Fact sheet
Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Metropolitan Area^{Note 1} of Vancouver 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 Vancouver, 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

Earthquakes (85%), extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (61%), outbreaks of serious or life-threatening diseases (53%), or industrial or transportation accidents (52%) were named by residents of Vancouver 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 (46%) and to a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional in the event of an outbreak of a serious or life-threatening disease (38%) (Table 1.1).
Residents most commonly stated that they would turn to news on the radio if they faced a weather-related emergency or natural disaster (32%) or an industrial or transportation accident (31%). If faced with rioting or civil unrest (32%) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (30%), residents most frequently stated that they would turn to police or law enforcement. In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, residents anticipated turning to local government (26%).

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

Nearly one-fifth (18%) of Vancouver residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community they were living in at the time of the event, with nearly one-half (47%) reporting that they experienced severe disruptions to their daily activities as a result of the event.
Winter storms which include blizzards and ice storms (29%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (26%^{Note E: Use with caution}) were the most commonly experienced emergency or disaster by residents of Vancouver.
The most common types of disruption to daily activities endured by residents who had experienced major emergencies or disasters included missing an appointment or planned activity (62%), an inability to use electrical appliances at home (58%^{Note E: Use with caution}), missing work or school (49%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and having to boil water for drinking or drink bottled water (42%^{Note E: Use with caution}). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation in the community (36%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and home evacuation (28%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
Approximately two-thirds (68%) of residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event, with close to half (44%^{Note E: Use with caution}) resuming activities within two days.
More than half (54%) of residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event.
One-quarter (26%^{Note E: Use with caution}) of residents of Vancouver 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.^{Note 6}

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Three-quarters (76%) of people residing in Vancouver lived in households that were engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 7} and more than half (53%) lived in households with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). One in twenty (5%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
More than half (54%) lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 8} taken in case of an emergency, and one in four (25%) lived in a household with three or four such measures. Less than one in five (15%) people lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The majority (94%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, and nearly two-thirds (64%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). One-half (51%) of residents stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. One-third (34%) of Vancouver residents stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures in their household.
The number of emergency planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents of Vancouver did not often differ from residents in British Columbia or Canada’s 10 provinces overall. However, residents of Vancouver were more likely than Canadians to have participated in all four emergency planning activities (24% versus 19%), but they were less likely to have implemented all four precautionary measures (3%^{Note E: Use with caution}) and fire safety measures (34%) than residents of British Columbia (8% and 38%, respectively) and Canada (7% and 42%, respectively) overall.^{Note 9}
When significant differences in the types of activities and measures put in place existed among those in Vancouver and residents of British Columbia or Canada overall, Vancouver residents were almost always less likely to have implemented the measure or activity. For example, Vancouver residents were less likely to have a vehicle emergency supply kit (53%) or a back-up generator (15%) compared to residents of British Columbia (58% and 22%, respectively) and Canada (59% and 23%, respectively). Vancouver residents were, however, more likely to have an emergency exit plan (71%) and a household emergency supply kit (54%) than Canadians (60% and 47%, respectively).

Social networks and sense of belonging

Half (52%) of residents of Vancouver had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 10} to their community.^{Note 11}
More than eight in ten (85%) residents described the neighbourhood they lived in as a place where neighbours generally help each other.^{Note 12} Of those who did not describe their neighbourhood this way, most (72%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 13}
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 emotional support (61%)^{Note 14} and for help if physically injured (58%),^{Note 15} while one-half (50%) had the same level of support in the event of a home evacuation.^{Note 16} More than one-quarter (28%) of residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and one in ten (9%) residents reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.^{Note 17}
High levels of sense of belonging, social support and self-efficacy 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 Vancouver, British Columbia, 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	32
News- Television	22
News- Internet	22
Extended power outages
Utility company	46
News- Radio	20
Family	12^{Note E: Use with caution}
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	38
News- Internet	24
News- Television	20
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	31
News- Television	21
News- Internet	20
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	26
News- Television	21
News- Radio	20
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Police/law enforcement	30
News- Radio	26
News- Internet	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	32
News- Television	28
News- Radio	26
^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 Vancouver, British Columbia, 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), Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of planning activities, fire safety and precautionary measures taken by residents	Vancouver	British Columbia	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	5^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note **}	6	8
1 activity	15	15	17
2 activities	23	22	25
3 activities	29	29	27
4 activities	24^{Table 1.2, Note **}	25	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	15	13	16
1 measure	26	24	27
2 measures	29	27	28
3 measures	22	23	20
4 measures	3^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	8	7
Number of fire safety measures^{Table 1.2, Note 1}^{Table 1.2, Note 2}^{Table 1.2, Note 3}
None	Note F: too unreliable to be published	1^{Note E: Use with caution}	1
1 measure	16^{Table 1.2, Note *}	14	14
2 measures	40	40	38
3 measures	34^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	38	42
^E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.2, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (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 'British Columbia'. Return to table 1.2, note 2 referrer Note 3. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Vancouver'. Return to table 1.2, note 3 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 Vancouver, British Columbia, 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), Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Vancouver	British Columbia	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	71^{Table 1.3, Note **}	71	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	47	49	46
Designated meeting place for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	36	38	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	53	54	55
Household emergency supply kit	54^{Table 1.3, Note **}	55	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	53^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	58	59
Extra copies of important documents	57	55	53
List of emergency contact numbers	68	68	69
Plan for meeting special health needs^{Table 1.3, Note 4}	57	61	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	57	59	58
Alternate heat source	51^{Table 1.3, Note *}	55	48
Back-up generator	15^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	22	23
Alternate water source	44^{Table 1.3, Note *}	48	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	21	21	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	94^{Table 1.3, Note **}	95	98
Working carbon monoxide detector^{Table 1.3, Note 6}^{Table 1.3, Note 7}	51^{Table 1.3, Note **}	52	60
Working fire extinguisher	64^{Table 1.3, Note *}	69	66
Note * significantly different from provincial level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note * referrer Note significantly different from Canada level estimate (p < 0.05) Return to table 1.3, note referrer Note * significantly different from both provincial and Canada level estimates (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 6. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'British Columbia'. Return to table 1.3, note 6 referrer Note 7. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Vancouver'. Return to table 1.3, note 7 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 Vancouver, British Columbia, 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	26	34
No^{Table 1.4, Note 7}	53	26^{Note E: Use with caution}	31^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	54	28	31
No^{Table 1.4, Note 8}	48	24^{Note E: Use with caution}	37
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 9}^{Table 1.4, Note 10}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	41	42
No	53	23^{Table 1.4, Note *}	32
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 11}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	57	30	39
No^{Table 1.4, Note 11}	51	24	28^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	55	34	35
No^{Table 1.4, Note 11}	55	25	34
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note 11}^{Table 1.4, Note †}	60	33	38
No^{Table 1.4, Note 11}	49^{Table 1.4, Note *}	22^{Table 1.4, Note *}	30
^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 equal to 18% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 7 referrer Note 8. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were equal to 14% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 8 referrer Note 9. Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were greater than 5% but not above 10% for 'Planning activities'. Return to table 1.4, note 9 referrer Note 10 Responses of 'don't know/not stated' were equal to 11% for 'Fire safety measures'. Return to table 1.4, note 10 referrer Note 11 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 11 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.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were equal to 11% when respondents were asked about whether the emergency they experienced caused them to suffer loss of property or financial impacts.

Return to note 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

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 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

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 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

Unless otherwise specified, differences are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

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 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

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 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

A proportion (29%) 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 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were equal to 19% 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 13 referrer

Footnote 14.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for emotional support.

Return to note 14 referrer

Footnote 15.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help if they were physically injured.

Return to note 15 referrer

Footnote 16.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help in case of home evacuation.

Return to note 16 referrer

Footnote 17.

Responses of ‘don't know/not stated’ were greater than 5% but not above 10% when respondents were asked about the number of people they could turn to for help if financial support is needed.

Return to note 17 referrer

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia

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 Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia Fact sheet Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia

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 Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia Fact sheet
Community of Vancouver (CMA), British Columbia

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