Fact sheet
Community of Granby (CA), Quebec
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census AgglomerationNote 1 of Granby 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 Granby, which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.Note 3Note 4
Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster
- Most (93%) people in Granby anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) as the event most likely to occur within their community. Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (86%) and heat waves (62%) were also among the types of events residents believed are most likely to occur.
- Residents anticipated turning to the police as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (59%), rioting or civil unrest (54%) or an industrial or transportation accident (33%) (Table 1.1). Residents anticipated first turning to their local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (61%) or if faced with a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (35%). Hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals (69%) 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 would first turn to their utility company (66%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- The majority (73%) of residents of Granby have faced a major emergency or disaster within Canada in a community where they were living at the time, and for most (82%) people this emergency led to severe disruptions to daily activities.
- Most (95%) residents who faced a major emergency or disaster experienced winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms. Although experienced less often, extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (7%Note E: Use with caution) followed as the next most commonly experienced type of event.
- An inability to use electrical appliances was the most common disruption to daily life (84%), followed by missing work or school (78%). Half of those affected by an emergency had to evacuate their home as a result (50%). Though less commonly experienced, the inability to communicate with others outside the household (23%) and the inability to use roads or transportation within the community (17%) were among the more serious disruptions experienced as a result of a major emergency.
- Although three in ten (29%) residents of Granby who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event, many (54%) needed between one week and a month.
- Three-quarters (76%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster received help either during or immediately following the event, most often from a family member (44%). One in four (25%) received the help from their local government.
- More than half (55%) of the residents of Granby who experienced a major emergency or disaster severe enough to disrupt their regular daily activities endured a loss of property or another financial impact as a result. Long-term emotional or psychological consequences were less common (7%Note E: Use with caution).
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Three in five (59%) people in Granby lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 with more than one-third (37%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (11%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- More than half (54%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, with more than one-quarter (29%) living in a household with three or four such measures. One out of seven (14%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Most (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and nearly three-quarters reported that they had a working fire extinguisher (73%) (Table 1.3). More than one-third (39%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. One in three people (33%) stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.Note 8
- The precautionary behaviours of residents of Granby did not significantly differ from residents of Quebec in general or from Canadians in the 10 provinces overall. Granby residents, however, were less likely to have all four emergency planning activities (11%) and all three fire safety measures (33%) in place compared to Canadians (19% and 42%, respectively), but were still more likely than Quebec residents overall to have all three fire safety measures (28%).Note 9Note 10
- Some differences in terms of the types of activities and measures taken were observed between residents of Granby and residents of Quebec in general and Canadians overall. For example, residents of Granby who had an emergency exit plan were more likely than all Quebec residents to have recently practiced or reviewed the plan (53% versus 40%). They were also more likely to have a working fire extinguisher in their homes (73%) than were all Quebec residents (67%) and all Canadians (66%).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Less than half (43%) of residents of Granby had a strong sense of belongingNote 11 to their community.
- Almost three-quarters (73%) of residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.Note 12 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 13
- More than half 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 emotional support (56%) and for help if physically injured (53%). Nearly as many had such a network of support in case of a home evacuation (45%). About one in five people had such a large network of support if financial help was needed (19%), and about one in ten (11%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.Note 14
- High levels of civic engagement and involvement in political activities were often 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 disaster | |
Local government | 35 |
Police/law enforcement | 33 |
911 | 16 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 66 |
Family | 10Note E: Use with caution |
Local government | 7Note E: Use with caution |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 69 |
News- Television | 10Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 9Note E: Use with caution |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
Police/law enforcement | 33 |
Local government | 23 |
911 | 21 |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 61 |
News- Internet | 7Note E: Use with caution |
Police/law enforcement | 7Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
Police/law enforcement | 59 |
911 | 21Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 13Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 54 |
911 | 19Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 11Note 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. |
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents | Granby | Quebec | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 11 | 10 | 8 |
1 activity | 27Table 1.2, Note ** | 22 | 17 |
2 activities | 22 | 26 | 25 |
3 activities | 26 | 26 | 27 |
4 activities | 11Table 1.2, Note ** | 14 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 14 | 17 | 16 |
1 measure | 29 | 29 | 27 |
2 measures | 25 | 28 | 28 |
3 measures | 22 | 17 | 20 |
4 measures | 7Table 1.2, Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1Table 1.2, Note 2Table 1.2, Note 3 | |||
None | Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published | Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1 |
1 measure | 19Table 1.2, Note ** | 24 | 14 |
2 measures | 42 | 42 | 38 |
3 measures | 33Table 1.2, Note *** | 28 | 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: | Granby | Quebec | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 43Table 1.3, Note ** | 46 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 53Table 1.3, Note * | 40 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 33 | 34 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 42Table 1.3, Note *** | 51 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 49 | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 47Table 1.3, Note ** | 46 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 38Table 1.3, Note *** | 47 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 67 | 68 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 47Table 1.3, Note ** | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 59 | 58 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 53 | 48 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 21 | 22 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 43 | 38 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 18 | 20 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 98 | 98 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 39Table 1.3, Note ** | 34 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 73Table 1.3, Note *** | 67 | 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 † | 42 | 31 | 37 |
No | 24Table 1.4, Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 22Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution | 22Table 1.4, Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 43 | 35 | 38 |
No | 32Table 1.4, Note * | 21Table 1.4, Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 29 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 37Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution | 42Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution | 40Table 1.4, Note E: Use with caution |
No | 39 | 27 | 32 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 41 | 31 | 30 |
No | 36 | 29 | 36 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 45 | 32 | 39 |
No | 36 | 28 | 31 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 43 | 36 | 37 |
No | 37 | 25 | 32 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: