total population

(Figure 4.7). The growth of the Hispanic population relative to other groups occurred all across 

the country, with a large number of CBSAs 

increasing their Hispanic shares by more than 

three percentage points. Several dozen CBSAs, 

mainly in the South, saw an increase in the 

Black alone share of the population of three percentage points or more. The Asian alone share 

increased by three percentage points or more 

in CBSAs surrounding the San Francisco and 

San Jose metro areas, as well as the Las Vegas 

metro area. For the American Indian and Alaska 

Native alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander alone, and Two or More Races groups, 

the shares of the populations in most CBSAs 

increased by 0.0 to 0.9 percentage points. 

For most CBSAs, the Hispanic population 

was the largest-gaining group between 2000 

and 2010 (Figure 4.8). Non-Hispanic Whites, 

although declining as a share of the population 

in nearly all CBSAs, were still the largest-gaining 

group for some metro and micro areas, especially in the South Atlantic and Mountain divisions. Black alone was the largest-gaining group 

in some CBSAs in the eastern half of the country. The Asian alone population gain was largest 

for a group of metro areas located around San 

Francisco Bay. In western Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia, the Two or More Races population was 

the largest-gaining group for some CBSAs.

For many CBSAs, the group with the largest 

population decline over the decade was

non-Hispanic White alone, especially in the 

Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and much 

of California. Other race and Hispanic origin 

Figure 4.6.

Race and Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

All groups All groups excluding non-Hispanic White alone

*American Indian and Alaska Native alone.

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

AIAN alone*

Race and Hispanic

origin group

Black alone

Asian alone

Two or More Races

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White alone
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 45

Race and Hispanic Origin

In this report, race groups were used along with the Hispanic or 

Latino origin group. The race groups include White alone, Black or 

African American alone, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 

Asian alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, Some 

Other Race, and Two or More Races. The race-alone groups represent 

those that indicated only one race in the 2010 Census.

The U.S. Census Bureau collects race and Hispanic origin

information following the guidance of the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) 1997 Revisions to the Standards 

for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. These 

federal standards mandate that race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) 

are separate and distinct concepts and that when collecting these 

data via self-identification, two different questions must be used.

OMB requires federal agencies to use a minimum of two ethnicities: 

(1) “Hispanic or Latino,” and (2) “Not Hispanic or Latino.” Hispanic 

origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or 

country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors 

before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their 

origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.

Starting in 1997, OMB required federal agencies to use a minimum 

of five race categories: White, Black or African American, American 

Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander.

“White” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people 

who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as 

Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian. 

“Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any 

of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated 

their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or Negro” or reported entries 

such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. 

“American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America 

(including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or 

community attachment. This category includes people who indicated 

their race(s) as “American Indian or Alaska Native” or reported their 

enrolled or principal tribe, such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, 

or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups. 

“Asian” refers to a person having origins in any of the original 

peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, 

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It 

includes people who indicated their race(s) as “Asian” or reported 

entries such as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” 

“Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provided other 

detailed Asian responses. 

“Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” refers to a person having 

origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or 

other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicated their race(s) 

as “Pacific Islander” or reported entries such as “Native Hawaiian,” 

“Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,” and “Other Pacific Islander” or 

provided other detailed Pacific Islander responses. 

“Some Other Race” includes all other responses not included in the 

White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, 

Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race categories 

described above. Respondents reporting entries such as multiracial, 

mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic or Latino group (for example, 

Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Spanish) in response to the race 

question are included in this category.

“Two or More Races” refers to individuals who chose more than one 

of the six race categories. All respondents who indicated more than 

one race can be collapsed into the Two or More Races category, 

which, combined with the six race-alone categories, yields seven 

mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Thus, the six racealone categories and the Two or More Races category sum to the 

total population.
46 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 4.7.

Percentage-Point Change in Race and Hispanic Origin Share of Population by Core Based Statistical Area:

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Non-Hispanic White alone

U.S. change = –5.38

Black or African American alone

U.S. change = 0.29

Hispanic or Latino

U.S. change = 3.80

Asian alone

U.S. change = 1.11

Percentage-point

change

3.0 or more

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

–5.0 to –0.1

–10.0 to –5.1

Less than –10.0

See note at end of figure.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 47

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

U.S. change = 0.07

U.S. change = 0.49

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

U.S. change = 0.03

Two or More Races

Figure 4.7.

Percentage-Point Change in Race and Hispanic Origin Share of Population by Core Based Statistical Area: 

2000 to 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Percentage-point

change

3.0 or more

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

–5.0 to –0.1

–10.0 to –5.1

Less than –10.0

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
48 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

groups were the largest-declining populations 

for some other CBSAs nationwide, but such 

instances were relatively few in number and 

without strong regional patterns. On the other 

hand, for many CBSAs across the country, all 

seven race and Hispanic origin groups increased 

in population; this was particularly true in the 

South and the interior West.

The metro areas with the highest and lowest 

shares of the non-Hispanic White alone population and the Hispanic population were mirror 

images of one another (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). All 

five of the Texas (Laredo, McAllen-EdinburgMission, Brownsville-Harlingen, and El Paso) 

and California (El Centro) metro areas that

contained the lowest proportions of the

non-Hispanic White alone population were

also among the five metro areas with the

highest shares of the Hispanic population 

(although in a slightly different order). A similar situation held true for three micro areas in 

Texas (Rio Grande City-Roma, Eagle Pass, and 

Raymondville). At the same time, two metro 

areas (Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH, 

and Altoona, PA) that contained the highest 

proportions of the non-Hispanic White alone 

populations were among the five metro areas 

with the lowest proportions of the Hispanic 

population. The local-to-national ratios for 

these groups show the ratio of the groups’ 

CBSA percentage to their national percentage.

The Black alone population showed a strong 

regional orientation. It was the largest race 

group (outside of non-Hispanic White alone)

in much of the South and the Northeast (Figure 

4.6). All five metro areas and five micro areas 

with the highest proportions of the Black alone 

population were located in the South, with

all five of the micro areas located in either 

Alabama or Mississippi (Table 4.4). Conversely, 

the lowest proportions of the Black alone 

population for all five metro areas were found 

Figure 4.8.

Race and Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population Gain or Loss by Core Based Statistical Area: 

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Largest gain Largest loss

Race and Hispanic

origin group

Black alone

Asian alone

Two or More Races

Hispanic

No loss

Non-Hispanic White alone

AIAN alone*

NHPI alone**

*American Indian and Alaska Native alone.

**Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone.

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 49

in the West (entirely or partially in the states

of Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana). 

One micro area in Texas (Rio Grande CityRoma), two micro areas in northwest Arkansas

(Harrison and Mountain Home), one micro area 

in Oregon (Prineville), and one micro area in 

Iowa (Spirit Lake) had the lowest proportions

of the Black alone population.

The Asian alone population also exhibited a 

clear regional concentration (Table 4.5). Two 

states, Hawaii (Honolulu) and California (San 

Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and VallejoFairfield) contained the five metro areas with 

the highest proportions of the Asian alone 

population. Hawaii included three micro areas 

(Kapaa, Kahului-Wailuku, and Hilo) with the 

highest shares of the Asian alone population; 

one micro area in Alaska (Kodiak) and one in 

Washington (Pullman) were also among the top 

five. Metro and micro areas with the lowest 

shares of the Asian alone population extended 

through parts of the South and the Midwest, 

and one in the West (Farmington, NM).

The American Indian and Alaska Native alone 

population had its highest shares in the 

Southwest states of Arizona and New Mexico, 

along with Great Plains states (South Dakota 

and Oklahoma for metro areas and Oklahoma 

for micro areas); one North Carolina micro 

area (Lumberton) was also among the top five 

(Table 4.6). The metro areas with the lowest 

shares of this group were clustered in a band 

along the Ohio-West Virginia border and 

Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also contained two 

of the micro areas with the lowest proportions 

of the American Indian and Alaska Native alone 

population (along with micro areas in Iowa, 

Minnesota, and Mississippi).

Table 4.2.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Non-Hispanic White Alone Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Total 

population

Non-Hispanic White alone

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,056 155,597 96 .01 1 .51

Altoona, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,089 121,495 95 .60 1 .50

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309,544 293,968 94 .97 1 .49

Bangor, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,923 145,700 94 .66 1 .48

Glens Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,923 121,581 94 .31 1 .48

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,304 8,345 3 .33 0 .05

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774,769 60,553 7 .82 0 .12

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406,220 43,427 10 .69 0 .17

El Paso, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,647 105,246 13 .15 0 .21

El Centro, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174,528 23,927 13 .71 0 .22

St . Marys, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,946 31,345 98 .12 1 .54

Warren, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,815 40,827 97 .64 1 .53

Spirit Lake, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,667 16,255 97 .53 1 .53

Alexandria, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,009 34,974 97 .13 1 .52

Wapakoneta, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,949 44,625 97 .12 1 .52

Eagle Pass, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,258 1,552 2 .86 0 .04

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,968 2,449 4 .02 0 .06

Raymondville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,134 2,235 10 .10 0 .16

Gallup, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,492 7,384 10 .33 0 .16

Espanola, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,246 5,148 12 .79 0 .20

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009 . The local-to-national 

ratio is calculated by dividing a group’s percentage 

of an area’s total population by its percentage of the 

national population .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
50 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

As might be anticipated, Hawaii’s one metro 

area (Honolulu) had the highest share of the 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

alone population among all metro areas, and 

Hawaii’s three micro areas (Hilo, KahuluiWailuku, and Kapaa) had the highest shares of 

this group among all micro areas (Table 4.7). 

However, one metro area on the ArkansasMissouri border (Fayetteville) and two micro 

areas in Oklahoma were also among the

areas with the highest proportions of this

race group. 

As with the Asian alone and Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 

groups, Hawaii’s one metro and three micro 

areas contained the highest shares of the

Two or More Races group (Table 4.8). Two

of Alaska’s metro areas (Anchorage and

Fairbanks) and two of its micro areas (Juneau 

and Ketchikan) were also among the top five 

metro and micro areas, respectively, with 

shares of the Two or More Races group. All

five metro areas and all five micro areas with 

the lowest shares of this group were located

in the South.

The non-Hispanic White alone share 

of the population decreased and the 

Hispanic share of the population 

increased in every U.S. metro area.

One indicator of changing race and Hispanic 

origin distribution is that every metro area 

in the country had a smaller non-Hispanic 

White alone share of the total population in 

2010 than in 2000. The areas with the largest 

decreases in shares were located in California, 

Nevada, and Florida (Table 4.9). The numbers 

are striking. Although Cape Coral-Fort Myers, 

FL, experienced a 21.5 percent increase in 

Table 4.3.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Hispanic Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Total 

population

Hispanic or Latino

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,304 239,653 95 .74 5 .86

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774,769 702,206 90 .63 5 .54

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406,220 357,747 88 .07 5 .39

El Paso, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,647 658,134 82 .20 5 .03

El Centro, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

174,528 140,271 80 .37 4 .92

Wheeling, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,950 1,056 0 .71 0 .04

Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,056 1,292 0 .80 0 .05

Charleston, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304,284 2,522 0 .83 0 .05

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287,702 2,707 0 .94 0 .06

Altoona, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

127,089 1,230 0 .97 0 .06

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,968 58,337 95 .68 5 .85

Eagle Pass, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,258 51,914 95 .68 5 .85

Raymondville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,134 19,297 87 .18 5 .33

Nogales, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,420 39,273 82 .82 5 .07

Del Rio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

48,879 39,199 80 .20 4 .91

St . Marys, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,946 183 0 .57 0 .04

Point Pleasant, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,258 394 0 .68 0 .04

Middlesborough, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,691 198 0 .69 0 .04

Selma, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,820 309 0 .71 0 .04

Bluefield, WV-VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,342 776 0 .72 0 .04

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 . 

The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a 

group’s percentage of an area’s total population by 

its percentage of the national population . 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 51

its non-Hispanic White alone population, the 

group’s share of the area’s total population 

decreased by about 11 percentage points. 

While many metro areas saw absolute increases 

in their non-Hispanic White alone populations, 

the more rapid increases for other groups, 

particularly Hispanics, were often greater, leading to a smaller non-Hispanic White alone share 

of the population for metro and micro areas 

across the country. The micro areas with the 

largest increases in their non-Hispanic White 

alone shares saw gains from 2 to 4 percentage 

points, with a geographic distribution across 

the South and West. The micro areas with the 

largest decrease in shares—declines ranging 

from 13 to almost 16 percentage points—were 

in the Midwest, the Northeast, and the South.

The opposite pattern held true for Hispanics, 

which saw increases in their shares of the population in every metro area in the United States 

(Table 4.10). Bakersfield-Delano, CA; Odessa, 

TX; and Modesto, CA, experienced double-digit 

percentage-point increases. Two micro areas in 

Kansas (Liberal and Dodge City) had the largest increases in the Hispanic share of the total 

population, both increasing by more than 13 

percentage points.

Black, Asian, and other groups exhibited 

diverse regional patterns of population 

change.

For the Black alone population, the increases 

in shares were in metro areas in Arkansas and 

Georgia (Table 4.11). Among micro areas, the 

largest increase in the Black alone share was 

in East Stroudsburg, PA, which increased by 

7.1 percentage points. Other micro areas with 

large increases in the Black alone share of 

the population were located in Mississippi, 

Table 4.4.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Black or African American Alone Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Total 

population

Black or African American alone

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Albany, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,308 82,029 52 .15 4 .14

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,258 47,921 47 .80 3 .79

Jackson, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539,057 257,021 47 .68 3 .78

Sumter, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,456 50,414 46 .92 3 .72

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

1,316,100 601,043 45 .67 3 .62

Coeur d'Alene, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,494 416 0 .30 0 .02

Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,884 364 0 .33 0 .03

Lewiston, ID-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,888 209 0 .34 0 .03

Bend, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,733 568 0 .36 0 .03

Missoula, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

109,299 445 0 .41 0 .03

Tuskegee, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,452 17,729 82 .64 6 .55

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,151 19,752 75 .53 5 .99

Indianola, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,450 21,479 72 .93 5 .78

Greenville, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,137 36,468 71 .31 5 .66

Selma, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

43,820 30,423 69 .43 5 .51

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,968 69 0 .11 0 .01

Mountain Home, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,513 67 0 .16 0 .01

Prineville, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,978 35 0 .17 0 .01

Spirit Lake, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,667 29 0 .17 0 .01

Harrison, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,233 81 0 .18 0 .01

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 . 

The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing 

a group’s percentage of an area’s total population 

by its percentage of the national population . 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
52 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Alabama, and Arkansas. Eight of the ten 

CBSAs with the largest decreases in the Black 

alone share were in North Carolina and South 

Carolina. 

The largest increases for the Asian alone share 

among metro areas tended to be in the West: 

four of the top five metro areas were in 

California and Nevada. For micro areas, the 

geographic distribution was wider, with the 

largest increases in shares located in the South, 

the Midwest, and the West (Table 4.12). The two 

CBSAs with the largest decreases in the Asian 

alone shares were both located in Hawaii—

Honolulu, HI, metro area with a decrease of 2 

percentage points and Kapaa, HI, micro area 

with a decrease of almost 5 percentage points.

The largest increases in metro areas for the 

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 

group’s share were located in the West and

the Great Plains states, with increases of 1 percentage point or more for Rapid City, SD, and 

Bismarck, ND (Table 4.13). Havre, MT, had

the largest increase among micro areas; its

American Indian and Alaska Native alone share 

of the total population increased by 4 percentage points, from 17 percent to 21 percent.

A geographically dispersed group of metro and 

micro areas saw generally modest increases 

and decreases in the Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander alone population as a share of 

the total population (Table 4.14). Anchorage 

had the largest increase in share among metro 

areas, while Enid, OK micro area was the only 

CBSA to see its Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander alone share increase by more 

than 1 percentage point.

Table 4.5.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Asian Alone Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

and definitions, see 

CBSA1 Total 

population

Asian alone

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,207 418,410 43 .89 9 .24

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,836,911 571,967 31 .14 6 .55

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,335,391 1,005,823 23 .20 4 .88

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,828,837 1,884,669 14 .69 3 .09

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

413,344 60,473 14 .63 3 .08

Farmington, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,044 484 0 .37 0 .08

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,454 470 0 .38 0 .08

Bismarck, ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,779 446 0 .41 0 .09

Anderson, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,636 553 0 .42 0 .09

Decatur, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

153,829 733 0 .48 0 .10

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,091 21,016 31 .32 6 .59

Kahului-Wailuku, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,834 44,595 28 .80 6 .06

Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,079 41,050 22 .18 4 .67

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,592 2,660 19 .57 4 .12

Pullman, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

44,776 3,472 7 .75 1 .63

Brownsville, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,787 21 0 .11 0 .02

Central City, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,499 43 0 .14 0 .03

Great Bend, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,674 54 0 .20 0 .04

Jennings, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,594 62 0 .20 0 .04

Oak Hill, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,039 91 0 .20 0 .04

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 . 

The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a 

group’s percentage of an area’s total population by its 

percentage of the national population .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 53

Among metro areas, the largest increases in the 

Two or More Races share were in Honolulu, HI; 

Anchorage, AK; Lawton, OK; Fayetteville, NC; 

and Olympia, WA (Table 4.15).18 Among micro 

areas, all five with the largest increases in share 

were in either Alaska or Oklahoma. The largest 

decreases among micro areas were all in Texas.

Population distribution of race and 

Hispanic origin groups varied locally.

Race and Hispanic origin patterns of residential location were distinct yet changing in 

fascinating ways within metro areas over the 

2000 to 2010 decade. Two common trends 

for the Black alone population in most large 

metro areas included a decreasing share of the 

population in the largest principal city and a 

corresponding suburbanization. An example of 

this decline in the city and growth in suburban 

areas appears in the Atlanta metro area (Figure 

4.9). In 2010, the ratio of the Black alone population to its national average was still at least 

5 for census tracts in and around southern 

Atlanta. However, a shift from the principal city 

to the suburban areas is visible in the Black 

alone population’s change in share of the total 

population. In these suburban areas, the Black 

alone population’s share of the population 

increased by at least 10 percentage points in 

wide swaths around the city.19

18 In Census 2000, an error in data processing resulted 

in an overstatement of the Two or More Races population 

by about 1 million people (about 15 percent) nationally. 

Data users should assess observed changes in the Two or 

More Races population between Census 2000 and the 2010 

Census with caution. 19 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.

Table 4.6.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Total 

population

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Farmington, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,044 47,640 36 .63 38 .57

Flagstaff, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,421 36,714 27 .31 28 .76

Tulsa, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,478 77,388 8 .25 8 .69

Rapid City, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126,382 10,345 8 .19 8 .62

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

380,821 28,031 7 .36 7 .75

Johnstown, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,679 147 0 .10 0 .11

Altoona, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,089 143 0 .11 0 .12

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,356,285 2,908 0 .12 0 .13

State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,990 191 0 .12 0 .13

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

124,454 156 0 .13 0 .13

Gallup, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,492 53,988 75 .52 79 .51

Show Low, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,449 46,611 43 .38 45 .68

Grants, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,213 11,156 41 .00 43 .17

Lumberton, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,168 51,502 38 .39 40 .42

Tahlequah, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

46,987 15,987 34 .02 35 .83

Spirit Lake, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,667 13 0 .08 0 .08

New Ulm, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,893 21 0 .08 0 .09

New Castle, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,108 74 0 .08 0 .09

Lock Haven, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,238 34 0 .09 0 .09

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,151 23 0 .09 0 .09

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and 

Budget as of December 2009 . The local-to-national 

ratio is calculated by dividing a group’s percentage 

of an area’s total population by its percentage of the 

national population .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
54 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.7.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Total 

population

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander alone

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,207 90,878 9 .53 54 .51

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,821 6,122 1 .61 9 .19

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,124,197 16,039 1 .43 8 .16

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463,204 5,068 1 .09 6 .26

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

251,133 2,310 0 .92 5 .26

Sandusky, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,079 8 0 .01 0 .06

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,258 11 0 .01 0 .06

Wheeling, WV-OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,950 17 0 .01 0 .07

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,304 30 0 .01 0 .07

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA2

Highest Percentage

774,769 94 0 .01 0 .07

Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,079 22,389 12 .10 69 .16

Kahului-Wailuku, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,834 16,051 10 .37 59 .27

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,091 6,060 9 .03 51 .64

Enid, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,580 1,101 1 .82 10 .39

Miami, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,848 299 0 .94 5 .37

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

2

 There were seven micropolitan statistical areas 

that had zero Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander population in 2010 . They were: Brownsville, 

TN; Connersville, IN; North Vernon, IN; Rio Grande 

City-Roma, TX; Sweetwater, TX; Tallulah, LA; and 

Watertown, SD .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 . 

The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a 

group’s percentage of an area’s total population by 

its percentage of the national population .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .

For the Hispanic population, the norm over 

the last decade was an increase in population 

throughout the largest CBSAs, with growth 

being the greatest in pockets along principal 

city perimeters and in the suburbs. An example 

of this pattern of city perimeter and suburban 

growth appears in the Los Angeles metro area 

(Figure 4.10). In 2010, the ratio of the Hispanic 

population to the national average was at least 

5 in the eastern and northern parts of Los 

Angeles. Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic 

population’s shares increased in almost every 

part of the Los Angeles metro area.

A common theme for the non-Hispanic White 

alone population from 2000 to 2010 was 

growth—both in number and in share of total 

population—in the central areas of many of

the largest principal cities, especially those

for the largest metro areas. A notable example 

of this pattern appears in the Washington 

metro area (Figure 4.11), where we see a

resurgence of the group’s population throughout many central tracts in the District of 

Columbia. While the ratio of the non-Hispanic 

White alone population was just above its 

national average in areas just outside the

District, its shares of the population decreased 

by 10 or more percentage points in many 

tracts in the surrounding suburbs.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 55

Race and Hispanic origin groups often exhibit 

clearly defined spatial patterns within metro 

areas. For example, Figure 4.12 shows the 

largest race and Hispanic origin group by 

census tract for the New York metro area. Distinct groupings of census tracts inhabited by 

non-Hispanic White alone, Black alone, Asian 

alone, and Hispanic pluralities are visible. NonHispanic White alone was the largest group for 

this metro area in 2010. However, the group 

accounted for less than half of the total population. Black alone was the largest group in 

clusters of tracts in the eastern parts of 

Brooklyn and Queens, northern parts of

Manhattan and the Bronx, and Newark, NJ. 

When excluding non-Hispanic White alone 

(the bottom maps in Figure 4.12), the residential pattern for Blacks appears relatively 

unchanged. However, Hispanics appear to 

be the second-largest group for most of the 

suburban tracts. Additionally, Asian alone was 

the second-largest group in extensive portions throughout the metro area, particularly 

in the southern half of Manhattan Island, with 

east-west trending bands across Long Island, 

as well as in tracts of central and northeastern 

New Jersey.

Table 4.8.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Percentages 

of Two or More Races Population: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Total 

population

Two or More Races

Number Percent

Local-tonational ratio

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,207 213,036 22 .35 7 .66

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,821 29,386 7 .72 2 .64

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413,344 31,358 7 .59 2 .60

Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,581 6,671 6 .84 2 .34

Lawton, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

124,098 8,033 6 .47 2 .22

Jackson, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539,057 4,891 0 .91 0 .31

Tuscaloosa, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,461 2,230 1 .02 0 .35

Monroe, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,441 1,918 1 .09 0 .37

Florence, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205,566 2,291 1 .11 0 .38

Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Percentage

309,544 3,499 1 .13 0 .39

Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,079 54,535 29 .47 10 .10

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,091 16,716 24 .92 8 .54

Kahului-Wailuku, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,834 36,328 23 .46 8 .04

Juneau, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,275 2,967 9 .49 3 .25

Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Percentage

13,477 1,250 9 .28 3 .18

Indianola, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,450 138 0 .47 0 .16

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,968 293 0 .48 0 .16

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,151 132 0 .50 0 .17

West Point, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,634 120 0 .58 0 .20

Greenville, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,137 301 0 .59 0 .20

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest percentage .

• Areas with lowest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009 . 

The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing 

a group’s percentage of an area’s total population 

by its percentage of the national population .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
56 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.9.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Non-Hispanic White Alone Share of 

Population: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census

Change, 2000 to 2010, 

Non-Hispanic White alone

Total 

population

Non-Hispanic 

White alone

Total 

population

Non-Hispanic 

White alone

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA2

Largest Decrease in Share

Napa, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,279 85,932 69 .14 136,484 76,967 56 .39 –8,965 –10 .43 –12 .75

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,375,765 828,669 60 .23 1,951,269 935,955 47 .97 107,286 12 .95 –12 .27

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,644,561 1,070,460 65 .09 2,134,411 1,136,863 53 .26 66,403 6 .20 –11 .83

Stockton, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563,598 267,002 47 .37 685,306 245,919 35 .88 –21,083 –7 .90 –11 .49

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

440,888 361,439 81 .98 618,754 439,048 70 .96 77,609 21 .47 –11 .02

The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,345 41,796 78 .35 93,420 77,338 82 .79 35,542 85 .04 4 .43

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,463 16,284 27 .85 67,091 20,611 30 .72 4,327 26 .57 2 .87

Georgetown, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,797 33,011 59 .16 60,158 37,311 62 .02 4,300 13 .03 2 .86

Taos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,979 10,122 33 .76 32,937 11,958 36 .31 1,836 18 .14 2 .54

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

53,597 1,082 2 .02 60,968 2,449 4 .02 1,367 126 .34 2 .00

Worthington, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,832 17,232 82 .72 21,378 14,365 67 .20 –2,867 –16 .64 –15 .52

East Stroudsburg, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,687 117,592 84 .79 169,842 119,741 70 .50 2,149 1 .83 –14 .29

Storm Lake, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,411 16,758 82 .10 20,260 13,756 67 .90 –3,002 –17 .91 –14 .21

Guymon, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,107 13,420 66 .74 20,640 10,889 52 .76 –2,531 –18 .86 –13 .99

Liberal, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,510 11,126 49 .43 22,952 8,261 35 .99 –2,865 –25 .75 –13 .43

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

2

 No metropolitan statistical area had an increase in the non-Hispanic White alone share of the population .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 57

Table 4.10.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Hispanic Share of Population: 

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census Change, 2000 to 2010, 

Hispanic

Total 

population

Hispanic 

Total 

population

Hispanic

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA2

Largest Increase in Share

Bakersfield-Delano, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661,645 254,036 38 .39 839,631 413,033 49 .19 158,997 62 .59 10 .80

Odessa, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121,123 51,306 42 .36 137,130 72,331 52 .75 21,025 40 .98 10 .39

Modesto, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446,997 141,871 31 .74 514,453 215,658 41 .92 73,787 52 .01 10 .18

Visalia-Porterville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368,021 186,846 50 .77 442,179 268,065 60 .62 81,219 43 .47 9 .85

Merced, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

210,554 95,466 45 .34 255,793 140,485 54 .92 45,019 47 .16 9 .58

Liberal, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,510 9,486 42 .14 22,952 12,990 56 .60 3,504 36 .94 14 .46

Dodge City, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,458 12,231 37 .68 33,848 17,321 51 .17 5,090 41 .62 13 .49

Guymon, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,107 6,003 29 .86 20,640 8,659 41 .95 2,656 44 .24 12 .10

Hobbs, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,511 22,010 39 .65 64,727 33,063 51 .08 11,053 50 .22 11 .43

Worthington, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

20,832 2,325 11 .16 21,378 4,820 22 .55 2,495 107 .31 11 .39

Taos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,979 17,370 57 .94 32,937 18,381 55 .81 1,011 5 .82 –2 .13

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,597 52,278 97 .54 60,968 58,337 95 .68 6,059 11 .59 –1 .85

Espanola, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,190 30,025 72 .89 40,246 28,703 71 .32 –1,322 –4 .40 –1 .58

Las Vegas, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,126 23,487 77 .96 29,393 22,583 76 .83 –904 –3 .85 –1 .13

Malone, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,134 2,053 4 .01 51,599 1,506 2 .92 –547 –26 .64 –1 .10

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

2

 No metropolitan statistical area had a decrease in the Hispanic share of the population .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
58 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.11.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Black or African American Alone Share 

of Population: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census

Change, 2000 to 2010, 

Black or African American alone

Total 

population

Black or African 

American alone

Total 

population

Black or African 

American alone

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

Jonesboro, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,762 8,220 7 .63 121,026 14,415 11 .91 6,195 75 .36 4 .28

Warner Robins, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110,765 27,422 24 .76 139,900 39,998 28 .59 12,576 45 .86 3 .83

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,247,981 1,216,931 28 .65 5,268,860 1,707,913 32 .42 490,982 40 .35 3 .77

Albany, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,833 76,806 48 .66 157,308 82,029 52 .15 5,223 6 .80 3 .48

Pine Bluff, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

107,341 47,692 44 .43 100,258 47,921 47 .80 229 0 .48 3 .37

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,316,510 491,775 37 .35 1,167,764 397,095 34 .00 –94,680 –19 .25 –3 .35

Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549,033 169,079 30 .80 664,607 184,019 27 .69 14,940 8 .84 –3 .11

Wilmington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,532 47,408 17 .27 362,315 51,467 14 .21 4,059 8 .56 –3 .06

Jacksonville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,355 27,790 18 .48 177,772 27,672 15 .57 –118 –0 .42 –2 .92

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196,629 30,468 15 .50 269,291 36,202 13 .44 5,734 18 .82 –2 .05

East Stroudsburg, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,687 8,343 6 .02 169,842 22,348 13 .16 14,005 167 .87 7 .14

Greenville, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,977 40,667 64 .57 51,137 36,468 71 .31 –4,199 –10 .33 6 .74

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,622 21,192 69 .21 26,151 19,752 75 .53 –1,440 –6 .80 6 .33

Selma, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,365 29,332 63 .26 43,820 30,423 69 .43 1,091 3 .72 6 .16

Helena-West Helena, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

26,445 15,612 59 .04 21,757 13,719 63 .06 –1,893 –12 .13 4 .02

Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,615 39,900 28 .17 187,010 42,696 22 .83 2,796 7 .01 –5 .34

Georgetown, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,797 21,541 38 .61 60,158 20,214 33 .60 –1,327 –6 .16 –5 .00

The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,345 7,351 13 .78 93,420 9,022 9 .66 1,671 22 .73 –4 .12

Washington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,958 13,051 29 .03 47,759 12,223 25 .59 –828 –6 .34 –3 .44

Elizabeth City, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,150 18,346 34 .52 64,094 20,018 31 .23 1,672 9 .11 –3 .29

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 59

Table 4.12.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Asian Alone Share of Population: 

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census Change, 2000 to 2010, 

Asian alone

Total 

population

Asian alone

Total 

population

Asian alone

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,735,819 431,372 24 .85 1,836,911 571,967 31 .14 140,595 32 .59 6 .29

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,123,740 791,663 19 .20 4,335,391 1,005,823 23 .20 214,160 27 .05 4 .00

Trenton-Ewing, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,761 17,340 4 .94 366,513 32,752 8 .94 15,412 88 .88 3 .99

Napa, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,279 3,694 2 .97 136,484 9,223 6 .76 5,529 149 .68 3 .79

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

1,375,765 72,547 5 .27 1,951,269 168,831 8 .65 96,284 132 .72 3 .38

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876,156 403,371 46 .04 953,207 418,410 43 .89 15,039 3 .73 –2 .14

El Centro, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,361 2,836 1 .99 174,528 2,843 1 .63 7 0 .25 –0 .36

Sioux City, IA-NE-SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,053 3,310 2 .31 143,577 3,193 2 .22 –117 –3 .53 –0 .09

Kokomo, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101,541 911 0 .90 98,688 805 0 .82 –106 –11 .64 –0 .08

Logan, UT-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

102,720 1,830 1 .78 125,442 2,137 1 .70 307 16 .78 –0 .08

Dumas, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,121 173 0 .86 21,904 1,337 6 .10 1,164 672 .83 5 .24

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,913 2,232 16 .04 13,592 2,660 19 .57 428 19 .18 3 .53

Huron, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,023 52 0 .31 17,398 632 3 .63 580 1,115 .38 3 .33

Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,070 603 4 .29 13,477 943 7 .00 340 56 .38 2 .71

Pullman, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

40,740 2,260 5 .55 44,776 3,472 7 .75 1,212 53 .63 2 .21

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,463 21,042 35 .99 67,091 21,016 31 .32 –26 –0 .12 –4 .67

Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148,677 39,702 26 .70 185,079 41,050 22 .18 1,348 3 .40 –4 .52

Kahului-Wailuku, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,094 39,728 31 .01 154,834 44,595 28 .80 4,867 12 .25 –2 .21

Dodge City, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,458 666 2 .05 33,848 489 1 .44 –177 –26 .58 –0 .61

Clovis, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,044 803 1 .78 48,376 625 1 .29 –178 –22 .17 –0 .49

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
60 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.13.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in American Indian and Alaska Native 

(AIAN) Alone Share of Population: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census Change, 2000 to 2010, 

AIAN alone

Total 

population

AIAN alone

Total 

population

AIAN alone

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

Rapid City, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,818 7,657 6 .79 126,382 10,345 8 .19 2,688 35 .11 1 .40

Bismarck, ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,719 2,880 3 .04 108,779 4,393 4 .04 1,513 52 .53 1 .00

Tulsa, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,532 62,886 7 .32 937,478 77,388 8 .25 14,502 23 .06 0 .94

Billings, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,904 4,015 2 .89 158,050 5,965 3 .77 1,950 48 .57 0 .88

Lawton, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

114,996 5,904 5 .13 124,098 7,266 5 .86 1,362 23 .07 0 .72

Flagstaff, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,320 33,161 28 .51 134,421 36,714 27 .31 3,553 10 .71 –1 .20

Farmington, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113,801 41,968 36 .88 130,044 47,640 36 .63 5,672 13 .52 –0 .24

Yuba City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,149 2,794 2 .01 166,892 3,040 1 .82 246 8 .80 –0 .19

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,032 3,733 2 .41 200,186 4,500 2 .25 767 20 .55 –0 .16

Yakima, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

222,581 9,966 4 .48 243,231 10,568 4 .34 602 6 .04 –0 .13

Havre, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,673 2,884 17 .30 16,096 3,497 21 .73 613 21 .26 4 .43

Muskogee, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,451 10,331 14 .88 70,990 12,403 17 .47 2,072 20 .06 2 .60

Sault Ste . Marie, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,543 5,131 13 .31 38,520 6,068 15 .75 937 18 .26 2 .44

Miami, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,194 5,488 16 .53 31,848 6,007 18 .86 519 9 .46 2 .33

Espanola, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

41,190 5,717 13 .88 40,246 6,447 16 .02 730 12 .77 2 .14

Show Low, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,470 46,532 47 .74 107,449 46,611 43 .38 79 0 .17 –4 .36

Vernal, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,224 2,365 9 .38 32,588 2,509 7 .70 144 6 .09 –1 .68

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,913 2,028 14 .58 13,592 1,797 13 .22 –231 –11 .39 –1 .36

Arcadia, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,209 511 1 .59 34,862 137 0 .39 –374 –73 .19 –1 .19

Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,070 2,109 14 .99 13,477 1,910 14 .17 –199 –9 .44 –0 .82

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 61

Table 4.14.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander (NHPI) Alone Share of Population: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census Change, 2000 to 2010, 

NHPI alone

Total 

population

NHPI alone

Total 

population

NHPI alone

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319,605 2,497 0 .78 380,821 6,122 1 .61 3,625 145 .17 0 .83

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347,045 1,012 0 .29 463,204 5,068 1 .09 4,056 400 .79 0 .80

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876,156 77,680 8 .87 953,207 90,878 9 .53 13,198 16 .99 0 .67

St . George, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,354 384 0 .42 138,115 1,078 0 .78 694 180 .73 0 .36

Joplin, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

157,322 213 0 .14 175,518 800 0 .46 587 275 .59 0 .32

Gainesville, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,277 239 0 .17 179,684 167 0 .09 –72 –30 .13 –0 .08

Madera-Chowchilla, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123,109 210 0 .17 150,865 162 0 .11 –48 –22 .86 –0 .06

State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,758 94 0 .07 153,990 48 0 .03 –46 –48 .94 –0 .04

Mankato-North Mankato, MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,712 42 0 .05 96,740 23 0 .02 –19 –45 .24 –0 .03

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

753,197 1,671 0 .22 823,318 1,643 0 .20 –28 –1 .68 –0 .02

Enid, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,813 281 0 .49 60,580 1,101 1 .82 820 291 .81 1 .33

Hilo, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148,677 16,724 11 .25 185,079 22,389 12 .10 5,665 33 .87 0 .85

Miami, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,194 45 0 .14 31,848 299 0 .94 254 564 .44 0 .80

Storm Lake, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,411 3 0 .01 20,260 100 0 .49 97 3,233 .33 0 .48

Corsicana, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

45,124 150 0 .33 47,735 382 0 .80 232 154 .67 0 .47

Kahului-Wailuku, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,094 13,730 10 .72 154,834 16,051 10 .37 2,321 16 .90 –0 .35

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,913 110 0 .79 13,592 87 0 .64 –23 –20 .91 –0 .15

Hereford, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,561 25 0 .13 19,372 2 0 .01 –23 –92 .00 –0 .12

Kapaa, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,463 5,334 9 .12 67,091 6,060 9 .03 726 13 .61 –0 .09

Taos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,979 35 0 .12 32,937 10 0 .03 –25 –71 .43 –0 .09

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
62 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 4.15.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Largest Increase and Decrease in Two or More Races Share of Population: 

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1

Census 2000 2010 Census Change, 2000 to 2010, 

Two or More Races2

Total 

population

Two or More Races2

Total 

population

Two or More Races

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Percentage 

point

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876,156 174,624 19 .93 953,207 213,036 22 .35 38,412 22 .00 2 .42

Anchorage, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319,605 18,287 5 .72 380,821 29,386 7 .72 11,099 60 .69 1 .99

Lawton, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,996 5,396 4 .69 124,098 8,033 6 .47 2,637 48 .87 1 .78

Fayetteville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,609 10,093 3 .00 366,383 16,960 4 .63 6,867 68 .04 1 .63

Olympia, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207,355 7,985 3 .85 252,264 13,495 5 .35 5,510 69 .00 1 .50

Madera-Chowchilla, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123,109 6,458 5 .25 150,865 6,300 4 .18 –158 –2 .45 –1 .07

