Measuring the welcoming capacities of host urban and rural communities.

Lund, Darren E. ; Hira-Friesen, Parvinder

Abstract

This portion of this cross-domain study attempts to measure the notion of "welcoming communities" in Canada. Research to this point has used micro-level data from the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS). Using descriptive statistical methods and single-variable tests of significance on data regarding individual respondents to the EDS, the researchers seek an understanding of responses to the relevant portions of the questionnaire. Specifically, the researchers have investigated how responses to individual questions vary between the identified subpopulations of interest. There are four such populations, comprised of possible combinations over two binary categories: Immigrant and non-immigrant status, and visible minority and non-visible minority. Further distinctions were made as to how the responses of these subpopulations vary between urban and rural settings. Some statistically and practically significant differences were observed between subpopulations and between urban and rural settings. Numerous small sample sizes hampered the comparisons between some categories of respondents, so a second round of analyses was applied in order to identify and apply theoretically sound yet more statistically prudent stratifications of the population for the purposes of this study. Identification of important differences in subpopulation responses at the single-variable level has helped, and will continue to help in understanding the way in which EDS data can be used to describe Canadians' experiences of welcoming communities.

Resume

Cet article est une partie d'une etude multidisciplinaire ou nous tentons d'evaluer la notion de << communautes accueillantes >> au Canada. La recherche s'est servie jusqu'a present des micro-donnees de I'Enquete sur la diversite ethnique (EDE). A partir de methodes statistiques descriptives et de tests d'importance a variable simple sur celles qui traitaient des repondants individuels a I'EDE, les chercheurs tentent de comprendre les informations recueillies dans les parties pertinentes du questionnaire. Plus precisement, ils ont examine comment les reponses aux questions individuelles varient au sein des sous-populations identifiees comme ayant participe a I'enquete. Celles-ci sont au nombre de quatre et se combinent selon deux categories binaires : soit statut d'immigrant et de non-immigrant d'une part, et, d'autre part, appartenance a une minorite, visible et non-visible. D'autres distinctions sont apparues, comme celle sur les variations des reponses selon qu'il s'agit d'un milieu urbain ou rural. Le grand nombre de petits echantillons a bride les comparaisons entre certaines categories de repondants. Une deuxieme serie d'analyses a donc eu lieu afin de relever et de mettre en pratique des stratifications theoriquement solides de la population, qui soient aussi statistiquement plus prudentes pour les buts de cette etude. L'identification d'importantes differences dans les reponses de ces sous-populations a un niveau de variable simple a aide--et continuera a le faire--a comprendre comment on peut utiliser les donnees de I'EDE pour decrire la realite des communautes d'accueil au Canada.

CONTEXT

The researchers' intent with the present study (1) to measure the notion of "welcoming communities" in Canada has emerged from work toward understanding how integration is lived and experienced in schools and communities. There is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a community, never mind a "welcoming" community. However, for the purposes of this research and the mandate of its funder, our considerations included looking at ways to enhance the capacity of Canada, its cities and communities to receive and integrate immigrants, refugees, minorities, and other marginalized people. One focus for this research was to examine existing data sources toward these ends, thereby enhancing our understanding of differential experiences of immigrants within different settings.

In preparing for the third funding phase of the Metropolis project, a new Domain was created with the name "Welcoming Communities: The Role of Host Communities in Attracting, Integrating, and Retaining Newcorners." Its priority was to focus policy-relevant research on a broad range of questions around employment opportunities, the availability of appropriate housing, schooling, and social services. These areas were determined to be significant in studying each community's ability to attract, integrate, and retain newcomers and other minority and minoritized groups.

The present interest for much of the ongoing work by research affiliates in the Welcoming Communities domain, and for this study, has been in determining what specifically can be done to attract more immigrants to settle and thrive in various regions of Canada. In addition, researchers, government agency people, and those who work in community agencies have sought to discover what tools and public policy instruments may be used to increase the capacity of communities to welcome and integrate immigrants and minorities, both in linguistic minority communities and in rural areas. A jointly funded cross-Domain research project funded through the Prairie Metropolis Centre invited Domain leaders to seek to develop a more integrated understanding of the experiences of immigrants across several sectors and research priority domains, as can be evidenced by the other papers in this issue.

