Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Notes from the W1001 Meeting held at the Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC, September 22-23, 2006. Roger Hammer called the meeting to order at 9am; he welcomed our newest member, Sean Golding, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin. Annual reports should be emailed to Roger; include only publications of whatever type; any doubts, include it. Include everything from the 10/1/05 through 9/30/06. Also include any group accomplishments directly related to W1001, including accepted grant proposals. Linda Fox Linda described CREATE21, the current initiative coming from station and experiment directors to focus on capacity-development funding. This would be a new model within USDA's funding of programs that would double the funding for rural and related programs currently funded by CSREES. There is a lot of energy around this discussion, but it would require changing language in current Farm Bill which is a complicated process. This has overwhelming support from the university administrative committees that have reviewed it. This initiative would expand funding, not take funding from other programs, and it would cover a wide variety of activities. It's important for this group to know about this and members can get more information from the website: www.CREATE-21.org If approved, it would start October 2007. It's essentially pooling all the research funding across all the land grants and other funding recipients and increasing the competitive funding levels as well; ERS would also be included in this. This is also a response by land grant universities to concerns about Federal appropriation of research funding power at several Federal agencies and the overall review of all research programs by Undersecretary Buchanan. OUR PROPOSAL: This group's funding is over at the end of next year. We have one more meeting included in our current funding. If we want to consider extension, we have to review our proposal and see if anything hasn't been accomplished that could not be by the end of our funding period. Extensions are not encouraged. January 15 or May 15 are the due dates for new proposals, this is a multi-state project but it happens to be assigned to the Western region. The advantage of the 1/15 deadline is that we can receive feedback from peer reviewers which we can then use to revise our proposal and resubmit to improve our chances by the 5/15 deadline. If we chose only 5/15, we receive no feedback, just an up or down vote, and if not approved, we will have to wait until the following year. If we were not approved or if we missed the deadline, we would have a year without funding, and our 2008 year meeting would have to be held in October 2008. David Brown asked about whether our unfunded status, were it to occur, could be converted to a Coordinating Committee status. This is what we were before W1001 was formed and which offers some degree of funding but which has a different focus (sharing of ideas rather than necessarily working on joint products). State experiment stations however are less likely to fund travel or activities for Coordinating Committee members. Hence the reiteration of our plea: MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET YOUR LIST OF PUBLICATIONS TO ROGER HAMMER ASAP. This is critical because it documents that we have been productive people for those considering our funding proposals. Pat Hipple, CSREES Pat has a new assignment, she is no longer in competitive programs, now she is a national program leader for a bio-based research program. Research focus is on the human dimension of shifting to this kind of new rural economy. Suresh Warn is replacing Pat. He is currently been with the Small Business Initiative and will include Pat's portfolio in his new responsibilities. One of the advantages of his having a full plate is that he is now more likely to move the due date for the proposals forward significantly. That would give more time between funding announcements and proposal due dates, and it would encourage more well thought out proposals. The shift to every-other-year deadlines has produced more robust proposals funded at higher levels with more PI's and institutions. Most proposals, if approved, are fully funded. Note that human dimensions and social science dimensions of research funding at NRI is being spread to other NRI groups, so look these over when considering your grants. NRI is also including people in those panels who are able to evaluate them. Focus of programs funded has been narrowed significantly. This year for Rural Development, NRI received 58 proposals compared to 82 last year. David asked about how Suresh makes his decisions and gets up to speed on what's critical to fund. There is a concern that no one with expertise on what is critical for rural America is providing input for what should be funded. Could we be a voice? Yes, we could form a committee and have a meeting with Suresh. That would be useful and effective according to Pat. However, don't underestimate the SCOP advisory committee that gets lots of input from all kinds of sources. They are shrewd about getting visibility for the social sciences, but they are also aware of the struggle that the social sciences have for getting funding within NRI. Pat has felt this same level of frustration with the social sciences. Pat stresses that we get familiar with the new USDA 5-year Strategic Plan which includes the five year missions of all the USDA agencies, including the REE mission area and the CSREES strategic plan, both for 2007-2012. If you can link your proposals back to the Strategic Plans and show them how your proposal will help them achieve their strategic goals, it will receive more attention, and you will make it easier for USDA to be able to summarize at year end their own performance goals. You can find the strategic plan on the USDA website. Do a search on words related to your topic because it's a dense document. Focus on Goal #2 this year, Goal #3 next year. Issue Briefs They've been sent out to the four Rural Regional Development Centers, and the response has been very favorable. Five went out, produced by Glasgow and Brown, Kandel and Parrado, Pfeffer et al., Kirschner et al., and Johnson and Rathge. These issue briefs can also accompany communications that encourage funding for certain types of research activities. We need a second wave of these now. New volunteers: Marlene, Roger, Latzi, and Matt, Pete and Alex. We also need to send these to Linda to get these on the NIMS website. We're not sure who is responsible for the W1001 website. NACO would also be interested in looking at the issue briefs. Discussion of Rural Aging activities

This stems from David and Nina's experience in England where there is a good deal of interest in this topic. The Ageing Countryside is a book length (150 pages total?) policy-oriented and mostly descriptive analysis that seems like a model for what we could produce. AARP folks are not joining us at the W1001 meeting. They may very well be interested but they have more formal channels for soliciting funding and support. Also, Dan Lichter suggested that the Bronfenbrenner Lifecourse Center at Cornell might contribute resources toward this effort. There are two issues here: could we produce a monograph, similar to TAC and put together a large national conference or public event to launch it? The idea is that it would be co-sponsered by AARP and W1001 and perhaps Cornell. The second issue is whether this is something that W1001 committee members would be interested in working on? We would want to get something out soon, not in three years but more like one or two years. Doing this would help us finish up with our current proposal agenda and would also help us to think about ideas for the upcoming proposal. Discussion ensued on what kind of monograph we might produce. It wouldn't replicate the content of TAC because of the different contexts of rural in both countries. Not everyone from W1001 would contribute, and others outside W1001 might be invited. It wouldn't necessarily require new and original research unless there are serious holes. The group formally voted to let David and Nina take the lead on this and move forward on the (relatively) short term objective of getting a book together and a conference launch event. This is distinct from developing our research agenda for the next five years. GIS training

Several people expressed an interest in receiving some GIS training at the basic and more conceptually oriented level. Middlebury has a one-day seminar like this that helps people think about asking questions that can be answered using GIS. We also have people within the group who could offer this training. We'd probably have it at the W1001 meeting, and we'd probably have to shorten the conference to one day. Pre-planning and prep could save time. GIS would be helpful for helping us address our research agenda in aging, race and ethnicity, and population and natural resources. Peter will help us figure out what training we might be interested in by sending out some information on the GIS courses offered by the people at Middlebury. Linda encouraged us to put some of this information in our next proposal. Peter Nelson will pursue this idea and see what options we could have for a day-long workshop. List serve pointer

Don't worry about attachments bouncing back; as soon as Eddy gets to the email, she will be able to pass it on to the rest of us. Don't panic. Discussion of New W1001 Proposal

David suggested writing a proposal that both re-authorizes funding for the group activities and could be used to apply for NRI funding. If we applied for $500k, that's real money, and the timing is also good between the two projects. And we could insert more than one proposal. We are moving from the current project that is fairly general in scope to one that should be more focused. The best strategy is to distill the new proposal from the previous one, show the logical evolution from our main findings toward three themes: aging, diversity, and environment. Last time around, the chair wrote the proposal after notes and ideas were collected from the group. This time, Roger will work with Alex Vias to write proposal based on detailed input from groups representing the three selected subject areas. Before breaking into subject-area groups, the committee discussed several questions. 1. Do we begin with a common, overarching theme, and, if so, what is it? Migration? Changing population composition? Inequality? It will be important to not get too complex; keep the proposal flexible; narrowing in on one theme, such as inequality, may be too confining. Pat suggested focusing on the question: How do demographic trends affect rural areas ability to prosper? So, for example, diversity is an important subject in figuring out rural capacity to prosper;

2. Are the changes we focus on affecting rural areas in unique ways? If so, should urban-rural differentials be emphasized? This can be tricky to incorporate, but we should always be asking: Does rurality make a difference?

3. Should we keep the name of the committee? Should we add a subtitle? There are advantages to continuity, especially for a group such as ours that serves as a model for others. The goal for the first break-out session is for each group to hash out 4 or 5 key topics within the subject area. The second break-out session on Saturday will then identify committee objectives for the topics. The end result will be 2-3 pages that could be turned over to Alex and Roger for drafting the Objectives section of the proposal. The committee decided that next year's meeting will be in Corvallis, Oregon, Sept. 21-22, 2007; the rest of the afternoon was spent in the first break-out session. Saturday, September 23 Each group reported on a set of topic areas discussed the previous day: Aging:

1. How new elderly alter the rural landscape; socioeconmoc, demographic civic

2. Re-theorizing migration spatially/temporally

3. life-course changes connected to migration

4. role of spatial scale; networks and spillovers

5. role of colleges and univ. in attaching people to rural and small town places

6. role of big capital, real estate in determining migration

Diversity:

1. working-poor families and strengthening economic well-being

2. poverty, policy, and minorities; migration differences by race

3. immigration and latino integration

4. concentrated poverty; duration of poverty; urban - rural differentials

5. comparative economic strategies among rural poor

6. spatial segregation

7. migration and disability

Land use:

1. rural landscape transformations; migration/land-use interactions

2. environmental attitudes of migrants

3. regional differences in land-use controls; role in maintainting rural well being

4. impacts of pop growth on land and water quality

5. environmental impacts of commuting / spatial mismatch

6. wildland / urban interface

7. national park impacts

8. loss of farmland

9. land-use conflicts among rural groups

10. environmental justice

The rest of the meeting time was spent in the second break-out session. Each group began the process of formulating specific objectives. In addition, the groups agreed to draft paragraphs on related current and previous work, justification, impacts, and outputs. The meeting adjourned at 11:47. Respectfully submitted, John Cromartie & with the generous assistance of William Kandel

This is the fourth year of W1001, and, thus time to begin summarizing the accomplishments of the project. W1001 set out to:

1. produce a series of issue-briefs that would be posted on Internet sites

2. numerous peer-reviewed journal articles

3. a book-length monograph

4. ensure that potential users of the information, identified in the research design phase, would be actively involved in the interpretation and dissemination of our findings

5. develop summary materials workshops that prepare stakeholders to

a. understand basic demographic processes,

b. better identify their own data needs and sources,

c. interpret data in multiple ways, and assess implications for action in their own contexts

As of 2006, the series of issue-briefs has been posted to the Rural Development Center websites, and the WAAESD site. The effect of publishing the policy briefs on the Web has been to accomplish the fourth and fifth objectives listed above. That is, as a result of the widespread use of the Web, a number of unanticipated sites, including several university coursework links (Montana, Maryland); policy organizations; a national association for small hospitals website; sites that collect and disseminate information on rural areas, Hispanics, aging, rural change. have picked up the policy briefs; and the briefs have led to dissemination in health related venues in Utah, New York, and elsewhere where they have been utilized by stakeholders understand demographic processes, identify and interpret needs.

Regarding item 2, numerous peer-reviewed journal articles have appeared, as documented by the extensive publication list. In re item 3, the monograph, W. Kandel and D.L. Brown, eds., Population Change in Rural Society in the 21st Century, Springer, appeared at the beginning of 2006.

Batson, Christie, Zhenchao Qian, and Daniel T. Lichter. 2006. Interracial and Intraracial Patterns of Mate Selection among America,s Diverse Black Populations. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:658-672. Berry, E. Helen. 2006. Rural Utah Ain't What it Used to Be, (Chapter 19) in Cathleen Zick and Ken Smith (ed.), The Demographics of Utah. University of Utah Press. Brown, David L. 2005. Post-Socialist Transformation at the Rural Periphery. Pp. 67-74 in Mieczyslaw Adamowicz (ed.), Agrarian Issues in Poland and the World. Warsaw: Warsaw Agricultural University Press. Brown, David and William Kandel. 2006. Rural America Through a Demographic Lens, in W. Kandel and D. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht: Springer. Brown, David L. and William Kandel. 2006. Rural America through a Sociodemographic Lens, Pp. 3-24 in William Kandel and David L. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht: Springer. Brown, David L. Laszlo J. Kulcsar, Laszlo Kulcsar, and Csilla Obadocics. 2005. Post- Socialist Restructuring and Population Redistribution in Hungary. Rural Sociology 70(3): 336-359. Brown, J. Brian and Daniel T. Lichter. 2006. Childhood Disadvantage, Adolescent Development, and Prosocial Behavior in Early Adulthood. Advances in Life. Crowley, Martha L., Daniel T. Lichter, and Zhenchao Qian. 2006. Beyond Gateway Cities: Economic Restructuring and Poverty among Mexican Immigrant Families and Children. Family Relations. 55:345-360. Glasgow, Nina and David L. Brown. 2006. Social Integration among Older In-Migrants in Nonmetropolitan Retirement Destination Counties: Establishing New Ties. Pp. 177-196 in William Kandel and David L. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht: Springer. Glasgow, Nina and David L. Brown. 2006. Social Integration among Older Nonmetropolitan In-Migrants. Research and Policy Brief. Cornell University: Rural New York Initiative. Glasgow, Nina and David L. Brown. 2006. Social Integration among Older Nonmetropolitan In-migrants. Published on the Web sites of the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development and the Southern Rural Development Center in the Issue Briefs Series: Population Change and Rural Society. Graefe, Deborah Rompke Graefe, and Daniel T. Lichter. 2006. When Unwed Mothers Marry: The Marital and Cohabiting Partners of Mid-Life Women. Journal of Family Issues, forthcoming. Hawbaker, Todd J., Volker C. Radeloff, Murray K. Clayton, Roger B. Hammer, and Charlotte E. Gonzalez-Abraham. 2006. Road Development, Housing Growth, and Landscape Fragmentation in Northern Wisconsin: 1937-1999. Ecological Applications. 16(3):1222-1237. Johnson, Kenneth M. 2006. Demographic Trends in Rural and Small Town America. Reports on America 1(1):1-35. Carsey Foundation, University of New Hampshire. Johnson, Kenneth M. and Richard W. Rathge. 2006. Agriculture Dependence and Changing Population in the Great Plains. Pp. 197-217 in W. Kandel and D.L. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht: Springer. Johnson. Kenneth M. and John B. Cromartie. 2006. The Rural Rebound and Its Aftermath: Changing Demographic Dynamics and Regional Contrasts. Pp. 25-49 in W. Kandel and D.L. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Johnson, Kenneth M. and Susan I. Stewart. 2006. Demographic Trends in National Forest, Recreational, Retirement and Amenity Areas. In Linda Kruger, (ed.), Proceedings, Recreation Research and Management Workshop. General Technical Report PNW-xxx. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Research, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Forthcoming. Kandel, William and David Brown (eds.). 2006. Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Kandel, William and Emilio Parrado. 2006. Hispanic Population Growth, Age Composition Shifts, and Public Policy Impacts in Nonmetro Counties, in W. Kandel and D. Brown (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Dordrecht: Springer. Kandel, William, and Emilio Parrado. 2006. Hispanic Population Growth and Public School Response in Two New South Immigrant Destinations, in H. Smith and O. Furuseth (eds.), The New South: Latinos and the Transformation of Place. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Kandel, William and Emilio Parrado. 2006. Public Policy Impacts of Rural Hispanic Population Growth. Issue Brief, published in conjunction with the W1001 Multistate Research Project on Population Change in Rural Communities. Posted on websites of USDA's Rural Regional Development Centers. Kandel, William. 2006. Book review essay. New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States; Apple Pie & Enchiladas: Latino Newcomers in the Rural Midwest; The American South in a Global World. International Migration Review 40(2):465-468. Kandel, William. 2006. Rural meat Processing Industry Draws Hispanic Workers. Amber Waves 4(3):11-15. Republished as Meat-processing Firms Attract Hispanic Workers to Rural US in Meat International, 16(7):2-5. Kandel, William and Emilio Parrado. 2005. Industrial Transformation and Hispanic Migration to the American South: The case of the Poultry Industry. Republished in, Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity. New York: McGraw Hill. Kandel, William. 2005. Book review. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the Heartland. International Migration Review. 39(2):516. Kandel, William. 2005. Rural Hispanics at a Glance. Economic Research Service, USDA. Kirschner, Annabel, E. Helen Berry, and Nina Glasgow. 2006. The Changing Demographic Profile of Rural America. Published on the Web sites of the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development and the Southern Rural Development Center in the Issue Briefs Series: Population Change and Rural Society. Kirschner, Annabel., E. Helen Berry, and N. Glasgow. 2006. Population Composition: Age, Sex and Race, (chapter 4), in William Kandel and David Brown, (eds.), The Population of Rural America: Demographic Research for a New Century. Kluwer. Kulcsár, László J. and Benjamin C. Bolender. 2006. Home on the Range: Aging in Place in Rural Kansas. Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy, Issue 2006. Lichter, Daniel T. 2006. Family Structure and Poverty. Encyclopedia of Sociology, George Ritzer (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ldt. Lichter, Daniel T. and Kenneth M. Johnson. 2006. Emerging Rural Settlement Patterns and the Geographic Redistribution of America's New Immigrants. Rural Sociology. 71:109-131. Lichter, Daniel T., Zhenchao Qian, and Leanna Mellott. 2006. Marriage or Dissolution? Union Transitions among Low Income Women. Demography 43:223-240. Luo, Hua and Dudley L. Poston, Jr. 2006. Chusheng Xingbiebi de Shehui JuedingYinsu: dui 2000 Nian Zhongguo Zuida de 36 Ge Shaoshu Minzu de Fenxi,(Social and Economic Determinants of the Sex Ratio at Birth: 36 Largest Chinese Minority Nationalities). Renkou Yanjiu, (Population Research) 29 (#6): 56-61. Mulligan, G. and Alex Vias. 2006. Growth and Change in U.S. Micropolitan Areas. Annals of Regional Science, 45(1):21-48. Nelson, Peter. 2006. Geographic Perspectives on Amenity Migration Across the USA: National, Regional and Local Scale Analysis. The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures. L.Moss (ed.). CABI Publishing, Cambridge, pp 55-73. Nelson, Peter. 2005. Migration and the Spatial Redistribution of Nonearnings Income in the United States: Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Perspectives from 1975-2000. Environment and Planning A. 37.1613-1636. Poston, Dudley L., Jr., Che-Fu Lee, Chiung-Fang Chang, Sherry L. McKibben, and Carol S. Walther (eds.). 2006. Fertility, Family Planning, and Population Policy in China. London, England: Routledge Publishers. Poston, Dudley L., Jr., Chiung-Fang Chang, and Hong Dan. 2006. Fertility Differences Between the Majority and Minority Nationalities in China. Population Research and Policy Review. 26:67-101 Poston, Dudley L., Jr., Amanda K. Baumle, and Michael Micklin. 2006. Demography. In Handbook of 21st Century Sociology. Dennis L. Peck and Clifton D. Bryant (eds.). New York: Sage. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. 2006. John Graunt. P. 254 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. 2006. Malthus. Pp. 347-348 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. 2006. Demography. Pp. 128-130 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. and Heather K.M. Terrell. 2006. Fertilility. Pp. 210-203 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr., Mary Ann Davis, and Chris Lewinski. 2006. Mortality. Pp. 403-405 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr., Hua Luo, and Li Zhang. 2006. Migration. Pp. 384-386 in The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, Bryan Turner (ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. and Carol S. Walther. 2006. Prologue. Pp. 1-7 in Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Che-Fu Lee, Chiung-Fang Chang, Sherry L. McKibben, and Carol S. Walther (eds.). Fertility, Family Planning, and Population Policy in China. London, England: Routledge Publishers. Poston, Dudley L., Jr. and Karen S. Glover. 