P. 1
Preparedness in Scotland

Preparedness in Scotland

|Views: 70|Likes:
Published by British Red Cross

More info:

Published by: British Red Cross on Oct 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/09/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN SCOTLAND 2012

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN SCOTLAND 2012

Catriona West / Alastair Graham TNS BMRB

Scottish Government/British Red Cross 22nd August 2012 JN105988

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Objectives Method Main findings 1  BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Background Research Objectives 2  3  4  5  METHOD AND SAMPLE CONTEXT LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Perceived level of preparedness Actual Household Preparedness Additional methods of heating/ways of keeping warm Items available in car for emergencies Confidence in first aid skills 6  7  8  RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPAREDNESS SOURCES OF INFORMATION CONCLUSIONS

1  1  1  1  4  4  4  6  8  10  14  14  17  21  23  24  25  27  31  33  41  42  44 

APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX 2 – TECHNICAL INFORMATION APPENDIX 3 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS APPENDIX 4 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS MAP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Objectives On 24 October 2011 the Scottish Government, in partnership with the British Red Cross, launched the 'Ready for Winter?' campaign. The campaign aimed to encourage people, communities and businesses to take "simple but sensible steps" in readiness for tough weather conditions and to promote broader resilience. Additionally, the campaign aimed to raise awareness of the British Red Cross’ community resilience work and engage Red Cross volunteers, staff and supporters in ‘Ready for Winter?’ Following similar research conducted in May 2011, The Scottish Government and the Red Cross commissioned TNS BMRB to conduct a research project with the principal objectives of, firstly, assessing the current nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland and, secondly, comparing the latest findings with those obtained in the previous research. Method This research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS) during the period 23rd – 31st May 2012 and a total of 1,008 interviews were achieved. Interviewing was carried out in 71 of the 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies across Scotland. The sample was representative of the adult population of Scotland in terms of sex, age, employment status and socio-economic group. Main findings Just over one quarter (27%) claimed to have experienced disruption to their water, gas or electricity supplies in the last 12 months, with significantly higher levels of disruption in rural areas than in urban areas (44% compared to 21% respectively). Overall, three fifths (61%) of the sample indicated that they were concerned about any of the following emergency situations: extreme weather, health emergencies, terrorism, animal health emergencies, major transport incidents and power cuts/cut off from water supply/disruption to fuel supplies. Levels of concern for each specific emergency continue to vary and, for four of the six situations, have fallen significantly since 2011. The highest level of concern in 2012, at 41%, was recorded for emergencies due to power cuts, being cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies. The proportion concerned about emergencies caused by extreme weather, the area of most concern in 2011, has fallen from 54% in 2011 to 38% in 2012. The summary table overleaf shows the percentage claiming to be very/quite concerned for each of the six emergency situations in 2011 and 2012.

1

Emergency Row percentages Extreme weather Health emergencies Terrorism Animal health Major transport incidents Power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies *Statistically significant decline

Total percentage of sample very/quite concerned 2011 2012 (1039) (1008) 54 35 29 30 23 38* 30* 25* 25* 20 41

As in 2011 the lowest level of concern was recorded for major transport incidents. Perceived levels of preparedness remain limited in 2012, with two fifths (41%) saying they were not very or not at all prepared for any of the six emergency situations. Levels of perceived preparedness were highest for power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies, with 42% claiming to be prepared for this (rising to 58% among those who have experienced this in the past 12 months). Despite the decline in concern about emergencies caused by extreme weather, there was no change in levels of perceived preparedness for this (39% in 2012 compared to 40% in 2011). The summary table below shows the percentage claiming to be very/quite prepared for each of the six emergency situations in 2011 and 2012.
Situation Row percentages Extreme weather Health emergencies Terrorism Animal health Major transport incidents Power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies *Statistically significant decline Total percentage of sample very/quite prepared 2011 2012 (1039) (1008) 40 32 10 15 15 39 24* 7* 13 14 42

It continues to be the case that being concerned does not necessarily translate into high levels of perceived preparedness. Among those who claimed to be very/quite concerned about each situation, the percentage claiming to be prepared was less than half for all but one situation; 52% of those concerned about power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies claimed to be prepared to deal with this.

2

Actual levels of preparedness among Scottish households remain high in terms of having at least one item available to deal with an emergency in the household (99%). There was a significant increase in the proportion who claimed to have a hard copy list of emergency contact numbers, rising from 47% in 2011 to 56% in 2012. When asked for how many days their household would have enough to eat if they had no electricity, gas or water supply and were unable to get to the shops, 70% claimed their household could last for a week or less and a further 15% claimed they would have enough to eat for up to two weeks. Specifically, around one quarter (24%) had enough supplies for one to three days. Whilst 59% indicated that they did not have alternative methods of heating or keeping themselves warm should their normal method be disconnected, this has declined slightly from 63% in 2011, driven by a significant increase in the proportion who claimed to have blankets (rising from 22% to 38%). Car owners also recorded high levels of actual preparedness with the vast majority (89%) indicating that they had at least one of the listed items that would help them in an emergency situation. However, this was largely driven by the high numbers claiming to have an ice scraper and de-icer (76%). By comparison far fewer had any of the other listed items. The proportion who stated that they felt personally responsible for ensuring that their family was prepared for an emergency increased significantly from 50% in 2011 to 58% in 2012. Expectations that government is responsible remain fairly widespread although there have been some significant changes in terms of which level of government is responsible: 40% mentioned local council (compared to 31% in 2011) whilst 32% mentioned Scottish Government (compared to 37% in 2011). 18% cited the UK Government, compared to 30% in 2011. TV remains the channel of communication most likely to be used to find information in an emergency situation (mentioned by 45% compared to 43% in 2011). Secondary channels cited by a reasonable number included the internet (18%), the radio (12%) and the telephone (9%). Interest in receiving further information about how to keep the family prepared for an emergency has fallen significantly, with one third (33%) claiming they would like to receive this (compared to 44% in 2011). Most interest was expressed in emergencies caused by extreme weather and health emergencies, although interest have declined significantly for each of the five types of emergencies listed. Amongst those who were not prepared for any emergency, just over one quarter (28%) recorded an interest in finding out more (compared to 41% in 2011).

3

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 Division provides practical support to the frontline agencies that deliver fire and rescue services and emergency planning and response across Scotland. It also provides advice to Scottish Ministers on all aspects of fire and rescue services and civil contingencies. On 24 October 2011 the Scottish Government, in partnership with the British Red Cross, launched the 'Ready for Winter?' campaign which aimed to encourage people, communities and businesses to take "simple but sensible steps" in readiness for tough weather conditions. The ‘simple steps’ advocated by the campaign included:       Plan appropriately, agree emergency contacts and make necessary arrangements; Make homes more energy efficient - protect pipes, be aware of how to turn off water and power; Have plenty of food and any medicine needed; Prepare car - keep it well maintained and carry an emergency kit in the boot; Check road and weather conditions before travelling; Know how to keep safe, how to get up-to-date information, and how to help those less able.

1.2

1.3

1.4 1.5

Additional aims were to raise awareness of the British Red Cross’ community resilience work and engage Red Cross volunteers, staff and supporters. The campaign comprised several elements, including a roadshow in partnership with Tesco and other stores where information and ‘grab bags’ were distributed, workshops in 13 schools across Scotland, volunteer work on university campuses and through retail. All 56 British Red Cross shops across the whole of Scotland were provided with winter freebies and leaflets for grab bags for their customers.

Research Objectives 1.6 The Scottish Government and the Red Cross commissioned TNS BMRB to conduct a research project with the principal objectives of, firstly, assessing the current nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland and, secondly, comparing the latest findings with those obtained in the previous research conducted in May 2011.

4

1.7

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 with emergencies; and What information people want to have on preparedness and where they are likely to look for it.

1.8

The information gathered in this research is to be used by the Scottish Government and the Red Cross to better understand individual, family and household preparedness in Scotland, so that preparedness messages and projects can be developed more effectively. Evaluating the ‘Ready for Winter?’ campaign did not fall within the scope of the research as a separate study has been undertaken for this purpose. However, there was a desire to assess whether perceived and actual levels of preparedness have changed in the past year and, if possible, to determine whether any changes were as a result of the campaign.

1.9

5

2 METHOD AND SAMPLE
2.1 In both 2011 and 2012 the research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS). The SOS is a monthly omnibus survey conducted inhome amongst a sample of around 1,000 adults in Scotland using Computer Aided Personal Interviewing (CAPI). The SOS uses a quota sampling methodology and interviewers use a ‘random route’ technique within each sampling point to select addresses. Only one interview per household is permitted. In 2012, fieldwork took place during the period 23rd – 31st May 2012 and a total of 1,008 interviews were achieved. Interviewing was carried out in 71 of the 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies across Scotland. At both waves the sample was representative of the adult population in terms of sex, age, employment status and socio-economic group (SEG)1. Fieldwork in 2011 was also undertaken in May. As is the case each month, the achieved sample was weighted2 to ensure that it represented Scotland’s population and is consistent between waves to allow for reliable tracking of results over time. The weighting applied on sex, age, SEG and region is based on population estimates from the BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board) Establishment Survey 2 Years Ending December 2008 and the 2001 Census. Table 2.1 overleaf outlines the unweighted and weighted composition of the sample for the SOS in May 2012.

2.2

2.3

2.4

The 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 oversampling 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.

1

6

Table 2.1 - Sample profile
Base: All respondents (May 2012) Unweighted (1008) % SEX: AGE: Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Highlands & Islands North East Mid & Fife Lothians Central Glasgow West South Yes No Yes No Urban Rural 43 57 10 17 13 19 16 25 11 27 21 41 10 13 11 14 12 11 14 16 25 75 26 74 71 29 Weighted (1008) % 48 52 14 15 18 18 15 20 19 27 22 31 8 13 13 13 14 13 13 13 27 73 21 79 74 26

SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP:

REGION:

CHILDREN <16 IN THE HOUSEHOLD: DISABILITY: LOCATION:

2.5

Any reference made to regions in the report and tabulations refers to the eight Scottish Parliament electoral regions. Appendix 3 details which constituencies are included in each region and the regions are illustrated in the map in Appendix 4. There was also a desire to review the results by those in urban areas versus those in rural areas. This classification is built into the SOS sample in the following way. Within a constituency each census output area is defined as urban or rural according to the Scottish Executive’s Urbanisation Classification 2007-2008. These are then aggregated at a constituency level, with the classification of the majority of the OAs defining the constituency itself as either urban or rural. Once interviewing is completed, respondent postcodes are used to identify their constituency, and therefore whether they should be classified as urban or rural. In the May 2012 omnibus, 71% of the achieved sample (unweighted) was urban, and 29% rural, which is broadly in line with the proportions seen in Scotland, and those recorded in 2011 (68% and 32% respectively).

2.6

7

3 CONTEXT
3.1 Before reviewing the findings of the latest research, it is important to note the context in which the research took place. In 2011, the research was conducted following 2 consecutive unusually long and cold winter across Scotland. At the time this caused considerable disruption to transport and to many aspects of people’s day-to-day lives. The winter of 2011/12, on the other hand, was milder, with less of the disruption of the previous year. Moreover, when this year’s fieldwork was taking place at the end of May 2012, the weather was very good. The exception to this was periods of storms and very high winds in December 2011 and January 2012 which left a large number of homes across the country without power3. It should also be noted, from a timing point of view, that fieldwork in 2012 had finished by the end of May, which was just before the outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease in Edinburgh. Given the desire to review the experience of disruption to utilities and the relevance to the Scottish population of preparing for these, a new question was added to the survey in 2012 which asked respondents whether they had experienced any disruption to their water, gas or electricity supplies in the last 12 months. Overall, just over one quarter (27%) had experienced disruption. Levels of disruption to utility supplies were significantly higher in rural areas than in urban areas (44% compared to 21% respectively). Accordingly, there were significant differences in levels of disruption at a regional level, ranging from 56% in the Highlands and Islands region to just 8% in Glasgow. The proportion in each region having experienced disruption to water, gas or electricity supplies in the last 12 months is shown in Figure 3.1 overleaf.

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3

Source: BBC News website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16102566

8

Figure 3.1: Proportion of each region experiencing disruption to utilities in the last 12 months
Q2B.In the last 12 months, have you experienced any disruption to your water, gas and electricity supplies? Base: All respondents (1008)
%

Total (1008) H & I (105) South (159) Mid & Fife (112) Central (116) West (141) Lothians (136) North East (129) Glasgow (110) 8 12 16

27 56 42 41 29 26

3.7

In the 2012 research there was also a requirement to review the role of the internet in preparedness. As standard, a question is included on the SOS to measure internet access, and so this question was used as an analysis variable when reviewing the results. Four fifths (79%) of the achieved sample had access to the internet with virtually all this group having broadband at home. Levels of access were linked to age, with over nine in ten (92%) of those aged under 54 having access, falling to 78% of 55-64s’ and 38% of 65+. Access was also higher amongst ABC1C2s than DEs (88% vs 61% respectively). Those with a limiting disability or illness were significantly less likely to have access (51% vs. 87% among those with no limitations), whilst those with children were significantly more likely to have access (94% vs. 73% of those without)4.

3.8

These patterns are similar to findings in other reports. For example, the Ofcom Communications market report highlights the lower levels of broadband access among those aged 55+ and among DE households: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/CMR_2011_Scotland.pdf

4

9

4 LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
4.1 At the start of the survey, respondents were asked to rate their level of concern 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 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; and  Power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies. The results obtained in 2012 for each emergency situation are shown in the figure below (Figure 4.1), along with the results obtained in 2011. It should be noted that the statement regarding power cuts and disruption to supplies was new in 2012 and therefore only one wave of data is available.

4.2

Figure 4.1: Level of concern
Q1.How concerned are you that you personally, or your local area, might be affected by each of these emergencies in the next 5 years? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
Emergencies caused by extreme weather
%

Health emergencies

Emergencies caused by terrorism

Animal health emergencies

Major transport incidents

Power cuts, cut off from water supply

14

10

9 26

11 19

8 20

10 15

8 21

7 18

6 16

6 14

12

Very concerned Quite concerned Not very concerned Not concerned at all Don't know

29 40

29 30 28 34 34 32 31

29 24 29 22 3 2011 2012

32

31

30 45 26 3 2011 2012 2011 4 2012 3 2012

32

35

41

43 36 4

39

45

3 2011 2012 2011

2012

10

4.3

Overall, three fifths (61%) of the sample indicated that they were concerned with at least one of the six emergency situations in 2012. The groups most likely to be concerned were:  females (64% being concerned about any of the emergencies vs. 57% males);  those aged 65+ (72% vs. 54% of under 44s);  those with a serious illness/disability (75% vs. 57% without); and  those in rural areas (69% vs. 58% of those in urban areas). However, levels of concern varied significantly across the different situations. The highest level of concern recorded in 2012 was for the new statement power cuts, cut off from water supply or disruption to fuel supplies, with 41% concerned. Those aged 65 + were significantly more likely than 16-44s to be concerned about this scenario (51% vs. 35%), as were those with a disability (50% vs 38% without disability) and those in rural areas (52% vs. 37% in urban areas). One of the highest levels of concern on this measure was amongst those who had experienced a disruption to supplies in the last 12 months (56%), indicating that recent experiences have heightened concerns. The next highest level of concern was recorded for emergencies due to extreme weather, at 38%. Whilst this was the area which saw most concern in 2011, it is noticeable that levels of concern about this have fallen significantly, from 54% previously. Although certain groups (those aged 65+ and females) remain more concerned about this than others, even amongst the most concerned groups, levels of concern have declined. For example, 50% of those aged 65+ claimed to be concerned about this in 2012, compared to 58% in 2011. Similarly, 42% of females were concerned, compared to 59% in 2011. As noted above, there were several significant sub-group differences in levels of concern for emergencies arising from extreme weather and from power cuts, being cut off from water supply and disruption to fuel supplies. Figure 4.2 overleaf illustrates levels of concern for each of these situations recorded by the key sub-groups in 2012, and highlights the higher levels of concern among females, older groups (and those aged 65+ in particular), those with a serious illness/disability, those in rural areas, and those who have experienced power cuts/disruption to their supplies in the last 12 months.

4.4

4.5

4.6

11

Figure 4.2: Level of concern about emergencies caused by extreme weather or disruption to supplies – by sub-group
Q1.How concerned are you that you personally, or your local area, might be affected by each of these emergencies in the next 5 years? Base: All in each sub-group (shown in brackets)
% Concerned

Total (1008) Male (435) Female (573) 16-24 (100) 25-34 (174) 35-44 (135) 45-54 (188) 55-64 (162) 65+ (249) AB (112) C1 (275) C2 (212) DE (409) Urban (711) Rural (297) Illness / disability (264) No illness / disability (742) Supplies disrupted p12m (279) No disruption (729) 30 30 30

38 41 35 38 42 43 36 36 38 36

44 45 43 50 51

36 40 42 36 36 40 39 36 37

48

46

52 51 50 50

35 38 56 34 35

Extreme weather Power cuts/cut off from fuel supplies

4.7

In terms of the remaining emergency situations (Figure 4.1), levels of concern for health emergencies have also seen a significant decline, albeit less marked than for those caused by extreme weather, falling from 35% in 2011 to 30% in 2012. Higher levels of concern were recorded by those groups more likely to experience underlying health issues, such as those aged 65+ (38% concerned), DEs (36%) and those with an illness/disability (42%). There have also been significant declines in levels of concern about emergencies caused by terrorism (25% compared to 29% in 2011) and for animal health emergencies (25% compared to 30% previously). In both instances, females, older groups and those with disabilities recorded higher levels of concern. Whilst those in urban areas were significantly more likely to be concerned about terrorism (27% vs. 20% in rural areas), there were no significant differences by this variable in relation to animal health emergencies. Finally, as was the case in 2011, the lowest level of concern in 2012 was for major transport incidents, at 20%. Whilst this has also declined over the past year from 23%, this is not significant. Once again, females, older groups and those with disabilities recorded higher levels of concern.

4.8

4.9

12

4.10

To further understand the varying levels of concern about these different emergencies a new question was added in 2012: respondents were prompted with a list of situations that could arise from these emergencies and asked which one they would be most concerned about. The results of this question are shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Level of concern
Q2A: Thinking about the range of emergencies mentioned earlier, which one of the following situations would you be most concerned about? Base: All respondents (1008)
%

Being without adequate food and water Enforced separation from family (in a large crowd, or due to a sudden event) Being evacuated from home Being without adequate heating Being confined indoors for a long period of time Your home or business premises being flooded Loss of telephone communications Being stranded while on a journey Don't know 6 6 5 4 4 6 12 20

38

4.11

Being without adequate food or water emerged as the situation most likely to cause concern, and by some considerable margin. Around two fifths mentioned this (38%) compared to one fifth (20%) for enforced separation from family, and just over one in ten (12%) for being evacuated from home. The remaining situations were mentioned by even smaller proportions. There were no significant differences by gender, with the exception of females being more concerned about enforced separation from family (26% vs. 14% of males). Those aged 35-64 were most concerned about a lack of adequate food and water (44% vs. 25% of 16-24s, 37% of 25-34s and 32% of 65+). 1624s were significantly more worried about loss of telephone communications than all other age groups (11%), whilst those aged 65+ were more concerned about being without adequate heating than all other age groups (17%). There were no significant differences by SEG.

4.12

13

5 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Perceived level of preparedness 5.1 In order to gauge perceived preparedness, respondents were asked to rate their level of preparedness for each of the six emergency situations on a four point scale, ranging from very prepared to not all prepared. The 2012 results for each are shown in Figure 5.1 along with the results obtained in 2011. As the statement regarding power cuts and disruption to supplies was new in 2012 only one wave of data is available.

Figure 5.1: Perceived level of preparedness
Q2: Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
Emergencies caused by extreme weather
%

Health emergencies

Emergencies caused by terrorism

Animal health emergencies

Major transport incidents

Power cuts, cut off from water supply

4

6

4 28

3 21

2 8

1 6 28

2 13

2 11

3 13

2 12

6

Very prepared Quite prepared Not very prepared

36

33

28 32 32

30

32

26

27

35

32
Not prepared at all Don't know

31 59 38 25 5 2012 34 6 2012 3 2011 6 2012 4 2011 5 2012 3 2011 6 2012 58 52 50 55 53

30

26 1 2011

23 5 2012

2 2011

5.2

In 2012, perceived levels of preparedness varied widely across the different emergency situations (as was the case in 2011), ranging from 42% to 7%. Perceived levels of preparedness were highest for power cuts and being cut off from water supplies, with 42% claiming to be prepared. This increased to 58% of those who have experienced disruption in the past 12 months. Despite the significant decline in concern about emergencies caused by extreme weather, there has been no significant change in levels of perceived preparedness for this. In line with declining levels of concern, perception of preparedness for health emergencies has declined significantly, from 32% in 2011 to 24% in 2012. Low levels of perceived preparedness were recorded for emergencies caused by terrorism (7%), for animal health emergencies (13%) and for major transport incidents (14%) reflecting the lower levels of concern around these issues. These levels are in line with those obtained in 2011.

5.3

5.4 5.5

14

5.6

Overall, 41% of respondents indicated that they were not very or not at all prepared for any of the six emergency situations. Given the additional type of emergency included in 2012 it is not possible to compare this with the findings from 2011. In line with higher levels of concern recorded by women and older age respondents, these groups were more likely to claim they were prepared for at least one emergency situation (61% of women vs. 56% of men; 66% of 55+ compared to 48% of those aged 16-44). C2DEs were less likely to be prepared for at least one emergency situation than ABC1s (54%vs. 64% respectively). There were also several significant differences by sub-group when looking specifically at levels of perceived preparedness for emergencies caused by extreme weather and by power cuts, being cut off from water supply and disruption to fuel supplies. In line with those groups which expressed most concern about these emergencies, females, older respondents, those with a serious illness/disability, those in rural areas and those who have experienced power cuts/disruption to their supplies in the last 12 months were more likely to claim they were prepared for these situations. The proportion of each subgroup claiming to be prepared for each of these scenarios is shown in Figure 5.2.

5.7

5.8

Figure 5.2: Perceived level of preparedness for emergencies caused by extreme weather or disruption to supplies – by sub-group
Q2: Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies? Base: All in each sub-group (shown in brackets)
% Prepared

Total (1008) Male (435) Female (573) 16-24 (100) 25-34 (174) 35-44 (135) 45-54 (188) 55-64 (162) 65+ (249) AB (112) C1 (275) C2 (212) DE (409) Urban (711) Rural (297) Illness / disability (264) No illness / disability (742) Supplies disrupted p12m (279) No disruption (729) 33 25 29

39 42 40 37 38 34 36 33

46

41 41

47 50 45 52 46 46 51 43 44

37 38 38 35 37 49 46 45 37 41 50 35 36 58 56

Extreme weather Power cuts/cut off from fuel supplies

15

5.9

The findings from 2012 continue to show that whilst perceived preparedness is higher for those emergency situations that cause the most concern, many of those who expressed concern indicated that they were not very or not all prepared to deal with the situation. In all but one case – power cuts and disruption to supplies - less than half of those concerned about each emergency indicated that they were very or quite prepared to cope with it. Specifically:       48% of those concerned about emergencies caused by extreme weather said they were very/quite prepared to deal with them (vs. 46% in 2011); 35% of those concerned about health emergencies were very/quite prepared for them (vs. 40% in 2011); 22% of those concerned about animal health emergencies were very/quite prepared for them (vs. 26% in 2011); 25% of those concerned about major transport incidents were very/quite prepared for them (vs. 23% in 2011); Only 13% of those concerned about terrorism were very/quite prepared for them (vs. 11%) and Just over half (52%) of those concerned about power cuts, being cut off from water supplies or disruption to fuel supplies were very/quite prepared for them.

16

Actual household preparedness 5.10 5.11 To assess the actual level of preparedness of households when confronted with an emergency situation a number of different measures were employed. Firstly, respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which of a series of items they either had available or knew how to access to help them in an emergency. It should be noted that the list of items was expanded in 2012, so direct comparisons are only possible for certain items. The results are shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: Knowledge about / Items readily available to face an emergency
Q5: 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…? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
…have access to important documents like birth certificates and insurance policies ...know where to turn off your property's power supply in an emergency …know which of your neighbours you could call on for help ...have a torch and spare batteries (or wind up torch) that you could find in your home** ...know where to turn off your property's water supply ...have your prescription medicines to hand in the event of emergency* …know which of your neighbours would most need help ...have an up to date first aid kit in your home …have a radio and spare batteries (or wind up radio) that you could find in your home ...have a hard copy list of emergency contact numbers ...have a snow shovel and supply of grit
% saying yes

n/a 89 86 86 n/a 82 83 82 81 79 82 76 n/a 74 65 64 n/a 58 47 56 50 53 2011 (1039) 2012 (1008)

*NB: Excludes those who said not applicable ** 2011 wording – “have a working torch that you could find in your home”

5.12

In 2012, the vast majority (99%) gave an affirmative response to at least one of the items, with most mentions recorded for having easy access to important documents like birth certificates and insurance policies (89%). High levels of availability/access were also recorded for knowing where to turn off the property’s power supply (86%), having a working torch (82%), knowing which of your neighbours you could call on for help (82%) and knowing where to turn off your property’s water supply in an emergency (79%). Of those with prescription medicines, 76% claimed to have them to hand. Three quarters (74%) claimed to know which of their neighbours would most need help. Fewer by comparison claimed to have an up-to-date first aid kit, at 64%, a working radio and spare batteries (58%) or a snow shovel and supply of grit (53%).

5.13

17

5.14

With the exception of a significant increase in the proportion who claimed to have a hard copy list of emergency contact numbers, rising from 47% in 2011 to 56% in 2012, the findings from 2012 and 2011 were very similar. On average, respondents gave a positive answer to 8 out of the 11 items5. Figure 5.4 compares the average number of items in the possession of each of the sub-groups of interest.

5.15

Figure 5.4: Average number of positive responses about items / knowledge to face an emergency
Q5: 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…? Base: All respondents (2012=1008)
Total (1008) Male (435) Female (573) 16-24 (100) 25-34 (174) 35-44 (135) 45-54 (188) 55-64 (162) 65+ (249) AB (112) C1 (275) C2 (212) DE (409) Urban (711) Rural (297) Illness / disability (264) No illness / disability (742) Supplies disrupted p12m (279) No disruption (729) 7.6
Average number of positive responses (maximum of 11)

7.8 8.0 7.7 5.9 6.9 8.0 8.4 8.7 8.6 8.6 7.9 8.1 7.1 7.6 8.4 8.5 7.6 8.4

5.16

Males, ABC1C2s, those living in rural areas and those with a serious illness/disability were likely to be in possession of a higher number of items. The average figure was also higher for those who had experienced disruption to their supplies in the last 12 months. As was noted in 2011 however, differences on this measure were particularly pronounced according to age, with the younger age groups recording much lower availability/access or knowledge of these items.

5.17

5

Given the expanded list, and the fact that not all of the items included in 2011 were included in 2012, a direct comparison cannot be made between this and the average recorded in 2011 – we can only compare possession of the individual items as already shown in Figure 5.3

18

5.18

Positively, those who indicated that they felt prepared for an emergency (i.e. saying they were ‘very’ or ‘quite’ prepared for at least one of the emergencies listed), were in fact more likely to be prepared. Those who felt prepared for an emergency gave an affirmative response to an average of 8.4 of the listed items, whereas those who indicated that they were not prepared did so for an average of 6.9 items.

Household food and drink supplies 5.19 Respondents were also asked how long they thought their household would have enough to eat without having to go to the shops if they had no electricity, gas or water. The actual number of days was recorded for each respondent, and their answers have been grouped together for the purpose of illustration. Most (70%) claimed that their household would have enough to eat for a week or less. Specifically, 24% said for 1 to 3 days, 15% for 4-6 days and 30% for 7 days. A smaller proportion believed they had enough for longer: 15% for up to two weeks, 2% for up to three weeks, 4% for a month and 2% for longer than a month. Only 2 respondents said they did not have enough for a single day without shopping if they did not have any electricity, gas or water supply Whilst almost half of respondents gave response of between 4 and 7 days, the mean number of days, at just over 8, has been driven up by a small proportion who indicated that they had enough food for a very high number of days. The results varied by age, with younger age groups tending to state their household would have enough food for a shorter period of time than older groups, as shown in Figure5.5.

5.20

5.21

5.22

19

Figure 5.5: Number days household would have enough to eat – by age
Q7: How many days do you think your household would have enough to eat without having to get to the shops if you had no electricity, gas or water supply? Base: All respondents (1008) / All in each sub-group (shown in brackets)
%

0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-14 15+ Don’t know

24 36

29

22

24

19

18

45 34

46 45

46

49

49

4 11 8 7
Total (1,008)

4 9 8 9
16-24 (100)

3 7 5 13
25-34 (174)

5 12 7 9
35-44 (135)

4 9 11 5
45-54 (188)

7 13 8 2
55-64 (162)

4 15 11 3
65+ (249)

Mean number of days

8.2

6.9

6.6

7.6

8.6

8.8

9.9

5.23

Thus, for example, whereas 36% of 16-24s stated their household would have enough food for only 1-3 days, this decreased steadily to 18% of those aged 65 and over. Figure 5.4 also shows that the mean number of days of food available increases in line with age, rising from less than 7 for under 35s to around 10 days on average for those aged 65. Figure 5.6 shows the results of this question for other relevant sub-groups, demonstrating significant differences according to urban/rural, illness/disability and children in household variables.

5.24

20

Figure 5.6: Number days household would have enough to eat– by sub-group
Q7: How many days do you think your household would have enough to eat without having to get to the shops if you had no electricity, gas or water supply? Base: All respondents (1008) / All in each sub-group (shown in brackets)
%

0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-14 15+ Don’t know

24

27

17

23

25

31

22

45

43

52

43

46

46 43

4 11 8 7
Total (1,008)

4 9 8 9
Urban (711)

5 15 10 1
Rural (297)

5 12 10 6

4 10 8 7

3 13 7 4
Children in HH (253)

5 10 9 8
No children in HH (754)

Mean number of days

Illness/Disability No (264) illness/Disability (742)

8.2

7.9

9.1

9.2

7.9

7.1

8.6

5.25

Those living in urban areas were significantly more likely than those in rural areas to claim they would have enough food to last for 1-3 days (27% vs. 17% respectively) whereas those with enough for 11+ days was higher for those in rural areas (25% vs. 17% for urban). The ability of those with an illness or disability and those with no children in the household to have enough food for longer periods of time is due to the greater proportion or older respondents in those groups. There were no significant differences between those who had experienced disruption to their utility supplies in the last 12 months and those who had not.

5.26

Additional methods of heating/ways of keeping warm 5.27 When respondents were asked whether they had an additional method of heating / keeping warm if their normal method of heating (e.g. central heating / electricity / mains gas) was disconnected, two fifths (41%) indicated that they did; an increase from 37% in 2011 (although this is not statistically significant). The clearest correlations on access to an alternative method of heating/keeping warm in 2012 (as in 2011) were SEG(with highest access among ABs at 54% vs. 41% of C1s, 47% of C2s and 28% of DEs), those living in rural areas (46% vs 39% urban) and amongst those who were prepared for an emergency (48% vs. 30% those not prepared). Also, 47% of those with children in the household had an alternative method of heating/keeping warm, which was significantly higher than for those with no children (39%). Whilst those who had experienced disruption to their utilities in the last 12 months were only slightly more likely than those who had not to have an

5.28

5.29

21

alternative method of heating/keeping warm (43% compared to 40% respectively), there were some significant variations by region. Those in Highlands and Islands (67%) and North East (59%) were most likely and those in Mid Scotland and Fife (26%) and Glasgow (12%) least. 5.30 Additionally, the survey sought to establish the nature of the alternative methods of heating/keeping warm amongst those who claimed to have this available. The results are provided in Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7: Alternative methods of heating/keeping warm
Q8a: What alternative method(s) of heating/keeping yourself warm would you be using? Base: All who have additional ways of keeping themselves warm (2011=404; 2012=406)
%

Blankets Calor gas heater Electric fan heater Electric radiator Halogen heater Coal fire Wood burning stove Generator Other Don't know 0 1 1 2 2 2 7 9 4 10 10 14 17 16 16

22 22

38 24 25

2011 (404) 2012 (406)

5.31

In 2012, blankets were the most commonly mentioned method of alternative heating/keeping warm and by a sizeable margin, at 38%. This was a marked increase from the 22% recorded in 2011, and this increase has driven the overall increase in the proportion claiming to have an alternative method of heating/keeping themselves warm. The other main forms of alternative heating, mentioned by similar numbers year on year, included Calor gas heaters, electric fan heaters and electric radiators. Whilst there were few significant differences by demographic variables on this measure in 2012, partly reflecting the reduced sample size at this filtered question, the following are noteworthy:   Although all age groups recorded an increase in mentions of blankets, under 34’s remain much more likely to mention this than older groups – 49% of 18-34s compared to 28% of 55-64s and 31% of over 65s; ABs were more likely to mention wood burning stove (10% vs. 3% for C2DEs).

5.32

22

Those in rural areas (and by implication those areas which were more likely to have experienced disruption to supplies) were more likely to mention coal fires (20% vs. 6% in urban areas), wood burning stove (14% vs. 4%) and Calor gas heaters (35% vs. 19%). Conversely, those in urban areas were more likely to mention electric fan heaters (20% vs. 9% in rural areas) and electric radiators (18% vs. 9%).

Items available in car for emergencies 5.33 Respondents were also asked to select from a list of options, those items they had in their car. Among those who owned a car (n=621), the vast majority (89%) had at least one of the items listed in 2012. The number of items listed increased from 5 in 2011 to 9 in 2012, so it is not possible to make a comparison of the average number with 2011. It is possible, however, to compare the proportion of car owners who had each individual item, as shown in Figure 5.8 below.

Figure 5.8: Items available in car
Q9: Which of these items, if any, do you have in your car? Base: all who have a car (2011=752; 2012=621)
%

Ice scraper and de-icer Working torch Battery jump leads A map for unplanned diversions A blanket An up to date first aid kit A bottle of drinking water A shovel (for snow) Food and drink that will last

n/a

76 45 45
n/a

42
n/a

39 41 36 37 35 39 31 21 27
n/a

2011 (752) 2012 (621)

8

5.34

The most common item in respondents’ possession in 2012 was an ice scraper and de-icer (76%). By comparison far fewer had any of the other listed items, with 45% claiming to have a working torch (showing no change since 2011), 42% battery jump leads and 39% a map for unplanned diversions. Males were significantly more likely than females to have a working torch (51% vs. 39%) and battery jump leads (47% vs. 37%), whilst females were more likely to have a blanket (41% vs. 32% of males).

5.35

23

5.36

With regards to age, older respondents tended to be more likely to have several of the items, with those aged 55-64 significantly more likely than most other age groups to have a shovel for snow (46%) and a map for unplanned diversions (52%). There were few significant differences by SEG, other than ABs being more likely than C2DEs to have a first aid kit (44% vs. 27% respectively). As seen on previous measures, those who indicated that they were prepared for an emergency (and owned a car, n=405), were more likely to answer positively. On this measure some 96% claimed to have at least one item in the car compared to 79% of those who were not very/not at all prepared for any emergency situation.

5.37 5.38

Confidence in first aid skills 5.39 Confidence about using first aid skills in an emergency situation remains moderate with 62% in total saying they felt confident in doing so in 2012, compared to 61% in 2011. There has been a slight decline in the proportion who claimed to be very confident, falling from 25% in 2011 to 22% in 2012. The full results are shown in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Confidence about using first aid skills in an emergency situation
Q6: How confident would you be using first aid skills in an emergency situation? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)

%

25
Very confident Somewhat confident

22

36
Not very confident Not at all confident

40

25
Don't know

24

14 1 2011 (1039)

13 2 2012 (1008)

5.40

Confidence in first aid skills continues to differ significantly according to demographics. That said, there was less variation by age in 2012 than was noted in 2011, with similar levels of around 60%-70% confident in most age groups with the exception of those aged 65 over who remain significantly less confident (42%, compared to 41% in 2011).

24

6 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPAREDNESS
6.1 In order to establish where responsibility for preparedness is perceived to lie, respondents were asked to state, without prompting, who they thought was responsible for ensuring their household was prepared for an emergency. The results were obtained in two stages with first mentions recorded separately from any other mentions. Figure 6.1 below shows the 2012 results for both parts of this question, alongside the total mentions recorded in 2011.

Figure 6.1: Responsibility for ensuring household preparedness for an emergency
Q3: 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? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
First mentions
%

Other mentions

Total mentions Total mentions 2011

'Me' (respondent) Local council Scottish Government UK Government Emergency services (general) Someone else in the household 14 10 6 3 5 9 12 14 9

49 26 22 18 17 14 11 32 40

9

58

50 31 37 30 12 9 9

Police 2

6.2

In 2012 most first mentions related to the respondent themselves feeling responsible, as was the case in 2011. Moreover the dominance of ‘me/self’ as a top of mind response has increased significantly from 42% in 2011 to 49% in 2012. Some way behind this, 14% mentioned their local council (vs. 11% in 2011), and one in ten the Scottish Government (vs. 17% in 2011). Whilst 13% mentioned UK government first in 2011, this fell to 6% in 2012. At a total level, when first and other mentions are combined, a similar pattern emerged, which in turn is similar to that seen in 2011. Almost three fifths (58%) thought that they themselves were responsible. This too is significantly higher than in 2011 (50%). Compared to other age groups those aged 16-24 and 65+ were significantly less likely to think that they themselves were responsible. Of note is the reversal in prominence of Scottish Government and local council – the proportion who thought that responsibility lay with the Scottish Government has fallen to from 37% in 2011 to 32% in 2012, whilst those who

6.3

6.4

25

think their local council is responsible has increased from 31% to 40%. The belief that the UK Government has a role to play has also fallen from 30% to 18%. 6.5 Smaller proportions thought the emergency services (17%) or the police (11%)6 were responsible. Likewise, only a small minority (14%) indicated that they felt responsibility lay with someone else in the household, although this figure increased to 24% amongst those aged 16-24 years. In terms of other demographic differences, those without a serious illness/disability were more likely to feel personally responsible (60% vs. 49% with a serious illness/disability`).

6.6

Other codes not shown in Figure 6.1 were also mentioned at 2% or less. Full details available on data tabulations.

6

26

7 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Sources of information likely to use in an emergency 7.1 To provide information on the channels of communication that would be used in emergency situations, respondents were also asked how they would first obtain information in an emergency situation about what was happening. In 2012, as in 2011, the vast majority were able to say where they would go (95% mentioned a source of information in 2012) and the full results for both years are shown in the figure below (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Where would you obtain information in emergency situation first
Q4: In an emergency situation which affected you, how would you obtain information on what was happening first? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
%

TV Other 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 Other Don't know Any internet sources Any government / council / police Any phone
9 10 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 18 17 25 3 4 4 4 7 7 5 9 11 10 12 16

43

45

3

2011 (1039) 2012 (1008)

7.2

TV remains the most commonly cited channel for obtaining information, mentioned by 45% in 2012. Referring to TV continues to be linked to SEG, with 53% of DEs citing this as a source (compared to 50% C2s, 40% C1s and 36% ABs). Those living in urban areas were also more likely to mention TV (48% vs. 37% in rural areas). There was no significant difference in references to TV between those with or without a serious illness/disability in 2012. Reference to any online sources was significantly lower in 2012, with just under one fifth (18%) saying they would use sources such as government / council / police websites (7%) or other internet sources (11%); a decline from

7.3

27

one quarter who indicated that they would use such sources in 2011. It remains the case, however, that usage of online sources of information decreases with age, and was higher among younger respondents (c. 25% for 16-44 year olds, 17% for 45-64 year olds and just 5% 65+). Unsurprisingly, mentions of online sources were higher among those with internet access, at 23%. 7.4 Mentions of the radio as a source of information increased slightly from 10% in 2011 to 12% 2012, which was broadly in line with the number making any reference to the telephone (9%). More specifically 4% indicated that they would telephone the government / council / police (vs. 7% in 2011), 4% an emergency helpline and 1% somewhere else. Mentions of the phone were significantly higher amongst the older age groups, notably amongst 65+ (15%). A similar proportion (12%) stated that they would obtain information from any of the government / council / police – a significant decline from 17% in 2011 (7% would do so via websites, 4% using the phone and 1% in person). As in 2011, this varied little by demographics, with only those aged 65 and over remaining more likely to state they would contact these entities by phone (9%). Those who claimed to be prepared for any of the given emergencies were also significantly more likely to turn to these organisations first than those who were unprepared (14% vs. 9% respectively).

7.5

Interest in receiving further information on being prepared for emergencies 7.6 To provide guidance on the particular emergency situations which people would be interested in receiving further information on, respondents were asked whether they would like to receive further information about how to keep their family prepared for a series of different emergencies. The results obtained are shown in the figure overleaf (Figure 7.2).

28

Figure 7.2: Interest in receiving further information about how to keep your family prepared for emergencies
Q10: Would you be interested in receiving further information about how to keep your family prepared for any of the following emergencies? Base: All respondents (2011=1039; 2012=1008)
%

Emergencies caused by extreme weather Health emergencies Emergencies caused by terrorism Major transport incidents

38 23 36 23 29 14 28 14 27 13 56 67 2011 (1039) 2012 (1008)

Animal health emergencies

None of these

7.7

Overall, in 2012 one third of the sample (33%) expressed interest in receiving further information on any of the listed emergencies, a significant decline in interest from 2011 when 44% were interested. Whilst interest in receiving information was significantly lower across all types of emergency than in 2011, information on emergencies caused by extreme weather or health emergencies remains of greater interest (23%) compared to information on emergencies caused by terrorism (14%), major transport incidents (14%) and health emergencies (13%). Whilst there were no significant differences by gender in 2011, in 2012 women were significantly more interested than men in receiving more information about all types of emergency with the exception of major transport incidents (37% interested in receiving information on any of the topics compared to 29% amongst men). Having said this, compared to 2011 both groups were significantly more likely to state they were not interested at all. Those with children in the household were significantly more likely to be interested in information about health emergencies (38 vs.32% of those with no children).

7.8

7.9

29

7.10

As noted in 2011, those who were not concerned about emergencies were significantly less likely to say that they would be interested in receiving further information: 21% expressed interest (down from 28% in 2011), compared to 41% amongst those who were concerned about emergencies (down from 52% in 2011). One third (37%) of those who indicated they were prepared for an emergency were interested in receiving more information, significantly higher than those who were not prepared (28%). Those who had experienced any disruption to their utility supplies in the past 12 months were also significantly more likely to be interested in information on all types of emergency than those who had not had any problems (41% vs 31% respectively).

7.11

30

8 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 In 2012, levels of concern about emergencies due to extreme weather, public health, animal health, terrorism, major transport incidents and power cuts/disruption to fuel supplies ranged from moderate to slight. Respondents appeared to feel most concerned by the prospect of power cuts/disruption to fuel supplies, and indeed claimed to be most prepared for these. Indeed, the results demonstrate that those who have experienced this in the last 12 months are not only more concerned, but more likely to feel prepared. Similarly, whilst respondents were most concerned about extreme weather in 2011, levels of concern around this have fallen significantly in 2012. Likewise levels of concern for three other emergency situations also fell significantly (health emergencies, emergencies caused by terrorism and animal health emergencies), and this too is likely to be due to fewer high profile events of this nature in the last year. Moreover, in line with this, interest in receiving more information on each type of emergency has also declined. Whilst levels of concern about extreme weather have declined, it is useful to note that levels of perceived preparedness for this have not changed from 2011. This may be due in part to the nature of preparations for such situations, be it purchasing items or locating items around the home which, once done, remain for the future. Future communications may benefit, therefore, from stressing messages around the advantages of taking some time to prepare thoroughly, as this preparation will remain applicable for a reasonable period of time. This will also be beneficial from an economic point of view, if respondents can be reassured that any necessary purchases are a ‘one-off’. It is noticeable that levels of concern for emergencies caused by extreme weather and by power cuts / disruption to supplies are very similar. Arguably, for many the latter is a consequence of the former, with bad weather likely to disrupt electricity supplies in particular. The high levels of concern for these emergencies suggest therefore that they should be the priority for future campaigns. Furthermore, as focussing on extreme weather allows for a broader range of messages around preparedness to be used in communications, linking these to power cuts is likely to help respondents feel that the campaign is more relevant to them. Those who indicated that they felt more concerned about emergency situations included women, those aged 65+ and those with a serious illness/disability. Whilst older people and those with a serious illness/disability were also more likely to claim to be prepared for an emergency, C2DEs were less likely to claim to be prepared.

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

31

8.6

When assessing actual preparedness within the home, little change has been recorded between 2011 and 2012. Reflecting the fact that many of the preparations need only be made once (knowing where to turn off water/power supply, having a first aid kit, snow shovel etc.), having a hard copy list of emergency telephone numbers was the only item to be mentioned more in 2012. There has been a slight improvement in the proportion who have an alternative method of heating/keeping warm, driven by a significant increase in those possessing blankets. It should be noted that those in the older age groups remain less likely to mention having blankets as an alternative method of heating/keeping warm. There has been a significant increase in the proportion recognising that the individual bears responsibility for being prepared. However whereas many, continue to hold government responsible, in a reversal of the situation in 2011, there is now wider endorsement of the local councils being responsible rather than the Scottish Government. TV remains the most commonly cited channel for obtaining information in an emergency situation. Whilst online sources are secondary to this and are valuable to many, it is important to bear in mind that access to the internet is lower amongst those groups who are more likely to be concerned about and prepared for emergencies – older groups and DEs. Therefore alternative channels must continue to be used to reach these groups. On balance, the greater concern and preparedness recorded for those who have had their energy supply disrupted this year clearly demonstrates the association between experience and taking action. To help improve preparedness in the future, communications therefore need to remind people of the impact and consequences of these types of emergency, with the links between them used to strengthen this argument where possible.

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.10

32

APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE

33

Moving on to a different topic now… ASK ALL SHOWSCREEN Q1 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 Power cuts, cut off from water supply, or disruption to fuel supplies

INVERT SCALE Very concerned Quite concerned Not very concerned Not concerned at all (Don’t 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 NEEDED 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 Power cuts, cut off from water supply, or disruption to fuel supplies

34

INVERT SCALE Very prepared Quite prepared Not very prepared Not prepared at all (Don’t Know)

ASK ALL SHOWSCREEN Q2A Thinking about the range of emergencies mentioned earlier, which one of the following situations would you be most concerned about? SINGLE CODE. ROTATE. Loss of telephone communications Your home or business premises being flooded Being evacuated from home Being without adequate food and water Being without adequate heating Being confined indoors for a long period of time Enforced separation from family (in a large crowd, or due to a sudden event) Being stranded while on a journey (Don’t know) ASK ALL Q2B In the last 12 months, have you experienced any disruption to your water, gas and electricity supplies? Yes No (Don’t know)

35

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 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 Salmond UK 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) (Don’t Know) ASK ALL Q4 In an emergency situation which affected you, how would you obtain information on what 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) Social media (eg Twitter and Facebook) 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) (Don’t Know)

36

ASK ALL Q5 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… 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 property’s water supply in an emergency …have any friends or neighbours to turn to in an emergency …know which of your neighbours you could call on for help …know which of your neighbours would most need help in an emergency …have a torch and spare batteries (or wind up torch) that you could find in your home …have a radio and spare batteries (or wind up radio) that you could find in your home …have easy access to important documents like birth certificates and insurance polices Yes No (Don’t know) (Not applicable)

ASK ALL Q6 How confident would you be about using first aid skills in an emergency situation? INTERVIEWER – IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE FIRST AID SKILLS, SAY YOU UNDERSTAND 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 (Don’t Know)

37

ASK ALL Q7 How many days do you think your household would have enough to eat without having to get to the shops if you had no electricity, gas or water supply? INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT GIVES TIME IN WEEKS, CONVERT THIS INTO DAYS e.g. 1 week=7 days, 2 weeks=14 days, 4 weeks=28 days COLLECT NUMBER OF DAYS AS NUMERIC Don’t know

ASK ALL Q8 If your normal method of heating e.g. central heating / electricity / mains gas is disconnected, 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 (Don’t know)

IF YES Q8a What alternative method(s) of heating would you be using? PROBE: Any others? DO NOT SHOWSCREEN. DO NOT READ OUT MULTICODE Solar panels (to generate electricity for heating) Wind turbine (to generate electricity for heating) Coal fire Wood burning stove Halogen heater Electric fan heater Electric radiator Generator Calor gas heater Blankets Other (specify) (Don’t know)

38

ASK ALL SHOWSCREEN Q9 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 for snow Battery jump leads A map for unplanned diversions Ice scraper and de-icer Food and drink that will last (i.e won’t go off) (None of these) (Don’t have a car) (Don’t know)

ASK ALL SHOWSCREEN Q10 Would you be interested in receiving further information about how to keep your family prepared for any of the following emergencies? PROBE: Any others? MULTICODE. ROTATE. Emergencies caused by extreme weather Health emergencies Emergencies caused by terrorism Animal health emergencies Major transport incidents (None of the above)

ASK ALL Q11 What is your ethnic group? WHITE (SHOW ON SCREEN BUT DO NOT CODE) Scottish English Welsh Northern Irish British Irish Gypsy / traveller

39

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 British Other 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 ALL Q12 Do you have any long term illness, health problems or disability which limits your daily activities or the work that you can do? Yes No (Refused)

40

APPENDIX 2 – TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Client Conducted by British Red Cross TNS BMRB The principal objective of the research is to asses the current nature and extent of 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 an emergency;  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. The Scottish Omnibus Survey (SOS) was the vehicle of data collection. The SOS is designed to be representative of the adult population of Scotland aged 16+. This is achieved, firstly, by stratifying by the 8 Scottish Parliament electoral regions in order to provide geographic representation. Population data is then used to determine the correct number of sample points required in each region. Interviewers are provided with block of addresses to ensure that all interviews are 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 shown below. Only one interview is permitted per household. Adult population (aged 16+) across Scotland 2011 = 1,039; 2012 = 1008 2011: 25th – 31st May 2011 2012: 23rd – 31st May 2012 Interviewing was conducted face-to-face in respondents’ homes using multimedia CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) 2011 = 40; 2012 = 55 Face to face validation: A minimum of 10% of interviews are checked on every survey. Verification is carried out at TNS’ head office, mainly on the telephone, by trained validators. Interviewer assignments are systematically selected.

Objectives

Sampling method

Universe Sample size Fieldwork Data collection Interviewers Interviewer validation

Questionnaire The questionnaire used is appended to this document. The weighting applied is based on population estimates from the BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board) Establishment Survey 2 Years Ending December 2008 and the 2001 Census. Unweighted and Weighted sample profile can be found in section 2 of this report.

Analysis

41

APPENDIX 3 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS
Central Scotland  Airdrie and Shotts Coatbridge and Chryston Cumbernauld and Kilsyth East Kilbride Falkirk East Falkirk West Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Motherwell and Wishaw Uddingston and Bellshill Anniesland Cathcart Kelvin  Maryhill and Springburn Pollok  Provan  Shettleston Southside Rutherglen Argyll and Bute Caithness, Sutherland and Ross Inverness and Nairn Moray  Na h‐Eileanan an Iar Orkney  Shetland Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch Almond Valley Edinburgh Central Edinburgh Eastern Edinburgh Northern and Leith Edinburgh Pentlands Edinburgh Southern Edinburgh Western Linlithgow Midlothian North and Musselburgh

               
Glasgow 

               
Highlands and Islands 

             
Lothian 

               

42

Mid Scotland and Fife 

               
North East Scotland 

                 
South Scotland 

               
West Scotland 

                 

Clackmannanshire and Dunblane Cowdenbeath Dunfermline Kirkcaldy Mid Fife and Glenrothes North East Fife Perthshire North Perthshire South and Kinross‐shire Stirling  Aberdeen Central Aberdeen Donside Aberdeen South and North Kincardine Aberdeenshire East Aberdeenshire West Angus North and Mearns Angus South Banffshire and Buchan Coast Dundee City East Dundee City West Ayr  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley Clydesdale Dumfriesshire East Lothian Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire Galloway and West Dumfries Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley Midlothian South, Tweeddale, and  Lauderdale Clydebank and Milngavie Cunninghame North Cunninghame South Dumbarton Eastwood Greenock and Inverclyde Paisley  Renfrewshire North and West Renfrewshire South Strathkelvin and Bearsden

43

APPENDIX 4 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS MAP7
Source: Boundary Commission for Scotland8

Source: Boundary Commission for Scotland – http://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/maps/spr/2011/

7

44

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->