Fact sheet
Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba Fact sheet
Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Agglomeration^{Note 1} of Brandon 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 Brandon, 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) (99%), industrial or transportation accidents (75%) and floods (73%) were named by residents of Brandon as the most likely events to occur in their community.
Residents most commonly anticipated turning to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage lasting 24 hours or longer (55%), to local government if they faced a contamination or shortage of water or food (52%), and to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional during an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (48%). Residents reported that they would turn to police or law enforcement if they were faced with an act of terrorism or a terrorist threat (39%^{Note E: Use with caution}). In addition to news on the television, police or law enforcement were also the most commonly anticipated initial sources of information or assistance if residents were faced with rioting or civil unrest (both 30%^{Note E: Use with caution}) (Table 1.1).
Residents 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 (37%) or an industrial or transportation accident (36%).

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

More than four in ten (45%) Brandon residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, nearly half (47%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
Floods (64%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Brandon.
The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (50%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and missing an appointment or planned activity (47%^{Note E: Use with caution}). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (48%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and home evacuation (34%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
More than half (57%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event. For 18%^{Note E: Use with caution} of residents, it took between one to two months to resume their daily activities.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, commonly from local government (28%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Three in ten (29%^{Note E: Use with caution}) residents of Brandon 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.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three-quarters (73%) of people residing in Brandon lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} and four in ten (43%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in ten (10%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Half (51%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency. Close to one in five (18%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The vast majority (98%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and six in ten (62%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). More than half (56%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Approximately one-third (35%) of the residents of Brandon stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their households.
The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Brandon did not significantly differ from Manitoba residents overall and residents of Canada’s 10 provinces. The one exception, however, was that Brandon residents (14%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were less likely to have participated in all four emergency planning activities compared to Canadians (19%).^{Note 8}
Generally, the types of activities and measures in place by residents of Brandon did not differ significantly from residents of Manitoba and Canada. There are two exceptions: Brandon residents (70%) were more likely to have an emergency exit plan but less likely to have a list of emergency contact numbers (57%) compared to Canadian residents (60% and 69%, respectively).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Approximately half (48%) of Brandon’s residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.^{Note 10}
Most (84%) 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, most (92%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.
The majority of 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 (66%), for help if physically injured (59%) as well as in case of a home evacuation (56%). About one-quarter (27%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed. However, 9%^{Note E: Use with caution} reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
Higher levels of sense of belonging, neighbourhood trust and social support, as well as civic engagement and involvement in political activities, were not 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 Brandon, Manitoba, 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- Internet	25^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	17
Extended power outages^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Utility company	55
News- Radio	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	48
News- Radio	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	36
News- Internet	23^{Note E: Use with caution}
Local government	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	52
News- Radio	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Police/law enforcement	39^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	18^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
News- Television	30^{Note E: Use with caution}
Police/law enforcement	30^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	27^{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 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 Brandon, Manitoba, 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), Brandon, Manitoba and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Brandon	Manitoba	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	10^{Note E: Use with caution}	10	8
1 activity	15^{Note E: Use with caution}	19	17
2 activities	30	25	25
3 activities	29	27	27
4 activities	14^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note **}	16	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	18^{Note E: Use with caution}	20	16
1 measure	24	28	27
2 measures	32	26	28
3 measures	19^{Note E: Use with caution}	18	20
4 measures	Note F: too unreliable to be published	5	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1
1 measure	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	15	14
2 measures	41	37	38
3 measures	35	41	42
^E 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 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 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Brandon'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 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 Brandon, Manitoba, 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), Brandon, Manitoba and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Brandon	Manitoba	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	70^{Table 1.3, Note **}	64	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	44	42	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	32	39	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	57	53	55
Household emergency supply kit	40	41	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	65	67	59
Extra copies of important documents	54	50	53
List of emergency contact numbers	57^{Table 1.3, Note **}	65	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	56	62	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	59	51	58
Alternate heat source	40	41	48
Back-up generator	17^{Note E: Use with caution}	21	23
Alternate water source	48	44	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	16^{Note E: Use with caution}	19	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	97	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	56	60	60
Working fire extinguisher	62	63	66
^E use with caution Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (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 Brandon, Manitoba, 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 7}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	45	23^{Note E: Use with caution}	40
No	45^{Note E: Use with caution}	29^{Note E: Use with caution}	27^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	46	26^{Note E: Use with caution}	41
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	44	22^{Note E: Use with caution}	29^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 8}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	30^{Note E: Use with caution}	27^{Note E: Use with caution}
No	41	22^{Note E: Use with caution}	36
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	47	24^{Note E: Use with caution}	42
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	44	25^{Note E: Use with caution}	28^{Note E: Use with caution}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 7}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	49	27^{Note E: Use with caution}	39
No	43	21^{Note E: Use with caution}	33^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	47	29^{Note E: Use with caution}	47
No^{Table 1.4, Note 9}	44	20^{Note E: Use with caution}	24^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
^E 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 greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 7 referrer Note 8. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were equal to 20% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 8 referrer Note 9. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were equal to 11% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 9 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.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about their sense of belonging to their community.

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

A proportion (13%) 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

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba Fact sheet
Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba

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 sheet Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba Fact sheet Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba

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 Brandon (CA), Manitoba Fact sheet
Community of Brandon (CA), Manitoba

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