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193,117 4,911 2 .54 250,304 3,689 1 .47 –1,222 –24 .88 –1 .07

Merced, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,554 11,900 5 .65 255,793 11,929 4 .66 29 0 .24 –0 .99

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,007,564 166,771 3 .33 5,564,635 140,000 2 .52 –26,771 –16 .05 –0 .81

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Largest Increase in Share

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569,463 12,059 2 .12 774,769 10,262 1 .32 –1,797 –14 .90 –0 .79

Ketchikan, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,070 744 5 .29 13,477 1,250 9 .28 506 68 .01 3 .99

Juneau, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,711 2,121 6 .91 31,275 2,967 9 .49 846 39 .89 2 .58

Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,913 718 5 .16 13,592 1,037 7 .63 319 44 .43 2 .47

McAlester, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,953 2,284 5 .20 45,837 3,471 7 .57 1,187 51 .97 2 .38

Durant, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Largest Decrease in Share

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,534 1,769 4 .84 42,416 2,996 7 .06 1,227 69 .36 2 .22

Eagle Pass, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,297 1,394 2 .95 54,258 545 1 .00 –849 –60 .90 –1 .94

Pecos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,137 352 2 .68 13,783 212 1 .54 –140 –39 .77 –1 .14

Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,597 783 1 .46 60,968 293 0 .48 –490 –62 .58 –0 .98

Andrews, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,004 373 2 .87 14,786 292 1 .97 –81 –21 .72 –0 .89

Kingsville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,963 1,032 3 .23 32,477 776 2 .39 –256 –24 .81 –0 .84

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with largest increase in share .

• Areas with largest decrease in share .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

2

 In Census 2000, an error in data processing resulted in an overstatement of the Two or More Races population by 

about 1 million people (about 15 percent) nationally . Data users should assess observed changes in the Two or More 

Races population between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census with caution .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 

December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 63

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Figure 4.9.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Black or African American Alone Population by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area

Percentage-Point Change in Black or African American Alone Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

GA

AL

TN

SC

NC

0 5 Miles

Ratio

5.0 or more

4.0 to 4.9

3.0 to 3.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Metro area ratio: 2.57

Metro area percent: 32.42

U.S. percent: 12.61

Metro area change: 3.77

U.S. change: 0.29 GA

AL

TN

SC

NC

0 5 Miles

Percentage-point

change

10.0 or more

5.0 to 9.9

3.0 to 4.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

–5.0 to –0.1

–10.0 to –5.1

Less than –10.0

Not applicable
64 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Figure 4.10.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Hispanic Population by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area

Percentage-Point Change in Hispanic Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

M E X I C O

CA

NV

0 5 Miles

Ratio

5.0 or more

4.0 to 4.9

3.0 to 3.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Metro area ratio: 2.72

Metro area percent: 44.44

U.S. percent: 16.35

Metro area change: 3.05

U.S. change: 3.80

M E X I C O

CA

NV

0 5 Miles

Percentage-point

change

10.0 or more

5.0 to 9.9

3.0 to 4.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

–5.0 to –0.1

–10.0 to –5.1

Less than –10.0

Not applicable
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 65

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Figure 4.11.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Non-Hispanic White Alone Population by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area

Percentage-Point Change in Non-Hispanic White Alone Share of Population by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

VA

PA

MD

0 5 Miles

Ratio

5.0 or more

4.0 to 4.9

3.0 to 3.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State or equivalent

Water

Metro area ratio: 0.76

Metro area percent: 48.57

U.S. percent: 63.75

Metro area change: –6.75

U.S. change: –5.38

VA

PA

MD

0 5 Miles

Percentage-point

change

10.0 or more

5.0 to 9.9

3.0 to 4.9

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

–5.0 to –0.1

–10.0 to –5.1

Less than –10.0

Not applicable
66 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

*American Indian and

 Alaska Native alone.

**Native Hawaiian and

 Other Pacific Islander alone.

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Figure 4.12.

Race or Hispanic Origin Group With the Largest Population by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Race or Hispanic origin group

Non-Hispanic White alone

Black or African American alone

Asian alone

Two or More Races

Hispanic

Not applicable

0 10 Miles

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area

NY

PA

NH VT

NY

PA

NH VT

AIAN alone*

NHPI alone**

0 10 Miles

Race or Hispanic Origin Group (Excluding Non-Hispanic White Alone) With the Largest Population by Census Tract: 2010

Race or Hispanic origin group

Black or African American alone

Asian alone

Two or More Races

Hispanic

Not applicable

AIAN alone*

NHPI alone**

Metro area's largest population:

Non-Hispanic White alone

Percent of metro area

population: 48.86

Metro area's largest population:

Hispanic

Percent of metro area

population: 22.90

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 67

CHAPTER 5.

AGE AND SEX COMPOSITION

The age and sex structure of a population 

is one of its most important and formative 

features, because nearly all demographic 

characteristics and processes vary by age and 

sex. Age and sex composition is also revealing 

in that it reflects those demographic characteristics and processes. Fertility levels in a 

population, for instance, are both a reflection 

of its age-sex composition (specifically, the 

number of women of childbearing ages) as 

well as a shaper of the age-sex composition of 

the population (specifically, the population at 

the youngest ages). This chapter examines the 

distribution of the population by age and sex 

for metro and micro areas as well as territory 

outside CBSAs.

Age composition and the distribution of 

age groups differed by CBSA status and 

region of the country.

In 2010, the median age of the U.S. population 

(that is, the age at which half of the population 

is older and half of the population is younger) 

was 37.2, up from 35.3 in 2000 (Table 5.1). 

Age composition of the population differed 

by CBSA status. Metro area populations were 

younger (median age of 36.6 years) than the 

population in either micro areas (39.3 years) 

or territory outside CBSAs (41.9 years). The 

median age increased between 2000 and 

2010 for all three area types, particularly for 

the population of the territory outside CBSAs, 

where the median age jumped by 3.4 years.

Compared with the nation, micro areas exhibited lower percentages of the total population 

in 5-year age groups under age 50 (except 

for the 15–19 age group for both males and 

females, and the 20–24 age group for males) 

(Figure 5.1). Outside CBSA territory also 

skewed toward the older ages more than the 

U.S. population, with higher-than-average 

shares of the population in all age groups 50 

years and older. The CBSAs with the highest 

median ages often fell in one of two categories: (1) in slow growing regions such as western Pennsylvania that had past out-migration 

of the young combined with “aging in place,” 

and (2) in faster-growing metro and micro 

areas in parts of Florida and Arizona with sizable retiree in-migration. Areas with the lowest 

median ages, on the other hand, included 

metro and micro areas in Utah, southern Idaho, 

and along the U.S.-Mexican border (Figure 5.2).

The share of the population in various 

age groups varied by CBSA status and 

size category. 

Metro areas had higher percentages of their 

populations in each of the four younger age 

groups (under 18 years, 18–24 years, 25–34 

years, 35–44 years) than did either micro 

areas or territory outside CBSAs (Table 5.2). 

The reverse was true for each of the four age 

groups over 44 (45–54 years, 55–64 years, 

65–74 years, and 75 years and over), with 

outside CBSA territory exhibiting higher percentages of populations in these age groups 

than either micro areas or metro areas. Furthermore, outside CBSAs had high LNRs for both 

the 65–74 and 75 years and over age groups. 

While at the national level the 75 and over age 

group was only about three-fifths the size

of the 18–24 age group, the outside CBSA

territory contained nearly the same number

of people in these two age groups.20

Population change by age group also differed 

by CBSA status and size category (Table 5.3). 

In almost every age group, percentage change 

illustrated a progression from metro to micro 

to outside CBSA, with metro areas growing 

faster (or declining less) than micro areas, and 

micro areas growing faster (or declining less) 

than the territory outside CBSAs. In one age 

group—65–74 years—metro and micro areas 

exhibited the same growth rate (18.3 percent). 

20 Additional materials related to this report are

available at <www.census.gov/population/metro/data

/c2010sr-01patterns.html>.

Table 5.1.

Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status

Census 2000 2010 Census

Change, 2000 to 2010

Number Percent

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 37.2 1.9 5.4

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . 35.1 36.9 1.8 5.1

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . 34.9 36.6 1.7 4.9

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . 36.7 39.3 2.6 7.1

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . 38.5 41.9 3.4 8.8

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
68 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

543210

Figure 5.1.

Age and Sex Distribution by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

54321 0 012345

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

012345

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

543210 012345

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

In metro area United States

In micro area United States

Outside CBSA United States

Male Female Male Female

Male Female

Age Age

Percent of total population

Percent of total population
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 69

Note: Core based statistical areas

(metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. 0 100 Miles

Figure 5.2.

Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Median age

45.0 or more

40.0 to 44.9

35.0 to 39.9

30.0 to 34.9

Less than 30.0

U.S. median: 37.2
70 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 5.2.

