Last week, the Census Bureau released the latest 5-year estimates for the American Community Survey for 2016-2020. This latest dataset uses the new 2020 census geography, which means if you’re focused on using the latest data, you can finally move away from the 2010-based geography which had been used for the ACS from 2010 to 2019 (with some caveats: 2020 ZCTAs won’t be utilized until the 2021 ACS, and 2020 PUMAs until 2022). As always, mappers have a choice between the TIGER Line files that depict the precise boundaries, or the generalized cartographic boundary files with smoothed lines and large sections of coastal water bodies removed to depict land areas. The 2016-2020 ACS data is available via data.census.gov and the ACS API.
This release is over 3 months late (compared to normal), and there was some speculation as to whether it would be released at all. The pandemic (chief among several other disruptive events) hampered 2020 decennial census and ACS operations. The 1-year 2020 ACS numbers were released over 2 months later than usual, in late November 2021, and were labeled as an experimental release. Instead of the usual 1,500 plus tables in 40 subject areas for all geographic areas with over 65,000 people, only 54 tables were released for the 50 states plus DC. This release is only available from the experimental tables page and is not being published via data.census.gov.
What happened? The details were published in a working paper, but in summary fewer addresses were sampled and the normal mail out and follow-up procedures were disrupted (pg 8). The overall sample size fell from 3.5 to 2.9 million addresses due to reduced mailing between April and June 2020 (pg 18), and total interviews fell from 2 million to 1.4 million with most of the reductions occurring in spring and summer (pg 18). The overall housing unit response rate for 2020 was 71%, down from 86% in 2019 and 92% in 2018 (pg 20). The response rate for the group quarters population fell from 91% in 2019 to 47% in 2020 (pg 21). Responses were differential, varying by time period (with the lowest rates during the peak pandemic months) and geography. Of the 818 counties that meet the 65k threshold, response rates in some were below 50% (pg 21). The data contained a large degree of non-response bias, where people who did respond to the survey had significantly different social, economic and housing characteristics from those who didn’t. As a consequence of all of this, margins of error for the data increased by 20 to 30% over normal (pg 18).
Thus, 2020 will represent a hole in the ACS estimates series. The Bureau made adjustments to weighting mechanisms to produce the experimental 1-year estimates, but is generally advising policy makers and researchers who normally use this series to choose alternatives: either the 1-year 2019 ACS, or the 5-year 2016-2020 ACS. The Bureau was able to make adjustments to produce satisfactory 5-year estimates to reduce non-response bias, and the 5-year pool of samples is balanced somewhat by having at least 4 years of good data.
The Population Estimates Program has also released its latest series of vintage 2021 estimates for counties and metropolitan areas. This dataset gives us a pretty sharp view of how the pandemic affected the nation’s population. Approximately 73% of all counties experienced natural decrease in 2021 (between July 1st 2020 and 2021), where the number of deaths outnumbered births. In contrast, 56% of counties had natural decrease in 2020 and 46% in 2019. Declining birth rates and increasing death rates are long term trends, but COVID-19 magnified them, given the large number of excess deaths on one hand and families postponing child birth due to the virus on the other hand. Net foreign migration continued its years-long decline, but net domestic migration increased in a number of places, reflecting pandemic moves. Medium to small counties benefited most, as did large counties in the Sunbelt and Mountain West. The biggest losers in overall population were counties in California (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda), Cook County (Chicago), and the counties that constitute the boroughs of NYC.
Natural increase: the difference between births and deaths
Domestic migration: moves between two points within the United States
Foreign migration: moves between the United States and a US territory or foreign country
Net migration: the difference between in-migration and out-migration (measured separately for domestic and foreign)
NYC: the five counties / boroughs that comprise New York City
NYMA: the New York Metropolitan Area as defined by the Office of Management and Budget in Sept 2018, consists of 10 counties in NY State (including the 5 NYC counties), 12 in New Jersey, and one in Pennsylvania
Population growth in both NYC and the NYMA was driven by positive net foreign migration and natural increase, which offset negative net domestic migration.
Population growth for both NYC and the NYMA was strong over the first half of the decade, but population growth slowed as domestic out-migration increased from 2011 to 2017.
NYC and the NYMA began experiencing population loss from 2017 forward, as both foreign migration and natural increase began to decelerate. Declines in foreign migration are part of a national trend; between 2016 and 2019 net foreign migration for the US fell by 43% (from 1.05 million to 595 thousand).
The city and metro’s experience fit within national trends. Most of the top counties in the US that are home to the largest cities and many of the largest metropolitan areas experienced slower population growth over the decade. In addition to NYC, three counties: Cook (Chicago), Los Angeles, and Santa Clara (San Jose) experienced actual population loss towards the decade’s end. The New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago metro areas also had declining populations by the latter half of the decade.
Most of NYC’s domestic out-migrants moved to suburban counties within the NYMA (representing 38% of outflows and 44% of net out-migration), and to Los Angeles County, Philadelphia County, and counties in Florida. Out-migrants from the NYMA moved to other large metros across the country, as well as smaller, neighboring metros like Poughkeepsie NY, Fairfield CT, and Trenton NJ. Metro Miami and Philadelphia were the largest sources of both in-migrants and out-migrants.
NYC and the NYMA lack any significant relationships with other counties and metro areas where they are net receivers of domestic migrants, receiving more migrants from those places than they send to those places.
NYC and the NYMA are similar to the cities and metros of Los Angeles and Chicago, in that they rely on high levels foreign migration and natural increase to offset high levels of negative domestic migration, and have few substantive relationships where they are net receivers of domestic migrants. Academic research suggests that the absolute largest cities and metros behave this way; attracting both low and high skilled foreign migrants while redistributing middle and working class domestic migrants to suburban areas and smaller metros. This pattern of positive foreign migration offsetting negative domestic migration has characterized population trends in NYC for many decades.
During the 2010s, most of the City and Metro’s foreign migrants came from Latin America and Asia. Compared to the US as a whole, NYC and the NYMA have slightly higher levels of Latin American and European migrants and slightly lower levels of Asian and African migrants.
Given the Census Bureau’s usual residency concept and the overlap in the onset the of COVID-19 pandemic lock down with the 2020 Census, in theory the pandemic should not alter how most New Yorkers identify their usual residence as of April 1, 2020. In practice, the pandemic has been highly disruptive to the census-taking process, which raises the risk of an under count.
The impact of COVID-19 on future domestic migration is difficult to gauge. Many of the pandemic destinations cited in recent cell phone (NYT and WSJ) and mail forwarding (NYT) studies mirror the destinations that New Yorkers have moved to between 2011 and 2018. Foreign migration will undoubtedly decline in the immediate future given pandemic disruptions, border closures, and restrictive immigration policies. The number of COVID-19 deaths will certainly push down natural increase for 2020.
In this post I’ll demonstrate how I created annotated heatmaps (or what I’m calling a rank change grid) showing change in rank over time using Python and Matplotlib’s imshow plots. I was writing a report on population trends and internal migration using the IRS county to county migration dataset, and wanted to depict the top origins and destinations of migrants for New York City and the New York Metropolitan Area and how they changed from year to year.
I hit upon this idea based on an example in the Matplotlib documentation using the imshow plot. Imshow was designed for manipulating and creating images, but since images are composed of rows and columns of pixels you can use this function to create grids (for GIS folks, think of a raster). The rows can indicate rank from 1 to N, while the columns could represent time, which in my case is years. I could label each grid cell with the name of a place (i.e. origin or destination), and if a place changes ranks over time I could assign the cell a color indicating increase or decrease; otherwise I’d assign a neutral color indicating no change. The idea is that you could look at place at a given rank in year 1 and follow it across the chart by looking at the label. If a new place appears in a given position, the color change clues you in, and you can quickly scan to see whether a given place went up or down.
The image below shows change in rank for the top metro area destinations for migrants leaving the NYC metro from 2011 to 2018. You can see that metro Miami was the top destination for several years, up until 2016-17 when it flips positions with metro Philadelphia, which had been the number 2 destination. The sudden switch from a neutral color indicates that the place occupying this rank is new. You can also follow how 3rd ranked Bridgeport falls to 4th place in the 2nd year (displaced by Los Angeles), remains in 4th place for a few years, and then falls to 5th place (again bumped by Los Angeles, which falls from 3rd to 4th as it’s bumped by Poughkeepsie).
I opted for this over a more traditional approach called a bump chart (also referred to a slope chart or graph), with time on the x-axis and ranks on the y-axis, and observations labeled at either the first or last point in time. Each observation is assigned a specific color or symbol, and lines connect each observation to its changing position in rank so you can follow it along the chart. Interpreting these charts can be challenging; if there are frequent changes in rank the whole thing begins to look like spaghetti, and the more observations you have the tougher it gets to interpret. Most of the examples I found depicted a small and finite number of observations. I have hundreds of observations and only want to see the top ten, and if observations fall in and out of the top N ranks you get several discontinuous lines which look odd. Lastly, neither Matplotlib or Pandas have a default function for creating bump charts, although I found a few examples where you could create your own.
Creating the rank change grids was a three-part process that required: taking the existing data and transforming it into an array of the top or bottom N values that you want to show, using that array to generate an array that shows change in ranks over time, and generating a plot using both arrays, one for the value and the other for the labels. I’ll tackle each piece in this post. I’ve embedded the functions at the end of each explanation; you can also look at my GitHub repo that has the Jupyter Notebook I used for the analysis for the paper (to be published in Sept 2020).
Create the Initial Arrays
In the paper I was studying flows between NYC and other counties, and the NYC metro area and other metropolitan statisical areas. I’ll refer just to the metro areas as my example in this post, but my functions were written to handle both types of places, stored in separate dataframes. I began with a large dataframe with every metro that exchanged migrants with the NYC metro. There is a row for each metro where the index is the Census Bureau’s unique FIPS code, and columns that show inflows, outflows, and net flows year by year (see image below). There are some rows that represent aggregates, such as flows to all non-metro areas and the sum of individual metro flows that could not be disclosed due to privacy regulations.
The first step is to create an array that has just the top or bottom N places that I want to depict, just for one flow variable (in, out, or net). Why an array? Arrays are pretty solid structures that allow you to select specific rows and columns, and they mesh nicely with imshow charts as each location in the matrix can correspond with the same location in the chart. Most of the examples I looked at used arrays. It’s possible to use other structures but it’s more tedious; nested Python lists don’t have explicit rows and columns so a lot of looping and slicing is required, and with dataframes there always seems to be some catch with data types, messing with the index versus the values, or something else. I went with NumPy’s array type.
I wrote a function where I pass in the dataframe, the type of variable (in, out, or net flow), the number of places I want, whether they are counties or metro areas, and whether I want the top or bottom N records (true or false). Two arrays are returned: the first shows the FIPS unique ID numbers of each place, while the second returns the labels. You don’t have to do anything to calculate actual ranks, because once the data is sorted the ranks become implicit; each row represents ranks 1 through 10, each column represents a year, and the ID or label for a place that occupies each position indicates its rank for that year.
In my dataframe, the names of the columns are prefixed based on the type of variable (inflow, outflow, or net flow), followed by the year, i.e. inflows_2011_12. In the function, I subset the dataframe by selecting columns that start with the variable I want. I have to deal with different issues based on whether I’m looking at counties or metro areas, and I need to get rid of any IDs that are for summary values like the non-metro areas; these IDS are stored in a list called suppressed, and the ~df.indexisin(suppressed) is pandaesque for taking anything that’s not in this list (the tilde acts as not). Then, I select the top or bottom values for each year, and append them to lists in a nested list (each sub-list represents the top / bottom N places in order for a given year). Next, I get the labels I want by creating a dictionary that relates all ID codes to label names, pull out the labels for the actual N values that I have, and format them before appending them to lists in a nested list. For example, the metro labels are really long and won’t fit in the chart, so I split them and grab just the first piece: Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY becomes Albany (split using the dash) while Akron, OH becomes Akron (if no dash is present, split at comma). At the end, I use np.array to turn the nested lists into arrays, and transpose (T) them so rows become ranks and years become values. The result is below:
# Create array of top N geographies by flow type, with rows as ranks and columns as years
# Returns 2 arrays with values for geographies (id codes) and place names
# Must specify: number of places to rank, counties or metros, or sort by largest or smallest (True or False)
cols=[c for c in df if c.startswith(flowtype)]
for c in cols:
if largest is True:
elif largest is False:
for row in geogs:
for uid in row:
if fips[uid]=='District of Columbia, DC':
line.append(fips[uid].replace('County, ','\n')) #creates short labels
if '-' in fips[uid]:
line.append(fips[uid].split('-')) #creates short labels
return a_geogs, a_labels
Change in Rank Array
Using the array of geographic ID codes, I can feed this into function number two to create a new array that indicates change in rank over time. It’s better to use the ID code array as we guarantee that the IDs are unique; labels (place names) may not be unique and pose all kinds of formatting issues. All places are assigned a value of 0 for the first year, as there is no previous year to compare them to. Then, for each subsequent year, we look at each value (ID code) and compare it to the value in the same position (rank) in the previous column (year). If the value is the same, that place holds the same rank and is assigned a 0. Otherwise, if it’s different we look at the new value and see what position it was in in the previous year. If it was in a higher position last year, then it has declined and we assign -1. If it was in a lower position last year or was not in the array in that column (i.e. below the top 10 in that year) it has increased and we assign it a value of 1. This result is shown below:
# Create array showing how top N geographies have changed ranks over time, with rows as rank changes and
# columns as years. Returns 1 array with values: 0 (no change), 1 (increased rank), and -1 (descreased rank)
# Create a number of blank lists
changelist = [ for _ in range(rowcount)]
for i in range(colcount):
# Rank change for 1st year is 0, as there is no previous year
for j in range(rowcount):
col=geoarray[:,i] #Get all values in this col
prevcol=geoarray[:,i-1] #Get all values in previous col
for v in col:
array_pos=np.where(col == v) #returns array
current_pos=int(array_pos) #get first array value
array_pos2=np.where(prevcol == v) #returns array
if len(array_pos2)==0: #if array is empty, because place was not in previous year
previous_pos=int(array_pos2) #get first array value
#No change in rank
elif current_posprevious_pos: #Larger value = smaller rank
#Rank has decreased
Create the Plot
Now we can create the actual chart! The rank change array is what will actually be charted, but we will use the labels array to display the names of each place. The values that occupy the positions in each array pertain to the same place. The chart function takes the names of both these arrays as input. I do some fiddling around at the beginning to get the labels for the x and y axis the way I want them. Matplotlib allows you to modify every iota of your plot, which is in equal measures flexible and overwhelming. I wanted to make sure that I showed all the tick labels, and changed the default grid lines to make them thicker and lighter. It took a great deal of fiddling to get these details right, but there were plenty of examples to look at (Matplotlib docs, cookbook, Stack Overflow, and this example in particular). For the legend, shrinking the colorbar was a nice option so it’s not ridiculously huge, and I assign -1, 0, and 1 to specific colors denoting decrease, no change, and increase. I loop over the data values to get their corresponding labels, and depending on the color that’s assigned I can modify whether the text is dark or light (so you can see it against the background of the cell). The result is what you saw at the beginning of this post for outflows (top destinations for migrants leaving the NY metro). The function call is below:
# Create grid plot based on an array that shows change in ranks and an array of cell labels
xlabels=[yr.replace('_','-') for yr in years]
mycolors = colors.ListedColormap(['#de425b','#f7f7f7','#67a9cf'])
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10,10))
im = ax.imshow(rank_change, cmap=mycolors)
# Show all ticks...
# ... and label them with the respective list entries
# Create white grid.
ax.grid(which="minor", color="w", linestyle='-', linewidth=3)
cbar = ax.figure.colorbar(im, ax=ax, ticks=[1,0,-1], shrink=0.5)
# Loop over data dimensions and create text annotations.
for i in range(len(ylabels)):
for j in range(len(xlabels)):
if rank_change[i,j] &amp;lt; 0:
text = ax.text(j, i, alabels[i, j],
ha="center", va="center", color="w", fontsize=10)
text = ax.text(j, i, alabels[i, j],
ha="center", va="center", color="k", fontsize=10)
#ax.set_title("Change in Rank Over Time")
Conclusions and Alternatives
I found that this approach worked well for my particular circumstances, where I had a limited number of data points to show and the ranks didn’t fluctuate much from year to year. The charts for ten observations displayed over seven points in time fit easily onto standard letter-sized paper; I could even get away with adding two additional observations and an eighth point in time if I modified the size and placement of the legend. However, beyond that you can begin to run into trouble. I generated charts for the top twenty places so I could see the results for my own analysis, but it was much too large to create a publishable graphic (at least in print). If you decrease the dimensions for the chart or reduce the size of the grid cells, the labels start to become unreadable (print that’s too small or overlapping labels).
