EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS IN
SCOTLAND













EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN SCOTLAND












Catriona West / Angelica Lorenzo
TNS-BMRB


















Scottish Government/British Red Cross
28 June 2011
JN220069


Table of Contents


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Background and Objectives 1
Method 1
Main findings 1
1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 4
Background 4
Objectives 4
2 METHOD AND SAMPLE 5
3 LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 7
4 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENT EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS 10
Perceived level of preparedness 10
Actual Household Preparedness 11
Additional ways of keeping warm 15
Items available in car for emergencies 16
Confidence in first aid skills 17
5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPAREDNESS 19
6 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 21
7 CONCLUSIONS 24
APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE 26
APPENDIX 2 – TECHNICAL INFORMATION 30
APPENDIX 3 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS 31



1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Objectives
The Scottish Government defines Community Resilience as:
“Communities and individuals harnessing resources and expertise to help
themselves prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies, in a way that
complements the work of the emergency services.”
Both the Scottish Government and the British Red Cross work throughout Scotland
to enhance and strengthen community resilience.
This issue was included in the SNP’s 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 promote
community and national resilience and work with the British Red Cross to take
forward their proposal for a national resilience week in Scotland.”

As previous research into preparedness, as well as awareness of risks and sources
of information, was most recently undertaken in 2008, the Red Cross and the
Scottish Government commissioned TNS-BMRB to conduct research with the
principal objective of assessing the current nature and extent of preparedness in
Scotland.
Method
The research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS) during the
period 25
th
– 31
st
May 2011 and a total of 1,039 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
Whilst a majority overall (67%) were concerned about any of the following
emergency situations: extreme weather, health emergencies, terrorism, animal
health emergencies and major transport incidents, concern for each specific
emergency was relatively low.
The highest level of concern was recorded for emergencies due to extreme weather
with 54% of respondents feeling concerned about this. Just over a third (35%) said
they were concerned about health emergencies – such as pandemic flu - and the
levels of concern recorded for emergencies caused by animal health, terrorism or
major transport incidents were at lower levels (at 29%, 28% and 22% respectively).


2
In line with the moderate levels of concern, the perceived levels of preparedness
were also fairly limited, with just under half of all respondents (46%) saying that they
did 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 better
levels of preparedness recorded for these two eventualities (40% and 32% prepared
respectively), compared to 10% feeling prepared to deal with emergencies caused
by terrorism, 15% for animal health emergencies and 16% for major transport
incidents.
It should be noted too that being concerned does not necessarily translate into high
levels of preparedness. Whereas those who claimed to be very/quite concerned,
were consistently more likely to be prepared than those who were not concerned, the
percentage claiming to be prepared was still low: in each case: less than half of
those concerned about each emergency felt prepared to deal with the situation.
The summary table below shows the percentage claiming to be very/quite
concerned, the percentage claiming to be very/quite prepared and, in the final
column, the percentage prepared amongst those who are concerned – for each of
the 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 was
prepared for an emergency). However, there was also an expectation for the
government (Scottish, UK and also local authorities) to be responsible for helping
households 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 among
Scottish households in terms of:
• having at least one of the items prompted with to deal with an emergency
in the household (99%);
• the majority knowing where they would go for further information about an
emergency (95%).


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 could
last for a week or less, with a further 16% who claimed they would survive up to two
weeks.

Levels of actual preparedness were lower for motorists, with 75% indicating that they
had 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 items
prompted on: they were most likely to have a working torch (45% of car owners) and
least likely to have a shovel (21% of car owners).

The majority (63%) also indicated that they did not have alternative methods of
heating 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 reasonable
number included the internet (25%), the telephone (10%) and the radio (10%).
There was some appetite for further information about how to keep the family
prepared for an emergency with 44% saying they would like to receive this.
Furthermore, this increased to 59% among those arguably more in need of this
information - 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.



