LTBB Master Land Use Plan - Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa ...

As can be seen most clearly in the graph, for the reservation area as a whole, approximately 89%
of all persons older than 18 have a High School diploma or more education. The pattern within the
area municipalities is also interesting to observe. Those areas growing most quickly are likely to have
a higher percentage of residents that are better educated. Not necessarily the highest percentage of
all areas, but high nonetheless. Likewise, those areas most rural and sparsely populated, such Bliss
Township, are likely to have lower educational attainment overall, compared to the rest of the area.
Note that, in no case does the percentage of those with a Bachelors Degree or greater fall below
approximately 15%, a respectable figure.
This information has implications similar to the age distribution of the population. It is not
necessarily that those persons of higher or lower education require more or less in the way of
municipal services. Instead, it has been shown that the difference is much more in kind that in
degree. Again, this speaks to the ability of local, regional, and Tribal governmental officials to plan
for the right mix of services and level of service, in the right geographic location.
Persons per Household and Average Family Size
Two closely linked, yet different numbers, are Persons Per Household, and Average Family Size.
The next table and graph pair (Table 4 and Graph 3) depict each of these figures from 2000 Census
data, for the MCD’s in the LTBB Reservation area. The key difference between the two is that
Average Family Size is only computed using households that identify themselves as having a family
present. Persons Per Household uses all persons, and all households, to come up with a result.
In addition, as stated previously, the number of persons per household, and persons per family,
is another key indicator of economic direction and development capability. From the table, we can
see that, as a rule, there are more households than families, and thus the population in households is
greater. If we examine only families, as can be seen in the graph, we can see that there is
considerable variation in the number of persons per family. Although from the table one could
come away with the conclusion that the average is roughly 3 persons per family, the geographic
variability of this figure may be closely linked to the average age figure discussed earlier.
From a land use perspective, shrinking family size, and likewise shrinking household size, is an
extension of a decades-old trend. Fewer persons per household means more individual households
for a given population level, which means more land taken up in dwelling units. The increase in the
number of dwelling units, increasing size of dwelling units, and the generally large area taken up for
each unit in rural areas then results in a quadrupling of the land needed for residential development
in come cases.
Another factor contributing to this trend is the lower birth rate trend. As couples wait longer
and longer to marry, the teen birth rate is declining, and the numbers of children produced are all
going down. This mirrors the national and statewide trend as well.
From the perspective of Tribal development, these factors are important in several ways. First,
although in general Tribal household sized are still larger than average, the trends are difficult to
ignore. This will mean increased demand for things such as elder housing in the future, as well as
larger number of acres needed for single family housing. Secondly however, the ratio of households
to families may indicate something about the nature of the population in a given area, and taken with
other factors, is used to predict such things as the need for apartments versus single-family homes
for instance.
12