Public Safety CanadaSurvey of Emergency Preparedness and

Resilience (SEPR) in Canada: Discussion Guide

Research and Academic RelationsStrategic Policy BranchPublic Safety Canada

October 2012

ContentsPreface..................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4

Purpose.............................................................................................................................................5

Objectives of the Survey....................................................................................................................5

General Concepts..............................................................................................................................5

Background and Process....................................................................................................................6

Phase I – Preliminary Consultation Process...................................................................................7

Phase II – Community Resilience Descriptive Inventory................................................................8

Phase III – Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience......................................................8

Review of Existing Literature and Research.......................................................................................9

Academic and Community Outreach...............................................................................................10

Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience.............................................................................12

Methodology...................................................................................................................................12

Limitations.......................................................................................................................................12

Time and Resources.....................................................................................................................12

Levels of Data Analysis.................................................................................................................13

Modules...........................................................................................................................................13

1. Risk Awareness.......................................................................................................................13

2. Prior Experience with a Major Emergency or Disaster............................................................15

3. Protective and Precautionary Behaviours...............................................................................16

4. Civic Engagement....................................................................................................................17

5. Social Networks......................................................................................................................19

6. Social Cohesion and Community Belonging............................................................................20

7. Trust........................................................................................................................................21

8. Self-efficacy.............................................................................................................................22

9. Perceived Health and Activity Limitations...............................................................................23

10. Socio-Demographics.............................................................................................................24

Possibilities for the future...................................................................................................................26

Discussion Questions...........................................................................................................................27

2

PrefaceOn September 11, 2001, 39 transatlantic flights were diverted to Gander, Newfoundland, when American airspace was unexpectedly closed following terrorist attacks in the U.S. In the wake of this tragedy, a community of no more than 10,000 people responded by opening their hearts and homes to over 6,500 stranded passengers and crews from the 39 planes that were forced to land in Gander that day.

Hotels in town were quickly overwhelmed with guests, so schools were closed to students and opened to make room for passengers. Churches of all denominations opened their doors to make sure stranded travelers had a place to stay. Responding to radio announcements broadcast locally, residents and businesses donated toiletries and offered hot showers and guest rooms. The local chapter of the Canadian Red Cross rounded up beds and the Salvation Army coordinated a mass collection of food that was donated by the surrounding communities to feed the visitors. The local telephone company, Newtel Communications, pitched in and installed phone banks so that passengers could call home and contact loved ones. The company strung wires and cables to allow passengers to have access to television and the internet. The town’s bus drivers, who had been on strike for weeks, put down their signs and left their picket lines to help shuttle passengers around town as needed.

Four days after U.S. airspace was closed, passengers were able to continue on to their destinations. The response and hospitality of Ganderites has not been forgotten, however, and strong connections between the community and many Americans continue to exist to this day.

Gander is not a rich community in terms of income, but it is a resilient community that can pull together to face an unexpected challenge.

3

IntroductionResilience is part of the fabric that runs through our households, our communities, and across the country. It is manifest in our daily interactions and personal circumstances. More than any other time, resilience, at both a personal and community level, can be seen when we are confronted with an unusual or stressful event. In those instances, we strive to adapt, survive and sustain ourselves in the face of adversity. In the course of all our lives, we inevitably face situations we did not anticipate. The most resilient communities are those that are able to deal with unforeseen, adverse events and return to a level of functioning similar to, or better than, that which existed before the event in the shortest amount of time possible.

The better prepared and equipped we are before we face a crisis or emergency, even if we do not know exactly what the threat or emergency will look like, the more likely we are to recover more quickly and with less damage than if we were totally unprepared. Simply knowing what the main threats are will help us prepare to deal more effectively with problems when they arise. However, it is not always possible or realistic to prepare for every eventuality and so we often need to improvise. In these situations we try to marshal the resources we have in our lives to help us get through a difficult situation and return to stability as best we can.

The work currently underway at Public Safety Canada strives to improve our understanding of what makes communities more or less resilient. We are drawing on expert advice, extensive academic literature and research to drive this work forward. The degree of importance of each of these factors and how they might interact to build community resilience is still not clear, including the extent to which such factors are relevant to distinct areas of public safety (e.g., natural disasters, threats to security, industrial accidents).

This endeavour is an opportunity to expand our understanding of the dynamics of community resilience and make progress towards creating a predictive measure of resilience, which could have multiple applications for emergency prevention, mitigation, response and recovery. It is our hope that by measuring community resilience, we will be better able to support communities and share the responsibility to keep hazards from becoming disasters.

4

PurposeThis document serves as a discussion guide for the proposed national Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada. Its purpose is to explain the objectives of the survey, and the development process of the survey—including highlights from the preliminary consultation process. This guide also contains the rationale for the contents of the survey, noting the examples of research which supports each module of the survey. This guide concludes with discussion questions for which we seek your input and feedback.

Objectives of the SurveyPublic Safety Canada’s (PS) mission is to build a safe and resilient Canada. In order to gauge the Department’s progress towards achieving this objective, in collaboration with partners at Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Centre for Security Science (CSS), Statistics Canada (SC) and PS have identified and developed a list of quantifiable indicators of community resilience. Ultimately, the objective of the proposed data collection strategy is to identify, collect, and make available community-level indicators to assist emergency preparedness and response and inform policy and planning for a broad range of public safety issues, including emergency management, countering crime, and national security. In particular, this data could be useful for first responders and frontline workers; as well as municipal, territorial and provincial governments responsible for strengthening community resilience to disasters.

General ConceptsPublic Safety Canada is focusing on the concept of resilience based on the definition from the Emergency Management Framework for Canada, Second Edition:1

Resilience: The capacity of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to adapt to disturbances resulting from hazards by persevering, recuperating or changing to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning. Resilient capacity is built through a process of empowering citizens, responders, organizations, communities, governments, systems and society to share the responsibility to keep hazards from becoming disasters. Resilience minimizes vulnerability; dependence and susceptibility by creating or strengthening social and physical capacity in the human and built-environment to cope with, adapt to, respond to, and recover and learn from disasters.

The notion and concept of community is more nebulous. Other countries have also attempted to define community resilience within their national context. For instance, the UK Cabinet Office suggests that community resilience “is about communities using local resources and knowledge to help themselves during an emergency in a way that complements the local emergency services”. Taking it one step further, the UK Cabinet 1 Public Safety Canada, “Emergency Management Framework for Canada” (Government of Canada Report, Ottawa, 2011), 8.

5

Office does not employ a single definition of community, but rather, refers to four conceptual “communities” relevant to this work:

geographical communities: communities with recognized boundaries communities of interest: people who have affiliations, which have grown as a result

of their interaction with each other through a shared interest communities of circumstance: when a group of people is affected by the same

incident communities of supporters: people that provide emergency response services

including planning for and responding to emergencies.2

The New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management defines a community as "a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists. When thinking about engagement it is useful to look at communities as two distinct types: communities of place, and communities of interest.”3

Lastly, the Australian National Strategy for Disaster Resilience identifies the following common characteristics of disaster resilient communities: functioning well while under stress, successful adaptation, self-reliance and social capacity. The Insurance Council of Australia describes resilient communities as, “…those better able to withstand a crisis event and have an enhanced ability to recover from residual impacts. Communities that possess resilience characteristics can also arrive on the other side of a crisis in a stronger position than pre-event.”4

The Feasibility Study for a National Data Collection Strategy to Measure Community Resilience for Public Safety5 (the Feasibility Study), acknowledges that the concept of community can be defined a number of ways, but for research purposes for this study, “community” is generally understood to refer to a geographical concept, one defined by geographical boundaries (e.g. neighbourhoods, municipalities).6

Background and ProcessIn 2007, PS identified its Strategic Outcome as “A safe and resilient Canada”. That same year, Treasury Board Secretariat approved PS’s Strategic Outcome on the condition that the Department would provide performance indicators to measure its success.2 UK Cabinet Office, “Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience” (UK Cainet Office Report, London, 2011), 4 and 11.3 Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management, “Community Engagement in the CDEM Context” (Government of New Zealand Report, Wellington, 2011), 9.4 National Emergency Management Committee, “Community Engagement in the CDEM Context” (Government of New Zealand Report, Wellington, 2010), 4.5 The Feasibility Study is described in greater detail in the Background and Process section of this document.6 Communities are made up of individuals and households, but are also components of a larger society. Thus, community resilience is a multi-faceted phenomenon to be understood at several interdependent levels – at the societal level, the community level, household or individual levels.

6

In 2010, PS secured funding for a two-year project to develop a measure of community resilience by the Policy Research Data Group (PRDG), an interdepartmental DG-level body that awarded funds to projects that were designed to fill horizontal, policy-relevant data gaps. This project was a joint effort of PS, Statistics Canada and DRDC-CSS to consult widely about identifying the elements of community resilience that are important to measure; and to find out what data holdings Statistics Canada already collects in these areas. Building on this work, Statistics Canada, supported by PS and CSS, created and tested a national survey to measure community resilience. The community resilience measurement efforts have so far consisted of three phases as follows:

Phase I – Preliminary Consultation ProcessDuring the first part of the Feasibility Study, Statistics Canada consulted with approximately 120 individuals from nearly 50 organizations, listed below,7 to identify the metrics to be used for the survey. Over 50 factors related to community resilience were identified through this preliminary consultation process.

Individuals and Organizations consulted: Federal government departments: Public Safety Canada and relevant portfolio

agencies (RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service); Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Centre for Security Science; Canadian Heritage; Justice Canada; Health Canada; Citizenship and Immigration Canada; Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Canadian International Development Agency; Privy Council Office; and Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade;

Provincial/territorial government departments responsible for public safety and emergency management;

Individuals from NGOs and subject matter experts from the academic community.

It is important to note that Statistics Canada conducted this consultation process using traditional Statistics Canada methodological practices, including responder anonymity.

The goal of the consultation process was to determine how best to define and measure community resilience; and determine the information needs and priorities of stakeholders

7 Responses were received from about one-quarter of the organizations contacted. Given this response rate, the results of the engagement process cannot be considered as representative of all the views of all stakeholders. The consultation was conducted by Statistics Canada using that agency’s guarantee of confidentiality. Therefore we do not know who recommended what, nor who responded. The results were nevertheless valuable in developing ideas about measuring community resilience from a Canadian perspective, to complement the review of the academic literature in this area.

7

with respect to community resilience, in order to help guide the development of a national data collection strategy. Consultations with stakeholders were critical for shaping an approach to measuring community resilience, given that community resilience is an issue with broad-reaching responsibilities and impacts across various levels of government and all of society.

The consultation process, as part of the Feasibility Study, sought to investigate:a. Definitions of community resilience;b. Information needs of all stakeholders regarding community resilience; c. Primary indicators (direct or indirect) of community resilience;d. Primary research questions to be addressed through a household survey on

community resilience;e. Level of analysis required (i.e., national, provincial, regional, etc…); f. Existing data related to community resilience from Canadian organizations

(academic, NGOs or government).

Phase II – Community Resilience Descriptive InventoryStatistics Canada produced the Community Resilience Descriptive Inventory as the second part of the Feasibility Study. The Descriptive Inventory catalogues data that currently exist within Statistics Canada’s holdings in many of the areas identified as key to community resilience, including: response and recovery capacity among community services, transportation and evacuation capacity, access to information and communication technology, economic health of communities, socio-demographic characteristics, activity limitation and degree of assistance required, literacy, social resources and social capital, neighbourhood and community sense of belonging and cohesion, civic engagement and participation, numbers and types of community organizations, and generalized trust.

The Descriptive Inventory consists of a set of comprehensive tables which list the various data sources and measures and provides users with additional information such as level of geography (e.g., national, provincial/territorial, Census Metropolitan Area, Census Tract), reference years for which data are available, and limitations of the data. Data included as part of the Descriptive Inventory was pulled from the results of well-established SC survey instruments.

Phase III – Survey of Emergency Preparedness and ResilienceIn the third phase, PS and CSS funded the development and testing of a draft resilience household survey, designed to fill the gaps in Statistics Canada’s resilience-related data from the Descriptive Inventory. CSS is currently considering a proposal by Public Safety to further fund the project, which would include the revision and, testing of the finalized questionnaire followed by a collection of the data nationally.

Through this Discussion Guide, PS is engaging with stakeholders to refine the Survey of 8

Emergency Preparedness and Resilience. The survey could be useful to many organizations, both as a performance measurement tool and to inform policy and programming at the federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and first responder agency levels.

Questions added or modified as a result of the feedback received during this engagement process would have to be re-tested in the field, which would result in additional costs and time to the project. It is estimated that moving forward with the collection, cleaning of the data file and releasing a final analytical report would take from two to three years. Current predicted funding would only cover rolling out the survey in larger communities (CMA, CAs) and provide some limited data on smaller communities at the provincial level. Supplementary funds from additional stakeholders would be necessary to achieve comprehensive national coverage. Although, it is not the intention to conduct this survey on a yearly basis, a three to five year cycle will be explored, as it would be beneficial to have resilience data on a cyclical basis.

PS is also exploring the development of resilience indicators of critical infrastructure, as PS recognizes the importance of capturing the critical infrastructure element when measuring resilience in Canadian communities. We hope that by continuing to work in parallel with those developing complementary indicators of resilience the result will be an integrated approach to measuring and building resilience that brings together the strengths and expertise of a wide range of researchers, practitioners and policy-makers.

Review of Existing Literature and ResearchThere is a wealth of research around the identification of measures of community resilience. At the conceptual level, Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche and Pfefferbaum provided a comprehensive understanding of community resilience.8 More practically, Cutter, Burton and Emrich developed a methodology and identified a set of indicators for measuring baseline characteristics of communities that foster resilience in the south-eastern United States.9 In addition, a recent paper by Morrone, Scrivens, Smith and Balestra (2011) from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development has been useful for the purposes of identifying relevant measures of resilience for developed countries.10 These research papers represent just a few of the many sources that were identified and reviewed in the course of developing this project. Additional guidance was provided by reviews of the United Nations’ Human Development Index, the American Human Development Index, First Nations Community Well-Being Index, Opportunity Index and many other composite indices.

In addition to physical infrastructure, preparedness and first response capacity research has pointed to, for instance, literacy and education, access to economic resources, and the 8 Norris et al, “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness,” American Journal of Psychology, v 41 no. 1-2 (2008): 127-150.9 Burton et al., “Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, v7, no. 1 (2010), all.10 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), all.

9

general state of health among the population, as important contributors to a community’s ability to withstand, adapt and recover from disaster, natural or man-made. Similarly, social networks and social integration, trust in authorities, sentiments such as fear, perceptions of safety and feelings of empowerment have also been cited as important.11

Academic and Community OutreachPS’s ongoing academic and community outreach has also informed the data collection and survey design process. PS’s participation in resilience-related conferences, workshops, and meetings have strengthened the Department’s knowledge and understanding of community resilience. The following summaries provide an idea of the type of academic and community outreach that PS has engaged in over the past two years but is in no way an exhaustive list of PS’s engagement activities with academics or the community.

1. Public Safety organized a workshop on community resilience at the Canadian Risks and Hazards Network in October, 2011. This workshop focused on potential measures of community resilience that governments can use as evidence for policy-making, monitoring tools and performance measures. Ongoing efforts in Canada and overseas to define and measure community and individual resilience in a policy-relevant way were discussed. Speakers and participants included a broad range of policy-makers and academic experts. There was an opportunity for input and discussion to shape how governments view and measure community resilience.

2. Resilience was the theme of the June meeting of the Cross Cultural Roundtable on Security (CCRS). The CCRS is a body made up of members of ethno-cultural communities across Canada who advise the Ministers for Public Safety and Justice. Public Safety Canada formally consulted the CCRS for input on community resilience issues, including data needs.

3. Public Safety co-organized and chaired a Community Resilience Plenary at the National Metropolis Conference in Toronto in March, 2012. Metropolis is a national and international network of researchers, policy-makers and community organizations, who work on issues of migration and diversity. The speakers at the plenary represented a range of Canadian and international academics and NGO participants, and the conference was attended by over 1,000 people.

4. PS shared its work on the development of community resilience measures with the Liaison Officers Committee of the National Justice Statistics Initiative (NJSI), of which PS is a member. The NJSI is overseen by the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) Deputy Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety, and reports to the FPT Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety.

11 Andrea Taylor-Butts, “Feasibility Study for a National Data Collection Strategy to Measure Community Resilience for Public Safety: Results from the Consultation on Information Needs” (Statistics Canada Study, Ottawa, 2011), 6.

10

5. Public Safety organized a full-day pre-conference workshop on community resilience at the National Metropolis Conference in Vancouver in March 2011. The workshop was introduced by Public Safety’s Associate Deputy Minister Graham Flack. A range of academic, community-based, provincial and federal government speakers addressed the issue of community resilience from a wide variety of perspectives: resilience to natural or man-made disaster, resilience to crime, resilience to radicalization toward violent extremism, psychological resilience to racism, socioeconomic disadvantage and trauma, in an effort to explore the issue and find common threads.

6. PS also met with experts from the following governmental, non-governmental, and academic institutions on the subject of community resilience:

RAND Corporation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Center for Disaster Preparedness (Columbia University), Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Office of Emergency Preparedness and Response (New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response - Centers for Disease Control, Institute of Population Health (University of Ottawa), Resilience Research Center (Dalhousie University), National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START).

7. PS had discussions with first responder agencies who were interested in the work the department is doing to develop community resilience measures.

PS will continue to explore a variety of opportunities for research, meet with academics and subject matter experts, and attend or participate in different forums on the subject of community resilience.

11

Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience

MethodologyThe Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience (SEPR) aims to furthering our understanding of community resilience in Canada. It would be administered via telephone across the ten provinces by Statistics Canada and examine how Canadian households prepare for and respond to emergencies or disasters. The sample would be selected using a simple random sample selection design and a response rate of 65% would be achieved covering Canada’s 34 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), 29 Census Agglomerations (CAs) and a sample of data from communities of less than 50,000 to provide profiles of these smaller areas at the provincial level. This survey is designed to provide estimates (less than 50,000) of resilience at various levels of geography (i.e. national, provincial, and community, with some level of detail for rural estimates), as well as at the household and person level.

A draft of the questionnaire has undergone a round of testing using in-depth, one-on-one interviews. Testing was conducted by the Questionnaire Research and Design Center (QDRC) at Statistics Canada in five cities across Canada (Calgary, Lethbridge, Montreal, Toronto, and Halifax), with questionnaires (34 English, 9 French) administered to a total of 43 respondents. The main objective of testing was to determine respondents’ comprehension of the questions; their ability and willingness to effectively respond to the questions; as well as the flow and length of the questionnaire.

Overall, the questionnaire tested well. Respondents were able to understand and respond to the questionnaire with relative ease. Many respondents indicated that in fact, they found the topic to be quite interesting, and some took notes during the protective and precautionary behaviours module, which covers recommended emergency preparedness activities.

Limitations

Time and ResourcesThe most significant concern identified during initial survey testing was with the length of the questionnaire. As a result, revisions were made to shorten the questionnaire and improve any problematic questions. Currently, the survey takes approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. However, additional cuts to further reduce the survey length (and thus, respondent burden)12 would be optimal. A second, less intensive round of testing will be necessary to test the revised survey.

12 The degree to which a survey respondent perceives participation in a survey research project as difficult, time consuming, or emotionally stressful.

12

Current anticipated funding would only cover rolling out the survey in larger communities across Canada due to resource and time limitations. Supplementary funds from other sources would be necessary to achieve comprehensive national coverage.

Levels of Data Analysis Results from Statistics Canada’s preliminary consultation process clearly indicate that the more local the information collected the better our understanding of resilience will be. Respondents of the consultation process were most interested in obtaining information from a household survey on community resilience at the CMA level, followed by the provincial/territorial level; it was considered “important” to obtain data at these geographic levels, according to 69% and 62% of respondents, respectively.

Most often, consultation respondents considered analysis by age, racial or cultural group and disability status as important for their organizations’ information needs. Analysis by sex, household income, Aboriginal status and disability status was cited by almost seven in ten respondents. Immigration status was also mentioned as being important by more than half of respondents.

ModulesThe draft questionnaire for SEPR consists of ten modules. While a fair proportion is new content, a number of questions included in these modules are modelled after pre-existing questions which already appear on well-established Statistic Canada survey instruments (e.g., the General Social Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey. Repurposing and combining different questions from other surveys into SEPR allows for the analysis of results which in turn will provide greater insight into community resilience.

The ten modules of the SEPR cover the following topics:

1. Risk Awareness 2. Prior Experience with a Major Emergency or Disaster3. Protective and Precautionary Behaviours 4. Civic Engagement5. Social Networks6. Social Cohesion and Community Belonging 7. Trust8. Self-efficacy9. Perceived Health and Activity Limitations10. Socio-Demographics

1. Risk Awareness This module gathers information on people’s awareness of the risks, including natural disasters and other forms of major emergencies such as a power outage, industrial

13

accidents or terrorist attacks, which could affect their community. Specifically, this module asks respondents to identify the potential risks and hazards they believe their community might experience and where they would turn to first for information or guidance in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. Risk awareness was seen as a key factor of community resilience by more than two-thirds of respondents from the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Access to different types of communication gives a sense of the number of potential ways a member of a community might be able to communicate with others and receive information related to their community. Access to communication was seen as a key factor of community resilience by more than two-thirds of respondents from the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Supporting ResearchAppropriate and accurate risk and hazard awareness are key aspects of preparedness and contribute to resilience in different ways. For instance, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ Expect the Unexpected program notes that “studies show that the impacts of disasters on children are long term and that those who were involved in a hazards education programme had a clear advantage over the others when confronted with disasters.”13 As an individual or as a household, the prospect of being prepared to deal with a wide range of potential disasters or emergencies is daunting. Ensuring that populations are aware of the most probable risks they may face increases the likelihood that risk awareness and preparedness campaigns will be positively received and of greatest utility. Moreover, if perceived risks are asymmetrical to actual natural hazard risks, emergency management officials can attempt to correct misperceptions and help communities prepare more appropriately for disasters they may face.

Recent research and experience has shown that “public awareness of natural hazards and disaster risk reduction education constitute a foundation and pre-requisite for effective catastrophic risk management strategies at country and regional levels.”14 Moreover, risk awareness and risk reduction education priorities should be risk-based, tailored to the hazards of the region and the particular vulnerabilities and capacities of those exposed to risk. Resources, if limited, should be “focused on raising awareness and improving knowledge of risk mitigation and financial protection tools for the risks that are most likely to cause significant human, physical and financial losses.”15

Heightened risk awareness of natural hazards and risk reduction measures can “encourage voluntary risk reduction activities, including key measures as safe construction, retrofitting,

13 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,“Expect the Unexpected and Facing Fear: Emergency preparedness in schools,” IFRC, 2004, http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Case%20studies/Disasters/ canada.pdf.14 International Network on the Financial Management of Large-Scale Catastrophes, “Policy Handbook on Natural Hazard Awareness and Disaster Risk Reduction Education” (OECD Report, 2010), 5.15 Ibid, 7.

14

and household preparedness.”16 Given that Canadians face a range of risks including cascading disasters, it would be prudent to develop resilient strategies in recognition that, “anticipation strategies work against known problems, while resilient strategies are better against unknown problems.”17

Access to different types of communication and media indicates potential ways of disseminating information in the event of an emergency.18 When emergency planners develop strategies for how they will respond in the wake of an emergency, it is critical they know how their communities use different kinds of communication technology so they are able to target their messaging to those most at risk or those most in need. This ensures that preparedness and risk communication is as effective and targeted as possible.

Communication networks relate to the ability to communicate adequately with others in order to, for example, receive information that is calming and that is useful for coping. In many cases it is as simple as being able to reach loved ones on the phone or via the internet and be reassured that they are safe. Receiving reassurances and being able to be in touch with loved ones relates positively with resilience.19

2. Prior Experience with a Major Emergency or DisasterThis module asks respondents about their personal experiences with emergencies that have actually occurred. Respondents are asked if they have ever personally experienced a major emergency; about the nature of the emergency; the impact of the emergency on daily life; who they received help from during or immediately following the emergency; who they assisted; and what some of the long-term effects of the emergency might have been. More than three-quarters of Phase I – Preliminary consultation process respondents indicated that prior experience with a major emergency or disaster is a factor or a key factor of community resilience.

Supporting ResearchThe capacity of community members to work with others to plan and execute tasks, in preparation for or in the event of a disaster, is known as adaptive capacity.20 While collaboration can result from the shared experience of prior adversity, the existence of mechanisms to mobilise community members to deal with challenges and threats will enhance adaptive capacity.21

16 Ibid, 9.17 Normandin et al., “City Strength in times of turbulence: strategic resilience indicators” (Doctoral Paper, Montreal, 2007), 2.18 Colten et al., “Three Years after Lessons for Community Resilience,” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50 n.5, page 36-47.19 Anne Speckhard, Chapter 15 – Modeling Psycho-social resilience to terrorism (NATO, 2011), 15-4.20 D Paton., “Community Resilience: Integrating Hazard Management and Community Engagement” (Paper from the School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Australia, 2005), 12.21 Ibid, page 12

15

Two studies were conducted at the peak of a hurricane season, where the participants completed a questionnaire pertaining to their prior experience with a hurricane (property loss and distress), and their degree of preparation, perceived threat, and distress when threatened by Hurricane Emily (Study 1) or Hurricane Fran (Study 2). In Study 1, age, income, the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them, perceived threat, and current distress were all factors in predicting levels of preparation. Among participants with prior hurricane experience, age and distress as a result of the hurricane accounted for a significant portion of preparation variance. In Study 2, age, perceived threat, and prior hurricane experience were factors that predicted level of preparation.22

3. Protective and Precautionary BehavioursThe module on Protective and Precautionary Behaviours poses questions about some of the steps people may take to reduce their risk and protect themselves in the event of a major emergency. The main focus of this module explores: the extent to which a household emergency plan has been developed, precautions that people take to make their homes safer (e.g. installing fire extinguishers, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and knowing how to shut off the home’s water, gas, electricity) and measures households have taken to prepare for an emergency such as having emergency supply kits; alternative supplies of water, heat and electricity; and training in emergency response techniques (e.g. first aid and CPR). More than three-quarters of respondents from the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process pointed to the protective and precautionary steps people take to mitigate risk (e.g., keeping a 72-hour emergency kit on hand; having an evacuation plan) as a key factor in resilience.

Generally, responses to these questions will improve our understanding of how well prepared Canadians are in the event of an emergency or disaster. Emergency management officials and first responders could use this kind of information to determine how to allocate assets most efficiently and effectively in the event of an emergency and decide how resources should be deployed appropriately given varying levels of preparedness by various populations. In conjunction with the socio-demographic information asked in a later module, policy-makers and practitioners will be able to identify whether characteristics such as age, gender, income, language, ethnicity, disability, and other factors are issues in how prepared Canadians are and allow policy-makers and practitioners to better adapt and target preparedness campaigns.

Supporting Research“Preparedness is the key to resiliency. Preparedness – the adoption of adjustments and preparatory measures such as storing food and water, strapping hot water cylinders and preparing emergency plans, reduces the risk of loss and injury within households, schools, workplaces and communities. Preparedness also facilitates a capacity for coping with the

22 Sattler et al., “Disaster Preparedness: Relationships Among Prior Experience, Personal Characteristics, and Distress,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, no. 7 (2000): 1.

16

temporary disruption associated with hazard activity and minimises damage and insurance costs.”23

In Bangladesh, the student brigade model was introduced under the Fourth DIPECHO Action Plan as organized groups of students trained to lead preparedness campaigns and influence behaviours and practices towards disaster resilient communities. In all the 30 communities where student brigades have been supported, a disaster resilient model of life and development has enhanced the disaster resilience of cyclone-prone communities of the coastal areas of Bangladesh.24

This module also explores risk financing and may yield information that could contribute to developing risk transfer tools and mechanisms. Risk-based disaster insurance, if correctly priced, affordable, and linked to actionable measures, “can provide not only coverage against damage—permitting more rapid economic and social recovery—but also signals to individuals as to the hazards they face, thereby contributing to risk communication and education efforts.”25 Finally, questions in this module also seek to explore if specific plans have been made to manage any special health needs. The presence of such plans will limit their exposure to risks and reduce their dependence on external assistance during and immediately after a disaster.

4. Civic EngagementHelp in the event of an emergency or disaster may come from a number of sources – family, friends, neighbours, and one’s community. To help better understand people’s connection to their community, the module on Civic Engagement asks respondents about their involvement in their communities through participation in various organizations and groups (e.g., sports, hobby clubs, service clubs, cultural groups, etc.), volunteering and political engagement. In addition to the types of activities, respondents are also asked about the average amount of time they spend participating in these activities. Availability of social, civic, and religious organizations is a factor in community resilience according to the majority of respondents who participated in the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Availability and access to social, civic and religious organizations can play a role in determining how members of a community organize and react in the wake of an emergency. Moreover, presuming that organizations are positioned to serve communities in need, the presence of such organizations in a particular community may be suggestive of greater social need than communities where fewer organizations are located or active. The existence of such organizations could also be useful for planning community partnerships 23 Kristen Finnis, “Creating a Resilient New Zealand” (Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Management, New Zealand, 2004), 5 and 10.24 DIPECHO, “School Safety Towards Building Disaster Resilient Schools in Bangladesh” (European Commission of Humanitarian Aid, Bangladesh, 2012), 5-7.25 International Network on the Financial Management of Large-Scale Catastrophes, “Policy Handbook on Natural Hazard Awareness and Disaster Risk Reduction Education” (OECD Report, 2010), 10.

17

and communications strategies prior to emergencies.

Volunteer organizations and community groups can play a crucial role in developing emergency response plans, implementing mitigation strategies, identifying risks and assisting with response and recovery. The extent to which these organizations are active in communities can provide valuable information about existing networks of engaged citizens who can often be called upon to mobilize and assist during and after emergencies.

Political participation is also an indicator of resilience. People and communities who are able and effective at getting their concerns heard by decision-makers may be in a better position to secure help and resources during and after an emergency. Moreover, determining the extent to which individuals do any volunteering on an informal basis (unpaid work or services that were not provided on behalf of an organization) may provide a gauge as to their willingness to assist with preparedness activities in addition to response and recovery operations.

Supporting ResearchResearch from Australia highlighted studies of adaptation to hazard and described “links between individual resilience predictors and involvement in community activities and functions (e.g. membership of clubs or social action groups).”26 The study, and other research, illustrated “the potential for adaptive capacity to be forged and sustained through community engagement in activities concerned with identifying and dealing with local issues.”27 It is widely recognized that the “capacity of the community to adapt to change, to self-organize, act and learn from experience are ultimately factors that enable communities to mobilise their assets and resources.”28

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, two Vietnamese-American neighbourhoods in New Orleans nearest to the Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic (MQVC) church were 80 percent reoccupied by early May 2006. This number increased to 90 percent by June 2006. “This figure is in stark contrast to the U.S. Census Bureau’s mid-2007 estimate, almost two years after the disaster, which reported more than a third of the pre-hurricane residents of New Orleans had not returned to the city.” The rapid return of the Vietnamese-American residents has been attributed to the bond between the MQVC church and its parishioners; a profound attachment to the area by its residents; and the ability of the church to communicate with and mobilize other Vietnamese institutional networks throughout the nation.29

26 D Paton., “Community Resilience: Integrating Hazard Management and Community Engagement” (Paper from the School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Australia, 2005), 16.27 Ibid, 16.28 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,“Expect the Unexpected and Facing Fear: Emergency preparedness in schools,” IFRC, 2004, http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Case%20studies/Disasters/ canada.pdf.29 “Strong Social Network Sped Recovery of Vietnamese Katrina Survivors,” Tamu Times (Texas A&M University, TX), September. 13, 2012.

18

5. Social NetworksTo better understand what role they may play in an emergency or disaster situation, the questions in the Social Networks module ask about respondents’ relatives, friends and neighbours and the availability of support in the event of a major emergency or disaster. More specifically the questions in this module solicit information on the following: Number of family and friends living in the same community as the respondent; socio-demographic make-up of the respondent’s friendship circle and neighbourhood; number of people the respondent could turn to for support (i.e., emotional support, help if they were physically injured, financial assistance) in the event of a major emergency. Social resources and social capital are key factors of community resilience according to 62% of respondents who participated in Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Supporting ResearchAt a household or individual level, social capital can be described as the value of people’s social networks and personal relations.30 Asset-poor households that can rely on friends and family for financial support are not nearly as vulnerable as those without anyone to count on. Social connections are essential for well-being. Without access to social networks, people can miss out on important information (for example, information about impending storms, location of community shelters, available transportation out of town or evacuation plans if necessary) and are unable to fully participate in society.31

Supportive social networks can be an effective buffer against the negative impact of stressful events. There are several ways that supportive relationships can help. For example, research by David C. Glass from the University of Texas, and Jerome Singer from New York State University at Stony Brook has shown that when people feel that they have someone to count on to help, it provides a psychological and emotional boost that can positively affect a person’s perception of a stressful event, irrespective of whether the event itself can be controlled.32 Sherbourne et al. indicated that socially-isolated people are more likely to suffer from depression when under stress, and to remain depressed for longer, than people with strong social support networks.33

According to Aye et al. from a 2011 OECD report, for poor people without adequate financial resources, supportive networks can provide practical and material support in times of need, such as assisting with healthcare expenses34 or providing general cash assistance for everyday survival as was noted by Stack et al.35 While having the support of a social network is important for all people, regardless of income status, studies have shown that poor people tend to rely on their social relationships for help more than the wealthy as the

30 OECD, “OECD Insights: Human Capital” (OECD Report, 2011), 103.31 Ibid32 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), 57.33 Ibid, 57.34 Ibid, 60.35 Ibid

19

research of Boisjoly et al. indicated.36 People with more social engagements tend to report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction, even when controlling for other factors such as marital status, income, gender, age, education, labour market status and health.3738

Social capital is created and maintained through interaction with others but it is often difficult to directly measure the number or the quality of people’s relationships, whether with family or friends. One way of identifying people who lack strong ties is looking at data on frequency of contact and socialising with others.39 In the event of an emergency or disaster situation, the extent to which individuals have pre-existing social networks with relatives, friends and neighbours can determine their ability to adapt to difficult circumstances and sustain and support themselves and others in their community.

For example, the greater one’s social ties, the more likely one is to receive information about recommendations to evacuate.40 Recent research indicates that residents with stronger social support were twice as likely to evacuate when notified to do so. The most important dimension identified by Riad et al. was perceived support (e.g. ability to borrow money, get a ride, have a place to stay), not merely the number of ties.41

The presence of strong networks and lines of communication between the various components and members of a community can be integral to achieving resilience. The Conference Board noted in a recent report that ‘no one component of the network can stand in isolation from the rest of the network. Only a community that is interconnected can be resilient.’42

6. Social Cohesion and Community BelongingThis module questions respondents about the extent to which they feel a part of the society around them. It asks about the degree to which they feel a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood, community, province and Canada. It looks at the ways in which their ethnicity or culture might affect interactions with other people, by asking if it ever makes them feel out of place (in their neighbourhood, community or Canada). Neighbourhood/community belonging and social cohesion is a key factor of community resilience according to 69% of respondents who participated in Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

36 Ibid37 Orsolya Lelkes, “Social participation and social isolation” (Eurostat: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna, 2010), 5.38 Helliwell et al., World Happiness Report (New York: Columbia University), 79.39 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), 63.40 Norris et al, “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness,” American Journal of Psychology, v 41 no. 1-2 (2008): 138.41 Ibid, 137.42 Center for the North, “Getting it Right: Assessing and Building Resilience in Canada’s North” (Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, 2011), 15.

20

Supporting Research“Social cohesion represents the sum of individuals’ willingness to cooperate with each other without coercion in the range of collective activities and institutions necessary for a society to survive and prosper, as well as in the complex set of social relations needed by individuals to complete their life courses.”43 Social cohesion is associated with a number of positive social characteristics. Societies in which there are high levels of income inequality and diminished social cohesion have higher levels of crime and violence and higher mortality rates.44 Social cohesion also acts as a buffer to political and economic changes.45

Community belonging refers to the extent to which an individual feels a part of the society around them. Some of people’s sense of belonging relates to their sense of identity and the extent to which they feel welcome and able to participate in their community. In the event of an emergency, these perceptions are critically important and can influence the way individuals interact with each other and whether or not they choose to cooperate, as each one perceives other community members as competition or a threat. “Simply getting community members to engage and to reflect collectively upon their risk environment builds awareness, social capital, and trust, by strengthening community networks.”46

7. TrustPeople’s level of trust in others and their confidence in public institutions may affect their reactions and decision-making when faced with an emergency or disaster. As such, this module asks respondents, generally, about the degree to which they trust others and in particular, the degree to which they trust people in their neighbourhood. The module also asks respondents about the level of confidence they have in the ability of various institutions to provide effective assistance to meet public needs, in the event of a major emergency or disaster.Trust and confidence in government and local leadership were viewed as key factors of community resilience according to 62% of respondents who participated in the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Supporting ResearchPeople’s level of trust in others and their confidence in public institutions may affect their reactions and decision-making when faced with an emergency or disaster. The level of confidence they have in the ability of various institutions to provide effective assistance to meet public needs in the event of a major emergency or disaster may also play a key role in determining the most effective way of communicating and organizing communities to prepare for or respond in the wake of an emergency. Some research argues that social trust is the best proxy measure of social capital currently available.47 Connected to the issue of

43 Michael Toye, “Social Cohesion: the Canadian Urban Context” (Library of Parliament, Ottawa, 2007), 4.44 Ibid, 5.45 Ibid46 Center for the North, “Getting it Right: Assessing and Building Resilience in Canada’s North” (Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, 2011), iii.47 John Helliwell and Shun Wang, “Trust and Well-being” (Paper prepared for the OECD World Forum, Korea, 2009), 2.

21

social cohesion, people who do not trust others in their own community may be less likely to help them, or receive help from them, in an emergency.

Likewise, in the event of an emergency, if people’s level of trust for first responders, the police or any public authority attempting to communicate the severity or urgency of a situation is low, there is greater risk of the message being ignored or disregarded. All attempts to disseminate information will be in vain if the people receiving it do not trust the message or the sender of the message.48

Moreover, if evacuation is necessary, people with low levels of trust for authorities may be less likely to heed the order, and in turn end up putting their safety and that of first responders in jeopardy. Trust cannot be established on the first day of a disaster, it needs to be built over time. This leads to the conclusion that trusted communication must be planned. Trusted communications not only allow emergency responder organizations to help people build their own resilience, but to help them build their own internal resilience. Trusted communication will allow the organization and individuals within it to adapt more quickly by increasing the potential for change49 and enhancing the adaptive cycle of the organization.50

8. Self-efficacyThe Self-efficacy module asks respondents general questions about how they view their ability to resolve problems and react in an emergency. Civic empowerment and self-efficacy are key factors of community resilience according to half of respondents who participated in the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process. This includes indicators such as the ability to effectively face challenges, problem-solve and manage change.

Supporting ResearchIf an individual feels that there is no way that they can solve their problems and/or that they have little control over the things that happen to them in their daily lives, they will likely feel overwhelmed and will be less likely to take action for themselves in the event of an emergency. Individuals with a stronger sense of self-efficacy are more likely to find innovative solutions to problems, and are less likely to succumb to mental health problems such as depression.51 Moreover, the ability to problem-solve and deal with unanticipated and fluid situations is crucial to adapting and surviving in an emergency.

In addition to resilient institutions and structures, resilient communities are made up of resilient individuals. The level of organization within a community, and its ability to identify

48 Griffin, R. J et al. “Information sufficiency and risk communication” Media Psychology v6 n1, 23-61.49 Berkes, F., and C. Folke, “Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge” (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2002), 121-146.50 Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson “ Resilience and adaptive cycles” (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2002), 25-62.51 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), 8.

22

problems, establish priorities and act, is a critical component of community resilience.52 Resilient communities are endowed with meaningful levels of capacity and self-reliance. By building local capacity and empowering individuals and the broader community, the propensity for institutional dependency is reduced.53

9. Perceived Health and Activity LimitationsSpecial health needs may have significant implications for people when they prepare for or respond to an emergency or disaster. The Perceived Health and Activity Limitations module poses questions about respondents’ general health and any current limitations in their daily activities caused by a long-term health condition or problem. Individual health status is a key factor of community resilience according to 69% of respondents who participated in the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Knowing what proportion of a population may be in need of special assistance is important to first responders for planning and resource allocation purposes. In the event of an emergency, especially a mandatory evacuation, responders need to be able to anticipate how/where to allocate resources to meet expected demands. Some individuals and/or facilities that care for individuals with limitations due to disability or advanced age may require more time and resources to mobilize. Activity limitation/degree of assistance required is an indicator of community resilience according to 62% of respondents who participated in the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process.

Supporting ResearchThe World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Good health is therefore a positive state, not merely the absence of negative indicators.54 Health is central to a person’s ability to make use of his or her education and skills. A person may have unparalleled professional abilities, academic qualifications and work experience, but if they are physically or mentally incapacitated in some way, then their productivity and resilience to shocks is undermined. Furthermore, households with a family member in poor health can face important financial and emotional burdens which can increase the risk of poverty or other adverse outcomes.

“A person’s health status is shaped by a multitude of behaviours, contributing social factors and outcomes. This makes the task of summing up health status to a limited selection of indicators very difficult. One way of dealing with this, according to Miilunpalo et al., is by using data on people’s overall self-reported health status, which is able to capture the

52 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,“Expect the Unexpected and Facing Fear: Emergency preparedness in schools,” IFRC, 2004, http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Case%20studies/Disasters/ canada.pdf.53 Longstaff et al., “Building Resilient Communities: A Preliminary Framework for Assessment,” The Journal of the Naval Postgraduate Center for Homeland Defense and Security VI, no. 3 (2010).54 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), 41.

23

multidimensionality of health status in one indicator and which has been shown to be a relatively good predictor of future health care use and mortality.”55

In the context of emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery, mental illness in the population is a major issue for first responders. A disaster can itself precipitate Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Significant pre-existing mental conditions in a population could intensify PTSD reactions, and make recovery more difficult.56 In addition, there is often a relationship between mental illness and self-efficacy and the ability of individuals to take care of themselves and other dependents for a prolonged period of time in the event of an emergency.

10. Socio-Demographics The module consists of standard questions on the following: age; immigrant status, aboriginal status, population group and visible minority status, religion and religiosity, language, education, vehicle and home ownership, household income. More than three-quarters of respondents from the Phase I – Preliminary consultation process identified the economic health of a community as a key factor of a community’s resilience.

Supporting ResearchSocio-demographic indicators are important determinants that have significant correlations with the ability to survive and thrive in an emergency. Higher levels of education are positively correlated with higher quality of life and income, as measured in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI). Age structure within the community can relate to dependency on others. Immigrant, language competency and ethnic status may highlight areas where future preparedness and response initiatives should target specific messaging.57 In terms of utility, the American Human Development Project used community socio-demographic data related to income, health, and education to predict recovery rates in different neighbourhoods in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.58

The most basic way that people protect themselves against risks and uncertainty about the future is through the accumulation of privately-owned economic assets in the form of money, financial assets, and real assets such as dwellings. While none of these offer absolute resilience against risks, those people that have most of these are better placed than those without to withstand risks in the future.59 For example, if prices for water

55 Ibid, 51.56 Jeffrey T. Mitchell, “Maintaining the Balance: A Strategic Support System For Operations Personnel and Survivors” (NDMS Basic Training Course, United States Public Health Service), 26.57 Betty Hearn Morrow, “Community Resilience: a Social Justice Perspective” (CARRI Research Report #4, Oak Ridge, 2008).58 Patrick Guyer,“ Mapping Population Risks and Resilience Using the American Human Development Index” (presentation, 8th Annual CRHNet Symposium, Ottawa, Ontario, October 19, 2011).59 Kristen Lewis and Sarah Burd-Sharps, “The Measure of America 2010-2011: Mapping Risks and Resilience” (New York: NYU Press, 2010).

24

increase dramatically due to shortages in an emergency, someone with more savings is more likely to be able to buy as much drinking water as they need to survive until prices return to normal, whereas someone with no savings may not be able to afford the same goods at high prices.

The incidence of low-income households in a given community is one of several ways of determining the general health of a community. According to Cutter et al. in a 2011 OECD report, home ownership also serves as a way of determining the financial security of households and there is a positive relationship between homeownership and resilience.60 Those with the highest net worth, or with the ability to access credit, are best able to continue to meet their consumption needs when confronting adverse shocks.61 Moreover, higher rates of home ownership suggest increased security and indirectly, a symbolic investment in the community. Also, if homeowners have insurance, they may be able to either repair the damage to their dwelling, or find a new dwelling. They are not necessarily left homeless the way renters may be.

In terms of education, “better-educated people tend to be healthier, and to have higher paid, more secure jobs. They are also more likely to be satisfied with their housing conditions, to have higher levels of social support, to be more civically engaged, and, to report higher life satisfaction.”62 These individuals are also more likely to possess the types of resources: human capital, economic capital, political capital and social capital that will enable them to adapt and return to a functional level more rapidly after an emergency.

Determining the proportion of the adult population that is literate is very important for emergency communications, as well as people’s capacity to understand what has transpired, what to do, and recognize what is authoritative information. It is also an issue in recovery as some people may not have the capacity to fill out forms for compensation.

Lastly, access to transportation is also key during an evacuation order. Information about what proportion of a community has access to what kind of transportation can be helpful in emergency planning.

Possibilities for the futureSince the beginning of this project, the goal has been to ensure that any data collected will ultimately be made as widely available as possible. Information relating to community resilience could potentially be used in emergency management and planning to address service gaps; inform first responders and frontline workers so that services can be tailored to better meet the needs of populations served, especially more diverse communities; to

60 Morrone, et al., “Measuring Vulnerability and Resilience in OECD Countries” (Paper prepared for the IARIW-OECD Conference on Economic Insecurity, Paris, 2011), 11.61 Ibid, 8.62 Ibid, 34.

25

determine priorities to develop risk and resilience maps; and to develop strategies and allocate resources. Moreover, it could contribute towards working more closely and in parallel with all segments of society (various levels of government, NGOs, first responders, health authorities, and academics) to develop and deliver strategies to improve resilience.

The following represents some of the longer term possibilities for this project, should there be adequate interest from a wide variety of stakeholders and sufficient resources identified:

Make data available and accessible so that policy makers, communities, businesses (such as insurance companies), researchers and individuals can use them to compare where they (or their jurisdictions) are in relation to others, establish priorities for fund and resource allocation, develop emergency management and community safety plans.

o For example, data on protective and precautionary behaviours (module 3 of survey) could be used, by various levels of government, to identify gaps in emergency preparedness and to inform awareness campaigns to improve household preparedness.

Create an integrated risk and resilience (Geographic Information System) GIS63 that overlays the following data: existing Statistics Canada data related to community resilience, as identified in the Community Resilience Descriptive Inventory; results of the survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience, should it be piloted; data from the Canadian Disaster Database; public health data; and Natural Resources Canada natural hazards data.

Develop a composite index of community resilience with a methodologically sound weighting system for indicators as a performance measurement for Public Safety Canada, so that Canada’s progress toward becoming more resilient can be tracked.

63 A geographic information system (GIS) allows users to view, understand, question, interpret, and visualize data in many ways that reveal relationships, patterns, and trends in the form of maps, globes, reports, and charts. A GIS helps answer questions and solve problems by looking at data in a way that is quickly understood and easily shared.

26

Discussion QuestionsThe objective of the Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada is to identify, collect, and make available community-level indicators to assist emergency preparedness and response planning and to inform policy and planning. The discussion questions serve to solicit your input regarding the survey’s content by January 11, 2012. Your input into the survey can improve the usefulness of the data.

Modules 1 to 3 cover risk awareness, prior experience with a major emergency or disaster, and protective and precautionary behaviours. These are new questions formulated by Statistics Canada in consultation with experts. We would like your input into whether these questions, as currently phrased, are useful to you for informational, policy, planning and resource allocation purposes. Are there important items missing? Are there less important items that can be cut?

Modules 4 to 10 deal with some of the other factors identified by experts as key to understanding community resilience: civic engagement, social networks, social cohesion and community belonging, trust, self-efficacy, perceived health and activity limitations, and socio-demographic information. These modules all contain questions that are pulled from a variety of existing Statistics Canada surveys. They have been tested and used in the field, and it is recommended to use them as is, to maintain comparability of data over time. For these modules, we are looking more at suggestions about what can be cut.

A number of limitations need to be taken into account when proposing changes to the survey. First, the survey cannot be made longer because of both cost and response burden. The survey has been tested with 43 respondents in five locations across Canada (in English in Halifax, Toronto, Lethbridge and Calgary and in French in Montreal). The survey has been timed at approximately 20 minutes. Based on the qualitative testing of this survey, Statistics Canada recommends that this survey be kept within 20 minutes. Increasing the length of the survey would not only increase the cost, but would negatively impact response rates. It is therefore important to identify priorities for information, and what could be cut, rather than only suggesting what could be added.

After reviewing the draft Survey of Emergency Preparedness and Resilience in Canada (SEPR), we would appreciate your input regarding the following questions:

Risk awareness (Survey pages 3-4) Does the list of hazards in Question 1 meet the needs of your jurisdictions for

planning purposes? Is there any major hazard missing? Is the distinction between “community” and “neighbourhood” useful?

27

Is the list of information sources in Question 2 comprehensive enough for your purposes? Are there other information sources you would add? If yes, what are they?

The reason why there are separate questions for information sources concerning weather- and non-weather-related hazards in Question 2 is because it is assumed people usually get weather-related information from the same sources, but these may or may not be the ones they might turn to for information about other hazards. Is this useful, or can these two questions be amalgamated into one?

People are frequently unable to identify the source of a public information campaign correctly or at all (i.e. federal government, provincial/territorial government, municipal government, specific NGO, etc.) and may not know the name of a specific public information campaign. Question 3 is currently phrased as awareness of any kind of campaign to do with any of the listed hazards, and would measure whether awareness of any public information campaign to do with hazard protection is reaching the respondent. Is it important for this question to be expanded? If so, in what way?

Prior Experience with a Major Emergency or Disaster (Survey pages 6 - 18) Similar to risk awareness, does the list of hazards in Question 2 reflect the main

hazards you are concerned about in your jurisdiction? Is there any major hazard missing?

Should we be asking respondents about their most recent or most severe prior experience with a major emergency or disaster?

The survey currently asks about experience of an emergency or disaster in Canada only, in order to have Canadian-specific information about the type of help the respondent received. Is this the most useful approach?

Question 7 in this module deals with the degree of disruption to the respondent’s daily activities. Can any of these categories be cut out? If yes, which ones?

Questions 9-12 deal with sources of information or assistance respondents received during an emergency or disaster. Are these information sources sufficient?

Question 13 asks about what type of help the respondent may have provided, and to whom. Is it useful to focus on the strengths and contributions of respondents during emergencies, as well as vulnerabilities?

Questions 14 and 15 ask about long-term impact of, and recovery from, the emergency or disaster. Can these be shortened?

28

Protective and Precautionary Behaviours (Survey pages 18- 25) Of the protective and precautionary behaviours listed in the module, which are your

priorities? Are there priority emergency preparedness behaviours that are not mentioned in the module that would be important to include?

Remaining modules (Survey pages 25- 61) Are there questions that could be cut out in order to shorten the survey? What are

your priorities for these modules and questions?

We would be happy to discuss community resilience measurement issues and answer questions at any time. The deadline for providing input into this survey is January 11, 2012.

Please direct questions and provide input to:James Taylor, Research AnalystJames.Taylor@ps-sp.gc.ca613-990-3979

Thank you for sharing your time and expertise with us.

29