2006. China's Demographic Destiny: Marriage Market Implications for the Twenty-first Century. Chapter 12 (pp. 172-186) in Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Che-Fu Lee, Chiung-Fang Chang, Sherry L. McKibben, and Carol S. Walther (eds.). Fertility, Family Planning, and Population Policy in China. London, England: Routledge Publishers. Rathge, Richard W. 2005. The Changing Profile of the Great Plains. Great Plains Sociologist 17(2):82-99. Rathge, Richard W. 2006. The Economic Impact of the Senior Population on a State's Economy: The Case of North Dakota. North Dakota State Data Center, North Dakota State University, Fargo: North Dakota. Rudzitis, Gundars. 2006. The Role Of Wilderness and Public Land Amenities in Explaining Migration and Rural Development In The American West, in Gary Paul Green, Steven C. Deller and David W. Marcouiller, (eds.) Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods And Public Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northhampton, MA, pp. 113-128. (with Christy Dearien and John Hintz). Rudzitis, Gundars. 2006. Gaming, Population Change, And Rural Development On Indian Reservations: An Idaho Case Study, in William A. Kandel and David L. Brown, (eds.), Population Change and Rural Society, Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 219-232. Rudzitis, Gundars. 2006. Indigenous Indian Populations, Racist Discources And Ongoing Conflicts In The American Northwest, in Pierre Lagayette, (ed.), Exchange: Practices And Representations, Paris, University of Paris Press, pp. 171-196. Stedman, Richard C. and Roger B. Hammer. 2006. Environmental perception in a rapidly growing, amenity-rich region: The effects of lakeshore development on perceived water quality in Vilas County, Wisconsin. Society and Natural Resources 19(2):137-151. Stewart, Susan I. and Kenneth M. Johnson. 2006. Balancing Leisure and Work: Evidence from the Seasonal Home, in Rudy Shuster (ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-xxx, Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service Research, Northeastern Research Station. Forthcoming. Van Auken, Paul M., Roger B. Hammer, Paul R. Voss, and Daniel L. Veroff. 2006. The American Community Survey in Counties with "Seasonal" Populations. Population Research and Policy Review. 25(3):275-292. Vias, A. C and Carruthers. J. 2005. Regional Development and Land Use Change in the Rocky Mountain West, 1982-1997. Growth and Change. 36(2): 246-274. Voss, Paul R., David D. Long, Roger B. Hammer, and Samantha Friedman. 2006. Child Poverty Rates in the U.S.: A Spatial Regression Approach. Population Research and Policy Review. 25(4):369-391. Xiuhong You and Dudley L. Poston, Jr. 2006. The Effect of Floating Migration on Fertility, Chapter 9 (pp. 127-144), in Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Che-Fu Lee, Chiung-Fang Chang, Sherry L. McKibben, and Carol S. Walther (eds.), Fertility, Family Planning, and Population Policy in China. London, England: Routledge Publishers. Book Reviews Berry, E. Helen, 2006. Diamond: A Struggle for Environmental Justice in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor by Steve Lerner in Rural Sociology vol. 71 (1). Vias, A. C. and Nelson, P. 2006. Restructuring, Globalization, and Altered Livelihoods, Chapter 4 in Population Change and Rural Society. Eds. Kandell, W. and Brown, D. Dordrect: Springer. Pages 75-102. Presentations Brooks, W. Trevor, Michael B. Toney, and E. Helen Berry, 2006. Occupational Aspirations and Migration: A Comparison of Rural Youth with High, Medium, and Low Occupational Aspirations and Their Chances for Migration. Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society of America, Louisville, KY. Beth A. Wilson, E. Helen Berry, Michael B. Toney, Cromartie, John B., 2006. Propensities for Return Migration of Racial/Ethnic Groups to Non-Metropolitan Places. Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society of America, Louisville, KY. Wilson, Beth A., Michael B. Toney, E. Helen Berry, 2006. Onward Migration: Blacks, Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites, Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Los Angeles. Vias, A. C., December, 2005. Growth and Change in Micropolitan Areas. At the USDA W-1001 Meeting on Rural Population Change - Las Vegas, NV. March, 2006, Vias, A. C. Characteristics of Opportunity and Vulnerability in America's Micropolitan Areas, at the Association of American Geographers Meeting - Chicago, IL.