Fact sheet
Community of Guelph (CMA), Ontario
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan AreaNote 1 of Guelph 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 Guelph, which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.Note 3Note 4
Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster
- Winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (95%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (88%) and heat waves (65%) were named by residents of Guelph as the events most likely to occur within their community.
- Guelph residents most frequently anticipated turning to news on the radio as an initial source for information in the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (36%) or an industrial or transportation accident (34%), and to news on the television in the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (35%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents stated that hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals were the most common sources of initial information or assistance in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (54%), while police or law enforcement would be their first source of help in the event of rioting or civil unrest (37%). In the event of an extended power outage, residents most frequently stated that they would first turn to their utility company (34%), and they said they would first turn to local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (31%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Half (51%) of Guelph residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, two-thirds (67%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (72%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Guelph. In addition, 29% reported that they had experienced emergencies resulting from winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms).
- The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced a major emergency or disaster included the inability to use electrical appliances (83%) and to heat or cool their home (68%). In addition, many said they had missed school or work (61%) or appointments or planned activities (56%) as a result of the event. Fewer residents who had faced an emergency or disaster had experienced more severe disruptions: home evacuations (17%Note E: Use with caution), as well as an inability to or use roads or transportation within the community (17%Note E: Use with caution) or communicate outside of the home (10%Note E: Use with caution).
- Most (91%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event; nearly two-thirds (64%) resumed activities in two days or less.
- About half (52%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a family member (40%) or a neighbour (37%Note E: Use with caution).
- Approximately one in three (34%) residents of Guelph who experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time of the event and which were significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routine also endured a loss of property or financial impact.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Three-quarters (74%) of people residing in Guelph lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 and nearly one-half (47%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Less than one in ten (7%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- Half (50%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, but less than one-quarter (22%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. About one in seven (14%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Almost all (99%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and two-thirds (66%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Over three-quarters (80%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Over half (56%) of the residents of Guelph stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
- For the most part, the number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Guelph did not differ from residents of Ontario overall or those residing in Canada’s 10 provinces. Guelph residents (15%), however, were less likely than both Ontarians (21%) and Canadians (19%) to have engaged in all four emergency planning activities. Those in Guelph (56%), however, were more likely to have taken all three fire safety measures than Canadians (42%).Note 8
- In terms of specific types of emergency planning activities and precautionary measures, residents of Guelph did not differ for the most part from residents of Ontario and Canada’s 10 provinces overall. They were, however, less likely to have a household emergency supply kit (41%) or a back-up generator (14%) when compared to Ontarians (47% and 20%, respectively) and Canadians (47% and 23%, respectively).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- More than half (58%) of Guelph’s residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.
- Most (90%) 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, most (80%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 11
- Many individuals 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 (63%), for help if physically injured (63%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (60%). However, three in ten residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (30%). Few residents (6%) had no one to turn to for financial support.
- High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, neighbourhood trust and social support, as well as civic engagement and involvement in political activities were not associated with a higher level of emergency preparedness (Table 1.4).
Data tables
Most common sources of initial help and information by type of emergency or disaster | percent |
---|---|
Weather-related emergency or natural disaster | |
News- Radio | 36 |
News- Television | 28 |
News- Internet | 26 |
Extended power outagesTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Utility company | 34 |
News- Radio | 23 |
Family | 16 |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 54 |
News- Internet | 24 |
News- Television | 22 |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Radio | 34 |
News- Television | 30 |
News- Internet | 28 |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 31 |
News- Radio | 19 |
News- Internet | 17Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Television | 35 |
Police/law enforcement | 31 |
News- Radio | 22Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 37 |
News- Television | 30Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 25Note E: Use with caution |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents | Guelph | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 7Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 17 | 16 | 17 |
2 activities | 27 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 32 | 28 | 27 |
4 activities | 15Table 1.2, Note *** | 21 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 14 | 15 | 16 |
1 measure | 34Table 1.2, Note *** | 28 | 27 |
2 measures | 28 | 29 | 28 |
3 measures | 17 | 20 | 20 |
4 measures | 5Note E: Use with caution | 6 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1 |
1 measure | 8Table 1.2, Note ** | 7 | 14 |
2 measures | 32Table 1.2, Note ** | 35 | 38 |
3 measures | 56Table 1.2, Note ** | 53 | 42 |
E use with caution F too unreliable to be published
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Residents whose households were involved in the following: | Guelph | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 65 | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 43 | 47 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 30 | 30 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 55 | 57 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 41Table 1.3, Note *** | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 63 | 62 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 51 | 56 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 73 | 71 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 52 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 61 | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 47 | 46 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 14Table 1.3, Note *** | 20 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 43 | 44 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 20 | 22 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 99Table 1.3, Note ** | 99 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 80Table 1.3, Note ** | 80 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 66 | 64 | 66 |
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
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 activitiesTable 1.4, Note 1 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 48 | 24 | 59 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7 | 35Note E: Use with caution | 20Note E: Use with caution | 50Note E: Use with caution |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 48 | 25 | 57 |
No | 42 | 21Note E: Use with caution | 58 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 50 | 20Note E: Use with caution | 63 |
No | 46 | 24 | 53 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 49 | 23 | 55 |
No | 45 | 22 | 58 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 50 | 25 | 58 |
No | 45 | 21 | 55 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 44 | 26 | 58 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7 | 51 | 20Note E: Use with caution | 55 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: