Micropolitan Migration Trends, 2000-2014 Ages 25-44 Years Andy Blanke and Norman Walzer Presented to Community Development Society Annual Conference Lexington, KY July 21, 2015
Overview of Project Slow Growth or Long-Term Declines in Many Rural Counties Micropolitan Counties and Documented In-migration of Young Adults Cantrell and Winchester Great Plains Cromatrie, von Reichert, and Arthun Disadvantaged Counties High School Reunions Returning vs New In-migrants Regional Stimulus Factors Associated with In-migration v. Out-migration Sample Size, Location, etc. Hypotheses Policy Implications/Best Practices Geobic Region
Projected National Population Trends, 2015-2025 By Age Group 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% Metropolitan Counties Rural Counties Micropolitan Counties National, All Counties 38.2% 36.9% 33.2% 29.6% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.8% 5.1% 2.1% 0.0% 11.7% 10.9% 7.3% 5.3% 2.3% 0.8% -10.0% -5.9% -6.6% -9.3% -12.6% -5.0% -7.3% -20.0% Under 24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2015.
Why Study Micropolitan? Prior Research (Cromartie, et al, 2015; Oliver, 2014; Vias, 2012; Hyde, 2012). More Likely To Gain Population of Ages 25-44 In Next 10 Years. 82.7% Of Micropolitan Counties Projected to Gain Population - 2015-2025. 77.6% of Nonmetro, Nonmicro Counties Projected to Gain. Difference Significant at <1%. Can Micropolitan Be Source Of Growth In Surrounding Rural? RUPRI State Policy Panel Cordes and Fannin (Nebraska) Regionalism Working Group Remedies in Strictly Rural Areas Remedies Involving Micropolitan Areas Source: Woods & Poole Economics Inc., 2015.
Census Regions
Sample: 580/639 Micropolitan Counties
Net Migration Of Residents Ages 25-44 Micropolitan Counties, 2000-2010 Legend Source: Applied Population Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, 2013. http://netmigration.wisc.edu
Living Preferences of Young Adults (25 to 44 Years Old) Overall Education Levels and Opportunities in Area Amenities with Access to Entertainment and Shopping Experiences Quality of Life Housing, Services, Internet Access,. Professional Work Opportunities Entrepreneurial Focus Young Families with Children Family Ties
Variables By Census Region Variable Midwest Northeast South West 2000-2010 Net Migration Of Residents Ages 25-44, as % of Total Population -0.57% -1.23% 0.03% 2.26% 1990-2000 Total Employment Growth 21.91% 10.17% 19.57% 27.63% 2000 Average Wage 24,978 26,938 24,184 24,897. 2000 Proprietors as % of Total Employment 13.07% 11.33% 10.76% 13.34% 2000 Employment To Population Ratio (LFP) 40.51% 38.85% 36.33% 40.02% 2000 % Of Population With Bachelor's Degree or Higher 15.99 18.42 14.25 20.22 2003 Natural Amenities Scale -1.82-0.39 0.40 3.31 2000 % Of Housing Units Built After 1990 13.94 11.30 19.88 21.88 2000 Average Household Size 2.44 2.37 2.53 2.58 2000 Median Mortgage Payment As % Of MHI 2.08% 2.39% 2.40% 2.48% Distance To Nearest City With 2000 Population >50,000 (miles) 112 143 334 65 2002 Primary & Secondary Education Expenditures Per Capita $1,116.23 $891.36 $1,121.28 $1,239.90 2000 Median Household Income $36,674 $36,199 $30,458 $36,563
OLS Regression Results For Micropolitan Counties With Net In-Migration Dependent Variable Is 2000-2010 Net Migration of Residents Ages 25-44, as % of Total 2000 Population Variable Coefficient T-Value Standardized Coefficient (Constant) -5.12-1.64 % Of Housing Units Built After 1990 in 2000 0.15 7.05*** 0.41 Total Employment Growth, 1990-2000 0.03 3.91*** 0.21 2003 Natural Amenities Scale 0.24 3.07*** 0.18 % of Population With Bachelor's Degree Or Higher 0.08 3.16*** 0.18 Average Household Size 2.36 2.89*** 0.15 Proprietors as % of Total Employment 0.09 2.77*** 0.15 Distance To Nearest City With Population >50,000 0.001-0.33-0.01 Average Wage 0.001-0.81-0.04 Median Mortgage Payment Relative To Household Income -0.66-1.02-0.06 2002 Primary & Secondary Education Expenditures Per Capita 0.001-2.15** -0.10 Notes: Adj. R squared =.513, SEE = 2.06%, N = 242, F=29.19***, all variables have VIFs below 1.80. * p < 10%, ** p <5%, *** p < 1%.
