1. Migration in Alaska EPSCoR All Hands meeting May 14, 2009 Anchorage Stephanie Martin Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage, AK USA

2. Acknowledgements National Science Foundation –Social Transitions in the North –Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic –Boreas –Migration in the Arctic –EPSCoR North Slope borough National Park Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Census Bureau

3. Connections Macro effects of micro-decisions –Community effects of out-migration Micro effects of macro forces –Climate change –Global economy

4. So far integrated over projects and communities –Who moves and why –Are migrants better off –Return migrants Goal to extend projects by integrating over disciplines and extending geographic and cultural scope –Out-migration –Return Integration

5. 930 935 1615 1010 1149 777 1985-90 1995-00 Iñupiat migration in Alaska

6. Surveys Not designed to be migration surveys Most ask where did you live 5 years ago or 1 year ago Where were you born

7. Return migrants - moved back to the community where they grew up. In-migrants – moved to a community other than where they grew up. Stayers – never left. Migrant groups in the surveys

8. More women move out More men move back Young adults Some places, women with children Who moves

9. Why people move More women than men considered leaving –Pull. Women cite own or children’s education, family as reasons. More men want to stay. –Negative push factors. Hunting and fishing one of the main reported reasons.

10. What else? Return migration is important because of its implications for community level well being. Important for individual well-being because it is related to family ties and social support. Both essential for well-being.

11. Return Migration In Northern Alaskan communities, about 1/3 are return Return migration varies by community –Some communities are relatively new and weren’t around when respondents were young. –Some communities people leave and don’t return.

12. Return Migration Return migration varies by gender. –Mirroring the census data showing that more women leave and more men return –Of men living in Arctic communities, 41% are return migrants. –Compared with 34% of women

13. Why people leave Education –52% of male return migrants reported leaving for education –42% of women return migrants Jobs –Equal percentages of men and women return migrants (about 21% reported leaving for jobs)

14. Why people return Overwhelmingly, people return to be with family –A larger share of men (68%) than women (58%) A slightly larger share of women (13%) than men reported returning for jobs About 7% of both men and women reported returning for subsistence.

15. Characteristics of return migrants Educated Employed Subsistence participation –Less in whaling, walrus –Same in other activities Social support Family ties

16. Moving forward Macro effects of micro-decisions - Out-migration and its effects on communities Effects of macro forces on micro-decisions –Effects of climate change on communities Leaky system.

18. Practical Importance Denali Commission and other federal agencies State funding for schools, local government State sport hunting/subsistence trade-offs Urban areas – providing services Understanding migration in other places

19. Different community profiles More very small communities (37 places) Declining populations Schools closing High subsistence harvest but fewer species –Moose, salmon, caribou

21. Summary Until now: Integrated research in one field over time Going forward: Integrate research across disciplines Moved from micro effects on macro decisions to macro effects on micro Migration is a good example of leakage from system.

22. Research questions What are the points of contact between global forces and communities/households? What are thresholds for change? Link these changes to resilience? Resilience of what? Boundaries of system. Leakage. Community location? What happens if communities vanish? Decay.