Return Migration to Eastern Kentucky and the Stem Family Concept

Abstract

This research provides a conceptual framework-based on the stem family concept-with which to explore the cyclical nature of return migration to Eastern Kentucky. A generalized six-phase migration model is developed within a stem familyldiffusion context to explain how the socioeconomic characteristics of return migrants have varied in response to economic changes outside Appalachia. The role of awareness space on channeling migration flows is also examined.Responses from 119 households in Laurel, Pike, and Powell counties, Kentucky, are used to test hypotheses associated with the general model. The survey results support the continued existence of extreme stem family forces within Eastern Kentucky. Most inmigrants are return migrants. Return migration motives continue to be more related to sociocultural factors than they are jobrelated decisions. Most returnees are well below retirement age, and even the younger and more educated among these have a strong preference for remaining in Eastern Kentucky, although their historical tendency has been to move away when economic pulls are strong enough. Maps of return migrants' awareness spaces closely conform with past outmigration patterns. As awareness spaces have been shown to correspond with migrants' destination choices, the maps suggest that future outmigrants from Eastern Kentucky will continue to bias their destination choices more toward the North than the South. ETURN MIGRATION SIGNIFICANTLY influences the demo-R graphic structure of Eastern Kentucky. Return migrants are far more numerous than non-return migrants and a majority of the returnees are repeaters. This paper summarizes the historical fluctuations of migration streams to and from Eastern Kentucky with special emphasis on the characteristics of the return migrant. A six-phase return migration model is offered to explain the cyclical nature of return migration. The model isStephen E . White i s professor and head of the geography department at Kansas State University. He wishes to thank the Kansas State University Bureau of General Research for funding the survey and Bryan Tucker for producing the figures.

Place elasticity: exploring a new conceptualization of mobility and place attachment in rural america

“…They are infrequently used as sources of information about migration, but have the potential to illuminate nuances in place attachment and migration decisions across generations and socio-economic groups. The Appalachian counties of eastern Kentucky, where family reunions are common, are notable for their previously high rates of return migration facilitated by strong kinship networks and place attachment (see Bohland 1970;White 1987;Obermiller and Rappold 1990). A large literature already documents the migration characteristics of this region's population (see, e.g., Rowles and Watkins 1995;Obermiller andHowe 2001, 2004;Obermiller 2004;Watkins et al 2004).…”

“…But many people do choose to stay in rural Appalachia, much as they do in other rural communities throughout the country. Numerous studies have investigated the movement of migrants into and out of the region (see, e.g., Pickard 1981;Rowles and Watkins 1995;Berry 2000;Obermiller and Howe 2000, 2004Obermiller 2004, Watkins et al 2004Alexander 2005;Pollard 2005), and others focus on the importance of social networks and place attachment in facilitating return migration (e.g., White 1987White , 1989White and Brunn 1994). Yet other scholars have identified ways in which out-migrants from the region have transported their home to distant cities through social organizations and settlement patterns within cities external to the region (see, e.g., Borman and Obermiller 1994;Guy 2000;Johnson 2000).…”

Migration, Places, and Nonmetropolitan Development

“…"Going home" can also play an important part in rural growth. In Kentucky, White (1987) found that most migrants were return migrants and their motivations were more sociocultural than job-related. There are few theoretical studies of repeat migration and there is a need to differentiate between types of migrants in the modeling process (Dierx, 1988), as well as to consider the duration of previous migration (Krumm and Kelly, 1988).…”

Divorce as an Influence in Return Migration to Rural Areas

“…In such communities, return migrants represent a sizeable share of in-migrants. White (1987), for instance, found for out-migration counties of Eastern Kentucky that over 70% of surveyed in-migrants were returning migrants, nearly three times the national average observed by DaVanzo and Morrison (1981). Consequently, return migrants are important to rural areas as a way of countering population loss.…”