Fact sheet
Community of Kelowna (CMA), British Columbia
In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan AreaNote 1 of Kelowna 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 Kelowna, 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 (96%), heat waves (67%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (63%) and droughts (58%) were named by residents of Kelowna as the events most likely to occur in 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 (45%) and to their utility company in the event of an extended power outage (44%) (Table 1.1).
- Residents most commonly stated that they would anticipate turning to police or law enforcement in the event of rioting or civil unrest (39%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (27%Note E: Use with caution). Residents also reported that they anticipated turning to local government if they faced a contamination or shortage of water or food (39%), to news on the Internet if they faced an industrial or transportation accident (29%), and to news on the radio if they faced a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (27%).
Prior lifetime experience with a major emergency or disasterNote 5
- Over half (54%) of Kelowna residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, nearly two-thirds (64%) of whom reported experiencing severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
- Wildfires (75%) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Kelowna, followed by winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (9%Note E: Use with caution) and extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (7%Note E: Use with caution).
- Common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing an appointment or planned activity (54%), missing work or school (46%), an inability to use electrical appliances at home (33%Note E: Use with caution), and an inability to heat or cool the home (29%Note E: Use with caution). More severe disruptions experienced were home evacuation (59%), an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (31%), and an inability to communicate outside the home (6%Note E: Use with caution).
- Six in ten (59%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 10%Note E: Use with caution within 24 hours, 14%Note E: Use with caution within one to two days, 20%Note E: Use with caution within three to five days and 14%Note E: Use with caution within six to seven days.
- Nearly three-quarters (73%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, most commonly from family (32%Note E: Use with caution), first responders (28%Note E: Use with caution) or police (27%Note E: Use with caution).
- One in five (19%Note E: Use with caution) residents of Kelowna 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 one in ten (12%Note E: Use with caution) individuals affected by a major emergency or disaster.
Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours
- Nearly three-quarters (73%) of people residing in Kelowna lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,Note 6 and one-half (50%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Nearly one in ten (8%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 measuresNote 7 taken in case of an emergency, and one-quarter (25%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. One-fifth (20%) of people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
- Nearly all (98%) residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and three in four (74%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Two in three (65%) residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Overall, approximately one-half (52%) of residents of Kelowna stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their household.
- In general, the number of emergency planning activities and precautionary measures residents of Kelowna engaged in did not differ significantly from residents in British Columbia and Canada’s 10 provinces overall. There were a couple exceptions: for instance, residents of Kelowna were more likely to have no precautionary measures in place (20%) and less likely to have all four precautionary measures in place (4%Note E: Use with caution) compared to residents of British Columbia (13% and 8%, respectively) and Canada (16% and 7%, respectively). In terms or fire safety measures, residents of Kelowna were more likely to have all three fire safety measures in place (52%) compared to those on a provincial (38%) and national (42%) level.Note 8
- There were some differences in the types of activities and measures in place by residents of Kelowna when compared to British Columbia and Canada in general. Kelowna residents were less likely to have a wind-up or battery-operated radio (50%) or a household emergency supply kit (42%) compared to those in British Columbia (59% and 55%, respectively) and Canada (58% and 47%, respectively).
Social networks and sense of belonging
- Close to six in ten (57%) Kelowna residents had a strong sense of belongingNote 9 to their community.
- Most (84%) 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 (80%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.Note 11
- 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 (70%), for help if physically injured (66%) and in the event of a home evacuation (64%). About three in ten (32%) residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and one in ten (10%) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.Note 12
- Generally, involvement in social or political activities did not have a significant impact on the level of emergency preparedness of the residents of Kelowna (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 | 27 |
News- Internet | 26 |
News- Television | 24 |
Extended power outages | |
Utility company | 44 |
News- Radio | 17 |
Local government | 11Note E: Use with caution |
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease | |
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional | 45 |
News- Internet | 21 |
News- Radio | 19 |
Industrial or transportation accident | |
News- Internet | 29 |
News- Radio | 20 |
Police/law enforcement | 19Note E: Use with caution |
Contamination or shortage of water or food | |
Local government | 39 |
News- Radio | 21 |
News- Internet | 19 |
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat | |
Police/law enforcement | 27Note E: Use with caution |
News- Internet | 24Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 19Note E: Use with caution |
Rioting or civil unrest | |
Police/law enforcement | 39 |
News- Internet | 25Note E: Use with caution |
News- Television | 19Note 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 | Kelowna | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Number of emergency planning activities | |||
None | 8Note E: Use with caution | 6 | 8 |
1 activity | 17 | 15 | 17 |
2 activities | 23 | 22 | 25 |
3 activities | 31 | 29 | 27 |
4 activities | 19Table 1.2, Note * | 25 | 19 |
Number of precautionary measures | |||
None | 20Table 1.2, Note *** | 13 | 16 |
1 measure | 26 | 24 | 27 |
2 measures | 26 | 27 | 28 |
3 measures | 21 | 23 | 20 |
4 measures | 4Note E: Use with cautionTable 1.2, Note *** | 8 | 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 | 9Table 1.2, Note *** | 14 | 14 |
2 measures | 32Table 1.2, Note *** | 40 | 38 |
3 measures | 52Table 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: | Kelowna | British Columbia | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
percent | |||
Emergency planning activities | |||
Emergency exit plan | 73Table 1.3, Note ** | 71 | 60 |
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 monthsTable 1.3, Note 1 | 50 | 49 | 46 |
Designated meeting place for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 38 | 38 | 33 |
Contact plan for household membersTable 1.3, Note 2 | 52 | 54 | 55 |
Household emergency supply kit | 42Table 1.3, Note *** | 55 | 47 |
Vehicle emergency supply kitTable 1.3, Note 3 | 62 | 58 | 59 |
Extra copies of important documents | 55 | 55 | 53 |
List of emergency contact numbers | 65 | 68 | 69 |
Plan for meeting special health needsTable 1.3, Note 4 | 70 | 61 | 62 |
Precautionary measures | |||
Wind-up or battery-operated radio | 50Table 1.3, Note *** | 59 | 58 |
Alternate heat source | 48Table 1.3, Note * | 55 | 48 |
Back-up generator | 19 | 22 | 23 |
Alternate water source | 41Table 1.3, Note * | 48 | 43 |
OtherTable 1.3, Note 5 | 23 | 21 | 21 |
Fire safety measures | |||
Working smoke detector | 98Table 1.3, Note * | 95 | 98 |
Working carbon monoxide detectorTable 1.3, Note 6 | 65Table 1.3, Note * | 52 | 60 |
Working fire extinguisher | 74Table 1.3, Note ** | 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 † | 49 | 24 | 52 |
No | 57 | 29Note E: Use with caution | 49 |
High level of civic engagementTable 1.4, Note 2 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 52 | 24 | 53 |
No | 48 | 25 | 49 |
High level of social supportTable 1.4, Note 3 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 60 | 29 | 55 |
No | 47Table 1.4, Note * | 23 | 50 |
Strong sense of belonging to communityTable 1.4, Note 4 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 56 | 29 | 53 |
No | 45 | 20Note E: Use with caution | 50 |
High neighbourhood trustTable 1.4, Note 5 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note † | 51 | 26 | 60 |
NoTable 1.4, Note 7 | 51 | 24 | 46Table 1.4, Note * |
High level of self-efficacyTable 1.4, Note 6 | |||
YesTable 1.4, Note 7Table 1.4, Note † | 54 | 28 | 52 |
No | 47 | 21Note E: Use with caution | 52 |
E use with caution
Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada, 2014. |
Notes
E use with caution
- Date modified: