
Census 2010 gave the detail behind what we’ve known for some time: America is becoming an increasingly diverse place. Not only has the number of minorities simply grown nationally, but the distribution of them among America’s cities has changed. Not all of the growth was evenly spread or did it occur only in traditional ethnic hubs or large, historically diverse cities.
To illustrate this, I created maps of U.S. metro areas showing their change in location quotient. Location quotient (LQ) measures the concentration of something in a local area relative to its concentration nationally. This is commonly used for identifying economic clusters, such as by comparing the percentage of employment in a particular industry locally vs. its overall national percentage. In a location quotient, a value of 1.0 indicates a concentration exactly equal to the US average, a value greater than 1.0 indicates a concentration greater than the US average, and a value less than 1.0 indicates a concentration less than the US average.
While commonly used for economic analysis, the math works for many other things. It can be useful to measure how the concentration of particular values changes over time relative to the national average. In this case, we will examine the change in LQ for various ethnic groups between the 2000 and 2010 censuses for metro areas. Those metro areas with a positive change in LQ grew more concentrated in that ethnic group compared to the US average over the last decade. Those with a negative change in LQ grew less concentrated compared to the nation as a whole, even if they grew total population in that ethnic group.
To increase concentration level requires growing at a faster percentage than the US as a whole. This is obviously easier for places that start from a low base than those with a high base. In this light, places that have traditionally been ethnic hubs – such as west coast metros for Asians – can grow less concentrated relative to the nation as a whole even if they continue to add a particular ethnic group. Asian population, for example, can grow strongly in California, but at a slower rate than the rest of the country. This is indeed the case as groups like Hispanics and Asians have been de-concentrating from the west coast, and now are showing up in material numbers even in the Heartland.
Black Population

Black Only Population, Change in Location Quotient 2000-2010
The change in Black concentration is particularly revealing. Much has been written about the so-called reversing of the Great Migration. But contrary to media reports, there is no clear monolithic move from North to South. Instead, we see that the outflow has been disproportionately from America’s large tier one metros like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. In contrast, Northern cities like Indianapolis, Columbus, and even Minneapolis-St. Paul (home to a large African immigrant community) grew Black population strongly, and actually increased their Black concentrations. Similarly, there were clearly preferred metro destinations in South for Blacks, like Atlanta and Charlotte. Many other Southern metros , particularly those along the Atlantic coast of Georgia and the Carolinas continued to lose their appeal to Blacks, relatively speaking.
Hispanic Population

Hispanic Population (of any race), Change in Location Quotient 2000-2010
Here we see de-concentration clearly in action. The Mexican border regions retained high Hispanic population counts, but they are no longer as dominant as in the past. Places like Nashville, Oklahoma City, and Charlotte particularly stand out for increasing Hispanic population percentage. Again, large traditionally diverse tier one cities like New York and Chicago show declines on this measure as smaller cities are now more in on the diversity game.
Asian Population

Asian Only Population, Change in Location Quotient 2000-2010
Again, we see here that America’s Asian population spread well beyond traditional west coast bastions. There were big increases in Asian population counts, with resulting LQ changes, in places like Atlanta, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and Boston. Even New York (which now has over one million Asian residents within the city limits alone) and Chicago showed gains among Asians.
Children (Population Under Age 18)
As a bonus, here is a look at LQ change for metro areas for people under the age of 18.

Children (Population Under Age 18), Change in Location Quotient 2000-2010
Here we see that metros along America’s northern tier now have relatively fewer children than a decade ago, while metros like Denver, Dallas, and Nashville had more. Clearly, some places are increasingly seen as better – and perhaps also more affordable – locations for child rearing than others. Perhaps unsurprisingly many of the out of favor locales are either expensive, have poor economic prospects, and/or are excessively cold. Not surprisingly, for example, Atlanta, Houston and Florida’s west coast have gained in this demographic while much of the Northeast, particularly upstate New York, have lost out.
The overall key is while there are certain broad themes that emerge from the recent Census, such as America’s increasing diversity or signs of a reversing of the Great Migration, we need to take a more fine grained view to see which places are in fact benefitting and being hurt by these trends. What we see here is that traditional large urban bastions of black population and ethnic diversity are no longer the only game in town. Smaller places in the interior and the South are now emerging as diversity magnets in their own right, as well as magnets for families with children. This is the collection of places to watch to look for the next set of great American cities to emerge.
Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile. Telestrian was used to analyze data and to create maps for this piece.
Note: The original version of this piece included incorrect charts for the Asian, Hispanic, and child measures.








Not one I've read one of
Not one I've read one of your articles, this is really interesting reading interests me. I have opened one by one article to find references to help my work. I am very interested in the articles you post on this website, may I make this article as a reference and then posted on my blog? Do not forget to visit my website. gw2 gold
Someone I work with visits
Someone I work with visits your blog regularly and recommended it to me to read also. Thank you for the great article I did enjoyed reading it, I will be sure to bookmark your blog and definitely will come back from again. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have a good day - http://www.comparelifeinsurancequotes.net
I always found some great
I always found some great information on this blog.It is very helpful blog to all of us.I really care for such info a lot.Thanks for sharing such an informatics post and Good luck - IME
Simple, solid, and contains.
Simple, solid, and contains. turbotax turbotax online discount wow so cool this article. Thanks for helping me.
non-Hispanic whites?
Aaron - why do you decline to include a map for the non-Hispanic white population. I think that would be pretty interesting to see.
Hmm. I have the data, it
Hmm. I have the data, it just didn't occur to me to create it. I should try taking a look.
Location Quotient
Your use of LQ for a measure of diversity is very interesting, although I'm not sure it is really measuring diversity, per se, or even changes in diversity. The nearest I can figure is that it is measuring where change in race/ethnicity is happening either more or less than at the national level. It does NOT tell us where diversity or change in diversity is greatest or least.
Also, a minor quibble, the article says that an LQ of 1 represents the same as the average of the United States for that variable, but the breakpoint in all your map legends appears to show "0" as the breakpoint. None of your LQs on the map is more than 1. In looking at your reference to the Wikipedia entry for LQ, it seems that they also use "0" to represent a greater concentration of the variable than the nation-wide average. So, not being an economist, but merely a geographer, I am confused about which is correct.
Thanks for your always thought-provoking posts and PLEASE stop using the Mercator projection for mapping your global data!
maantay, these maps are not
maantay, these maps are not raw LQ. They are the change in LQ between 2000 and 2010. A value greater than 0 means that the LQ went up, a value less than 0 means that it went down.
You are right about what LQ tells us. I don't claim these charts measure total diversity, but they do tell us something about which places are growing more concentrated in various ethnicities and age groups vs. the nation as a whole.
wonderfull
Thank you pertaining to giving this excellent content on your web-site. I discovered it on google. I may check back again if you publish extra articles.. - Hotel Semarang