Population by Age Group, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Population Size Category: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

 CBSA status and

CBSA population size category1

Total

population

Age group

Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over

Population

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,745,538 74,181,467 30,672,088 41,063,948 41,070,606 45,006,716 36,482,729 21,713,429 18,554,555

Inside core based statistical area . . . . 289,261,315 69,718,440 29,114,405 38,922,158 38,740,428 42,067,876 33,780,230 19,865,293 17,052,485

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . 258,317,763 62,524,532 26,033,687 35,275,691 34,978,962 37,564,911 29,785,420 17,264,361 14,890,199

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,886,632 18,589,794 7,305,505 10,894,821 10,915,079 11,105,530 8,326,505 4,704,576 4,044,822

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,200,783 22,024,023 8,837,265 12,629,768 12,583,808 13,474,527 10,557,890 5,949,773 5,143,729

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . 91,230,348 21,910,715 9,890,917 11,751,102 11,480,075 12,984,854 10,901,025 6,610,012 5,701,648

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . 30,943,552 7,193,908 3,080,718 3,646,467 3,761,466 4,502,965 3,994,810 2,600,932 2,162,286

Outside core based statistical area . . . 19,484,223 4,463,027 1,557,683 2,141,790 2,330,178 2,938,840 2,702,499 1,848,136 1,502,070

Percentage of Population: 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 24.0 9.9 13.3 13.3 14.6 11.8 7.0 6.0

Inside core based statistical area . . . . 100.0 24.1 10.1 13.5 13.4 14.5 11.7 6.9 5.9

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . 100.0 24.2 10.1 13.7 13.5 14.5 11.5 6.7 5.8

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 24.5 9.6 14.4 14.4 14.6 11.0 6.2 5.3

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 24.1 9.7 13.8 13.8 14.8 11.6 6.5 5.6

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 24.0 10.8 12.9 12.6 14.2 11.9 7.2 6.2

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . 100.0 23.2 10.0 11.8 12.2 14.6 12.9 8.4 7.0

Outside core based statistical area . . . 100.0 22.9 8.0 11.0 12.0 15.1 13.9 9.5 7.7

Local-to-National Ratio: 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Inside core based statistical area . . . . (X) 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . (X) 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.96

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.02 0.97 1.08 1.08 1.00 0.93 0.88 0.89

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.01 0.98 1.04 1.04 1.01 0.98 0.93 0.94

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . (X) 1.00 1.09 0.97 0.95 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.04

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . (X) 0.97 1.00 0.89 0.91 1.00 1.09 1.20 1.16

Outside core based statistical area . . . (X) 0.95 0.80 0.83 0.90 1.03 1.17 1.35 1.28

(X) Not applicable.

1

 Size categories based on 2010 Census population data.

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a group’s

percentage of an area’s total population by its percentage of the national population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 71

The aging of the outside CBSA territory’s 

population can be illustrated by its population declines at all younger age groups, losing 

population in every age group under 45 years. 

Even in the age groups where the population 

of the outside CBSA territory grew, it did so at 

a slower rate than either metro or micro areas. 

The declines across CBSA status categories 

for the 35–44 age group are a reflection of the 

aging of the baby boomers over the decade; 

the cohort went from being aged 36–54 in 

2000 to aged 46–64 in 2010.21

21 The baby boomer generation consists of people born 

between 1946 and 1964.

Most CBSAs experienced an increase in 

median age.

Across the country, most CBSAs experienced 

an increase in median age (Figure 5.3). In

particular, many CBSAs in a band stretching 

across eastern Michigan, northeast Ohio,

western Pennsylvania, Upstate New York, 

and northern New England saw increases of 

3 or more years. By contrast, a number of 

CBSAs extending from northwestern Arkansas 

through Oklahoma, the High Plains of Texas, 

and southeastern New Mexico experienced 

declines in their median ages. 

Metro areas with the highest median ages

were found in Florida (Punta Gorda, North

Port, and Sebastian), Arizona (Prescott), and

Massachusetts (Barnstable Town), which 

exhibited the second oldest median age in the 

United States (Table 5.4). The metro areas with 

the lowest median ages included college towns 

(Manhattan, KS and College Station, TX), two 

cities in Utah (Logan and Provo), and a military 

base (Jacksonville, NC). The highest median 

age micro areas were all communities with 

sizable retiree populations, including three in 

Florida, one in Oregon, and one in Arkansas. 

The micro areas with the lowest median age 

generally contained college towns.

Table 5.3.

Population Change by Age Group, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status, and Population Size Category:

2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

 CBSA status and

CBSA population size category1

Total

population

Age group

Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over

Numeric Change in Population: 2000 to 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,323,632 1,887,655 3,528,634 1,172,224 –4,077,921 7,328,764 12,208,045 3,322,443 1,953,788

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,971,088 2,242,309 3,539,219 1,251,550 –3,541,380 7,021,277 11,488,279 3,069,455 1,900,379

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,247,936 2,421,580 3,356,347 1,238,832 –2,883,446 6,462,898 10,261,997 2,668,042 1,721,686

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,483,861 402,768 890,625 40,701 –632,957 2,000,727 2,656,401 679,632 445,964

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,592,074 1,098,340 1,242,424 509,940 –974,397 2,431,054 3,808,960 925,327 554,382

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,172,001 920,472 1,223,298 688,191 –1,276,092 2,031,117 3,799,019 1,064,656 721,340

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,723,152 –179,271 182,872 12,718 –657,934 558,379 1,226,282 401,413 178,693

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 352,544 –354,654 –10,585 –79,326 –536,541 307,487 719,766 252,988 53,409

Percentage Change in Population: 2000 to 2010

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 2.6 13.0 2.9 –9.0 19.5 50.3 18.1 11.8

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 3.3 13.8 3.3 –8.4 20.0 51.5 18.3 12.5

In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 4.0 14.8 3.6 –7.6 20.8 52.6 18.3 13.1

 5.0 million or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 2.2 13.9 0.4 –5.5 22.0 46.8 16.9 12.4

 1.0 to 4.9 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 5.2 16.4 4.2 –7.2 22.0 56.4 18.4 12.1

 Less than 1.0 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 4.4 14.1 6.2 –10.0 18.5 53.5 19.2 14.5

In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 –2.4 6.3 0.3 –14.9 14.2 44.3 18.3 9.0

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 –7.4 –0.7 –3.6 –18.7 11.7 36.3 15.9 3.7

1

 Size categories based on Census 2000 population data.

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
72 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Note: Core based statistical areas

(metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000. 0 100 Miles

Figure 5.3.

Change in Median Age by Core Based Statistical Area: 2000 to 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Change (in years)

3.0 or more

2.0 to 2.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.0 to 0.9

Less than 0.0

U.S. change: 1.9
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 73

Spatial patterns by age groups for metro 

and micro areas.

Nearly all populations contain a mix of age 

groups from young to old, and therefore the 

geographic distribution of the population by 

age group typically does not vary to the same 

extent as maps showing the distribution by 

race or Hispanic origin. Overall, the concentrations by age group featured a relatively small 

number of outliers that included colleges, 

other group quarters such as military bases 

and prisons, and areas with sizable numbers

of retirees as a share of the total population 

(Figure 5.4). However, the metro and micro 

areas with the highest percentages of each of 

the eight age groups did vary widely nationwide (Table 5.5).

The metro areas with the highest percentages 

of the population under 18 years old were 

located in Utah (Provo), in Texas along the 

U.S.-Mexican border (Laredo, McAllen, and 

Brownsville), and in California along the

Central Valley (Visalia-Porterville). A similar 

pattern held true for micro areas: three in Utah 

(Brigham City, Heber, and Vernal) and two 

in Texas along the U.S.-Mexican border (Rio 

Grande City and Eagle Pass). 

Table 5.4.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Median Age: 

2010

CBSA1

Median age

Pecent of population

Under 25 years 65 years and over

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Median Age

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 .9 19 .7 34 .1

Barnstable Town, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .9 23 .8 25 .0

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .5 24 .4 27 .5

Prescott, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .2 26 .2 24 .1

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Median Age

 . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .1 25 .4 27 .2

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 .6 50 .9 6 .5

Jacksonville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .7 48 .3 7 .5

Logan, UT-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .8 48 .3 8 .2

College Station-Bryan, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .8 48 .4 8 .7

Manhattan, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Median Age

 . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .0 47 .6 8 .3

The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 .7 12 .8 43 .4

Homosassa Springs, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 .0 21 .5 31 .9

Brookings, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 .5 21 .1 28 .0

Sebring, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .5 24 .8 32 .2

Mountain Home, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Median Age

 . . . . . . . . . . . 50 .6 24 .0 28 .1

Rexburg, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .4 56 .3 7 .8

Pullman, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 .4 51 .5 9 .5

Vermillion, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .0 50 .1 10 .2

Mount Pleasant, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .1 49 .8 9 .7

Starkville, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .4 49 .0 9 .2

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest median age .

• Areas with lowest median age .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
74 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 5.4.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Age Groups by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Under 18 years

U.S. percent = 24.0

25 to 34 years

U.S. percent = 13.3

18 to 24 years

U.S. percent = 9.9

35 to 44 years

U.S. percent = 13.3

Ratio

2.00 or more

1.50 to 1.99

1.00 to 1.49

0.75 to 0.99

Less than 0.75

See note at end of figure.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 75

45 to 54 years

U.S. percent = 14.6

U.S. percent = 7.0

55 to 64 years

U.S. percent = 11.8

65 to 74 years

Figure 5.4.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for Age Groups by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Ratio

2.00 or more

1.50 to 1.99

1.00 to 1.49

0.75 to 0.99

Less than 0.75

Note: Core based statistical areas (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

U.S. percent = 6.0

75 years and over
76 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 5.5.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest Percentage of Population in Each Age Group: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population Population 

Metropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Micropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Highest percentage under 18 years: Highest percentage under 18 years:

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526,810 185,814 35 .3 1 .47 Brigham City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,975 16,978 34 .0 1 .41

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,304 88,158 35 .2 1 .47 Rio Grande City-Roma, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,968 20,678 33 .9 1 .41

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774,769 268,484 34 .7 1 .44 Heber, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,530 7,980 33 .9 1 .41

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406,220 134,199 33 .0 1 .37 Eagle Pass, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,258 18,323 33 .8 1 .41

Visalia-Porterville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442,179 144,124 32 .6 1 .36 Vernal, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,588 10,857 33 .3 1 .39

Metro Areas Micro Areas

Highest percentage 18 to 24 years: Highest percentage 18 to 24 years:

Ames, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,542 25,964 29 .0 2 .92 Pullman, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,776 16,302 36 .4 3 .66

State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,990 44,452 28 .9 2 .91 Vermillion, SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,864 4,515 32 .6 3 .28

College Station-Bryan, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228,660 62,695 27 .4 2 .76 Athens, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,757 20,810 32 .1 3 .23

Ithaca, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101,564 26,624 26 .2 2 .64 Mount Pleasant, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,311 22,405 31 .9 3 .21

Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA . . . . . . . . . 162,958 40,887 25 .1 2 .53 Boone, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,079 16,263 31 .8 3 .20

Metro Areas Micro Areas

See notes at end of table .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 77

Table 5.5.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest Percentage of Population in Each Age Group: 2010—Con .

