Fact sheet
Community of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island Fact sheet
Community of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island

More information

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

Residents of Charlottetown anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (95%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (75%), and hurricanes (63%) as the events most likely to occur within their community.
Residents named news on the radio as the source of initial help and information that they would turn to in most emergencies or disasters. More specifically, in the event of an industrial or transportation accident (39%), a riot or civil unrest (39%^{Note E: Use with caution}), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (38%), an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (36%^{Note E: Use with caution}), or a contamination or shortage of water or food (28%), news on the radio was the source that people in Charlottetown would turn to first for information or assistance (Table 1.1).
News on the radio was the second most common source of initial help and information in the event of an extended power outage lasting 24 hours or longer (31%), following contacting a utility company (41%). In the event of an outbreak of a serious illness or a life-threatening disease, a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional (32%) was reported as the most common source of initial help, followed by news on the internet (24%).

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

One in three (34%) residents of Charlottetown have personally experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time. For more than three-quarters (78%) of them, this emergency or disaster was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to their daily activities.
Hurricanes (44%) and winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms (43%) were the emergencies or disasters most commonly experienced by residents, followed by extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
The most common types of disruption to daily activities which happened as a result of emergencies included a need to miss work or school (73%), an inability to use electrical appliances (67%) and a need to miss an appointment or a planned activity (56%). More severe types of disruptions included the inability to use roads or transportation within the community, experienced by nearly half of individuals affected by an emergency (47%), and the need to evacuate the home, experienced by one in ten (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people.
The majority (85%) of residents who had experienced a major emergency were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event (11%^{Note E: Use with caution} within 24 hours, 37% within one to two days, 28% within three to five days, and 9%^{Note E: Use with caution} within six to seven days).
Half (51%) of residents who were affected by a major emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most often from family (45%) or neighbours (33%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One-third (34%) of people in Charlottetown who were affected by major emergencies or disasters that were significant enough to disrupt their regular daily activities experienced a loss of property or some kind of a financial impact.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Two in three (67%) people in Charlottetown lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with about four in ten (42%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (10%) residents lived in a household that had not engaged in any emergency planning activities.
Many (64%) residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in the event of an emergency, with one-quarter (26%) living in a household with three or four such measures. Conversely, one in ten (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures set in place.
Most (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and 72% reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Less than half (44%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. About one in three (35%) residents stated that they had all three fire safety measures within their households.
The number of emergency planning activities taken by residents of Charlottetown did not differ significantly from Prince Edward Island as a whole or from Canada’s 10 provinces. Although the proportion of residents of Charlottetown (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) who had no precautionary measures was significantly higher than that of the province (7%), this proportion was significantly lower than residents of Canada (16%). Residents of Charlottetown were less likely to have had all three fire safety measures when compared to the overall proportion of Canadians (35% versus 42%).^{Note 8}
There were some significant differences in the types of measures and activities taken between residents of Charlottetown and the province of Prince Edward Island, as well as between those in Charlottetown and residents of Canada in general. For example, residents of Charlottetown were less likely to have had an emergency exit plan (61%) or an alternate water source (44%) when compared to the provincial proportions (65% and 53%, respectively). When compared to Canadians, residents of Charlottetown who indicated that they have someone in their household with special medical needs were significantly more likely to have an emergency plan set in place for meeting special health needs (74% versus 62%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

More than half (60%) of Charlottetown’s residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
The majority (91%) of 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 (90%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
Close to three-quarters of residents had a large network of support in the event of an emergency or disaster, with more than five people to turn to for help if physically injured (73%) or for emotional support (72%). In the event of a home evacuation (66%), two-thirds of residents had at least five people to turn to, compared to about one-third for financial support (35%). However, 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, social support as well as civic engagement were often 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 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 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	38
News- Internet	27
News- Television	17
Extended power outages
Utility company	41
News- Radio	31
Family	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	32
News- Internet	24
News- Radio	23
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	39
News- Internet	22
Police/law enforcement	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Contamination or shortage of water or food
News- Radio	28
News- Internet	23
Local government	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Radio	36^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	34^{Note E: Use with caution}
Police/law enforcement	20^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest^{Table 1.1 Note 1}
News- Radio	39^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	30^{Note E: Use with caution}
^E use with caution Table 1.1 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 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 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), Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Charlottetown	Prince Edward Island	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	10	10	8
1 activity	21	19	17
2 activities	25	25	25
3 activities	25	26	27
4 activities	17	17	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	10^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	7	16
1 measure	24	21	27
2 measures	38^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	33	28
3 measures	22	25	20
4 measures	4^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	13	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2 Note 1}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	18^{Table 1.2 Note **}	16	14
2 measures	43	45	38
3 measures	35^{Table 1.2 Note **}	35	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2 Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2 note referrer Table 1.2 Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2 note * referrer Table 1.2 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: 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 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 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), Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Charlottetown	Prince Edward Island	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	61^{Table 1.3 Note *}	65	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3 Note 1}	43	45	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3 Note 2}	34	36	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3 Note 2}	51	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	42	45	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3 Note 3}	53^{Table 1.3 Note **}	56	59
Extra copies of important documents	49	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	64^{Table 1.3 Note **}	63	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3 Note 4}	74^{Table 1.3 Note **}	72	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	75^{Table 1.3 Note **}	78	58
Alternate heat source	44^{Table 1.3 Note *}	53	48
Back-up generator	20^{Table 1.3 Note *}	29	23
Alternate water source	44^{Table 1.3 Note *}	53	43
Other^{Table 1.3 Note 5}	25	24	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	44^{Table 1.3 Note **}	42	60
Working fire extinguisher	72^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	75	66
Table 1.3 Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3 note * referrer Table 1.3 Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3 note referrer Table 1.3 Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3 note * referrer Table 1.3 Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to Table 1.3 note 1 referrer Table 1.3 Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to Table 1.3 note 2 referrer Table 1.3 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 Table 1.3 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 Table 1.3 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 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 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 †}	41	27	36
No	47^{Note E: Use with caution}	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4 Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	43	29	37
No	40	15^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4 Note *}	27
High level of social support^{Table 1.4 Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	52	30	43
No	37^{Table 1.4 Note *}	24	31^{Table 1.4 Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4 Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	47	28	39
No	35^{Table 1.4 Note *}	22	28^{Table 1.4 Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4 Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	41	28	38
No	44	24	33
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4 Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	50	28	38
No	35^{Table 1.4 Note *}	24	33
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.4 Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.4 note * referrer Table 1.4 Note † reference category Return to note † referrer Table 1.4 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 Table 1.4 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 Table 1.4 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 Table 1.4 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 Table 1.4 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 Table 1.4 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: 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 (16%) 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

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island Fact sheet
Community of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island

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 sheetCommunity of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island Fact sheetCommunity of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island

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 Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island Fact sheet
Community of Charlottetown (CA), Prince Edward Island

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