Fact sheet
Community of Prince George (CA), British Columbia
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census AgglomerationNote 1 of Prince George 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 Prince George, 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
- Wildfires (92%), winter storms (including blizzards, ice storms and extreme cold) (87%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (78%) and industrial or transportation accidents (76%) were named by residents of Prince George as the events most likely to occur in their community.
- Residents most commonly reported that they would anticipate turning to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage (62%) and to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (60%). Residents frequently stated that they would turn to police or law enforcement if they faced rioting or civil unrest (50%Note E: Use with caution) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (36%Note E: Use with caution) (Table 1.1).
- Residents most commonly anticipated turning to news on the radio in the event of a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (33%) or an industrial or transportation accident (33%), and to local government if they faced a contamination or shortage of water or food (31%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Three in ten (29%) Prince George residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, close to six in ten (57%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (35%Note E: Use with caution) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Prince George.
- The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing school or work (63%) and missing an appointment or planned activity (61%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (34%Note E: Use with caution) and home evacuation (25%Note E: Use with caution).
- Eight in ten (80%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 25%Note E: Use with caution within 24 hours, 32%Note E: Use with caution within one to two days and 18%Note E: Use with caution within three to five days.
- Six in ten (60%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event.
- One in five (18%Note E: Use with caution) residents of Prince George 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 Prince George lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 and nearly half (47%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in twenty (6%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
- Close to six in ten (57%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, and three in ten (29%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Around one in six (15%Note E: Use with caution) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Almost all (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and seven in ten (71%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Six in ten (59%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Almost one-half (46%) of residents of Prince George stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their household.
- The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures residents of Prince George engaged in did not differ significantly from residents in British Columbia and Canada’s 10 provinces overall. There was one exception: residents of Prince George (46%) were more likely to have all three fire safety measures in place compared to those in British Columbia (38%).Note 8
- There were a few differences in the types of activities and measures in place by residents of Prince George when compared to British Columbia and Canada in general; when significant differences existed, Prince George residents were always more likely to have engaged in the activity or measure. For instance, Prince George residents were more likely to have a vehicle emergency supply kit (67%) and a back-up generator (29%) compared to residents of British Columbia (58% and 22%, respectively) and Canada (59% and 23%, respectively).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Six in ten (59%) residents of Prince George had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.
- A large majority (84%) of 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 (76%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 11
- Approximately two-thirds 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 help if physically injured (68%), for emotional support (66%) and in the event of a home evacuation (63%). One-third (32%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and close to one in ten (8%Note E: Use with caution) residents reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
- High levels of sense of belonging, social support and self-efficacy, as well as civic and political engagement, were not 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- Radio | 33 |
News- Television | 24 |
News- Internet | 22 |
Extended power outagesTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Utility company | 62 |
News- Radio | 10Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 9Note E: Use with caution |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 60 |
News- Radio | 23Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 17Note E: Use with caution |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Radio | 33 |
News- Television | 23 |
News- Internet | 20 |
Contamination or shortage of water or foodTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Local government | 31 |
News- Radio | 21Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 14Note E: Use with caution |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threatTable 1.1, Note 1 | |
Police/law enforcement | 36Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 33Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 28Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 50Note E: Use with caution |
News- Radio | 22Note E: Use with caution |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents | Prince George | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 6Note E: Use with caution | 6 | 8 |
1 activity | 20 | 15 | 17 |
2 activities | 26 | 22 | 25 |
3 activities | 26 | 29 | 27 |
4 activities | 21 | 25 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 15Note E: Use with caution | 13 | 16 |
1 measure | 27 | 24 | 27 |
2 measures | 28 | 27 | 28 |
3 measures | 19 | 23 | 20 |
4 measures | 10Note E: Use with caution | 8 | 7 |
Number of fire safety measuresTable 1.2, Note 1Table 1.2, Note 2 | |||
None | Note F: too unreliable to be published | 1Note E: Use with caution | 1 |
1 measure | 15 | 14 | 14 |
2 measures | 35 | 40 | 38 |
3 measures | 46Table 1.2, Note * | 38 | 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: | Prince George | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 67Table 1.3, Note ** | 71 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 51 | 49 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 40 | 38 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 53 | 54 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 50 | 55 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 67Table 1.3, Note *** | 58 | 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 4 | 56 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 53 | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 51 | 55 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 29Table 1.3, Note *** | 22 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 47 | 48 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 98Table 1.3, Note * | 95 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detectorTable 1.3, Note 6 | 59 | 52 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 71 | 69 | 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 † | 47 | 31 | 50 |
No | 46 | 30Note E: Use with caution | 37Note E: Use with caution |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 50 | 33 | 49 |
No | 44 | 28Note E: Use with caution | 46 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 49 | 26Note E: Use with caution | 54 |
No | 47 | 32 | 43 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 52 | 31 | 52 |
No | 43 | 27Note E: Use with caution | 39 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 57 | 34 | 53 |
No | 43Table 1.4, Note * | 27 | 43 |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 53 | 31 | 51 |
No | 41 | 25Note E: Use with caution | 42 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: