Fact sheet
Community of Lethbridge (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Lethbridge (CA), Alberta

More information

In 2014, information on the emergency preparedness of people living in the Census Agglomeration^{Note 1} of Lethbridge 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 Lethbridge, 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) (95%), wildfires (74%), droughts (70%), and extended power outages lasting 24 hours or longer (68%) were named by residents of Lethbridge as the events most likely to occur in their community.
Residents most commonly 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 (34%) or an industrial or transportation accident (31%) (Table 1.1). If faced with an event of rioting or civil unrest (41%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or an act of terrorism or terrorist threat (38%^{Note E: Use with caution}), residents most frequently anticipated turning to police or law enforcement.
Residents stated that a hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional would be the most commonly anticipated first source of information or assistance in the event of an outbreak of a serious illness or life-threatening disease (54%). In the event of a contamination or shortage of water or food, residents most frequently reported that they would first seek information or assistance from local government (49%), and in the event of an extended power outage, residents commonly anticipated first turning to their utility company (28%).

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

Half (51%) of Lethbridge residents have faced a major emergency or disaster in Canada in a community where they were living at the time of the event. For three-quarters (76%) of these people, the emergency or disaster was significant enough to have resulted in severe disruptions to daily activities.
Wildfires (38%), floods (31%) and winter storms (including blizzards and ice storms) (30%) were the most commonly experienced emergencies or disasters by residents of Lethbridge.
The most frequently endured types of disruption to daily activities by residents who experienced emergencies or disasters included missing work or school (57%), missing an appointment or planned activity (56%) and boiling water for drinking or drinking bottled water (48%). More severe disruptions experienced were an inability to use roads or transportation within the community (44%) and home evacuation (29%).
Most (86%) residents who experienced an emergency or disaster were able to resume their daily activities within one week of the event: 24%^{Note E: Use with caution} within 24 hours, 34% within one to two days, 19%^{Note E: Use with caution} within three to five days and 9%^{Note E: Use with caution} within six to seven days.
Approximately six in ten (58%) residents who had experienced an emergency or disaster received help during or immediately following the event, many of whom turned to family (29%^{Note E: Use with caution}) or local government (26%^{Note E: Use with caution}).
One in five (21%^{Note E: Use with caution}) residents of Lethbridge 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 severe enough to disrupt their regular daily activities also endured a loss of property or some kind of a financial impact.

Emergency planning, precautionary and fire safety behaviours

Four in five (82%) Lethbridge residents lived in a household that engaged in at least two emergency planning activities,^{Note 6} and over half (54%) reported living in a household with three or four such activities (Table 1.2). Less than one in ten (6%^{Note E: Use with caution}) people in Lethbridge lived in a household that had not participated in any emergency planning activities.
Six in ten (59%) Lethbridge residents lived in a household with at least two precautionary measures^{Note 7} taken in case of an emergency, with three in ten (30%) living in a household with three or four such measures. Conversely, almost two in ten residents (17%) lived in a household with no precautionary measures in place.
The vast majority (99%) of residents reported living in a household with a working smoke detector, while seven in ten (71%) reported living in a household with a working fire extinguisher (Table 1.3). Approximately six in ten (62%) stated that they had a working carbon monoxide detector in their household. Close to half (47%) of Lethbridge residents stated that they had implemented all three fire safety measures within their household.
In general, the number of fire safety and precautionary measures taken by Lethbridge residents did not differ from residents of Alberta or those in Canada’s 10 provinces. There were, however, some differences in the number of emergency planning activities taken. For example, residents of Lethbridge (25%) were more likely than Canadians (19%) to have taken all four emergency planning activities.^{Note 8}
There were some differences in the types of activities and measures set in place by residents of Lethbridge when compared to Alberta and Canada in general. It is of interest to note that when differences existed, residents of Lethbridge were always more likely than Albertans and Canadians in general to have engaged in the activity or measure. For example, residents of Lethbridge were more likely to have a list of emergency contact numbers (74%), an emergency exit plan (71%) and a designated meeting place for household members (43%) than Albertans and Canadians.

Social networks and sense of belonging

Over half (54%) of Lethbridge residents had a strong sense of belonging^{Note 9} to their community.
Most (86%) 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, the majority (77%) still described it as a place where neighbours would help each other in an emergency.^{Note 11}
More than half of residents had a strong 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 (63%), as well as in the event of a home evacuation (58%). Three in ten (29%) residents had a large support network if financial help was needed, and one in ten (8%^{Note E: Use with caution}) reported that they had no one to turn to for financial help.
High levels of neighbourhood trust, social support and self-efficacy, as well as engagement 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 Lethbridge, 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	29
News- Television	25
Extended power outages^{Table 1.1, Note 1}
Utility company	28
Local government	24
News- Radio	19
Outbreak of serious or life-threatening disease
Hospital, clinic, doctor or other medical professional	54
News- Internet	18^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	17^{Note E: Use with caution}
Industrial or transportation accident
News- Radio	31
News- Internet	23
News- Television	19
Contamination or shortage of water or food
Local government	49
News- Internet	18^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	15^{Note E: Use with caution}
Act of terrorism or terrorist threat
Police/law enforcement	38^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	23^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	23^{Note E: Use with caution}
Rioting or civil unrest
Police/law enforcement	41^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Radio	22^{Note E: Use with caution}
News- Television	16^{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 Lethbridge, 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), Lethbridge, 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	Lethbridge	Alberta	Canada
	percent
Number of emergency planning activities
None	6^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note **}	8	8
1 activity	12^{Note E: Use with caution}^{Table 1.2, Note ***}	17	17
2 activities	28	25	25
3 activities	29	26	27
4 activities	25^{Table 1.2, Note **}	20	19
Number of precautionary measures
None	17	21	16
1 measure	23	27	27
2 measures	29	23	28
3 measures	24^{Table 1.2, Note *}	18	20
4 measures	6^{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	13	14	14
2 measures	36	31	38
3 measures	47	48	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 '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 Lethbridge, 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), Lethbridge, Alberta and Canada, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	Lethbridge	Alberta	Canada
Residents whose households were involved in the following:	percent
Emergency planning activities
Emergency exit plan	71^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	63	60
Exit plan has been practised/reviewed in last 12 months^{Table 1.3, Note 1}	45	45	46
Designated meeting place for household members^Note 2	43^{Table 1.3, Note ***}	33	33
Contact plan for household members^{Table 1.3, Note 2}	60	55	55
Household emergency supply kit	53^{Table 1.3, Note *}	43	47
Vehicle emergency supply kit^{Table 1.3, Note 3}	68^Note **	69	59
Extra copies of important documents	56	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}	67	64	62
Precautionary measures
Wind-up or battery-operated radio	55^{Table 1.3, Note *}	49	58
Alternate heat source	46	45	48
Back-up generator	28^{Table 1.3, Note *}	22	23
Alternate water source	47	41	43
Other^{Table 1.3, Note 5}	18	17	21
Fire safety measures
Working smoke detector	99^{Table 1.3, Note *}	96	98
Working carbon monoxide detector	62	65	60
Working fire extinguisher	71	65	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: 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 Lethbridge, 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 †}	54	27	49
No	45	34^{Note E: Use with caution}	38^{Note E: Use with caution}
High level of civic engagement^{Table 1.4, Note 2}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	56	27	52
No	48	30	38^{Table 1.4, Note *}
High level of social support^{Table 1.4, Note 3}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	64	35^{Note E: Use with caution}	53
No	50	28	44
Strong sense of belonging to community^{Table 1.4, Note 4}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	62	29	52
No	44^{Table 1.4, Note *}	30	40
High neighbourhood trust^{Table 1.4, Note 5}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	58	34	49
No	51	27	45
High level of self-efficacy^{Table 1.4, Note 6}
Yes^{Table 1.4, Note †}	56	34	51
No	52	25	42
^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: 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 (7%) 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 equal to 13% 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

Report a problem on this page

Is something not working? Is there information outdated? Can't find what you're looking for?

Please contact us and let us know how we can help you.

Privacy notice

Date modified:: 2016-10-13

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Fact sheet
Community of Lethbridge (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Lethbridge (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 sheet Community of Lethbridge (CA), Alberta Fact sheet Community of Lethbridge (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 Lethbridge (CA), Alberta Fact sheet
Community of Lethbridge (CA), Alberta

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