Fact sheet
Community of Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Agglomeration^{Note 1} of Medicine Hat 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 Medicine Hat, 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) (88%), floods (75%) and industrial or transportation accidents (72%) were named by residents of Medicine Hat as the events most likely to occur within their community.
Residents most commonly reported that they would anticipate turning to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (58%) and to local government as an initial source for help and information if they were faced with a contamination or shortage of water or food (40%) or an extended power outage lasting 24 hours or longer (33%) (Table 1.1).
Residents also anticipated turning to news on the radio in the event of an industrial or transportation accident (35%), a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (34%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (34%^{Note E: Use with caution}).

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

More than half (56%) of Medicine Hat residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, two-thirds (65%) 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 Medicine Hat.
Common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (52%), having to boil drinking water or drink bottled water (51%) and missing an appointment or planned activity (48%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (58%), as well as home evacuations (33%).
Six in ten (61%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event. Close to one in five (19%^{Note E: Use with caution}) residents needed more than one week but less than two weeks to resume daily activities.
Two-thirds (67%) of 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}), a family member (25%^{Note E: Use with caution}), a neighbour (22%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or a friend (20%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One-quarter (23%) of residents of Medicine Hat 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. Long-term emotional or psychological consequences were experienced by 11%^{Note E: Use with caution} of individuals affected by a major emergency or disaster.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three-quarters (74%) of people residing in Medicine Hat lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} and half (50%) lived 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.
Six in ten (58%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, and one-quarter (27%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One in five (18%) 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 three in five (60%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Two out of three (65%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Overall, four in ten (41%) residents of Medicine Hat 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 Medicine Hat did not differ significantly from residents in Canada’s 10 provinces overall; however, there were a couple of differences between those in Medicine Hat and Alberta more broadly. The proportion of residents in Medicine Hat who had two precautionary measures (31%) and two fire safety measures (40%) in place was significantly higher than that of Albertans (23% and 31%, respectively).^{Note 8}
The types of fire safety and precautionary measures taken by Medicine Hat residents did not significantly differ from residents in Alberta or Canada in general. When significant differences existed in the types of emergency planning activities taken, residents of Medicine Hat were always more likely than residents of Alberta overall or Canada in general to have engaged in the specific activity. For instance, of those who stated that they had an emergency exit plan, residents in Medicine Hat (56%) were significantly more likely to have practised or reviewed the plan in the last 12 months than Albertans (45%) or Canadians (46%). In addition, Medicine Hat residents (44%) were also more likely to state that they had a designated meeting place for household members than the province or Canada in general (both 33%).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Close to six in ten (57%) of Medicine Hat’s residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
Most (87%) 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, three-quarters (76%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
More than 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 in the event of home evacuation (66%), for emotional support (63%) and for help if physically injured (61%). About one-quarter of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed (26%). However, 13% reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
High levels of neighbourhood trust and self-efficacy, as well as engagement 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 Medicine Hat, Alberta, 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	34
News- Internet	28
News- Television	28
Extended power outages
Local government	33
Utility company	19^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	58
News- Radio	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	11^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	35
News- Television	23
Police/law enforcement	21
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	40
News- Radio	19^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	14^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
News- Radio	34^{Note E: Use with caution}
Police/law enforcement	25^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Internet	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Note F: too unreliable to be published	Note F: too unreliable to be published
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published 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 Medicine Hat, Alberta, 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), Medicine Hat, Alberta and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Medicine Hat	Alberta	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	7^{Note E: Use with caution}	8	8
1 activity	18	17	17
2 activities	24	25	25
3 activities	31	26	27
4 activities	19	20	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	18	21	16
1 measure	23	27	27
2 measures	31^{Table 1.2, Note *}	23	28
3 measures	20	18	20
4 measures	7^{Note E: Use with caution}	6	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1^{Note E: Use with caution}	1
1 measure	14	14	14
2 measures	40^{Table 1.2, Note *}	31	38
3 measures	41	48	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Table 1.2, Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (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 Table 1.2, Note 2. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Alberta'. 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 Medicine Hat, Alberta, 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), Medicine Hat, Alberta and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Medicine Hat	Alberta	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	64	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	56^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	45	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	44^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	33	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	58	55	55
Household emergency supply kit	47	43	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	72^{Table 1.3, Note **}	69	59
Extra copies of important documents	52	55	53
List of emergency contact numbers	74^{Table 1.3, Note *}	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	60	64	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	54	49	58
Alternate heat source	48	45	48
Back-up generator	27	22	23
Alternate water source	47	41	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	22	17	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	98	96	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	65	65	60
Working fire extinguisher	60	65	66
Table 1.3, Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to Table 1.3, note * referrer 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 Medicine Hat, Alberta, 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	29	45
No	38^{Note E: Use with caution}	22^{Note E: Use with caution}	28^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	53	31	46
No	41	22^{Note E: Use with caution}	33
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	58	36^{Note E: Use with caution}	50
No	49	26	40
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	24^{Note E: Use with caution}	43
No	46	34	41
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	56	39	50
No	47	21^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.4, Note *}	36
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	59	26	48
No	44^{Table 1.4, Note *}	31	36
^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 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 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 Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta

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 Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta Fact sheetCommunity of Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta

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 Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Medicine Hat (CA), Alberta

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