Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Sherbrooke was collected through the Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada (SEPR).^{Note 2} This fact sheet presents information on the risk awareness and level of emergency preparedness of the residents of Sherbrooke, which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.^{Note 3}^{Note 4}

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Residents of Sherbrooke anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (94%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (88%) and industrial or transportation accidents (68%) to be the most likely emergency-type events to occur within their community.
Residents commonly anticipated turning to the police as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with rioting or civil unrest (60%), an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (53%) or an industrial or transportation accident (30%) (Table 1.1). In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (56%), or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (28%), residents anticipated turning to local government first for help and information. Hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (65%) were the most common sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease, and in the event of an extended power outage, utility companies (56%) were most commonly anticipated to be the first source of help and information for residents of Sherbrooke.

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}

Close to half (46%) of the people living in Sherbrooke had personally experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada within a community where they were living at the time. For most (70%), the emergencies were severe enough to disrupt their regular daily activities.
Winter storms including blizzards and ice storms were the most common type of emergency or disaster experienced by residents (66%), followed by extended power outages (27%) and floods (8%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Residents who were affected by a major emergency or disaster most often experienced the inability to use electrical appliances (65%), the inability to use water at home for routine tasks (48%) and a need to miss school or work (45%) as a result. More serious implications such as home evacuation (27%) and loss of access to roads or transportation within the community (18%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were less common.
Three out of four (77%) people in Sherbrooke who had experienced a major emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 17%^{Note E: Use with caution} in less than 24 hours, 18%^{Note E: Use with caution} within one to two days, 31% within three to five days, and 12%^{Note E: Use with caution} within six to seven days.
Less than half (45%) of residents received help either during or immediately following the emergency. Family members (43%) and neighbours (21%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were most often the sources of assistance.
Four in ten people (42%) in Sherbrooke who experienced major emergencies or disasters that were significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routines endured a loss of property or another financial impact as a result, while less than one in ten (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}) experienced long-term emotional or psychological impacts.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Nearly three out of five (58%) people in Sherbrooke lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with three out of ten (30%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). More than one in ten (12%) lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Half (50%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, with two in ten residents (20%) living in a household with three or four such measures. Close to one in five (18%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Most (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector (Table 1.3). Two-thirds (66%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher and less than half (40%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their home. Approximately one-third (32%) of residents reported that they had all three fire safety measures within their households.
Generally, the number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures that residents of Sherbrooke were engaged in did not significantly differ from the province as a whole, though there were some differences when compared to residents of Canada’s 10 provinces. For example, the proportion of Sherbrooke residents who reported no emergency planning activities (12%) was significantly higher than the overall national proportion (8%), while those with all three fire safety measures within their homes were significantly lower (32% versus 42%).^{Note 8}
Differences in several types of activities and measures taken in case of an emergency were significant when residents of Sherbrooke were compared to all residents of Quebec as well as to Canadians overall. For example, the proportion of Sherbrooke residents who had a list of emergency contact numbers (62%) or an alternate water source (31%) was significantly lower than of those living in Quebec in general (68% and 38%, respectively) as well as of residents of Canada overall (69% and 43%, respectively). Although the proportion of Sherbrooke residents who had a working carbon monoxide detector (40%) was lower than the overall Canadian proportion (60%), it was higher than the proportion reported by Quebec residents in general (34%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Less than half (46%) of residents of Sherbrooke had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
The majority (79%) of residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 10} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, almost three-quarters (72%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
Many residents had a large network of support in the event of an emergency or disaster, with more than five people to turn to for emotional support (61%). About half of the residents had such a network of support if physically injured (53%) or in case of a home evacuation (50%). However, only 17% of residents had such a large network of support if financial help was needed, and about one in ten (11%) reported they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 12}
High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust were often associated with a higher level of emergency preparedness (Table 1.4).

