Urban Proximity & Indigenous Attitudes

Research project: Does perceived proximity to Indigenous communities shape attitudes toward them, and is that proximity systematically biased toward urban/well-off reserves?

Research Question

Canadians who live near a reservation think they "know" Indigenous communities, but what they actually know is an atypical, economically advantaged slice. The majority of Indigenous communities — remote, underfunded, struggling — are invisible to most Canadians.

Theoretical Mechanism

• Proximity → Contact hypothesis → More favorable attitudes
• But: Proximity is biased toward urban, relatively well-off reserves
• Prediction: Proximity to urban reserves ↑ favorable attitudes; proximity to remote/poor reserves → null effect (invisibility)

Data Sources

• Canadian Election Study (CES) 2021 — dependent variables (attitudes toward Indigenous people)
• Indian Reserve geographic boundaries — Statistics Canada / CIRNAC shapefiles
• Community Well-Being Index (CWB) — Crown-Indigenous Relations, composite SES index
• Statistics Canada CMA/CA classifications — urban/rural classification of reserves

Variables

Dependent Variable

• Indigenous attitude/perception items from CES 2021

Independent Variable

• Distance (km) from respondent CSD to nearest First Nation reserve centroid

Moderator

• Community Well-Being Index score of nearest reserve
• Urban/rural classification (CMA/CA/remote)

Controls

• Education, age, province, political ideology, media consumption

Key Analysis

Interaction: Distance × CWB index predicting attitudes

• Near wealthy reserves → most favorable attitudes
• Near poor/remote reserves → null or negative (invisibility hypothesis)

Language

R

Structure

data/          # raw data (not tracked)
data-clean/    # processed data
R/             # analysis scripts
output/        # figures and tables