Fact sheet
Community of Toronto (CMA), Ontario
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan AreaNote 1 of Toronto 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 Toronto, 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) (93%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (81%) and heat waves (58%) were named by residents of Toronto as the events most likely to occur in their community.
- Residents most commonly anticipated turning to news on the radio as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with an industrial or transportation accident (32%) or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (30%) (Table 1.1). News on the television was listed by residents as the most commonly anticipated source of initial help and information in the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (37%) or in the event of rioting or civil unrest (31%).
- Residents most frequently stated a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional as the anticipated first source of information or assistance in the event of an outbreak of a serious illness or life-threatening disease (40%). In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, residents most commonly said they would first seek information or assistance from local government (27%), and in the event of an extended power outage, residents anticipated first turning to their utility company (30%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Approximately half (52%) of Toronto residents have personally experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time of the event. For most (78%), the emergency or disaster was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to their daily activities.
- Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (62%) and winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (42%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Toronto.
- The most frequently endured types of disruption to daily activities by residents who experienced emergencies or disasters included an inability to use electrical appliances (78%), an inability to heat or cool their home (61%), having to miss work or school (58%), as well as having to boil water for drinking or drink bottled water (55%). More serious disruptions experienced were home evacuations experienced by one-quarter (25%) of people faced with an emergency or disaster, as well as an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (21%) or communicate outside of the home (10%Note E: Use with caution).
- Approximately nine in ten (92%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event, with just over half (53%) in two days or less.
- Half (49%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, many of whom turned to family (35%) for the help, followed by neighbours (29%Note E: Use with caution) and friends (15%Note E: Use with caution).
- Three in ten (30%) residents of Toronto who experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time of the event and which was severe enough to disrupt their regular daily activities also endured a loss of property or some kind of a financial impact. In addition, enduring some sort of long-term emotional or psychological impact was reported by nearly one in ten (8%Note E: Use with caution) residents.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Three-quarters (74%) of Toronto residents lived in a household that engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 with half (48%) living in a household with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Close to one in ten (8%) people in Toronto lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- Close to half (48%) of Toronto residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, with close to one-quarter (21%) living in a household with three or four such measures. Conversely, two in ten residents (20%) lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- The majority (98%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, while over half (56%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Approximately eight in ten (82%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Close to half (48%) of Toronto residents stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their household.
- The number of emergency planning activities put in place by residents of Toronto did not significantly differ from residents of Ontario overall or residents of Canada’s 10 provinces. When considering precautionary measures, however, Toronto residents were more likely to have not employed any precautionary measures (20%) compared to residents of Ontario as a whole (15%) and Canadians in general (16%). In addition, while a slightly lower proportion of Toronto residents reported engaging in all three fire safety measures (48%) than those residing in Ontario (53%), they were more likely than Canadians in general to have employed all three measures (42%).Note 8
- There were some differences in the types of activities and measures set in place by residents of Toronto when compared to Ontario and Canada in general. For example, residents of Toronto were often less likely than residents of Ontario and Canadians in general to have engaged in certain precautionary measures (specifically, having an alternate heat source, a back-up generator or an alternate water source). Toronto residents (56%) were also less likely to report having a working fire extinguisher in their home than residents of Ontario (64%) and Canadians in general (66%).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Just over half (52%) of Toronto residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.
- Most (86%) 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, the majority (72%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 11
- Around half of residents had a strong network of support in the event of an emergency or disaster, with more than five people to turn to for help if physically injured (54%), for emotional support (49%), as well as in the event of a home evacuation (48%). Less than one-quarter (21%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and 12% reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.Note 12
- High levels of neighbourhood trust and sense of belonging, as well as engagement in civic and political activities, were often 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 | 30 |
News- Television | 28 |
News- Internet | 25 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 30 |
News- Radio | 25 |
Family | 14 |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 40 |
News- Television | 26 |
News- Internet | 26 |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Radio | 32 |
News- Television | 31 |
News- Internet | 30 |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 27 |
News- Television | 25 |
News- Radio | 24 |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Television | 37 |
News- Radio | 33 |
News- Internet | 29 |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
News- Television | 31 |
News- Internet | 27Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 27Note 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. |
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents | Toronto | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 8 | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 15 | 16 | 17 |
2 activities | 26 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 29 | 28 | 27 |
4 activities | 19 | 21 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 20Table 1.2 Note *** | 15 | 16 |
1 measure | 30 | 28 | 27 |
2 measures | 27 | 29 | 28 |
3 measures | 18 | 20 | 20 |
4 measures | 3Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2 Note *** | 6 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2 Note 1Table 1.2 Note 2 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1 |
1 measure | 6Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2 Note ** | 7 | 14 |
2 measures | 39Table 1.2 Note * | 35 | 38 |
3 measures | 48Table 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: | Toronto | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 56Table 1.3 Note * | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3 Note 1 | 45 | 47 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3 Note 2 | 25Table 1.3 Note *** | 30 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3 Note 2 | 58 | 57 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 49 | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3 Note 3 | 58Table 1.3 Note * | 62 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 55 | 56 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 72 | 71 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3 Note 4 | 61 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 55Table 1.3 Note * | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 42Table 1.3 Note *** | 46 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 14Table 1.3 Note *** | 20 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 37Table 1.3 Note *** | 44 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3 Note 5 | 20 | 22 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 98 | 99 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 82Table 1.3 Note ** | 80 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 56Table 1.3 Note *** | 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 | 22 | 54 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 7 | 46 | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 30Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4 Note * |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4 Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4 Note † | 55 | 23 | 59 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 8 | 39Table 1.4 Note * | 16Note E: Use with caution | 33Table 1.4 Note * |
High level of social supportTable 1.4 Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4 Note † | 56 | 24Note E: Use with caution | 54 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 8 | 47 | 21 | 47 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4 Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4 Note † | 54 | 25 | 53 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 8 | 43Table 1.4 Note * | 16Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4 Note * | 43 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4 Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4 Note † | 48 | 21Note E: Use with caution | 62 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 8 | 49 | 20 | 44Table 1.4 Note * |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4 Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4 Note † | 54 | 23 | 54 |
NoTable 1.4 Note 8 | 45 | 19Note E: Use with caution | 44 |
E use with caution F too unreliable to be published
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: