preparedness in scotland

8/3/2019 Preparedness in Scotland

1/35

EMERGENCYPREPAREDNESS INSCOTLAND


2/35

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN SCOTLAND

Catriona West / Angelica LorenzoTNS-BMRB

Scottish Government/British Red Cross28 June 2011

JN220069


3/35

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Background and Objectives 1Method 1Main findings 1

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 4Background 4Objectives 4

2 METHOD AND SAMPLE 53 LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 74 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENT EMERGENCY

SITUATIONS 10Perceived level of preparedness 10Actual Household Preparedness 11Additional ways of keeping warm 15Items available in car for emergencies 16Confidence in first aid skills 17

5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPAREDNESS 196 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 217 CONCLUSIONS 24APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE 26APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION 30APPENDIX 3 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS 31


4/35

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Objectives

The Scottish Government defines Community Resilience as:

Communities and individuals harnessing resources and expertise to helpthemselves prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies, in a way thatcomplements the work of the emergency services.

Both the Scottish Government and the British Red Cross work throughout Scotlandto enhance and strengthen community resilience.

This issue was included in the SNPs 2011 manifesto:

We want to ensure our communities are prepared for and ready to withstand

serious or crisis events. We will, therefore, continue our efforts to promotecommunity and national resilience and work with the British Red Cross to takeforward their proposal for a national resilience week in Scotland.

As previous research into preparedness, as well as awareness of risks and sourcesof information, was most recently undertaken in 2008, the Red Cross and theScottish Government commissioned TNS-BMRB to conduct research with theprincipal objective of assessing the current nature and extent of preparedness inScotland.

Method

The research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS) during theperiod 25th 31st May 2011 and a total of 1,039 interviews were achieved.Interviewing was carried out in 71 of the 73 Scottish Parliament constituenciesacross Scotland. The sample was representative of the adult population of Scotlandin terms of sex, age, employment status and socio-economic group.

Main findings

Whilst a majority overall (67%) were concerned about any of the followingemergency situations: extreme weather, health emergencies, terrorism, animalhealth emergencies and major transport incidents, concern for each specificemergency was relatively low.

The highest level of concern was recorded for emergencies due to extreme weatherwith 54% of respondents feeling concerned about this. Just over a third (35%) saidthey were concerned about health emergencies such as pandemic flu - and thelevels of concern recorded for emergencies caused by animal health, terrorism ormajor transport incidents were at lower levels (at 29%, 28% and 22% respectively).


5/35

2

In line with the moderate levels of concern, the perceived levels of preparednesswere also fairly limited, with just under half of all respondents (46%) saying that theydid not feel prepared to deal with any of these emergencies.

However, the immediacy of extreme weather emergencies in particular as well as

health emergencies was evident with not only higher levels of concern but also betterlevels of preparedness recorded for these two eventualities (40% and 32% preparedrespectively), compared to 10% feeling prepared to deal with emergencies causedby terrorism, 15% for animal health emergencies and 16% for major transportincidents.

It should be noted too that being concerned does not necessarily translate into highlevels of preparedness. Whereas those who claimed to be very/quite concerned,were consistently more likely to be prepared than those who were not concerned, thepercentage claiming to be prepared was still low: in each case: less than half ofthose concerned about each emergency felt prepared to deal with the situation.

The summary table below shows the percentage claiming to be very/quiteconcerned, the percentage claiming to be very/quite prepared and, in the finalcolumn, the percentage prepared amongst those who are concerned for each ofthe five emergency situations.

Situation

Row percentages

Total

percentage of

sample

very/quite

concerned

Total

percentage of

sample

very/quite

prepared

Percentage very/quite

prepared amongst

those also concerned

(with specific

emergency)

Extreme Weather (n = 1039/568) 54 40 46

Health Emergencies ( n =1039/362) 35 32 40

Terrorism ( n= 1039/298) 29 10 11

Animal Health ( n= 1039/316) 30 15 26

Major Transport Incidents ( n=

1039/237)23 15 23

There was a general belief that responsibility for preparedness lay with the individual

(50% stated that they felt personally responsible for ensuring that their family wasprepared for an emergency). However, there was also an expectation for thegovernment (Scottish, UK and also local authorities) to be responsible for helpinghouseholds be ready for an emergency (37% mentioned Scottish Government, 31%local council and 30% UK Government).

The research findings showed fairly high levels of actual preparedness amongScottish households in terms of:

having at least one of the items prompted with to deal with an emergencyin the household (99%);

the majority knowing where they would go for further information about anemergency (95%).


6/35

3

Ability to survive on food and drink supplies already in the home (if without electricity,gas or water) was more mixed, with most (72%) claiming that their household couldlast for a week or less, with a further 16% who claimed they would survive up to twoweeks.

Levels of actual preparedness were lower for motorists, with 75% indicating that theyhad at least one of the listed items that would help in an emergency situation.Moreover fewer than half in each instance claimed to have the specific itemsprompted on: they were most likely to have a working torch (45% of car owners) andleast likely to have a shovel (21% of car owners).

The majority (63%) also indicated that they did not have alternative methods ofheating should their normal method be disconnected.

TV emerged as the channel of communication most likely to be used to find

information in an emergency situation. Secondary channels cited by a reasonablenumber included the internet (25%), the telephone (10%) and the radio (10%).

There was some appetite for further information about how to keep the familyprepared for an emergency with 44% saying they would like to receive this.Furthermore, this increased to 59% among those arguably more in need of thisinformation - that is those who said they were not prepared for any emergency.Interest in receiving information for specific emergencies was however relatively low,ranging from 38% for extreme weather to 27% for animal health emergencies.


7/35

4

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Background

1.1 The Scottish Government has a role in ensuring that people feel secure in

their homes and communities. The Scottish Government's Resilience Divisionprovides practical support to the frontline agencies that deliver fire and rescueservices and emergency planning and response across Scotland. It alsoprovides advice to Scottish Ministers on all aspects of fire and rescue servicesand civil contingencies.

1.2 The Red Cross, as part of the wider voluntary sector, plays a key role inScotland in supporting other emergency services during major incidents andsevere weather. In addition, they provide training in first aid skills and life-saving, promote community safety messages about being prepared foremergencies, and provide resources to help individuals and families become

more resilient.

1.3 In 2008 the Scottish Government conducted research into incidents andemergencies which could affect Scotland. This investigated public awarenessof risks, levels of preparedness and sources of information. The Red Crosshas also previously commissioned research into first aid knowledge andpreparedness. Whilst these pieces of research have provided vitalinformation, there has been no recent research to provide up-to dateinformation on the nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland.

Objectives

1.4 The Scottish Government and the Red Cross therefore commissioned TNS-BMRB to conduct a research project with the principal objective of assessingthe current nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland.

1.5 Specifically, the research aimed to measure:

Which types of emergencies people are most worried about;

How prepared people feel for different kinds of emergencies;

Where people think responsibility for preparedness lies: with individuals, the

wider community, or with government; Where people would go to find out information in the event of an emergency;

What resources they have at home, work or in their cars to help deal withemergencies; and

What information people want to have on preparedness and where they arelikely to look for this.

1.6 This information will allow the Scottish Government and the Red Cross tobetter understand individual, family and household preparedness in Scotland,so that preparedness messages and projects can be developed more

effectively.


8/35

5

2 METHOD AND SAMPLE

2.1 The research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS). TheSOS is a monthly omnibus survey conducted in-home amongst a sample ofaround 1,000 adults in Scotland using Computer Aided Personal Interviewing

(CAPI). The SOS uses a quota sampling methodology and interviewers use arandom route technique within each sampling point to select addresses.Only one interview per household is permitted.

2.2 For this research, fieldwork took place during the period 25th 31st May 2011and a total of 1,039 interviews were achieved. Interviewing was carried out in71 of the 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies across Scotland. This samplewas representative of the adult population in terms of sex, age, employmentstatus and socio-economic group (SEG)1.

2.3 As is the case each month, the achieved sample was weighted2 to ensure that

it represents Scotlands population and is consistent between waves shouldfuture tracking be required.

2.4 The weighting applied on sex, age and SEG is based on population estimatesfrom the BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board) EstablishmentSurvey 2 Years Ending December 2008 and the 2001 Census. Table 2.1overleaf outlines the composition of the sample for the SOS in May 2011.

1The standard six socio-economic (SEG) or social grades, commonly used in research, are based on the current

or previous occupation of the chief income earner in the household. AB includes higher and intermediate

managerial, administrative and professional occupations, C1 includes supervisory or clerical, and junior

managerial, administrative or professional occupations, C2 includes skilled manual workers whilst DE includes

semi and unskilled occupations, state pensioners and the long-term unemployed.2

Weighting is the process by which data are adjusted to reflect the known population profile. This is to counter

any effects of differential refusal rates, interviewers falling short on particular quotas, or to correct for any over-sampling of minority populations. A 'weight' is the percent assigned to a particular criterion. If this is not carried

out then the results will not properly reflect the views of the population being considered.


9/35

6

Table 2.1 - Sample profileBase: All respondents (1,039)

Unweighted

(1039)

%

Weighted

(1039)

%

Male 45 48SEX:

Female 55 52

16-24 11 14

25-34 12 15

35-44 17 18

45-54 18 18

55-64 17 15

AGE:

65+ 26 20

AB 23 20

C1 27 27

C2 20 22

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

GROUP:

DE 31 31

Yes 30 33CHILDREN


10/35

7

3 LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCYSITUATIONS

3.1 At the start of the survey, respondents were asked to rate their level ofconcern about different emergency situations happening in the next five

years, namely: Emergencies caused by extreme weather for example storms, flood,

heavy snow or heatwaves;

Health emergencies for example pandemic flu where virus spreads on aworldwide scale and infects many people of which a large number die;

Emergencies caused by terrorism for example explosions, chemical orbiological attacks;

Animal health emergencies for example foot and mouth disease or birdflu; and

Major transport incidents for example a plane crash or train derailment.

The results obtained for each emergency situation are shown in the figurebelow (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Level of concernQ1.How concerned are you that you personally, or your local area, might be affected by each ofthese emergencies in the next 5 years?

Base: All respondents (1039)

3.2 Overall a majority (67%) of the sample indicated that they were concernedwith at least one of the five emergency situations. The groups most likely tobe concerned were:

females (71% being concerned about any of the emergencies vs. 62%males);

those aged 65+ (73% vs 65% of under 44s ); and

those with a serious illness/ disability (73% vs. 65% without).

2232

4136

45

24

32

3034

3240

2620 21

16

14 9 8 86

Emergencies

caused by

extremeweather

Health

emergencies

Emergencies

caused by

terrorism

Animal health

emergencies

Major

transport

incidents

%

Very concerned

Quite concerned

Not very concerned

Not concerned at all


11/35

8

3.3 However, levels of concern varied significantly across the different situations.The highest level of concern recorded was in regard to emergencies due toextreme weather, at 54%. This figure increased to 60% amongst 55-64 yearsolds, whereas significantly fewer 16-24 years olds claimed to be concernedabout this (45%). Females were also significantly more likely to be concerned

than males, at 59% and 48% respectively. Moreover, some 14% claimed tobe very concerned about this situation, compared to less than 10% for allother emergency situations.

3.4 The next highest level of concern was recorded for health emergencies,although the proportion concerned about this situation was much lower thanfor extreme weather, at just over a third (35%). Differences in SEG weremost in evidence in this context, with levels of concern ranging from 27% and31% for ABs and C1s respectively, to 41% and 40% for C2s and DEsrespectively.

3.5 The figures recorded for emergencies caused by animal health and terrorismwere at even lower levels, with some 29% and 28% respectively claiming tobe concerned. At just over a fifth (22%), the lowest level of concern wasrecorded for major transport incidents.

3.6 Whilst there were no significant trends according to demographic differencesfor these three emergency situations, the markedly higher and strong level ofconcern in the South with animal health emergencies is noteworthy: 40%rated themselves as concerned, with some 19% very concerned, with animalhealth emergencies in this region of Scotland. The Foot and Mouth outbreakin the 2001 arguably has had a major impact on views towards animal health

in this area.

3.7 It should also be noted that across all situations those with a disability/illnesswere more likely to be concerned that those without, and significantly so inrelation to health, animal health, terrorism and transport emergency situations.

3.8 On average, respondents rated themselves as concerned with only just under2 (1.7) out of the five emergencies. Reflecting the findings noted above,females, older respondents, C2DEs and those with an illness/ disability weremore likely to be concerned about a higher number of emergencies. Fulldetails can be seen on Figure 3.2 overleaf.


12/35

9

Figure 3.2: Average number of emergencies concerned aboutQ1.How concerned are you that you personally, or your local area, might be affected by each ofthese emergencies in the next 5 years?

Base: All in each subgroup

3.9 In terms of age, whilst the number of concerns broadly increases as the ageof respondent increases, it is those in the 55-64 age group rather than the

over 65s who had the highest number of concerns.

1.7

1.6

1.8

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.5

1.6

1.8

1.8

2.1

1.6

Total (1039)

Male (463)

Female (576)

16-24 (110)

25-34 (125)

35-44 (179)

45-54 (184)

55-64 (176)

65+ (265)

AB (239)

C1 (277)

C2 (203)

DE (320)

Illness / disability (277)

No illness / disability (762)

Average number of emergencies concerned about

(maximium of 5)


13/35

10

4 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENTEMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Perceived level of preparedness

4.1 In order to gauge preparedness, respondents were asked to rate their level ofpreparedness with each of the five emergency situations on a four point ratingscale, ranging from very prepared to not all prepared. The results for eachare shown in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Perceived level of preparednessQ2: Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies?


4.2 In line with the different levels of concern recorded, perceived levels ofpreparedness also varied across the five emergency situations, ranging from40% to 10%. Arguably, given the immediacy of extreme weather in particular(severe conditions last took place in winter 2010/2011) and also healthemergencies, albeit to a lesser extent (with the last flu pandemic outbreaktaking place in 2009), respondents appear to feel better prepared for both of

these (40% and 32% respectively indicated they were prepared).

4.3 By contrast only 10% claimed to be prepared for emergencies caused byterrorism, with the preparedness figures for animal health emergencies andtransport incidents also at low levels, at 15% and 16% respectively.

4.4 Overall 46% of respondents indicated that they were not very or not at allprepared forany of the five emergency situations. Moreover despite beingmore concerned overall, this figure of un-preparedness was higher amongstfemales (50%) than males (41%). On the other hand, the opposite was trueof the 55-64s, who recorded the most widespread concern, as they also

emerged as the most prepared. Some 62% were quite or very prepared for at

2 3 4 3

2634

5952 55

32

32

2830 26

3628

8 13 13

4 4 2 2 3

1

Emergencies

caused by

extreme

weather

Health

emergencies

Emergencies

caused by

terrorism

Animal health

emergencies

Major

transport

incidents

%

Very prepared

Quite prepared

Not very prepared

Not prepared at all

Don't know


14/35

11

least one emergency compared to 47% of 25-34s, who recorded the lowestlevel of preparedness across all five situations.

4.5 Whilst the findings do suggest that preparedness is higher for thoseemergency situations that cause the most concern, many of those who

expressed concern indicated that they were not very or not all prepared todeal with the situation. In each case, less than half of those concerned abouteach emergency indicated that they were very or quite prepared to cope withit. Specifically:

46% of those concerned about emergencies caused by extreme weathersaid they were very/quite prepared to deal with it;

40% of those concerned about health emergencies were very/quiteprepared for it;

26% of those concerned about animal health emergencies were very/quiteprepared for it;

23% of those concerned about major transport incidents were very/quite

prepared for it; and Only 11% of those concerned about terrorism were very/quite prepared for

it.

Actual Household Preparedness

4.6 To assess the actual level of preparedness of households when confrontedwith an emergency situation a number of different measures were employed.

4.7 Firstly, respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which of a series ofitems they either had available or knew how to access to help them in an

emergency. The results are shown in Figure 4.2.


15/35

12

Figure 4.2: Knowledge about / Items readily available to face an emergencyQ5: I am now going to read out a number of statements about your household and for each statement

I would like you to give me a yes or no answer if it is applicable to your household. Do you?


*NB: Excludes those who said not applicable

4.8 The vast majority (99%) gave an affirmative response to at least one of the

items, with most mentions recorded for friends or neighbours to turn to (92%).High levels of availability/access were also recorded for knowing where to turnoff the propertys power supply (86%), having a working torch (83%), havingprescription medication to hand (82%) and knowing where to turn off thepropertys water supply (81%).

4.9 Fewer by comparison claimed to have an up-to-date first aid kit, at 65%, andonly half and slightly less than half respectively indicated that they had snowshovel and grit, and a hard copy list of emergency contact numbers.

4.10 On average, respondents gave a positive answer to 5.7 out of the 8

statements. This was higher among males, ABC1C2s, those living in ruralareas and those with a serious illness/disability. Figure 4.3 overleaf shows afull breakdown for the key demographic sub-groups of interest.

92

86

83

82

81

65

50

47

...have any friends or neighbours to turn

to

...know where to turn off your property's

power supply in an emergency

...have a working torch that you could

find in your home

...have your prescription medicines to

hand in the event of emergency*

...know where to turn off your property's

water supply

...have an up to date first aid kit in yourhome

...have a snow shovel and supply of grit

...have a hard copy list of emergency

contact numbers

% saying 'yes'

Do you?


16/35

13

Figure 4.3: Average number of positive responses about items / knowledge toface an emergencyQ5: I am now going to read out a number of statements about your household and for each statement

I would like you to give me a yes or no answer if it is applicable to your household. Do you?


4.11 Differences on this measure are particularly pronounced according to age,with the youngest age group recording lower availability/access or knowledge

of these items with the main exception of having friends/neighbours to help.

4.12 Positively, those who indicated that they felt prepared for an emergency (i.e.saying they were very or quite prepared to at least one of the emergencieslisted), were in fact more likely to be prepared giving a higher number ofaffirmative responses than those who indicated that they were not prepared(6.2 vs. 5.2 among those who were not very or not at all prepared for any ofthe emergencies listed).

Length of survival on food and drink supplies

4.13 Respondents were also asked how long they thought their household couldsurvive on food and drink supplies without shopping if they had no electricity,gas or water.

4.14 Most (72%) claimed that their household could last for a week or less.Specifically, 33% said they could survive for 1 to 3 days, 12% for 4-6 daysand 26% for 7 days. A smaller proportion believed they could survive forlonger: 12% for up to two weeks, 2% for up to three weeks, 3% for a monthand 3% for longer than a month. Only 1% of respondents said they could notsurvive a single day without shopping if they did not have an electricity, gas or

water supply.

5.7

5.9

5.5

4.6

5.1

5.7

6.2

6.0

5.8

6.0

5.3

5.6

6.1

5.9

5.7

Total (1039)

Male (463)

Female (576)

16-24 (110)

25-34 (125)

35-44 (179)

45+ (625)

AB (239)

C1 (277)

C2 (203)

DE (320)

Urban (708)

Rural (331)

Illness / disability (277)

No illness / disability (762)

Average number of positive responses

(maximium of 8)


17/35

14

4.15 As shown in Table 4.1 the results varied by age, with younger age groupstending to state their household would survive for a shorter period of time thanolder groups. For example, 40% of 16-24s stated their household couldsurvive for 1-3 days, which decreased steadily with age to 28% of those aged65 and over. Conversely, 10% of those aged 55 and over stated they could

survive for over 14 days, significantly higher than 4% of those aged 16-34. Itshould be noted, however, that the group which was most likely to believe thatthey could survive for over two weeks was those aged 45-54 (13%).

Table 4.1Number days household could survive by ageQ7: For how many days do you think your household could survive on food and drink supplies already

in the home without shopping if you had no electricity, gas or water?


Total

(1,039

Age

Number ofdays

16-24(110)

25-34(125)

35-44(179)

45-54(184)

55-64(176)

65+(265)

0 1 3 1 - 1 1 -

1-3 33 40 35 35 30 30 28

4-7 38 36 43 42 38 31 37

8-10 5 1 7 3 5 6 4

11-14 12 8 9 12 11 16 15

14+ 8 5 3 4 13 11 10

Dont know 4 6 2 4 2 3 7

4.16 Table 4.2 shows the results of this question for other relevant sub-groups.Those living in urban areas were significantly more likely than those in ruralareas to claim they could survive for 1-3 days (36% vs. 24% respectively) withrural dwellers significantly more likely to survive for more than 14 days (11%vs. 7% amongst those in urban areas). Those with an illness or disability alsotended to state they would survive for longer, with 15% of this group able tosurvive for more than 14 days (vs. 6% of those without an illness /disability).Those with children in the household were slightly less prepared than thosewithout, with this group significantly more likely to state they would survive for1-3 days (39% vs 30% of those without children).


18/35

15

Table 4.2Number days household could survive by sub-groupQ7: For how many days do you think your household could survive on food and drink supplies already

in the home without shopping if you had no electricity, gas or water?


Total

(1,039

Urban / Rural Illness /

Disability

Children in

Household

Number of

days

Urban

(708)

Rural

(331)

Yes

(277)

No

(762)

Yes

(307)

No

(732)

0 1 1 * 1 1 * 1

1-3 33 36 24 29 34 39 30

4-7 38 37 41 31 40 40 37

8-10 5 4 5 4 5 5 4

11-14 12 11 15 13 12 7 14

14+ 8 7 11 15 6 6 9

Dont know 4 5 4 7 3 3 5

Additional ways of keeping warm

4.17 When respondents were asked whether they had an additional way ofkeeping warm if their normal method of heating (e.g. central heating /electricity / mains gas) was disconnected, around a third (37%) indicated thatthey had an alternative method. . The remainder, almost two in three (62%),on the other hand, said that they had no other form of heating.

4.18 Access to an alternative method of heating was highest among ABs (53% vs39% of C1s, 35% of C2s and 27% of DEs), those living in rural areas (50% vs32% urban) and amongst those who were prepared for an emergency (44%vs 29% those not prepared).

4.19 Additionally, the survey sought to establish the nature of the alternativemethods of heating amongst those who had this available, and the mainresponses are provided in Figure 4.5 below.

Figure 4.5: Alternative methods of heating

25

22

22

16

14

9

4

2

2

Electric fan heater

Calor gas heater

Blankets

Electric radiator

Coal fire

Wood burning stove

Halogen heater

Generator

Solar panels

Other

Don't know

%

*

*


19/35

16

Q8: What alternative method(s) of heating would you be using?

Base: All who have additional ways of keeping themselves warm (404)

4.20 Most commonly, reference was made to electric fan heaters, calor gasheaters and blankets each mentioned by around 20% of those with analternative heating method. Slightly lower, but nevertheless sizeablenumbers, mentioned an electric radiator (16%), coal fire (14%), and a woodburning stove, with all other sources cited by less than 5%.

4.21 Whilst there were few significant differences by demographic variables on thismeasure, partly reflecting the reduced sample size at this filtered question, thefollowing are noteworthy:

Under 34s were much more likely to mention blankets (39% versus

18% of 45-54s, 14% of 55-64s and 9% of over 65s); 35-44s and 45-54s were much more likely to mention wood burning

stove (13% and 14% respectively vs. 3% of under 34s and 4% of over65s)

ABs more likely to mention wood burning stove (14% vs. 4% forC2DEs).

Items available in car for emergencies

4.22 Respondents were also asked to select from a list of options, those items theyhad in their car. Among those who owned a car (n=752), the majority (75%)had at least one of the items listed however relatively few had each individual

item:

45% had a working torch,

41% had a blanket ,

39% had a bottle of drinking water,

37% had an up to date first aid kit ,

21% had a shovel.

4.23 There was little variation by gender on this measure with the exception of aworking torch, which males were significantly more likely to have than females(53% vs. 37%). With regards to age, younger respondents (those aged

under 34 years) were less likely to have each of the listed items with theexception of a bottle of drinking water. Moreover around a third (35%) of theunder 34s claimed to have none of these items compared to around a fifth(22%) of those aged 35 and over. Also with the exception of a bottle ofdrinking water ABs were most likely to have each of the items, and thesefigures were significantly higher than those recorded for DEs.

4.24 As seen on previous measures, those who indicated that they were preparedfor an emergency (and owned a car, n=454), were more likely to answerpositively. On this measure some 81% claimed to have at least one item inthe car compared to 66% of those who were not very/not at all prepared for

any emergency situation.


20/35

17

Confidence in first aid skills

4.25 Confidence about using first aid skills in an emergency situation wasmoderate, with 61% in total saying they felt confident in doing so 25% fully

confident and 36% somewhat confident. The full results are shown in thefigure overleaf (Figure 4.6).


21/35

18

Figure 4.6: Confidence about using first aid skills in an emergency situationQ6: How confident would you be using first aid skills in an emergency situation?


4.26 Confidence in first aid skills differs significantly according to demographics.Specifically it increased in line with age, from 60% of 16-24s to 73% and 71%of those aged 35-44 and 45-55 respectively, before falling away to a muchlower level of 41% amongst the over 65s. Reflecting these age differences

confidence in using first aid skills was also much higher amongst thosehouseholds with children (71% vs. 56% of those without children). Therewere also significant differences according to SEG, with DEs much less likelyto feel confident than other groups: 51% versus 66%, 62% and 67% of C2s,C1s and ABs respectively.

25

36

25

14

1

Very confident

Somewhat

confident

Not very confident

Not at all confident

Don't know

%


22/35

19

5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPAREDNESS

5.1 In order to establish where responsibility for preparedness is perceived to lie,

respondents were asked to state who they thought was responsible forensuring their household was prepared for an emergency. The results wereobtained in two stages with first mentions recorded separately from any othermentions of other people or entities that might also be felt responsible. Thefigure below shows the results for both parts of this question (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Responsibility for ensuring household preparedness for anemergencyQ3: Who do you think is responsible for ensuring you and your family are prepared for an

emergency? RECORD FIRST MENTION SEPARATELY. Who else do you think is responsible?


5.2 Spontaneously, most first mentions related to the respondent themselves

feeling responsible (at 42%), followed some way behind by ScottishGovernment (17%), UK Government (13%) and Local council (11%).

5.3 At a total level, when combining first and other mentions, a similar patternemerged, with 50% of respondents believing themselves to be responsible,compared to broadly similar levels of around a third for Scottish Government,Local council and the UK Government.

5.4 By contrast relatively few considered other authorities such as the emergencyservices (12%) or the police (9%)3 to be responsible. Likewise, only a small

3Other codes not shown in Figure 3.4 were also mentioned at 2% or less. Full details available on data

tabulations.

42

17

11

13

2

3

2

8

20

20

18

10

7

7

50

37

31

30

12

9

9

'Me' (respondent)

Scottish Government

Local council

UK Government

Emergency services

(general)

Someone else in the

household

Police%

First mentions Other mentions Total mentions


23/35

20

minority (9%) indicated that they felt responsibility lay with someone else inthe household, although this figure increased to 19% amongst those aged 16-24 years.

5.5 In terms of other demographic differences, those most likely to feel personally

responsible were those with children in the household (58% vs. 46% amongstthose with no children) and those with a serious illness/disability (53% vs.39% without a serious illness/disability`). Those living in rural areas weremore likely to say that the local council was responsible for ensuring thathouseholds are prepared for an emergency (39% vs. 28% urban), whereasthose in urban areas were more likely to cite the UK Government as beingresponsible (33% vs. 22% rural).


24/35

21

6 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Sources of information likely to used in any emergency

6.1 To provide information on the channels of communication that would be used

in emergency situations, respondents were also asked how they would firstobtain information in an emergency situation about what was happening.Encouragingly, the vast majority were able to say where they would go (95%mentioned a source of information) and the full results are shown in the figurebelow (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Where would you obtain information in emergency situation firstQ4: In an emergency situation which affected you, how would you obtain information on what was

happening first?


6.2 Responses on this measure were fairly diverse, with no strong consensusemerging. The TV was the most commonly cited channel for obtaininginformation, although not by a majority (43%). TV was more likely to be citedas a source of information by: DEs (50% vs 37% ABC1s, 43% C2s), those

living in urban areas (45% vs 36% rural) and, in line with the SEG profile, alsoby those who indicated that they had a serious illness/disability (49% vs. 40%no serious illness/disability).

6.3 Online sources were also quite prominent, with a quarter (25%) saying theywould use sources such as government / council / police websites (9%) orother internet sources (16%). In line with the profile of online users, internetusage as a source of information was higher among younger respondents (c.30% for those under 55 years old vs 21% 55-64 and just 7% 65+).

6.4 These figures are considerably higher than the level of mentions recorded for

the radio: just 10% cited the radio as the first port of call. Similarly the phonewas referenced by 10% in total. Specifically some 7% indicated that they

43

16

10

9

7

4

3

1

1

1

1

5

25

17

10

TVOther internet sources

Radio

Government / council / police websites

Phone Government / council / police

Family or friends

Emergency telephone helpline

Phone somewhere else

Press / Newspapers

Go in person to Government / council / police

Go in person somewhere else

Other

Don't know

Any internet sources

Any Government / council / police

Any phone

%

*


25/35

22

would telephone the Government / council / police (7%), 3% an emergencyhelpline (3%) and somewhere else (1%).

6.5 Overall 17% said they would contact Government / council / police (9% viawebsites, 7% using the phone and 1% in person). This varied little by

demographics, although those aged 65 and over were more likely to statethey would contact these entities by phone (13%). Those who claimed to beprepared for any of the given emergencies were also significantly more likelyto turn to these organisations first than those who are unprepared (19% vs.14% respectively).

Interest in receiving further information on being prepared for emergencies

6.6 To provide guidance on the particular emergency situations which peoplewould be interested in receiving further information on, respondents were

asked whether they would like to receive further information about how tokeep their family prepared for a series of different emergencies. The resultsobtained are shown in the figure below (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2: Interest in receiving further information about how to keep yourfamily prepared for emergenciesQ10: Would you be interested in receiving further information about how to keep your family prepared

for any of the following emergencies?


38

36

29

28

27

56

Emergencies caused by extreme weather

Health emergencies

Emergencies caused by terrorism

Major transport incidents

Animal health emergencies

None of these

%

6.7 Overall, slightly less than half the sample (44%) expressed interest inreceiving further information on any of the listed emergencies. Interest wasslightly higher for information relating to emergencies caused by extremeweather (38%) and health emergencies (36%), the types of emergency whichwere most likely to cause concern, than for emergencies caused by terrorism

(29%), animal health emergencies (27%) or major transport incidents (28%).


26/35

23

6.8 Not surprisingly, those who were not concerned about any of theseemergencies were significantly less likely to say that they would be interestedin receiving further information: 28% expressed interest compared to 52%among those who were concerned about at least one of the eventualitieslisted.

6.9 However the results also showed that whereas some 46% of those whoindicated that they were prepared for any of the emergencies would beinterested in receiving more information, these figures dropped further to 41%amongst those who were not very/not at all prepared for any emergency.Moreover interest in information on each of the emergency situations washigher, and significantly so for three out the five emergencies, amongst thosewith some level of preparedness compared to those with little or nopreparedness.

6.10 There were no other significant differences on this measure.


27/35

24

7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Overall levels of concern about emergencies due to extreme weather, publichealth, animal health, terrorism and major transport incidents ranged frommoderate to slight. Comparatively, and presumably reflecting the greater

immediacy of extreme weather and health emergencies, respondentsappeared to feel not only more concerned but also better prepared for boththese situations, and in particular for extreme weather.

7.2 However not only was the level of perceived preparedness recorded relativelylow across all situations, including the weather, but it was also low amongstthose who had claimed to be concerned. Accordingly it cannot be assumedthat simply raising awareness that these situations may occur and therebyheightening concerns, will lead to increased recognition of the need to havethe necessary resources/plans in place.

7.3 In terms of prioritising those who appeared to be more vulnerable, i.e. thosewho had indicated that they felt less prepared to deal with an emergency, thisshould include women, DEs and older people.

7.4 Whilst there was recognition that the individual bears responsibility for beingprepared, a lack of preparedness might also partly be explained by theexpectation amongst many that responsibility lies with government UK,Scottish or local. Each of these layers of government was mentioned byaround a third of respondents, and for some one in ten each was also theirtop of mind response, when asked to specify who was responsible.

7.5 Interestingly, although most thought themselves unprepared for specificemergency situations, the findings were more positive with regard to actuallevels of preparedness, at least with regard to knowledge and access to itemsthat might be used in the household and in terms of the number of days thatcould be survived on existing food and drink supplies. Specifically, over 80%of respondents indicated that they had friends or neighbours they could turnto, knowledge of where to turn off the power supply, a working torch theycould find in the home and knowledge of where to turn off the water supply.Also, on average, respondents indicated that in the home they had access to5.7 out of the 8 items they were tested on.

7.6 The findings were less positive though in terms of being able to keep warm ifthe normal method of heat was disconnected. Only slightly over a thirdindicated that they could keep warm using other sources of heat, thushighlighting that the majority do not have alternative methods of heatingavailable.

7.7 Also, by comparison, motorists appeared to be less prepared thanhouseholders, as the majority of car owners indicated that they did not haveeach of a torch, blanket, drinking water, first aid kit or shovel. Arguably someof these items, and especially the shovel, might be more connected withwinter weather, and therefore not considered necessary at this time of theyear. Nevertheless, the findings highlighted that essential items for copingwith emergency situations were missing from the majority of cars in Scotland.


28/35

25

7.8 Skill levels with first aid could also be considerably improved upon as lessthan two thirds of the sample claimed to have any confidence in using suchskills in an emergency. Furthermore, around one in seven said they wouldnot have any confidence at all in using first aid in an emergency.

7.9 Reflecting levels of concern across the five emergencies, 44% of the sampleindicated an interest in receiving further information on any of the listedemergencies. Interest was highest for those types of emergency where therewas the greatest level of concern, i.e. emergencies caused by extremeweather (38% interested) and health emergencies (36%).

7.10 Given that many of the measures employed in the survey form a key part ofthe TNS behaviour change approach4, we would suggest the following: withthe exception of extreme weather which did impact upon many areas ofScotland last winter, the perceived threat, and visibility of a threat, from theseemergency situations is currently low for most. Likewise, the absence of any

personal experience of these scenarios, regardless of the true probabilities ofthem occurring, is also likely to be influencing both the levels of concern andthe interest in being better prepared. The route to achieving behaviourchange therefore perhaps lies in communicating that, at relatively low cost,there are huge benefits to be realised for individuals, family and friends, andindeed other members of the community, from being well prepared.

4TNS uses the latest thinking in behavioural theory and behavioural economics to underpin a

pragmatic, systematic approach to behaviour change research an approach that works in the real

world to help develop and implement successful behaviour changes programmes, and to evaluate the

effectiveness of these programmes in a way that makes sense. TNS has synthesised the numerous

behavioural models into one simpler model the TNS Beliefs Framework. This uses six categories ofbeliefs (costs and benefits, efficacy, social norms, legitimacy, habit and morality) as a check list for

the types of measures that should be included in the formative research programme,


29/35

26

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE

Moving on to a different topic now

ASK ALL

SHOWSCREENQ1 How concerned are you that you personally, or your local area, might be affected by

each of these emergencies in the next 5 years?

READ OUT AND CODE FOR EACH. ORDER ROTATED

Emergencies caused by extreme weather- for example storms, floods, heavy snow or heatwaves

Health emergencies for example pandemic flu where a virus spreads on a worldwide scale and

infects many people of which a large number die

Emergencies caused by terrorism for example explosions, chemical or biological attacks

Animal health emergencies for example foot and mouth disease or bird flu

Major transport incidents for example a plane crash or train derailment

INVERT SCALE

Very concerned

Quite concerned

Not very concerned

Not concerned at all

(Dont Know)

ASK ALL

SHOWSCREEN

Q2 Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies?

READ OUT AND CODE FOR EACH. ONLY READ EXAMPLES IF NEEDEDORDER ROTATED

Emergencies caused by extreme weather- for example storms, floods, heavy snow or heatwaves

Health emergencies for example pandemic flu where a virus spreads on a worldwide scale and

infects many people of which a large number dieEmergencies caused by terrorism for example explosions, chemical or biological attacks

Animal health emergencies for example foot and mouth disease or bird flu

Major transport incidents for example a plane crash or train derailment

INVERT SCALE

Very prepared

Quite prepared

Not very prepared

Not prepared at all

(Dont Know)

ASK ALL

Q3 Who do you think is responsible for ensuring you and your family are prepared for an

emergency?

RECORD FIRST MENTION.

Q3b Who else do you think is responsible?

PROBE FULLY: Any others?

DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT SHOWSCREEN. MULTICODE


30/35

27

INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT SAYS GOVERNMENT, PROBE FOR UK OR SCOTTISH

Me

Someone else in my household

Local council

Emergency services (general)

Scottish Government

First Minister Alex SalmondUK Government

Prime Minister David Cameron

The military / army

MI5 / MI6

COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room A)

Police

A group of experts / unspecified assembly

Other (specify)

(Dont Know)

ASK ALL

Q4 In an emergency situation which affected you, how would you obtain information onwhat was happening first?

DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT SHOWSCREEN. SINGLE CODE.

TV

Radio

Press/Newspapers

Government / council / police websites

Other Internet sources (non Government / council / police)

Emergency telephone helpline

Phone Government / council / police

Phone somewhere / someone else (specify who)

Go in person to Government / council / police

Go in person somewhere else (specify where)

Family or friends

Other (specify)

(Dont Know)

ASK ALLQ5 I am now going to read out a number of statements about your household, and foreach statement I would like you to give me a yes or no answer, if it is applicable to yourhousehold.

Do you

READ OUT.

ROTATE STATEMENTS

have a hard copy list of emergency contact numbers

have a working torch that you could find in your home

have a snow shovel and supply of grit

have an up to date first aid kit in your home

have your prescription medicines to hand in the event of an emergency

know where to turn off your power supply (gas and/or electricity) in an emergency

know where to turn off your propertys water supply in an emergency

have any friends or neighbours to turn to in an emergency

Yes

No

(Dont know)(Not applicable)


31/35

28

ASK ALLQ6 How confident would you be about using first aid skills in an emergency situation?

INTERVIEWER IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE FIRST AID SKILLS, SAY YOUUNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WOULD LIKE THEM TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND TELL YOU

HOW CONFIDENT THEY WOULD BE.READ OUT

Fully confident

Somewhat confident

Not very confident

Not at all confident

(Dont Know)

ASK ALLQ7 For how many days do you think your household could survive on food and drinksupplies already in the home without shopping if you had no electricity, gas or water supply?INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT GIVES TIME IN WEEKS, CONVERT THIS INTO DAYS e.g. 1week=7 days, 2 weeks=14 days, 4 weeks=28 days

COLLECT NUMBER OF DAYS AS NUMERICDont know

ASK ALLQ8 If your normal method of heating e.g. central heating / electricity / mains gas isdisconnected, do you have any additional ways of keeping yourself warm?READ OUT. SINGLE CODE

Yes, have other forms of heating

No, no other forms of heating(Dont know)

IF YESQ8a What alternative method(s) of heating would you be using? PROBE: Any others?DO NOT SHOWSCREEN. DO NOT READ OUTMULTICODESolar panels (to generate electricity for heating)Wind turbine (to generate electricity for heating)Coal fireWood burning stoveHalogen heaterElectric fan heaterElectric radiatorGeneratorCalor gas heaterBlanketsOther (specify)(Dont know)

ASK ALL

SHOWSCREENQ9 Which of these items, if any, do you have in your car? PROBE: Any others?MULTICODE. ROTATE.

Working torch

An up to date first aid kit

A blanket

A bottle of drinking water

A shovel

(None of these)

(Dont have a car)(Dont know)


32/35

29

ASK ALL

SHOWSCREENQ10 Would you be interested in receiving further information about how to keep your familyprepared for any of the following emergencies? PROBE: Any others?MULTICODE. ROTATE.

Emergencies caused by extreme weatherHealth emergencies

Emergencies caused by terrorism

Animal health emergencies

Major transport incidents

(None of the above)

ASK ALLQ11 What is your ethnic group?

WHITE (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE)

Scottish

English

Welsh

Northern Irish

British

Irish

Gypsy / traveller

Polish

Other

MIXED OR MULTIPLE ETHNIC GROUPS (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE)

Any mixed or multiple ethnic groups

ASIAN, ASIAN SCOTTISH OR ASIAN BRITISH (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE)

Pakistani, Pakistani Scottish or Pakistani British

Indian, Indian Scottish or Indian British

Bangladeshi, Bangladeshi Scottish or Bangladeshi British

Chinese, Chinese Scottish or Chinese BritishOther

AFRICAN, CARIBBEAN OR BLACK (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE)

African, African Scottish or African British

Caribbean, Caribbean Scottish or Caribbean British

Black, Black Scottish or Black British

Other

OTHER ETHNIC GROUP (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE)

Arab

Other

ASK ALLQ12 Do you have any long term illness, health problems or disability which limits your dailyactivities or the work that you can do?

Yes

No

(Refused)


33/35

30

APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Client British Red Cross

Conducted by TNS-BMRB

Objectives

The principal objective of the research is to asses the current nature and extentof preparedness in Scotland.

Specifically, the research aimed to measure:

Which types of emergencies people are most worried about;

How prepared people feel for different kinds of emergencies;

Where people think responsibility for preparedness lies: with individuals,the wider community, or with government;

Where people would go to find out information in the event of anemergency;

What resources they have at home, work or in their cars to help deal with

emergencies; What information people want to have on preparedness and where they

are likely to look.

Samplingmethod

The Scottish Omnibus Survey (SOS) was the vehicle of data collection. The SOSis designed to be representative of the adult population of Scotland aged 16+.

This is achieved, firstly, by stratifying by the 8 Scottish Parliament electoralregions in order to provide geographic representation. Population data is thenused to determine the correct number of sample points required in each region.

At this wave, interviews conducted across 61 constituencies.

Interviewers are provided with block of addresses to ensure that all interviewsare conducted within the correct sample point.

A quota-sampling methodology is used, with quotas set on gender and

household shopping status, working status and presence of children as shownbelow. Only one interview is permitted per household.

Universe Adult population (aged 16+) across Scotland

Sample size 1,039 interviews conducted in total across Scotland

Fieldwork From 25th

31st

May 2011

Datacollection

Interviewing was conducted face-to-face in respondents homes using multi-media CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing)

Incentives n/a

Interviewers 40 interviewers

Interviewervalidation

Face to face validation: A minimum of 10% of interviews are checked on everysurvey. Verification is carried out at TNS head office, mainly on the telephone,by trained validators. Interviewer assignments are systematically selected.

Questionnaire The questionnaire used is appended to this document.

AnalysisThe weighting applied is based on population estimates from the BARB(Broadcasters Audience Research Board) Establishment Survey 2 Years EndingDecember 2008 and the 2001 Census. Unweighted and Weighted sample

profile can be found in section 2 of this report.


34/35

31

APPENDIX 3 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS

REGION CONSTITUENCYLothians Edinburgh Central

Lothians Edinburgh East

Lothians Edinburgh North & LeithLothians Edinburgh Pentlands

Lothians Edinburgh South

Lothians Edinburgh West

Lothians Linlithgow

Lothians Livingston

Lothians Midlothian

Mid Scotland and Fife Dunfermline East

Mid Scotland and Fife Dunfermline West

Mid Scotland and Fife Fife Central

Mid Scotland and Fife Fife North East

Mid Scotland and Fife KirkcaldyMid Scotland and Fife Ochil

Mid Scotland and Fife Stirling

Mid Scotland and Fife Perth

Mid Scotland and Fife Tayside North

South East Lothian

South Dumfries

South Galloway & Upper Nithsdale

South Roxburgh & Berwickshire

South Tweedale, Ettrick & Lauderdale

South Ayr

South Carrick, Cumnock & Doon valleySouth Clydesdale

South Cunninghame South

Highlands & Islands Argyll & Bute

Highlands & Islands Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross

Highlands & Islands Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber

Highlands & Islands Moray

Highlands & Islands Orkney *

Highlands & Islands Ross, Skye & Inverness West

Highlands & Islands Shetland *

Highlands & Islands Western Isles

North East Aberdeen North

North East Aberdeen South

North East Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine

North East Angus

North East Banff & Buchan

North East Dundee East

North East Dundee West

North East Gordon

Central Falkirk East

Central Falkirk West

Central Airdrie & Shotts

Central Coatbridge & Chryston

Central Cumbernauld & KilsythCentral East Kilbride


35/35

REGION CONSTITUENCYCentral Hamilton North & Bellshill

Central Hamilton South

Central Kilmarnock & Loudoun

Central Motherwell & Wishaw

Glasgow Glasgow AnnieslandGlasgow Glasgow Baillieston

Glasgow Glasgow Cathcart

Glasgow Glasgow Govan

Glasgow Glasgow Kelvin

Glasgow Glasgow Maryhill

Glasgow Glasgow Pollok

Glasgow Glasgow Rutherglen

Glasgow Glasgow Shettleston

Glasgow Glasgow Springburn

West Clydebank & Milngavie

West Cunninghame North

West Dumbarton

West Eastwood

West Greenock and Inverclyde

West Paisley North

West Paisley South

West Strathkelvin & Bearsden

West West Renfrewshire

preparedness in scotland

Documents