Version Final Submission to MADEM.2

8/6/2019 Version Final Submission to MADEM.2

1/100

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Background

This project examined the City of Guelph and the potential integration of existing

and future neighbourhood groups into the Citys emergency management program.

Neighbourhood groups and associations exist to improve the quality of life in their

communities (Logan & Rabrenovic, 1990) and this is key in the mission statement of the

neighbourhood groups in Guelph (City of Guelph). These are people who are already

engaged in their community, and have a commitment to assist others. With that desire to

help and be involved in place comes the ability to influence the decisions and actions of

those in command (Pearce, 2002) through influence and contact. This project seeks to

find ways to utilize this engaged group of citizens in enhancing the City of Guelphs

emergency management program in ways that will be accepted and supported by

neighbourhood groups and municipal decision makers. Without an aligning of goals

between the population and emergency management decision makers, there is a potential

for assistance to be offered but not accepted.

Purpose of the Research

This research was conducted to determine knowledge of emergency management

within the existing neighbourhood groups established in the City of Guelph. This requires

an assessment of current emergency management knowledge within the executive and

other members of neighbourhood groups, and a measure of the satisfaction of past

emergency management communication between the City of Guelph and neighbourhood

groups. This research made an assumption that both neighbourhood groups, and the

emergency operations control group and senior managers of the City of Guelph would

see benefit in working together to improve the community, and that there is a willingness


2/100

2

to be involved by neighbourhood groups and the City of Guelph in that communication

process.

This project sought to answer the following question about the neighbourhood

groups and their interaction with the City of Guelph during an emergency: What role do

neighborhood groups play in preparing residents to understand their roles and

responsibilities for self-preservation and recovery in the City of Guelph prior to, during,

and after an emergency? More specifically, this research examined the following:

1. Does the City of Guelph communicate with our neighborhood groups toensure that residents understand their roles?

2. Is communication effective between the City of Guelph and neighborhoodgroups?

3. How does the City of Guelph ensure an understanding of local emergencyplans and methods exists within our neighborhood groups?

4. How does the City of Guelph include the need to self organize a response at aneighborhood level within the municipal plans?

5. Do repeated warnings prior to an event de-sensitize neighborhood groups todanger, thereby reducing the seriousness of their required response?

Definitions

During this paper, the following definitions will assist the reader in understanding

the terms and functions referred to.

Communications The process of disseminating useable information to other

persons who receive and understand the message (Merriam-

webster.com)


3/100

3

Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC) A qualified emergency

manager responsible for administration of an emergency plan.

An emergency management practitioner. (Guelph.ca)

Emergency Management The managerial function charged with creating the framework

within which communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and

cope with disaster (International Association of Emegency

Managers)

Emergency Management Ontario A provincial agency that is tasked with emergency

management coordination functions for municipalities and

provincial agencies. Known by its acronym EMO.

Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) A place of operations equipped with

communications systems that facilitate command and control

over resources during a time of crisis or potential crisis.

Emergency Operations Control Group (EOCG) A group of individuals who are senior

staff for the City of Guelph, and are designated by by-law to

issue instructions and give direction in a time of

emergency.(Guelph.ca)

Exercise An opportunity to test local emergency preparations and plans.

Fan out list A list maintained by an organization with contact information

to allow the quick dissemination of information through the

organization. (thefreedictionary.com)

Mitigation - The process of taking action to prevent or reduce emergency or

disaster situation effects.- to make less severe or painful

(merriam-webster.com)


4/100

4

Neighbourhood Group A civic organization oriented toward maintaining or improving

the quality of life in a geographically delimited residential area

(Logan & Rabrenovic, 1990).

Neighbourhood Group Executive Members of a neighbourhood group who have

organizational or leadership functioning within the group,

formally or informally. (Cindy Richardson, 2009)

Neighbourhood Coalition Support Group (NCSG) A support committee comprised of

delegates from each of the 12 existing neighbourhood groups

of the City of Guelph, plus City staff advisors. (Guelph.ca)

Prevention/Preparedness - The process of planning and preparations for a potential

disaster. A state of adequate preparedness (merriam-

webster.com)

Public Alert Messaging (PAM) A geographical information system based emergency

notification system capable of voice messaging all businesses

and residences within the City of Guelph during an emergency.

(City of Guelph)

Recovery - The rebuilding of an area affected by a disaster or emergency,

the establishment of a new normal for that affected area.

(merriam-webster.com)

The frame of reference - the City of Guelph

The City of Guelph is a mid-size city located in Southern of approximately

135,000 persons (Statistics Canada, 2009). Guelph has its own municipal Police, Fire

and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) (Guelph.ca). Guelph is a city, municipally


5/100

5

distinct from, but located geographically within Wellington County (Municipal Affairs

and Housing).

Guelph is subject to Federal law and regulation, provincial law and regulation,

and municipal by-laws. Guelph maintains an emergency management plan that is

authorized by bylaw City of Guelph By-Law(2009) #18713 (City of Guelph) that

prescribes the required emergency management plan in accordance with the Emergency

Management and Civil Protection Act of Ontario, R.S.O. 1990 (EMCPA). This requires

that the municipality have in place a Community Emergency Management Coordinator,

and Emergency Operations Center, and an Emergency Management Plan. In addition,

the municipality must train members and exercise its Emergency Management Plan at

least once per year. At present, the training and exercise includes staff members and some

volunteer agencies within the City.

Guelph is located at 4335'N, 8020'W (www.mapsofworld.com), and consists of

rolling terrain, and is bisected by two rivers. The Eramosa River flows into the City from

the northeast, with its headwaters in the northern area of Wellington County. The

Eramosa River is a tributary of the Speed River, joining with the Speed at the confluence

of the two rivers, located in the downtown area of Guelph. The Speed River flows into

Guelph from the north, with its headwaters located in the Luther marsh, at the

northwestern area of Wellington County. The Speed River is a major contributory of the

Grand River watershed, and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) manages

both the Speed and Eramosa rivers. The GRCA has built and maintains flood control

structures located on the Speed River at the Guelph Lake (dam), and operates weirs in

Royal City Park in the downtown area of Guelph.


6/100

6

The major employers in Guelph are government, university, and light and heavy

manufacturing (City of Guelph). The population of Guelph is affected daily by both

influx and outflow for employment. In the geographic south east of Guelph, a high

percentage of the population is involved in commuting outside the community for

employment. In part, this is due to the proximity of this residential area to provincial

highway 401, a main east/west transportation corridor in southern Ontario.

Guelph is a local hub for agriculture in the southwest area of Ontario. Guelph is

home to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the University of Guelph

(a major agriculture school) including the Ontario Veterinary College, and Conestoga

College.

The community itself has encouraged the growth and development of

neighborhood groups to enhance the quality of life in the city (City of Guelph). These

groups were initially formed 10 years ago (personal communication, Cindy Richardson,

2009) and were tasked with community building activities. Their source of funding

continues to be the City of Guelph, and at present, the tasks and activities of these groups

are under study by the City. These groups are formed by neighborhood, by utilizing

natural and geographic boundaries to describe the areas serviced. At present, there are 12

neighborhood groups that have formed and are active within the City (personal

communication, Cindy Richardson, 2009). Each of these neighborhood groups has its

own governance style, and membership duties. Each of the neighborhood groups is

invited to participate in the Neighborhood Coalition Support Group (NCSG), whose

function is to coordinate and offer support for each of the individual neighborhood

groups.


7/100

7

The neighbourhood groups are funded by the City, and are responsible for

enhancing the quality of life within the borders of their neighbourhood area.

Neighbourhood group organizations primarily consist of volunteers, and they have

executive functions that are not consistent across the 12 groups. Some groups have city-

funded coordinators in paid staff positions; others do not (personal communication,

Cindy Richardson, 2009). A map of the geographic distribution of the neighbourhood

groups is attached at Appendix A. All neighbourhood groups are invited to contribute

delegates to the Neighbourhood Support Coalition.

A municipal council, consisting of an elected mayor and 12 councilors who are

elected by a ward system, governs Guelph. There are two councilors elected from each of

the 6 wards within the City. The councilors sit as a council of the whole and as separate

committees responsible for service areas. City council encourages public participation in

the governance of the city, and has established and published guiding principles for

public involvement (City of Guelph). Guelph supports community involvement, and has

staff assigned to develop and assist neighborhood groups, and actively encourages

neighborhoods to engage themselves to create a strong and vibrant community. These

neighbourhood groups are encouraged to define neighborhood areas through the use of

geographic features such as rivers and green space boundaries, and they are encouraged

and coordinated through the Neighborhood Support Coalition. Each of the individual

neighborhood groups operates autonomously at the neighborhood level to support the

needs of children youth and families within the neighborhood (City of Guelph).

Guelph has an emergency management structure at a municipal level. The Fire

Chief is designated as the Director of Emergency Services, and as such is the senior staff

member directly responsible for emergency management within the City. Ontario


8/100

8

requires that each community have a designated Emergency Management Coordinator,

and recommends that alternates also be named. Accordingly, Guelph has a consultant

under contract as the Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC), and

maintains two alternate CEMCs who are full time employees assigned to other full time

duties but who can assume the CEMC role if needed. No staff is assigned directly to

emergency management on a full time basis. The emergency bylaw (City of Guelph By-

Law(2009) #18713) stipulates that Guelph will comply with the Regulations issued

under the EMCPA for communities, requiring an Emergency Management Coordinator

(CEMC), an Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), an Emergency Operations Control

Group (EOCG) and regular training and exercising of the emergency plan (City of

Guelph).

The Guelph EOC is a fully equipped primary facility located within a secure

building that is part of the municipal holdings. There is also a backup EOC within the

municipality. In an emergency, either of these facilities could be used to host the EOCG.

The EOCG is comprised of senior staff of various City departments (e.g, Police

Chief, Fire Chief, Chief Administrative Official, Mayor, and Director of Public Works)

and politicians who become the emergency decision makers for the municipality in a time

of emergency. There are primary members and alternate members for each of the areas

represented. In addition to these members, other community agencies or community

members can be invited into the EOC during an emergency. There are currently three

duty officers assigned to the EOCG during an emergency. Each of the duty officers has a

background that will assist the EOCG in an emergency.

Guelph has a municipal fire service that consists of a fire headquarters/station

located in the downtown area, and four outlying fire stations housing personnel and


9/100

9

equipment. The fire service has one dispatch center located at the headquarters with full

time communicators, and firefighters and officers who are deployed among the

headquarters and stations.

Guelph has a municipal EMS that provides paramedic services to Guelph and

Wellington County. This service consists of primary care paramedics and advanced care

paramedics. The EMS has ambulances and a supervisor/administrative unit (City of

Guelph).

Guelph Police Service is governed by a Police Services Board, and provides

services to the municipality. The Police Service has full time officers and communicators,

and is responsible for providing Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) services for the

City. This PSAP responsibility ensures that the police communications section is staffed

appropriately at all times to answer 911 calls for assistance.

Guelph has a digital trunked emergency communication system that is

interoperable between Police, Fire and EMS. This trunked communication system is also

compatible with the Ontario Government Network of mobile communications. This

allows seamless technical interoperability of Police, Fire and EMS functions with

provincial counterparts if required.

Benefit for the municipality and community in collaborating on emergency management

The Ontario and Canadian emergency management models are centered on the

basis that the individual is responsible for their own wellbeing for the first 72 hours, and

after that assistance will be available through the municipality, the province, and then the

federal government, known as a bottom up approach (Wachtendorf, 2001). Any

emergency or disaster will have impacts on the persons who inhabit that area, and the

local organizations and businesses that serve a community will be front and center during


10/100

10

those times, both before the event as part of a mitigation strategy, and post event as part

of the recovery effort (Rodriguez et al., 2007). These organizations include not only local

emergency management officials, but also local service agencies providing services to a

community. These can be professional organizations and businesses, or primarily

volunteers. They form part of the capacity of the community to provide for itself, and an

important part of the fabric of a community(Waugh & Streib, 2006).

Guelph already utilizes several community volunteer and professional agencies as

part of its emergency planning such as St. John Ambulance and the Humane Society.

Engaging and utilizing dedicated community minded persons involved with

neighbourhood groups who are willing to assist others in a time of emergency is a natural

extension of the established practice. The municipality will benefit from having a

formalized interaction during an emergency with established neighbourhood groups

through the additional capacity neighbourhood groups have to communicate information,

pre-organized community minded volunteers, and the proximity of resources to the

affected areas in the community. The neighbourhood groups will also benefit from

formalizing a relationship with City emergency managers that provides them with

information, allows community members to help themselves, and assists in the

fulfillment of their organizational goals. This ability to help itself is an important part of

any recovery effort in assisting a community to heal after an emergency.

What is not clear is what the level of acceptance of this involvement will be.

There are two elements to consider in community involvement: that of the neighbourhood

groups themselves being able and committed to involvement in community emergencies

by offering advice and communication abilities to the municipality, and secondly the


11/100

11

level of assistance and involvement by the community that the municipality will be

willing to accept and at what direct cost to the municipal budget.

The purpose of this research study is to investigate the effectiveness of

communication between the City of Guelph, which retains responsibility for emergency

planning, and neighborhood groups within Guelph, which have the goal of improving the

quality of life in the community. Residents and businesses of the community must be

adequately informed and engaged in the emergency management process in order to

assist themselves in a time of emergency (Rodriguez et al., 2007). This requires effective

communications as part of the emergency prevention and mitigation processes. To be

effective, communication must engage stakeholders and inspire them to participate as full

partners in the emergency management process. For example,

In order for weather forecasts and warnings to be useful to individuals and

communities, they must be understood, must meet their needs, and must provide

accurate and reliable information as well as sufficient lead time to allow them to

take appropriate action. (Rodriguez et al., 2007, p. 477).

Research Needs

The need for research in community engagement for emergency management is

immense. We mitigate against hazards occurring; however, failure to communicate with

the potentially affected population thereby affording the opportunity to further reduce

losses of property, injury or death, is a failure to do due diligence (EMO Guidelines,

2008, p. ii). Failing to do due diligence will result in legal action being taken, and

ethically it will be very difficult to accept, being indicative of a failure in leadership by

emergency management professionals. Our population trusts in the municipality to


12/100

12

ensure that due diligence is done, and that before and during a time of disaster, the

municipality will be able to provide the required planning and resources to ensure the

safety and security of the populace. The failure to prepare and adequately communicate

with an area affected by a disaster, prior to the disaster occurring, will be a source of

litigation after a disaster. Morally and ethically, we as disaster management professionals

must ensure that the expectations of the public are met or exceeded.

Assumptions

As part of this research I have made an assumption that both neighbourhood

groups and the municipality will see the benefit in the community being involved in

emergency management. I have also made the assumption that executive members of

neighbourhood groups will be prepared to answer a survey; that they will see

involvement in emergency management as part of their mandate to improve the quality of

life in their neighbourhood; that they will be interested in participating in this research

project; and that they will answer questions honestly reflecting their own knowledge

about their neighbourhood groups. I have assumed that executive members of

neighbourhood groups have a good working knowledge of their membership, and that

they have the desire, ability and willingness to provide resources, material or human, to

assist others in their community in an emergency. I have assumed that members of

neighbourhood groups are not suffering from volunteer burn out.

I have also made some assumptions about the municipality: that the municipality

itself will be prepared to engage the neighbourhood groups and have them participate as

emergency management partners to help serve the community. I have assumed that the

municipality would welcome a pool of organized volunteers when assistance was

required, putting the community need ahead of any financial, contractual, or human


13/100

13

resource use issues during an emergency. I have assumed that the municipality would be

prepared to share resources without expectation of reimbursement for them with the

understanding that the resources will benefit the community, not specific individuals or

businesses. I have assumed that the municipality desires the best possible emergency

management program for the community, and that it will welcome community input and

involvement in this area.


14/100

14

Chapter 2 Literature review

A review of the literature reveals that considerable research has been done in the

area of crisis communications (Basolo et al., 2009; Brandon, 2002; Comfort & Haase,

2006; Eisenmann et al., 2007; Gow, 2007; Kapucu, 2008; Kapucu 2008A; Paton, 2003;

Seeger, 2006; Spence et al, 2007) and based on this literature review, how well we

communicate with the public to ensure preparedness has not been a major area of study.

The majority of the published research available deals with communication in the actual

time of crisis, rather than communication to enhance pro-active response in the

community. As a result, the literature review for this study was conducted with a focus on

the following literature review themes: (1) the need for a definition of a crisis, (2)

international guidelines, (3) the North American experience documented in literature thus

far, and (4) community groups and their importance in improving quality of life in the

community. Literature on each of these themes is presented in turn.

Crisis defined

Spence et al. (2007), define crisis as a specific, unexpected, and non-routine event

or series of events that create high levels of uncertainty and threaten or are perceived to

threaten high priority goals(p. 540). Spence et al crafted a list of crises that includes

chemical or nuclear disasters, major plane crashes, space exploration catastrophes,

terrorist attacks, and public health threats. They believe a crisis to be an event that

requires extraordinary efforts and quick responses to counteract these events and avoid

disruption of everyday life. Emergency management prepares for, responds to, and

assists in the recovery from a crisis event. Perry (2007) links crisis and disaster, noting

that we must decide if they are a social phenomenon, a natural or technological process.


15/100

15

Boin and THart (2007) state The terms crisis and disaster are often used

synonymously(p. 42), and note that disaster researchers have paid little attention to

conflicts between people and the breakdown of economic and technological systems in

disaster planning. Burby (1998) notes that disasters include the disruption of economic

systems. The noted literature shows a wide definition of what can be considered a crisis

or disaster within the realm of emergency management, requiring a broad spectrum of

planning, communication and prevention strategy.

International Guidelines

The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) is an international

association that is the humanitarian sector's first international self-regulatory body

(HAP, 2009). This is a governing body of humanitarian relief agencies who undertake to

support populations affected by disaster in a time of need. This standard was created to

ensure that agencies providing humanitarian need were doing so in a consistent manner.

Agencies providing assistance to an affected populace must have regard to the needs of

that populace. Additional HAP standards include reducing the risk of further disaster by

ensuring that assistance rendered does not further jeopardize the safety and wellbeing of

the population, and that assistance is reflective of the need of the people served, not the

donors ability to provide finances and material. This can be extrapolated in the area of

mitigation/preparedness to include that the needs of the people served must be taken into

account prior to any emergency occurring. Scott Graham of the American Red Cross

noted that it is always a challenge to help donors find the right way. What they want to

donate is not always appropriate (personal communication, September 28, 2009). The

engagement of the community is mandated to ensure a proper two-way flow of

communication exists prior to any actual emergency. If proper communication exists, this


16/100

16

will assist the community preparedness and mitigation efforts prior to the emergency, and

will facilitate community engagement in response and recovery efforts to a greater

degree. It is the expectation of the worlds major relief agencies that organizations

providing relief will be responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. The same

is true of municipalities in regard to disaster planning; they must be responsive to the

needs of the communities they serve.

The United Nations through its international strategy for disaster reduction

(UN/ISDR) also reflects this requirement of community engagement. In the Hyogo

framework, disaster reduction was determined to be a national and local priority.

Specifically noted was the need for community participation:

Promote community participation in disaster risk reduction through the adoption

of specific policies, the promotion of networking, the strategic management of

volunteer resrouces, the attribution of roles and responsibilities and the delegation

and provision of the necessary resources. (United Nations)

North American experiences

Naim Kapucu (2008) supports the view that agencies must be responsive to the

needs of their communities and engage them in communicating effectively to achieve

success in emergency planning and preparedness. Kapucu contrasts communication

approaches taken during hurricane Katrina by the State of Louisiana and the hurricane

preparedness efforts undertaken in the State of Florida during the 2004 hurricane season.

He maintains the State of Florida took a pro-active approach to communication,

participating in community events and workshops to ensure high levels of preparedness

existed prior to the actual hurricane season. During Katrina, we know what the


17/100

17

communication efforts were to warn people of the impending approach of the hurricane,

yet with little pre-education done, the level of preparation was not high. I agree with

Kapucus view that emergency managers must actively engage the community in order to

provide effective communication to the community prior to the actual emergency event.

The Florida experience is exemplified as a model to follow, engaging the community as a

prevention strategy, thereby reducing risks to the population (Betts, 2007; Harrison-

Ward, 2003).

In the Seeger (2006) article, the author acknowledges the importance of being

proactive in the crisis communication process. This he describes as pre-event planning,

leading the reader to believe that the action still responds to the crisis. However, he does

acknowledge the value of partnerships with the public. Ideally, the public can serve as a

resource, rather than a burden, in risk and crisis management. Thus, crisis communication

best practices would emphasize a dialogic approach (Seeger, 2006, p.238). I agree with

Seegers approach in that investing time and effort in creating effective dialogue will

enhance community safety and self-help.

Community and Neighbourhood Groups

Norris et al. (2008) assert that the community must have citizen engagement, which

can occur through a process of establishing, maintaining and participating in community

groups. They believe that citizen participation is a fundamental element of community

resiliency and creates a sense of belonging required to keep a community together.

Neighbourhood groups or associations are defined as: a civic organization oriented toward

maintaining or improving the quality of life in a geographically delimited residential area

(Logan & Rabrenovic, 1990).

In Murphy (2007) we find an acknowledgement that relationships, or lack of

relationships within a community can cause required resources to be funneled either to or


18/100

18

away from an affected area. This unequal distribution of social capital leaves some areas of

a society potentially disadvantaged, and others receiving disproportionately more assistance

that they should. Murphy also describes, using a Canadian example, how emergent social

groups offering ad-hoc assistance within the community demonstrate a desire to help not

only one self, but also those in similar circumstances. McEntire (2002) acknowledges that

emergent groups are important during an emergency response after disaster, and suggest

that emergency managers should be prepared to engage them.

In Kretzman and McKnight (1993) we find the concept of capacity focused

approach to community building. This utilizes the capacity found within the community

to assist in the communitys own development. An asset in that community can be as

simple as a neighborhood association that is empowered to make the quality of life in that

community better for the residents.

In Gumpert and Drucker (2008) they note that a standard of living is distinct from

a quality of life. Neighborhood groups and communities are dedicated to improving the

quality of life for those in the community (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993). This quality of

life can be in both tangible and intangible ways. Disaster preparedness contributes to

resilience, thereby increasing quality of life.

Neighbourhood group involvement

Ikeda (1982) examined public compliance with an evacuation order in Obhu,

Japan that was transmitted by several means; by media, by officials by way of patrol car,

and through neighbourhood association communication. In Ohbu, neighbourhood

associations have as their smallest unit 10 to 20 neighbouring families, and five to 10

units make up an association. This study concluded (p 57) that generally diffusion of

warning through a neighborhood association was not effective. What it also concluded

was that when neighborhood association was the medium (personal) the message was


19/100


20/100

20

there is a difference in the informational requirements of individuals depending upon

gender. Given the higher propensity of females to reach out to others within their

community for information, providing information through these trusted community

sources would fill an information void with accurate, timely guidance. Cottrell concludes

that resilience can be enhanced through the encouragement of coping strategies including

effective support networks, including tapping into existing community organizations.

Victoria (2009) recognizes that community-based disaster management that builds

on and strengthens community capacity reduces vulnerability and disaster risk. Victoria

notes that in community based disaster risk management (CBDRM) the community

members are the main actors. They benefit both in the participatory process and the

results of CBDRM and community development.

Paton (2003) notes the positive effect of collaboration within a community

regardless of the type of initially shared problem. Paton suggests that integration of the

community is required in emergency management.

To facilitate this integration, representatives of community groups (e.g.

community boards or action groups, neighborhood watch, religious and ethnic

groups) could be invited to review hazard scenarios with regard to the potential

challenges, opportunities and threats they could pose for each group.(p. 314)

He reiterates there is a need for emergency planning to empower the community,

involving the community in the process rather than imposing decisions on it. I believe

that this would be a goal to achieve, to involve the community through neighbourhood

groups at the base level in decisions. I believe that this will not occur all at once, and that

steps must be taken toward gradual involvement. This includes establishing the level of

acceptance within neighbourhood groups for involvement in the emergency management


21/100

21

process, not only with the neighbourhood groups themselves, but also with the

emergency management practitioners and officials.

Waugh and Streib (2006) recognize that emergency management has changed

from its initial civil defence roots and has become flexible in how the organizations

operate within a framework. The adaptability of the emergency management system has

become key to a successful outcome. The emergency manager must be able to work

effectively with any coalition of organizations, professional or non-professional, that is

required to address the emergency faced. I believe that this must include organized

neighbourhood groups, as they are at the ground level in any prevention, mitigation, and

recovery effort within the community. Waugh and Strieb note that volunteers provide

essential surge capacity and links to community resources (p. 132). This surge of

individuals may be required to augment first responder and established capacities. Waugh

and Streib understand that emergency management capacity is built from the ground up.

Neighbourhood and community programs have to stand on their own because assistance

may not arrive for hours or days (p.133),(Pearce, 2002). This view is consistent with that

of emergency management in Canada, which assumes individual families must be

prepared to exist without assistance for the first 72 hours.

Stallings and Quarantelli (1985) acknowledge that at present emergent groups

exist within emergencies in the response phase primarily, and less so at in the

preparedness and recovery phases. They define emergent groups as private citizens who

work together in pursuit of collective goals relevant to actual or potential disasters but

whose organization has not yet become institutionalized (p. 94). By this definition,

neighbourhood groups can be considered emergent groups. Emergency mangers must

plan to engage these neighbourhood groups, and prior to any emergency occurring, public


22/100

22

officials and emergency managers may want to facilitate this engagement. Pre-planning

with these neighbourhood groups prior to an emergency allows emergency managers to

deal with organized groups with an established legitimate relationship, rather than dealing

with isolated individuals or independent groups of individuals ad hoc during an

emergency. Collaboration is key to the emergency effort (Waugh & Strieb, 2006) and

through early engagement, that coordination is likely to be more effective by working

with known entities that are already invested in the process, rather than trying to establish

relationships with new stakeholders during an emergency situation.

Pearce (2002) recognizes that public participation in disaster management is

gradually becoming accepted and is key for successful prevention initiatives. This

includes the inclusion of the public through development of neighbourhood emergency

programs. Pearce cites Coquitlam, British Columbia as an example of neighbourhood

level engagement in emergency management through disaster equipment inventories,

stockpiling of supplies, and through knowledge of individuals in the neighbourhood who

have special needs during an emergency. Dorcey and McDaniels (1999) as contained in

Pearce (2002) state:

Participation in voluntary associations, embodying norms of trust, reciprocity,

tolerance, and inclusion, and activating networks of public communication, are

believed to build and maintain the social capital upon which the vitality of the

governance system and sustainable development are dependent.(p. 23)

Literature review synopsis

As a result of the review of the noted literature, I have concluded that during the

phases of an emergency, crisis or disaster there are expectations about how agencies are


23/100

23

to conduct themselves. This includes the notion of ensuring that the needs of those who

are affected are taken into account, and that the actions taken are reflective of that need as

opposed to actions taken strictly on the abilities of the donors, agencies or governments.

Knowing the makeup and requirements of the population served is key to providing the

appropriate assistance. This responsiveness to the needs of those served is internationally

recognized and applied by major humanitarian groups.

Engagement of the community is always desirable in emergency planning. The

effectiveness of the engagement affects the preparedness and response efforts.

Communication is key to preparedness and mitigation efforts in a community, and

proactive efforts are worthwhile. One must consider warning fatigue with repeated

warnings being given to a community, and the effect that this will have on the receivers

of the warnings.

Community groups exist in our communities to enhance the way of life in their

communities, and they can be a resource within them. Neighbourhood groups are

community groups, and they consist of persons already predisposed to enhancing the

quality of life in their neighbourhood area.

Warnings received through trusted sources, such as neighbourhood groups, may

be more effective than those otherwise transmitted. During an emergency, compliance

with directives is highly desired to save property and life. Compliance is best gained in a

voluntary manner, and this is likely to be higher when the source of the request is trusted.

This is particularly important when a community is likely to turn inward for information,

when credibility of the source is an issue. The participation of the community through

information sharing is desirable in all phases of an emergency, and the collaboration with

the community during mitigation/preparedness and recovery is highly desired.


24/100

24

Emergency management has changed from a top down model, to a bottom driven

model, where the individuals are the first line of defence. This responsibility must be

communicated clearly, and the emergency management system must be a flexible one

that can adapt to changing circumstances. Emergencies will require resources greater than

can be readily kept on hand, and the community itself can be used to provide the

resources needed for this surge effort. There is a desire to be involved in the

improvement of communities by the residents of those communities, and during an

emergency these individuals and groups will emerge. The identification and engagement

of these groups prior to an emergency will increase the collaborative success during an

emergency.


25/100

25

Chapter 3 Research conduct and ethics

Research conduct and ethics

The source of the survey

The themes and information identified in the review of literature, combined with

the knowledge I have acquired through the course of studies in Disaster and Emergency

Management at Royal Roads University, and my practical experience as a CEMC have

guided the development of the survey questions that were prepared as part of this

research. These questions were adapted to be presented to neighbourhood group

executive members, general members, and to the EOCG members of the City of Guelph.

