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

1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 7 10 10 11 15 16 17 19 21 24 26 30 31

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION APPENDIX 3 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS

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 SNPs 2011 manifesto: We want to ensure our communities are prepared for and ready to withstand serious or crisis events. We will, therefore, continue our efforts to 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 25th 31st 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).

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 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)

Row percentages Extreme Weather (n = 1039/568) Health Emergencies ( n =1039/362) Terrorism ( n= 1039/298) Animal Health ( n= 1039/316) Major Transport Incidents ( n= 1039/237)

54 35 29 30 23

40 32 10 15 15

46 40 11 26 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%).

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.

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. 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 lifesaving, promote community safety messages about being prepared for emergencies, and provide resources to help individuals and families become more resilient. 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.

1.2

1.3

Objectives 1.4 The Scottish Government and the Red Cross therefore commissioned TNSBMRB to conduct a research project with the principal objective of assessing the current nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland. Specifically, the research aimed to measure: 1.6 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. 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.

1.5

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. For this research, fieldwork took place during the period 25th 31st 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. As is the case each month, the achieved sample was weighted2 to ensure that it represents Scotlands population and is consistent between waves should future tracking be required. 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.

2.2

2.3

2.4

The standard six socio-economic (SEG) or social grades, commonly used in research, are based on the current or previous occupation of the chief income earner in the household. AB includes higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations, C1 includes supervisory or clerical, and junior managerial, administrative or professional occupations, C2 includes skilled manual workers whilst DE includes semi and unskilled occupations, state pensioners and the long-term unemployed. 2 Weighting is the process by which data are adjusted to reflect the known population profile. This is to counter any effects of differential refusal rates, interviewers falling short on particular quotas, or to correct for any oversampling of minority populations. A 'weight' is the percent assigned to a particular criterion. If this is not carried out then the results will not properly reflect the views of the population being considered.

Table 2.1 - Sample profile

Base: All respondents (1,039) Unweighted (1039) % SEX: AGE: Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Yes No Yes No Urban Rural 45 55 11 12 17 18 17 26 23 27 20 31 30 70 27 73 68 32 Weighted (1039) % 48 52 14 15 18 18 15 20 20 27 22 31 33 67 24 76 72 28

SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP:

CHILDREN <16 IN THE HOUSEHOLD DISABILITY LOCATION

2.5

Any reference made to regions in the report and tabulations refers to the eight Scottish Parliament electoral regions. Appendix 3 details which constituencies are included in each region. 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 Executives 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.

2.6

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)
14 Very concerned 26 Quite concerned 40 32 30 32 Not very concerned
%

8 20

8 21

6 16

34

24 32 22 41 36 45

Not concerned at all

Emergencies Health Emergencies Animal health caused by emergencies caused by emergencies extreme terrorism weather

Major transport incidents

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).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

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
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)
1.6 Average number of emergencies concerned about (maximium of 5) 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8

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 65s who had the highest number of concerns.

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 Very prepared 28 36 Quite prepared 32
%

2 8 28

2 13

3 13

30

26

Not very prepared

32 59 52 55

Not prepared at all

34 26 4 3 2 1 Emergencies Health Emergencies Animal health caused by emergencies caused by emergencies extreme terrorism weather 3 Major transport incidents

Don't know

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). 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. 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

4.3

4.4

10

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 4.7 To assess the actual level of preparedness of households when confronted with an emergency situation a number of different measures were employed. Firstly, respondents were asked to indicate, from a list, which of a series of items they either had available or knew how to access to help them in an emergency. The results are shown in Figure 4.2.

11

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)

Do you?
...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
50 47 % saying 'yes' 65 86 83 92

82 81

*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 propertys power supply (86%), having a working torch (83%), having prescription medication to hand (82%) and knowing where to turn off the propertys water supply (81%). 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. 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.

4.9

4.10

12

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)

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)

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 Average number of positive responses (maximium of 8)

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. 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).

4.12

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. 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.

4.14

13

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 Number of days 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-14 14+ Dont know 1 33 38 5 12 8 4 16-24 (110) 3 40 36 1 8 5 6 25-34 (125) 1 35 43 7 9 3 2 35-44 (179) 35 42 3 12 4 4 Age 45-54 (184) 1 30 38 5 11 13 2 55-64 (176) 1 30 31 6 16 11 3 65+ (265) 28 37 4 15 10 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).

14

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 Number of days 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-14 14+ Dont know 1 33 38 5 12 8 4 Urban / Rural Urban (708) 1 36 37 4 11 7 5 Rural (331) * 24 41 5 15 11 4 Illness / Disability Yes (277) 1 29 31 4 13 15 7 No (762) 1 34 40 5 12 6 3 Children in Household Yes (307) * 39 40 5 7 6 3 No (732) 1 30 37 4 14 9 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. 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). 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.

4.18

4.19

Figure 4.5: Alternative methods of heating

Electric fan heater Calor gas heater Blankets Electric radiator Coal fire Wood burning stove Halogen heater Generator Solar panels Other Don't know
2 4 9 16 14 25 22 22

*
2

15
%

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%. 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:

4.21

Under 34s were much more likely to mention blankets (39% versus 18% of 45-54s, 14% of 55-64s and 9% of over 65s); 35-44s and 45-54s were much more likely to mention wood burning stove (13% and 14% respectively vs. 3% of under 34s and 4% of 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: 4.23 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.

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. 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.

4.24

16

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).

17

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)

Very confident

25

Somewhat confident

36

Not very confident

25

Not at all confident

14

Don't know

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.

18

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). Responsibility for ensuring household preparedness for an

Figure 5.1: 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)
First mentions 42 Other mentions 8
50

Total mentions

'Me' (respondent)

Scottish Government

17

20

37

Local council

11

20

31

UK Government Emergency services 2 (general) Someone else in the household

3

13

18

30

10

12

Police 2

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%). 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. 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

5.3

5.4

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

19

minority (9%) indicated that they felt responsibility lay with someone else in the household, although this figure increased to 19% amongst those aged 1624 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).

20

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)
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
1 1 1 4 3 7 10 9 16 43

Go in person somewhere else * Other 1 Don't know Any internet sources Any Government / council / police Any phone
% 10 17 5 25

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). 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+). 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

6.3

6.4

21

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)

Emergencies caused by extreme weather

38

Health emergencies

36

Emergencies caused by terrorism

29

Major transport incidents

28

Animal health emergencies

27

None of these
%

56

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%).

22

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. 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. There were no other significant differences on this measure.

6.9

6.10

23

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 24

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

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. 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%). Given that many of the measures employed in the survey form a key part of the TNS behaviour change approach4, 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.

7.9

7.10

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,

25

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 (Dont Know) ASK ALL SHOWSCREEN Q2 Overall, how prepared do you think you are to deal with each of these emergencies? READ OUT AND CODE FOR EACH. ONLY READ EXAMPLES IF 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 (Dont Know) ASK ALL Q3 Who do you think is responsible for ensuring you and your family are prepared for an emergency? RECORD FIRST MENTION. Q3b Who else do you think is responsible? PROBE FULLY: Any others? DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT SHOWSCREEN. MULTICODE

26

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) (Dont 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) (Dont 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 propertys water supply in an emergency have any friends or neighbours to turn to in an emergency Yes No (Dont know) (Not applicable)

27

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 (Dont 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 Dont 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 (Dont 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) (Dont 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) (Dont have a car) (Dont know)

28

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)

29

APPENDIX 2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Client Conducted by British Red Cross TNS-BMRB The principal objective of the research is to asses the current nature and extent of preparedness in Scotland. Specifically, the research aimed to measure: Which types of emergencies people are most worried about; How prepared people feel for different kinds of emergencies; Where people think responsibility for preparedness lies: with individuals, the wider community, or with government; Where people would go to find out information in the event of an emergency; What resources they have at home, work or in their cars to help deal with emergencies; What information people want to have on preparedness and where they are likely to look. The Scottish Omnibus Survey (SOS) was the vehicle of data collection. The SOS is designed to be representative of the adult population of Scotland aged 16+. This is achieved, firstly, by stratifying by the 8 Scottish Parliament electoral regions in order to provide geographic representation. Population data is then used to determine the correct number of sample points required in each region. 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. Adult population (aged 16+) across Scotland 1,039 interviews conducted in total across Scotland From 25 31 May 2011 Interviewing was conducted face-to-face in respondents homes using multimedia CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) n/a 40 interviewers 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. The questionnaire used is appended to this document. The weighting applied is based on population estimates from the BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board) Establishment Survey 2 Years Ending December 2008 and the 2001 Census. Unweighted and Weighted sample profile can be found in section 2 of this report.
th st

Objectives

Sampling method

Universe Sample size Fieldwork Data collection Incentives Interviewers Interviewer validation

Questionnaire

Analysis

30

APPENDIX 3 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY REGIONS

REGION Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Lothians Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife Mid Scotland and Fife South South South South South South South South South Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands Highlands & Islands North East North East North East North East North East North East North East North East Central Central Central Central Central Central CONSTITUENCY Edinburgh Central Edinburgh East Edinburgh North & Leith Edinburgh Pentlands Edinburgh South Edinburgh West Linlithgow Livingston Midlothian Dunfermline East Dunfermline West Fife Central Fife North East Kirkcaldy Ochil Stirling Perth Tayside North East Lothian Dumfries Galloway & Upper Nithsdale Roxburgh & Berwickshire Tweedale, Ettrick & Lauderdale Ayr Carrick, Cumnock & Doon valley Clydesdale Cunninghame South Argyll & Bute Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber Moray Orkney * Ross, Skye & Inverness West Shetland * Western Isles Aberdeen North Aberdeen South Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine Angus Banff & Buchan Dundee East Dundee West Gordon Falkirk East Falkirk West Airdrie & Shotts Coatbridge & Chryston Cumbernauld & Kilsyth East Kilbride

31

REGION Central Central Central Central Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow West West West West West West West West West

CONSTITUENCY Hamilton North & Bellshill Hamilton South Kilmarnock & Loudoun Motherwell & Wishaw Glasgow Anniesland Glasgow Baillieston Glasgow Cathcart Glasgow Govan Glasgow Kelvin Glasgow Maryhill Glasgow Pollok Glasgow Rutherglen Glasgow Shettleston Glasgow Springburn Clydebank & Milngavie Cunninghame North Dumbarton Eastwood Greenock and Inverclyde Paisley North Paisley South Strathkelvin & Bearsden West Renfrewshire

32