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 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.
1.2 The Red Cross, as part of the wider voluntary sector, plays a key role in
Scotland in supporting other emergency services during major incidents and
severe weather. In addition, they provide training in first aid skills and life-
saving, promote community safety messages about being prepared for
emergencies, and provide resources to help individuals and families become
more resilient.
1.3 In 2008 the Scottish Government conducted research into incidents and
emergencies which could affect Scotland. This investigated public awareness
of risks, levels of preparedness and sources of information. The Red Cross
has also previously commissioned research into first aid knowledge and
preparedness. Whilst these pieces of research have provided vital
information, there has been no recent research to provide up-to date
information 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 assessing
the 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 with
emergencies; and
• What information people want to have on preparedness and where they are
likely to look for this.

1.6 This information will allow 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.


5
2 METHOD AND SAMPLE

2.1 The research was carried out using the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS). The
SOS is a monthly omnibus survey conducted in-home 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.
2.2 For this research, fieldwork took place during the period 25
th
– 31
st
May 2011
and a total of 1,039 interviews were achieved. Interviewing was carried out in
71 of the 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies across Scotland. This sample
was representative of the adult population in terms of sex, age, employment
status and socio-economic group (SEG)
1
.
2.3 As is the case each month, the achieved sample was weighted
2
to ensure that
it represents Scotland’s population and is consistent between waves should
future tracking be required.
2.4 The weighting applied on sex, age and SEG 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 composition of the sample for the SOS in May 2011.


1
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 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.


6
Table 2.1 - Sample profile
Base: All respondents (1,039)
Unweighted
(1039)
%
Weighted
(1039)
%

Male 45 48 SEX:
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 33 CHILDREN <16 IN THE
HOUSEHOLD No 70 67
Yes 27 24 DISABILITY
No 73 76
Urban 68 72 LOCATION
Rural 32 28


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.
2.6 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 2011 omnibus, 68% of the
achieved sample (unweighted) was urban, and 32% rural, which is broadly in
line with the proportions seen in Scotland.


7
3 LEVELS OF CONCERN WITH DIFFERENT EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS

3.1 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; and
• Major transport incidents – for example a plane crash or train derailment.
The results obtained for each emergency situation are shown in the figure
below (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: 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 (1039)

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

22
32
41
36
45
24
32
30
34
32
40
26
20 21
16
14
9 8 8
6
Emergencies
caused by
extreme
weather
Health
emergencies
Emergencies
caused by
terrorism
Animal health
emergencies
Major
transport
incidents
%
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Not very concerned
Not concerned at all


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 to
extreme weather, at 54%. This figure increased to 60% amongst 55-64 years
olds, whereas significantly fewer 16-24 years olds claimed to be concerned
about this (45%). Females were also significantly more likely to be concerned
than males, at 59% and 48% respectively. Moreover, some 14% claimed to
be very concerned about this situation, compared to less than 10% for all
other 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 than
for extreme weather, at just over a third (35%). Differences in SEG were
most in evidence in this context, with levels of concern ranging from 27% and
31% for ABs and C1s respectively, to 41% and 40% for C2s and DEs
respectively.
3.5 The figures recorded for emergencies caused by animal health and terrorism
were at even lower levels, with some 29% and 28% respectively claiming to
be concerned. At just over a fifth (22%), the lowest level of concern was
recorded for major transport incidents.
3.6 Whilst there were no significant trends according to demographic differences
for these three emergency situations, the markedly higher and strong level of
concern in the South with animal health emergencies is noteworthy: 40%
rated themselves as concerned, with some 19% very concerned, with animal
health emergencies in this region of Scotland. The Foot and Mouth outbreak
in 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/illness
were more likely to be concerned that those without, and significantly so in
relation to health, animal health, terrorism and transport emergency situations.
3.8 On average, respondents rated themselves as concerned with only just under
2 (1.7) out of the five emergencies. Reflecting the findings noted above,
females, older respondents, C2DEs and those with an illness/ disability were
more likely to be concerned about a higher number of emergencies. Full
details can be seen on Figure 3.2 overleaf.



9
Figure 3.2: Average number of emergencies concerned about
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 subgroup


3.9 In terms of age, whilst the number of concerns broadly increases as the age
of respondent increases, it is those in the 55-64 age group rather than the
over 65’s 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)


10
4 PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL PREPAREDNESS FOR DIFFERENT
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Perceived level of preparedness
4.1 In order to gauge preparedness, respondents were asked to rate their level of
preparedness with each of the five emergency situations on a four point rating
scale, ranging from very prepared to not all prepared. The results for each
are shown in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1: Perceived level of preparedness
Q2: Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies?
Base: All respondents (1039)


4.2 In line with the different levels of concern recorded, perceived levels of
preparedness also varied across the five emergency situations, ranging from
40% to 10%. Arguably, given the immediacy of extreme weather in particular
(severe conditions last took place in winter 2010/2011) and also health
emergencies, albeit to a lesser extent (with the last flu pandemic outbreak
taking 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 by
terrorism, with the preparedness figures for animal health emergencies and
transport 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 all
prepared for any of the five emergency situations. Moreover despite being
more concerned overall, this figure of un-preparedness was higher amongst
females (50%) than males (41%). On the other hand, the opposite was true
of 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
26
34
59
52 55
32
32
28
30 26
36
28
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


11
least one emergency compared to 47% of 25-34s, who recorded the lowest
level of preparedness across all five situations.
4.5 Whilst the findings do suggest that 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 each case, less than half of those concerned about
each emergency indicated that they were very or quite prepared to cope with
it. Specifically:
• 46% of those concerned about emergencies caused by extreme weather
said they were very/quite prepared to deal with it;
• 40% of those concerned about health emergencies were very/quite
prepared for it;
• 26% of those concerned about animal health emergencies were very/quite
prepared 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 confronted
with 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 of
items they either had available or knew how to access to help them in an
emergency. The results are shown in Figure 4.2.


12
Figure 4.2: 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 (1039)

*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 turn
off the property’s power supply (86%), having a working torch (83%), having
prescription medication to hand (82%) and knowing where to turn off the
property’s water supply (81%).
4.9 Fewer by comparison claimed to have an up-to-date first aid kit, at 65%, and
only half and slightly less than half respectively indicated that they had snow
shovel 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 rural
areas and those with a serious illness/disability. Figure 4.3 overleaf shows a
full 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 your
home
...have a snow shovel and supply of grit
...have a hard copy list of emergency
contact numbers
% saying 'yes'
Do you…?


13
Figure 4.3: 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 (1039)


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 emergencies
listed), were in fact more likely to be prepared – giving a higher number of
affirmative 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 of
the emergencies listed).

Length of survival on food and drink supplies

4.13 Respondents were also asked how long they thought their household could
survive 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 days
and 26% for 7 days. A smaller proportion believed they could survive for
longer: 12% for up to two weeks, 2% for up to three weeks, 3% for a month
and 3% for longer than a month. Only 1% of respondents said they could not
survive 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)


14
4.15 As shown in Table 4.1 the results varied by age, with younger age groups
tending to state their household would survive for a shorter period of time than
older groups. For example, 40% of 16-24s stated their household could
survive for 1-3 days, which decreased steadily with age to 28% of those aged
65 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. It
should be noted, however, that the group which was most likely to believe that
they could survive for over two weeks was those aged 45-54 (13%).
Table 4.1 Number days household could survive – by age
Q7: 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?
Base: All respondents (1039)

Total
(1,039
Age
Number of
days
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
Don’t 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 rural
areas to claim they could survive for 1-3 days (36% vs. 24% respectively) with
rural 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 also
tended to state they would survive for longer, with 15% of this group able to
survive for more than 14 days (vs. 6% of those without an illness /disability).
Those with children in the household were slightly less prepared than those
without, with this group significantly more likely to state they would survive for
1-3 days (39% vs 30% of those without children).














15
Table 4.2 Number days household could survive – by sub-group
Q7: 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?
Base: All respondents (1039)

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
Don’t 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 of
keeping warm if their normal method of heating (e.g. central heating /
electricity / mains gas) was disconnected, around a third (37%) indicated that
they 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% vs
39% of C1s, 35% of C2s and 27% of DEs), those living in rural areas (50% vs
32% 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 alternative
methods of heating amongst those who had this available, and the main
responses 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
%
*
*


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 gas
heaters and blankets – each mentioned by around 20% of those with an
alternative heating method. Slightly lower, but nevertheless sizeable
numbers, mentioned an electric radiator (16%), coal fire (14%), and a wood
burning stove, with all other sources cited by less than 5%.
4.21 Whilst there were few significant differences by demographic variables on this
measure, partly reflecting the reduced sample size at this filtered question, the
following are noteworthy:
• Under 34’s 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 over
65s)
• ABs more likely to mention wood burning stove (14% vs. 4% for
C2DEs).
Items available in car for emergencies
4.22 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=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 a
working 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 the
exception of a bottle of drinking water. Moreover around a third (35%) of the
under 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 of
drinking water ABs were most likely to have each of the items, and these
figures were significantly higher than those recorded for DEs.
4.24 As seen on previous measures, those who indicated that they were prepared
for an emergency (and owned a car, n=454), were more likely to answer
positively. On this measure some 81% claimed to have at least one item in
the car compared to 66% of those who were not very/not at all prepared for
any emergency situation.


17

Confidence in first aid skills
4.25 Confidence about using first aid skills in an emergency situation was
moderate, with 61% in total saying they felt confident in doing so – 25% fully
confident and 36% somewhat confident. The full results are shown in the
figure overleaf (Figure 4.6).


18

Figure 4.6: 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 (1039)
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 much
lower level of 41% amongst the over 65s. Reflecting these age differences
confidence in using first aid skills was also much higher amongst those
households with children (71% vs. 56% of those without children). There
were also significant differences according to SEG, with DEs much less likely
to 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
%


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 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 of other people or entities that might also be felt responsible. The
figure below shows the results for both parts of this question (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: 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 (1039)



5.2 Spontaneously, most first mentions related to the respondent themselves
feeling responsible (at 42%), followed some way behind by Scottish
Government (17%), UK Government (13%) and Local council (11%).
5.3 At a total level, when combining first and other mentions, a similar pattern
emerged, 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 emergency
services (12%) or the police (9%)
3
to be responsible. Likewise, only a small

3
Other 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


20
minority (9%) indicated that they felt responsibility lay with someone else in
the 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% amongst
those with no children) and those with a serious illness/disability (53% vs.
39% without a serious illness/disability`). Those living in rural areas were
more likely to say that the local council was responsible for ensuring that
households are prepared for an emergency (39% vs. 28% urban), whereas
those in urban areas were more likely to cite the UK Government as being
responsible (33% vs. 22% rural).


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 first
obtain 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 figure
below (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1: 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 (1039)

6.2 Responses on this measure were fairly diverse, with no strong consensus
emerging. The TV was the most commonly cited channel for obtaining
information, although not by a majority (43%). TV was more likely to be cited
as 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, also
by 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 they
would use sources such as government / council / police websites (9%) or
other internet sources (16%). In line with the profile of online users, internet
usage 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 phone
was 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
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
Go in person somewhere else
Other
Don't know
Any internet sources
Any Government / council / police
Any phone
%
*


22
would telephone the Government / council / police (7%), 3% an emergency
helpline (3%) and somewhere else (1%).
6.5 Overall 17% said they would contact Government / council / police (9% via
websites, 7% using the phone and 1% in person). This varied little by
demographics, although those aged 65 and over were more likely to state
they would contact these entities by phone (13%). 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 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 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 below (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2: 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 (1039)
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 in
receiving further information on any of the listed emergencies. Interest was
slightly higher for information relating to emergencies caused by extreme
weather (38%) and health emergencies (36%), the types of emergency which
were most likely to cause concern, than for emergencies caused by terrorism
(29%), animal health emergencies (27%) or major transport incidents (28%).


23
6.8 Not surprisingly, those who were not concerned about any of these
emergencies were significantly less likely to say that they would be interested
in receiving further information: 28% expressed interest compared to 52%
among those who were concerned about at least one of the eventualities
listed.
6.9 However the results also showed that whereas some 46% of those who
indicated that they were prepared for any of the emergencies would be
interested 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 was
higher, and significantly so for three out the five emergencies, amongst those
with some level of preparedness compared to those with little or no
preparedness.
6.10 There were no other significant differences on this measure.


24
7 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Overall levels of concern about emergencies due to extreme weather, public
health, animal health, terrorism and major transport incidents ranged from
moderate to slight. Comparatively, and presumably reflecting the greater
immediacy of extreme weather and health emergencies, respondents
appeared to feel not only more concerned but also better prepared for both
these situations, and in particular for extreme weather.
7.2 However not only was the level of perceived preparedness recorded relatively
low across all situations, including the weather, but it was also low amongst
those who had claimed to be concerned. Accordingly it cannot be assumed
that simply raising awareness that these situations may occur and thereby
heightening concerns, will lead to increased recognition of the need to have
the necessary resources/plans in place.
7.3 In terms of prioritising those who appeared to be more vulnerable, i.e. those
who had indicated that they felt less prepared to deal with an emergency, this
should include women, DEs and older people.
7.4 Whilst there was recognition that the individual bears responsibility for being
prepared, a lack of preparedness might also partly be explained by the
expectation amongst many that responsibility lies with government – UK,
Scottish or local. Each of these layers of government was mentioned by
around a third of respondents, and for some one in ten each was also their
top of mind response, when asked to specify who was responsible.
7.5 Interestingly, although most thought themselves unprepared for specific
emergency situations, the findings were more positive with regard to actual
levels of preparedness, at least with regard to knowledge and access to items
that might be used in the household and in terms of the number of days that
could be survived on existing food and drink supplies. Specifically, over 80%
of respondents indicated that they had friends or neighbours they could turn
to, knowledge of where to turn off the power supply, a working torch they
could 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 to
5.7 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 if
the normal method of heat was disconnected. Only slightly over a third
indicated that they could keep warm using other sources of heat, thus
highlighting that the majority do not have alternative methods of heating
available.
7.7 Also, by comparison, motorists appeared to be less prepared than
householders, as the majority of car owners indicated that they did not have
each of a torch, blanket, drinking water, first aid kit or shovel. Arguably some
of these items, and especially the shovel, might be more connected with
winter weather, and therefore not considered necessary at this time of the
year. Nevertheless, the findings highlighted that essential items for coping
with emergency situations were missing from the majority of cars in Scotland.


25
7.8 Skill levels with first aid could also be considerably improved upon as less
than two thirds of the sample claimed to have any confidence in using such
skills in an emergency. Furthermore, around one in seven said they would
not 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 sample
indicated an interest in receiving further information on any of the listed
emergencies. Interest was highest for those types of emergency where there
was the greatest level of concern, i.e. emergencies caused by extreme
weather (38% interested) and health emergencies (36%).
7.10 Given that many of the measures employed in the survey form a key part of
the TNS behaviour change approach
4
, we would suggest the following: with
the exception of extreme weather which did impact upon many areas of
Scotland last winter, the perceived threat, and visibility of a threat, from these
emergency situations is currently low for most. Likewise, the absence of any
personal experience of these scenarios, regardless of the true probabilities of
them occurring, is also likely to be influencing both the levels of concern and
the interest in being better prepared. The route to achieving behaviour
change therefore perhaps lies in communicating that, at relatively low cost,
there are huge benefits to be realised for individuals, family and friends, and
indeed other members of the community, from being well prepared.




4
TNS 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 of
beliefs (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,


26
APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE

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

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

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



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 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)
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)

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

Yes
No
(Don’t know)
(Not applicable)


28


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)

ASK ALL
Q7 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 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)

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
(None of these)
(Don’t have a car)
(Don’t know)


29

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
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)


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 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.
Sampling
method

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.
At this wave, interviews conducted across 61 constituencies.
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.
Universe

Adult population (aged 16+) across Scotland
Sample size

1,039 interviews conducted in total across Scotland
Fieldwork

From 25
th
– 31
st
May 2011
Data
collection

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

n/a
Interviewers

40 interviewers
Interviewer
validation


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.
Questionnaire

The questionnaire used is appended to this document.
Analysis

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.



31
APPENDIX 3 – SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS

REGION CONSTITUENCY
Lothians Edinburgh Central
Lothians Edinburgh East
Lothians Edinburgh North & Leith
Lothians 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 Kirkcaldy
Mid 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 valley
South 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 & Kilsyth
Central East Kilbride


32
REGION CONSTITUENCY
Central Hamilton North & Bellshill
Central Hamilton South
Central Kilmarnock & Loudoun
Central Motherwell & Wishaw
Glasgow Glasgow Anniesland
Glasgow 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


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful