Fact sheet
Community of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Trois-Rivières 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 Trois-Rivières, 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 Trois-Rivières anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (91%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (78%) and heat waves (70%) as the emergency-type events most likely to occur within their community.
Residents anticipated turning to the police as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with rioting or civil unrest (64%), an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (59%), an industrial or transportation accident (35%) or a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (31%) (Table 1.1). Hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (67%) were the most commonly anticipated sources for initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease. In the event of an extended power outage, residents anticipated turning to their utility company first (68%), and in the event of contamination or shortage of water or food, residents would first turn to their local government (60%).

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

Close to two in five (37%) people in Trois-Rivières have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada within a community where they were living at the time. Among them, more than half (62%) experienced severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result.
Residents who had faced a major emergency or disaster most commonly experienced winter storms, which include blizzards and ice storms (70%). Although not experienced as often, extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (14%^{Note E: Use with caution}) followed as the next most commonly experienced emergency-type event.
Seven in ten (70%) residents who have experienced major emergencies or disasters were unable to use electrical appliances as a result. Other common disruptions to daily activities included missing school or work (58%), the inability to use water at home for routine tasks (44%) and missing appointments or planned activities (40%). Other more severe disruptions included home evacuations (33%) and an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (26%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Three-quarters (75%) of residents of Trois-Rivières who had experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event; one-third (33%) were able to resume their activities in two days or less.
Less than half (45%) of the residents received help either during or immediately following the emergency, most commonly from a family member (47%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One in three (36%) people in Trois-Rivières who had experienced a major emergency or disaster which was significant enough to disrupt their regular daily activities also endured a loss of property or another financial impact as a result. Long-term emotional or psychological (8%^{Note E: Use with caution}) consequences were not commonly experienced.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Two-thirds (65%) of residents of Trois-Rivières lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with approximately one-third (35%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (10%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Just under half (44%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency. Among them were those who had three or four such measures, representing 18% of residents of Trois-Rivières. One out of five (20%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Most (99%) 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). Less than half (43%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their home. One in three (33%) people reported that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
There were almost no significant differences in terms of the number of emergency planning activities, fire safety or precautionary measures people were involved in when residents of Trois-Rivières were compared to Quebec residents in general. However, there were differences when they were compared to residents of Canada’s 10 provinces overall. Residents of Trois-Rivières were less likely to have undertaken all four emergency planning activities (13%) and precautionary measures (4%^{Note E: Use with caution}), and to have all three fire safety measures (33%) in place, compared to people in Canada overall (19%, 7% and 42%, respectively).^{Note 8}
Additional differences in terms of the types of activities and measures residents were engaged in were observed. For example, people in Trois-Rivières were less likely than Canadians in general to have an emergency exit plan (46% versus 60%). Residents of Trois-Rivières (43%) were less likely than Canadians overall (60%) but more likely than residents of Quebec in general (34%) to have a working carbon monoxide detector within their homes.

Social networks and sense of belonging

Less than half (46%) of the people living in Trois-Rivières had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
Most (82%) 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 (79%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
Many residents 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 (54%), for help if physically injured (49%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (44%). However, only about one in six people had such a large network of support if financial help was needed (17%), and just over one in ten (13%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 12}
High levels of sense of belonging, 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 Trois-Rivières, Quebec, 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
Police/law enforcement	31
Local government	24
911	19
Extended power outages
Utility company	68
News- Radio	7^{Note E: Use with caution}
Local government	6^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	67
911	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	8^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
Police/law enforcement	35
911	20
Local government	18
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	60
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	13^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	9^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	59
911	24
News- Television	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	64
911	22
News- Television	11^{Note 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.

Table 1.2
Number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents, community of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, 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), Trois-Rivières, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Trois-Rivières	Quebec	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	10	10	8
1 activity	24^{Table 1.2, Note **}	22	17
2 activities	30^{Table 1.2, Note **}	26	25
3 activities	22^{Table 1.2, Note **}	26	27
4 activities	13^{Table 1.2, Note **}	14	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	20	17	16
1 measure	34^{Table 1.2, Note **}	29	27
2 measures	26	28	28
3 measures	14^{Table 1.2, Note **}	17	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 1.2Note 2}^{Table 1.2, Note 3}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	20^{Table 1.2, Note **}	24	14
2 measures	41	42	38
3 measures	33^{Table 1.2, Note **}	28	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 Table 1.2, Note 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Quebec'. Return to Table 1.2, note 2 referrer Table 1.2, Note 3. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Trois-Rivières'. 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 Trois-Rivières, Quebec, 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), Trois-Rivières, Quebec and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Trois-Rivières	Quebec	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	46^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	44	40	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	38	34	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	51	51	55
Household emergency supply kit	46	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	50^{Table 1.3, Note **}	46	59
Extra copies of important documents	43^{Table 1.3, Note **}	47	53
List of emergency contact numbers	68	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	46^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	54	58	58
Alternate heat source	47	48	48
Back-up generator	16^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	29^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	38	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	17	20	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	99	98	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	43^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	34	60
Working fire extinguisher	67	67	66
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 Trois-Rivières, Quebec, 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 †}	34	17	35
No	36^{Note E: Use with caution}	31^{Note E: Use with caution}	29^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	35	19	35
No	34	18^{Note E: Use with caution}	31
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	31^{Note E: Use with caution}	23^{Note E: Use with caution}	37^{Note E: Use with caution}
No	37	17	32
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	41	22	36
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	31^{Table 1.4, Note *}	15^{Note E: Use with caution}	31
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	37	24	41
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	36	15^{Table 1.4, Note *}	28^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	38	17	40
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	33	19	29^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^E use with caution 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 Table 1.4, 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 Table 1.4, Note 7. 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 7 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 (13%) 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 equal to 12% 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 if financial support is needed.

Return to note 12 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec

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 Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec Fact sheetCommunity of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec

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 Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec Fact sheet
Community of Trois-Rivières (CMA), Quebec

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