| 2000 vs. 2017 Population Growth and Change Wasatch County 2000 vs. 2017 Net Percent Change = 106.73% Rank = #1 Emery County 2000 vs. 2017 Net Percent Change = -9.58% Rank = #29 Duchesne County 2000 vs. 2017 Net Percent Change = 35.89% Rank = #11 With a spotlight on Duchesne County, the chart above displays the distribution of the net percent change of population across Utah's 29 counties over the period 2000-2017. Those counties whose population growth registered above the statewide average over this period realized an increase in their statewide share of population. Likewise, those counties whose population growth registered below the statewide average experienced a decline in their relative share of population statewide. Statewide Snippets:- Over 2000-2017 population grew in twenty-five Utah counties while declining in four.
- Population growth in seven counties outpaced the statewide average (39.26%), while growth in twenty-two counties trailed.
- At the extremes of the distribution, Wasatch County posted the highest growth of population (106.73%), while Emery County placed last by logging a -9.58% decline.
- The spread in population growth between the highest (Wasatch County, 106.73%) and lowest (Emery County, -9.58%) over 2000-2017 equated to 116.31% ( = 106.73% − -9.58%).
- Population growth statewide is but a weighted metric that stems from each county's share of population statewide. On this point, as the largest county in Utah, Salt Lake County's net population growth over 2000-2017 of 250,757 made up 28.45% of the total net growth statewide (881,282):
Salt Lake County: Percent Share of Utah's Population Growth, 2000-2017:28.45% = (250,757 / 881,282) x 100 Duchesne County Snippets:- Over 2000-2017, Duchesne County posted a 35.89% net gain in population.
- Duchesne County was joined by twenty-one other counties whose population growth over 2000-2017 registered below the statewide average (39.26%).
- Ranked #11 among Utah's 29 counties, Duchesne County's population growth (35.89%) trailed the statewide average of 39.26% by a 3.37% margin.
- Duchesne County's net population growth (35.89%, #11) over 2000-2017 registered just above that of Juab County (34.41%, #12) and just below that of Summit County (38.01%, #10).
- Duchesne County's share of population statewide slipped from 0.64% in 2000 to 0.63% in 2017, resulting in a share-shift of -0.02%.
Data Definition Number of individuals (both civilian and military) who reside in an area as of July 1. BEA uses the Census Bureau's midyear population estimates. United States. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Income Division. Regional Definitions. 2023. Web. https://apps.bea.gov/regional/definitions/ | | | | County Distribution of Population Growth, 2000 vs. 2017 | More than 60% | 60% to 50% | 50% to 40% | 40% to 30% | 30% to 20% | 20% to 10% | 10% to 0% | 0% or Below | Total | 2000 vs. 2017 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 29 | | | | | | | | | | County Distribution of Population, 2017 | More than 500,000 | 500,000 to 400,000 | 400,000 to 300,000 | 300,000 to 200,000 | 200,000 to 100,000 | 100,000 or Below | Total | 2017 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 29 | | | | | | Tip: To augment your analysis click on the column headers in the following table to rank and/or sort the data. | | | | Utah by County: 2000 vs. 2017 | 2000 | | 2017 | | 2000 - 2017 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5,998 | 0.27 | | 6,613 | 0.21 | | 10.25 | 615 | 0.07 | | | 42,882 | 1.91 | | 54,612 | 1.75 | | 27.35 | 11,730 | 1.33 | | | 91,861 | 4.09 | | 126,850 | 4.06 | | 38.09 | 34,989 | 3.97 | | | 20,491 | 0.91 | | 19,972 | 0.64 | | -2.53 | -519 | -0.06 | | | 926 | 0.04 | | 960 | 0.03 | | 3.67 | 34 | 0.00 | | | 240,422 | 10.71 | | 349,835 | 11.19 | | 45.51 | 109,413 | 12.42 | | | 14,449 | 0.64 | | 19,635 | 0.63 | | 35.89 | 5,186 | 0.59 | | | 10,850 | 0.48 | | 9,811 | 0.31 | | -9.58 | -1,039 | -0.12 | | | 4,747 | 0.21 | | 5,051 | 0.16 | | 6.40 | 304 | 0.03 | | | 8,420 | 0.38 | | 9,513 | 0.30 | | 12.98 | 1,093 | 0.12 | | | 34,002 | 1.51 | | 51,478 | 1.65 | | 51.40 | 17,476 | 1.98 | | | 8,268 | 0.37 | | 11,113 | 0.36 | | 34.41 | 2,845 | 0.32 | | | 6,094 | 0.27 | | 7,374 | 0.24 | | 21.00 | 1,280 | 0.15 | | | 12,385 | 0.55 | | 12,595 | 0.40 | | 1.70 | 210 | 0.02 | | | 7,165 | 0.32 | | 11,792 | 0.38 | | 64.58 | 4,627 | 0.53 | | | 1,436 | 0.06 | | 1,382 | 0.04 | | -3.76 | -54 | -0.01 | | | 1,965 | 0.09 | | 2,425 | 0.08 | | 23.41 | 460 | 0.05 | | | 901,018 | 40.14 | | 1,151,775 | 36.85 | | 27.83 | 250,757 | 28.45 | | | 14,334 | 0.64 | | 14,752 | 0.47 | | 2.92 | 418 | 0.05 | | | 22,806 | 1.02 | | 27,985 | 0.90 | | 22.71 | 5,179 | 0.59 | | | 18,877 | 0.84 | | 21,141 | 0.68 | | 11.99 | 2,264 | 0.26 | | | 29,964 | 1.33 | | 41,352 | 1.32 | | 38.01 | 11,388 | 1.29 | | | 41,519 | 1.85 | | 66,713 | 2.13 | | 60.68 | 25,194 | 2.86 | | | 25,215 | 1.12 | | 34,998 | 1.12 | | 38.80 | 9,783 | 1.11 | | | 371,811 | 16.57 | | 615,695 | 19.70 | | 65.59 | 243,884 | 27.67 | | | 15,421 | 0.69 | | 31,880 | 1.02 | | 106.73 | 16,459 | 1.87 | | | 91,206 | 4.06 | | 164,324 | 5.26 | | 80.17 | 73,118 | 8.30 | | | 2,533 | 0.11 | | 2,516 | 0.08 | | -0.67 | -17 | 0.00 | | | 197,437 | 8.80 | | 251,642 | 8.05 | | 27.45 | 54,205 | 6.15 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2,244,502 | 100.00 | | 3,125,784 | 100.00 | | 39.26 | 881,282 | 100.00 | | | 1,993,589 | 88.82 | | 2,804,351 | 89.72 | | 40.67 | 810,762 | 92.00 | | | 250,913 | 11.18 | | 321,433 | 10.28 | | 28.11 | 70,520 | 8.00 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 282,162,411 | | | 326,623,063 | | | 15.76 | 44,460,652 | | | | 237,948,237 | | | 281,262,885 | | | 18.20 | 43,314,648 | | | | 44,214,174 | | | 45,360,178 | | | 2.59 | 1,146,004 | |
Source: Calculations by the Utah Regional Economic Analysis Project (UT-REAP) with data provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis November 2023 REAP_PI_CA1400_YRVYR_100A | | | | |
| |