|
|
As noted earlier, western states face a rapidly-increasing population and limited land available for development.A common frustration of local western politicians is the lack of available land to expand municipalities. This complaint is not supported by this criterion. This measure shows the population density in persons/nonfederal acre in an attempt to quantify the true constraints faced by state governments.
One would expect to see much higher population densities when the proportion of federal lands is controlled for in calculation. With the notable exception of California, no western states rank in the top 50% of states when analyzed by this measure.
This measure is not meant to belittle the very real spatial constraints in the western states. Too often, analyses fail to account for land beyond the control of local governments when analyzing spatial constraints. The table on the right is provided to show the contrast between population density measured simply as a function of surface area. Note that Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and New Mexico fall from the third quartile (25%-50%) to the forth quartile when state surface area is not normalized by the proportion of land within a state owned and controlled by the federal government.
Several confounds affect this criterion beyond my control, however. The most notable of these is the existence of very large tracts of privately-held land used for ranching or mineral development. Also, public lands held by the state are not included.
|