Data tables

Table 1.1
Most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information, by type of emergency or disaster, residents of Sherbrooke, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information. The information is grouped by Most common sources of initial help and information by type of emergency or disaster (appearing as row headers), percent (appearing as column headers).
Most common sources of initial help and information by type of emergency or disaster	percent
Weather-related emergency or natural disaster
Local government	28
Police/law enforcement	25
911	16
Extended power outages
Utility company	56
Local government	18
Family	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	65
911	10^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
Police/law enforcement	30
911	28
Local government	21
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	56
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	53
911	21^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	60
911	25
News- Television	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
^E use with caution Note: Respondents who perceived their community was at risk for any form of emergency or disaster were then asked where they would turn to first for information or assistance in the event of the perceived emergency or disaster. Respondents could provide more than one response. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.2
Number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents, community of Sherbrooke, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Number of emergency planning activities. The information is grouped by Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents (appearing as row headers), Sherbrooke, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Sherbrooke	Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	12^{Table 1.2, Note **}	10	8
1 activity	27^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	22	17
2 activities	28	26	25
3 activities	18^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	26	27
4 activities	12^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	18	17	16
1 measure	31	29	27
2 measures	30	28	28
3 measures	15^{Table 1.2, Note **}	17	20
4 measures	5^{Table 1.2, Note E: Use with caution}	8	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}
None	Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published	Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	22^{Table 1.2, Note **}	24	14
2 measures	40	42	38
3 measures	32^{Table 1.2, Note **}	28	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note referrer Table 1.2, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer Table 1.2, Note 1. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Canada'. Return to table 1.2, note 1 referrer Table 1.2, Note 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Quebec'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Emergency planning activities include: an emergency exit plan, an emergency supply kit, photocopies/electronic copies of important documents and a list of emergency contact numbers. Precautionary measures include: a battery-operated or wind-up radio, an alternative heat source, a back-up generator and an alternative water source. Fire safety measures include a working smoke detector, a working carbon monoxide detector and a working fire extinguisher. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.3
Planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures residents engaged in, community of Sherbrooke, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of Planning activities. The information is grouped by Residents whose households were involved in the following: (appearing as row headers), Sherbrooke, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Sherbrooke	Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	39^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	44	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	34	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	47^{Table 1.3, Note **}	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	43	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	45^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	43^{Table 1.3, Note **}	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	62^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	54	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	58	58	58
Alternate heat source	48	48	48
Back-up generator	18	22	23
Alternate water source	31^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	38	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	21	20	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	40^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	66	67	66
Table 1.3, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note referrer Table 1.3, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Table 1.3, Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to table 1.3, note 1 referrer Table 1.3, Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to table 1.3, note 2 referrer Table 1.3, Note 3. Excludes those who reported that they lived in a household that did not have a vehicle. Return to table 1.3, note 3 referrer Table 1.3, Note 4. Percentage based only on those indicating that they or someone in their household has special medical needs. Return to table 1.3, note 4 referrer Table 1.3, Note 5. 'Other precautionary measures' include having an escape/rescue plan for pets, extra supply of fuel, checking and replenishing emergency supplies, and keeping exits clear. Return to table 1.3, note 5 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Table 1.4
High or moderately high levels of emergency planning, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents, by social and political involvement, community of Sherbrooke, Quebec, 2014
Table summary
This table displays the results of High or moderately high levels of emergency planning. The information is grouped by Social and political involvement (appearing as row headers), Percentage of residents who had high or moderately high levels of..., Planning activities, Precautionary measures and Fire safety measures, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Social and political involvement	Percentage of residents who had high or moderately high levels of...
	Planning activities	Precautionary measures	Fire safety measures
	percent
Engagement in political activities^{Table 1.4, Note 1}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	28	17	33
No	34^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}	26^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}	26^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	29	18	33
No	29	18^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}	30
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	27^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}	19^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}	24^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}
No	31	20	34
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	35	26	36
No	26	15^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	30
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	35	25	42
No	27	16^{Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	26^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	38	27	36
No	25^{Table 1.4, Note *}	16^{Table 1.4, Note *}	31
^E use with caution Table 1.4, Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.4, note * referrer Table 1.4, Note † reference category Return to table 1.4, note † referrer Table 1.4, Note 1. Includes individuals over the age of 17 years who are eligible to vote, and who have participated in or volunteered for political parties or events in the past 12 months, including municipal, provincial, or federal elections, or expressed views on political or social issues through signing a petition, contacting news agencies or politicians, or attended a meeting involving social or community issues. Return to table 1.4, note 1 referrer Table 1.4, Note 2. Civic engagement measures individuals over the age of 17 years who were involved in a recreational group or organization in the past 12 months, and includes engagement in political activities. A 'high level' is defined as having been involved in at least 4 activities in the past 12 months. Return to table 1.4, note 2 referrer Table 1.4, Note 3. A 'high level of social support' is defined as having five or more people whom that individual could turn to for help in an emergency if they are physically injured, require emotional support, shelter, and/or financial assistance. Return to table 1.4, note 3 referrer Table 1.4, Note 4. A 'strong sense of belonging to community' is rating one's own sense of belonging to their community as a 4 or a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "very weak" and 5 "very strong". Return to table 1.4, note 4 referrer Table 1.4, Note 5. 'High neighbourhood trust' is rating one's own trust in the people in one's neighbourhood as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "cannot be trusted at all" and 5 represents "can be trusted a lot", as well as having a response of "very likely" when asked about the likelihood of someone in their neighbourhood returning a lost wallet or purse containing two hundred dollars with the money still inside. Return to table 1.4, note 5 referrer Table 1.4, Note 6. A 'high level of self-efficacy' is derived from having a high self-rating on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for the following three categories: an ability to think clearly and solve day-to-day problems, to handle unexpected and difficult problems, and to figure out what to do if faced with an emergency situation. Return to table 1.4, note 6 referrer Note: Responses of 'don't know/not stated' are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents. Households with ‘moderately high’ or ‘high’ levels of emergency planning engaged in 3 or 4 of the following: having an exit plan, an emergency supply kit, extra copies of important documents and an emergency contact list. 'Moderately high' or 'high' levels of precautionary measures include having 3 or 4 of the following: a wind-up or battery operated radio, a back-up generator, an alternate source of heat and additional water. 'Moderately high' or 'high' levels of fire safety measure include having all 3 of the following: a working smoke detector, a working fire extinguisher, and a working carbon monoxide detector. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014.

Notes

^E use with caution

Footnote 1.

A Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or a Census Agglomeration (CA) is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on a population centre (known as the core). A CMA must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more must live in the core. A CA must have a core population of at least 10,000. To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core as measured by commuting flows derived from census data.

Return to note 1 referrer

Footnote 2.

The target population for the SEPR included all persons 15 years of age or older, residing in households in Canada’s 10 provinces, excluding full-time residents of institutions (e.g. nursing homes, group homes, hospitals).

Return to note 2 referrer

Footnote 3.

The SEPR covers three types of communities: Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), Census Agglomerations (CAs) with population greater than 50,000, and ‘smaller communities’ which include CAs with population 50,000 or less and those areas that fall outside of CMAs and CAs. All CMAs and CAs (with population greater than 50,000) were included in the SEPR. A sample of households were selected from smaller communities within each province to represent all households within the province in similar communities. Additional information on the SEPR and its sampling methodology can be found in the ‘Survey description’ section.

Return to note 3 referrer

Footnote 4.

Throughout this fact sheet, responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ are included in the total for the percentage calculation but are not footnoted when representing 5% or less of respondents.

Return to note 4 referrer

Footnote 5.

This section focuses on personal experiences with emergencies or disasters that happened in Canada, in a community where the person was living at the time, and was significant enough to severely interrupt the individual’s regular daily activities.

Return to note 5 referrer

Footnote 6.

Emergency planning activities include: having an emergency exit plan, a household emergency supply kit, extra copies of important documents and an emergency contact list.

Return to note 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

Precautionary measures include: having a wind-up or battery-operated radio, an alternate heat source such as a non-electric stove or heater, or a wood-burning fireplace, a back-up generator and an alternative water source such as a well, tank or litres of stored water.

Return to note 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

Unless otherwise specified, differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Return to note 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

A ‘strong sense of belonging to community’ is rating one's own sense of belonging to their community as a 4 or a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents "very weak" and 5 "very strong".

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

A proportion (11%) of respondents were not asked questions regarding neighbourhood helpfulness in the event of an emergency and as such these cases are not included in the analysis on neighbourhood helpfulness in general or in the event of an emergency.

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were equal to 12% when respondents were asked about whether their neighbourhood is a place where neighbours would help each other if there is an emergency.

Return to note 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help if financial support is needed.

Return to note 12 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Fact sheetCommunity of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec Fact sheetCommunity of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Note of appreciation

Standards of service to the public

Copyright

Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Sherbrooke (CMA), Quebec

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 5}