USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Supplement to Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Supplement to Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000
Physical Description:
1 online resource (18 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Economic surveys -- Florida -- Hardee County   ( lcsh )
Demographic surveys -- Florida -- Hardee County   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Hardee County (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 3, 2009).
General Note:
"May 2003."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002027190
oclc - 435676799
usfldc doi - C63-00045
usfldc handle - c63.45
System ID:
SFS0000321:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Supplement to Historical Profile for the Economy and Demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000 Prepared By CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH College of Business Administration 1101 Channelside Dr., 2nd Floor N., Tampa, Florida 33602 Office: (813) 905-5854 or Fax: (813) 905-5856 May, 2003

PAGE 2

2 Table of Contests INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………4 COMPARISON OF HARDEE COUNTY WITH HAMILTON COUNTY……………5 HARDEE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS BY RACE CATEGORY…………………..12 COMMUTING PATTERNS FOR HARDEE COUNTY………………………………15 TRENDS IN AGRICULTURE AND MINERALS EXTRACTION…………………..17

PAGE 3

3 Preface Hardee County is located in south-central Florida within the region served by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC), a state-mandated planning organization. Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc. commissioned the analysis and report, Historical Profile for the Economy and Demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000 to better understand the economic and demographic structure of Hardee County and the south-central Florida region. This addendum represents an additional analysis by the Center for Economic Development Research to supplement the Historical Profile for the Economy and Demographics of Hardee County 1990-2000 and Land Use in Hardee County reports. CEDR provides information and conducts research on issues related to economic growth and development in the Nation, in the state of Florida, and particularly in the central Florida region. The Center serves the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Business Administration, the University, and individuals and organizations in the University’s service area. CEDR’s activities are designed to further the objectives of the University and specifically the objectives of the College of Business Administration. Robert Anderson, Dean, College of Business Administration (COBA), USF Dennis G. Colie, Principal Investigator, Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), COBA, USF Davor Soldo, Economist, CEDR, COBA, USF

PAGE 4

4 Introduction In an effort to better understand the economic and demographic structure of Hardee County, Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc. commissioned the Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR), College of Business Administration (COBA), University of South Florida (USF), to perform this analysis. The supplement consists of four parts. The first part of the supplement compares economic and demographic indicators of Hardee County with economic and demographic indicators of Hamilton County. The second part of the supplement deals with Hardee County demographic and economic indicators by race category. The third part of the supplement is about Hardee County’s commuting to work patterns. The fourth part of the supplement examines trends in agriculture and minerals extraction in Hardee County.

PAGE 5

5 Comparison of Hardee County with Hamilton County Phosphate industry representatives opine that conditions in Hardee County are similar to those of Hamilton County. Hence, in this section we compare the economic and demographic characteristics of Hardee County, Florida with Hamilton County, Florida. While phosphate-mining activity in Hardee County is in a nascent stage, much mining has taken place in counties adjoining Hardee County, particularly in Polk County. According to recent ES-202 data, Covered Wages and Employment, the phosphate industry (mining) employs 177 workers, who are based in Hardee County. Other employees are apparently based in Polk County or other adjoining counties, but may work in Hardee County. On the other hand, in Hamilton County there are 649 workers employed by the phosphate industry (manufacturing) according to recent ES-202 data. Hardee County is located in south central Florida. Hamilton County is located in Florida’s Panhandle and borders on Georgia. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau’s classification, 80.8% of Hamilton County’s population lives in rural areas, while about 45.0% of Hardee’s residents are living in a rural area. Major population centers in Hardee County are Bowling Green (2,892), Wauchula (4,368) and Zolfo Springs (1,641). Major population centers in Hamilton County are Jennings (833), Jasper (1,780) and White Springs (819). Hardee County’s phosphate industry is based on mining; Hamilton County’s phosphate industry is based on manufacturing. IMC-Agrico Co. has mines and processing plants located in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk counties. Other companies engaged in phosphate mining in Florida include: Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc. with operations in Hardee, Polk and Hillsborough counties; CF Industries Inc. in Hardee County; NU-Gulf, Inc. in Manatee County; and PCS Phosphate Co. in Hamilton County. Table 1 compares populations of Hardee County and Hamilton County according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The table also ranks Hardee and Hamilton counties for population and population growth among Florida’s sixty-seven counties. In 2000, Hardee County was slightly more than twice as populated as Hamilton County. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies as urban all territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas and urban clusters. It delineates urbanized areas and urban clusters boundaries to encompass densely settled territory which generally consists of a cluster of one or more block groups or census blocks, each of which has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time. Each of the surrounding block groups and census blocks has a population density of at least 500 people per square mile at the time. Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves or indentations are used to connect discontinuous areas with qualifying densities. An urbanized area consists of densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people. An urban cluster consists of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000 people. Rural areas consist of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of urbanized areas and urban cluster

PAGE 6

6 Additionally, the population growth rate from 1990 to 2000 in Hardee County was 37.6%, which was well above the statewide growth rate of 22.8%. Hamilton County’s growth rate of 21.9% was below the statewide rate. In 1990, Hardee county ranked 50th in population and in 2000 it ranked 49th. By comparison, in 1990 Hamilton County ranked 60th in population and in 2000 Hamilton Country ranked 61st. Table 1 Population Growth 1990 – 2000 Place1990State Rank2000State Rank% GrowthState Rank Hardee19,5425026,9384937.8%13 Hamilton10,9306013,3276121.9%42 Florida13,018,36515,982,37822.8% Population 1990 to 2000 Population Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 2 compares the population over age sixty and under age eighteen in Hardee County and Hamilton County according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. In 1990, Hardee County had 20.4% of population over sixty years of age. In 2000, this percentage decreased to 17.9%. By comparison, in 1990 Hamilton County had 15.4% of population over sixty years of age. In 2000, the percentage of people over sixty years of age in Hamilton County was almost the same at 15.3%. In 1990, 29.2% of population was under eighteen years old in Hardee County. At the same time, 28.9% of population in Hamilton County was under eighteen years old. In 2000, the percentage of population under eighteen in Hardee County and Hamilton County decreased to 27.6% and 23.5% respectively. Table 2 Population Over 60 & Population Under 18 Hardee HamiltonHardee Hamilton Over 603,979 (20.4%)1,685 (15.4%)4,817 (17.9%)2,038 (15.3%) Under 185,688 (29.2%)3,156 (28.9%)7,435 (27.6%)3,137 (23.5%) 19902000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau In 1990, the median age for population in Hardee County was 32.5 years. At the same time, the median age in Hamilton County was 31.0 years. In 1990, the overall population in Hamilton County was younger compared to Hardee County. However, this relationship changed after a decade. In 2000, the median age in Hardee County slightly increased to 32.7 years, while Hamilton County recorded a greater increase in the median age to 35.1 years. Table 3 compares the race composition of Hardee County and Hamilton County according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. In 1990 as well as in 2000, the majority race in Hardee County and Hamilton County was the white race. In 1990, Hardee County was 70.8% white, while Hamilton County was 58.2% white. By 2000, the percentage of

PAGE 7

7 white population was about the same for both counties. Hardee County was 54.6% white, while Hamilton County was 55.0% white. From 1990 to 2000, both counties experienced an increase in minority populations. The change in minority population was more significant in Hardee County because of an increase of Hispanics. Table 3 Race 1990 – 2000 Hardee HamiltonHardee Hamilton White13,804 (70.6%)6,356 (58.2%)14,704 (54.6%)7,336 (55.0%) Black 1,008 (5.2%)4,219 (38.6%)2,165 (8.0%)4,967 (37.3%) Hispanic 4,562 (23.3%) 295 (2.7%) 9,611 (35.7%)847 (6.4%) 19902000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 4 compares the median household incomes in Hardee County and Hamilton Country according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. In 2000, the median household income in Hardee County was $4,545 (15.0%) greater than Hamilton County’s. The table also depicts the percentage growth rate in median household income for these two counties and statewide. The growth rate in median household income from 1990 to 2000 in Hardee County was about equal to Hamilton County’s growth rate. However, both counties’ growth rates were below the statewide rate. Table 4 Median Household Income Place19902000% Growth Hardee$ 22,065$ 30,18336.8% Hamilton$ 18,709$ 25,63837.0% Florida$ 27,483$ 38,81941.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 5 compares per capita incomes in Hardee County and Hamilton County according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. It also compares per capita income of these two counties with Florida’s per capita income. Hardee County and Hamilton County per capita incomes are far below Florida’s per capita income. Table 5 Per Capita Income Place19902000% Growth Hardee$ 9,411$ 12,44532.2% Hamilton$ 8,851$ 10,56219.3% Florida$ 14,698$ 21,55746.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

PAGE 8

8 Labor force represents the total number of people employed or actively seeking employment. Over the period 1990 to 2000, the labor forces in Hardee County and Hamilton County declined despite rising county populations. While population in both counties realized a net gain, fewer residents participated in the labor force. Hardee County experienced a –4.2% change in its labor force, while Hamilton County experienced a –20.6% change in its labor force. Hamilton County’s decline was the largest negative change in labor force among sixty-seven counties in Florida. Table 6 compares the labor forces of Hardee County and Hamilton County according to 1990 and 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The table also ranks Hardee and Hamilton counties for ten-year percentage change in labor force among Florida’s sixtyseven counties. The percentage changes in labor force were below the statewide rate for both Hardee County and Hamilton County. Table 6 Labor Force Place1990State Rank2000State Rank% ChangeState Rank Hardee9,185508,80052-4.2%59 Hamilton4,171603,31065-20.6%67 Florida6,468,0007,593,00017.4% Labor ForceLabor ForceLabor Force 1990-2000 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program (LAUS) Table 7 closely relates to Table 6. It compares employed portions of labor force in Hardee County to Hamilton County. The table also ranks Hardee and Hamilton counties in regard to percentage of labor force employed among Florida’s sixty-seven counties. In 1990, 88.6% of the labor force within Hardee County was employed, compared to 92.2% in Hamilton County. In 2000, the percentage of labor force employed has increased for Hardee County and Hamilton County to 90.5% and 93.6% respectively. However, both counties were still below Florida’s average percentage of the labor force employed. Table 7 Percentage of Labor Force Employed Place1990State Rank2000State Rank Hardee88.6%5090.5%52 Hamilton92.2%6093.6%65 Florida94.0%96.3% % of Labor Force Employed% of Labor Force Employed Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program (LAUS) Table 8 shows the industry structure in Hardee County in 2000. According to ES-202 data, Hardee County employment was generally concentrated in the agriculture and government divisions. Also, trade and service divisions employed a substantial number of workers. In aggregation, goods-producing industries provided 37.4% of jobs, while service-producing industries provided 62.6% of jobs in Hardee County.

PAGE 9

9 Table 9 shows the industry structure in Hamilton County in 2000. According to ES-202 data, Hamilton County employment was generally concentrated in the manufacturing and government divisions. In aggregation, goods-producing industries provided 43.2% of jobs, while service-producing industries provided 56.8% of jobs in Hamilton County. Table 8 Hardee County Industry Structure – 2000 Industry DivisionJobs% Goods-Producing: Agriculture2,06429.9% Construction & Mining1802.6% Manufacturing2093.0% Utilities128 1.9% Total goods-producing2,58137.4% Service-Producing: Trade1,15916.8% Finance2523.7% Services1,20417.5% Government1,699 24.6% Total service-producing4,314 62.6% Total6,895100.0% Hardee County 2000 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ES-202 Annual Employment Statistics Table 9 Hamilton County Industry Structure – 2000 Industry DivisionJobs% Goods-Production: Agriculture942.6% Construction & Mining1022.9% Manufacturing116732.7% Utilities178 5.0% Total goods-producing1,54143.2% Service-Producing: Trade1785.0% Finance320.9% Services74821.0% Government1,066 29.9% Total service-producing2,024 56.8% Total3,565100.0% Hamilton County 2000 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ES-202 Annual Employment Statistics In 1990 as well as in 2000, the majority of workers in both counties were employed in their county of residence. In 1990, 72.3% of workers in Hardee County were employed within the county. During the same time period, 72.1% of employees lived and worked in Hamilton County. In 2000, Hardee County and Hamilton County recorded decreases in their percentages of employees who worked and lived within the county. In 2000,

PAGE 10

10 69.4% of Hardee County residents worked within the county and 58.1% of Hamilton County residents worked within the county. Table 10 reports non-employer establishments in Hardee County and Hamilton County in 2000. It also shows total receipts and average receipts. In contrast with ES-202 data, this information captures businesses without paid employees, but which are subject to the federal income tax. The non-employer businesses are typically self-employed individuals. These businesses may be an individual’s secondary source of income. In 2000, Hardee County had 1,011 non-employer establishments that on average had $37,000 of receipts. In 2000, Hamilton County had 409 non-employer establishments that on average had $33,000 of receipts. Table 10 Non-Employer Businesses PlaceType of Business Number of Establishments Receipts ($1000) Average per Establishment Hardee All non-employer sectors1,01137,862$ 37,000 HamiltonAll non-employer sectors40913,328$ 33,000 Source: EconN report Series, Non-employer Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce 2002 Table 11 compares the mean travel time to work for Hardee County and Hamilton County workers according to the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Workers residing in Hardee County had a somewhat higher mean travel time to work compared with Hamilton County. Table 11 Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes) Place19902000 Hardee21.026.7 Hamilton19.924.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 12 depicts the number and percentage of population over twenty-five years of age, that have a high school degree and the ones that have four or more years completed at the college level. In 1990 and 2000, Hardee County trails Hamilton County in the percentage of people with a high school degree. However, Hardee County had a greater percentage of people that have four or more years completed at the college level in both 1990 and 2000 when compared to Hamilton County.

PAGE 11

11 Table 12 Educational Attainment Hardee HamiltonHardee Hamilton High School Graduates6,509 (54.8%)3,829 (58.4%)9,568 (58.0%)5,507 (62.9%) 4 or More Years of College1,019 (8.6%)459 (7.0%)1,386 (8.4%)636 (7.3%) 19902000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau In summary, while there are some demographic and economic similarities between Hardee County and Hamilton County, there are also some significant differences. During the past decade, 1990-2000, Florida experienced a population growth rate of 22.8%. During the same time, Hardee County had a population growth rate of 37.8%, while Hamilton County recorded a population growth rate of 21.9%. Rural counties such as Hardee County and Hamilton County, as a result of their limited growth and other historical factors, do not have the fiscal capacity to make the necessary investments in infrastructure and services for their communities in order to support economic development.1 Only five of the 33 rural counties in Florida have values, such as per capita taxable value, that exceed the state average and all five of these counties generate most of their value from developed beach areas. Hardee County and Hamilton County are not one of these five. Furthermore, according to the same source only one rural county (Nassau) enjoys a level of per capita income that exceeds that of the state as a whole. From 1990 to 2000, the number of people who participate in the labor force decreased in Hardee County and Hamilton County. Hamilton County had the lowest rank out of all Florida counties in percentage change in labor force. Hardee County did slightly better by ranking 59th out of sixty-seven counties. In 1990, Hardee County was ranked 50th statewide in percentage of labor force employed. In 2000, Hardee County ranked 52nd statewide. In 1990, Hamilton County was ranked 60th statewide in percentage of labor force employed, while in 2000 ranked only 65th. According to the Florida Economic Development Council one of the greatest needs in the rural areas is the availability of appropriate jobs to maintain a viable economic base. The industry structures in Hardee County and Hamilton County are somewhat different. In Hardee County agriculture is the dominant industry division. On the other hand, in Hamilton County manufacturing is the dominant industry division. Government, as a division of the economy, was in second in size in both counties. The education attainment is similar in both counties. Hamilton County has a slightly higher high school graduation rate, while Hardee County has a slightly higher rate of people that completed four or more years of college. 1 Florida Economic Development Council, Rural Economic Development Needs and Opportunities 24th installment of Team Florida Economic Development Series 2003.

PAGE 12

12 Hardee County Demographics by Race Category In this section we expand our analysis of the demographic characteristics of Hardee County, Florida as previously reported in “Historical Profile for the Economy and Demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000.” Table 13 reports that 26,938 people made their residence in Hardee County during 2000. Whites comprised 54.6% of the county’s residents. Hispanics represented 35.7% of population, while blacks accounted for 8.0%. Table 13 Population by Race Category Race2000% of Total White14,70454.6% Black2,1658.0% Hispanic9,61135.7% Other4581.7% Total26,938 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 14 shows the age distribution for the population of Hardee County. In 2000, 27.6% of people living in Hardee County were under eighteen years, and 17.9% were over sixty years. The age group twenty-five to thirty-nine accounted for 21.8% of population. The age group forty to fifty-nine accounted for 21.7% of the population, while the age group eighteen to twenty-four represented 11.0% of the population. Table 14 Age Distribution Age2000% of Total Under 187,43527.6% 18-242,97411.0% 25-395,87321.8% 40-595,83921.7% 60 and over4,81717.9% Total26,938 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. People who identify their origin as Spanish, His p anic or Latino ma y be of an y race.

PAGE 13

13 Table 15 lists the median age for each race category in Hardee County. In 2000, Hispanics had a median age of 22.4 years, which was below the county’s average of 32.7 years. Whites had a median age of 37.3 years, and were on average the oldest group. Table 15 Median Age by Race Category Median Age2000 White 37.3 Black 32.6 Hispanic22.4 Total Population32.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 16 shows the number of households in Hardee County and the percentage of total households for each group. In 2000, white households predominated. Table 16 Households by Race Category Households2000% of Total White 5,58668.4% Black 5086.2% Hispanic1,96924.1% Total8,166 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 17 reports the average household size in Hardee County during 2000. The average household size for the county was 3.06 persons per household. However, when broken down be race, we find that household size is not uniformly distributed. Hispanic households have on average 4.67 persons, white households have on average 2.78 persons, and black households have on average 2.99. Table 17 Average household Size by Race Category Average Household Size2000 White2.78 Black 2.99 Hispanic4.67 Total3.06 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 18 depicts the number of occupied household units by tenure. Tenure refers to the distinction between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units. Furthermore, occupied units by tenure are broken down by race category. Whites comprise 79.3% of owner-occupied units, while only 20.7% of whites lived in renter-occupied units. The

PAGE 14

14 average for the Hardee County in 2000 was that 70.1% lived in owner occupied units, while 29.9% lived in renter occupied units. Hispanics had the highest rate of people living in renter occupied units or 42.7%, while 57.3% of Hispanics lived in owneroccupied units. Table 18 Occupied Units by Tenure Occupied Units by Tenure2000% of Total White Owner Occupied11,08179.3% Renter Occupied2,88520.7% Black O wner O ccup i e d 959 63 2% Renter Occupied55936.8% Hispanic Owner Occupied5,27657.3% Renter Occupied3,92442.7% Total O wner O ccup i e d 17 528 70 1% Renter Occupied7,49129.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 19 shows educational attainment levels for whites, blacks and Hispanics in Hardee County as of 2000. Almost 11% of white population had less than a 9th grade education. 12% of the black population had less than a 9th grade education. At the same time, almost 63% of the Hispanic population had less than a 9th grade education. Only 5.5% of Hispanics had some college, while 16.0% of black and 18.8% of whites obtained some college experience. Table 19 Educational Attainment Educational Attainment2000% of Total White Less than 9th Grade1,14710.8% Hi g h School De g ree3,93237.0% Some Colle g e1,99818.8% Bachelor's De g ree7457.0% Graduate or Professional De g ree4544.3% Black Less than 9th Grade19112.0% Hi g h School De g ree56535.6% Some Colle g e25416.0% Bachelor's De g ree935.9% Graduate or Professional De g ree50.3% Hispanic Less than 9th Grade2,62762.9% Hi g h School De g ree62615.0% Some Colle g e2305.5% Bachelor's De g ree411.0% Graduate or Professional De g ree160.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

PAGE 15

15 Commuting Patterns for Hardee County In 1990, mean travel time to work for Hardee County residents was 21.0 minutes. In 2000, mean travel time to work for Hardee County residents increased to 26.7 minutes. Table 20 depicts the number of people who live in Hardee County but commute to other counties to work. In 2000, there were 2,936 workers who leave Hardee County to work in another county. Of these county-to-county commuters, 39.5% work in Polk County, 15.8% work in Highlands County, 15.3% work in Manatee County, 11.8% work in DeSoto County, 5.9% work in Hillsborough County, and 11.5% work in other counties. (Other counties that have workers from Hardee County are: Sarasota, Collier, Orange, Osceola, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, Indian River, Okeechobee, Volusia, Santa Rosa, Duval, and Martin.) Table 20 Hardee County Commuting Out-Flow (Workers Age 16 or Older) ResidenceWorkplaceWorkers% of Total HardeePolk1,16139.5% HardeeHighlands46415.8% HardeeManatee45015.3% HardeeDe Soto34711.8% HardeeHillsborough1756.0% HardeeAll Other33911.5% Total Out2,936 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 21 depicts the number of people that commute into Hardee County, but are residents of another county. In 2000, Hardee County experienced an in-flow of 1,455 commuters. Most of these workers came from Polk County. Polk County accounted for 33.1% or 481 workers that had jobs in Hardee County. Highlands had 462 or 31.8% of the total of workers that commute to Hardee County each day. From DeSoto County, Manatee County and Hillsborough County, there were 178, 136 and 123 workers respectively that commuted to Hardee County Table 21 Hardee County Commuting In-Flow (Workers Age 16 or Older) ResidenceWorkplaceWorkers% of Total Polk Hardee48133.1% HighlandsHardee46231.8% De SotoHardee17812.2% ManateeHardee1369.3% HillsboroughHardee1238.5% All OtherHardee755.2% Total In1,455 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

PAGE 16

16 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 there were 6,798 people who worked and lived in Hardee County. Therefore, 2,936 residents of Hardee County who commute to other counties in order to work represent 30.2% of Hardee’s employed labor force. Also 1,455 residents of other counties that work in Hardee County represented 21.4% of the labor force employed and working in Hardee County.

PAGE 17

17 Trends in Agriculture and Minerals Extraction Table 22 depicts the number of residents of Hardee County per 100 acres of land for selected years. On average, there were 4.8 residents per 100 acres in 1988, 5.6 residents per 100 acres in 1995, and 6.4 residents per 100 acres in 1999. This trend indicates a steadily increasing population density in Hardee County. Table 22 Population Ratio Source: U.S. Census Bureau and CEDR estimation Table 23 reports agricultural and extraction land per 100 acres in Hardee County. Land used for the extraction of minerals increased more than three fold from 1.5 acres per 100 acres in 1988 to 5.6 acres per 100 acres in 1999. Over the same time period, land devoted to agricultural use declined from 56.0 acres per 100 acres in 1988 to 54.1 acres per 100 acres in 1999. Table 23 Land Use Ratio Source: U.S. Census Bureau and CEDR estimation Table 24 shows the number of workers who are employed in extraction (mining) and agriculture per 100 people living in Hardee County. The trend is a proportional decrease in the number of people employed in both extraction and agriculture. Table 24 Employment Ratio Source: U.S. Census Bureau and CEDR estimation Year 1988 1995 1999 Employed in Extraction 2.0 1.3 1.0 (Per 100 people in Hardee County) Employed in Agriculture 9.7 9.0 8.7 (Per 100 people in Hardee County) Year 1988 1995 1999 Extraction (per 100 acres) 1.5 2.6 5.6 Agriculture (per 100 acres) 56.0 55.7 54.1 Year 1988 1995 1999 Population (per 100 acres) 4.8 5.6 6.4

PAGE 18

18 In 1988, there were two workers employed in extraction for every 100 people living in Hardee County. In 1995, for every 100 people living in Hardee County, 1.3 workers were employed in extraction industry. In 1999, the ratio of workers employed in extraction industry decreased to 1.0 worker for every 100 people living in Hardee County. The data of Tables 23 and 24 indicate that there is a negative correlation between the number of acres used for extraction and number of workers per 100 residents employed for extraction. As the amount of extraction land use increased, the number of workers employed in extraction industry that work in Hardee County decreased. On the other hand, there appears to be a positive correlation between the number of acres used for agriculture and the number of workers employed in agricultural pursuits. However, the amount of land used for agriculture and the number of people working in agriculture is declining. In 1988, for every 100 people living in Hardee County, 9.7 were employed in agriculture. In 1995, for every 100 people living in Hardee County, 9.0 were employed in agriculture. In 1999, for every 100 people living in Hardee County, 8.7 were employed in agriculture. As the ratio of agricultural land use decreased, so did the ratio of workers employed in agricultural industry.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200325Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002027190
005 20090928180548.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 090903s2003 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00045
035
(OCoLC)435676799
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HC107.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Supplement to Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Center for Economic Development Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Economic Development Research,
2003.
300
1 online resource (18 p.)
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Sept. 3, 2009).
"May 2003."
580
"This addendum represents an additional analysis ... to supplement the 'Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000' and 'Land use in Hardee County' reports"--P. 3.
650
Economic surveys
z Florida
Hardee County.
Demographic surveys
Florida
Hardee County.
651
Hardee County (Fla.)
x Economic conditions.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
1 8 772
t Historical profile for the economy and demographics of Hardee County, 1990-2000.
d Tampa, Fla. : Center for Economic Development Research, 2003
w (OCoLC)430827749
Land use in Hardee County.
Tampa, Fla. : Center for Economic Development Research, 2003
(OCoLC)430828466
773
Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.45