Fact sheet
Community of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Thunder Bay 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 Thunder Bay, 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

Most residents of Thunder Bay anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (93%) as an event likely to occur in their community, followed by wildfires or forest fires (80%), industrial or transportation accidents (75%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (74%), and floods (70%).
In the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (39%), an industrial or transportation accident (38%), or an act of terrorism or a terrorist threat (34%), news on the radio was most frequently named by residents as the source of information or assistance they would turn to first (Table 1.1). News on the television was most commonly anticipated as the source of information residents would turn to first if faced with rioting or civil unrest (33%).
In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, residents commonly anticipated turning to news on the television or to their local government (both 25%). Residents in Thunder Bay most frequently anticipated first turning to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage (46%), and to hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals if faced with an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (54%).

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

More than one-third (38%) of people living in the community of Thunder Bay have experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time. For nearly two-thirds (62%) of these individuals, the emergency or disaster was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to their daily activities.
Nearly half (46%) of residents who were affected by a major emergency or disaster experienced floods. Winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (24%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (9%^{Note E: Use with caution}) followed as the next most commonly experienced events.
Missing work or school (56%) and planned activities or appointments (50%) were the most common disruptions to daily activities experienced by residents, followed by an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (34%), and a need to boil drinking water or drink bottled water (32%). Nearly one-quarter of those who experienced an emergency or disaster had to evacuate their home (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
The majority (73%) of residents who were affected by a major emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event; close to half (46%) were able to resume their daily activities in two days or less.
Two out of three (65%) residents received help from others either during or immediately following the emergency or disaster. Family (20%^{Note E: Use with caution}), local government (19%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and neighbours (18%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were the most common sources of assistance.
Nearly four in ten (37%) residents of Thunder Bay who were affected by a major emergency or disaster experienced a loss of property or financial impact,^{Note 6} and one in ten (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) experienced long-term emotional or psychological consequences.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of residents of Thunder Bay lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 7} and close to half (47%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Less than one in ten (8%^{Note E: Use with caution}) had no emergency planning activities in place.
More than half (56%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 8} taken in case of an emergency, and about one-third (35%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. About one in seven (15%) had no precautionary measures set in place within their home.
Almost all (99.6%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and three-quarters (74%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Seven in ten (69%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector. More than half (55%) of residents stated that they had all three fire safety measures taken within their household.
The number of fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Thunder Bay often differed significantly from Ontario residents and Canadians in the 10 provinces. Residents of Thunder Bay were more likely than those in Ontario and Canada in general to have all four precautionary measures in place (11%, 6% and 7%, respectively). Thunder Bay residents were also more likely than Canadians to have all three fire safety measures in place (55% and 42%, respectively).^{Note 9}
A few differences were found between residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario and Canada in terms of the types of activities and measures people were involved in. For example, Thunder Bay residents were more likely than both Ontario residents and Canadians in general to have an emergency exit plan (74%, 63% and 60%, respectively), a back-up generator (32%, 20% and 23%, respectively) and a working fire extinguisher (74%, 64% and 66%, respectively). Residents of Thunder Bay were less likely than Ontarians to have extra copies of important documents (49% versus 56%) or a list of emergency contact numbers (65% versus 71%). Although the proportion of Thunder Bay residents with a working carbon monoxide detector (69%) was lower than that of Ontario (80%), it was higher than that of Canadians (60%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

More than half (56%) of residents of Thunder Bay had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 10} to their community.
The majority (86%) of residents believed their neighbourhood is a place where neighbours help each other.^{Note 11} Of those who described their neighbourhood as a place where neighbours generally do not help each other, most (80%) still believed it is a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 12}
In the event of an emergency or disaster, more than half of residents had large networks of support with more than five people to turn to for emotional support (69%), for help if physically injured (63%) and in the event of a home evacuation (56%). About one in four had a large network for financial support in the event of an emergency (24%), and one in ten (11%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 13}
For the most part, involvement in social or political activities did not have significant impacts on the level of emergency preparedness of the residents of Thunder Bay (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 Thunder Bay, Ontario, 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
News- Radio	39
News- Television	29
News- Internet	19
Extended power outages
Utility company	46
News- Radio	20
Family	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	54
News- Radio	22
News- Television	21
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	38
News- Television	27
News- Internet	15
Contamination or shortage of water or food^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
News- Television	25
Local government	25
News- Radio	23
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Radio	34
Police/law enforcement	33
News- Television	32
Rioting or civil unrest
News- Television	33
Police/law enforcement	32
News- Radio	32
^E use with caution Note 1. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about their likely sources of initial help and information. Return to table 1.1, note 1 referrer 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 Thunder Bay, Ontario, 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), Thunder Bay, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Thunder Bay	Ontario	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	8^{Note E: Use with caution}	8	8
1 activity	18	16	17
2 activities	25	25	25
3 activities	30	28	27
4 activities	17	21	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	15	15	16
1 measure	27	28	27
2 measures	21^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	29	28
3 measures	24^{Table 1.2, Note **}	20	20
4 measures	11^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	10^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	7	14
2 measures	32^{Table 1.2, Note **}	35	38
3 measures	55^{Table 1.2, Note **}	53	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer 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 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 Thunder Bay, Ontario, 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), Thunder Bay, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Thunder Bay	Ontario	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	74^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	46	47	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	39^{Table 1.3, Note *}	30	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	53	57	55
Household emergency supply kit	43	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	63	62	59
Extra copies of important documents	49^{Table 1.3, Note *}	56	53
List of emergency contact numbers	65^{Table 1.3, Note *}	71	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	56	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	62	59	58
Alternate heat source	47	46	48
Back-up generator	32^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	20	23
Alternate water source	47	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	22	22	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	100^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	99	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	69^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	80	60
Working fire extinguisher	74^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	64	66
Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to table 1.3, note 1 referrer Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to table 1.3, note 2 referrer 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 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 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 Thunder Bay, Ontario, 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 †}	48	37	57
No	44	31^{Note E: Use with caution}	55
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	47	40	59
No	47	28^{Table 1.4, Note *}	52
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	41	58
No	47	35	54
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	49	38	55
No	48	34	58
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	56	52	62
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	42^{Table 1.4, Note *}	25^{Table 1.4, Note *}	50^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	50	40	55
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	45	31	55
^E use with caution Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.4, note * referrer Note † reference category Return to table 1.4, note † referrer 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 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 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 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 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 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 7. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 7 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.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about whether the emergency they experienced caused them to suffer loss of property or financial impacts.

Return to note 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

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 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

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 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

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

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

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 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

A proportion (8%) 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 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were equal to 11% 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 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

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 13 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario

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 Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario Fact sheetCommunity of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario

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 Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Thunder Bay (CMA), Ontario

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