Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013€¦ · Queensland Community Preparedness Survey...

Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 - Summary

Queensland Community

Preparedness Survey

May 2013

Summary Report

Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 - Summary

© The State of Queensland (Inspector General Emergency Management) 2013

This summary is based on survey results and data provided in the Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade and Department of

Community Safety, Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 Survey Report.

All data, information, stated findings and implications in this document are believed to be accurate and have come from sources believed to be

reliable. However, the State of Queensland and its agents do not give any guarantee or represent that the data and information are accurate,

up to date or complete, and disclaim liability for all claims, losses, damages or costs of whatever nature and howsoever occurring, arising as a

result of relying on the data and information, regardless of the form of action, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of

statutory duty or otherwise.

Published November 2013. Prepared by: Inspector General Emergency Management GPO Box 1425, Cluster 15.6, Brisbane, Queensland 4001.

Inspector General Emergency Management plays a key role in the provision of vision, direction and leadership to ensure capability and performance in delivering the Queensland Government’s Emergency and Disaster Management objectives. This includes:

Promoting the development of effective community engagement at all levels of government and with stakeholders with the Queensland Disaster Management sector;

Ensuring that Disaster Planning at a State, District and Local level utilises contemporary risk management strategies and appropriately considers local geographic and demographic variances;

Monitoring performance regarding the preparedness and management of disasters and emergencies; and

Identifying areas for cooperative partnerships, alliances and research opportunities to improve community outcomes.

Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 Summary Report

1

In May 2013, Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) commissioned the Queensland Community Preparedness Survey (QCPS) to measure community preparedness for natural disasters. The Government Statistician’s office collected similar information as part of the 2012 Queensland Regional Household Survey (QRHS).

The 2013 QCPS is specifically designed to better meet the needs of disaster management and resilience officials, in particular the District Disaster Management Groups (DDMGs), Local Disaster Management Groups (LDMGs) and local councils. As such, changes were made to the QCPS instrument, including:

Making the survey more regionally specific, by increasing the data sets from 10 to 15, to align with the new 15 Queensland Police Service Districts1 (in effect 1 July 2013).

Improving levels of data accuracy via changes to survey respondent selection and question design.

The sampling difference and changes to questions, between the 2012 QRHS and the 2013 QCPS, means that direct comparisons between years are not possible, except where explicitly stated2.

METHOD

In May 2013, the Government Statistician’s office conducted the first Queensland Community Preparedness Survey, a standalone questionnaire specifically designed to meet the data requirements of the Queensland Disaster Management Sector.

1 New Queensland Police Service Districts – with effect 1 July 2013. Source: Geographic Information Services – Information Resource Centre QPS. 2 Refer to Appendix D of the Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 Report for further detail.

FINDINGS

Queensland households believe they know the local risks from natural disasters and take basic steps to help cope with disasters (e.g. have building insurance; have a battery operated torch and radio; and have enough medications and food for three days);

In reality Queenslander’s responses show that they are not as prepared as they believe they are (e.g. they had not discussed what to do if the home was at risk; they had not developed and documented their household emergency plan; they had no access to a hard-copy list of emergency contact phone numbers);

Approximately 30% of Queensland households had taken some steps to be better prepared in the previous 12 months prior to the survey, mostly in response to recent disaster events4;

Complacency remains a key issue in the 10% of Queensland households who thought they were unprepared;

Cultural background, household tenure and type may affect how some people prepare; and

South East Queensland households generally demonstrated lower levels of preparedness than other regions in the state.

IMPLICATIONS

Implications are for future efforts to focus on:

Encouraging people to ‘Get Ready’, based on the risks they know they face;

Households with children;

Landlords and tenants of rental properties; and

Households that usually speak languages other than English in the home.


2

94

94

93

91

90

88

87

83

80

76

74

69

61

61

59

57

55

41

29

29

27

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Building insurance policy

Enough medications for three days

Food &/or medications for pets

Torch and fresh batteries

Battery powered radio

Enough food for three days

First aid kit

Remove or secure items in your outdoor areas

Contents insurance policy

Clean out gutters, drains / flood channels

Determined strongest room in the house

Trimmed trees away from house and power lines

Enough water for three days

Check roof for damage / weakness

Documented list of emergency numbers

Pre-arranged accommodation in case of evacuation

Decided what to do if home was at risk

Household member with first aid certificate

Made arrangements for pets

Implemented new preparedness action/s

Items stored as emergency kit

Documented household emergency plan

Percentage (%)

The survey used up to 21 questions to collect information in the areas of:

disaster risk management;

disaster preparedness;

motivation to prepare for natural disasters; and

household demographics.

The survey was conducted by telephone, and resulted in 3,934 useable responses. The response rate for the survey was 50.0%. This report and the QCPS May 2013 full report present comparisons with baseline (2012) QRHS data where appropriate. SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STATE-LEVEL

Queensland households still believe they know their local risk A large majority of Queensland households felt they had:

a good understanding of the types of natural disasters that could occur in Queensland and the chances of them occurring (98%); and

a good understanding of how a disaster might impact their local area (95%).

Queenslanders continue to over-estimate their preparedness when it comes to household disaster planning

Figure 1: Estimated percentage of households that had taken specific preparedness measures3

3 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade.


3

Almost three quarters (73%) of Queensland households believed they were either prepared or very prepared for a natural disaster and the majority of households had taken more general preparedness measures. However, responses to questions about more focussed disaster preparedness measures show lower preparedness:

92% did not have a documented emergency plan, an increase from 89% in 2012;

73% did not keep emergency items stored as an emergency kit;

59% did not include a household member with a current first aid certificate;

44% had not discussed / decided what they would do if their home was at risk from storms, cyclones, flooding or bushfire;

43% had not pre-arranged to stay with family or friends in case they needed to evacuate their home;

41% did not have access to a hard-copy list of disaster-related emergency contact phone numbers (like the SES, local council, neighbours, energy provider, family/household contacts etc.); and

39% would not have enough drinking water to last three days, an increase from 34% in 2012.

Figure 1 above shows further detail on households’ preparedness measures.

Approximately 30% of Queensland households had undertaken new preparedness measures in the previous 12

months4

Almost three in ten Queensland households had undertaken one or more of the disaster preparedness measures addressed in the survey, for the first time in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of those that had taken new steps, the most common steps taken were:

discussing / deciding what to do if the home was at risk (18%);

identifying the strongest room in the home (16%);

preparing a list of emergency contact numbers (16%);

having enough food to last three days (16%); and

stored enough drinking water to last three days (15%).

Respondents who had taken new preparedness actions were asked what had prompted them to do so (multiple responses were allowed). The most common reasons were categorised as being due to ‘recent local events’ (25%), ‘recent Queensland disasters not affecting you/your household’ (24%), and ‘recent disasters you/your household have personally experienced’ (24%).

Complacency remains as an ongoing barrier to preparedness Approximately 10% of households self-reported to be unprepared or not at all prepared for a natural disaster. Of those, 37% had not thought about preparing for a natural disaster, and 33% felt they were unlikely to be affected.

Cultural background may affect the type of preparedness measures taken by Queensland households The responses to a number of questions illustrated statistical differences between households that usually spoke English at home and households that usually spoke a language other than English (LOTE). In the majority, English speaking household responses were consistently higher than LOTE, with one exception, that LOTE households were more likely to have implemented one or more new preparedness measures in the previous 12 months (see Figure 2). Household tenure and type may affect the types of preparedness and planning measures taken by Queensland households The range of household types and the range of household tenures demonstrated significant differences in preparedness measures taken by households. These differences were found between:

owner-occupied households and households that rent (see Figure 3);

households with children and those without children (see Figure 4); and

multi-person households and single-person households (see Figure 5).

4 These results are not comparable across years. Refer to the QCPS May 2013 Report: page 30 & Appendix D (p.49) for details.


4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Good understanding - disaster impact

Enough drinking water for three days



First aid kit



Clean out gutters, drains / flood channels

Trimmed trees from house/power lines




Percentage (%)

Publicly renting Privately renting Owner-occupied

Figure 2: Estimated percentage of households by language that had taken specific preparedness measures5

Household tenure Owner-occupied households showed higher levels of preparedness compared to households that rent, with one exception; households in rented accommodation demonstrated higher percentages for implementing new preparedness measures in the last 12 months (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Estimated percentage of households by tenure that had taken specific preparedness measures6

5 Figure 2 – depicts measures that demonstrate statistical difference. Source QCPS 2013 Output Tables, GS, Queensland Treasury and Trade. 6 Figure 3 depicts measures that demonstrate statistical difference. Source: QCPS 2013, GS, Queensland Treasury and Trade.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Good understanding - type & chance of disasters

Good understanding - disaster impacts

Enough medications for three days


First aid kit



Remove or secure items in your outdoor areas


Trimmed trees away from house and power lines





Percentage (%)

LOTE English


5

Household type Households without children demonstrated higher levels of preparedness measures compared to households with children, with two exceptions; households with children were more likely to include a member with a current first aid certificate, and more likely to have taken some new measure in the previous 12 months (see Figure 4). Figure 4: Estimated percentage of households by type (with and without children) that had taken specific measures

7

Statistical differences were found between single households and multi-person households across a range of preparedness measures. Multi-person households were more likely to implement household protection measures (such as securing outdoor items, having current insurance etc.) whereas single person households were more likely to implement preparedness planning measures (such as deciding what to do if home is at risk, pre-arranging accommodation in case of evacuation and developing a documented household emergency plan etc.). See Figure 5 for further details.

Figure 5: Estimated percentage of households by type (single person and multi-person) that had taken specific measures8

7 Figure 4 depicts measures that demonstrate statistical difference. Source: QCPS 2013, GS, Queensland Treasury and Trade. 8 Figure 5 depicts measures that demonstrate statistical difference. Source: QCPS 2013, GS, Queensland Treasury and Trade.

0 20 40 60 80 100






Documented list of emergency numbers

First aid certificate


Percentage (%)

Without Children With Children

0 20 40 60 80 100

Building insurance

Contents insurance

Battery-powered radio

First aid kit

Remove/secure items in outdoor areas

Determined strongest room in house

Cleaned out gutters/drains/channels

Pre-arranged accommodation in case…


Implemented new preparedness…

Documented household emergency…

Percentage (%)

Multi-person Single person


6

Higher socio-economic households are generally more likely to have first aid kits, but less likely to have documented emergency plans or emergency numbers Annual household income appeared to be positively associated with some preparedness measures, and negatively associated with others. For example, households earning $110,000 or more were more likely to have a first aid kit than households earning less than $23,000, but less likely to have a documented emergency plan or a list of emergency numbers. SUMMARY OF RESULTS REGIONAL-LEVEL

The QCPS 2013 methodology increased the regional datasets to 15, providing greater detail at a regional level. Figure 6 depicts the number of responses per region, ranging from 251 (Ipswich, Mackay) to 288 (North Brisbane). The 15 regional datasets align with the new Queensland Police Service Districts9 (in effect 1 July 2013). The 2012 QRHS survey utilised ten regional datasets aligned with the SA4 Australian Bureau of Statistics statistical areas10.

Figure 6: Map of regions indicating the number of survey responses

11

9 New Queensland Police Service Districts – with effect 1 July 2013. Source: Geographic Information Services – Information Resource Centre. 10 Statistical area level 4 (SA4) regions are the largest sub-State regions in the Main Structure of the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. 11 Source: QCPS 2013 Report, GS, Queensland Treasury and Trade.


7

South East Queensland households were generally less prepared than other regions in the state

Households in South East Queensland Regions generally demonstrated lower levels of preparedness than the rest of the state across the following measures:

self-assessing their level of disaster preparedness as ‘very prepared’ or ‘prepared’ (See Figure 7);

to have had enough food for three days (See Figure 8);

to have had enough drinking water for three days (See Figure 9);

kept preparedness items as an emergency kit (See Figure 10)

checked their roof for damage or weakness (See Figure 11).

identified the strongest room in their home (See Figure 12);

discussed and decided what they would do if their home was at risk (See Figure 13); and

made arrangements for members to stay with family or friends (See Figure 14).

Figure 7: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that believed they were prepared or very prepared

12


85

84

82

82

82

78

77

75

74

74

73

73

68

68

65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mackay

Wide Bay Burnett

Far North Queensland

South West

Townsville

Capricornia

Ipswich

Darling Downs

Sunshine Coast

Moreton

Mount Isa

Logan

South Brisbane

North Brisbane

Gold Coast

Percentage (%)


8

Figure 8: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that considered they would have enough food for

three days, if cut off from services without warning13

Figure 9: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that considered they would have enough drinking

water for three days, if cut off from services without warning14

13 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade 14 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade

95

94

93

92

92

91

90

90

89

88

88

87

87

85

84

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

South West

Wide Bay Burnett

Darling Downs


Mackay

Capricornia

Sunshine Coast

Mount Isa

Logan

Ipswich

Moreton

South Brisbane

Townsville

Gold Coast

North Brisbane

Percentage (%)

87

80

74

73

69

69

67

67

66

64

61

59

52

51

51

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

South West

Darling Downs

Wide Bay Burnett

Mackay


Moreton

Logan

Ipswich

Capricornia

Mount Isa

Townsville

Sunshine Coast

Gold Coast

South Brisbane

North Brisbane

Percentage (%)


9

Figure 10: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that kept preparedness items as an emergency kit15

Figure 11: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have checked their roof for damage or

weakness16

15 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade 16 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade

39

38

34

30

30

29

28

27

27

24

24

22

21

21

21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Townsville

Mackay

Wide Bay Burnett

Logan

Capricornia

Gold Coast

South West

Moreton

South Brisbane

Sunshine Coast

Darling Downs

Ipswich

Mount Isa

North Brisbane

Percentage (%)

70

70

67

67

66

66

64

64

63

61

61

60

59

57

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mackay

Logan


Wide Bay Burnett

Sunshine Coast

South West

Moreton

Mount Isa

Townsville

Capricornia

Ipswich

Darling Downs

Gold Coast

South Brisbane

North Brisbane

Percentage (%)


10

Figure 12: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have identified the strongest room in their home17

Figure 13: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have decided what they would do if their home

was at risk from storms, cyclone, flooding or fire18

17 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade. 18 Source: QCPS 2013 Output Tables, Government Statistician, Queensland Treasury and Trade.

93

89

85

80

76

74

74

72

70

69

69

68

68

67

64

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Townsville

Mackay

Wide Bay Burnett

Moreton

Capricornia

Sunshine Coast

South Brisbane

South West

Ipswich

Gold Coast

Logan

Darling Downs

North Brisbane

Mount Isa

Percentage (%)

75

72

68

64

61

59

58

57

56

55

54

52

51

49

43

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Townsville

Mackay

Wide Bay Burnett

Ipswich

South West

Capricornia

Moreton

Darling Downs

Sunshine Coast

Logan

South Brisbane

Mount Isa

Gold Coast

North Brisbane

Percentage (%)


11

Figure 14: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have pre-arranged for members to stay with family

or friends if evacuation is required19

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this survey indicate that future disaster and emergency management arrangements and resilience building activities should concentrate effort on:

Households with children;

Landlords and tenants of rental properties, both public and private; and

Households that usually speak languages other than English in the home.

Future efforts need to move beyond encouraging general preparedness measures (such as have a torch, radio, food etc.) to encouraging more focussed disaster readiness measures that relate to local risks, such as:

Discussing and deciding on what to do if home is threatened by natural hazard;

Documenting household emergency plans detailing what to do, where to go, who to contact; and

If residing in evacuation or flood zones, pre-arranging to stay with family or friends located in safer locations.


67

65

61

61

61

60

60

58

57

56

56

53

49

48

48

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Townsville

Moreton

South West

Ipswich

South Brisbane

Mackay

Capricornia

Darling Downs

Logan

Wide Bay Burnett

North Brisbane

Mount Isa

Sunshine Coast

Gold Coast

Percentage (%)

Date post:	08-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013€¦ · Queensland Community Preparedness Survey...

Documents