Fact sheet
Community of Norfolk (CA), Ontario
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census AgglomerationNote 1 of Norfolk 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 Norfolk, 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
- Winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (94%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (80%) and heat waves (64%) were named by residents of Norfolk as the events most likely to occur in their community.
- Norfolk residents most frequently anticipated turning to radio news as an initial source for information in the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (37%) or an industrial or transportation accident (33%Note E: Use with caution), and to television news in the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (42%Note E: Use with caution) (Table 1.1).
- Residents listed hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals as the most common sources of initial information or assistance in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (64%), while the police would be their first source of help in the event of rioting or civil unrest (44%Note E: Use with caution). In the event of an extended power outage, residents commonly anticipated first turning to their utility company (51%), and they would most frequently turn to local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (34%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Nearly half (48%) of Norfolk residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, two-thirds (67%) of whom reported experiencing a severe disruption to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- The most commonly experienced major emergency or disaster was extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (64%). In addition, about one-quarter (27%Note E: Use with caution) of residents reported experiences with winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) and 17%Note E: Use with caution said they had experienced tornadoes.
- The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced a major emergency or disaster included the inability to use electrical appliances (81%) or to heat or cool their home (63%). In addition, many said they had missed appointments or planned activities (59%) or school or work (53%) as a result of their experience. Fewer residents who had faced an emergency or disaster had experienced more serious disruptions: home evacuations (11%Note E: Use with caution), as well as an inability to or use roads or transportation within the community (22%Note E: Use with caution) or communicate outside of the home (14%Note E: Use with caution).
- Most (91%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their regular daily activities within one week of the event; just over half (53%) reported that they were able to resume activities in under two days.
- Approximately four in ten (43%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a family member (57%Note E: Use with caution).
- Less than half (45%) of residents of Norfolk 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 activities also endured a loss of property or financial impact.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- About three-quarters (76%) of people residing in Norfolk lived in a household that was engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 and over half (57%) lived in a household with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Few people (5%Note E: Use with caution) lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- Over two-thirds of residents (69%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, less than half (44%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Less than one in ten (7%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Almost all (99.8%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and over three-quarters (78%) reporting living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Eight in ten (81%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. About two-thirds (65%) of the residents of Norfolk stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
- Significant differences were observed in the number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by Norfolk residents when they were compared to residents of Ontario and Canada’s 10 provinces more broadly. For example, Norfolk residents were more likely to have engaged in all four precautionary measures (18%) and all three fire safety measure (65%) than were residents of Ontario and Canadians in general.Note 8
- Residents of Norfolk often differed from Ontarians and Canadians in the types of activities and measures they were involved in. For example, in terms of emergency planning activities, they were more likely to have an emergency exit plan (74%), a designated meeting place (44%), a contact plan for household members (70%) and a vehicle emergency supply kit (70%). For precautionary measures, residents of Norfolk were more likely to have a back-up generator (43%) and an alternate water source (59%), and for fire safety measures, they were more likely to have a working smoke detector (99.8%) and fire extinguisher (78%) than residents of Ontario overall and Canadians in general.
Social networks and sense of belonging
- More than half (56%) of Norfolk’s residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.Note 10
- Most (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 (88%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 12
- Many 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 (71%), for help if physically injured (70%), as well as in case of a home evacuation (61%). However, three in ten residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (31%), and close to one in ten residents (8%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, as well as civic engagement and involvement in political activities, 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 disaster | |
News- Radio | 37 |
News- Television | 23 |
News- Internet | 20 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 51 |
Family | 16Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 14 |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 64 |
News- Radio | 16Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 13Note E: Use with caution |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Radio | 33Note E: Use with caution |
Police/law enforcement | 30Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 19Note E: Use with caution |
Contamination or shortage of water or foodTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Local government | 34 |
News- Radio | 20Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 15Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Television | 42Note E: Use with caution |
Police/law enforcement | 37Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 44Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 37Note 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 | Norfolk | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 5Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 18 | 16 | 17 |
2 activities | 19 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 29 | 28 | 27 |
4 activities | 28Table 1.2, Note ** | 21 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 7Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note *** | 15 | 16 |
1 measure | 22 | 28 | 27 |
2 measures | 25 | 29 | 28 |
3 measures | 26Table 1.2, Note *** | 20 | 20 |
4 measures | 18Table 1.2, Note *** | 6 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1 |
1 measure | 5Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note ** | 7 | 14 |
2 measures | 26Table 1.2, Note *** | 35 | 38 |
3 measures | 65Table 1.2, Note *** | 53 | 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: | Norfolk | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 74Table 1.3, Note *** | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 53 | 47 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 44Table 1.3, Note *** | 30 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 70Table 1.3, Note *** | 57 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 53 | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 70Table 1.3, Note *** | 62 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 57 | 56 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 71 | 71 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 56 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 66Table 1.3, Note ** | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 56Table 1.3, Note *** | 46 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 43Table 1.3, Note *** | 20 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 59Table 1.3, Note *** | 44 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 24 | 22 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 100Table 1.3, Note *** | 99 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 81Table 1.3, Note ** | 80 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 78Table 1.3, Note *** | 64 | 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 † | 59 | 50 | 68 |
No | 48Note E: Use with caution | 29Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 56 |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 62 | 54 | 69 |
No | 48 | 29Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 58 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 66 | 50 | 70 |
No | 51 | 43 | 61 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 60 | 43 | 73 |
No | 51 | 45 | 52Table 1.4, Note * |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 57 | 49 | 70 |
No | 53 | 40 | 59 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 58 | 45 | 65 |
No | 54 | 44 | 64 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: