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

More information

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

Residents of Kingston anticipated winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (96%) and extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (86%) as the events most likely to occur within their community, followed by heat waves (56%), industrial or transportation accidents (54%) and outbreaks of serious or life-threatening diseases (51%).
In the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (37%) or an industrial or transportation accident (31%), news on the radio was most commonly named by residents as the first source of information or assistance they would turn to (Table 1.1). Law enforcement was most commonly named as the first source of information or assistance in the event of rioting or civil unrest (41%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (27%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Kingston residents most commonly anticipated first turning to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage (41%), to hospitals, clinics, doctors or other medical professionals if faced with an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (56%), and to their local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (32%).

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

Three out of five (61%) people living in the community of Kingston have experienced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time. For most (85%), the emergency or disaster was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to their daily activities.
Residents who were affected by major emergencies or disasters most commonly experienced winter storms including blizzards and ice storms (79%) followed by extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer, experienced by one in four emergency victims (26%).
An inability to use electrical appliances was the most common disruption to daily activities experienced by emergency or disaster victims (73%). Missing work or school (69%) or an appointment or a planned activity (67%), and an inability to use water at home to perform routine tasks (59%) were some of the other common disruptions to daily life experienced. Some of the more serious disruptions experienced included home evacuation or the inability to use roads or transportation within the community, each experienced by 31% of emergency victims residing in Kingston.
Seven in ten (70%) residents who were affected by a major emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event (12%^{Note E: Use with caution} within 24 hours, 15%^{Note E: Use with caution} within one to two days, 30% within three to five days, and 14%^{Note E: Use with caution} within six to seven days).
More than half (59%) of residents received help from others either during or immediately following the event. Family (32%), neighbours (27%) and friends (23%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were the most common sources of assistance.
Approximately one in four (27%) residents of Kingston who were affected by major emergencies or disasters experienced a loss of property or financial impact. Other serious or long-term implications were rare.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three-quarters (75%) of residents of Kingston lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} with almost half (48%) living in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). A small proportion (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) of people had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
More than half (58%) of residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, with about one-quarter (27%) living in a household with three or four such measures. About one in seven (13%) had no precautionary measures set in place within their homes.
The majority (99%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, three-quarters (75%) reported that they had a working carbon monoxide detector and two-thirds (65%) stated that they had a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Half (51%) of residents stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
In terms of the number of emergency planning activities set in place, residents of Kingston (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were less likely to have no activities set in place compared to Ontario residents overall (8%) and to Canadians living in the 10 provinces in general (8%). In addition, residents of Kingston were more likely to have taken all three fire safety measures (51%) than Canadians (42%).^{Note 8}
Significant differences were found between residents of Kingston and Ontario residents overall, as well as Canadians in general, in terms of the types of activities and measures people were involved in. For example, Kingston residents were more likely than both Ontario residents and Canadians in general to have an emergency exit plan (70%, 63% and 60%, respectively), a vehicle emergency supply kit (68%, 62% and 59%, respectively) and an alternate water source (50%, 44% and 43%, respectively). Although the proportion of Kingston residents who had a working carbon monoxide detector (75%) was lower than that of the province overall (80%), this proportion was still significantly higher than that of Canada as a whole (60%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

About half (52%) of the residents of Kingston had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
The majority (85%) of residents believed their neighbourhood is a place where, in general, neighbours help each other.^{Note 10} Of those who described their neighbourhood as a place where neighbours generally do not help each other, three-quarters (75%) still believed it is a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
In the event of an emergency or disaster, more than half of residents had large networks of support with more than five people to turn to for emotional support (63%), for help if physically injured (61%) as well as in the event of a home evacuation (56%). About one in four had a large network for financial support in the event of an emergency (24%). However, more than one in ten (12%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
High levels of sense of belonging, self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust, 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 Kingston, 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	37
News- Television	24
News- Internet	22
Extended power outages^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Utility company	41
News- Radio	20
Family	12
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	56
News- Radio	21
News- Internet	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	31
News- Television	24
News- Internet	23
Contamination or shortage of water or food^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Local government	32
News- Radio	24
News- Internet	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Police/law enforcement	27^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	26^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	41
News- Radio	28^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
^{Note E: Use with caution} 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 table 1.1, 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 Kingston, 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), Kingston, 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	Kingston	Ontario	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	8	8
1 activity	19	16	17
2 activities	27	25	25
3 activities	26	28	27
4 activities	22	21	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	13	15	16
1 measure	27	28	27
2 measures	31	29	28
3 measures	20	20	20
4 measures	7^{Note E: Use with caution}	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	10^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	7	14
2 measures	33	35	38
3 measures	51^{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 Kingston, 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), Kingston, Ontario and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Kingston	Ontario	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	70^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	46	47	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	35	30	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	54	57	55
Household emergency supply kit	46	47	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	68^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	62	59
Extra copies of important documents	56	56	53
List of emergency contact numbers	69	71	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	62	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	64^{Table 1.3, Note **}	59	58
Alternate heat source	44	46	48
Back-up generator	21	20	23
Alternate water source	50^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	25	22	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	99^{Table 1.3, Note **}	99	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	75^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	80	60
Working fire extinguisher	65	64	66
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 Kingston, 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 †}	51	30	54
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	33^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	19^{Note E: Use with caution}	45
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	33	54
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	38^{Table 1.4, Note *}	21^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	49
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	48	34	62
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	48	25	49^{Table 1.4, Note *}
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	51	27	58
No	45	28	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	33	55
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	43^{Table 1.4, Note *}	23^{Table 1.4, Note *}	49
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	30	58
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	40^{Table 1.4, Note *}	24	44^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^{Note E: Use with caution} use with caution 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 equal to 13% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 7 referrer Note 8. 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 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 (9%) 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 equal to 14% 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 Kingston (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Kingston (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 Kingston (CMA), Ontario Fact sheetCommunity of Kingston (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 Kingston (CMA), Ontario Fact sheet
Community of Kingston (CMA), Ontario

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