Fact sheet
Community of Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^Note 1 of Greater Sudbury 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 Greater Sudbury, 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) (91%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (77%), wildfires (73%) and industrial or transportation accidents (72%) were named by residents of Greater Sudbury as the most likely events 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 a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (38%) or an industrial or transportation accident (31%) (Table 1.1).
Residents also stated (61%) that hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals were the most commonly anticipated sources of initial help and information in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease, and police or law enforcement during rioting of civil unrest (39%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (34%). In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, they most commonly said they would initially seek help from local government (33%), and in the event of an extended power outage, residents frequently anticipated first turning to their utility company (47%).

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

Nearly half (45%) of Greater Sudbury residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, seven in ten (71%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (70%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Greater Sudbury, followed by winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (11%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and tornadoes (8%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters were an inability to use electrical appliances (75%) and an inability to heat or cool their home (72%). Half of residents who had experienced a major emergency or disaster reported having to miss school or work (49%), or having to boil water for drinking or drink bottled water (49%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (15%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or communicate outside of the home (15%^{Note E: Use with caution}), as well as home evacuation (13%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Most (86%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event; six in ten (61%) were able to resume their daily activities in two days or less.
More than four in ten (43%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from family (35%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or neighbours (25%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One in three (34%) residents of Greater Sudbury 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. Enduring some sort of long-term emotional or psychological impact was less common (7%^{Note E: Use with caution}).

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three out of four (75%) people residing in Greater Sudbury lived in a household that was engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^Note 6 with half (50%) living in a household with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Nearly one in ten (9%^{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 measures^Note 7 taken in case of an emergency, and one-third (33%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. More than one in ten (14%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The majority (99.6%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and three-quarters (74%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Most (85%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Overall, two-thirds (65%) of the residents of Greater Sudbury stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
The number of emergency planning activities and precautionary measures that residents of Greater Sudbury engaged in did not often differ from residents of Ontario or residents of Canada’s 10 provinces. However, those in Greater Sudbury were significantly more likely to have implemented all four precautionary measures (12%), as well as all three fire safety measures (65%) than those in Ontario (6% and 53%, respectively) and Canada (7% and 42%, respectively).^Note 8
There were significant differences in the types of activities and measures set in place by residents of Greater Sudbury when compared to the rest of Ontario and Canada more broadly, with those in Greater Sudbury often being more prepared. For example, the proportion of Greater Sudbury residents who had an emergency exit plan (73%) and a designated meeting place for household members (40%) was significantly higher compared to Ontarians and Canadians. In addition, residents of Greater Sudbury more often reported having a wind-up or battery-operated radio (66%), a back-up generator (33%) and a working fire extinguisher (74%) compared to Ontarians and Canadians.

Social networks and sense of belonging

Six in ten (60%) residents of Greater Sudbury 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 (87%) 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 (69%), for help if physically injured (67%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (61%). Three in ten residents had such a large support network if financial help was needed (31%). However, 6%^{Note E: Use with caution} reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy and social support, as well as civic engagement and involvement in political activities, were often 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 Greater Sudbury, 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	38
News- Television	23
News- Internet	17
Extended power outages
Utility company	47
News- Radio	21
Family	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	61
News- Radio	20
News- Television	19
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	31
News- Television	22
Police/law enforcement	18
Contamination or shortage of water or food^Note 1
Local government	33
News- Radio	19
News- Television	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat^Note 1
Police/law enforcement	34
News- Television	32
News- Radio	26^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	39
News- Television	23^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
^E use with caution 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. 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 Greater Sudbury, 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), Greater Sudbury, 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	Greater Sudbury	Ontario	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	9^{Note E: Use with caution}	8	8
1 activity	14	16	17
2 activities	25	25	25
3 activities	29	28	27
4 activities	21	21	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	14	15	16
1 measure	25	28	27
2 measures	25	29	28
3 measures	21	20	20
4 measures	12^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2 Note 1}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2 Note **}	7	14
2 measures	27^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	35	38
3 measures	65^{Table 1.2 Note ***}	53	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2 Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2 note referrer Table 1.2 Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.2 note * referrer Table 1.2 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 Greater Sudbury, 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), Greater Sudbury, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Greater Sudbury	Ontario	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	73^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3 Note 1}	50	47	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3 Note 2}	40^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	30	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3 Note 2}	59	57	55
Household emergency supply kit	50	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3 Note 3}	70^{Table 1.3 Note **}	62	59
Extra copies of important documents	53	56	53
List of emergency contact numbers	60^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	71	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3 Note 4}	68	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	66^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	59	58
Alternate heat source	44	46	48
Back-up generator	33^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	20	23
Alternate water source	44	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3 Note 5}	22	22	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	100^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	99	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	85^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	80	60
Working fire extinguisher	74^{Table 1.3 Note ***}	64	66
Table 1.3 Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3 note referrer Table 1.3 Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3 note * referrer Table 1.3 Note 1. Percentage based only on those indicating that they have an emergency exit plan. Return to Table 1.3 note 1 referrer Table 1.3 Note 2. Excludes Canadians living in single-person households. Return to Table 1.3 note 2 referrer Table 1.3 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 Table 1.3 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 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. 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 Greater Sudbury, 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 †}	52	33	64
No^{Table 1.4 Note 7}	36^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4 Note *}	29^{Note E: Use with caution}	66
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4 Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	56	35	69
No	37^{Table 1.4 Note *}	27	57^{Table 1.4 Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4 Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	53	34	75
No	48	32	62^{Table 1.4 Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4 Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	56	35	70
No	40^{Table 1.4 Note *}	31	58^{Table 1.4 Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4 Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	54	38	70
No	47	30	63
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4 Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4 Note †}	59	38	71
No	38^{Table 1.4 Note *}	28	58^{Table 1.4 Note *}
^E use with caution Table 1.4 Note * significantly different from reference category (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.4 note * referrer Table 1.4 Note † reference category Return to Table 1.4 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. Return to Table 1.4 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. Return to Table 1.4 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. Return to Table 1.4 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". Return to Table 1.4 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. Return to Table 1.4 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. Return to Table 1.4 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'. 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.

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 (17%) 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

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Greater Sudbury (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 Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario Fact sheetCommunity of Greater Sudbury (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 Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Greater Sudbury (CMA), Ontario

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