Amazonas department in 1993 was 336 665 inhabitants and in 2007 375 993 inhabitants. That is, in the 14-year period the population grew 0.79% per annum which is below the national average.
This gives us an idea of \u200b\u200ba general flight of young people in the region over the period 1990 to 1980. If we consider that the guerrilla violence / terror of the 80's was not a great impact on the region, what could move the population to leave Amazon? Is poverty was more than violence? This will try to respond with stronger evidence.
But in this text we want to note the population dynamics within the region. While we know that overall growth has been low, we want to know how people behaved within the region, which will help us to note the market possibilities in the region.
The following table shows that despite the low overall growth has occurred internally compensation and decreasing population growth. While in 41 districts have registered negative growth rates, it has been shown that in 42 it has been positive.
One thing worth noting is likewise inter-negative rate is expressed in 15 of the 21 districts of the province capital Regional: Chachapoyas. However, in the intercensal period the province shows a 0.7% annual growth. That is, the regional capital province has grown by regional. But how do you explain this growth with the dog most districts negative rate?
One answer lies in the internal dynamics of the province. The districts that have shown population decline are those in 1993 was less than 2000 inhabitants. Thus the population growth of 2.3% in the district of Chachapoyas compensate for this drop in 15 districts. Another interesting
is Condorcanqui province. Unlike the other 6 provinces, this is has the highest population growth rate between censuses: 2.53% per annum. James River District shows a 3.2%, the highest rate in the region.
If the above table we group the northern provinces (Bagua, Condorcanqui, Utcubamba), you'll see that only four districts showed declining trend, while 11 rose. The southern provinces yet together show that 37 districts fell and 31 rose. But if we look at growth rates in the southern provinces as a whole (0.91%) grew faster than those in the north (0.71%) annually.
show the following table where a process of concentration is weak domestically. While the number of smaller districts - as measured in population - have increased, large districts - the population - also increase, to the detriment of both districts average population. However, this process is weak and will have to see the reasons for it.
Finally, then, apparently the population dynamics - in terms of population flow in the territorial space - should be analyzed in a different way which is based on provincial and district boundaries. Still can not find a convincing scheme to interpret the changes of the numbers in terms of population flow. Surely there are strong reasons in the movement, and directionality to appear weaker than it must also exist. See more