OLS Regression Results For Micropolitan Counties With Net Out-Migration Dependent Variable Is 2000-2010 Net Out-Migration of Residents Ages 25-44, as % of Total Population Variable Coefficient T-Value Constant -1.77-0.57 Standardized Coefficient % of Population With Bachelor's Degree Or Higher 0.55 16.13*** 0.81 Average Household Size 2.95 2.83*** 0.14 2002 Primary & Secondary Education Expenditures Per Capita -.00009-0.02 0.00 Distance To Nearest City With Population >50,000 -.00001-0.27-0.01 % Of Housing Units Built After 1990 in 2000-0.01-0.37-0.02 Total Employment Growth 1990-2000 -0.02-1.31-0.07 Employment To Population Ratio (LFP) -0.07-3.05*** -0.16 Proprietors as % Of Total Employment -0.16-3.62*** -0.17 2003 Natural Amenities Scale -0.48-5.29*** -0.24 Median Household Income 0.0002-5.73*** -0.26 Notes: Adj. R squared =.480, SEE = 3.00%, N = 338, F=32.193***, all variables have VIFs below 1.730. * p < 10%, ** p <5%, *** p < 1%.
OLS Regression Results For Micropolitan Counties With Net Migration Dependent Variable Is 2000-2010 Net Migration of Residents Ages 25-44, as % of Total Population Variable Coefficient T-Value Constant 0.65 0.24 Standardized Coefficient % Of Housing Units Built After 1990 in 2000 0.19 7.31*** 0.27 2003 Natural Amenities Scale 0.61 7.07*** 0.25 Proprietors As % Of Total Employment 0.22 5.42*** 0.19 Total Employment Growth 1990-2000 0.05 4.99*** 0.18 Average Household Size 1.73 1.72* 0.06 Employment To Population Ratio 0.01.68 0.02 Distance To Nearest City With Population >50,000 <0.01.34 0.01 2002 Primary & Secondary Education Expenditures Per Capita <.001 -.63-0.02 % of Population Below Poverty Level -0.39-12.70*** -0.45 % of Population With Bachelor's Degree Or Higher -0.40-13.36*** -0.47 Notes: Adj. R squared =.494, SEE = 3.84%, N = 580, F=57.485***, all variables have VIFs below 1.610.* p < 10%, ** p <5%, *** p < 1%.
Practical Implications (In-Migrants) Important Education Levels in Community Matter Relatively New Housing is Important Amenities and Services Can Be Promoted Entrepreneurial Opportunities Should be Expanded Promote a Growing Economy and Employment Base Marketing Positively Less or Unimportant Wage Rates, Especially if Entrepreneurs Housing Costs Proximity to Larger Cities (>50,000)
Practical Implications (Out-migration) Tend to Leave Higher Education Levels Families With Young Remain High Income High Amenities More Proprietors/Entrepreneurs Higher Labor Force Participation
Gogebic Range, Iron County, WI and Ironwood, MI Replicated the Michigan Cool Cities Survey on 668 HS Jr/Srs. Surveyed 205 Incoming Community College Freshman, Ironwood, MI Formed 4 Work Groups focusing on ABCD approach Attract Young Workers Strengthen Our Niche Attract Young Workers Promote our Strengths Retain Young Workers Build Social Capital Retain Young Workers Better Connect Them With Community Surveyed Boomerangs, Broken Boomerangs, and Javelins
Iron County Multi-Disciplinary Components Horticulture Healthy Food Choices Engage in Farmers Markets More Connected to Local Producers Youth Development Participate in Leadership and Decision-making Responsibilities Understand Local Food Production and Impact on Community Community Development Adult Leaders Value Input from Youth More Effective Engagement Family Living More Focus on Healthy Lifestyles More Stress on Exercise and Eating Well Youth are More Engaged in Community Activities
Further Reading J. Cromartie, C. von Reichert, and R. Arthun. 2015. Factors Affecting Former Residents Returning to Rural Communities USDA Economic Research Report no. 185. A. Hyde. 2012. Immigration, Local Labor Markets, and Earnings Inequality in Micropolitan America downloaded at: http://digitalcommons.ucornn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=gs_theses. R. Oliver. 2014. Introduction: Thinking About Micropolitan America. Southeastern Geographer, 54(4): 346-347. B. Winchester. 2012. Continuing the Trend: The Brain Gain of the Newcomers. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Extension. B. Winchester. 2010. Regional Recruitment: Strategies to Attract and Retain Newcomers. Crookston, MN: The EDA Center at the University of Minnesota. Is This a Rural Brain Gain? A Cohort Examination of Migration in Nebraska. Cornhusker Economics. University of Nebraska. 2014. n.a.
For more Information: Contact Andy Blanke and Norman Walzer ablanke1@niu.edu nwalzer@niu.edu Center for Governmental Studies Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 www.cgsniu.org
Summary Of Independent Variables Variable Mean Std. Deviation 2000-2010 Net Migration Of Residents Ages 25-44, as % of Total Population -0.01% 5.4% 1990-2000 Total Employment Growth 20.84% 19.3% 2000 Average Wage $24,808 3,643 2000 Proprietors as % of Total Employment 12.07% 4.5% 2000 Employment To Population Ratio 38.68% 13.7% 2000 % Of Population With Bachelor's Degree Or Higher 16.06 6.49 2003 Natural Amenities Scale -17.50% 2.17 2000 % Of Housing Units Built After 1990 17.11 7.66 2000 Average Household Size 2.49 19.4% 2000 Median Mortgage Payment As % Of MHI Distance To Nearest City With 2000 Population >50,000 (miles) 2002 Primary & Secondary Education Expenditures Per 2.28% 0.3% 195 2,456 $1,116.97 363.66