Of particular interest for us is the role of schools and other institutions in creating a sense of community, and exploring how to improve the experiences of refugee and immigrant children. The researchers' ongoing projects include Lund's collaborative work in understanding how professional training of educators can best include fostering intercultural understanding among pre-service teacher candidates in faculties of education (Guo et al. 2009), examining particular forms of racism embedded in a settler culture that privileges unspoken White (2) racialized identities (Carr and Lund 2007; Lund and Carr 2010), and how activist projects in schools can best foster youth leadership in integrating newcomers and marginalized persons (Lund 2010). Further, Hira-Friesen's (2009) past research on immigrant participation using Canadian census data was instrumental to the current project.

Canada's unique historical and political context provides an ever-evolving range of ethnic and cultural groups, a colonized indigenous population, and complex regionalized situations around settlement and immigration. As Biles, Burstein, and Frideres (2008) explain, our country has a unique status through its large-scale immigration policy: "Canada has turned the integration of immigrants into a societal endeavour--an endeavour distinctly defined as a 'two-way street,' where both immigrants and current citizens are expected to adapt to each other" (4). But attention must also be paid to the historical and ongoing power relations between groups, and how uneven aspects of privilege and advantage have impacts on cultural relations. James (2010) writes that understanding cultural identity must include consideration of "how individuals see themselves, how others see them and how they negotiate and navigate the challenges of living and surviving in a society that is mediated by unequal relations of power" (56).

There can be no pan-Canadian or universal description of the immigrant experience, but this research is an attempt to isolate and study a number of factors that are likely to be considerations in how welcoming people feel in a particular community. Attending to Canada's settlement and colonized past at the same time as its more recent demographic changes (Li 2003; Lund 2012), including the 14 percent increase in the foreign-born population from 2001-2006 (Statistics Canada 2006), requires acknowledging a significant shift in the expectations for newly arriving immigrants. In the middle of the last century, for example, prairie cities hosted a number of immigrants who maintained strong transnational ties. Writing about this specific geographical context, Loewen and Friesen (2009) describe the mindset:

   Strong emotional ties to kinship networks and familiar cultural
   sites, continuing national imaginings, and actual links with the
   homeland informed the process by which the immigrants integrated
   into the new. Such ties allowed newcomers to find full and
   satisfied lives in the face of an oftentimes strange, and even
   suspicious or racist, host society (173).

The next decades would see the development of stronger federal and provincial multicultural policies, human rights legislation, and changing norms of Canadian citizenship. No longer simply seeking to assimilate or confine newcomers to rigid cultural expectations and norms, the emergent concept is that "integration is about giving newcomers the right of contestation, the legitimacy of dissent, and the entitlement to be different" (Li 2003, 330).

ROLE OF THE HOST SOCIETY IN WELCOMING NEWCOMERS

Extensive survey research by Jedwab (2008) revealed a complex matrix of public opinion on immigration in Canada, and documented some interesting nuances within the overall findings that "most Canadians are satisfied with the numbers of immigrants the country receives" (211). In his view, the government is then able to use these favourable survey results to declare Canada a "welcoming place for immigrants," and the public discourse tends toward focusing more on communities' capacity to integrate immigrants. A remarkable 80 percent of respondents to a 2007 poll conducted by Citizenship and Immigration "think that their neighbourhood is a welcoming place for immigrants" and, ironically, 70 percent of Canadians who think that there are too many immigrants also hold this view. Further, fully 70 percent of Canadians agree that immigrants need to make efforts to integrate into Canadian society (218). These results provide a limited snapshot of the conflicting views of Canadians who may hold ambivalent views on particular groups of newcomers, and whose experiences with immigrants may vary greatly. As Jedwab correctly notes, academics and policy makers continue to debate the particular meanings of immigrant integration, and this unsettled terrain is reflected in the confusion of public opinion on these matters (219). One finding of special interest to this research was that, when asked what they could do to help immigrants integrate into Canadian society, respondents gave a wide range of answers. Being more welcoming was the single most common response. Indeed, the most popular responses were simply variations of this idea (224, emphasis added). However, determining what factors constitute "welcoming communities" for newcomers to Canada remains an unfinished project. Further, identifying and measuring the differential lived experiences of visible minority and non-visible minority immigrants, and their varying experiences within rural and urban settings, remain some of the central concerns for this study.

Many voices in the current immigration literature suggest that newcomers to urban centres are likely to find a more welcoming community due to factors such as higher concentrations of particular immigrant groups, more solidarity among ethnic and cultural communities, greater opportunities for worship and recreation, and shared linguistic features within geographically associated collectives of immigrants from particular regions and groups. However, little data exist comparing and contrasting regional experiences, local agencies' capacities to deliver services to immigrants in a range of settings, and how welcome immigrants feel in particular communities. Frideres (2008) suggests using existing data sets such as the Ethnic Diversity Survey to look at the efficacy of various explanatory factors impacting integration in different regional contexts (94), which is addressed in the section below.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Overarching research questions for this study emerged from priorities identified by planners within the Welcoming Communities Domain, which include some of the following priorities:

a) What factors determine a host community's "absorptive capacity?"

b) How do employment opportunities, the availability of appropriate housing, schooling and social services affect a community's ability to attract, integrate and retain newcomers and minorities?

c) What are the basic requirements and necessary conditions in order for a community or region, particularly in non-traditional areas, to attract immigrants?

d) From a national policy perspective, what can be done to attract more immigrants to settle in the regions?

e) Do interactions between newcomers and minorities, and dominant majority Canadians lead to increased acceptance and inclusion? and

f) Can the creation and enhancement of healthy cities and communities contribute to the attraction and retention of immigrants? (Metropolis Project 2008, 11-12).

More specific research questions addressed by this study include the following:

a) Are immigrants more likely to feel accepted and welcome if they settle in urban or rural communities?

b) Are immigrants less likely to experience hatred and other forms of discrimination if they settle in urban or rural communities?

c) Are the experiences of visible minority immigrants comparable to their non-visible immigrant counterparts in either of these community settings?

DATA, VARIABLES, AND METHOD

Data for this study come from the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) master file. The survey was administered during the 2001 Canadian Census (Statistics Canada 2002). The target population of the EDS represents 23,092,643 persons in the Canadian population. Among them, 57,242 persons were selected for the survey. In total, 42,476 respondents participated in the EDS.

The EDS target population consisted of persons aged 15 and older living in private dwellings in Canada's ten provinces. Just as in the census, Canadian citizens, landed immigrants and non-permanent residents (holders of student, work or ministerial permits, refugee status claimants and family members living in Canada with

them) were part of the target population. However, the following groups were excluded:

* persons under 15 years of age;

* persons living in collective dwellings (hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, military or work camps, prisons, residences for senior citizens, etc.);

* First Nations reserves;

* persons who declared an Aboriginal ethnic origin or Aboriginal identity on the 2001 Census;

* the territories and remote areas.

These data were made available through access to the Research Data Centre at the University of Calgary, supported by Statistics Canada. Research to this point has used micro-level data from the EDS. Using descriptive statistical methods and single-variable tests of significance on data regarding individual respondents to the EDS, the researchers are gaining a better understanding of responses to the relevant portions of the questionnaire. Specifically, this research has investigated how responses to individual questions vary between the identified subpopulations of interest.

There are four such populations, comprised of possible combinations over two binary categories: immigrant and non-immigrant status, and visible minority and non-visible minority. Further distinctions were made as to how the responses of these subpopulations vary between urban and rural settings (see Figures 1 through 6).

Based on an analysis of the contents of the entire EDS, the researchers identified a number of relevant variables within the original questionnaire that would best address these research questions about lived immigrant experiences as self-reported by immigrants on this survey. Namely, the EDS question items selected were the following:

a) Up until you were age 15, how often did you feel uncomfortable or out of place because of your ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent or religion?

b) Do you believe that of the crimes committed against you in Canada in the past five years/since you arrived in Canada, could any of them be considered a hate crime?

c) Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not worried at all and 5 is very worried, how worried are you about becoming the victim of a crime in Canada because of someone's hatred of your ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent or religion?

d) Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not strong at all and 5 is very strong, how strong is your sense of belonging to your ethnic or cultural group(s)?

e) Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not strong at all and 5 is very strong, how strong is your sense of belonging to your town, city or municipality?

f) Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means cannot be trusted at an and 5 means can be trusted a lot, how much do you trust people in your neighbourhood?

These particular questions best seemed to address a constellation of factors associated with welcoming communities, including differences in ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent, or religion, and tapping into related emotions such as trust and a sense of belonging. Items about the more negative examples of non-welcoming characteristics of communities included measures of perceived discomfort, discriminatory experiences, and hate crimes based on differences.

RESULTS

As noted above, this series of analyses used data drawn from the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS). The EDS uses a very complex weighting scheme to accommodate for the complexities of such a large and detailed data collection project. Although this survey was administered to a large portion of the Canadian population, its outcomes are limited by the fact that the vast majority of Canadian immigrants reside in urban settings. Hence, any comparison between urban and rural immigrant experiences is also bounded by the small population of newcomers residing in rural areas. Nevertheless, we are able to discuss a portion of immigrant experiences within an urban/rural context.

As indicated in Table 1, we obtain an estimate of the population mean and an estimate of its standard error, along with a Wald post hoc test to compare respondents' sense of discomfort, concern over becoming victims of hate crimes, sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural groups, sense of belonging to their town, city, or municipality, and sense of trust in their neighbourhood in rural and urban environments. This test was carried out for all four comparison groups (visible minority non-immigrants, non-visible minority non-immigrants, visible minority immigrants, and non-visible minority immigrants). For visible minority non-immigrants, there was not a significant difference in the scores for rural and urban respondents with respect to their sense of discomfort, whereas for non-visible minority non-immigrants, there was a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=1.202, SE=0.0101) and urban respondents (M=1.249, SE=0.0063); F (1, 27270) =15.76, p <0.001. (3) Furthermore, the outcome for respondents in the comparison group of visible minority immigrants indicates not a significant difference in the scores for rural and urban respondents in terms of discomfort levels. Finally, non-visible minority immigrants show significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=1.347, SE=0.0333) and urban respondents (M=1.459, SE=0.0158); F (1, 5160) =9.25, p <0.01. Therefore, White Canadian-born respondents as well as White immigrants residing in urban centers appear to be slightly more uncomfortable in their surroundings than their rural counterparts.

Table 1 shows the results of respondents being worried about becoming victims of hate crimes among the four comparison groups. Here we find that, although visible minority non-immigrants do not show significant differences between urban and rural groups, we do find that the other three groups do indicate significant results. For example, non-visible minority non-immigrants show significant differences in the outcomes for rural respondents (M=1.097, SE=.0059) and urban respondents (M=1.111, SE=.0033); F (1, 27150) = 4.15, p<0.05. Furthermore, we found visible minority immigrants also show concern regarding becoming victims of hate crimes as indicated by the difference in scores for rural respondents (M=1.127, SE=0.0448) and urban respondents (M=1.258, SE=0.0085); F (1,4310) = 8.31, p<0.01. Finally, we find similar results for non-visible minority immigrants in which we find significant differences between urban respondents (M=1.071, SE=0.0115) and rural respondents (M=1.124, SE=0.0058); F (1, 5110) = 16.92, p<0.001. This tells us that White Canadian-born respondents and White immigrants both express some concern over becoming victims of hate crimes in urban settings than do their rural counterparts. This concern is significantly higher for visible minority immigrants residing in urban areas over those living in rural settings.

When we tested the differences between urban and rural populations for the respondents' sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group, we did not find a significant difference in the scores for rural and urban respondents belonging to the visible minority non-immigrant comparison group. However, for non-visible minority non-immigrants, there was a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M= 1.497, SE=0.0102) and urban respondents (M= 1.468, SE=0.0054); F (1, 26490) =6.29, p <0.05 in terms of their sense of belonging to their respective ethnic or cultural group. Furthermore, the outcome for respondents in the comparison group of visible minority immigrants does not indicate a significant difference in the scores for rural and urban respondents. Finally, non-visible minority immigrants show significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=1.439, SE=0.0237) and urban respondents (M=1.51, SE=0.0090); F (1, 4970) =8.35, p <0.01. From these results we see that White Canadian-born respondents residing in rural areas reported a slightly higher sense of belonging to their respective ethnic or cultural group than their urban counterparts. Alternately, White immigrants residing in urban areas appear to have a slightly higher sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group with respect to their rural counterparts.

As indicated in Table 1, the respondents' sense of belonging to their town, city or municipality shows that for visible minority non-immigrants, there was not a significant difference in the scores for rural and urban respondents, whereas for non-visible minority non-immigrants, there was a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=2.362, SE=0.0153) and urban respondents (M=2.316, SE=0.0083); F (1, 27040) =7.13, p <0.01. Furthermore, the outcome for respondents in the comparison group of visible minority immigrants indicates a non-significant difference in the scores for rural respondents. Finally, non-visible minority immigrants also show non-significant differences in the scores for rural respondents and urban respondents. These results indicate that only White Canadian-born respondents residing in rural areas report a slightly higher sense of belonging to their town, city or municipality than their urban counterparts.

Finally, as illustrated in Table 1, visible minority non-immigrants show a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=2.541, SE=0.1050) and urban respondents (M=2.267, SE=0.0203); F (1,3870) =6.59, p <0.05, whereas for non-visible minority non-immigrants, there was also a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=2.652, SE=0.0125) and urban respondents (M=2.510, SE=0.0075); F (1, 26950) =95.13, p <0.01. Furthermore, the outcome for respondents in the comparison group of visible minority immigrants indicates a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=2.775, SE=0.0816) and urban respondents (M=2.403, SE=0.0144); F (1, 4190) =20.11, p <0.01. Finally, non-visible minority immigrants again show a significant difference in the scores for rural respondents (M=2.768, SE=0.0240) and urban respondents (M=2.579, SE=0.0116); F (1, 5040) =50.02, p <0.01. These results indicate that all four comparison groups residing in rural areas have a slightly higher sense of trust of people residing in their neighborhoods in comparison to their urban counterparts.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

One of the most notable shifts in Canadian immigration over the past few decades has been an influx of well-educated newcomers to this country. This shift has transpired due to Canada's immigration policies adopted post 1967. This policy now allows primarily highly educated individuals, admitted under the "economic class," from non-European nations into this country. Hence, the majority of newcomers settle in the larger Canadian cities known as first-tier cities. (4) However, a sizeable number of immigrants choose to reside in rural areas of Canada and therefore a comparison of urban and rural immigrant settlement experiences may provide a much-needed illustration of immigrant integration.

Addressing a tendency toward more concentrated immigration in Canada to urban centres, Biles, Burstein, and Frideres (2008) argue that there is a growing role for cities as economic engines of nations, and that "the health of nations depends on the capacity of their major cities to compete for and to attract investment and skilled workers" (12). But beyond initial employment and financial opportunities, these communities also need to attend to larger questions including social factors such as their sense of discomfort, concern over becoming victims of hate crimes, sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural groups, sense of belonging to their town, city, or municipality, and sense of trust in their neighbourhood. Attending to these questions has revealed some interesting findings that point to the need for further research in this field.

The results of this study indicate that White Canadian-born and White immigrants residing in Canadian cities appear to be the most uncomfortable in their surroundings. This is not surprising as more and more visible minority immigrants who come to Canada are choosing to reside in urban centers (Statistics Canada 2007). Countering earlier predictions of a coherent and cohesive multiculturalism for Canada, Levine-Rasky's (2006) research revealed the "discontinuities of multiculturalism," those situations where the liberal-humanist desire for "an abstract multiculturalism of integration and mutual recognition ... [is] impaired by underemployment, unresponsiveness, and outright racism" (99). She described the current situation in Canada as ambiguous, and at a "moral impasse," with communities erecting and maintaining boundaries that exclude "the other," while being characterized by social relationships of instability and complexity. The findings above support this more nuanced vision of the lived experiences of immigrants.

The data show that visible minority immigrants show concern regarding becoming victims of hate crimes, as indicated by the difference in scores for rural and urban respondents. Both White Canadian-born respondents, and White immigrants express more concern over becoming victims of hate crimes in urban settings than do their rural counterparts. This concern is significantly higher for visible minority immigrants residing in urban areas than for those living in rural settings. There is evidence that the number and severity of hate crimes is actually increasing, with an emblematic rise in the reporting of public neo-Nazi and "White pride" activity in some larger urban centres (Wingrove 2011). Further research is needed into how our institutions--education and law enforcement in particular--might improve their efforts to raise awareness of the dangers of hate groups, along with greater enforcement of hate crime laws to prevent such incidents from happening in the first place, and to curtail hate group activity in a more systematic way.

Interestingly, White Canadian-born respondents residing in rural areas reported a slightly higher sense of belonging to their respective ethnic or cultural group than their urban counterparts. This makes sense, perhaps, simply in terms of the homogeneous demographic of many rural settings across Canada. Likewise, only the White Canadian-born respondents residing in rural areas report a slightly higher sense of belonging to their town, city or municipality than their urban counterparts. Alternately, White immigrants residing in urban areas have a slightly higher sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group with respect to their rural counterparts, perhaps a feature of living among greater diversity. We will resist the tendency to collapse the experiences of White Canadians into a whole, knowing that this would be an "oversimplification of placing into one White category such heterogeneous ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, and other groups. Certainly, there are myriad international examples of nuanced experiences of oppression and struggle within and across nations of White people" (Carr and Lund 2007, 2). However, these data show that urban White immigrant Canadians feel that they belong more closely to their own ethnic or cultural group within an urban environment.

Finally, all four comparison groups residing in rural areas have a slightly higher sense of trust of people residing in their neighborhoods when compared to their urban counterparts. These results suggest that rural life offers a social environment that fosters more trusting relationships between members of the community. We have much to learn from this discrepancy, and from the work that remains ahead for those who seek to enhance the harmony and wellbeing of all citizens. Additional advantages exist with regional immigrant settlement outside large urban centres. As Frideres (2006) reports, "immigrants who live outside the major urban centres have the lowest unemployment rates while those who reside in the three largest cities face the greatest challenge in finding work" (6), in addition to crowding and lower incomes. Researchers, policymakers, and government officials must continue to attend to these factors in order to create the best possible outcomes for immigrants, as well as all Canadians, as we continue to strive toward creating more welcoming communities.

CONCLUSION

As stated at the outset, identifying which particular factors constitute "welcoming communities" for immigrants to Canada remains an ongoing endeavour. The researchers used this study to take some initial steps in identifying and measuring the differential lived experiences of visible minority and non-visible minority immigrants, along with their varying responses to a survey about experiences within rural and urban settings. The identification of differences in subpopulation responses at the single-variable level allowed for a greater understanding of the way EDS data might help describe Canadians' various and complex experiences with welcoming communities. Improving our collective capacity to become more welcoming, both to immigrant and Canadian-born, and to visible and non-visible minority individuals, remains an overarching goal of the researchers.

REFERENCES

Biles, J., M. Burstein, and J. Frideres, eds. 2008. Immigration and Integration in Canada in the Twenty-first Century. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Carr, E R., and D. E. Lund, eds. 2007. The Great White North? Exploring Whiteness, Privilege and Identity in Education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Frideres, J. S. 2006. Cities and Immigrant Integration: The Future of Second- and Third-tier Centres. Our Diverse Cities 2: 3-8.

--. 2008. Creating an Inclusive Society: Promoting Social Integration in Canada. In Immigration and Integration in Canada in the Twenty-first Century, eds. J. Biles, M. Burstein and J. Frideres, 77-101. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Guo, Y., N. Arthur, and D. E. Lund. 2009. Intercultural Inquiry with Pre-service Teachers. Intercultural Education 20.6: 565-577.

Hira-Friesen, P. 2009. A Comparison of Immigrant and Canadian-Born Trades and University Educational Attainment in Alberta. Unpublished M.A. thesis in Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

--. 2012. An Examination of Participation in the Trades and Clerical Work among Canadian Immigrants across Generations. Unpublished manuscript, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

James, C. E. 2010. Seeing Ourselves: Exploring Race, Ethnicity and Culture. 4th ed. Toronto, ON: Thompson.

Jedwab, J. 2008. Receiving and Giving: How Does the Canadian Public Feel about Immigration and Integration? In Immigration and Integration in Canada in the Twenty-first Century, eds. J. Biles, M. Burstein and J. Frideres, 211-230. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Levine-Rasky, C. 2006. Discontinunities of Multiculturalism. Canadian Ethnic Studies 38.3: 87-104.

Li, P. 2003. Deconstructing Canada's Discourse of Immigrant Integration. Journal of International Migration and Integration 4.4:315-333.

Loewen, R., and G. Friesen, 2009. Immigrants in Prairie Cities: Ethnic Diversity in Twentieth-century Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Lund, D. E. 2010. Drawing Insights from Former Youth Leaders in Social Justice Activism. Working Paper Series WP10-06, Prairie Metropolis Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton. http://pmc.metropolis.net/Workingpapers/index.htm.

--.2012. Multicultural Education in Canada. In Sage Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education, ed. J. A. Banks, 296-301. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lund, D. E., and P. R. Carr. 2010. Exposing Privilege and Racism in The Great White North: Tackling Whiteness and Identity Issues in Canadian Education. Multicultural Perspectives: The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education 12.4: 229-234.

Lund, D. E., and T. Pascuzzo. 2011. Measuring the Welcoming Capacities of Host Urban and Rural

Communities. Presentation at a workshop entitled, "Measuring Immigrant Integration Across Multiple Domains" at the 13th Annual National Metropolis Conference, Vancouver, BC, March.

Metropolis Project. 2008. Welcoming Communities Research Priority Areas Planning Document. Unpublished document of the Metropolis Project. Ottawa, ON: Metropolis Project.

Statistics Canada. 2002. Ethnic Diversity Survey. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/4508.htm.

--. 2006. Census Trends. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/trends/Tablel.cfm?T=PR&PRCODE=01&GEOCODE-01&GEOLVL-PR.

--. 2007. Immigration in Canada: A Portrait of the Foreign-born Population, 2006 Census. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97557/p15-eng.cfm.

Wingrove, J. 2011. White Pride: Calgary's In-Your-Face Neo-Nazis Take to the Streets. The Globe and Mail, March 19, A8.

NOTES

(1.) An earlier set of results from this research study was shared at a national Metropolis Conference (Lund and Pascuzzo 2011), and has built on a funded cross-domain research project that sought the development of an Integrated Immigration Index across the various research domains of the Prairie Metropolis Centre. The researchers thank the Prairie Metropolis Centre and SSHRC for their funding of this project, Statistics Canada, and the Research Data Centre at the University of Calgary for their helpful assistance. Thanks also to Tony Pascuzzo for his earlier work on this project.

(2.) We capitalize the terra White to differentiate it from the colour, and name it as a socially constructed category, one which holds no biological or scientific veracity, but which is nevertheless used as a marker of privilege and identity.

(3.) This number and all such subsequent numbers of individuals is approximate due to the rounding rules as stipulated in the section above.

(4.) First-tier cities include Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Second-tier cities include Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Ottawa-Gatineau. Third-tier cities include Victoria, Saskatoon, Regina, Quebec City, and Halifax (Frideres 2006, 3-5).

DARREN E. LUND is Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Calgary, where his research examines social justice activism. He was a high school teacher in Alberta, and in his rookie year, formed an award-winning student activist program, Students and Teachers Opposing Prejudice (STOP). From 2007-2012, Darren was "Welcoming Communities" Domain Leader with the Prairie Metropolis Centre. He has published numerous articles, books, and book chapters, and has been recognized with a number of honours, including the 2012 Distinguished Scholar-Activist Award from AERA, and being named a Reader's Digest National Leader in Education.

