Fact sheet
Community of Hamilton (CMA), Ontario
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan AreaNote 1 of Hamilton 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 Hamilton, 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 (86%), as well as heat waves (60%) and industrial or transportation accidents (57%) were named by residents of Hamilton as the most likely events to occur within their community.
- Residents commonly anticipated turning to television news as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (48%), an industrial or transportation accident (40%), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (39%) or in the event of rioting or civil unrest (37%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents also stated (52%) that they would turn to hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals as sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease. In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, residents reported that they would seek help from local government (30%). Utility companies (35%) were frequently listed by residents as an initial source of help in the event of an extended power outage.
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Nearly one-half (47%) of Hamilton residents has faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, a majority (72%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (58%) and winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (36%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents.
- 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 (76%), or to heat or cool their home (59%). More severe disruptions experienced by those who had endured an emergency or disaster were home evacuations (22%Note E: Use with caution) and an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (25%Note E: Use with caution). Four in ten reported issues related to water: an inability to use water for tasks such as laundry or bathing (40%), or a need to boil drinking water or use bottled water for drinking (40%).
- Most (89%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event, almost two-thirds (65%) in two days or less.
- Almost half (47%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, frequently from a family member (43%).
- Almost one-quarter (24%) of residents 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 significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routine also endured a loss of property or financial impact.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- A majority (72%) of Hamilton residents lived in a household that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 almost half (47%) lived in a household with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). A small proportion (6%Note E: Use with caution) of residents lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- About half (52%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, and approximately one in five (18%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Over one in ten (14%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- The vast majority (99%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector (Table 1.3). A large majority (85%) reported that they had a working carbon monoxide detector, significantly more than the provincial or national proportions (80% and 60%, respectively). Approximately three in five (62%) residents reported that they had a working fire extinguisher. Hamilton residents were significantly more likely than residents of Canada’s 10 provinces to have implemented all three fire safety measures within their household (55% versus 42%).Note 8
- Despite the fact that Hamilton residents were more likely to have all three fire safety measures in place than Canadians overall and were more likely to have a contact plan for household members (61% versus 55%), they were less prepared in other ways. Residents were less likely to have a plan for meeting special health needs than Canadians overallNote 9 (41% versus 62%) and less likely to have a back-up generator (13% versus 23%).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- More than half (58%) of Hamilton’s residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 10 to their community.
- Most (91%) residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.Note 11 Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, most (78%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.
- 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 (65%), for help if physically injured (62%) and in case of a home evacuation (59%). However, fewer than one in three residents had such a large support network if financial help was needed (29%), and 8%Note E: Use with caution reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
- High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, neighbourhood trust and social support 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- Television | 39 |
News- Radio | 33 |
News- Internet | 23 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 35 |
News- Radio | 21 |
Family | 16 |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 52 |
News- Television | 30 |
News- Radio | 22 |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Television | 40 |
News- Radio | 36 |
News- Internet | 21 |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 30 |
News- Television | 29 |
News- Radio | 23 |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Television | 48 |
News- Radio | 31 |
Police/law enforcement | 27Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
News- Television | 37 |
Police/law enforcement | 32Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 25Note 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 | Hamilton | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 6Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 19 | 16 | 17 |
2 activities | 25 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 25 | 28 | 27 |
4 activities | 22 | 21 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 14 | 15 | 16 |
1 measure | 31 | 28 | 27 |
2 measures | 34Table 1.2, Note ** | 29 | 28 |
3 measures | 12Table 1.2, Note *** | 20 | 20 |
4 measures | 6Note 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 | 6Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note ** | 7 | 14 |
2 measures | 35 | 35 | 38 |
3 measures | 55Table 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: | Hamilton | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 61 | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 44 | 47 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 34 | 30 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 61Table 1.3, Note ** | 57 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 44 | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 64 | 62 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 59Table 1.3, Note ** | 56 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 71 | 71 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4Note 5 | 41Table 1.3, Note *** | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 60 | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 51 | 46 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 13Table 1.3, Note *** | 20 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 40 | 44 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 6 | 20 | 22 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 99Table 1.3, Note ** | 99 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 85Table 1.3, Note *** | 80 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 62 | 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 † | 49 | 18 | 56 |
No | 49 | 24Note E: Use with caution | 58 |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 51 | 19 | 60 |
No | 46 | 20Note E: Use with caution | 53 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 61 | 23Note E: Use with caution | 70 |
No | 42Table 1.4, Note * | 17 | 50Table 1.4, Note * |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 53 | 20 | 51 |
No | 38Table 1.4, Note * | 17Note E: Use with caution | 59 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 51 | 24 | 66 |
No | 44 | 15Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 48Table 1.4, Note * |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 53 | 22 | 55 |
No | 39Table 1.4, Note * | 14Note E: Use with caution | 57 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: