ArticlePDF Available

A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration and Hispanic Population Growth in Rural America


Abstract and Figures

Can immigration save rural and small town America? Our goal is to highlight the new racial dynamics of population change in nonmetropolitan areas, where slowing population growth rates since 1990 eventuated in widespread depopulation during the post-2010 period. We use 3141 counties as the unit of analysis, tracking population change data over the 1990 to 2017 period. Our results, based on decennial census counts and population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, show that Hispanic population growth has been spatially ubiquitous, occurring in both declining and growing nonmetropolitan counties. Hispanic growth has slowed but not reversed chronic declines in rural population. Significantly, the growth of Latinos benefited a majority of historically depopulating or declining nonmetropolitan counties as well as nonmetropolitan counties that have continued to grow. Our analyses also reveal substantial heterogeneity in patterns of population change in nonmetropolitan America. Latino population growth often makes the difference between overall county population growth and decline. Nearly 200 nonmetropolitan counties grew during the 2010–2017 period, but only because Hispanic population increases offset non-Hispanic population declines. For these counties, which account for about 10 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties, Latinos clearly provided a demographic lifeline. Hispanics population gains were usually insufficient to reverse population declines in historically depopulating counties but nevertheless slowed the pace of decline. Hispanic growth was greatest in counties where the population was growing, resulting in a demographic multiplier effect.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Population Research and Policy Review
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic
Population Growth inRural America
DanielT.Lichter1 · KennethM.Johnson2
Received: 21 December 2019 / Accepted: 23 August 2020
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Can immigration save rural and small town America? Our goal is to highlight the
new racial dynamics of population change in nonmetropolitan areas, where slowing
population growth rates since 1990 eventuated in widespread depopulation during
the post-2010 period. We use 3141 counties as the unit of analysis, tracking popula-
tion change data over the 1990 to 2017 period. Our results, based on decennial cen-
sus counts and population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, show that His-
panic population growth has been spatially ubiquitous, occurring in both declining
and growing nonmetropolitan counties. Hispanic growth has slowed but not reversed
chronic declines in rural population. Significantly, the growth of Latinos benefited
a majority of historically depopulating or declining nonmetropolitan counties as
well as nonmetropolitan counties that have continued to grow. Our analyses also
reveal substantial heterogeneity in patterns of population change in nonmetropoli-
tan America. Latino population growth often makes the difference between overall
county population growth and decline. Nearly 200 nonmetropolitan counties grew
during the 2010–2017 period, but only because Hispanic population increases off-
set non-Hispanic population declines. For these counties, which account for about
10 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties, Latinos clearly provided a demographic
lifeline. Hispanics population gains were usually insufficient to reverse population
declines in historically depopulating counties but nevertheless slowed the pace of
decline. Hispanic growth was greatest in counties where the population was grow-
ing, resulting in a demographic multiplier effect.
Keywords Population growth· Immigration· Nonmetropolitan· Migration·
Depopulation· Rural· census
Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the conference of the European Society for Rural
Sociology, Trondheim, Norway, June 25-28, 2019, and at the annual meetings of the Rural
Sociological Society, Richmond, VA, August 7-10, 2019. The authors acknowledge the helpful
comments of the co-editors and the external reviewers.
* Daniel T. Lichter
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
Absolute population decline—depopulation—has become a demographic reality in
many parts of nonmetropolitan America over the last century (Johnson and Lichter
2019). Indeed, for over 24 percent of all U.S. counties, population size peaked in
1950 or earlier. The prospect of depopulation looms large for many more rapidly
aging rural counties “left behind” by an increasingly urban settlement system and
shifts away from farming and other extractive industries, including timber and min-
ing. Chronic rural outmigration of young adults—those of reproductive ages—has
drained the demographic resilience from many rural communities, while fueling
urban growth and metropolitan expansion. The decline of America’s rural areas is
symptomatic of fundamental shifts in the economy which are expressed in changing
population structure, especially low fertility and population aging, which ultimately
reduce community wellbeing and the prospect of population growth and a sustain-
able future (Johnson and Lichter 2008; Peters 2019).
Ironically, rural America is at the same time being transformed by unprecedented
rural in-migration of new immigrant populations, especially Hispanics from Mexico
and other parts of Latin America (Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Lichter 2012; Sharp
and Lee 2017).1 Our goal here is to highlight the new racial dynamics of rural pop-
ulation growth and decline. Specifically, we ask: Has the new influx of Hispanics
provided a demographic lifeline to rural communities, offsetting chronic population
declines?2 Hispanics today represent only a small fraction of the rural population,
but nevertheless have played an outsized role in recent rural demographic and eco-
nomic trends (Lichter 2012). Latinos accounted for roughly 25 percent of nonme-
tropolitan growth in the 1990s (Kandel and Cromartie 2004). In 2010, Hispanics
represented 7.6 percent of the nonmetropolitan population, yet they accounted for
63 percent of the entire rural population gain between 2000 and 2010 (Johnson and
Lichter 2016). Today, changing patterns of racial and ethnic diversity are implicated
in newly unfolding patterns of population growth and settlement across rural and
small town America (Hallet al. 2016; Johnson and Lichter 2016; Marrow 2009).
We have three specific objectives. First, we document the rapid population
growth and widespread spatial dispersal of Hispanics into many nonmetropolitan
counties from 1990 to 2017. Building on early work on new Hispanic destinations
(Kandel and Cromartie 2004), we show that these patterns stand in sharp contrast
to those of whites and other non-Hispanics. The racial transformation observed in
1 We recognize that all Hispanics or Latinos are not immigrants—the so-called first generation or for-
eign-born population. However, demographers often refer to the Hispanic immigrant stock, which is
comprised of both first- and second-generation (i.e., U.S.-born of foreign-born parents). By this defini-
tion, 83 percent of all adult Hispanics are of immigrant stock (Pew Research Center 2004), the popula-
tion group that dominates the new patterns of net migration and redistribution in rural America (Lichter
and Johnson 2012). In 2014, immigrant stock accounted for roughly 2/3rds of the Latino population,
including children (Waters and Pineau 2016).
2 In this paper, we use Hispanics and Latinos interchangeably, recognizing that Hispanics is a term typ-
ically used by the Census Bureau in demographic reports or by demographers, but also is sometimes
found objectionable among racial and ethnic scholars who prefer Latino/a/x.
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
America’s metropolitan cities and suburbs is now well underway in many parts of
rural America (Nevarez and Simons 2020; Lichter etal. 2018). Second, we show
that America’s growing Hispanic population has left a large demographic footprint
on rural America. Hispanic population growth since 1990 has provided a counter-
weight to chronic outmigration, below-replacement fertility and increasing mortal-
ity across nonmetropolitan America, even in historically depopulating counties (i.e.,
counties that peaked in population in 1950 or earlier). Third, we highlight the demo-
graphic reach and widespread impact of new Hispanic growth across America’s
rural counties. Our results highlight the fact that many rural counties would have
experienced population decline in the absence of Hispanic population growth—both
from in-migration and from the second-order demographic effects of high fertility
(Lichter etal 2012). Over the past decade or two, a large number of nonmetropolitan
counties avoided population loss—or outright depopulation—but only because His-
panic population growth exceeded white natural decrease and net outmigration.
Master Demographic Trends inRural America
Two master demographic trends have characterized much of rural or nonmetro-
politan America over the past 30years or more. One is rural depopulation—abso-
lute population decline (Cromartie 2017; Johnson and Lichter 2019). The other is
unprecedented in-migration of Hispanics into new immigrant destinations, mostly
to work in big agriculture, slaughterhouses, and meatpacking or poultry processing
plants, among other low-wage, low-skill occupations (Crowley and Knepper 2019;
Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Kandel and Parrado 2005). Perhaps ironically, these
two master trends are seemingly working at demographic cross-purposes. While
depopulation is a characteristic feature of many nonmetropolitan counties today,
new Hispanic growth has fundamentally changed the trajectory of population and
economic growth in many other rural areas. In the United States, these demographic
trends are seldom considered together or viewed as interrelated. This contrasts with
many case studies in Europe (Spain, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, among others),
where immigration is frequently viewed as a demographic and economic panacea
for historically depopulating rural areas (Collantes etal. 2014; Hedlund etal. 2017;
McAreavey 2017).
For the first time in U.S. history, nonmetropolitan counties experienced absolute
population decline in the post-2010 period (Cromartie 2017). The population living
in nonmetropolitan counties was 46.1million in 2016, representing about 14 percent
of the U.S. population—a new low. Significantly, the nonmetropolitan population
declined each year between 2010 and 2016, before increasing slightly between 2016
and 2017. Well over one-half of all nonmetropolitan counties—over 1300—experi-
enced population declines between 2010 and 2017, losing 907,000 people in total
(Economic Research Service 2019). For many nonmetropolitan counties, depopula-
tion has been a chronic condition. Johnson and Lichter (2019), for example, showed
that 40 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties had reached their peak populations
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
in 1950 or earlier. A disproportionate share are located in remote parts of the coun-
try, most notably in isolated rural counties that are often far removed from grow-
ing metropolitan labor market areas. Chronic outmigration, especially among young
adults of reproductive age, has acted to depress overall fertility and increase mortal-
ity because of rapid population aging. Natural decrease is now widespread across
America’s nonmetropolitan counties (Johnson 2011). Deaths among non-Hispanic
whites exceeded births in 2061 U.S. counties in 2015, the most in U.S. history to
that date (Johnson 2020). More recently, 995 nonmetropolitan counties recorded
more deaths overall than births, resulting in a rural population loss of 284,000 peo-
ple from natural decease alone (Economic Research Service 2019). In nonmetro-
politan counties where natural increase still occurs, it is often no longer sufficient to
offset declines due to outmigration.
The paradox today is that widespread depopulation has occurred in concert with
new immigrant population growth in many parts of rural America (Jensen and Yang
2016; Lichter 2012). While the nonmetropolitan non-Hispanic white and black pop-
ulations have declined absolutely since 2010, the Hispanic population has continued
to grow, albeit more slowly in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Since 2012, for
example, the Latino population has increased by roughly 1.8 percent annually (Eco-
nomic Research Service 2018). Overall, nonmetropolitan population losses over the
past decade would have been even greater in the absence of widespread Hispanic
growth. Hispanics have traditionally concentrated in the Southwest, but shifting
employment opportunities nationally have led to a much wider geographic disper-
sion of jobs, especially in rural areas. In the meat processing industry, for example,
Hispanics accounted for 36 percent of its workforce; in crop agriculture, the majority
of farmworkers today are Hispanics, roughly split between documented and undocu-
mented workers (Economic Research Service 2018). To be sure, the large majority
of Hispanics today continue to live in metropolitan areas, but Hispanics nevertheless
accounted for about 9 percent the nonmetropolitan population in 2017, up from 5.4
percent in 2000. The increasing share of Hispanics is due to unusually rapid His-
panic population growth but, perhaps less appreciated, it also reflects unprecedented
declines among non-Hispanic whites and blacks (Johnson and Lichter 2016; Lichter
etal. 2018).
Hispanics andNonmetropolitan Population Growth
Whether Latinos can provide a demographic lifeline for rural America depends on
many factors. On the one hand, the depopulation of nonmetropolitan America over-
all in the 2010s occurred despite in-migration and growth among Hispanics. Depop-
ulation would have been even larger in the absence of Hispanic growth. On the other
hand, the growth of Hispanics across nonmetropolitan counties has been geographi-
cally uneven. This suggests that any demographic or economic benefits from new
Hispanic growth will be distributed unevenly. Indeed, Lichter (2012) showed that
Hispanic growth in just 10 percent of nonmetropolitan counties accounted for 50 per-
cent of all Hispanic population growth during the 2000–2010 period. Hispanic pop-
ulation is at once geographically widespread—occurring almost everywhere—but
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
also highly concentrated in Hispanic boomtowns that emerged in response to eco-
nomic restructuring. The concentration of low-wage, low-skill Hispanic workers in
the meatpacking industry is a clear case in point (Jensen and Yang 2016; Krumel
2017). Latinos have also responded with their feet to the recent boom in oil and gas
(e.g., fracking in North Dakota or Pennsylvania), to changes in industrial agriculture
and the dairy industry, to job opportunities in textile mills and furniture (e.g., in
North Carolina), and to tourism and the labor demands in the hospitality industry
(Broadway 2007; Winders 2005).
Whether new Hispanic growth has reversed the trajectory of declining small town
America is unclear. One hypothesis is that Hispanics may be a catalyst for growth,
replenishing—even replacing—the native population in depopulating or dying small
towns. In this demographic scenario, Hispanics might appropriately be regarded as
providing a demographic lifeline to rural America (Carr et al. 2012). An alterna-
tive hypothesis is that new in-migration and growth of Latinos may simply reflect
the labor demands of local rural areas that are already economically prosperous and
growing. In this case, Hispanic in-migration may simply be a demographic response
to local economic growth and employment opportunities rather than be responsi-
ble for a population turnaround. Indeed, most Hispanic population gains may be in
growing and economically prosperous communities, reinforcing rather than reviv-
ing growth. A final hypothesis—a less optimistic one—is that Hispanic growth
could result in little if any population growth or perhaps even in population declines.
This would occur if Hispanic in-migration and growth acted to displace the native
white population (Lichter etal. 2018). Local area white natives may respond to the
“threat” of Latino growth by outmigrating, leaving behind a community that is little
different in population size but much different in racial composition. In this demo-
graphic scenario, Hispanic growth is counterbalanced by racially motivated “white
flight” (see Lichter etal. 2018) or by other demographic or economic changes, such
as increasing housing prices, rising property or school taxes, or real or perceived
increases in crime rates (Crowley and Ebert 2014; Crowley and Lichter 2009; Mayer
etal. 2018).
Rural in-migrants today are overrepresented among Hispanics of prime repro-
ductive age. Their fertility rates have exceeded the national average historically
(Lichter etal 2012) and, until recently, were well above replacement levels (Ely and
Hamilton 2018; see Parrado 2011) for excellentdiscussion of methodological chal-
lenges in tracking generational differences in fertility). Natural increase—high fertil-
ity, low mortality—provides a large and often unappreciated second-order effect of
recent Hispanic in-migration; it sustains population growth over time among suc-
ceeding generations. Conversely, rural outmigration has been over-representative
of native-born whites historically, which has contributed to rapid population aging
and natural decrease in nonmetropolitan America. Thus, the growth of the Hispanic
population, both from in-migration and natural increase, can make the difference
between overall county population growth and population decline. This can be espe-
cially important for today’s depopulating counties with limited prospects for endog-
enous population or economic growth. Hispanic in-migration and natural increase
are now working in demographic tandem to ensure short- and long-term population
growth. Hispanic fertility feeds the demographic pipeline of young people who will
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
ultimately replace today’s elderly natives and insure long-term growth and economic
vitality for the community.
Current Study
Hispanics today are redrawing America’s rural settlement system in the current
period of widespread rural population decline. Can Hispanics save rural and small
town America? Have Hispanic sparked new population growth in rural areas of
chronic outmigration, providing a demographic lifeline? As we have argued here,
contrasting overall patterns of population growth among Hispanics and the non-His-
panic population are seemingly working at demographic cross-purposes. Or, alterna-
tively, are they working in demographic tandem, each serving to reinforce ongoing
patterns of growth and decline across America’s demographically diverse nonme-
tropolitan counties? These are important questions because in-migration is highly
selective of young adults, which acts to slow population aging while giving demo-
graphic impetus to a sustainable future. The long-term implications for rural Amer-
ica are unclear. And this lack of clarity impedes effective public policy responses
and appropriate rural development strategies that can best insure the future of
declining rural and small town America.
Data andMeasurement
Our analyses are based on U.S. counties as the unit of analysis. Counties (or county
equivalents in New England) are spatially inclusive of all territory in the United
States. They also provide historically stable boundaries that are well suited for our
analytical purposes. Counties—all 3141 of them—provide a basic unit for report-
ing population size and composition over time. Data on the components of over-
all population change—fertility, mortality, and net migration—are also available at
the county level. Our analyses arerestricted to the continental United States, where
most Hispanic native and foreign-born population currently reside. Data for Alaska
and Hawaii are compromised by changes in county boundaries and by limitations in
the coverage of historical data on racial and ethnic groups.
We focus primarily on Hispanic population increases for three periods:
1990–2000, 2000–2010, and 2010–2017. For 1990, 2000, and 2010, we draw on
county population counts from the decennial Censuses, as well as historical data
on births, deaths and migration from the integrated age-specific net migration files
developed for the 1990s (Voss etal. 2005) and 2000s (Winkler etal. 2013; Johnson
and Winkler 2015). Comparable population data for the 2010–2017 period from the
Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Series, and from special tabulations from the
Center for Disease Control on annual births and deaths at the county level. Estimates
of net migration are derived by the residual method; net migration is what is left
when natural increase (births minus deaths) is subtracted from the total population
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
change. These detailed data set the stage for our analyses and discussion of compar-
ative population change among Latinos, who have uniformly high and positive rates
of net migration and natural increase over the study period (Johnson and Lichter
Counties are classified by metropolitan status as defined by the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). We use a constant 2013 definition of metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan throughout our analyses (Fuguitt etal. 1988).3 We thus focus
on nonmetropolitan counties classified as such today and then track trajectories of
growth and decline during the proceeding decades.4 For ease of exposition, we use
the terms nonmetropolitan and rural interchangeably, as we do the terms metropoli-
tan and urban.
Analytical Approach
Much of our analyses is descriptive. We first provide a national baseline of changing
patterns of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan population change, natural increase,
and net migration rates over the study period, which we then contrast with new
population growth patterns among America’s Hispanics since 1990. Patterns among
Latinos diverge sharply from national patterns of population decline.
Second, we contrast Hispanic and non-Hispanic population growth over the
1990-to-2017 period, focusing on the share of nonmetropolitan growth due to His-
panics. We also distinguish between depopulating nonmetropolitan counties, other
declining counties, and growing counties. For our purposes, depopulation is defined
following the procedures of Johnson and Lichter (2019). Nationally, we classify 746
counties representing 24 percent of the U.S. total as depopulating counties. These
counties peaked in population size by 1950 and lost at least 25 percent from its peak
population by 2010. By any measure, this is substantial depopulation. An additional
824 counties (26.5 percent) experienced population losses of less than 25 percent
from peak or first experienced population loss after 1950. The remaining 1539 coun-
ties (49.5 percent) peaked in population in 2010, at the time of the last decennial
census. Our goal is to evaluate whether Hispanic growth has shifted the trajectories
of growth and decline in counties with very different histories of population change.
Third, and finally, we highlight the geographic reach of Hispanic population
growth since 1990. This is important because a national portrait of the growth-pro-
ducing effects of Hispanics on the nonmetropolitan population could result in mis-
leading conclusions. This would be the case if most Hispanic growth occurred in
3 After every decennial census, the universe of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties is updated
to reflect country population growth over the proceeding decade. Our analysis is based on the same uni-
verse of nonmetropolitan counties throughout the 1990–2017 study period.
4 Several hundred counties that would have been classified as nonmetropolitan under previous OMB
definitions are included among metropolitan areas here. Reclassification has, over the course of several
decades, removed many fast growing counties from the universe of nonmetropolitan counties and reclas-
sified them as metropolitan. Our goal is to keep the focus squarely on today’s nonmetropolitan counties
and the historically demographic processes that underlay recent trajectories of population growth and
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
already growing counties, i.e., if Hispanic and overall growth mimicked each other.
Hispanic in-migration and growth could also be negatively associated with overall
(or white) in-migration and growth. In this case, Hispanics may displace or replace
population with little effect on overall population size.
Hispanic Growth inContext ofNonmetropolitan Population Decline
As an empirical baseline, Fig. 1 provides evidence of rapid metropolitan growth
since 1990 and slow growth or population declines in nonmetropolitan America
over the past three decades. This conclusion is clearly indicated in the trends in
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan population growth. Each decade, average annual
metropolitan population growth rates greatly exceeded nonmetropolitan population
growth rates. Average annual growth rates have declined over time in both metropol-
itan and nonmetropolitan areas. The key point, however, is that the nonmetropolitan
population—for the first time ever—experienced negative growth or depopulation,
losing nearly 0.15 percent of its population each year during the post-2010 period.
Metropolitan counties overall continued to increase over the past decade by nearly 1
percent annually. Urbanization continues apace, exacerbated by unprecedented rural
population declines since 2010.
To better understand the underlying demographic dynamics of overall population
change, we also consider changes in natural increase and net migration since 1990.
NonMetro MetroNonMetroMetro NonMetro Metro
Average Annual Percent Change
Populaon Change Natural Increase Net Migraon
1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2017
Fig. 1 Demographic change by metropolitan status, 1990–2017
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
The downward trajectories of overall population growth and, ultimately, depopu-
lation in nonmetropolitan are clearly revealed in natural decrease and net outmi-
gration. The important point is that natural increase has become an increasingly
important component of nonmetropolitan population change over the past three
decades. For nonmetropolitan areas, net migration exceeded natural increase during
the 1990s, but the slowdown in net migration (often from immigration rather than
domestic net migration) meant that natural increase represented the largest compo-
nent of nonmetropolitan population growth. After 2010, net migration rates were
negative—outmigration exceeded in-migration; low and declining rates of natural
increase could no longer counterbalance the exodus of people from rural areas.
These analyses indicate thatthe last three decades of Hispanic population growth
clearly has not prevented the overall downward spiral in the nation’s rural popula-
tion. As shown in Fig.2, Latinos accounted for the majority share—over 60 per-
cent—of overall nonmetropolitan population growth over the 1990–2017 study
period. The total rural population grew by roughly 150,000 each year over the entire
study period. Of this total, the Hispanic rural population was responsible for the
addition of nearly 85,000 persons annually. Without Hispanics, the modest overall
growth in nonmetropolitan areas since 1990 would have been much slower.
Absolute population decline or depopulation became the demographic norm after
2010. Figure3 shows that the downward trend in population growth—and ultimately
depopulation after 2010—was due entirely to population losses among whites and
other non-Hispanics. Between 2010 and 2017, nonmetropolitan areas lost nearly
100,000 people each year. For Hispanics, growth slowed considerably during the
post-2010 period, when a little over 50,000 Hispanics were added to the nonmet-
ropolitan population each year. Hispanic growth was insufficient to fully offset the
Average Annual Change
Total Population Change Non-Hispanic Population Change Hispanic Population Change
Fig. 2 Nonmetropolitan Hispanic and non-Hispanic population change, 1990–2017
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
large population declines among non-Hispanics and, as result, nonmetropolitan
areas lost overall population after 2010 for the first time ever.
Hispanics asaDemographic Lifeline
Whether Latinos have provided a demographic lifeline for rural America would
be indicated most clearly if Latinos growth occurred primarily in slow-growth or
depopulating counties rather than in growing counties. Some preliminary analysis
(not shown) clearly showed that Hispanics are overrepresented in growing rather
than in declining counties—both in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties.
Indeed, Hispanics in 2017 made up the highest percentage (over 20 percent) of the
population in growing metropolitan counties (as defined in the "Methods" section).
This contrasts with a low of only about 6 percent in the depopulating nonmetro-
politan counties. The presence of Latinos and overall population growth seems to go
The data in Fig.4 (left-most vertical panel) indicate that most of the Hispanic
growth in nonmetropolitan areas over the 1990–2017 period, not surprisingly,
occurred in growing counties rather than lagging counties. The growth of both
Hispanics and non-Hispanics is jointly reinforcing overall county growth. For his-
torically depopulating and declining counties (based on peak populations in 1950
and subsequent population changes; see "Methods" section), population declined
1990 to 20002000 to 2010 2010 to 2017
Annual Populaon Change
Total Population Non-Hispanic Hispanic
Fig. 3 Nonmetropolitan population change by Hispanic origin, 1990–2017
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
overall since 1990. In each case, overall population declines could be attributed
to declines in the non-Hispanic (mostly native-born white) population. And, even
though the Hispanic population grew in depopulating and declining counties, the
growth was not sufficient to fully offset overall non-Hispanic population losses.
To provide context to historical patterns, we replicated the preceding analy-
ses for the 2010–2017 period (right panel, Fig.4).These data revealed continuing
Hispanic population growth, but now during a period of overall nonmetropoli-
tan population decline. Hispanic growth was modest in comparison to the non-
Hispanic population losses, especially in counties of chronic decline. Despite
Hispanic growth, the downward population spiral in nonmetropolitan counties
accelerated after 2010. In growing counties, Latinos provided the large majority
of the population gain, highlighting an outsized demographic footprint in these
Indeed, the results in Table1 (second panel, bottom row) indicate that 9.8 per-
cent of all nonmetropolitan counties—an additional 192 counties—would have lost
population after 2010 without Hispanic growth. Despite overall population decline
in the 2010s, this is similar to patterns observed throughout the entire study period,
when 9.6 percent experienced Hispanic population gains at levels sufficient to offset
non-Hispanic losses (Table1). Over 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties (i.e.,
61.5 percent) experienced Hispanic population growth and non-Hispanic population
declines during 2010–2017. This figure is up substantially from overall patterns dur-
ing 1990–2017, when only about 40 percent of counties had Hispanic growth and
non-Hispanic decline.
Depopulation Population
Average Annual Change
Total Non-Hispanic Hispanic
1990 to 2017 2010 to 2017
Fig. 4 Nonmetropolitan Hispanic and non-Hispanic population change by depopulation status, 1990 to
2010 to and 2010 to 2017
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
For 2010–2017, about 25 percent of counties experienced growth of both His-
panics and non-Hispanics. And, as mentioned above, Hispanic annual population
increases in these counties typically exceeded gains from non-Hispanics (see Fig.4).
Only 5 percent of nonmetropolitan counties experienced both Hispanic and non-His-
panic population losses. These results reinforce a straightforward point: The growth
of Latinos is of critical importance today in the majority of America’s rural counties.
Finally, we disaggregate these analyses for each of the three historical types of
nonmetropolitan counties in our typology (depopulating, declining, and growing;
see Johnson and Lichter 2019). These data, reported in Table1 for the entire study
period and for the recent post-2010 period, reveal that the Hispanic population is
growing in historically depopulating and declining nonmetropolitan counties, but
that any gains are insufficient to fully offset non-Hispanic declines. From 2010 to
2017, for example, this pattern characterizes about three-fourths of these counties.
In contrast, fewer than 10 percent of historically depopulating and declining non-
metropolitan counties had sufficient Hispanic growth to turn decline into growth.
Among growing nonmetropolitan counties, the modal pattern (about 47 percent) is
one of Hispanic and non-Hispanic growth. An additional 13 percent of these grow-
ing counties had overall population gains only because Hispanic gains offset non-
Hispanic population loss.
For the entire study period, the large majority (89 percent) of counties with
demographic resilience (i.e., those not classified as depopulating or declining) expe-
rienced both Hispanic and non-Hispanic population increases. Significantly, for the
most recent period (post-2010), this figure was cut roughly in half (46.6 percent).
A remarkable share of historically resilient counties have shifted recently to overall
population decline, experiencing Hispanic growth but at levels insufficient to offset
non-Hispanic declines (36.8 percent). Indeed, for the 1990–2017 period, only 2.7
percent of these historically resilient counties experienced this pattern. One implica-
tion is that non-Hispanics are seemingly leaving these counties, perhaps in response
Table 1 Percent of nonmetropolitan counties by population change by Hispanic origin and depopulation
status, 1990 to 2017 and 2010 to 2017
Source: US Census 1990, 2000 and 2010, and Census Bureau Population Estimates for 2018
Population Loss- Population Loss- Population Gain- Population Gain
Hispanic Loss Hispanic Gain Hispanic Only
Population change 1990 to 2017
Depopulation 3.6 75.1 6.4 15.0
Population loss 2.2 50.7 14.7 32.4
Gain 0.0 2.7 8.3 89.0
Total 1.9 42.5 9.6 45.9
Population change 2010 to 2017
Depopulation 4.9 74.9 7.7 12.6
Population loss 6.0 74.3 8.8 10.8
Gain 3.7 36.8 12.9 46.6
Total 4.8 61.5 9.8 23.8
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
to Hispanic growth or simply because an aging population no longer supports con-
tinuing growth through natural increase.
The Geographic Reach ofHispanic Growth
Hispanic population gains have been geographically widespread, even in historically
depopulating or declining counties. Hispanics population gains were common in vir-
tually every region across the country. The county map in Fig.5 is inclusive of both
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, and distinguishes between comparative
patterns of Hispanic and non-Hispanic growth for the 2010–2017 period. Figure6 is
restricted to all nonmetropolitan counties.
In these maps, blue designates growing counties, with dark blue representing
counties that experienced both Hispanic and non-Hispanic growth and light blue
indicating Hispanic growth that was sufficient to offset non-Hispanic population
decline. These maps lead to several specific conclusions. First, the national county
map (Fig.5), when compared to the nonmetropolitan county map (Fig.6), reveals
substantially more blue (in light and dark shades), which indicates that both overall
population gains and Hispanic growth are especially widespread across America’s
metropolitan counties.
Second, the number and geographic spread of light blue counties is substantially
greater in the nonmetropolitan map (Fig. 6). This underscores the demographic
Fig. 5 Population change and Hispanic population change, 2010–2017
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
significance of Hispanics in nonmetropolitan counties as a demographic lifeline off-
setting population losses among non-Hispanics (mostly whites). In contrast, a com-
paratively small number of metropolitan counties depended entirely on Hispanic
gains to fuel overall growth. For most metropolitan counties, both Hispanic and non-
Hispanic populations contributed to population gains.
Third, these analyses reveal widespread population decline (i.e., as indicated by
shades of red). However, even where overall population loss is occurring, county
population declines usuallyoccurred along with Hispanic growth (see light share of
red). These counties dominated much of the agricultural heartland, Appalachia, the
industrial Northeastern rustbelt (from Ohio to Maine), and the southern Black Belt,
including the Mississippi Delta (where rural blacks are overrepresented). The point
seems clear: Latinos are increasing population in counties that have historically
depended on agriculture and other extractive industries. Population growth—both of
Hispanics and non-Hispanic—is much more prevalent in the West region, including
many parts of the Rocky Mountain region.
Discussion andConclusion
The state of rural America today is inextricably linked to two master demographic
trends: Chronic depopulation and new Hispanic immigration. Rural America has
experienced overall population loss, especially since 2010 (Johnson and Lichter
Fig. 6 Population change and Hispanic population change, in nonmetropolitan counties, 2010–2017
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
2019). At the same time, rural counties are experiencing unprecedented growth in
the immigrant population, especially from Mexico and other parts of Latin America
(Crowley and Ebert 2014). Whether these trends are working at cross-purposes is
unclear, especially in the post-recessionary period of slower growth in the immi-
grant population. Has Hispanic population growth provided a demographic lifeline
to nonmetropolitan counties experiencing chronic population decline? Or has new
Hispanic immigration, along with the secondary migration of their native-born off-
spring (i.e., the “new” second-generation), simply reinforced ongoing patterns of
population concentration in growing rural and small town America?
Our analyses of rural population trends since 1990 has provided a rather compli-
cated but important demographic portrait of recent growth and decline. Our results
suggest that new Hispanic growth has been spatially ubiquitous, occurring both
in declining and growing nonmetropolitan counties. Hispanic growth has clearly
slowed population declines overall in nonmetropolitan areas, even in a majority of
historically depopulating or declining counties. But Hispanic gains have not been
sufficient to reverse overall population declines in rural America. And this pattern
of Hispanic growth and non-Hispanic decline accelerated over time, especially in
historically resilient counties. The basic demographic facts are clear: The post-
2010 period has ushered in a new demographic era of overall depopulation caused
mostly by white depopulation. For the first time in U.S. demographic history, natural
increase (births in excess of deaths) was not sufficient to offset population losses
from net outmigration (see Fig.1). As a result, rural America declined in the aggre-
gate, despite the growth and widespread geographic spread of the Latino population.
It is significant that our analyses also revealed substantial heterogeneity across
U.S. counties in growth and decline processes, and in the demographic implica-
tions of recent Hispanic population increases. Indeed, nearly 200 nonmetropolitan
counties grew during the 2010–2017 period, but only because Hispanic population
increases exceeded non-Hispanic population declines. For these counties, which
account for about 10 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties, Hispanics clearly
provided a demographic lifeline. Hispanic population gains were far less likely to
reverse population declines in historically depopulating or declining counties. Most
Hispanic growth reinforced overall growth in counties that were also experienc-
ing growth of non-Hispanics. One implication seems clear: Latinos are attracted
to many of the same nonmetropolitan counties that have attracted other population
groups over the past half century. Hispanics reinforce the concentration of popu-
lation in rural counties that might best be regarded as demographic and economic
“winners” (see Lichter 2012). In some counties, there is evidence—incomplete so
far—that Hispanics may be partially replacing or displacing native-born whites or
other population groups in these growing areas. The modal pattern is one where
Hispanic population growth reflects and reinforces overall population growth, sug-
gesting that Hispanics have provided a demographic multiplier effect rather than a
Our results also suggest spatially divergent patterns of racial and ethnic integra-
tion and segregation. On the one hand, for growing rural areas, Hispanic growth
appears to provide a pathway to residential integration, which has been revealed in
increasing racial and ethnic diversity in rural America (Winkler and Johnson 2016;
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
Lee and Sharp 2017; Kritz and Gurak 2016). For many rural residents, population
growth has been accompanied by increasing exposure to new immigrant groups,
sometimes upending the existing social and economic order and raising new chal-
lenges for racial and ethnic harmony (Crowley and Knepper 2019; Lichter etal.
2016; Marrow 2020). On the other hand, in depopulating or declining rural com-
munities, the substantive and policy implications of Hispanic growth also are poten-
tially significant and worth considering in future research. Hispanic growth may
help revitalize some “dying” communities, but also may suggest a new kind of
macro-segregation where rural minorities are spatially isolated in poor communities
or “rural ghettos” with majority-minority populations (Lichter etal. 2018; Winkler
and Johnson2016).
Immigration is a politically fraught topic, especially as new immigrant popula-
tions have spread throughout the nation, from traditional urban gateways to less
densely settled rural areas. Recent declarations that “our country is full” have
heightened public concerns that the U.S. immigration system is overburdened with
refugees and undocumented workers (Fikri and Lettieri 2019). By almost any meas-
ure, rural America is instead “emptying out” from outmigration and rising mortality
(due to population aging). It is where just 14 percent of the U.S. population lives but
occupies 72 percent of the total land area. Effectively managing shrinking popula-
tionsis difficult (Peters etal. 2018). New Hispanic immigrants may not only revital-
ize rural economies, but keep schools, churches, and hospital open that otherwise
may have closed (Mathema etal. 2018). The benefits are not just economic. Some
rural states recognize the benefits of immigration for rural America, seeking to
attract Hispanics through media campaigns and direct recruitment in order to boost
growth and economic vitality (Carr etal. 2012). As in other countries (e.g., Canada,
Spain, and Australia), place-based or heartland visas have been proposed as a pos-
sible mechanism for revitalizing rural areas, by making entry into the United States
contingent on living in rural areas (Ozimek etal. 2019). Such visas would constitute
a voluntary pathway for entry into eligible host communities seeking to revitalize the
local economies with an infusion of human capital and skilled labor. The question is
whether new immigrants will put down roots in the community or, instead, whether
these new destinations will become revolving doors, distressed places where immi-
grants fulfill their residency requirements but then move on to otherareas.
In many ways, rural America is at a demographic turning point. Population
loss has accelerated since 2010, new immigration to rural areas has slowed, and
antipathy toward Hispanics or other immigrant populations, especially among
rural voters, seems to be on the rise. It is difficult to forecast the future or to effec-
tively manage population “shrinkage” and promote resilient communities (Peters
etal. 2018). What is clear is that Hispanic immigrant populations, as well as their
U.S. born children, will continue to play an outsized role in rural communities.
Indeed, the replacement of the baby boom generation over the next decade or
two with today’s majority-minority population of children and youth means that
immigration will remain on the public policy agenda. Hispanics have had a large
secondary demographic effect, both because immigrants of reproductive age are
over-represented in current rural migration streams and have high fertility rates
(Johnson and Lichter 2008; Lichter etal. 2012). This has occurred in tandem with
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
population aging and rising mortality among the native-born population. Even
with restrictive new legislation, the growth of immigrant minority populations
will continue as the U.S. moves toward a majority-minority society over the next
25years (Lichter 2013). Whether Latino migrants can curb unprecedented rural
population declines remains an open question in the rapidly changing economic,
social and political climate.
Broadway, M. (2007). Meatpacking and the transformation of rural communities: a comparison of
Brooks, Alberta and Garden City, Kansas. Rural Sociology, 72(4), 560–582.
Carr, P. J., Lichter, D. T., & Kefalas, M. J. (2012). Can immigration save small-town America? Hispanic
boomtowns and the uneasy path to renewal. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 641(1), 38–57.
Collantes, F., Pinilla, V., Sáez, L. A., & Silvestre, J. (2014). Reducing depopulation in rural Spain: the
impact of immigration. Population, Space and Place, 20(7), 606–621.
Cromartie, J. (2017). Recent population change. Retrieved April 4, 2018 from https ://
topic s/rural -econo my-popul ation /popul ation -migra tion/recen t-popul ation -chang e/.
Crowley, M., & Ebert, K. (2014). New rural immigrant destinations: research for the 2010s. In C. Bailey,
L. Jensen, & E. Ransom (Eds.), Women, minorities, and employment discrimination (pp. 401–418).
Rural America in a Globalizing World: Problems and Prospects for the 2010s. Morgantown: West
Virginia University Press.
Crowley, M., & Lichter, D. T. (2009). Social disorganization in new Latino destinations? Rural Sociology,
74(4), 573–604.
Crowley, M., & Knepper, P. (2019). Strangers in their hometown: demographic change, revitalization and
community engagement in new Latino destinations. Social Science Research, 79(1), 56–70.
Ely DM, & Hamilton BE. (2018). Trends in fertility and mother’s age at first birth among rural and met-
ropolitan counties: United States, 2007–2017. NCHS Data Brief, no 323. Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2018.
Economic research service. (2019). Rural population and migration briefing room. Retrieved on Novem-
ber 30, 2019 from ng/popul ation /
Economic research service. (2018). Rural America at a glance. 2018 Edition. Economic Information Bul-
letin 200. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on November 30, 2019 from https ://www.ers. cs/publi catio ns/90556 /eib-200.pdf?v=5899.2
Fikri K., & Lettieri, J. (2019). ‘Our country is full’: Trump says migrants straining immigration system.
Retrieved December 3, 2019 at https :// our/polit ics/our-count ry-is-full-trump
-says-migra nts-strai ning-immig ratio n-syste m.
Fuguitt, G. V., Heaton, T. B., & Lichter, D. T. (1988). Monitoring the metropolitanization process.
Demography, 25(1), 115–128.
Hall, M., Tach, L., & Lee, B. A. (2016). Trajectories of ethnoracial diversity in American communities,
1980–2010. Population and Development Review, 42(2), 271.
Hedlund, M., Carson, D. A., Eimermann, M., & Lundmark, L. (2017). Repopulating and revitalising
rural Sweden? Re-examining immigration as a solution to rural decline. The Geographical Journal,
183(4), 400–413.
Jensen, L., & Yang, T. C. (2016). Taken by surprise: new immigrants in the rural United States. In B.
Jentsch & M. Simard (Eds.),International Migration and Rural Areas : Cross-National Compara-
tive Perspectives (pp. 33–58). New York: Routledge.
Johnson, K. M. (2011). The continuing incidence of natural decrease in American counties. Rural Sociol-
ogy, 76(1), 74–100.
Johnson, K. M. (2020). Subnational non-Hispanic white natural decrease in the United States. Population
and Development Review, 46(1), 7–31.
Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2008). Natural increase: a new source of population growth in emerging
Hispanic destinations in the United States. Population and Development Review, 34(2), 327–346.
D.T.Lichter, K.M.Johnson
1 3
Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2016). Diverging demography: Hispanic and non-Hispanic contri-
butions to US population redistribution and diversity. Population Research and Policy Review,
35(5), 705–725.
Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2019). Rural depopulation: growth and decline processes over the
past century. Rural Sociology, 84(1), 3–27.
Johnson, K.M., & Winkler, R.L. (2015). Migration signatures across the decades: Net migration by
age in U.S. Counties, 1950-2010. Demographic Research, 22(38), 1065–1080.
Kandel, W., & Cromartie, J. (2004). New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America.
Rural Development and Research Report 99. Economic Research Service, US Department of
Kandel, W., & Parrado, E. A. (2005). Restructuring of the US meat processing industry and new His-
panic migrant destinations. Population and Development Review, 31(3), 447–471.
Krumel, T. P., Jr. (2017). Anti-immigration reform and reductions in welfare: evidence from the meat-
packing industry. Choices, 32(1), 1–7.
Kritz, M. M., & Gurak, D. T. (2018). Spatial dispersion of US national origin groups: characteristics
of dispersed immigrants and settlement places. Population, Space and Place, 24(8), e2154.
Lee, B. A., & Sharp, G. (2017). Ethnoracial diversity across the rural-urban continuum. The ANNALS
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1), 26–45.
Lichter, D. T. (2012). Immigration and the new racial diversity in rural America. Rural Sociology,
77(1), 3–35.
Lichter, D. T. (2013). Integration or fragmentation? Racial diversity and the American future. Demog-
raphy, 50(2), 359–391.
Lichter, D. T., Johnson, K. M., Turner, R. N., & Churilla, A. (2012). Hispanic assimilation and fertil-
ity in new US destinations. International Migration Review, 46(4), 767–791.
Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Taquino, M. C. (2016). Emerging patterns of Hispanic residential segre-
gation: lessons from rural and small-town America. Rural Sociology, 81(4), 483–518.
Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Taquino, M. C. (2018). White integration or segregation? The racial and
ethnic transformation of rural and small town America. City & Community, 17(3), 702–719.
McAreavey, R. (2017). New immigration destinations: migrating to rural and peripheral areas. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Mathema, S., Svajlenka, N. P., & Hermann, A. (2018). Revival and opportunity: immigrants in rural
America. Washington DC: Center for American Progress.
Mayer, Adam, Malin, Stephanie A., & Olson-Hazboun, Shawn K. (2018). Unhollowing rural Amer-
ica? Rural human capital flight and the demographic consequences of the oil and gas boom.
Population and Environment, 39(3), 219–238.
Marrow, H. B. (2009). New immigrant destinations and the American colour line. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 32(6), 1037–1057.
Marrow, H. B. (2020). Hope turned sour: second-generation incorporation and mobility in U.S. new
immigrant destinations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(3), 99–118.
Nevarez, L., & Simons, J. (2020). Small-city dualism in the metro hinterland: the racialized “Brook-
lynization” of New York’s Hudson Valley. City & Community, 19(1), 16–43.
Ozimek, A., Fikri, K., & Lettieri, J. (2019). From managing decline to building the future: could a
heartland visa help struggling regions?. Washington, DC: Economic Innovation Group.
Parrado, E. A. (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and
tempo considerations. Demography, 48(3), 1059–1080.
Peters, D. J. (2019). Community resiliency in declining small towns: impact of population loss on
quality of life over 20 years. Rural Sociology, 84(4), 635–668.
Peters, D. J., Hamideh, S., Zarecor, K. E., & Ghandour, M. (2018). Using entrepreneurial social infra-
structure to understand smart shrinkage in small towns. Journal of Rural Studies, 64, 39–49.
Pew Research Center. (2004). Generational differences: fact sheet. March 19, 2004. Washington, DC.
Accessed on April 4, 2020 at https ://www.pewre searc nic/2004/03/19/gener ation al-
diffe rence s/#first -gener ation -vs-secon d-gener ation
Sharp, G., & Lee, B. A. (2017). New faces in rural places: patterns and sources of nonmetropolitan
ethnoracial diversity since 1990. Rural Sociology, 82(3), 411–443.
Voss, P.R., McNiven, S., Hammer, R.B., Johnson, K.M., & Fuguitt, G.V. (2005). County-specific net
migration by five-year age groups, Hispanic origin, race, and sex, 1990–2000: [United States]
(ICPSR 4171). Available at https ://www.icpsr .umich .edu/icpsr web/ICPSR /studi es/4171
1 3
A Demographic Lifeline? Immigration andHispanic Population…
Waters, M.C, & Pineau, M.G. (2016). The integration of immigrants into American society. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, & Committee on Population. Washington DC:
National Academies Press.
Winders, J. (2005). Changing politics of race and region: Latino migration to the US South. Progress in
Human Geography, 29(6), 683–699.
Winkler, R., Johnson, K. M., Cheng, C., Beaudoin, J., Voss, P. R., & Curtis, K. O. (2013). Age-specific
net migration estimates for U.S. counties, 1950-2010. Applied Population Laboratory, University of
Winkler, R. L., & Johnson, K. M. (2016). Moving toward integration? Effects of migration on ethnoracial
segregation across the rural-urban continuum. Demography, 53(4), 1027–1049.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
DanielT.Lichter1 · KennethM.Johnson2
Kenneth M. Johnson
1 Departments ofPolicy Analysis andManagement & Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY14853, USA
2 Department ofSociology andCarsey School ofPublic Policy, University ofNew Hampshire,
Durham, NH03824, USA
... Consequentially, the areas that are now receiving new but steady streams of migrants and immigrants are now commonly referred to as new destinations because they are communities where a co-ethnic population was not already in place. This fact alone has sparked significant scholarly interest, with researchers seeking to understand how new destinations are receiving and reacting to new migrants and how these communities are transformed socially, demographically, and economically as a result of growing racial and ethnic diversity (Lichter & Johnson, 2020;Ludwig-Dehm & Iceland, 2017;Waters & Jiménez, 2005). A second reason for interest in these communities is more specific to residential segregation research. ...
... Consequentially, the areas that are now receiving new but steady streams of migrants and immigrants are now commonly referred to as new destinations because they are communities where a co-ethnic population was not already in place. This fact alone has sparked significant scholarly interest, with researchers seeking to understand how new destinations are receiving and reacting to new migrants and how these communities are transformed socially, demographically, and economically as a result of growing racial and ethnic diversity (Lichter & Johnson, 2020;Ludwig-Dehm & Iceland, 2017;Waters & Jiménez, 2005). A second reason for interest in these communities is more specific to residential segregation research. ...
Full-text available
Segregation is often viewed and studied as a macro-level phenomenon, described in terms of aggregate patterns across areas. Empirical analyses of segregation are typically conducted at the macro-level as well, explaining changes and variations in segregation through contextual-level factors such as population size, region, or percent White. However, there is an established body of literature that recognizes segregation as an outcome of micro-level processes of locational attainments and residential mobility that considers the role of household characteristics like income, education, and nativity. This work is fundamentally important for testing the dominant theoretical frameworks employed in segregation research, which largely emphasize that segregation is driven by micro-level characteristics and processes and center the barriers and opportunities in residential mobility. Additionally, the locational attainments approach can be linked with outcomes that are essentially consequences of segregation such as educational disparities, health disparities, and unequal exposure to crime. While both levels of analyses are important, a fundamental link between them has been missing which could explicate how locational attainments directly produce residential segregation patterns. In this final empirical chapter, we draw on Fossett’s (2017) difference-of-means approach to calculating segregation indices to establish a direct quantitative link between predicted outcomes from household-level locational attainment models and overall residential segregation outcomes at the community level. This approach opens up a new toolbox of methods that are popular in inequality studies, including regression standardization and decomposition, which allow us to analyze residential segregation as a stratification outcome. We perform this analysis on 25 metropolitan areas with a focus on White-Black, White-Latino, and White-Asian residential segregation in 2010. We find that White-Black segregation is largely attributable to differences in rates of return on resources relevant for locational attainments, while White-Latino and White-Asian segregation can be explained more by group differences in characteristics and resources such as income and nativity.
... Consequentially, the areas that are now receiving new but steady streams of migrants and immigrants are now commonly referred to as new destinations because they are communities where a co-ethnic population was not already in place. This fact alone has sparked significant scholarly interest, with researchers seeking to understand how new destinations are receiving and reacting to new migrants and how these communities are transformed socially, demographically, and economically as a result of growing racial and ethnic diversity (Lichter & Johnson, 2020;Ludwig-Dehm & Iceland, 2017;Waters & Jiménez, 2005). A second reason for interest in these communities is more specific to residential segregation research. ...
Full-text available
In this first chapter of empirical findings, we provide an overview of trends and patterns in the residential segregation of households by race and ethnicity from 1990 to 2010 across metropolitan areas, micropolitan areas, and noncore counties. These three community types give our analysis wide geographic coverage across the United States. We examine segregation between White, Black, Asian, and Latino households across all areas over the two decades bracketed by the three decennial census years of 1990, 2000, and 2010. What distinguishes the analyses in this chapter from previous studies is that we apply new methods for measuring residential segregation which include correcting for index bias, using a measure that is better suited for distinguishing between different patterns of uneven distribution, and measuring residential segregation of households rather than persons. These adjustments allow us to expand the scope of our analysis to include more communities beyond the largest metropolitan areas while measuring residential segregation at the block-level, which is necessary for measuring segregation in less densely populated areas. While our findings at times reflect what past studies have found, it is more often the case that we reveal different levels and patterns of segregation, especially when focusing on White-Latino and White-Asian segregation where patterns of uneven distribution are more dispersed than previously understood. This first empirical chapter sets new benchmarks for residential segregation measurement and analysis in U.S. communities.
... Addressing the gap in the research on rural student college choice and transition is essential, given the historical settlement and presence of Latinx communities in rural areas, especially in California's agricultural regions, which have historically depended on Mexican immigrants for farm labor [13]. Furthermore, the Latinx population accounted for more than half of the population growth in the United States' rural areas in recent decades [14], highlighting the significance of attending to this student population's college access and transition experiences. ...
Full-text available
Rural students face multiple issues pursuing higher education, including financial hardships, inadequate college preparation, and geographic isolation from postsecondary institutions. These issues are further complicated for rural Latinx students, especially those from immigrant farm working backgrounds, who are positioned at the intersection of multiple systems of oppression. Yet, rural Latinx students’ college choice and transition experiences are rarely centered in the higher education literature. This article examined the college choices of nine rural Latinx high school seniors from California’s San Joaquin Valley who chose to attend a public higher education institution in this agricultural region. This article drew on three indicators from the culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model and employed a Chicana/Latina feminist pláticas methodology to analyze the campus elements that motivated rural Latinx students to enroll in public institutions in the San Joaquin Valley. Findings demonstrate that rural Latinx students purposely chose these institutions because they imagined that such institutions would (a) be racially and spatially familiar, (b) allow them to give back to their rural communities through relevant majors, and (c) offer tight-knit collegiate environments. Recommendations for higher education researchers and practitioners interested in increasing college success for rural Latinx students and expanding traditional definitions of rural-serving institutions (RSIs) are provided.
Full-text available
Over the past several decades, hundreds of large and small communities across the United States saw Latino and Asian migration and population growth for the first time as Latino and Asian migrants moved away from traditional “gateway” cities and regions. This phenomenon has raised questions among researchers about how these new groups are being received in what are often predominately White communities, and in particular whether residential segregation patterns are emerging. While some have studied the residential segregation of “new destinations,” these endeavors have been limited by the methodological challenges highlighted and addressed in this book. Because many of these communities are also nonmetropolitan, issues with index bias are pronounced due to small population counts and imbalanced group sizes. In this chapter, we reexamine residential segregation in Latino and Asian new destination communities, and also consider the possibility of Black new destinations, from 1990 to 2010 across metropolitan and micropolitan areas and noncore counties in the United States. Three key methodological innovations bring about new findings on residential segregation patterns and trends in these communities: we correct for segregation index bias, rely on the separation index to assess uneven distribution, and measure segregation of households rather than persons. In general we find that segregation is initially low and dispersed in new destination communities but is rising and polarizing over time for some groups, particularly in Latino new destinations. This is in contrast to previous studies that sometimes found high levels of segregation in Latino new destinations, with scores sometimes as high as those found in the most segregated metropolitan areas. Our adjustments to measuring residential segregation are critical for obtaining an accurate understanding of how residential segregation outcomes are unfolding in new destination communities.
During the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic, federal spending on government safety net programs in the United States increased dramatically. Despite this unparalleled spending, government safety nets were widely critiqued for failing to fully meet many households' needs. Disaster research suggests that informal modes of social support often emerge during times of disruption, such as the first year of the pandemic. However, use of formal government programs and informal support are rarely examined relative to each other, resulting in an incomplete picture of how households navigate disaster impacts and financial shocks. This study compares estimates of informal social support to formal government program use in the rural U.S. West, drawing on data from a rapid response survey fielded during the summer of 2020 and the 2021 Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS‐ASEC). We find that informal social support systems were, on aggregate, used almost as extensively as long‐standing government programs. Our findings highlight the critical role of person‐to‐person assistance, such as sharing financial resources, among rural households during a disruptive disaster period. Routine and standardized data collection on these informal support behaviors could improve future disaster research and policy responses, especially among rural populations.
Purpose: To explore the palliative care needs and preferences of older adults with advanced or serious chronic illnesses and their families. Also, to propose strategies to promote supportive palliative care in the rural communities of Indiana, USA. Method: We conducted qualitative interviews to gather rural caregivers' experiences of palliative care. Recruitment was done in collaboration with community partners using social media, flyers, emails, invitations, and word-of-mouth. A purposive sample of family caregivers was obtained. All the interviews were conducted online. The average interview was 30-45 minutes. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Findings: Our findings showed 6 major themes that indicated several palliative care needs and preferences of older patients and their families in rural communities that include: (1) difficulties in pain and symptom burden; (2) perceived discrimination and lack of trust; (3) longer distances to care facilities; (4) difficult conversations; (5) caregiving burden; and (6) use of telehealth in a rural palliative care context. Conclusion: Rural family caregivers experience several social inequities and disparities causing a lack of access to and low utilization of palliative care. All these disparities cause several challenges for patients and their families trying to manage serious illnesses and die in place with peace and comfort. Inadequate access and lack of resources cause pain and distress for both patients and their families. Provider education and trainings, initiating early palliative care models, integrating behavioral health in palliative care, and using culturally congruent care delivery approaches in support of community partners can improve palliative care services in rural communities.
Full-text available
For cities, having a declining population usually means socio-economic and infrastructure challenges to accommodate the remaining population. Using population projections, we found that by 2100, close to half of the nearly 30,000 cities in the U.S. will face some sort of population decline, representing 12–23% of the population of these 30,000 cities and 27–44% of the populated area. The implications of this massive decline in population will bring unprecedented mobility and infrastructure challenges, possibly leading to disruptions in basic services like transit, clean water, electricity, and internet access. Simultaneously, increasing population trends in resource-intensive suburban and periurban cities will likely take away access to much needed resources in depopulating areas, further exacerbating their challenges. While immigration could play a vital role, resource distribution challenges will persist unless a paradigm shift happens away from growth-based planning alone.
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between rurality and risk perception of getting or transmitting COVID-19 and willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine in a sample of Latinos across Arizona and California's Central Valley (n = 419). The results revealed that rural Latinos are more concerned about getting and transmitting COVID-19, but less willing to get vaccinated. Our findings suggest that perceptions of risk alone do not play a sole role in influencing risk management behavior among rural Latinos. While rural Latinos may have heightened perception of the risks associated with COVID-19, vaccine hesitancy persists due to a variety of structural and cultural factors. These factors included limited access to healthcare facilities, language barriers, concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, and cultural factors such as strong family and community ties. The study highlights the need for culturally-tailored education and outreach efforts that address the specific needs and concerns of this community to increase vaccination rates and reduce the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 among Latino communities living in rural areas.
Background: New Latino immigrant populations face challenges and barriers when arriving in new immigrant destinations. Objective: To better understand the challenges faced by Latino immigrants in a new immigrant destination by using the Social Ecological Model. Design: This study solicited the perceptions of key informants and Latino immigrant participants through qualitative data collection methods to understand how to address and decrease barriers to healthcare services and community resources. Sample: Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with two groups of respondents: 13 key informants and 30 Latino immigrants. Measurements: Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and categorized based on the Social Ecological Model. Results: Themes identified at the individual and interpersonal levels of the Social Ecological Model include fear of deportation and stress. Themes at the community level include cultural differences, discrimination, and a lack of exposure of the majority community to Latino immigrants. At the system level, researchers identified language barriers, the cost of healthcare, and housing. At the policy level, researchers identified legal status and occupational exploitation as challenges for this community. Conclusion: Understanding the challenges faced by Latino immigrants requires multi-level interventions to address barriers that prevent new immigrants from accessing community resources.
This research is the first to examine the prevalence and dynamics of non‐Hispanic white natural decrease in fine scale subregional units of the United States. In 2015, more non‐Hispanic Whites died than were born in 65 percent of the US counties. This is the highest incidence of non‐Hispanic white natural decrease ever reported. It results from a complex interaction among fertility, mortality, and migration over a protracted period. Spatial regression is used to identify three critical variables (over‐65 population, child–women ratio, and women of childbearing age) that are the immediate demographic causes of this natural decrease. The timely, factual information in this paper provides a demographic context for analysis of the social, political, and policy implications of this emergent demographic phenomenon.
The number and size of “new immigrant destinations” (NIDs) in the United States grew quickly over the 1990s and 2000s, but Latino newcomers residing in them witnessed a profound negative turn in institutional and political reception after 2005. The present article takes stock of the causes and consequences of this shift, showing how intensifying enforcement and exclusionary policy-making at the federal and state levels after 2005 stoked anti-immigrant sentiment and institutional closure in many NIDs, especially in the South. Though the Latino “second generation” is just now beginning to come of age and to enter the workforce in NIDs, offering new opportunities for data collection and analysis going forward, the extant literature suggests that this shift has significantly weakened its prospects for structural incorporation and upward economic mobility, which are now strongly stratified by citizenship and legal status.
How does the metropolis influence population change and amenity development in small cities of the adjacent hinterland? We examine one scenario in five cities of New York state's Hudson Valley, a region north of metropolitan New York City that reveals dual trajectories of urban change. In some cities, immigrant revitalization brings population growth, revitalizes main street economies, and extends cities' majority‐minority legacies. In other cities, amenity development attracts metropolitan newcomers, triggers residential and retail gentrification, sustains majority‐white demographics, and fails to offset out‐migration associated with rustbelt decline. These dual trajectories are connected through a metropolitan process of “Brooklynization”: sociospatial changes in hinterland regions set in motion by racialized amenity pursuits. Culturally, metropolitan outsiders encounter small cities through ‘rural’ frameworks that emphasize outdoor/agricultural amenities, small‐town ‘authenticity,’ and the implicit whiteness of the hinterland landscape. Economically, immigrant revitalization and amenity development are connected via linked migration that channels an immigrant proletariat to some cities and the amenity migrants they labor for to other cities and towns.
This analysis seeks to understand why some small towns have improved quality of life (QoL) over the past 20 years despite sizable population losses. Using a longitudinal data set of small towns in Iowa collected every 10 years since 1994, I measure the resiliency or vulnerability of declining towns based on change in subjective QoL, and then model the socioeconomic correlates along a resilient‐decline index. Community resiliency is enhanced by the process of creating bridging social capital, not the quantity available for use. By contrast, the quantity of both internal and external linking social capital promotes resiliency by linking residents to local and outside power structures, but the growth of these linkages has no impact. Bonding social capital indirectly helps resiliency by increasing internal linkages that foster local participation, but hinders it by decreasing external ones that limit access to outside resources. Jobs in goods‐producing industries like manufacturing directly promote resiliency by providing more secure employment, plus indirectly promote it by increasing bridging ties and external linkages. Growing poverty and income disparities make declining places more vulnerable by reducing QoL and external linkages. I discuss local strategies promoting resiliency and QoL.
Rapid economic, demographic and social change in America's new Latino destinations has generated concerns about changing quality of life in rural communities. Findings from prior research suggest that the arrival of socioeconomically vulnerable newcomers may undermine demographic foundations of community engagement, and that heterogeneity, segregation, race/ethnic tension, and rising income inequality may reduce aggregate engagement in local affairs. Research on new Latino destinations, however, points to unique attributes of newcomers that may offset these challenges or even enhance community life. In this study, we investigate changes in demographic foundations for participation, community revitalization and shifts in economic, civic and political activity in new nonmetropolitan Latino destinations over the 1990s and 2000s. Using data from the Census of Population, American Community Survey, County Business Patterns, Census of Religion, and voting records, and controlling for relevant county attributes, we compare trajectories of counties that received large numbers of Latinos after 1990 to similar counties that did not experience rapid Latino growth. Difference-in-difference regression analyses reveal that despite erosion of foundations for participation, most notably education, economic well-being and English-language proficiency, Latino influxes have helped to revitalize new destination communities and promoted economic activity conducive to community engagement. Contrary to claims that individuals in more diverse environments withdraw from community life and “hunker down” at home (Putnam 2007), we find no evidence that diversification has reduced community participation; instead, residents of new communities have become more civically and politically engaged.
Since the most recent peak in the total fertility rate (the estimated number of lifetime births expected per 1,000 women) in 2007, the United States has experienced a decreasing total fertility rate and an increasing mean, or average, age of mothers at first birth (1-4). Previous research shows rural areas have persistently higher fertility and worse birth outcomes compared with metropolitan (metro) areas (2,5-8). This report describes trends and differences in total fertility rates and mean maternal age at first birth overall, and by race and Hispanic origin, between rural and small or medium metro, and rural and large metro counties, from 2007 through 2017.
Population loss in North America is often viewed as a problem best addressed through economic development efforts promoting growth. In Europe, an alternative view sees depopulation as a process needing to be managed properly, by scaling down community services and infrastructure while maintaining social equity. Called smart shrinkage, this approach argues places can lose population yet still possess a high quality of life. We first clarify the concept by distinguishing the outputs of smartness from its inputs using the entrepreneurial social infrastructure framework. Second, we apply the smart shrinkage concept to n = 98 small towns in the Midwestern state of Iowa using longitudinal data collected in 1994 and 2014. Shrinkage is measured by faster than average population loss; and smart outcomes by faster than average quality of life gains. We then examine correlates of smart shrinkage using demographic, economic, social capital, and civic engagement indicators. Demographic and geographic factors have little impact on smart shrinkage. Smart towns have stronger local labor markets, lower poverty and inequality, and job opportunities in goods-producing sectors. Lastly, smart shrinking towns exhibit higher social infrastructure by possessing more bridging social capital across diverse groups, greater quantities of linking social capital such as memberships in local organizations, and frequent civic engagement by participation in local projects. These activities are supported by a community culture of openness, tolerance, and support.
This article examines the individual and economic context correlates of foreign‐born dispersion in the 2007–2011 period using confidential American Community Surveys and census data. For 40 national origin groups and other foreigners from 7 world regions, group‐specific settlement indicators for 741 geographic areas were used to estimate dispersion relationships to human capital, acculturation, settlement region, and economic context. A fixed‐effect model estimated with individual indicators, net of national origin, indicated that human capital and acculturation had relationships to dispersion that conformed to human capital and spatial assimilation theories but found that those relationships were attenuated or no longer significant after controlling for economic context. Individual and economic context correlates of dispersion also differed for Mexicans and non‐Mexicans. For both groups, the economic context measures that had the strongest relationships to dispersion were labour force shares in education/research/technology fields, and native‐born employment change between 1990 and 2000. Employment in agriculture and the military were significant for both Mexicans and non‐Mexicans but shares employed in manufacturing and construction were only significant for non‐Mexicans. Ordinary least squares (OLS) models for 40 origin countries indicated that internal migration status, residence in a household with a native‐born head, never married status, and English language fluency were significant correlates of dispersion for most groups. Having an advanced degree was also significantly related to dispersion for over half of the groups. Future studies should focus on the linkages between immigration histories and immigrants' human capital and how they shape the dispersion pathways that national origin groups take to different economic contexts.