PARVINDER HIRA-FRIESEN is a doctoral candidate at the University of Calgary in the Department of Sociology. She has a BSc in Physics/Math and an MA in Sociology from the University of Alberta, has presented her work at several conferences, and her research interests include social stratification, race and ethnicity, immigration and labour. Using the Canadian Labour Force Survey, she is currently examining Canadian immigrants and their participation in precarious work in the Canadian labour market. Parvinder has served as the Equity Awareness Representative (2011) for the Sociology Graduate Students' Caucus at the University of Calgary.

TABLE 1. Differences Between Means of Urban and Rural Respondents

                        Visible Minority
                         Non-Immigrants

                           Mean

Variable             Urban     Rural     N

Sense of             2.034     1.918     3920
Discomfort

Worried About
Becoming a Hate      1.199     1.118     3910
Crime Victim

Sense of
Belonging to         1.606     1.491     3860
Ethnic or Cultural
Group

Sense of
Belonging to         2.294     2.190     3900
town, city or
municipality

Sense of Trust in
Neighbourhood        2.267 *   2,541 *   3870

                         Non-Visible Minority
                             Non-Immigrants

                            Mean

Variable              Urban       Rural        N

Sense of             1.249 ***   1.202 ***   27270
Discomfort

Worried About
Becoming a Hate      1.111 *     1.097 *     27150
Crime Victim

Sense of
Belonging to         1.468 *     1.497 *     26490
Ethnic or Cultural
Group

Sense of
Belonging to         2.316 **    2.362 **    27040
town, city or
municipality

Sense of Trust in
Neighbourhood        2.510 ***   2.652 ***   26950

                           Visible Minority
                              Immigrants

                            Mean

Variable              Urban       Rural       N

Sense of             1.526       1.433       4390
Discomfort

Worried About
Becoming a Hate      1.258 **    1.127 **    4310
Crime Victim

Sense of
Belonging to         1.648       1.688       4240
Ethnic or Cultural
Group

Sense of
Belonging to         2.551       2.309       4280
town, city or
municipality

Sense of Trust in
Neighbourhood        2.403 ***   2.775 ***   4190

                        Non-Visible Minority
                             Immigrants

                             Mean

Variable               Urban       Rural       N

Sense of             1.459 **    1.347 **    5160
Discomfort

Worried About
Becoming a Hate      1.124 ***   1.071 ***   5110
Crime Victim

Sense of
Belonging to         1.513 **    1.439 **    4970
Ethnic or Cultural
Group

Sense of
Belonging to         2.477       2.420       5080
town, city or
municipality

Sense of Trust in
Neighbourhood        2.579 ***   2.768 ***   5040

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Fig. 1. Immigrant Status

Non-Immigrant   326940,
                77.74%

Immigrant       160, 0.40%

Non-permanent   9190, 21.86%
Resident

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Fig. 2. Visible Minority Status

Non-visible Minority   361650, 86.71%

Visible Minority       5540, 13.29%

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Fig. 3. Urban/Rural Population

Rural   7890, 18.58%

Urban   34580, 81.42%

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Fig. 4. Four Comparison Groups

Non-Immigrant,   1000,2.43%
Visible
Minority

Non-Immigrant,   31460,75.79%
Non-visible
Minority

Immigrant,       4420,10.65%
Visible
Minority

Immigrant,       4623, 11.13%
Non-visible
Minority

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Fig. 5. Net Rural Sample (N=7690)

Non-Immigrant,   40,0.52%
Visible
Minority

Non-Immigrant,   7040,91.79%
Non-visible
Minority

Immigrant,       40,0.52%
Visible
Minority

Immigrant,       550,7.17%
Non-visible
Minority

Note: Table made from pie chart.

Fig. 6. Net Rural Sample (N=33,820)

Non-Immigrant,   950,2.81%
Visible
Minority

Non-Immigrant,   24420, 72.25%
Non-visible
Minority

Immigrant,       4370,12.93%
Visible
Minority

Immigrant,       4060,12.01%
Non-visible
Minority

Note: Table made from pie chart.