Fact sheet
Community of London (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of London (CMA), Ontario

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of London 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 London, 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

Winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (95%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (77%) and heat waves (66%) were named by residents of London as the most likely events to occur within their community.
Residents most commonly anticipated turning to television news as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (34%), and to radio news in the event of an industrial or transportation accident (36%) (Table 1.1).
Police or law enforcement was most frequently anticipated as the first source for help or information in a situation of rioting or civil unrest (39%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or in the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (34%). Residents also stated (55%) that hospitals, clinics, doctors and other medical professionals were the most common sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease. In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, they most frequently said they would seek help from local government (28%), and in the event of an extended power outage, residents would commonly first turn to their utility company (39%).

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

About four in ten (42%) London residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, almost three-quarters (73%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (61%) and winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms (33%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of London.
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 (72%) or to heat or cool their home (56%), as well as missing school or work (63%). More severe disruptions included home evacuations, experienced by 9%^{Note E: Use with caution} of people faced with an emergency, as well as an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (33%) or communicate outside of the home (13%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Most (95%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 28% within 24 hours, 42% in one to two days and 22%^{Note E: Use with caution} in three to five days.
Almost half (46%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a neighbour (42%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or family member (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Less than one in five (17%^{Note E: Use with caution}) residents of London 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

About three-quarters (76%) of residents in London lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} almost half (47%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Few (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
About half (52%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, with about one in five (19%) living in a household with three or four such measures. About one in six (16%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
Almost all (99.7%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and about three-quarters (77%) reported living in a household with a working carbon monoxide detector (Table 1.3). Nearly two-thirds (64%) stated that they had a working fire extinguisher in their household. Just over half (53%) of the residents of London stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
Generally, the emergency planning, fire safety and precautionary measures of residents of London did not significantly differ from residents of Ontario or Canada’s 10 provinces overall. Residents (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were, however, significantly less likely to have taken no emergency planning activities than residents of Ontario (8%) or Canada’s 10 provinces (8%) overall. In addition, London residents (53%) were significantly more likely than Canadians (42%) to have implemented all three fire safety measures.^{Note 8}
In terms of the types of activities and measures residents engaged in, the proportion of London residents who had an emergency exit plan (72%) or a working smoke detector (99.7%) within their households was significantly higher than for Ontarians or Canadians overall, while the proportion of those who had a household emergency supply kit (38%) or an alternate water source (37%) was lower.

Social networks and sense of belonging

More than half (55%) of London’s residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
Most (90%) 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}
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 (67%), for help if physically injured (65%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (58%). However, fewer residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (26%), and 8%^{Note E: Use with caution} reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 12}
High levels of self-efficacy, social support, 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

Table 1.1
Most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information, by type of emergency or disaster, residents of London, Ontario, 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- Television	34
News- Radio	31
News- Internet	25
Extended power outages^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Utility company	39
News- Radio	22
Family	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	55
News- Internet	24
News- Television	24
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	36
News- Television	29
News- Internet	21
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	28
News- Radio	27
News- Television	24
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	34
News- Radio	29^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	28
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	39^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	31^{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. Table 1.1, Return to 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 London, Ontario, 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), London, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	London	Ontario	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	8	8
1 activity	17	16	17
2 activities	29	25	25
3 activities	29	28	27
4 activities	18	21	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	15	16
1 measure	30	28	27
2 measures	33	29	28
3 measures	13^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	20	20
4 measures	6^{Note E: Use with caution}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}
None	F	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	11^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note *}	7	14
2 measures	32	35	38
3 measures	53^{Table 1.2, Note **}	53	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2, Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Table 1.2, Return to note * referrer Table 1.2, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Table 1.2, Return to note referrer Table 1.2, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Table 1.2, Return to note * referrer Table 1.2, Note 1. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Canada'. Table 1.2, Return to 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 London, Ontario, 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), London, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	London	Ontario	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	72^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	43	47	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	37	30	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	56	57	55
Household emergency supply kit	38^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	66	62	59
Extra copies of important documents	57	56	53
List of emergency contact numbers	71	71	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	62	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	58	59	58
Alternate heat source	48	46	48
Back-up generator	17^{Table 1.3, Note **}	20	23
Alternate water source	37^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	23	22	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	100^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	99	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	77^{Table 1.3, Note **}	80	60
Working fire extinguisher	64	64	66
Table 1.3, Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Table 1.3, Return to note referrer Table 1.3, Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Table 1.3, Return to note * referrer Table 1.3, Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Table 1.3, Return to note 1 referrer Table 1.3, Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Table 1.3, Return to note 2 referrer Table 1.3, Note 3. Excludes those who reported that they lived in a household that did not have a vehicle. Table 1.3, Return to 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. Table 1.3, Return to 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. Table 1.3, Return to 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 London, Ontario, 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 †}	48	21	59
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	42^{Note E: Use with caution}	19^{Note E: Use with caution}	37^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	49	24	61
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	41	15^{Note E: Use with caution}	40^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	60	36^{Note E: Use with caution}	68
No	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}	13^{Table 1.4, Note *}	50^{Table 1.4, Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	52	21	60
No	40	17^{Note E: Use with caution}	48
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	24^{Note E: Use with caution}	55
No	43	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	54
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	22	53
No	38^{Table 1.4, Note *}	17^{Note E: Use with caution}	55
^E use with caution Table 1.4, Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Table 1.4, Return to note * referrer Table 1.4, Note † reference category Table 1.4, 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. Table 1.4, Return to 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. Table 1.4, Return to 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. Table 1.4, Return to 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". Table 1.4, Return to 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. Table 1.4, Return to 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. Table 1.4, Return to note 6 referrer Table 1.4, Note 7. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Precautionary measures'. Table 1.4, Return to note 7 referrer Table 1.4, Note 8. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'. Table 1.4, Return to 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 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 London (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of London (CMA), Ontario

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 London (CMA), Ontario Fact sheetCommunity of London (CMA), Ontario

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 London (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of London (CMA), Ontario

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