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population Population 

Metropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Micropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Highest percentage 25 to 34 years: Highest percentage 25 to 34 years:

Provo-Orem, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526,810 89,440 17 .0 1 .28 Silverthorne, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,994 5,620 20 .1 1 .51

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,124,197 190,375 16 .9 1 .27 Jackson, WY-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,464 5,971 19 .0 1 .43

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405,300 68,634 16 .9 1 .27 Edwards, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,507 10,895 18 .3 1 .38

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,716,289 290,552 16 .9 1 .27 Susanville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,895 6,337 18 .2 1 .37

Manhattan, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,081 21,427 16 .9 1 .27 Fort Leonard Wood, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,274 8,934 17 .1 1 .28

Metro Areas Micro Areas

Highest percentage 35 to 44 years: Highest percentage 35 to 44 years:

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,130,490 182,622 16 .2 1 .21 Edwards, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,507 10,117 17 .0 1 .28

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,268,860 830,827 15 .8 1 .19 Silverthorne, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,994 4,666 16 .7 1 .25

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . 1,758,038 276,139 15 .7 1 .18 Palestine, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,458 9,506 16 .3 1 .22

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 1,836,911 285,990 15 .6 1 .17 Jackson, WY-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,464 5,055 16 .1 1 .21

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,716,289 259,891 15 .1 1 .14 Susanville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,895 5,513 15 .8 1 .19

Metro Areas Micro Areas

See notes at end of table .
78 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Table 5.5.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest Percentage of Population in Each Age Group: 2010—Con .

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population Population 

Metropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Micropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Highest percentage 45 to 54 years: Highest percentage 45 to 54 years:

Manchester-Nashua, NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,721 68,476 17 .1 1 .17 Los Alamos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,950 3,347 18 .6 1 .28

Kingston, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,493 30,689 16 .8 1 .15 Torrington, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,927 34,541 18 .2 1 .25

Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME . . . . . . . . . 514,098 86,081 16 .7 1 .15 Merrill, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,743 5,078 17 .7 1 .21

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543,376 90,602 16 .7 1 .14 Key West, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,090 12,876 17 .6 1 .21

Monroe, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,021 25,235 16 .6 1 .14 Iron Mountain, MI-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,591 5,368 17 .5 1 .20

Metro Areas Micro Areas

Highest percentage 55 to 64 years: Highest percentage 55 to 64 years:

Prescott, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,033 36,237 17 .2 1 .45 The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,420 18,445 19 .7 1 .67

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,978 27,376 17 .1 1 .45 Brookings, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,364 4,361 19 .5 1 .65

Santa Fe, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,170 24,255 16 .8 1 .42 Ruidoso, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,497 3,798 18 .5 1 .57

Barnstable Town, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,888 35,642 16 .5 1 .40 Truckee-Grass Valley, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98,764 17,982 18 .2 1 .54

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,186 31,509 15 .7 1 .33 Key West, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,090 12,971 17 .7 1 .50

Metro Areas Micro Areas

See notes at end of table .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 79

Table 5.5.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest Percentage of Population in Each Age Group: 2010—Con .

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Population Population 

Metropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Micropolitan statistical area1

Total

In age 

group Percent

Local-tonational 

ratio

Highest percentage 65 to 74 years: Highest percentage 65 to 74 years:

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,978 28,945 18 .1 2 .57 The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,420 26,733 28 .6 4 .07

Naples-Marco Island, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321,520 46,154 14 .4 2 .04 Homosassa Springs, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,236 24,597 17 .4 2 .48

Ocala, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331,298 47,094 14 .2 2 .02 Sebring, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98,786 16,367 16 .6 2 .36

Palm Coast, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,696 13,593 14 .2 2 .02 Brookings, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,364 3,561 15 .9 2 .26

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,186 28,309 14 .1 2 .01 Crossville, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,053 8,647 15 .4 2 .19

Metro Areas Micro Areas

Highest percentage 75 years and over: Highest percentage 75 years and over:

Punta Gorda, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,978 25,654 16 .0 2 .67 Sebring, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98,786 15,455 15 .6 2 .60

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,028 19,468 14 .1 2 .35 The Villages, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,420 13,797 14 .8 2 .46

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702,281 96,028 13 .7 2 .28 Homosassa Springs, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,236 20,444 14 .5 2 .41

Barnstable Town, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,888 27,100 12 .6 2 .09 Fredericksburg, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,837 3,301 13 .3 2 .21

Naples-Marco Island, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321,520 38,797 12 .1 2 .01 Mountain Home, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,513 5,263 12 .7 2 .11

Metro Areas Micro Areas

• Areas with highest percentage .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009 . The local-to-national ratio is calculated by dividing a group’s 

percentage of an area’s total population by its percentage of the national population . 

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
80 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 5.5.

Age and Sex Structure for College and Retirement Metro and Micro Areas: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

14 13 12 11 10 9876543210 0123456789 10 11 12 13 14

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Male Female

College Metro Area

0 12345678 9 10 11 12 13 14

College Micro Area

14 13 12 11 10 9876543210

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Male Female

United States

9876543210 0123456789

United States

Retirement Metro Area

0123456789 1011121314 9 876543210 0123456789

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Male Female

Male Female

The Villages, FL Micro Area United States

Retirement Micro Area

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Ames, IA Metro Area United States Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area

Pullman, WA Micro Area

Age Age

Percent of total population Percent of total population
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 81

Not surprisingly, areas with college towns 

accounted for the top five metro and micro 

areas for the 18–24 age group. The population pyramids for two areas containing college 

towns (Ames, IA, and Pullman, WA) demonstrated much higher percentages of the 15–19 

and 20–24 age groups for both males and 

females, compared with all other age groups 

shown (Figure 5.5).

Similar to the youngest age group (under 18 

years), Utah (Provo and Salt Lake City) and 

Texas (Killeen and Austin) contained metro 

areas with the highest share of the 25–34 age 

group (Table 5.5). The comparable micro 

areas were located in the Mountain Division: 

Silverthorne, CO; Jackson, WY-ID; and 

Edwards, CO.

The 35–44 age group exhibited its highest share in large, fast-growing metro areas 

(Raleigh, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Jose, and 

Austin). In comparison, the next age group 

(45–54) had its highest share in smaller metro 

areas adjacent to or near large metro areas, 

including Manchester-Nashua, NH (adjacent to 

the Boston metro area); Kingston, NY (near the 

New York metro area); and Monroe, MI (adjacent to the Detroit metro area). 

As with metro and micro areas with the

highest median age, metro and micro areas 

containing the highest percentages of people 

in the three oldest age groups (55–64, 65–74, 

and 75 and over) tended to be found in the 

South or West (particularly in Florida and 

Arizona). Punta Gorda, FL, was among the top 

five metro areas in all three categories (second for the 55–64 age group, and first for the 

65–74 and 75 years and over age groups). 

Likewise, The Villages, FL, had the highest or 

second-highest percentages for the three older 

age groups among all micro areas. Figure 5.5 

illustrates the population pyramid for these 

retirement communities.

Sex ratios continued to vary by region.

In 2000, the sex ratio (defined as the number 

of males per 100 females) showed that more 

females than males lived in metro areas, micro 

areas, and territory outside CBSAs (Table 5.6). 

However, by 2010, there were more males 

than females living outside CBSAs. Overall, 

metro areas had the lowest sex ratios (that is, 

the highest number of women compared with 

men). Outside CBSA territory exhibited the 

highest sex ratios in 2010.

Overall, higher sex ratios occur in areas of the 

West as well as in the upper Midwest (Figure 

5.6). For example, the Hanford metro and 

Susanville micro areas in California had the 

highest shares of males among all metro areas 

(Figure 5.7). On the other hand, the lowest 

sex ratios were found among southern metro 

areas, including ones in North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, as well as 

some metro areas in the Washington to 

Boston corridor. Sex ratios among micro areas 

were also lowest in some southern areas, 

particularly in the Mississippi Delta (Table 5.7). 

Examples of the lowest sex ratios are visible 

in the Florence, SC, metro and Tuskegee, AL, 

micro areas.

Table 5.6.

Population by Sex and by Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Status: 2000 and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA status

Population Sex ratio1

Census 2000 2010 Census Percent change Census 

2000

2010 

Census

Numeric 

Male Female Male Female Male Female change

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,053,563 143,368,343 151,781,326 156,964,212 9 .9 9 .5 96 .3 96 .7 0 .4

Inside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . 128,554,844 133,735,383 141,989,977 147,271,338 10 .5 10 .1 96 .1 96 .4 0 .3

 In metropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,127,022 118,942,805 126,606,113 131,711,650 10 .9 10 .7 96 .0 96 .1 0 .2

 In micropolitan statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,427,822 14,792,578 15,383,864 15,559,688 6 .6 5 .2 97 .5 98 .9 1 .3

Outside core based statistical area . . . . . . . . . . . 9,498,719 9,632,960 9,791,349 9,692,874 3 .1 0 .6 98 .6 101 .0 2 .4

1

 Sex ratio is the number of males per 100 females .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U S Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000 . . .
82 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Note: Core based statistical areas

(metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. 0 100 Miles

Figure 5.6.

Sex Ratio by Core Based Statistical Area: 2010

(Sex ratio is calculated as the number of males per 100 females. For information on confidentiality

protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

0 200 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Sex ratio

110.0 or more

100.0 to 109.9

96.7 to 99.9

90.0 to 96.6

Less than 90.0

U.S. sex ratio: 96.7
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 83

Figure 5.7.

Age and Sex Structure for Metro and Micro Areas With Highest and Lowest Sex Ratios: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

8 7654321 0 012345678

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metro Area United States

Male Female

Highest Sex Ratios

8 76543210 012345678

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Male Female

Susanville, CA Micro Area United States

876543210 012345678

Florence, SC Metro Area United States

876543210 012345678

Male Female

Male Female

Tuskegee, AL Micro Area United States

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

100+

95–99

90–94

85–89

80–84

75–79

70–74

65–69

60–64

55–59

50–54

45–49

40–44

35–39

30–34

25–29

20–24

15–19

10–14

5–9

0–4

Lowest Sex Ratios

U.S. metro area sex ratio: 96.0

Florence metro area sex ratio: 89.0

U.S. micro area sex ratio: 97.5

Tuskegee micro area sex ratio: 85.0

U.S. micro area sex ratio: 97.5

Susanville micro area sex ratio: 168.8

U.S. metro area sex ratio: 96.0

Hanford metro area sex ratio: 134.8

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Age Age

Percent of total population Percent of total population
84 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Intrametropolitan patterns of population 

growth by age group.

Examination of the distribution of the population by age within individual metro areas at 

the census tract level in 2010 revealed wide 

spatial variation. Some metro areas, such as 

Houston, contained central neighborhoods with 

older populations, while neighborhoods with 

younger populations were located in the largest 

principal city’s outskirts and inner suburbs

(Figure 5.8). Outer suburban tracts at the edges 

of some metro areas also had higher median 

ages. A similar but more pronounced pattern 

can be seen in the Tampa metro area, where a 

large proportion of census tracts have higher 

median ages, particularly in the outer suburbs.

The population under 18 years old grew 

between 2000 and 2010 in suburban tracts 

within some metro areas like Phoenix, while the 

young population declined in many tracts in the 

city center (Figure 5.9). The 25–34 age group is 

often located within cities and much less often 

in suburbs. Chicago is a good example of this 

pattern (Figure 5.10). Growth of the 25–34 age 

group occurred in outlying parts of the metro 

area, as well as in some of the central tracts in 

the city of Chicago. The map of MinneapolisSt. Paul illustrates that the 65–74 age group 

sometimes grew in central tracts of the most 

populous principal cities (Figure 5.11). At the 

same time, the map illustrates that the 65-

to 74-year-old LNR is sometimes low in fastgrowing outlying tracts of metro areas. The 

population aged 25–34, on the other hand, 

declined in the inner suburbs of some metro 

areas, and grew in some city center tracts, 

most notably in the Chicago metro area. These 

trends were also reflected in the LNRs of the 

percent of population by age at the census

tract level.

Table 5.7.

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) With Highest and Lowest Sex Ratios: 

2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

CBSA1 Sex

ratio2

Population Percent of 

population

Total Male Female Male Female

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Sex Ratio

Hanford-Corcoran, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 .6 152,982 86,344 66,638 56 .4 43 .6

Jacksonville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 .7 177,772 95,349 82,423 53 .6 46 .4

Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 .9 97,581 51,531 46,050 52 .8 47 .2

Carson City, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 .9 55,274 28,688 26,586 51 .9 48 .1

Ames, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Sex Ratio

107 .6 89,542 46,412 43,130 51 .8 48 .2

Florence, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 .1 205,566 96,874 108,692 47 .1 52 .9

Albany, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 .1 157,308 74,573 82,735 47 .4 52 .6

Burlington, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 .7 151,131 71,890 79,241 47 .6 52 .4

Jackson, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 .8 115,425 54,921 60,504 47 .6 52 .4

Rocky Mount, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Highest Sex Ratio

90 .8 152,392 72,514 79,878 47 .6 52 .4

Susanville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 .6 34,895 22,416 12,479 64 .2 35 .8

Palestine, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 .9 58,458 35,521 22,937 60 .8 39 .2

Pecos, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 .5 13,783 8,281 5,502 60 .1 39 .9

Beeville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 .0 31,861 19,063 12,798 59 .8 40 .2

Huntsville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowest Sex Ratio

143 .6 67,861 40,007 27,854 59 .0 41 .0

Tuskegee, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 .5 21,452 9,826 11,626 45 .8 54 .2

Clarksdale, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 .8 26,151 12,003 14,148 45 .9 54 .1

Selma, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .9 43,820 20,244 23,576 46 .2 53 .8

Mexico, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 .9 25,529 11,798 13,731 46 .2 53 .8

Cleveland, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 .9 34,145 15,876 18,269 46 .5 53 .5

Metro Areas Micro Areas • Areas with highest sex ratio .

• Areas with lowest sex ratio .

1

 Among CBSAs in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia .

2

 Sex ratio is the number of males per 100 females .

Note: CBSAs (metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas) defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 Census .
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 85

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

Figure 5.8.

Median Age by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Median age

50.0 or more

45.0 to 49.9

40.0 to 44.9

35.0 to 39.9

30.0 to 34.9

25.0 to 29.9

Less than 25.0

Not applicable

0 10 Miles

0 10 Miles

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area

TX LA

AR

FL

Houston metro area

median age: 33.2

U.S. median age: 37.2

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Tampa metro area

median age: 41.2
86 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 5.9.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Under 18 by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area

AZ

UT

NV

0 10 Miles

AZ

UT

NV

0 10 Miles

Percent change

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

0.0 to 9.9

–25.0 to –0.1

Less than –25.0

Not applicable

Ratio

3.0 or more

2.5 to 2.9

2.0 to 2.4

1.5 to 1.9

1.0 to 1.4

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Metro area ratio: 1.10

Metro area percent: 26.4

U.S. percent: 24.0

Metro area change: 26.9

U.S. change: 2.6

Percentage Change in Population Under 18 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 87

Figure 5.10.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Aged 25 to 34 by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Ratio

3.0 or more

2.5 to 2.9

2.0 to 2.4

1.5 to 1.9

1.0 to 1.4

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

0 5 Miles

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area

IL

IN

WI

MI

IL

IN

WI

MI

0 5 Miles

Percent change

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

0.0 to 9.9

–25.0 to –0.1

Less than –25.0

Not applicable

Percentage Change in Population Aged 25 to 34 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Metro area ratio: 1.08

Metro area percent: 14.4

U.S. percent: 13.3

Metro area change: –2.2

U.S. change: 2.9
88 • Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 5.11.

Ratio of Local-to-National Percentages for the Population Aged 65 to 74 by Census Tract: 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf)

Ratio

3.0 or more

2.5 to 2.9

2.0 to 2.4

1.5 to 1.9

1.0 to 1.4

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Not applicable

0 5 Miles

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area

C A N A D A

MN

IA

WI

SD

C A N A D A

MN

IA

WI

SD

Percent change

100.0 or more

50.0 to 99.9

25.0 to 49.9

10.0 to 24.9

0.0 to 9.9

–25.0 to –0.1

Less than –25.0

Not applicable

0 5 Miles

Metro area

Largest principal city

County or equivalent

State

Water

Metro area ratio: 0.81

Metro area percent: 5.7

U.S. percent: 7.0

Metro area change: 28.7

U.S. change: 18.1

Note: Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and Census 2000.

Percentage Change in Population Aged 65 to 74 by Census Tract: 2000 to 2010
U.S. Census Bureau Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010 • 89

ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS

The U.S. Constitution mandates that a census 

be taken in the United States every 10 years. 

This is required in order to determine the number of seats each state is to receive in the 

U.S. House of Representatives. The data collected in the census are used to provide states 

with the small-area data they need to redraw 

legislative districts to distribute federal program funding to help a variety of stakeholders in tasks such as planning for their communities or researching the diversity of their 

neighborhoods.

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES 

OF DATA

This report used decennial census data for the 

years 2000 and 2010. The population universe 

is the resident population of the United States 

(50 states and the District of Columbia) and 

Puerto Rico. Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are those defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget as of December 2009. 

Broomfield County, CO, was formed from parts 

of Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld 

Counties, CO, on November 15, 2001, and was 

coextensive with Broomfield city. For purposes 

of presenting data for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, Broomfield is treated 

as if it were a county at the time of Census 

2000. All derived values were computed using 

unrounded data. For readability, most whole 

numbers in the text are expressed in millions 

or rounded to the nearest hundred or thousand, and percentages are rounded to tenths. 

In the tables, whole numbers are unrounded 

and percentages are rounded to the nearest 

tenth or hundredth. In the maps, data are categorized based on unrounded percentages.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Data on metropolitan and micropolitan

statistical areas from the 2010 Census

Summary File 1 are available on the Internet

at <http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html> 

and on DVD. For more information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling errors,

and definitions, see <www.census.gov/prod

/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf>. For more information 

on metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas, including concepts, definitions, reports, 

and maps, go to <www.census.gov

/population/metro/>. For more information

on race and Hispanic origin in the United 

States, go to <www.census.gov/population

/hispanic/> and <www.census.gov

/population/race/>. For more information

on age and sex in the United States, go to

<www.census.gov/population/age/>.

Information on other population and housing 

topics is presented in the 2010 Census Special 

Reports series and the 2010 Census Briefs 

series, located on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Web 

site at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/>. 

These series present information about race, 

Hispanic origin, age, sex, household type, 

housing tenure, and people who reside in 

group quarters.

If you have questions or need additional

information, please call the Customer Services 

Center at 1-800-923-8282. You can also visit 

the Census Bureau’s Question and Answer 

Center at <ask.census.gov> to submit your 

question online.