Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Ontario part of the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Ottawa–Gatineau 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 Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part), which could help improve the understanding of community resilience in the event of an emergency.^{Note 3}^{Note 4}^{Note 5}

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Most (94%) residents in Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) to be the most likely events to occur within their community. Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (75%), heat waves (62%) and earthquakes (60%) followed as the events most likely to occur.
Residents most commonly anticipated turning to news on the radio as an initial source of help and information in the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (31%), if faced with an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (31%) or in the event of an industrial or transportation accident (28%) (Table 1.1). If faced with an extended power outage, residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) most commonly anticipated first turning to their utility company (36%), and to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional (39%) in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease. In the event of rioting or civil unrest, people would commonly first turn to the police (37%), and to their local government if faced with a contamination or shortage of water or food (32%).

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}

More than half (56%) of residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) have experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time. Of those who were faced with a major emergency or disaster, about four out of five (78%) experienced severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result.
Winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster (66%), followed by extended power outages lasting 24 hour or longer (34%).
Those who faced major emergencies or disasters most commonly experienced missing work or school (77%), an inability to use electrical appliances (66%) or missing an appointment or planned activity (57%) as a result. More severe disruptions experienced were home evacuations (21%) and the inability to use roads or transportation within the community (28%).
About three-quarters (73%) of residents were able to resume their daily activities within a week of the event: 16%^{Note E: Use with caution} within 24 hours, 21% within one to two days, 25% within three to five days and 11%^{Note E: Use with caution} within six to seven days.
Approximately half (52%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event. Family members (31%) and neighbours (29%) were the most common sources of help, followed by local government (15%^{Note E: Use with caution}), friends (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and first responders (9%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One in four (26%) people in Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) who experienced a major emergency or disaster severe enough to disrupt their regular daily routine endured a loss of property or financial impact as a result. Other forms of long-term impacts, such as emotional or psychological consequences (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}), were not as commonly experienced.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Seven in ten (71%) residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 7} with almost half (45%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Less than one in ten (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
About half (52%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 8} taken in case of an emergency. Among them were those who had three or four such measures, representing 21% of residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part). Close to one in five (17%) 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 approximately six in ten (62%) residents reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Three-quarters (74%) of people reported that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Half (49%) of residents stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their household.
Residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) did not significantly differ from the province in general or Canadians residing in the 10 provinces in terms of the number of emergency planning activities they were engaged in. They were, however, less likely than Canadians to have engaged in all four precautionary measures (5%^{Note E: Use with caution} versus 7%) but more likely to have engaged in all three fire safety measures (49% versus 42%).^{Note 9}
In terms of the types of activities and measures residents were involved in, residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) were significantly less like to have a designated meeting place for household members (26%) but more likely to have extra copies of important documents (61%) when compared to the Canadian population (33% and 53%, respectively). People in Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) were less likely to have a back-up generator (14%) or an alternate water source (38%) compared to residents of Ontario overall (20% and 44%, respectively) and to Canadians in general (23% and 43%, respectively). When compared to people living in Ontario (80%), residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) (74%) were less likely to have a working carbon monoxide detector within their homes, however, this proportion was significantly higher than the Canadian proportion (60%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

More than half (55%) of residents of Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 10} to their community.
Most (88%) 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, three-quarters (75%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 12}
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 (60%), for help if physically injured (58%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (53%). However, fewer residents had such a large network of support if financial help is needed (24%), and 8% reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 13}
High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, neighbourhood trust and 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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- Radio	31
News- Internet	26
News- Television	23
Extended power outages
Utility company	36
News- Radio	23
Local government	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	39
News- Internet	26
News- Television	24
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	28
News- Television	25
News- Internet	22
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	32
News- Internet	25
News- Radio	24
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Radio	31
News- Television	31
News- Internet	28
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	37
News- Radio	29
News- Television	28
^{Note E: Use with caution} 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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), Ottawa–Gatineau, 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	Ottawa–Gatineau	Ontario	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	7^{Note E: Use with caution}	8	8
1 activity	18	16	17
2 activities	26	25	25
3 activities	24	28	27
4 activities	21	21	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	17	15	16
1 measure	26	28	27
2 measures	31	29	28
3 measures	16	20	20
4 measures	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note **}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}
None	Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published	Table 1.2, Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	10^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	7	14
2 measures	36	35	38
3 measures	49^{Table 1.2, Note **}	53	42
^{Note E: Use with caution} use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer 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 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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), Ottawa–Gatineau, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Ottawa–Gatineau	Ontario	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	61	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	48	47	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	26^{Table 1.3, Note **}	30	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	51^{Table 1.3, Note *}	57	55
Household emergency supply kit	43	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	62	62	59
Extra copies of important documents	61^{Table 1.3, Note **}	56	53
List of emergency contact numbers	67	71	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	56	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	58	59	58
Alternate heat source	48	46	48
Back-up generator	14^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	20	23
Alternate water source	38^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	23	22	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	99	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	74^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	80	60
Working fire extinguisher	62	64	66
Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to table 1.3, note 1 referrer Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to table 1.3, note 2 referrer 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 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 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 Ottawa–Gatineau, 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 †}	46	23	56
No	39^{Note E: Use with caution}	Note F: too unreliable to be published	36^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	46	23	54
No	45	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	39^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	46	33^{Note E: Use with caution}	62
No	46	18^{Table 1.4, Note *}	46^{Table 1.4, Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	47	19	55
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	45	24	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	26	58
No	46	18	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	52	25	51
No	40^{Table 1.4, Note *}	18	49
^{Note E: Use with caution} use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.4, note * referrer Note † reference category Return to table 1.4, note † referrer 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) of Ottawa–Gatineau crosses the provincial boundaries of Ontario and Quebec. This fact sheet only covers the Ontario part of this CMA. Information on the Quebec part of this CMA can be found in the fact sheet “Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Quebec”.

Return to note 4 referrer

Footnote 5.

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 5 referrer

Footnote 6.

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 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

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 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

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 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

Unless otherwise specified, differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

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 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

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 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

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 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

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 13 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Social networks and sense of belonging

Data tables

Notes

Fact sheetCommunity of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario Fact sheetCommunity of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario

Risk awareness and anticipated sources of help in an emergency or disaster

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 6

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 Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Ottawa–Gatineau (CMA), Ontario

Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disaster^{Note 6}