Fact sheet
Community of Kamloops (CA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Kamloops (CA), British Columbia

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Agglomeration^{Note 1} of Kamloops 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 Kamloops, 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

Wildfires (91%), industrial or transportation accidents (70%), or winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (65%) were named by residents of Kamloops as the events most likely to occur in their community.
Residents most commonly reported that they would anticipate turning to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (60%), to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage lasting 24 hours or longer (59%), and to police or law enforcement in the event of rioting or civil unrest (45%^{Note E: Use with caution}) (Table 1.1).
Residents also most commonly stated that they would anticipate turning to local government if they faced a contamination or shortage of water or food (38%), and to news on the radio if they faced an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (35%^{Note E: Use with caution}), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (29%) or an industrial or transportation accident (29%).

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

Approximately one-quarter (27%) of Kamloops residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, six in ten (61%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
Wildfires (70%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Kamloops.
Common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing an appointment or planned activity (68%) and missing work or school (40%^{Note E: Use with caution}). More severe disruptions experienced were home evacuation (55%) and an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (33%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event.
Six in ten (61%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a family member (38%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One-quarter (24%^{Note E: Use with caution}) of residents of Kamloops 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

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of people residing in Kamloops lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} and more than half (54%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in twenty (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Nearly half (48%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, and more than one in five (22%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Less than one in five (18%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Nearly all (96%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and nearly three-quarters (72%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Six in ten (59%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Almost one-half (45%) of residents of Kamloops stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their household.
The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Kamloops sometimes differed from residents in British Columbia and Canada’s 10 provinces overall. For instance, residents of Kamloops were less likely to have implemented all four precautionary measures (4%^{Note E: Use with caution}) than those in British Columbia (8%) and Canada (7%).^{Note 8}
There were some differences in the types of activities and measures in place by residents of Kamloops when compared to British Columbia and Canada in general. For example, Kamloops residents were more likely to have a vehicle emergency supply kit (71%) but less likely to have a wind-up or battery-operated radio (51%) or an alternate water source (34%) compared to residents of British Columbia (58%, 59% and 48%, respectively) and Canada (59%, 58% and 43%, respectively).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Over half (56%) of residents of Kamloops had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
More than eight in ten (84%) 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, most (80%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
Approximately 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%) and in the event of a home evacuation (58%).^{Note 12} Nearly one-quarter (23%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and 11%^{Note E: Use with caution} reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 13}
High levels of sense of belonging, social support, self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust 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 Kamloops, British Columbia, 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	29
News- Television	21
News- Internet	21
Extended power outages
Utility company	59
News- Radio	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	60
News- Internet	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	29
News- Television	21
Police/law enforcement	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
Contamination or shortage of water or food^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Local government	38
News- Radio	16^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Radio	35^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	21^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Police/law enforcement	45^{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 Kamloops, British Columbia, 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), Kamloops, British Columbia and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Kamloops	British Columbia	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note **}	6	8
1 activity	20	15	17
2 activities	19^{Table 1.2, Note **}	22	25
3 activities	33	29	27
4 activities	21	25	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	18	13	16
1 measure	32^{Table 1.2, Note *}	24	27
2 measures	26	27	28
3 measures	18^{Note E: Use with caution}	23	20
4 measures	4^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	8	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1^{Note E: Use with caution}	1
1 measure	9^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	14	14
2 measures	39	40	38
3 measures	45	38	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer 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 'British Columbia'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 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 Kamloops, British Columbia, 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), Kamloops, British Columbia and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Kamloops	British Columbia	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	69^{Table 1.3, Note **}	71	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	50	49	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	37	38	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	57	54	55
Household emergency supply kit	48	55	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	71^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	58	59
Extra copies of important documents	59	55	53
List of emergency contact numbers	67	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	71	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	51^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	59	58
Alternate heat source	51	55	48
Back-up generator	19	22	23
Alternate water source	34^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	48	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	23	21	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	96	95	98
Working carbon monoxide detector^{Table 1.3, Note 6}	59	52	60
Working fire extinguisher	72	69	66
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 6. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'British Columbia'. Return to table 1.3, note 6 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 Kamloops, British Columbia, 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 †}	54	25	48
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	41^{Note E: Use with caution}	Note F: too unreliable to be published	51^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	55	26^{Note E: Use with caution}	46
No	46	17^{Note E: Use with caution}	53
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 8}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	74	14^{Note E: Use with caution}	53
No	49^{Table 1.4, Note *}	25	44
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	56	20	53
No	53	27^{Note E: Use with caution}	36^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	22^{Note E: Use with caution}	56
No	52	23^{Note E: Use with caution}	38^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	69	27	55
No	40^{Table 1.4, Note *}	18^{Note E: Use with caution}	36^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published 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 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 8 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.

A proportion (22%) 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 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% 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 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

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 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 Kamloops (CA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Kamloops (CA), British Columbia

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 Kamloops (CA), British Columbia Fact sheet Community of Kamloops (CA), British Columbia

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 Kamloops (CA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Kamloops (CA), British Columbia

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