There are a number of possibilities for circumventing this. One would be to use shorter labels; if we were working with states or provinces we can use the two-letter postal codes, or ISO country codes in the case of countries. Not an option in my example. Alternatively, we could move the place names to the y-axis (sorted alphabetically or by first or final year rank) and then use the rank as the annotation label. This would be a fundamentally different chart; you could see how one place changes in rank over time, but it would be tougher to discern which places were the most important source / destination for the area you’re studying (you’d have to skim through the whole chart). Or, you could keep ranks on the y-axis and assign each place a unique color in the legend, shade the grid cells using that color, and thus follow the changing colors with your eye. But this flops is you have too many places / colors.
A different caveat is this approach doesn’t work so well if there is a lot of fluctuation in ranks from year to year. In this example, the top inflows and outflows were relatively stable from year to year. There were enough places that held the same rank that you could follow the places that changed positions. We saw the example above for outflows, below is an example for inflows (i.e. the top origins or sources of migrants moving to the NY metro):
In contrast, the ranks for net flows were highly variable. There was so much change that the chart appears as a solid block of colors with few neutral (unchanged) values, making it difficult to see what’s going on. An example of this is below, representing net flows for the NYC metro area. This is the difference between inflows and outflows, and the chart represents metros that receive more migrants from New York than they send (i.e. net receivers of NY migrants). While I didn’t use the net flow charts in my paper, it was still worth generating as it made it clear to me that net flow ranks fluctuate quite a bit, which was a fact I could state in the text.
There are also a few alternatives to using imshow. Matplotlib’s pcolor plot can produce similar effects but with rectangles instead of square grid cells. That could allow for more observations and longer labels. I thought it was less visually pleasing than the equal grid, and early on I found that implementing it was clunkier so I went no further. My other idea was to create a table instead of a chart. Pandas has functions for formatting dataframes in a Jupyter Notebook, and there are options for exporting the results out to HTML. Formatting is the downside – if you create a plot as an image, you export it out and can then embed it into any document format you like. When you’re exporting tables out of a notebook, you’re only exporting the content and not the format. With a table, the content and formatting is separate, and the latter is often tightly bound to the publication format (Word, LaTeX, HTML, etc.) You can design with this in mind if you’re self-publishing a blog post or report, but this is not feasible when you’re submitting something for publication where an editor or designer will be doing the layout.
I really wanted to produce something that I could code and run automatically in many different iterations, and was happy with this solution. It was an interesting experiment, as I grappled with taking something that seemed intuitive to do the old-fashioned way (see below) and reproducing it in a digital, repeatable format.
I’m in the home stretch for getting the last chapter of the first draft of my census book completed. The next to last chapter of the book provides an overview of a number of derivatives that you can create from census data, and one of them is the daytime population.
There are countless examples of using census data for site selection analysis and for comparing and ranking places for locating new businesses, providing new public services, and generally measuring potential activity or population in a given area. People tend to forget that census data measures people where they live. If you were trying to measure service or business potential for residents, the census is a good source.
Counts of residents are less meaningful if you wanted to gauge how crowded or busy a place was during the day. The population of an area changes during the day as people leave their homes to go to work or school, or go shopping or participate in social activities. Given the sharp divisions in the US between residential, commercial, and industrial uses created by zoning, residential areas empty out during the weekdays as people travel into the other two zones, and then fill up again at night when people return. Some places function as job centers while others serve as bedroom communities, while other places are a mixture of the two.
Total workers living in area and Workers who lived and worked in same area
B08007: Sex of Workers by Place of Work–State and County Level (‘Total:’ line and ‘Worked in county of residence’ line)
B08008: Sex of Workers by Place of Work–Place Level (‘Total:’ line and ‘Worked in place of residence’ line)
B08009: Sex of Workers by Place of Work–Minor Civil Division Level (‘Total:’ line and ‘Worked in MCD of residence’ line)
Total workers working in area
B08604: Total Workers for Workplace Geography
They propose two different approaches that lead to the same outcome. The simplest approach: add the total resident population to the total number of workers who work in the area, and then subtract the total resident workforce (workers who live in the area but may work inside or outside the area):
Daytime Population = Total Residents + Total Workers in Area - Total Resident Workers
For example, according to the 2017 ACS Washington DC had an estimated 693,972 residents (from table B01003), 844,345 (+/- 11,107) people who worked in the city (table B08604), and 375,380 (+/- 6,102) workers who lived in the city. We add the total residents and total workers, and subtract the total workers who live in the city. The subtraction allows us to avoid double counting the residents who work in the city (as they are already included in the total resident population) while omitting the residents who work outside the city (who are included in the total resident workers). The result:
693,972 + 844,345 - 375,380 = 1,162,937
And to get the new margin of error:
SQRT(0^2 + 11,107^2 + 6,102^2) = 12,673
So the daytime population of DC is approx 468,965 people (68%) higher than its resident population. The district has a high number of jobs in the government, non-profit, and education sectors, but has a limited amount of expensive real estate where people can live. In contrast, I did the calculation for Philadelphia and its daytime population is only 7% higher than its resident population. Philadelphia has a much higher proportion of resident workers relative to total workers. Geographically the city is larger than DC and has more affordable real estate, and faces stiffer suburban competition for private sector jobs.
The variables in the tables mentioned above are also cross-tabulated in other tables by age, sex, race, Hispanic origin , citizenship status, language, poverty, and tenure, so it’s possible to estimate some characteristics of the daytime population. Margins of error will limit the usefulness of estimates for small population groups, and overall the 5-year period estimates are a better choice for all but the largest areas. Data for workers living in an area who lived and worked in the same area is reported for states, counties, places (incorporated cities and towns), and municipal civil divisions (MCDs) for the states that have them.
Data for the total resident workforce is available for other, smaller geographies but is reported for those larger places, i.e. we know how many people in a census tract live and work in their county or place of residence, but not how many live and work in their tract of residence. In contrast, data on the number of workers from B08604 is not available for smaller geographies, which limits the application of this method to larger areas.
We analyzed recent population trends (2010 to 2016) in New York City and the greater metropolitan area using the US Census Bureau’s Population Estimates to study components of population change (births, deaths, domestic and international migration) and the IRS Statistics of Income division’s county to county migration data to study domestic migration flows.
Here are the main findings:
The population of New York City and the New York Metropolitan Area increased significantly between 2010 and 2016, but annually growth has slowed due to greater domestic out-migration.
Compared to other large US cities and metro areas, New York’s population growth depends heavily on foreign immigration and natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) to offset losses from domestic out-migration.
Between 2011 and 2015 the city had few relationships where it was a net receiver of migrants (receiving more migrants than it sends) from other large counties. The New York metro area had no net-receiver relationships with any major metropolitan area.
The city was a net sender (sending more migrants than it received) to all of its surrounding suburban counties and to a number of large urban counties across the US. The metro area was a net sender to metropolitan areas throughout the country.
For the domestic migration portion of the analysis we were interested in seeing the net flows between places. For example, the NYC metro area sends migrants to and receives migrants from the Miami metro. What is the net balance between the two – who receives more versus who sends more?
The answer is: the NYC metro is a net sender to most of the major metropolitan areas in the country, and has no significant net receiver relationships with any other major metropolitan area. For example, for the period from 2011 to 2015 the NYC metro’s largest net sender relationship was with the Miami metro. About 88,000 people left the NYC metro for metro Miami while 58,000 people moved in the opposite direction, resulting in a net gain of 30,000 people for Miami (or in other words, a net loss of 30k people for NYC). The chart below shows the top twenty metros where the NYC metro had a deficit in migration (sending more migrants to these areas than it received). A map of net out-migration from the NYC metro to other metros appears at the top of this post. In contrast, NYC’s largest net receiver relationship (where the NYC metro received more migrants than it sent) was with Ithaca, New York, which lost a mere 300 people to the NYC metro.
For the IRS data we used the county to county migration SQLite database that Janine meticulously constructed over the course of the last year, which is freely available on the Baruch Geoportal. Anastasia employed her Python and Pandas wizardry to create Jupyter notebooks that we used for doing our analysis and generating our charts, all of which are available on github. I used an alternate approach with Python and the SQLite and prettytable modules to generate estimates independently of Anastasia, so we could compare the two and verify our numbers (we were aggregating migration flows across years and geographies from several tables, and calculating net flows between places).
One of our goals for this project was to use modern tools and avoid the clunky use of email. With the Jupyter notebooks, git and github for storing and syncing our work, and ShareLaTeX for writing the paper, we avoided using email for constantly exchanging revised versions of scripts and papers. Ultimately I had to use latex2rtf to convert the paper to a word processing format that the publisher could use. This post helped me figure out which bibliography packages to choose (in order for latex2rtf to interpret citations and references, you need to use the older natbib & bibtex combo and not biblatex & biber).