Fact sheet
Smaller communities of British Columbia
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in ‘smaller communities’ of British Columbia was collected through the Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada (SEPR).Note 1Note 2Note 3 This fact sheet presents information on the risk awareness and level of emergency preparedness of the residents of British Columbia’s smaller communities, which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.Note 4
Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster
- People living in the smaller communities of British Columbia anticipated wildfires (86%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (77%), winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (60%) and earthquakes (59%) as the events most likely to occur in their communities.
- Residents most commonly anticipated turning to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (62%), and to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage (60%). They most commonly anticipated turning to police or law enforcement if faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (51%Note E: Use with caution), rioting or civil unrest (42%Note E: Use with caution), or an industrial or transportation accident (23%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents also anticipated that they would seek out local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (39%), or news on the radio if they faced a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (26%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- One-third (33%) of residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, less than two-thirds (62%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Floods (31%Note E: Use with caution), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (29%Note E: Use with caution) and wildfires (21%Note E: Use with caution) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia.
- The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (63%), missing an appointment or planned activity (63%), an inability to use electrical appliances (56%) and having to boil water for drinking or drink bottled water (52%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (42%), home evacuation (39%) and an inability to communicate outside the household (11%Note E: Use with caution).
- Nearly three-quarters (73%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 24%Note E: Use with caution within 24 hours, 17%Note E: Use with caution within one to two days, 20%Note E: Use with caution within three to five days and 12%Note E: Use with caution within six to seven days.
- More than six in ten (63%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a neighbour (31%Note E: Use with caution), a family member (27%Note E: Use with caution) or a friend (22%Note E: Use with caution).Note 6
- Nearly three in ten (27%Note E: Use with caution) of residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia 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
- Three-quarters (75%) of people residing in the smaller communities of British Columbia lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 7 and more than half (55%) 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.
- Two-thirds (68%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 8 taken in case of an emergency, and nearly half (46%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One in ten (9%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- The vast majority (94%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and most (77%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Half (51%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. However, approximately four in ten (43%) residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
- There were significant differences between the number of precautionary measures taken by residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia and residents of British Columbia in general and Canada’s 10 provinces overall. For example, residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia reported less often that they had no precautionary measures in place (9%Note E: Use with caution) compared to residents of British Columbia (13%) and Canada (16%). Inversely, residents of the smaller communities were more likely to have all four precautionary measures in place (20%) than those provincially (8%) and nationally (7%). In addition, residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia (28%) were significantly more likely to have participated in all four emergency planning activities compared to Canadians overall (19%).Note 9
- There were some differences in the types of activities and measures residents of smaller communities in British Columbia engaged in when compared to those in British Columbia and Canada overall. For instance, in terms of precautionary measures, the proportion of residents of smaller communities in British Columbia who had an alternate heat source (64%), an alternate water source (56%) or a back-up generator (41%) was higher than those provincially (55%, 48% and 22%, respectively) and nationally (48%, 43% and 23%, respectively). In terms of emergency planning activities, residents of the smaller communities were more likely to have an emergency exit plan (69%), a household emergency supply kit (57%), a recently practiced exit plan (55%) and a designated meeting place for household members (43%) than Canadians in general.
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Over half (55%) of residents of the smaller communities of British Columbia had a strong sense of belongingNote 10 to their community.
- Almost all (92%) 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 (84%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 12
- Six in ten 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%), for help if physically injured (61%), as well as in case of a home evacuation (60%). Nearly one-quarter of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (23%). However, one in ten (11%Note E: Use with caution) residents reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.Note 13
- High levels of sense of belonging, social support and self-efficacy were sometimes 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 disasterTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
News- Radio | 26 |
News- Internet | 16 |
Police/law enforcement | 15 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 60 |
Family | 9Note E: Use with caution |
Local government | 8Note E: Use with caution |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 62 |
News- Radio | 17Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 12Note E: Use with caution |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
Police/law enforcement | 23 |
News- Radio | 21 |
Local government | 18 |
Contamination or shortage of water or foodTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Local government | 39 |
News- Radio | 11Note E: Use with caution |
Family | 9Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
Police/law enforcement | 51Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 26Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrestTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Police/law enforcement | 42Note 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 | Smaller communities of British Columbia | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 7Note E: Use with caution | 6 | 8 |
1 activity | 14 | 15 | 17 |
2 activities | 20Table 1.2, Note ** | 22 | 25 |
3 activities | 27 | 29 | 27 |
4 activities | 28Table 1.2, Note ** | 25 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 9Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note *** | 13 | 16 |
1 measure | 19Table 1.2, Note *** | 24 | 27 |
2 measures | 22Table 1.2, Note *** | 27 | 28 |
3 measures | 26Table 1.2, Note ** | 23 | 20 |
4 measures | 20Table 1.2, Note *** | 8 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1Table 1.2, Note 2 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1Note E: Use with caution | 1 |
1 measure | 11Note E: Use with caution | 14 | 14 |
2 measures | 39 | 40 | 38 |
3 measures | 43 | 38 | 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: | Smaller communities of British Columbia | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 69Table 1.3, Note ** | 71 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 55Table 1.3, Note ** | 49 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 43Table 1.3, Note ** | 38 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 53 | 54 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 57Table 1.3, Note ** | 55 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 64Table 1.3, Note * | 58 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 53 | 55 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 69 | 68 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 67 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 63 | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 64Table 1.3, Note *** | 55 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 41Table 1.3, Note *** | 22 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 56Table 1.3, Note *** | 48 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 94 | 95 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detectorTable 1.3, Note 6 | 51Table 1.3, Note ** | 52 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 77Table 1.3, Note *** | 69 | 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 † | 56 | 47 | 44 |
No | 44Note E: Use with caution | 35Note E: Use with caution | 42Note E: Use with caution |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 59 | 47 | 42 |
No | 48 | 44 | 47 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 67 | 45 | 33Note E: Use with caution |
No | 54Table 1.4, Note * | 48 | 48Table 1.4, Note * |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 63 | 47 | 47 |
No | 48Table 1.4, Note * | 47 | 41 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 60 | 48 | 46 |
No | 52 | 45 | 42 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 61 | 55 | 49 |
No | 50 | 37Table 1.4, Note * | 37 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: