Master of Regional and Community Planning / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning / John W. Keller / Rural communities are a vital part of America; they account for two-thirds of the land in the U.S. and are home to about one in every nine Americans. Throughout history, our country has been shaped by their presence and social, economic, and cultural influence (Flora et al., 2004). For over the past half century however, communities in rural America have been declining in size and population; in nearly 70% of the counties of the Great Plains, there are fewer people residing there today than there were in 1950. Furthermore, over the last half of the 20th century, residents living on farms in America have dropped by two-thirds (Mayer, 1993). These statistics indicate a drastic pattern of population loss among small town communities and farms throughout rural America, which is devastating because they [towns] ultimately depend on population to contribute to their industries, businesses, and local services in order to function and survive (Wood, 2008). Understanding the causes of rural decline is important in the field of planning; nevertheless, identifying statistical relationships and spatial patterns associated with rural decline is just as important. This research report is both an overview on rural decline, and a comparative analysis of rural decline amongst Kansas counties. The objective of this research report is to identify characteristics, patterns, and trends associated with rural decline, and to rank Kansas counties according to a list of variables which represent those characteristics for analytical purposes. The ultimate goal is to explain any spatial phenomenon associated with the variables and Kansas counties, as well as identify specific counties in Kansas most devastated by factors associated with rural decline. In order to determine which counties are most devastated by factors associated with rural decline, a numerical comprehensive comparative analysis will be conducted; the results of the analysis will serve as a side-by-side measure of rural decline among Kansas counties. It will also serve as the template for conducting the simulation and modeling research; ArcGIS 9.3.1 will be utilized in order display the characteristics, patterns, and trends of rural decline spatially among Kansas counties. The final maps will help serve to derive final conclusions on rural decline in Kansas.

Master of Science / Department of Civil Engineering / Yacoub M. Najjar / Asset Management is a relatively new term in the transportation world. It involves a systematic approach to maintaining, upgrading and operating all transportation assets (including infrastructure) cost-effectively. With the Government Accounting Standards Board's Statement 34 (GASB 34) requiring all transportation entities to report all capital assets on their annual reports as well as the development of new software and technologies, Asset Management is becoming easier to implement and quickly becoming an important part of the transportation industry. In Kansas the Department of Transportation has developed and successfully utilized an Asset Management system for all assets including bridges, roadways, drainage structures and signs. Kansas counties however, do not have the funds and personnel to implement and maintain an Asset Management system similar to that of the KDOT. Asset Management systems have only been developed by counties with large populations, but even they have not reached the full potential of the system. This thesis discusses the importance of creating and maintaining an effective Asset Management system. Kansas counties were surveyed and asked a series of questions about their asset management systems, or lack thereof, as well as the successes and failures of these systems. The counties were asked how they prioritize maintenance, what software they are using, and what assets they have inventoried. The results of the questionnaire showed that counties with large populations have shown interest in implementing Asset Management systems and many have worked to implement such a system. Conversely, counties with small populations that do not have the resources have not implemented Asset Management systems. Recommendations for implementing appropriate Asset Management systems are made to counties in the three population ranges: i) less than 5,000, ii) between 5,000 and 50,000, and iii) greater than 50,000. These include software recommendations and creating inventories of all county assets including culverts, signs and pavements.