Fact sheet
Community of Calgary (CMA), Alberta
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan AreaNote 1 of Calgary 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 Calgary, 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) (92%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (61%) and floods (58%) were named by residents of Calgary as the events most likely to occur in their community.
- Residents most commonly reported that they would anticipate turning to news on the television as an initial source for information and assistance in the event of an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (37%), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (32%), or an industrial or transportation accident (28%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents also anticipated turning to local government in the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food (37%) and to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional if faced with an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (34%). In addition, residents most commonly reported that they would first turn to police or law enforcement in the event of rioting or civil unrest (31%Note E: Use with caution) and to their utility company if they faced an extended power outage (26%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Four in ten (41%) Calgary residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, the majority (71%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Floods (80%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Calgary, followed by winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms (10%Note E: Use with caution).
- Common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (74%), missing appointments or planned activities (57%) and having to boil water for drinking or drink bottled water (33%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (49%), home evacuation (17%Note E: Use with caution) and an inability to communicate outside of the home (10%Note E: Use with caution).
- Nearly two-thirds (65%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 8%Note E: Use with caution within 24 hours, 16%Note E: Use with caution within one to two days, 19%Note E: Use with caution within three to five days and 21%Note E: Use with caution within six to seven days.
- Six in ten (59%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from local government (35%Note E: Use with caution) or family (25%Note E: Use with caution).
- Less than one in five (16%Note E: Use with caution) residents of Calgary 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. In addition, one in ten (11%Note E: Use with caution) reported enduring long-term emotional or psychological consequences.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Seven in ten (69%) people residing in Calgary lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 and four in ten (42%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (9%) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- More than four in ten (43%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, and one in five (19%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Around one-quarter (24%) of people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Nearly all (97%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and three in five (59%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Two in three (67%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Less than one-half (45%) of residents of Calgary stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their household.
- The number of fire safety and precautionary measures implemented by residents of Calgary sometimes differed significantly from residents in Alberta and Canada’s 10 provinces in general. For example, residents of Calgary were less likely to have three (15%) or four (4%Note E: Use with caution) precautionary measures in place compared to Albertans (18% and 6%, respectively) and Canadians overall (20% and 7%, respectively). Those in Calgary (32%) were also less likely than Canadians (38%) to have two fire safety measures in place.Note 8
- There were a number of significant differences in the types of activities and measures in place by residents of Calgary when compared to Alberta and Canada more broadly. When differences did exist, residents of Calgary were almost always less likely to have implemented the activity or measure. For instance, Calgary residents were less likely to have a designated meeting place for household members (27%), a back-up generator (10%) or a working fire extinguisher (59%) than Albertans and Canadians in general. Calgary residents (67%) were, however, more likely to have a working carbon monoxide detector compared to Canadians (60%).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Half (49%) of Calgary’s residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.
- Most (85%) 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, eight in ten (78%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 11
- Approximately six in ten 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 (64%), for emotional support (61%), and in the event of home evacuation (61%). One-quarter (25%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed. However, 8% reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
- High levels of sense of belonging, social support, self-efficacy and neighbourhood trust, as well as political and civic engagement, were often 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- Television | 32 |
News- Radio | 27 |
News- Internet | 24 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 26 |
Local government | 25 |
News- Radio | 20 |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 34 |
News- Television | 25 |
News- Radio | 21 |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Television | 28 |
News- Radio | 26 |
News- Internet | 21 |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 37 |
News- Television | 22 |
News- Radio | 21 |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
News- Television | 37 |
News- Radio | 33 |
Police/law enforcement | 21Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 31Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 30Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 28Note E: Use with caution |
E 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. |
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents | Calgary | Alberta | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 9 | 8 | 8 |
1 activity | 20 | 17 | 17 |
2 activities | 27 | 25 | 25 |
3 activities | 24 | 26 | 27 |
4 activities | 18 | 20 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 24Table 1.2, Note ** | 21 | 16 |
1 measure | 28 | 27 | 27 |
2 measures | 24 | 23 | 28 |
3 measures | 15Table 1.2, Note *** | 18 | 20 |
4 measures | 4Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note *** | 6 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1Table 1.2, Note 2Table 1.2, Note 3 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1Note E: Use with caution | 1 |
1 measure | 15 | 14 | 14 |
2 measures | 32Table 1.2, Note ** | 31 | 38 |
3 measures | 45 | 48 | 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: | Calgary | Alberta | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 58Table 1.3, Note * | 63 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 42 | 45 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 27Table 1.3, Note *** | 33 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 52 | 55 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 39Table 1.3, Note ** | 43 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 65Table 1.3, Note *** | 69 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 54 | 55 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 66 | 68 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4Table 1.3, Note 6 | 64 | 64 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 49Table 1.3, Note ** | 49 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 44 | 45 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 10Table 1.3, Note *** | 22 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 37Table 1.3, Note ** | 41 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 15Table 1.3, Note ** | 17 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 97 | 96 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detector | 67Table 1.3, Note ** | 65 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 59Table 1.3, Note *** | 65 | 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 † | 46 | 23 | 55 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note 8 | 30Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 36Table 1.4, Note * |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 47 | 25 | 58 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8 | 35Table 1.4, Note * | 13Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 39Table 1.4, Note * |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 51 | 28Note E: Use with caution | 51 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8 | 39 | 16Table 1.4, Note * | 44 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 8Table 1.4, Note † | 51 | 21 | 53 |
NoNote 8 | 32Table 1.4, Note * | 15Note E: Use with caution | 38Table 1.4, Note * |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 47 | 24Note E: Use with caution | 58 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8 | 39 | 16 | 39Table 1.4, Note * |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 44 | 23 | 48 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 8 | 39 | 14Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.4, Note * | 43 |
E use with caution F too unreliable to be published
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: