Fact sheet
Community of Chatham–Kent (CA), Ontario
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census AgglomerationNote 1 of Chatham–Kent 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 Chatham–Kent, 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) (89%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (73%) and heat waves (60%) were named by residents of Chatham–Kent as the events most likely to occur within their community.
- Residents most commonly anticipated turning to news on the radio as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with an industrial or transportation accident (44%), an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (43%Note E: Use with caution), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (41%), or in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (31%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents listed hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals as the most common sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (57%). In the event of an extended power outage, residents would commonly first turn to their utility company (38%). In the event of rioting or civil unrest, the police were most commonly listed as the first source of help and information (41%Note E: Use with caution).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Close to half (46%) of Chatham–Kent residents has faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, seven in ten (70%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (69%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Chatham–Kent, followed by winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (18%Note E: Use with caution).
- 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 (66%) or to heat or cool their homes (60%), as well as missing work or school (61%). More severe disruptions were home evacuations (14%Note E: Use with caution), as well as an inability to communicate outside of the home (25%Note E: Use with caution) or use roads or transportation within the community (19%Note E: Use with caution).
- Most (93%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 37% within 24 hours, and another 37% in one to two days.
- About four in ten (42%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from a family member (49%Note E: Use with caution) or neighbour (36%Note E: Use with caution).
- About one in five (19%Note E: Use with caution) residents of Chatham–Kent who experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time of the event and which were significant enough to disrupt their regular daily routine also endured a loss of property or financial impact.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Over two-thirds (69%) of people residing in Chatham–Kent lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 while 46% lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Few (7%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- Over half (58%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, and three in ten (29%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One in ten (10%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Almost all (99%) 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). Seven in ten (70%) residents stated that they had a working fire extinguisher in their household. Over half (56%) of the residents of Chatham–Kent stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households, a higher rate compared to residents of Canada’s 10 provinces overall (42%).Note 8
- Generally, the number of emergency planning, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Chatham–Kent did not significantly differ from Ontarians or Canadians overall. Residents were, however, significantly more likely to have certain activities and measures in place. In particular, they were more likely to have a back-up generator (30%) or alternate water source (52%) than Ontarians (20% and 44%, respectively) and Canadians (23% and 43%, respectively) more broadly. Residents in Chatham–Kent were also more likely to have a contact plan for household members (66%) and a vehicle emergency supply kit (71%) than Ontarians (57% and 62%, respectively) and Canadians (55% and 59%, respectively).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Two-thirds (67%) of Chatham–Kent’s residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 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 (91%) 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 help if physically injured (68%), in the event of a home evacuation (66%) and for emotional support (63%). About three in ten residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (28%). However, 5% 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, 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 | 41 |
News- Television | 23 |
News- Internet | 22 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 38 |
News- Radio | 27 |
Family | 16Note E: Use with caution |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 57 |
News- Radio | 23Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 21Note E: Use with caution |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Radio | 44 |
Police/law enforcement | 25Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 19Note E: Use with caution |
Contamination or shortage of water or foodTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
News- Radio | 31 |
News- Internet | 20Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 17Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Radio | 43Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 36Note E: Use with caution |
Police/law enforcement | 27Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 41Note 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 | Chatham–Kent | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 7Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 21 | 16 | 17 |
2 activities | 23 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 28 | 28 | 27 |
4 activities | 18 | 21 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measuresTable 1.2, Note 1 | |||
None | 10Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note *** | 15 | 16 |
1 measure | 26 | 28 | 27 |
2 measures | 29 | 29 | 28 |
3 measures | 20 | 20 | 20 |
4 measures | 9Note E: Use with caution | 6 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 2 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1 |
1 measure | 7Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note ** | 7 | 14 |
2 measures | 33 | 35 | 38 |
3 measures | 56Table 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: | Chatham–Kent | Ontario | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 67 | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 52 | 47 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 35 | 30 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 66Table 1.3, Note *** | 57 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 43 | 47 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 71Table 1.3, Note *** | 62 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 47Table 1.3, Note * | 56 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 69 | 71 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 64 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 61 | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 42 | 46 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 30Table 1.3, Note *** | 20 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 52Table 1.3, Note *** | 44 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 21 | 22 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 99Table 1.3, Note ** | 99 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 77Table 1.3, Note ** | 80 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 70 | 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 † | 54 | 30 | 60 |
No | 24Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 34Note E: Use with caution | 50Note E: Use with caution |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 56 | 28 | 62 |
No | 35Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 34Note E: Use with caution | 52 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 56 | 30Note E: Use with caution | 55 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7 | 42 | 28 | 56 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 48 | 29 | 62 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8 | 44 | 28Note E: Use with caution | 44Table 1.4, Note * |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 50 | 35 | 61 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7 | 42 | 22Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 50 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 50 | 35 | 61 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8Table 1.4, Note 9 | 41 | 21Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 50 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: