Fact sheet
Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta

More information

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

Winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (87%), tornadoes (64%) and extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (59%) were named by residents of Edmonton as the most likely events to occur within their community.
Residents most commonly anticipated turning to news on the television as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (33%), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (29%) or an industrial or transportation accident (25%) (Table 1.1).
Residents also stated that hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals were the most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (47%). In the event of an extended power outage, residents anticipated turning to their utility company (39%). If they faced a contamination or shortage of water or food, they anticipated seeking help from local government (33%), and in the event of rioting or civil unrest, they would turn to police or law enforcement (33%).

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

Three in ten (30%) Edmonton 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.
Tornadoes (53%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Edmonton, followed by winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms (16%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and floods (14%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (48%) and missing an appointment or planned activity (43%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (39%) or communicate outside the home (23%^{Note E: Use with caution}), and home evacuation (21%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Four out of five (82%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event, three in five (60%) within two days or less.
More than half (55%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a family member (35%^{Note E: Use with caution}), a neighbour (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or a friend (21%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Three in ten (29%^{Note E: Use with caution}) residents of Edmonton 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. A smaller proportion (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}) of residents reported that they endured long-term emotional or psychological consequences.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three-quarters (74%) of people residing in Edmonton lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} and one-half (48%) 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.
Four in ten (42%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, and two in ten (19%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Close to two in ten (22%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The vast majority (96%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and two-thirds (67%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Three out of five (59%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. However, less than one-half (46%) of the residents of Edmonton stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
The number of emergency planning activities and fire safety measures taken by residents of Edmonton generally did not differ from residents in Alberta and Canada’s 10 provinces. However, differences did exist for precautionary measures. For example, Edmonton residents were less likely to have three (15%) or four (4%^{Note E: Use with caution}) precautionary measures in place compared to Albertans (18% and 6%, respectively) and Canadians (20% and 7%, respectively). In fact, those in Edmonton (22%) were significantly more likely to have no precautionary measures in place compared to residents of Canada (16%).^{Note 8}
There were some significant differences in the types of emergency planning activities Edmonton residents engaged in when compared to Canadians. For instance, residents in Edmonton were more likely to have a vehicle emergency supply kit (67%), an emergency exit plan (66%) and extra copies of important documents (59%) compared to Canadians in general. In terms of precautionary measures, residents of Edmonton were less likely to have an alternate heat source (40%), an alternate water source (35%) and a back-up generator (17%) compared to residents of both Alberta overall and Canadians in general.

Social networks and sense of belonging

Less than half (43%) of Edmonton’s residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.^{Note 10}
Most (85%) 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, the majority (72%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 12}
More than half of 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 (62%),^{Note 13} for help if physically injured (59%)^{Note 14} as well as in case of a home evacuation (57%).^{Note 15} About one-quarter (27%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed. However, 8% reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 16}
High levels of self-efficacy and social support, as well as civic engagement, were sometimes 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 Edmonton, Alberta, 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- Television	29
News- Radio	27
News- Internet	22
Extended power outages^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Utility company	39
News- Radio	15
Local government	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	47
News- Television	20
News- Internet	17
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Television	25
News- Radio	24
News- Internet	20
Contamination or shortage of water or food^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Local government	33
News- Television	18
News- Internet	17
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Television	33
News- Radio	30
Police/law enforcement	24
Rioting or civil unrest^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Police/law enforcement	33
News- Television	26^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
^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 Edmonton, Alberta, 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), Edmonton, Alberta and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Edmonton	Alberta	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	7^{Note E: Use with caution}	8	8
1 activity	16	17	17
2 activities	26	25	25
3 activities	29	26	27
4 activities	19	20	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	22^{Table 1.2, Note **}	21	16
1 measure	31^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	27	27
2 measures	23^{Table 1.2, Note **}	23	28
3 measures	15^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	18	20
4 measures	4^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}^{Table 1.2, Note 3}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1^{Note E: Use with caution}	1
1 measure	15	14	14
2 measures	31^{Table 1.2, Note **}	31	38
3 measures	46	48	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 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Alberta'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 referrer Note 3. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Edmonton'. Return to table 1.2, note 3 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 Edmonton, Alberta, 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), Edmonton, Alberta and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Edmonton	Alberta	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	66^{Table 1.3, Note **}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	42	45	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	36	33	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	59^{Table 1.3, Note *}	55	55
Household emergency supply kit	44	43	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	67^{Table 1.3, Note **}	69	59
Extra copies of important documents	59^{Table 1.3, Note **}	55	53
List of emergency contact numbers	67	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	61	64	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	48^{Table 1.3, Note **}	49	58
Alternate heat source	40^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	45	48
Back-up generator	17^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	35^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	41	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	20	17	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	96	96	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	59^{Table 1.3, Note *}	65	60
Working fire extinguisher	67	65	66
Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada 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 Edmonton, Alberta, 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 †}	51	21	50
No	41	15^{Note E: Use with caution}	40
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	22	54
No	42^{Table 1.4, Note *}	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	40^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note 8} ^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	18^{Note E: Use with caution}	56
No^{Table 1.4, Note 9}	45	18	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	21	45
No	46	15	47
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	19	51
No^{Table 1.4, Note 9}	47	18	46
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	55	21	47
No	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}	15^{Note E: Use with caution}	47
^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 'Planning activities'. Return to table 1.4, note 7 referrer Note 8. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Precautionary measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 8 referrer Note 9. 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 9 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.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about their sense of belonging to their community.

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

A proportion (32%) 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 emotional support.

Return to note 13 referrer

Footnote 14.

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 they were physically injured.

Return to note 14 referrer

Footnote 15.

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 in case of home evacuation.

Return to note 15 referrer

Footnote 16.

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

Return to note 16 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta

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 sheet Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta Fact sheet Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta

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 Edmonton (CMA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Edmonton (CMA), Alberta

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