This was required to determine not only the desire and capacity of the community to be

involved in emergency management, but the level of acceptance EOCG members and

alternates have for the involvement of the community in emergency management. One of

the goals of this research project was to ensure that the responding members of

neighbourhood groups pondered the situation that they live in, and that this reflective

process would result in them learning more about their situation and how they interact

with emergency management in the community.

Introduction

The data collection tool that was used for this research was an online survey designed

to be accessible initially by executive members of the neighbourhood groups only. This

survey was developed to obtain information about the neighbourhood groups themselves,

the knowledge level of emergencies and emergency management of the executive

members of the neighbourhood groups, the willingness of the neighbourhood groups to

be involved in the emergency management process as a stakeholder and partner of the


26/100

26

City of Guelph, and the level of satisfaction with the current communication processes

between the City of Guelph and the neighbourhood groups. In this chapter, I describe

how the survey was developed for use with neighbourhood groups, and then how the

survey was adapted for use with EOCG members and alternates.

Design

The design of the survey was directed so that the initial questions would allow an

assessment of the understanding of the level of comprehension of the respondents with

respect to their responsibilities during an emergency. The initial survey was separated

into several identifiable sections: individual, neighbourhood group preparedness, group

events, public warnings, and local examples of communication during an emergency.

Regardless of the knowledge level of the respondents, the survey was designed to

reinforce an understanding of what those responsibilities are, and encourage learning

during this survey from the respondents themselves. Except for the general emergency

section, which was designed to get a baseline of emergency management knowledge,

each of the sections was designed to obtain responses to the research question and sub-

questions.

Individual section

During an emergency, access to timely and accurate information is critical, so

respondents were asked about awareness of information, and where they were most likely

to get their information from in a time of emergency. Thirteen choices were put forward

for consideration. These choices were based on literature and my experience as an

emergency management coordinator, and knowledge of the City of Guelphs

commitment to the use of local media for the dissemination of information. Based on the

local communication strategy, I anticipated that television and radio would be very high


27/100

27

in the ranking. Gow (2007) also acknowledges the emphasis that the federal strategies

place on radio and television communication in an emergency. Devices such as radio,

television, cellular/cordless phones and computers/modems for Internet access can be

hampered by electrical interruption, and the consideration of this as a point of failure for

the respondent during an emergency is important. Understanding the level of

preparedness of the respondents is important to provide official communication in a

format that is accessible for the target audience during an emergency. Providing

information in a format that can not be easily accessed or utilized during an emergency is

futile, and may lead to vital instructions not being received or understood (Rodriguez et

al, 2007).

Neighbourhood Group Preparedness Section

The thrust of this research project is to understand the preparedness level of the

neighbourhood groups themselves. The first few questions were designed to understand

how the neighbourhood groups themselves are organized, the numbers of participants,

how often the neighbourhood groups meet, and what their events consist of. In the next

series of questions, the existence of membership information and updates to that

information, the use of the information, and ability to utilize the information was inquired

about. This centered initially on traditional information dissemination

(television/radio/print), and then diverged to website based information maintained by the

neighbourhood groups. A determination of access to information hosted by the

neighbourhood group was made, whether there is general information available to anyone

with an internet connection, and a secured section with information only available to

those registered members with access to a password protected section of the website was

made. Next, to make use of the communication potential within the neighbourhood


28/100

28

group, inquiry was made about how prepared the respondents would be to share

information that may identify them as a person in need of assistance during an emergency

(example: mobility issues, health issues). To respond to this need, inquiry was made

about items that may be available in the neighbourhood to assist during that emergency,

and the desirability of mutual support for neighbourhood members. As not all persons

and families have Internet access, and this may be a method of distributing information,

the availability of a neighbourhood internet access point was inquired about.

Preparedness of individuals and their ability to act in an emergency is influenced by

the sense of how prepared the individual thinks that they are (Sorensen & Sorensen,

2007) so respondents were then asked to rate how prepared they were to cope with an

emergency situation, how important emergency preparedness was to them personally, and

the importance of information availability during a crisis. During a crisis official

communication is issued from the City of Guelph EOCG (City of Guelph emergency

plan, 2010). How prepared the respondents believe they are to obtain information during

an emergency then becomes important information, as does how well the City of Guelph

communicates with the neighbourhood groups on a regular basis, and how well the

neighbourhood group communicates with its members as a whole under normal

circumstances. To determine the preparedness of the neighbourhood groups to assist

themselves and others a series of questions were aimed at understanding how well

prepared the respondents believed they were to cope themselves, including with their

physical and informational needs, and how well prepared they were to assist or not assist

others during an emergency.

Events Information Section


29/100

29

In this short section, questions were posed to determine if thus far in the survey the

respondents had learned anything about their roles and responsibilities in an emergency,

and they were provided with an example of an emergency that affected the entire eastern

seaboard of North America on the14th of August, 2003. Questions about what

information was shared officially during that large scale event, and whether or not it was

sufficient for the respondents needs, and appropriate or not appropriate given the

circumstances were posed to gain insight on how the City of Guelph has communicated

in the past during a large scale emergency.

Public Warnings

In this section, I posed questions to determine how the respondents would react to

preparatory warnings and instructions given for an impending emergency. This was asked

in the context of a frequently distributed warning about the level of power consumption

during the peak summer months. I was interested in whether or not the respondents

followed the warnings/requests because the past practice of respondents will be a good

predictor of the future behavior of these persons under similar circumstances (Wilson,

2009). I then posed a similar question to determine if their behavior changes in response

to increased numbers of requests to take the same action.

Pineridge Tornado

In this section I described briefly a tornado that touched down in the City of Guelph

in 2000. During that emergency, several directions were issued by the EOCG for

residents to comply with. These were for the most part adhered to, but the satisfaction

with the communication was the subject of these questions. The type of communication if

any, any warnings received, and the number of sources those warning were received from

were inquired about. I also explored whether the repeated broadcast of warning


30/100

30

information affects the way the respondents either took or did not take action.

Respondents were questioned about their receipt of repeated warnings of impending

severe weather where no damage results, and how it may influence their perceptions the

validity of future warnings they receive.

Communication Options

In this section, respondents were asked about their preferences in the receipt of

official information from the City of Guelph. The City of Guelph has access to a

Geographical Interface System for the automated electronic dissemination of official

information during an emergency. At present, this utilizes data from a utility provider,

and the next series of questions explored the preferences for the respondents to sign up

for the receipt of emergency information. Whether this service was provided free or

through a service subscription basis was the follow up inquiry.

The last section of the survey was detached electronically from the previous

survey responses, as it asked which neighbourhood group the respondents belonged to.

Thus, respondents remained anonymous.

Ethics

This survey was conducted in accordance with the rules for ethical conduct as set

out and approved by the Ethical Review Board of Royal Roads University. Respondents

to this survey could abandon the survey at any time without penalty.

Challenges

The survey was released to the executive members of the 12 neighbourhood

groups for the City of Guelph. The Neighbourhood Support Coalition is a group

comprised of representation from all 12 neighbourhood groups within the City of Guelph.

I met with the Neighbourhood Support Coalition prior to the approval of this research by


31/100

31

Royal Roads University, and obtained the Coalitions support to have four surveys

completed by each of the neighbourhood groups as part of this research. Upon the

release of this survey, the links to the electronic survey and a paper version of the

survey were provided to the neighbourhood groups for data collection. After a short time,

it became apparent that an approximate 50% response rate was experienced and the vast

majority of these were partially filled out. Once aware of this, I adapted the survey

questions and provided a new survey link and paper survey to the neighbourhood groups

for release to their general membership. This was done to address the potential for

executive member volunteer fatigue. I believed that information already received from

core executive members would be enhanced by any information received from general

members. The survey was adapted and questions that pertained only to executive

members were removed from the survey.

EOCG members and alternates survey

Although this research was designed to assess the capacities that exist among

neighbourhood groups to be involved in the emergency management processes of the

City of Guelph, any involvement requires not only the acceptance of the neighbourhood

groups involved in the community, but also the approval and acceptance of the senior

managers of the City of Guelph, many of whom are core members of the EOCG. The

initial inquiry was to determine the awareness of the senior managers of the

neighbourhood groups that exist within the City of Guelph. Next was a direct inquiry to

determine whether or not the senior managers would consider the use of the

neighbourhood groups during a time of emergency as a part of the overall City of Guelph

emergency plan, and how they could be best incorporated into that plan. The City of

Guelph has conducted Hazard Assessment and Risk Identification (HIRA) activities, and


32/100

32

has produced information about the hazards and risks within the City. The ability to

release this information, providing specific risk information to neighbourhood population

directly affected by these risks and hazards for inclusion in their individual

neighbourhood group web information would require the support of the EOCG and senior

managers, and they were queried about their support for the release of this kind of

information. I believe that neighbourhood groups could provide secondary means of

communication during an emergency, and the EOCG and senior managers are

responsible for the dissemination of information, so support must exist from this group

for the inclusion of neighbourhood groups as part of a distribution list for information

updates in an emergency. Likewise, neighbourhood groups are formed by a committed

group of volunteers dedicated to improving the quality of life in their community. During

an emergency, these individuals may have the ability to provide a core group of

volunteers who could work under the supervision of City employees. Consequently

questions were asked to determine whether the senior managers and EOCG members

would consider the use of neighbourhood groups in this manner.

Questions were crafted to determine if senior managers and EOCG members would

consider the sharing and delivery of City supplies such as fuel that could be used by

neighbourhood group volunteers during an emergency. Lastly, questions were asked to

determine if there would be support for neighbourhood groups being provided with

stockpiles of supplies such as water and first aid supplies for distribution during an

emergency. This would have to be accepted by senior managers and EOCG members as

it would have an ongoing budgetary impact, but would have the affect of relieving first

responders of routine triage duties in an emergency assuming it could be combined with


33/100

33

the organizational and training abilities of an established community service group such

as St Johns Ambulance.

Data Collection

Data for this research was collected by the utilization of commercial survey

software. In total, two separate surveys were crafted around the research question and

sub-questions, and were entered into the electronic survey software system. In addition,

paper copies of the surveys were also produced and these were provided to

neighbourhood groups for distribution to their executive and general members, and senior

staff members of the City of Guelph. The data collection took place starting in early

January 2010, and was completed by the 9th of March 2010 when the final survey

information was received from neighbourhood group executive members. The paper

versions of the neighbourhood group survey were collected by the Community and

Program Development Manager for the City of Guelph without identifying the source of

the data, and forwarded on to me. In total, I had 9 neighbourhood group executive

members and 18 EOCG members respond, for a total of 27 responses.

Upon receiving the data, I collated the data collected electronically through the

survey system by exporting the results into an Excel document. The data received in

paper format was then merged with the electronically collected data, and I produced raw

data results for each of the questions. This was done with both the executive members

survey from the Neighbourhood Groups and the Senior Managers survey sent to EOCG

members. Both surveys were compiled in this raw format, and the survey responses were

grouped to provide answers to the research questions.


34/100

34

Chapter 4 Data analysis

Data Analysis

In the following section I group the research questions with the responses

received both from the Neighbourhood Groups and from EOCG members. I will interpret

how this data offers opportunity for the City of Guelph and for the Neighbourhood

Groups to contribute to a safer, more prepared community in a time of emergency.

The neighbourhood group results the community responds

The research question was What role do neighborhood groups play in preparing

residents to understand their roles and responsibilities for self-preservation and recovery

in the City of Guelph prior to, during, and after an emergency? In order to understand

the totality of the question, it was important to break this overarching question into

components to understand what neighbourhood groups exist within the City of Guelph,

and how they can best prepare residents to understand their roles and responsibilities

during an emergency. To do this, the neighbourhood groups must be current and active,

and have members who are prepared to attend and communicate with the neighbourhood

groups. Initially I needed to establish what the general knowledge about emergencies

among the executive members of neighbourhood groups was. All of the respondents

reported knowing that an emergency can occur at virtually any time, and 88.88%

acknowledged knowing the definition of an emergency. Fifty five percent of respondents

reported that they were not aware of the 72 hour self sufficiency requirement in

emergency planning, yet 55% of respondents were prepared with stocks of food and

water that would meet their household needs for 72 hours. When asked to rate how well

prepared they were to deal with a 72 hour crisis, 44% responded that they were mostly


35/100

35

prepared, prepared, or completely prepared. When asked to rate how well they would like

to be prepared for a 72 hour crisis, 77% reported they would like to be mostly prepared,

prepared, or completely prepared. For communication in an emergency, we very often

depend upon devices that require electricity to receive information. Sixty six percent of

respondents reported that they would be hampered in receiving information that may

assist them if electricity was interrupted during an emergency.

The information received indicates that the respondents acknowledge emergencies

can occur, but that they were not familiar with their own individual responsibilities

during an emergency. Even though this familiarity was not present, most felt that they

would be able to provide for their household needs. Most did however report that the lack

of electrical service would hamper their abilities to receive information in an emergency,

as can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1

Some devices that we commonly use in the household require electricity to function(television/radio/cordless phones). Would the lack of electricity hamper your ability to

obtain information during an emergency?

Answer Sample Percentage

Yes 6 66.66%

No 3 33.33%

Total 9

Neighbourhood groups in the City of Guelph have a mandate to enhance the

quality of life. That is their mission in the community and to fulfill that mission, they

recruit families and persons as part of the general membership of their neighbourhood

group. Of the nine respondents to the executive member survey, all reported that they

had community members in their neighbourhood groups. Respondents reported that their

neighbourhood group sizes ranged from an unknown number of members through to a


36/100

36

neighbourhood group of approximately 3000 members. The majority (five) responded

that they had a neighbourhood group of approximately 100 persons (+- 30). This would

equate to approximately 100 families that would be affected by each of the

neighbourhood groups. Some groups reported being able to distribute information

through schools and faith groups in their neighbourhoods, providing further reach for any

information likely to be communicated. The average number of persons attending a

neighbourhood group meeting was approximately 36 persons. Several respondents

described a big difference between the number of persons who would attend a

neighbourhood group meeting versus a social event or function. Eight of the nine

respondents advised that their neighbourhood group met monthly, while one reported that

their group met as was required. Of the nine respondents, four indicated their executive

members met separately from the general meeting, four indicated they did not, and one

provided no other information. This was the same breakdown when the question was

asked about the frequency of executive member meetings. Four responded monthly,

four responded as required, and one responded as not applicable. Inquiry was made

about special events run by the neighbourhood groups, and social events such as

winterfest or movie nights featured prominently with 66% of respondents citing

these as events, 22% responded as hosting child/youth centered events, and 11 % listed

guest speakers.

From the results, we can see that the City of Guelph has established

neighbourhood groups, that are able to offer assistance and influence within their

neighbourhood, and that most of these groups have defined leadership roles within their

groups. Most of these groups concentrate their efforts at present on social events in the

neighbourhood to enhance the sense of community, but few offer opportunities to convey


37/100

37

information directly to their members. We also see that the general membership is more

likely to attend a social event than to attend a regular neighbourhood group meeting as is

shown in Table 2.

Table 2

What do special events that are run by your neighbourhood group generally consist of?

Answer CountAverage

Education/training/general interest 0 0%

Guest speakers 1 11.11%

Social events (Winterfest, movie nights) 6 66.66%

Youth/child centered events 2 22.22%

Other 0 0%

Several administrative type questions were put to the survey respondents about

their neighbourhood groups in an effort to understand the organization of neighbourhood

groups, and if improvements to their administrative state would assist in a time of

emergency. The respondents were asked about the roles and responsibilities in their

neighbourhood groups, and 77% reported that there were defined roles and

responsibilities for executive members. Of those reporting defined roles and

responsibilities, various means were used to convey these roles and responsibilities that

included: Terms of References that were discussed at meetings, meetings themselves,

written job descriptions, verbal discussions, e-mails and other documentation. Twenty

two percent of respondents indicated that they do not have a membership list for

individuals in their neighbourhood group, but 88% responded that they did. Of those 88%

with membership lists, 11% updated them at each meeting, 22% semi-annually, and 44%

as needed. Sixty six percent of the neighbourhood executive responded that they were


38/100

38

permitted to disseminate information within the group without prior approval from other

executive members. Eighty eight percent of respondents advised that no fan out list for

wide distribution of information existed within their neighbourhood group, yet the 22%

who did have fan out information reported having e-mail addresses, home addresses,

work e-mail addresses, and phone contact information.

This information is very important to the research sub-questions, as engagement

of the members by the executive membership is a required element of utilizing

neighbourhood groups to assist in the creation of more effective community

communications.

Question 1- Understanding our roles

Does the City of Guelph communicate with our neighborhood groups to ensure

that residents understand their roles? Respondents were asked to rate how important

emergency preparedness was to them personally to understand their perspective. Seventy

seven percent of respondents reported that emergency preparedness was either very

important or essential to them personally, and 88% reported either very important or

essential to their family. Likewise, 88% reported that having access to accurate

information and instructions in a time of emergency as very important or essential.

Among the neighbourhood group executive members, 88% responded that there are no

roles and responsibilities among the executive members of their neighbourhood group for

emergency planning. If there are no roles within the neighbourhood group for helping

residents in planning for emergencies through conveying information, we must

understand what level of communication exists within the neighbourhood group now, and

with the City of Guelph both in normal times and during an emergency. This will allow

us to have a foundation to build on.


39/100

39

Respondents were asked to describe the nature and frequency of interactions

between the City of Guelph and neighbourhood groups both in general and the executive

members. The responses to this were varied, with some reporting that they have an

engagement coordinator who sits on their executive board leading to constant contact

between entities. Another respondent reported that a City of Guelph community

engagement coordinator attended every other meeting of the neighbourhood group. A

third respondent indicated that the City of Guelph was a great help. A fourth

respondent replied that the communication with the City of Guelph was unknown. A

fifth respondent reported ongoing communications, with regular meetings being called

by either the group or the City, and the engagement of other social services within the

municipal realm within their neighbourhood group.

Respondents were asked whether or not they had learned anything about the roles

and responsibilities they have as a member of the public during an emergency as a result

of completing this survey. Seventy seven percent of respondents reported that they had

learned something new during the completion of this survey. When asked if they would

consider participating in a basic emergency management course that may take up to three

days, 55% responded positively to this idea, indicating support in attending. Eleven

percent suggested that they would attend, but would prefer a shorter duration for the

course, making the overall acceptance of this kind of participation at 66% of the

respondents.

It became apparent that neighbourhood groups are not communicating any type of

emergency preparedness information to help the community understand its role during an

emergency.

Question 2- Effective communications


40/100

40

Is communication effective between the City of Guelph and neighborhood groups? As

can be seen in Table 3, 66% of respondents rated that communication with the City of

Guelph is very good on a regular basis. Nine respondents provided information in

response to this question. When this question was adapted to: Rate how well your

neighbourhood group communication is with the City of Guelph during a crisis., less

respondents registered an answer to the question (seven), and the very good response

dropped from 66% to only 14.28%. This is reflected in Table 4.

Table 3

Rate how well your neighbourhood group communication is with the City of Guelph ona regular basis


1 - communication is not good at

all

0 0%

2 - communication is occasionally

ok

0 0%

3 - communication is ok and we

get by

1 11.11%

4 - communication is mostly good 2 21.11%

5 - communication is very good 6 66.66%

Total 9

Table 4

Rate how well your neighbourhood group communication is with the City of Guelph

during a crisis.


1 - communication is not good at

all

1 14.28%

2 - communication is occasionally

ok

0 0%

3 - communication is ok, we get

by

2 28.57%


41/100

41

4 - communication is mostly good 3 42.85%

5 - communication is very good 1 14.28%

Total 7

To look at this in perspective, respondents were asked to use the same scale to

rate their own communications within their neighbourhood and neighbourhood group.

Forty four percent of respondents reported that under normal circumstances

communications within their neighbourhood was either mostly good or very good.

Within the neighbourhood group 66% of respondents reported that communications was

either mostly good or very good. Tables 3 and 4 show how the respondents have

rated their communication under different circumstances. The most dramatic change is in

the communication with the City of Guelph during a crisis, when the satisfaction with

communication drops dramatically.

Respondents were asked to rate how well prepared they believed they were to

provide accurate information to their families during an emergency from the sources

known to them. Sixty six percent reported being either mostly prepared, prepared, or

completely prepared. When this question was adapted to providing the information to

their neighbourhood group in an emergency 55% reported being mostly prepared or

prepared, but none reported being completely prepared.

Respondents were asked to rank from one through 13 which source of information

they would be likely to use, with one being the most likely and 13 being the least likely.

Radio was the overwhelming first choice of respondents for receiving official

information during an emergency with 77.7% of respondents choosing it as the first place

they would turn to for information. Surprisingly, the most popular second choice for


42/100

42

information was neighbours with 33% of respondents naming this their second choice.

Television ranked surprisingly low, with one respondent choosing it second, and no other

respondent choosing it higher than fourth. Turning to a neighbourhood group for

information was selected as a third choice, getting 33% of the respondents for their third

choice.

When asked about radio, 77.8% responded with either the AM or FM radio stations

located in Guelph as the radio station they would seek information from first. CBC Radio

(Toronto) was listed by 22% of respondents. Similar results occurred with television,

with 66.7% responding with one of the local television stations, either CTV from

Kitchener or the local cable channel being the station turned to for information. Only

33% of respondents indicated that they were aware of the public information line

maintained by the City of Guelph to access official information.

Respondents were asked to share their thoughts on information provided by the City

of Guelph to neighbourhood groups during the electrical emergency in 2003. They were

asked to share their experiences with types of communication, and asked whether or not

it was appropriate. Overwhelmingly the response was that they received no information

at all officially from the City of Guelph. Some respondents were not part of

neighbourhood groups at the time, but most responded they were not privy to any

communication at the neighbourhood group level. From this past emergency, this shows

that previously there has been no information provided directly to neighbourhood groups

at that time.

Question 3 Local knowledge

How does the City of Guelph ensure an understanding of local emergency plans and

methods exists within our neighborhood groups? Respondents were asked about their


43/100

43

knowledge of local emergency management. Seventy eight percent responded that they

or another member of their neighbourhood group had not met with the City of Guelphs

CEMC. 22.22% reported that they had met with the CEMC by attending a community

presentation put on by the CEMC. Eighty nine percent of respondents advised that their

neighbourhood group executive members were not familiar with the City of Guelph

emergency plan, however 55.55% of respondents reported knowing that the emergency

plan is available to the public at City Hall, the public library, and on the Internet.

Although the respondents reported more familiarity with the emergency plan as an

individual, it is unknown what working knowledge the respondents have with the plan.

The respondents were asked about the neighbourhood group providing an Internet access

point for those members of the neighbourhood group who have no Internet access of their

own. Only 33% of the respondents indicated that their neighbourhood group provides

Internet access for neighbourhood group members.

Question 4 The need to self organize

How do we include the need to self organize a response at a neighborhood level

within the municipal plans? The need to respond at an individual level is fundamental to

the emergency management plans in most locations. As noted earlier, communities can

expect to manage themselves for the first 72 hours before municipal assistance can be

expected (EMO, 2008). This is an opportunity for organizations such as neighbourhood

groups to make a difference by creating a mutual aid system within their neighbourhood.

Eighty five percent of respondents reported that they had a knowledge base of some of

the skills and abilities of members of their neighbourhood group that could be used to

assist others in a time of emergency. Sixty seven percent reported that they had a pool of

items that could be used to assist group members in an emergency. Three respondents


44/100

44

indicated that their neighbourhood groups had food/water available that could be used to

assist the neighbourhood group members, some reported clothing available, and one

advised that they are linked to a scout group who have much of the equipment and

training that may be required. With the question asked a different way, whether within

the respondents neighbourhood group there was a list or knowledge of

equipment/preparedness items that could be used to support persons in the

neighbourhood, 100% responded that there was no list or knowledge of items in this

category, and 100% also had no mutual support plan in place for sharing of resources

within their neighbourhood group. Sixty three percent of respondents reported having no

knowledge of persons who may need special assistance during emergencies as is shown

in Table 5.

Table 5

Within your neighbourhood group does your executive have knowledge of persons whomay need special assistance during some types of emergencies? (example: require and

oxygen supply, mobility assistance)


Yes 3 37.50%

No 5 62.50%

Total 8

Question 5 Repeated warnings

Do repeated warnings prior to an event de-sensitize neighborhood groups to danger,

thereby reducing the seriousness of their required response? If we incorporate our

neighbourhood groups into the emergency management process to assist with preparation

for emergencies, and dissemination about pending emergency situations (an example

being contact made to advise of severe weather approaching which is part of the HIRA


45/100

45

for the City of Guelph) we run the risk of de-sensitizing our community with repeated

warnings. This question was put to respondents on the basis of requests for assistance in

reducing the electrical load during hot summer weather. This subject was put forward as

during the past few summers, there have been a frequent warnings issued within the City

of Guelph, where public appeals have been made for the reduction of electricity use to

ease the strain on the electrical grid. One respondent was concerned that over saturation

of warnings can be a problem, but that they take steps despite the many warnings to

reduce their use. Another respondent indicated that they would be influenced positively

by repeated warnings. A different respondent indicated that they listen to and heed the

warnings put out, but questioned why with the advent of smart metering systems, the

electrical utility can not provide more detailed information on individual residential use

of electricity. This respondent did indicate that information prior to an event is critical if

we are to prepare for an event and change behavior of people when required. All (100%)

respondents advised that when the number of requests to reduce grows, they continue to

respond and cut back use. When the subject of emergency warnings was changed to that

of severe weather, a question was asked about the receipt of information about severe

weather before the touchdown of a tornado within the community. Of the eight

respondents to this question, three understood that there were warnings on television and

radio broadcast, three dont recall any warnings being issued at all, three responded

with no information at all provided. When asked about receiving information about

severe weather and if it influences the respondents in making any preparations to

respond, six advised that it does influence them to various degrees, and two indicated that

it did not, with one of those respondents indicating that too many warnings can create

fear in the community. When asked if the repeated warnings occur, when previous


46/100

46

warnings had resulted in no damage, did the respondents continue to take preventive

action, 87.5% responded that they did continue to take action, with some evaluating

information from the Weather Network and the Internet to make their decisions.

The EOCG responses

Members of the EOCG and alternates were asked to respond to questions that spoke

to these research questions also. Primarily, the question became what level of

involvement of the community would EOCG members accept. This acknowledges that

there is capacity within a community to respond, however municipal decision makers

must also be prepared to accept the assistance of the community during an emergency.

Past practice, and guidance for funding applications in Ontario require the involvement of

the community, not in response or recovery activities, but in fundraising to facilitate the

Ontario cost sharing arrangements. An assumption was made that members of the EOCG

were familiar with the Emergency Plan and with Emergency legislation in Ontario, as it

forms a portion of their professional expertise, thus no preparatory questions were asked

of these senior managers to determine their level of knowledge in this area. In total 16

individuals answered this survey in either electronic or paper format. 15 responses were

received that were useable, with one responder opting not to submit their responses for

use and those responses are not part of these results.

Question 1- Understanding our roles

Does the City of Guelph communicate with our neighborhood groups to ensure that

residents understand their roles? Responders were asked whether they would support the

idea of neighbourhood group executive/leadership members attending the municipally

hosted Basic Emergency Management Course at some point to better prepare them to

assist others in their neighbourhood if it were affected by an emergency. Seventy seven


47/100

47

percent responded positively to this suggestion, with 26.67% responding that they didnt

know. There were no responses received in the no category for this question. When

asked to provide information about this kind of initiative, comments were varied from

outright support by enhancing the level of preparation and education in the community

providing more education will give more mitigation opportunities and help establish a

new normal in a more condensed time frame, through to uncertainty with an impact in

budgeting and resources being the key factor to acceptance of this initiative.

An example of a slow onset emergency was given where volunteers may be required

to assist emergency personnel, and the question was posed about the use of

neighbourhood group members as volunteers under the direction of city employees.

Sixty seven percent of respondents supported this idea, with 6.67% rejecting it outright

and 26.66% responding with dont know, indicating they were unsure if they would

utilize them if offered. In another question, respondents were asked if neighbourhood

groups established and maintained a list of items that were owned by individuals in their

neighbourhood who were prepared to allow their use for the greater good during an

emergency, would they look on this positively and entertain the use of these items in the

neighbourhood. Eighty percent responded positively to this, with 20% indicating that

they were outright not in favour of this concept.

Question 2 Effective communications

Is communication effective between the City of Guelph and neighborhood groups?

This question looks at how the EOCG views official communications with

neighbourhood groups and what level of communication the EOCG members are

prepared to support. A question was asked about allowing neighbourhood groups to add

HIRA information, gathered through the HIRA process by the City of Guelph, to be

8/6/2019 Version Final Submission to MAD

Documents

Version Final Submission to MADEM.2